From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 1 01:10:24 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:10:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Taking Players Away from the Table In-Reply-To: <6A3DF1AE1324485C8BBC81B4EB732EF1@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6A3DF1AE1324485C8BBC81B4EB732EF1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:00:52 -0500, Marvin French wrote: > I may have asked this before, but if so I don't remember the > answers. > > In an MI case, when it is too late for a call to be changed, is it > appropriate for the TD to take players away from the table to ask > what they would have done absent the MI? Debatable. My understanding is that it is ACBL policy to do so. Well, the leading director in our area explained that I should do that like I was a beginner for not doing that. He didn't seem to care that the player was limping. > > I see it as a waste of time in what is a timed competition. There is > no advantage to the players, since an answer that is not believed > will be given zero weight, and a self-damaging answer will be given > 100% certainty weight. > > Second question: I am advising players to obey the instruction to > leave the table, but to refuse to answer any questions. Is that > legal? > > Third question: If answers are not given, does the TD have the right > to say that this annuls any chance of redress? I think the TD shouldn't SAY that. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 00:19:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 09:19:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills: An April Fool joke from the Bridge Federation of the Australian Capital Territory. The most prestigious event on the BFACT calendar is the Open Trials Final. Twelve pairs playing a round-robin of eleven 14- board matches with Butler scoring, with the top three pairs to represent Canberra at the July Interstate Teams in Hobart. This year one of the twelve pairs qualified to the Final via a power failure. Yes, because of nearby construction, the local electricity company shut off power to the Canberra Bridge Club last Sunday, when the final qualifying event was due to be held, causing its cancellation. So the reserve pair from an earlier qualifying event snuck in after all. (I predict, when the Open Trials Final concludes, that the power failure pair will be in the Canberra team. For psychological reasons, a pair which sneaks into the Final plays well. Contrariwise, the pair which won the main qualifying event - this year Ali-Hills - will be extremely complacent and thus have no chance.) 2007 Law 81C5: "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 waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the ***request of the non-offending side.*** Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Herman has failed to follow the implications of what I >wrote. > If there is no offender then the reference to 'the' non- >offending side is inapplicable. In that situation there is no >such side to request waiver of the rectification. The power in >Law 81C5 cannot be exercised and the Director's hands are >tied. He must apply Law 49. > I suggested that if it is desired to provide the >Director with flexibility to exercise his discretion in the >situation postulated, we need action by the WBFLC. A possible >action would be to add in reference to 'the non-offending >side' in Law 81C5 a footnote reading: > > "(*Either side when both are non-offending)" > > As for the player who drops a card accidentally when >pulling out the one he wishes to play, his clumsiness is the >equivalent of the palsy of the little old lady. > ~ G ~ +=+ 2007 Definition of Irregularity: "a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." 2007 Definition of Infraction: "a player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation." Richard Hills: So while the decision of the Director and Appeals Committee may have been legal under the 1997 Lawbook then in force, a repeat of such a ruling nowadays would definitely be illegal, since the (unintentional) deviation from correct procedure by the palsied little old lady is definitely an infraction under the new 2007 Definitions. Nigel Guthrie: >>I don't think the rules of any game can deal explicitly with >>such events. There are just too many possibilities and >>variations. Richard Hills: Since the first Laws of Duplicate Bridge were published way back when in 1928, there has been sufficient time for the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge to draw upon 79 years of experience, and deal explicitly with almost all possibilities and variations. In this particular possibility of unintentionally exposed cards during the play, Law 48A explicitly deals with cards unintentionally exposed by declarer, and Laws 49 and 50 explicitly deal with cards unintentionally exposed by one or both defenders. Nigel Guthrie: >>Bridge Law-makers devised the ideal solution: when non- >>offenders realize what has happened, they are empowered to >>ask the director to *waive the penalty* for the infraction. Richard Hills: The question under debate is whether the 2007 Law 81C5 is the ideal solution. Should a non-offending side, more intent upon winning than being sportsmanlike, be permitted to ruin the fun of a Palsied Little Old Lady by refusing to request the waiver of 13 penalty cards? Edgar Kaplan's view of a similar case was that a Director might think less of the non-offending side as human beings, but that the Director is not thereby permitted to remove the legal rights of the InHuman Non-Offending Side. In 2018 "upon the request of the non-offending side" could be deleted from The Fabulous Law Book. However, while that would benefit those PLOLs who play against IHNOSs, there would be the disadvantage that a power-crazed Director (not the players) could arbitrarily decide who wins an event. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Thu Apr 1 00:56:00 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:56:00 -0700 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC Appeal Case 8 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:51:45 BST." <4BB37DA1.70709@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <201003312254.PAA04238@mailhub.irvine.com> > [Nigel] > Marvin, please would you supply a link to this case because I can't find > it on the ACBL website. It's actually NABC+ case 9. > Anyway, on the facts presented, I agree with > Marvin that the committee seem to have got it wrong. > > The committee criticised the putative victims for not calling the > director earlier but would have been better employed asking the alleged > law-breakers why they didn't make their seemingly slanderous allegations > to the director at the time. > > Even if the committee suspect that the director is incompetent, they > should accord him the courtesy of calling him back to hear why he got > the facts so wrong. > > Perhaps, the official appeals commentators could send cases like this > back for reassessment by the committee; if that is impracticable, the > the ACBL could strike the AC majority voters from a list of approved > appeals committee members. My thoughts on this: The commentators mostly agree with the committee on this. Barry Rigal commented that "experienced players should know" that the right time to call the director is after the break in tempo occurs. I wonder about that. If that's the case, then it seems that directors would *always* be called after *every* hesitation, right away, whenever experienced players are involved. But that isn't anywhere close to what happens at tournaments I go to, at least so it seems. The committee ruling says that the TD should be called after a BIT "that might provide UI"; how many BIT's are there that have no chance of providing UI? Some, but certainly not a high percentage. If everyone were calling at the "right time", then it seems like I'd be hearing 20 or 30 more director calls every session. Now, if a BIT is followed by an *action* that sounds like it could be suspicious, maybe that would be a "right time" to call the director. The 3D call sounds like it could fit in the category. But the committee and commentators didn't seem to say anything that E-W should have called the director after the 3D call. (I had a somewhat similar case years ago: 1H 2NT(1) (1) Game-forcing raise, 4 trumps 3C(2) ...4H(3) (2) Singleton or void 4NT(4) (3) after a hesitation; 4H shows a minimum, no slam interest (4) RKCB I called the director at that point. When responder paused and then showed a minimum, this indicated that responder probably had more than a minimum, perhaps a non-minimum with club wastage, and opener could have used that information in deciding to proceed. It turned out that opener had a huge hand and there was no infraction, but of course this was before I knew the hands.) A couple issues that weren't touched on at all in the case report: (1) Since this ruling was based on disputed facts, was the original table director in error for making a ruling without waiting for North to return from her break and give her side of the story? (2) Since this ruling was based on disputed facts, did E-W harm their side by not showing up for the appeal? Finally, I tend to agree with Jeff Goldsmith here that the balance was automatic, and thus the question of whether there was a BIT is moot anyway. South knew from the auction that his partner had to have something; he didn't need the UI. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 01:32:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:32:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC Appeal Case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB37DA1.70709@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Mark Twain (1835-1910): "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." [big snip] The AC continues: "Based on the facts presented by the screening director and N-S, the AC decided that the time it took North to pass did not constitute an 'unmistakable hesitation'. Thus, the table result of 3NT by North +600 was restored for both sides." Marvin French: >>This is typical AC operation. The TD's determination of a BIT >>is ignored. It is implied that the NOS are self-serving liars >>and that UI creators never lie. The correct procedure in >>L16B2 is shelved in favor of a procedure not sanctioned by >>the Laws. Nigel Guthrie: >Marvin, please would you supply a link to this case because I >can't find it on the ACBL website. http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html Nigel Guthrie: >Anyway, on the facts presented, I agree with Marvin that the >committee seem to have got it wrong. > >The committee criticised the putative victims for not calling >the director earlier but would have been better employed >asking the alleged law-breakers why they didn't make their >seemingly slanderous allegations to the director at the time. > >Even if the committee suspect that the director is >incompetent, they should accord him the courtesy of calling >him back to hear why he got the facts so wrong. > >Perhaps, the official appeals commentators could send cases >like this back for reassessment by the committee; if that is >impracticable, the ACBL could strike the AC majority >voters from a list of approved appeals committee members. Richard Hills: (1) I agree with Marv that the table TD's assessment of fact when both sides are present is more relevant than the screening TD's assessment of fact when the screening TD was approached only by the appealing side. (2) Some years ago an ACBL power-that-was informed me that then the most incompetent TDs were appointed as screening TDs, since then it was thought that they would do least damage in a screening position instead of a floor position. The ACBL power-that-was changed her mind on placement of incompetent TDs once the ACBL power-that-was learned that some screening TDs were choosing to unilaterally revise the scores of table TDs despite hearing only one side of the case. (3) Now that appeals at NABCs are so few, the ACBL could perhaps use the system employed at ACBL Regionals. Not any screening TDs, but the DIC and table TD presenting the facts directly to the Appeals Committee. (4) In Australia it is the most competent Directors who are appointed as Appeals Advisors, with the duty of explaining to novice would-be appellants the relevant matters of Law. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Apr 1 01:58:43 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:58:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC + Appeal Case 9 In-Reply-To: <201003312254.PAA04238@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201003312254.PAA04238@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4BB3E1B3.1070509@yahoo.co.uk> [Adam Beneschan] It's actually NABC+ case 9. {Nige1] Renamed topic accordingly. [Adam] My thoughts on this: The commentators mostly agree with the committee on this. Barry Rigal commented that "experienced players should know" that the right time to call the director is after the break in tempo occurs. I wonder about that. If that's the case, then it seems that directors would *always* be called after *every* hesitation, right away, whenever experienced players are involved. But that isn't anywhere close to what happens at tournaments I go to, at least so it seems. The committee ruling says that the TD should be called after a BIT "that might provide UI"; how many BIT's are there that have no chance of providing UI? Some, but certainly not a high percentage. If everyone were calling at the "right time", then it seems like I'd be hearing 20 or 30 more director calls every session. [Nigel] Polisner agrees with the committee ruling reversing the TD decision but suggests that the committee should have issued an AWMW to NS. Shome mishtake surely? I think the law should *mandate* that (1) you draw attention to alleged UI at the time and (2) your opponents call the director, forthwith, if they want to dispute the UI. Marvin points out that ACBL rules don't say anything like that, so the committee ruling and the commentators' endorsement are perverse and incomprehensible (and in keeping with Polisner's comment). Are EW persona non grata for other reasons? An English International claims he can predict committee rulings, in ignorance of the facts of the case, if you provide him with the names and nationalities of the antagonists and committee members. [Adam] Finally, I tend to agree with Jeff Goldsmith here that the balance was automatic, and thus the question of whether there was a BIT is moot anyway. South knew from the auction that his partner had to have something; he didn't need the UI. [Nigel] I believe that pass is an LA on the South hand. If anybody doubted this they could have conducted a poll. Are there any board records? Did any other North pass 2H with 17 HCP in top cards (with or without a hesitation)? If so, did any EW pair buy the contract in 2H? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 02:29:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:29:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC + Appeal Case 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB3E1B3.1070509@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [big snip] >Finally, I tend to agree with Jeff Goldsmith here that the >balance was automatic, and thus the question of whether >there was a BIT is moot anyway. South knew from the >auction that his partner had to have something; he didn't >need the UI. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1H Pass 2H Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: 32 95 KQ7654 T73 What call do you make? Panellist Hilda R. Lirsch, average player from Hobart: "Pass. East and/or West may have underbid, so a score of -170 is better than the score of -620 I could receive if I give them a second chance." Panellist Richard Hills, expert player from Canberra: "Pass. Even if East-West have not underbid, -140 defending 2H is better than -200 declaring 3Dx (-200 declaring 3D undoubled is unlikely to be a great score either). Note that our holding of exactly a doubleton in hearts suggests defending instead of declaring, since partner is likely to hold a doubleton in hearts as well; if we held a worthless tripleton in hearts the chances of a 3D balance being a success would increase." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 1 02:52:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:52:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Persona non grata [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Are EW persona non grata for other reasons? An English >International claims he can predict committee rulings, in >ignorance of the facts of the case, if you provide him with >the names and nationalities of the antagonists and committee >members. Richard Hills: Both the English International and Nigel Guthrie (whose blml postings over the past decade demonstrably shows that he agrees with the English International) are demonstrably incorrect. The published EBU casebooks provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. (One minor caveat; in real-life Law a bee-in-bonnet person can be deemed a "vexatious litigant". Occasionally a bridge player habitually launches meritless appeals.) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Apr 1 03:14:36 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:14:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady In-Reply-To: <4BB354B4.70802@nhcc.net> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB354B4.70802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4BB3F37C.2040108@nhcc.net> > On 3/31/2010 3:00 AM, Grattan wrote: >> +=+ Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card >> or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender? It occurs to me to ask the following: South, declarer and properly on lead, leads a small diamond. West follows, declarer calls for the D-K from dummy, and North places that card in played position. East has D-AQ and intends to play the ace but accidentally drops the queen face up on the table, the ace remaining invisible. We can be certain that the D-Q was accidentally dropped -- a pure mechanical fumble -- even NS will testify to that. East asks the TD to waive the penalty and let him play D-A. (He will, of course, be compelled to lead D-Q to the next trick if the request is granted.) South wants the penalty card provision enforced. How should the TD rule? Does it make any difference whether East has a known physical handicap? Does it make any difference if the TD is friends or enemies with one or more of the players? From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 1 03:51:06 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:51:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000501cad13d$cb3f3d50$61bdb7f0$@com> [GE] Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender? [DALB] One may safely say that in a game where the legal requirement is to expose at your turn exactly one card in playing to a trick, you are an "offender" if whether by accident or design you expose more than one card in playing to the trick. By the same token, whenever the legal requirement is to expose no cards (as during the auction, or when it is not your turn to play) you are an "offender" if whether by accident or design you expose any card at all. David Burn London, England From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 1 05:26:17 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:26:17 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Persona non grata [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <605A553A5B704885A94F63A5F9F25F14@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote:] > (One minor caveat; in real-life Law a bee-in-bonnet person > can be deemed a "vexatious litigant". Occasionally a bridge > player habitually launches meritless appeals.) > And sometimes a bee-in-bonnet person (as Grattan implied I might be) is a law-and-order person who likes to see the game played by the rules. That sort of person never launches a meritless appeal, but may call the TD in accordance with L9B1(a) more often than TDs like. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 05:51:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:51:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Persona non grata [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <605A553A5B704885A94F63A5F9F25F14@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>That's funny ; I encountered a similar case not long ago. >> >>I don't know whether it's universal, but we have a "moral >>law" saying that if you happen to win a trick consisting of >>the 2,3,4 and 5 of the same suit, you're compelled to order >>champaign (not that it takes such uncommon occurrences to >>have good reasons ; last night, it was the last day in >>Brussels' championship and I lost the count of champaign >>bottles) >> >>It happened that, on the third trick, declarer was last to >>play after the 4, 2 and 3 were played, and dummy taunted : >>"champaign, partner ?" >> >>Opponents complained that dummy had infracted several laws >>by drawing declarer's attention to which cards had been >>played. >> >>The TD's response was "do you know the meaning of the phrase >>'fun of the game' ?" Marvin French: >And sometimes a bee-in-bonnet person (as Grattan implied I >might be) Richard Hills: As I recall Grattan retracted that implication; when Marv instead insisted "I have a Chip on my shoulder" Grattan then replied "I am Martel-y wounded". Marvin French: >is a law-and-order person who likes to see the game played by >the rules. That sort of person never launches a meritless >appeal, but may call the TD in accordance with L9B1(a) more >often than TDs like. Richard Hills: No, I disagree with the approach taken by Alain's Director. Yes, I agree in principle with Marv's law-and-order approach. Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "When a man says that he agrees with me in principle, I am quite certain that he does not agree with me in practice." Richard Hills (1959- ), three times Blml Primus Inter Pares: If one intends a silly April Fool joke by intentionally but trivially infracting the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, then the Director is required to enforce the Laws if she is summoned by humourless opponents. To do otherwise is a Director's Error contrary to Law 81B2: "The Director applies, ***and is bound by***, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 1 08:23:04 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:23:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC + Appeal Case 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <29031860.1270102984566.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Adam Beneschan: > > [big snip] > > >Finally, I tend to agree with Jeff Goldsmith here that the > >balance was automatic, and thus the question of whether > >there was a BIT is moot anyway. South knew from the > >auction that his partner had to have something; he didn't > >need the UI. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1H Pass > 2H Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > 32 > 95 > KQ7654 > T73 > > What call do you make? At this vulnerability, I consider pass. Where are all the spades? If partner has four spades, and a decent hand, why did he pass? Maybe because of his D shortness ... I also see some risk of driving them into a making 4H. Thomas Frohe Ostern! Alles f?r's Fest der Hasen und L?mmer jetzt im Osterspecial auf Arcor.de: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ostern From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 1 10:21:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:21:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2 tricks revoke, still? In-Reply-To: <1NwzHi-27aAz20@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <1NwzHi-27aAz20@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4BB45787.40007@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Hello Olivier, > > From: "olivier.beauvillain" > >> A small test for you ... >> >> Contract is 3NT >> Declarers revokes, revoke is established, >> >> TD transfers 2 tricks according to L64A, not 64C-Equity, >> >> Is this possible? >> > > sure :) > > >> If yes, explains, >> > > Law 43 B2b > > Cheers > Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > AG : I have a suspicion that this wasn't intended. The idea is to have a one-trick penalty for a revoke, plus the trick that was won by the illegal card if that's the case. Here, declarer in fact played a legal card to the trick, and it was that legal card that won the trick. Intuitively, the one-trick penalty is sufficient, including the deterrent effect. BTW, declarer can easily go round this double penalty by declaring "no, I don't have any", which will afterwards establish the revoke and create only a one-trick penalty. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 1 10:23:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:23:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady In-Reply-To: <4BB3759E.70907@yahoo.co.uk> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB354B4.70802@nhcc.net> <4BB3759E.70907@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4BB457E9.6020205@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > I don't think the rules of any game can deal explicitly with such > events. There are just too many possibilities and variations. Current > Bridge rules are already far too dependent on subjective judgement. > > Bridge Law-makers devised the the ideal solution: when non-offenders > realize what has happened, they are empowered to ask the director to > *waive the penalty* for the infraction. > > AG : I beg to differ. It's wrong to have a player's fate depend on his opponents' goodwill, as different opponents will react differently. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 1 10:41:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:41:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB45C1F.2020309@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > a power failure. Yes, because of nearby construction, the > local electricity company shut off power to the Canberra Bridge > Club last Sunday, when the final qualifying event was due to be > held, causing its cancellation. So the reserve pair from an > earlier qualifying event snuck in after all. (I predict, when > the Open Trials Final concludes, that the power failure pair > will be in the Canberra team. For psychological reasons, a > pair which sneaks into the Final plays well. AG : this isn't restricted to mind games. In 1992, the Danish underdogs won the European soccer championship after having been called to replace Yugoslavia, who had been pushed out for political reasons. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 1 11:27:10 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:27:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <000501cad13d$cb3f3d50$61bdb7f0$@com> Message-ID: <41A418909BB64A50B70C648C1A3A869A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 2:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [GE] > > Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card or cards has any > offence > occurred? Is there an offender? > > [DALB] > > One may safely say that in a game where the legal requirement is to expose > at your turn exactly one card in playing to a trick, you are an "offender" > if whether by accident or design you expose more than one card in playing > to > the trick. By the same token, whenever the legal requirement is to expose > no > cards (as during the auction, or when it is not your turn to play) you are > an "offender" if whether by accident or design you expose any card at all. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ I doubt that it is safe to make any such assertion. I see nothing in Laws 44, 45 or 49 to say that accidental exposure of a card is an infraction. There is rectification of the deviation from correct procedure. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Apr 2 00:11:45 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:11:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Persona non grata [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB51A21.5080401@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] Both the English International and Nigel Guthrie (whose blml postings over the past decade demonstrably shows that he agrees with the English International) are demonstrably incorrect. [Nigel] On the contrary, my oft-stated view is that rulings can't be reliably predicted, even in simple cases, knowing all the facts. We would all be interested in the results of a study on what factors influence rulings but I haven't performed such an analysis, nor have I claimed to have done so. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 2 09:41:44 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 23:41:44 -0800 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Appeal NABC+ Case 9 expert commentaries added. References: Message-ID: <1E1588BE789D415AA5E5A26E755F7FFE@MARVLAPTOP> Marv wrote: > No need to show the hands. With both vul, East's 1H bid was raised > by West, and then North hesitated (allegedly five seconds) with > xxxx > AKQ Ax Axxx before passing. South balanced with 3D, holding > nothing > but six diamonds KQ. North now bid 3NT making. The director was > called after play was over and judged that there was a BIT by > North. > Score adjusted back to 2H-1, appealed. > > At the AC meeting, only N-S showed up. Now followed a good example > of how ACBL ACs handle UI. > > The Appeal: According to the screening director, E-W claimed that > North took five seconds to pass 2H. South said that there was no > hesitation. It took at most 3 seconds for North to pass. By the > time > E-W called the director, North had left the table for a break. N-S > said that E-W made no comments about any hesitation during the > auction or when dummy was displayed. After the completion of play, > one of the E-W players remarked that North had quite a good hand. > They decided that there must have been a hesitation. > > [Marv] That last sentence is obviously an unwarranted assumption > by > N-S, and is in fact a scurrilous remark, claiming that E-W > fabricated the hesitation after seeing North's hand. > > The Decision: When there is a BIT that might provide UI, players > are > encouraged to either call the director or get confirmation of the > BIT from the opponents right away. By delaying the director call, > E-W considerably weakened its claim of a tempo break. > > [Marv] Stop right there and look at L16B2: > > When a player considers that an opponent has made such information > available and that damage could well result, he *may* [emphasis > mine] announce that he reserves the right to call the Director > later. The *opponents* [emphasis mine] should summon the Director > immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information > may have been conveyed. > > [Marv] This says nothing about calling the TD when UI is observed. > Moreover, commenting on the UI is optional, not required. If a > comment is made and the opponents dispute the fact of the UI, > there > is no suggestion that a player conference be held or that the > non-UI > side should call the TD. Accordingly, N-S followed L16B2 exactly. > > The AC continues: > > Based on the facts presented by the screening director and N-S, > the > AC decided that the time it took North to pass did not constitute > an "unmistakable hesitation." Thus, the table result of 3NT by > North > +600 was restored for both sides. > > [Marv] This is typical AC operation. The TD's determination of a > BIT > is ignored. It is implied that the NOS are self-serving liars and > that UI creators never lie. The correct procedure in L16B2 is > shelved in favor of a procedure not sanctioned by the Laws. > The "expert" commentaries are interesting Barry Rigal: ...I agree that E/W's failure to call the director at the proper time (and experienced players should know that) is a strong indication of there not being a BIT Polisner: Good work all around except for the failure to issue an Appeal Without Merit Warning. Matt Smith: E/W weakened its case considerably by not calling the director earlier. Adam Wildavsky: I like everything about this committee ruling. Bobby Wolff: E/W were very slow in bringing up a possible BIT...We need to raise the stakes for poorly timed complaints so that, at least, the complainng parties suffer some jeopardy in the attempts to get something for nothing. [Marv] I guess I am tilting at windmills, one definition of which is fighting unwinnable or futile battles. These people either do not read the Laws or do not understand them. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 2 10:49:20 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:49:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be> <5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> >> I'm sorry Grattan, but you cannot have more inadvertent than >> inadvertent. The laws on minor penalty cards already speak of >> inadvertent exposure. If this lady has made no infraction, then what of >> the player who pulls out one card only to see another one also drop on >> the table? >> This ruling was totally wrong, and you trying to defend it on any other >> ground than "it feels right" is, IMO, not on. >> > +=+ Herman has failed to follow the implications of what I wrote. > If there is no offender then the reference to 'the' non-offending > side is inapplicable. In that situation there is no such side to request > waiver of the rectification. The power in Law 81C5 cannot be > exercised and the Director's hands are tied. He must apply Law 49. If this lady is not an "offender" then who is? > I suggested that if it is desired to provide the Director with > flexibility to exercise his discretion in the situation postulated, we > need action by the WBFLC. A possible action would be to add > in reference to 'the non-offending side' in Law 81C5 a footnote > reading: > "(*Either side when both are non-offending)" Sorry Grattan, but that cannot be necessary. You cannot have penalties when you don't have an offender. So in order to be able to waive penalties you can have, at most, one non-offender. > As for the player who drops a card accidentally when pulling > out the one he wishes to play, his clumsiness is the equivalent of the > palsy of the little old lady. Indeed. My point exactly. Yet no-one will claim that I am not an offender if I drop my cards out of any of my four left feet. To show ones cards prematurely is to cause an irregularity. It serves no purpose to try and decide whether this makes one an offender or not. The rules are clear: they become penalty cards. I am all in favour of ruling "excusable" offence to people with handicaps, but you should not try and put words in the lawbook that are simply not there. > ~ G ~ +=+ > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 2 11:02:14 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:02:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Appeal NABC+ Case 9 expert commentaries added. References: <1E1588BE789D415AA5E5A26E755F7FFE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 8:41 AM Subject: [BLML] San Diego Appeal NABC+ Case 9 expert commentaries added. > [Marv] I guess I am tilting at windmills, one definition of which is fighting unwinnable or futile battles. These people either do not read the Laws or do not understand them. > +=+ I think we might perhaps agree that drawing attention to the creation of UI as Law 16B2 suggests does strengthen the position of the player protesting opponents' actions. So the case is weaker than it might have been when he fails to do so. The Director is seeking evidence on which to base a ruling and without the assistance of action under 16B2 that evidence is harder to come by. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 2 12:17:00 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:17:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan wrote: >>> >>> I'm sorry Grattan, but you cannot have more inadvertent than >>> inadvertent. The laws on minor penalty cards already speak of >>> inadvertent exposure. If this lady has made no infraction, then what of >>> the player who pulls out one card only to see another one also drop on >>> the table? >>> This ruling was totally wrong, and you trying to defend it on any other >>> ground than "it feels right" is, IMO, not on. >>> >> +=+ Herman has failed to follow the implications of what I wrote. >> If there is no offender then the reference to 'the' >> non-offending >> side is inapplicable. In that situation there is no such side to request >> waiver of the rectification. The power in Law 81C5 cannot be >> exercised and the Director's hands are tied. He must apply Law 49. > > If this lady is not an "offender" then who is? > >> I suggested that if it is desired to provide the Director with >> flexibility to exercise his discretion in the situation postulated, we >> need action by the WBFLC. A possible action would be to add >> in reference to 'the non-offending side' in Law 81C5 a footnote >> reading: >> "(*Either side when both are non-offending)" > > Sorry Grattan, but that cannot be necessary. You cannot have penalties > when you don't have an offender. So in order to be able to waive > penalties you can have, at most, one non-offender. > >> As for the player who drops a card accidentally when pulling >> out the one he wishes to play, his clumsiness is the equivalent of the >> palsy of the little old lady. > > Indeed. My point exactly. Yet no-one will claim that I am not an > offender if I drop my cards out of any of my four left feet. > To show ones cards prematurely is to cause an irregularity. It serves no > purpose to try and decide whether this makes one an offender or not. The > rules are clear: they become penalty cards. > > I am all in favour of ruling "excusable" offence to people with > handicaps, but you should not try and put words in the lawbook that are > simply not there. > +=+ Dear me, Herman, it is difficult to get into your mind what I am actually saying. 1. The dictionary tells us that to 'offend' is to be in breach of a law or regulation. 2. Breaking a law or regulation in bridge is an infraction. 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an infraction and therefore an offence. 4. The player who accidentally exposes a card or cards is not therefore an offender. 5. The use of 'the' ('the non-offending side') in 81C5 requires that there shall be only one non-offending side. In the circumstances above we have two non- offending sides. 6. So as the laws are written the power of waiver in 81C5 cannot be exercised in such a case. 7. So the Director has no power in such circumstances to waive application of Law 49. 8. I believe it might be thought desirable that he should have that power. If so, my preferred solution would be addition of a footnote ('Either side when both are non-offending') in reference to the words 'the non-offending side' in Law 81C5. I am reluctant to toil on granting waivers that fail to match to the proper grammatical interpretation of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 2 13:16:08 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:16:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be> <5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BB5D1F8.2020001@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > Sorry Grattan, but that cannot be necessary. You cannot have penalties > when you don't have an offender. AG : not taking the precise case into account, why do you restrict this ? What about 'burgerlijke verantwoordelijkheid' ? (I don't know the English words ; the principla that if you are responsible for someone's misfortunes, even without offending in any way, you have to compensate for this) a) There are pure penalties, e.g. for fouling the board b) There are semi-penalties, e.g. for revoking ; there is overcompensation (like in civil damages) to deter you c) There are pure compensations, e;g. for dropping a card ; you just have to compensate for possible damage ; there is no need to declare you an offender in order to do this. This corresponds to the civil / criminal law distinction with some mixed cases. Now, in BV cases, which are part of c), if you can't be deemed to have faulted in any way (force majeure), you may be discharged from compensating. L84 allows the TD to do so in very limited settings. Whether this should be made more extensive is an interesting point. But this doesn't change anything to the fact that in case c), at least in law codes, there is no offender. Why should this be different at bridge ? Because Herman needs one offender in every case ? (and simply stating that I am wrong won't be enough, you know) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 2 13:23:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:23:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BB5D3AA.4080000@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ Dear me, Herman, it is difficult to get into your mind what > I am actually saying. > 1. The dictionary tells us that to 'offend' is to be in breach > of a law or regulation. > 2. Breaking a law or regulation in bridge is an infraction. > 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge > that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or > cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an > infraction and therefore an offence. > 4. The player who accidentally exposes a card or cards > is not therefore an offender. > 5. The use of 'the' ('the non-offending side') in 81C5 > requires that there shall be only one non-offending > side. In the circumstances above we have two non- > offending sides. 6. So as the laws are written the power of waiver in 81C5 > cannot be exercised in such a case. > AG : I understand what you mean, I agree that strict lecture of the code says this, but I don't think that this was intended (and I believe you.don't either). > 7. So the Director has no power in such circumstances to > waive application of Law 49. > 8. I believe it might be thought desirable that he should have > that power. If so, my preferred solution would be addition > of a footnote ('Either side when both are non-offending') > in reference to the words 'the non-offending side' AG : or replacing 'the' with 'any' ? I think most TDs wouldn't go through your 8 stations, and would think to themselves : 'If I can waive in some cases when there is an offense, surely I can when there isn't' .. which seems to be what you want to achieve in a formal way. Best regards Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 2 13:53:28 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 06:53:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB5D3AA.4080000@ulb.ac.be> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> <4BB5D3AA.4080000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 06:23 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan a ?crit : >> >> +=+ Dear me, Herman, it is difficult to get into your mind what >> I am actually saying. >> 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge >> that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or >> cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an >> infraction and therefore an offence. >> 4. The player who accidentally exposes a card or cards >> is not therefore an offender. Quite puzzling, the meaning of the words composing law: LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED PRIOR TO PLAY PERIOD When the Director determines that during the Auction Period because of a player's own error one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the Auction Period ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), then: regards roger pewick > Best regards > > Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 2 14:33:44 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:33:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BB5E428.6040805@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> > +=+ Dear me, Herman, it is difficult to get into your mind what > I am actually saying. > 1. The dictionary tells us that to 'offend' is to be in breach > of a law or regulation. > 2. Breaking a law or regulation in bridge is an infraction. > 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge > that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or > cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an > infraction and therefore an offence. > 4. The player who accidentally exposes a card or cards > is not therefore an offender. > 5. The use of 'the' ('the non-offending side') in 81C5 > requires that there shall be only one non-offending > side. In the circumstances above we have two non- > offending sides. > 6. So as the laws are written the power of waiver in 81C5 > cannot be exercised in such a case. > 7. So the Director has no power in such circumstances to > waive application of Law 49. > 8. I believe it might be thought desirable that he should have > that power. If so, my preferred solution would be addition > of a footnote ('Either side when both are non-offending') > in reference to the words 'the non-offending side' in Law > 81C5. I am reluctant to toil on granting waivers that fail > to match to the proper grammatical interpretation of the > law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes Grattan, I did understand what you are saying. But are you not making it difficult upon yourself? We have a lawbook which uses lots of words for things that do not go according to the official standard. One of these words is offender, and its opposite "non-offender". Nowhere is that word defined in the lawbook. Now we have two possibilities: The lady in the example is an offender; or The lady is not an offender, and hence, a non-offender. Now I have pointed out that if this lady is a non-offender, so should I be. And you have not commented on that. What you instead comment upon is that if this lady (and I) is a non-offender, then it is not possible for the director to waive a penalty. So you have a penalty, given to a non-offender, which a director cannot waive because the non-offender is a non-offender? So a non-offender cannot escape a penalty, where an offender can? Is that not against any dictionary meaning of either the words penalty or offender? So I put to you, Grattan, that despite your points 1-4 above, it is far easier, under the laws, to consider us offenders. Just to break one of the chains of your reasoning above, I do not agree with point 3. L49 makes a shown card a penalty card, and L50 and following give penalties upon that fact. Therefore, a shown card is an infraction. You do not need a sentence like "thou shalt not show a card" in order for showing a card to be an infraction, IMO "if you show a card, this penalty will be applied" is enough to be able to call it thus. But is this not really rather less important than the sex of angels? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 2 14:34:14 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 13:34:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be><4BB5D3AA.4080000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <9D58460B4C2A4F1C9C28AAC96C95CAA8@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] -------------------------------------------------- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 06:23 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan a ?crit : >> >> +=+ Dear me, Herman, it is difficult to get into your mind what >> I am actually saying. >> 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge >> that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or >> cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an >> infraction and therefore an offence. >> 4. The player who accidentally exposes a card or cards >> is not therefore an offender. Quite puzzling, the meaning of the words composing law: LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED PRIOR TO PLAY PERIOD When the Director determines that during the Auction Period because of a player's own error one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the Auction Period ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), then: +=+ This treatment of an intended action ('player's own error') appears wholly consistent to me. ~ G ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Apr 2 14:45:23 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:45:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be ><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred><4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BB5E6E3.7070607@meteo.fr> Grattan a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ... > 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge > that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or > cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an > infraction and therefore an offence. > 4. The player who accidentally exposes a card or cards > is not therefore an offender. how do you explain the word "offender" in L51A? jpr ... > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 2 15:38:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:38:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> <4BB5D3AA.4080000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <31E8F4357678462B9E8029C606260B7F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ Dear me, Herman, it is difficult to get into your mind what > I am actually saying. > 1. The dictionary tells us that to 'offend' is to be in breach > of a law or regulation. > 2. Breaking a law or regulation in bridge is an infraction. > 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge > that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or > cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an > infraction and therefore an offence. > 4. The player who accidentally exposes a card or cards > is not therefore an offender. > 5. The use of 'the' ('the non-offending side') in 81C5 > requires that there shall be only one non-offending > side. In the circumstances above we have two non- > offending sides. 6. So as the laws are written the power > of waiver in 81C5 > cannot be exercised in such a case. > AG : I understand what you mean, I agree that strict lecture of the code says this, but I don't think that this was intended (and I believe you.don't either). > 7. So the Director has no power in such circumstances to > waive application of Law 49. > 8. I believe it might be thought desirable that he should have > that power. If so, my preferred solution would be addition > of a footnote ('Either side when both are non-offending') > in reference to the words 'the non-offending side' AG : or replacing 'the' with 'any' ? I think most TDs wouldn't go through your 8 stations, and would think to themselves : 'If I can waive in some cases when there is an offense, surely I can when there isn't' .. which seems to be what you want to achieve in a formal way. +=+ Yes. One could say 'a' instead of 'the'. But I do not wish to alter the wording of the law itself. Our past practice has been not to do that but to add a footnote where appropriate. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Apr 2 15:51:36 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:51:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB5D1F8.2020001@ulb.ac.be> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be> <5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> <4BB5D1F8.2020001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BB5F668.1050205@yahoo.co.uk> Weeks ago, in a national EBU event, my LHO led a plain suit and dummy and RHO followed. Holding the ace and five small trumps, I mistakenly ruffed with the ace. When I noticed what I'd done, I called the director. In context, it was obvious to all that my action was inadvertent -- a mechanical error. Having ascertained the facts, ("Did your card touch the table? "Yes"), the director ruled that the ace was a played card. Correctly in my opinion. Similarly, few people expose more than one card, *on purpose*. Nevertheless, IMO, you do need sanctions against carelessness. In practice, no problems arise when a handicapped person suffers a mechanical error that is obviously due to disability. Opponents do not call attention to the irregularity. If the "offender" insists on calling the direcotor, then the "victims" ask the director to waive the penalty. Directors are happy to oblige. Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and gentlemen. They need no new laws or stretched "interpretations" of existing laws to cope with this kind of thing. Social sanctions are enough. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 2 15:58:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 09:58:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. In-Reply-To: <4BB5D3AA.4080000@ulb.ac.be> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> <4BB5D3AA.4080000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8356C950-293F-4780-A14C-E5B3825DBEE4@starpower.net> On Apr 2, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : > >> +=+ Dear me, Herman, it is difficult to get into your mind what >> I am actually saying. >> 1. The dictionary tells us that to 'offend' is to be in breach >> of a law or regulation. >> 2. Breaking a law or regulation in bridge is an infraction. >> 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge >> that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or >> cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an >> infraction and therefore an offence. >> 4. The player who accidentally exposes a card or cards >> is not therefore an offender. >> 5. The use of 'the' ('the non-offending side') in 81C5 >> requires that there shall be only one non-offending >> side. In the circumstances above we have two non- >> offending sides. 6. So as the laws are written the >> power of waiver in 81C5 >> cannot be exercised in such a case. > > AG : I understand what you mean, I agree that strict lecture of the > code > says this, but I don't think that this was intended (and I believe > you.don't either). > >> 7. So the Director has no power in such circumstances to >> waive application of Law 49. >> 8. I believe it might be thought desirable that he should have >> that power. If so, my preferred solution would be addition >> of a footnote ('Either side when both are non-offending') >> in reference to the words 'the non-offending side' > > AG : or replacing 'the' with 'any' ? > I think most TDs wouldn't go through your 8 stations, and would > think to > themselves : 'If I can waive in some cases when there is an offense, > surely I can when there isn't' .. which seems to be what you want to > achieve in a formal way. L81C1-8 enumerate the "duties and powers" by which the director exercises his "responsibility for rectifying irregularities" [L81C]. And "Definitions" reminds us that an "irregularity" is "a deviation from correct procedure... not limited to[] those which involve an infraction...". For these to be consistent, L81C5 must apply to any irregularity (as, manifestly, does the remainder of L81C), and the reference to "the non-offending side" must mean the side which did not commit the "deviation from correct procedure" in question. I find nothing in the laws to suggest that "offense" is to be treated as necessarily synonomous with "infraction". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 2 16:07:04 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 15:07:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be ><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred><4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> <4BB5E6E3.7070607@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <0CBF924ED4C84B9EA27544EE436FB7A0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] how do you explain the word "offender" in L51A? jpr ... +=+ Accurate when applying to the majority of cases where the penalty card exists because of a deliberate infraction by the player. Loose and inaccurate in the few cases where the penalty card exists because of an accidental occurrence. However, the text of Law 51A is secure. Law 51A embraces more cases than does its heading. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Apr 2 16:43:20 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:43:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0CBF924ED4C84B9EA27544EE436FB7A0@Mildred> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.b e ><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred><4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be><4BB5E6E3.7070607@meteo.fr> <0CBF924ED4C84B9EA27544EE436FB7A0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BB60288.5060106@meteo.fr> Grattan a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 1:45 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > how do you explain the word "offender" in L51A? > jpr > ... > +=+ Accurate when applying to the majority of cases > where the penalty card exists because of a deliberate > infraction by the player. Loose and inaccurate in the > few cases where the penalty card exists because of an > accidental occurrence. However, the text of Law 51A > is secure. Law 51A embraces more cases than does > its heading. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > so, it would be wrong to infer that someone who owns 2 or more penalty cards is an offender. very instructive, thank you. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 2 16:58:39 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:58:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. In-Reply-To: <8356C950-293F-4780-A14C-E5B3825DBEE4@starpower.net> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> <4BB5D3AA.4080000@ulb.ac.be> <8356C950-293F-4780-A14C-E5B3825DBEE4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BB6061F.8@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > L81C1-8 enumerate the "duties and powers" by which the director > exercises his "responsibility for rectifying irregularities" [L81C]. > And "Definitions" reminds us that an "irregularity" is "a deviation > from correct procedure... not limited to[] those which involve an > infraction...". For these to be consistent, L81C5 must apply to any > irregularity (as, manifestly, does the remainder of L81C), and the > reference to "the non-offending side" must mean the side which did > not commit the "deviation from correct procedure" in question. I > find nothing in the laws to suggest that "offense" is to be treated > as necessarily synonomous with "infraction". > AG : I'm ready to take this answer as a basis. It makes so much sense. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 2 18:43:31 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 11:43:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be> <5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 05:17:00 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert > Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:49 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Grattan wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm sorry Grattan, but you cannot have more inadvertent than >>>> inadvertent. The laws on minor penalty cards already speak of >>>> inadvertent exposure. If this lady has made no infraction, then what >>>> of >>>> the player who pulls out one card only to see another one also drop on >>>> the table? >>>> This ruling was totally wrong, and you trying to defend it on any >>>> other >>>> ground than "it feels right" is, IMO, not on. >>>> >>> +=+ Herman has failed to follow the implications of what I wrote. >>> If there is no offender then the reference to 'the' >>> non-offending >>> side is inapplicable. In that situation there is no such side to >>> request >>> waiver of the rectification. The power in Law 81C5 cannot be >>> exercised and the Director's hands are tied. He must apply Law 49. >> >> If this lady is not an "offender" then who is? >> >>> I suggested that if it is desired to provide the Director with >>> flexibility to exercise his discretion in the situation postulated, we >>> need action by the WBFLC. A possible action would be to add >>> in reference to 'the non-offending side' in Law 81C5 a footnote >>> reading: >>> "(*Either side when both are non-offending)" >> >> Sorry Grattan, but that cannot be necessary. You cannot have penalties >> when you don't have an offender. So in order to be able to waive >> penalties you can have, at most, one non-offender. >> >>> As for the player who drops a card accidentally when pulling >>> out the one he wishes to play, his clumsiness is the equivalent of the >>> palsy of the little old lady. >> >> Indeed. My point exactly. Yet no-one will claim that I am not an >> offender if I drop my cards out of any of my four left feet. >> To show ones cards prematurely is to cause an irregularity. It serves no >> purpose to try and decide whether this makes one an offender or not. The >> rules are clear: they become penalty cards. >> >> I am all in favour of ruling "excusable" offence to people with >> handicaps, but you should not try and put words in the lawbook that are >> simply not there. >> > +=+ Dear me, Herman, it is difficult to get into your mind what > I am actually saying. > 1. The dictionary tells us that to 'offend' is to be in breach > of a law or regulation. > 2. Breaking a law or regulation in bridge is an infraction. > 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge > that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or > cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an > infraction and therefore an offence. Infracted is a technical term, meaning "a player's breach of law or of lawful regulation." Nowhere does this say that the breach must be intentional. Richard has argued, correctly in my opinion and without dissent to my memory (in the discussion on the meaning of "infringement"), that any irregularity committed by a player is an infraction. On the odd chance that accidentally exposing one's cards is not an infraction, then I would wonder if accidentally revoking or going to the wrong table or looking that the wrong traveller is an infraction. If you can find some complicated clever resolution to this, the laws are way too complex for any mortal to understand. The laws are not built to handle the problem of a handicapped person exposing cards. Trying to twist the laws to handle the situation is a common strategy. But it is dysfunctional. > 4. The player who accidentally exposes a card or cards > is not therefore an offender. > 5. The use of 'the' ('the non-offending side') in 81C5 > requires that there shall be only one non-offending > side. In the circumstances above we have two non- > offending sides. > 6. So as the laws are written the power of waiver in 81C5 > cannot be exercised in such a case. > 7. So the Director has no power in such circumstances to > waive application of Law 49. > 8. I believe it might be thought desirable that he should have > that power. If so, my preferred solution would be addition > of a footnote ('Either side when both are non-offending') > in reference to the words 'the non-offending side' in Law > 81C5. I am reluctant to toil on granting waivers that fail > to match to the proper grammatical interpretation of the > law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Apr 3 03:11:31 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:11:31 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Taking Players Away from the Table References: <6A3DF1AE1324485C8BBC81B4EB732EF1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: From: "Robert Frick" Marvin French wrote: > >> I may have asked this before, but if so I don't remember the >> answers. >> >> In an MI case, when it is too late for a call to be changed, is >> it >> appropriate for the TD to take players away from the table to ask >> what they would have done absent the MI? > > Debatable. My understanding is that it is ACBL policy to do so. > Well, the > leading director in our area explained that I should do that like > I was a > beginner for not doing that. > > He didn't seem to care that the player was limping. Yes, ACBL TDs are instructed to do this. I don't know what they do if one player is handicapped. My guess is that they don't ask that player anything, or if it is not too late to change a call they just ask at the table, "Do you want to change your last call because of the misinformation and for no other reason?" That answer, if yes or no, won't produce UI. I was told by a top TD recently, "We want to question players before they have a chance to think about it and come up later with a call they would not have made. Sometimes they say something I would never think of, such as a pass when action is clearly indicated." Putting aside that it is unfair to ask players hypothetical questions that require a spur-of-the-moment answer, and wastes time, the TDs seem to ignore L12's requirement to examine alll possibilities and then decide on a possibly low-probability unfavorable result for the offending side and a slightly higher probability favorable result for the non-offenders. Instead, they grab on the answer to the question as certainty (if they believe it). I was once asked what I would have done when it was too late to change my call, and my answer was pass. I could have said, "Of course I would have bid four clubs with my seven to the jack." (A wild vulnerable bid that would have worked well.) If the naive TD had believed me, I would have had a top board. Rather than ask such questions (except to ask about changing the last call), the TD should decide on his own the probabilities of what "would have happened," make a ruling based on that if there is damage, and entertain any objections to the ruling. Players are much more likely to argue a poor position before a ruling is made than after it is made. Haven't received a positive answer yet to the question: Are players taken away from the table for MI questioning in places outside ACBL-land? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 3 12:32:50 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 11:32:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> <4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> <4BB605AB.80301@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <8F41AA5B4FD94E59976CAC24CAE8455A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. > [Hi, Grattan. Private email, but feel free to quote.] > > On 4/2/10 6:17 AM, Grattan wrote: >> 5. The use of 'the' ('the non-offending side') in 81C5 >> requires that there shall be only one non-offending >> side. > > From the introduction, "...the singular includes the plural..." > > Does this make a difference here? < +=+ The basis of my argument has been the grammatical implications of the language used. In my argument this "clearly dictates otherwise" (sic). ~ G ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 3 14:13:37 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:13:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Taking Players Away from the Table In-Reply-To: References: <6A3DF1AE1324485C8BBC81B4EB732EF1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:11:31 -0500, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Robert Frick" > > Marvin French wrote: >> >>> I may have asked this before, but if so I don't remember the >>> answers. >>> >>> In an MI case, when it is too late for a call to be changed, is >>> it >>> appropriate for the TD to take players away from the table to ask >>> what they would have done absent the MI? >> >> Debatable. My understanding is that it is ACBL policy to do so. >> Well, the >> leading director in our area explained that I should do that like >> I was a >> beginner for not doing that. >> >> He didn't seem to care that the player was limping. > > Yes, ACBL TDs are instructed to do this. I don't know what they do > if one player is handicapped. My guess is that they don't ask that > player anything, or if it is not too late to change a call they just > ask at the table, "Do you want to change your last call because of > the misinformation and for no other reason?" That answer, if yes or > no, won't produce UI. > > I was told by a top TD recently, "We want to question players before > they have a chance to think about it and come up later with a call > they would not have made. Sometimes they say something I would never > think of, such as a pass when action is clearly indicated." > > Putting aside that it is unfair to ask players hypothetical > questions that require a spur-of-the-moment answer, and wastes time, > the TDs seem to ignore L12's requirement to examine alll > possibilities and then decide on a possibly low-probability > unfavorable result for the offending side and a slightly higher > probability favorable result for the non-offenders. Instead, they > grab on the answer to the question as certainty (if they believe > it). > > I was once asked what I would have done when it was too late to > change my call, and my answer was pass. I could have said, "Of > course I would have bid four clubs with my seven to the jack." (A > wild vulnerable bid that would have worked well.) If the naive TD > had believed me, I would have had a top board. > > Rather than ask such questions (except to ask about changing the > last call), the TD should decide on his own the probabilities of > what "would have happened," make a ruling based on that if there is > damage, and entertain any objections to the ruling. Players are much > more likely to argue a poor position before a ruling is made than > after it is made. Yeah, on Thursday a player said that if she knew 3C could be weak, she would have tried 3NT. She had 8 or 10 HCP and her partner had made a weak jump shift. I told her I couldn't give her that. It seems to me that players have no trouble fabricating bids quickly at the table. And one time the ops had a miscommunication that pushed them to 4C, and the lady said if she was given the correct information she would have competed with 4D. It looked like a bad bid to me, but I am not at the table and it wasn't that implausible. Fortunately, I didn't have to decide, because she was in the passout seat. I let her go down 2 in 4D instead of the ops going down 2 in 4C. From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Sat Apr 3 16:33:51 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:33:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law Flow Charts Message-ID: <000001cad33a$aeeafc80$0cc0f580$@com> Hi BLMLers, Some of you already know that I made flow charts of many bridge laws, using PowerPoint, and I published a book with the full text and the related charts just in front (with ACBL and FFB permission). The French and English versions of this book are sold by commercial bridge material retailers in Canada. Despite the copyright on the book, I give the bridge community the permission to use my charts for learning and teaching bridge laws. The Australian Bridge Directors Association put some of them in its Bulletin some years ago and recently added the 2007 edition of the charts to its Resources page. http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html Make links to this page from your own web if useful and do not hesitate to suggest any correction (sending me a private email). Laval Du Breuil Retired ACBL TD Quebec, Canada NB : I am searching for a WEB to make the same with the French version of my charts. The PDF file makes about 800 Ko -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100403/3ccf54e0/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Apr 4 08:16:54 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:16:54 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Taking Players Away from the Table References: <6A3DF1AE1324485C8BBC81B4EB732EF1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <94C2B1C71DF04C9DBF7168F47894155D@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Frick" > > Yeah, on Thursday a player said that if she knew 3C could be weak, > she > would have tried 3NT. She had 8 or 10 HCP and her partner had made > a weak > jump shift. I told her I couldn't give her that. It seems to me > that > players have no trouble fabricating bids quickly at the table. > Today in our Regional a friend told me about a ruling made at her table. She had opened 1C-P-3C (weak, not Alerted); P and her LHO asked about the 3C bid. Told it was weak, she passed, and responder passed. Now opener's RHO seems all frustrated and calls the TD, saying there was a failure to Alert. The TD says LHO can change her call, so she does, bidding 3H successfully. This ruling was disputed but upheld by the regional ACBL TD supervisor, who was on the scene. Since a call can only be changed if it was affected by the MI, and the player was told 3C was weak before she passed, a change should not have been allowed. Few TDs hereabouts know that a change of call is not automatically okay. RTFLB Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Apr 4 08:40:45 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:40:45 -0800 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Appeal NABC+ Case 9 expert commentaries added. References: <1E1588BE789D415AA5E5A26E755F7FFE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <7F0B1F63FE324689BE42AA9136025452@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > +=+ I think we might perhaps agree that drawing attention to > the creation of UI as Law 16B2 suggests does strengthen the > position of the player protesting opponents' actions. I disagree, if the TD is competent. Law 16B2 does not *suggest* drawing attention to the irrregularity, it *permits* drawing attention. Big difference. There should be no adverse effects from waiting until the end of play. > So the case is weaker than it might have been when he fails to do > so. No it isn't, not if the TD is competent. > The Director is seeking evidence on which to base a ruling > and without the assistance of action under 16B2 that evidence > is harder to come by. No it isn't, not if the TD is competent and doesn't believe players are lying. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Apr 4 21:13:51 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:13:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law Flow Charts References: <000001cad33a$aeeafc80$0cc0f580$@com> Message-ID: Mon cher Laval,, I printed out this material and have not had time to examine it in detail. Law 9 - May "Summon the director at any time." If attention is drawn to an irregularity, the director should be called immediately. --There seems to be a lot missing about how to assign adjusted scores (Law 12). Was there a serious error? Related to the infraction or not? Was there a wild or gambling action? If there is a valid serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or a wild or gambling action, then Make the normal score adjustment for both sides, excluding any self-damaging action (using L12C whatever). Then, how much self-damage was there (in points)? Subtract that from the number of points given to the NOS in compensation, and that is the score to be awarded. For the OS the opponents' self-damage is ignored in their adjusted score. -- Law 16 Case 1 - "The Director should be summoned immediately" By the UI side, not the opponents, according to the law. That makes it an infraction if the UI side does not call the Director. Does that mean the other side must call? Only if they call attention to the infraction (not the UI). -- Law 20 the proper procedure is to ask for an "explanation of the auction," but the irregularity of asking about a particular call is okay (but L16 may apply). I don't know how you can put this in your boxes. The same is true of a defender during the play. Only declarer may properly ask for information about a particular call. The two sides are not equal in this respect. Also, after playing the first time, neither side can ask for a review of the auction (box near the bottom right). The same comments applhy to Law 41, Review of Auction and Questions. -- Law 25 Case 2 - I had difficulty understanding the middle top box. Okay, I see it. "what" should perhaps be "which," but the brain doesn't immediately see that the word refers to "call," not to the offender. Plainer would be -- Offender's LHO intended his call over which call of offender? -- Law 32 title should be "....Out of Rotation" -- Law 70 Claim is misspelled in the title. I don't have the time (or the expertise) to go over everything carefully. I admire your work very much. Marvin French From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 6 00:14:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 08:14:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn: >>One may safely say that in a game where the legal requirement >>is to expose at your turn exactly one card in playing to a >>trick, you are an "offender" if whether by accident or design >>you expose more than one card in playing to the trick. By the >>same token, whenever the legal requirement is to expose no >>cards (as during the auction, or when it is not your turn to >>play) you are an "offender" if whether by accident or design >>you expose any card at all. Grattan Endicott: [snip] > 3. There is no statement in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge > that is infracted by accidental exposure of a card or > cards. There has to be such a statement to make it an > infraction and therefore an offence. [snip] Horace (65 - 8 BCE): "Indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus." [I'm aggrieved when sometimes even excellent Homer nods.] Richard Hills: David Burn is correct. Homer Endicott is incorrect. Law 90A - Procedural Penalties - Director's Authority "The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any ***offence*** that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, ***violates correct procedure***, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 6 01:04:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:04:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB5F668.1050205@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and gentlemen. Richard Hills: Yes and no. I have often asserted that the most important Law in the Lawbook is Law 74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. But Law 74A2 does not preclude me from exercising my legal right to preempt, whether or not my preempting "annoys" an opponent. Likewise, bridge players are not expected to obey unwritten Laws. Nigel Guthrie: >Social sanctions are enough. Richard Hills: No, any social sanctions upon a player who "infracted" a non- existent unwritten Law are completely unethical. WBF Code of Practice, page 6, "Ethics": A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 6 02:04:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:04:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB60288.5060106@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Sir Humphrey Apppleby: "It is axiomatic in government that hornets' nests should be left unstirred, cans of worms should remain unopened, and cats should be left firmly in bags and not set among the pigeons. Ministers should also leave boats unrocked, nettles ungrasped, refrain from taking bulls by the horns, and resolutely turn their backs to the music." Grattan Endicott: [big snip of a can of worms] >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >so, it would be wrong to infer that someone who owns 2 or >more penalty cards is an offender. Richard Hills: So, it would be correct to infer that someone who owns two or more penalty cards is an offender. Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >very instructive, thank you. > >jpr Richard Hills: Not very instructive. As Grattan Endicott has often noted, unless he is quoting WBF Laws Committee minutes, Grattan's blml postings are merely his personal opinions with zero authority (other than his moral authority as the Homer of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge). Law 72B1 (with synonym "infract" replacing "infringe"): A player must not infract a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept. The 2009 WBF Laws Committee minutes officially deemed "infract" to be a synonym for "infringe". Since Law 72B1 specifically prohibits intentional infractions, then it logically follows that it is possible to commit an unintentional infraction (i.e. one can unintentionally violate correct procedure and thereby become an offending side). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 6 02:12:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:12:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >Trying to twist the laws to handle the situation is a common >strategy. But it is dysfunctional. Judge Rolfe, Winterbottom versus Wright (1842): "This is one of those unfortunate cases ..... in which, it is, no doubt, a hardship upon the plaintiff to be without a remedy but by that consideration we ought not to be influenced. Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 6 02:36:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:36:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9D58460B4C2A4F1C9C28AAC96C95CAA8@Mildred> Message-ID: LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED PRIOR TO PLAY PERIOD When the Director determines that during the Auction Period because of a player's own error one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the Auction Period ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non- offending side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), then: +=+ This treatment of an intended action ('player's own error') appears wholly consistent to me. ~ G ~ +=+ Grattan has misinterpreted "player's own error". If an opponent advises a player that it is time for her opening lead, and the player does face her opening lead, but the auction has not yet concluded, then that is not the "player's own error" and the Director shall not "require that ... such card be left face up on the table". If, however, the player exposing the card was wholly responsible for that exposure, then it matters not whether such exposure was intentional or unintentional. It is the "player's own error", resulting in her being the offending player, and her partnership being the offending side. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Tue Apr 6 02:51:26 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 01:51:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0CBF924ED4C84B9EA27544EE436FB7A0@Mildred> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be ><5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred><4BB5AF90.3080503@skynet.be> <4BB5E6E3.7070607@meteo.fr> <0CBF924ED4C84B9EA27544EE436FB7A0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001cad523$49940710$dcbc1530$@com> [JPR] how do you explain the word "offender" in L51A? [GE] Accurate when applying to the majority of cases where the penalty card exists because of a deliberate infraction by the player. Loose and inaccurate in the few cases where the penalty card exists because of an accidental occurrence. [DALB] I am sure that despite his ambiguous phrasing, by "deliberate infraction" Grattan is not referring to an infraction committed with intent to infract; the assumption is that no one ever does this, or if he does he is subject to the stern provision of Law 72B1. Rather, Grattan refers to a player who deliberately does something (such as playing a card he intends to play, or making a bid he intends to make) without having observed that this is illegal (it is not his turn to play, or the bid he makes is not sufficient). But to "offend" is simply to "do wrong"; it matters not whether one intended so to do, or knew whether what one did actually was wrong. It is wrong, and therefore an offence, to expose more than one card when playing to a trick, and anyone who does so is an offender whether they did it by accident or on purpose. Whereas in English the word "offend" has moral overtones that Grattan is anxious should not be applied to the permanently afflicted or the temporarily clumsy, and whereas I can well understand his anxiety that (in particular) someone suffering from a physical handicap should not be labelled an "offender" because that is in a wider context a pejorative term, I say simply what is true: that in the context of a game anyone who does not follow correct procedure commits an offence. It isn't a crime, it isn't an affront, it isn't anything that you need to tell the priest about when you go to confession, or that should prevent you from sleeping the sleep of the just. It's an offence, even when (or especially when) committed by a defender. David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 6 03:08:26 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 21:08:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] partnership understandings during play Message-ID: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> In the recent ACBL Bulletin, Pam Granovetter's advice is to always lead a singleton if you have one. (Against trump contracts) After listing other advantages, she ends with the advantage that your partner will know in the play of the hand that you don't have a hidden singleton. Legal? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 6 04:44:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:44:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Parsnip understandings during play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >In the recent ACBL Bulletin, Pam Granovetter's advice is >to always lead a singleton if you have one. (Against trump >contracts) Richard Hills: So if your only singleton happens to be a trump, then Pam's advice is to lead that?? :-) :-) Robert Frick: >After listing other advantages, she ends with the >advantage that your partner will know in the play of the >hand that you don't have a hidden singleton. > >Legal? Richard Hills: Legal if disclosed in advance. (In ABF-land my opinion is that that parsnip understanding to always lead a singleton should be written on the Pre-Alert section of the ABF System Card and also verbally Pre-Alerted.) But it is a silly agreement, which butters no parsnips for me. Why always lead a singleton when the correct opening lead is obviously a different card? In an ancient Bridge World Editorial, Edgar Kaplan noted that people who had silly over-specific agreements about carding -- but thereby occasionally benefited by drawing useful negative inferences -- were required to fully inform declarer about their silly over-specific agreements, thus permitting declarer to occasionally benefit by drawing useful negative inferences. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 6 05:28:23 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:28:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] An irregularity not an infraction. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cad523$49940710$dcbc1530$@com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>.....As for the player who drops a card accidentally when >>>pulling out the one he wishes to play, his clumsiness is >>>the equivalent of the palsy of the little old lady. Herman De Wael: >>Indeed. My point exactly. Yet no-one will claim that I am >>not an offender if I drop my cards out of any of my four >>left feet. >>..... >>I am all in favour of ruling "excusable" offence to people >>with handicaps, but you should not try and put words in >>the lawbook that are simply not there. Richard Hills No doubt blml will be unanimous in agreeing that the Director may exercise her Law 81C5 "discretion" to rule a little old lady's palsy as a Law 81C5 "cause" to "waive rectification" if (and only if) "upon the request of the non-offending side". But the Definitions state that -> Rectification - the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention. Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. Infraction - a player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. In order for rectification to be waived, there must be an offending side which can be given the waiver. QED. David Burn >..... >I say simply what is true: that in the context of a game >anyone who does not follow correct procedure commits an >offence. It isn't a crime, it isn't an affront, it isn't >anything that you need to tell the priest about when you go >to confession, or that should prevent you from sleeping the >sleep of the just. It's an offence, even when (or especially >when) committed by a defender. Richard Hills: I agree with Herman De Wael and David Burn, and I disagree with Grattan Endicott. I am curious about Kojak's opinion. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 6 07:33:36 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:33:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] partnership understandings during play In-Reply-To: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: On 6 April 2010 03:08, wrote: > In the recent ACBL Bulletin, Pam Granovetter's advice is to always lead a > singleton if you have one. (Against trump contracts) After listing other > advantages, she ends with the advantage that your partner will know in the > play of the hand that you don't have a hidden singleton. > > Legal? Of course it is legal. But if you always do, you have to declare it. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 6 08:42:09 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 22:42:09 -0800 Subject: [BLML] partnership understandings during play References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <7F63D4C8E58C4CF289CA3B0BC0A530B1@MARVLAPTOP> Mr Frick wrote: > In the recent ACBL Bulletin, Pam Granovetter's advice is to always > lead a > singleton if you have one. (Against trump contracts) After listing > other > advantages, she ends with the advantage that your partner will > know in the > play of the hand that you don't have a hidden singleton. >Legal? Of course, but opponents should be told that before start of play. Terrible advice. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 6 12:35:54 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:35:54 -0300 Subject: [BLML] partnership understandings during play In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 02:33:36 -0300, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 6 April 2010 03:08, wrote: >> In the recent ACBL Bulletin, Pam Granovetter's advice is to always lead >> a >> singleton if you have one. (Against trump contracts) After listing other >> advantages, she ends with the advantage that your partner will know in >> the >> play of the hand that you don't have a hidden singleton. >> >> Legal? > > Of course it is legal. > But if you always do, you have to declare it. There is no place on the ACBL convention card to declare this. That not only makes it difficult to declare, it suggests that it need not be declared. Did Pam Granovetter think it was so so obvious that this should be on the convention card that she didn't think it worth her time to mention? I had to make a ruling yesterday that involved on the likely location of the king of clubs. The deciding factor turned out to be that opponents do not lead away from honors. This was well-known to a player at the club, but not to me. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Apr 6 14:45:02 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:45:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 6 14:54:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 08:54:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] partnership understandings during play In-Reply-To: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <3D8AD9FE-6224-446D-9E41-1C1E15A293CA@starpower.net> On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:08 PM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > In the recent ACBL Bulletin, Pam Granovetter's advice is to always > lead a > singleton if you have one. (Against trump contracts) After listing > other > advantages, she ends with the advantage that your partner will know > in the > play of the hand that you don't have a hidden singleton. > > Legal? What would it mean if it weren't? Pam believes that it's right to always lead a singleton if you have one. That's legal. So Pam in fact always, or almost always, leads a singleton when she has one. That's legal. And Matthew -- or anyone who Pam plays with regularly -- eventually notices that she does this. That's inevitable, and you can't outlaw something that a player cannot avoid doing. We have discussed this (implicit agreements that are unavoidable but still may be technically illegal) before, and concluded that it exposes is a fundamental flaw in the concept of "implicit agreement". Pam's advice, however, does present us with the question as to what her partner's obligations are with respect to disclosure of their implicit agreement about leading singletons. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 6 14:55:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:55:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <4BBB2F49.7050208@ulb.ac.be> olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > Hello, > > We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team > trial for Oostende in june, > was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, > > Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, > one board was fouled : N & S switched, > so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, > one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, > 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence > makes, > > the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, > but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score > because of the error? > > so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... > > Do you have a procedure in > a) international events > b) nationale events > > and do you : > c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment > d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's > available) > e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the > defensive error" (6 imp's available) > f) anything else > > AG : I think no local regulation is needed. c) is the obvious answer : the fouled board doesn't conform to the way bridge is payred, so it is deemed never to have existed. Whetehr to play ne more board, however, is subject to regulations. Most organizing bodies don't use a replacement board when there is only one, if the result apart from this board is known. d) is only used when one side fouled the board after getting a bad result on the board (just to avoid making it too easy to cancel a bad result). The fact that one player misplayed the non-existent board has as much importance as the fact that he lost at poker last evening. Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 6 14:56:10 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:56:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: On 6 April 2010 14:45, olivier.beauvillain wrote: > Hello, > > We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team > trial for Oostende in june, > was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, > > Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, > one board was fouled : N & S switched, > so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, > one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, > 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence > makes, > > the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, > but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score > because of the error? > > so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... > > Do you have a procedure in > a) international events > b) nationale events > > and do you : > c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment We cancel the board and give each team average+ = +3 IMPs. And score the board in question individually for the two teams. This might lead to one team winning 73-60 and the other team losing 63-70. In a VP match, this normally leads to more than 30 VPs in the match. In a KO match we "average" the result on the board, which means 0 IMPs. > d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's > available) No, never. No team is at fault, as you've described the case. > e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the > defensive error" (6 imp's available) No, same as above. You can't score two different boards against each other. > f) anything else > > g) do you have a regulation??? Yes. > > h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the > same way? Yes, two different boards = no comparision. > > To help : > L87A > L82B1 & L84D > L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A > ... and others! > > Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, > Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From henk at ripe.net Tue Apr 6 15:09:57 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:09:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <4BBB32A5.3080508@ripe.net> On 06/04/2010 14:45, olivier.beauvillain wrote: > Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, > one board was fouled : N& S switched, > so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, > one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, > 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence > makes, > and do you : > c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment The way we do this here is that both tables have a stack of boards and play them. Thus, the switch is the organizers fault and all one can do, is to toss out the board (or rather, score it as +3 for both sides, then average, which is the same). I think we only play an extra board in the next set if the number of boards would otherwise drop below the minimum required (and there is actually a next set). Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From schoderb at msn.com Tue Apr 6 15:42:06 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:42:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Happened to me years ago in a very close match in United States team Trials for the Bermuda Bowl. Fortunately there was a segment remaining in the match and it was possible to save the match as a 96 board total comparison. I did the following: Canceled the board. The foul was done by the players who pulled out the hands because of a question in their minds and then returned them to the wrong pockets. I added another board (same board number) to the beginning of the next segment with THE SAME PLAYERS IN THE SAME SEATS (perhaps enough penalty when they were not scheduled to be in those positions for any future segments of the match - causing much pain in meals, off-time, etc.) Since the 'fouling' team lost points on the replay they appealed. the Appeal Committee questioned the appealing side's sanity and would have issued a penalty for an "appeal without merit" penalty were it not so rediculous and involved a highly placed ACBL player and official. My justification was simple. They were to play a 96 board match - not a 95 board one - and it was possible to do that without violating the Conditions of Contest, or any Laws. See Laws 6 and 86C. If the foul had been determined at the end of the match, no substitution would have been possible since it then may become what amounts to a single board match knowing the standing before play begins. Question -- were the boards passed from room to room, or did each table have it's own separate 'set'? I can't imagine how the dealing machine would do what you say without also having the East/West hands switched. I have never heard of this kind of anomaly - crazy deals, machine malfunctions, etc. -- yes --- but a complete switching of two paris of hands in a single board - not in my experience. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:45 AM Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100406/22487736/attachment-0001.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Apr 6 17:05:56 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:05:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <001f01cad59a$af553fc0$0dffbf40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: The most important law might be 86D, which not only applies when the offending gets a bad result as I read in one of the replies. Was there an offending side? And if so, did that side foul the board? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens olivier.beauvillain Verzonden: dinsdag 6 april 2010 14:45 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 6 17:15:30 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:15:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: I notice the absence of PP's. I think it unlikely that the fouling would occur without players touching cards that did not belong to their hands. in a matchpointed event, is not the PP for fouling a duplication on the order of 1 Board; so for a KO, should not the magnitude be similar? As for the consequences of requiring the the foursome to sit for the replay match as opposed to allowing the captain to seat the players, while factors such as fatigue and nourishment make have an effect, the other side might view it otherwise if the weakest link doesn't play because of it- and particularly so for the team not at fault if their weak link was forced into extra innings. And what of the issues created should one or more of the players thereby not be able to qualify due not not playing [note the leveraged effect of the 15 board segment and the 17 board segment] enough boards? With regard to the appeal that 'was without merit on its face' I would have thought that it must be heard prior to proceeding further with the match. And because of the frivolous reason I am surprised that some PP would not arise from a breach of L74. As a personal curiosity I would wonder if the outcome to the canceled play was appeared particularly favorable to a side [as in what was the issue that needed to be settled by pulling the cards from the board]. regards roger pewick From: WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 08:42 To: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Happened to me years ago in a very close match in United States team Trials for the Bermuda Bowl. Fortunately there was a segment remaining in the match and it was possible to save the match as a 96 board total comparison. I did the following: Canceled the board. The foul was done by the players who pulled out the hands because of a question in their minds and then returned them to the wrong pockets. I added another board (same board number) to the beginning of the next segment with THE SAME PLAYERS IN THE SAME SEATS (perhaps enough penalty when they were not scheduled to be in those positions for any future segments of the match - causing much pain in meals, off-time, etc.) Since the 'fouling' team lost points on the replay they appealed. the Appeal Committee questioned the appealing side's sanity and would have issued a penalty for an "appeal without merit" penalty were it not so rediculous and involved a highly placed ACBL player and official. My justification was simple. They were to play a 96 board match - not a 95 board one - and it was possible to do that without violating the Conditions of Contest, or any Laws. See Laws 6 and 86C. If the foul had been determined at the end of the match, no substitution would have been possible since it then may become what amounts to a single board match knowing the standing before play begins. Question -- were the boards passed from room to room, or did each table have it's own separate 'set'? I can't imagine how the dealing machine would do what you say without also having the East/West hands switched. I have never heard of this kind of anomaly - crazy deals, machine malfunctions, etc. -- yes --- but a complete switching of two paris of hands in a single board - not in my experience. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:45 AM Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100406/d2f80bcc/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 6 19:27:49 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:27:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Weighted score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <591F1082286C4449A9BA85441B57BE6A@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote, defending the White Paper's instructions for adjusting the score: > > WBF Code of Practice (too unworthy to be adopted by the ACBL) > > "Law 12C1(c) operates unless the Regulating Authority elects > otherwise. Topsy turvy. It may operate "unless the RA forbids it." Yes, changing a long-time tradition that offenders should get little benefit of doubt in a score adjustment. With no expert consultant on hand, the juggling of probabilities is beyond the ability of our TDs, who are not expected to make bridge judgments. L12C1(c) was originally (1997 Laws) meant for ACs only, people who are supposed to have good bridge judgment. Then the law was dodged by some quirky legal shenanigans that gave WBF TDs that power, now blessed by the 2007 Laws. I can buy that if the Regulating Authority allows it, perhaps in high-level competitions, but to make it mandatory is crazy and probably illegal. L12C1(c) says the RA can forbid weighted score adjustments, not that it can require them. I had better quote it: (c) In order to do equity and unless the RA forbids it, an assigned score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results. > It applies in WBF tournaments. (The Regulating > Authority may elect to apply all or part of Law 12C1(e) to > replace all or part of Law 12C1(c).) No basis for that in L12C1(c), which is an alternative to L12C1(e), not a replacement. > The purpose of this law is > to enable the Director and an appeal committee to form a view > as to what is an equitable outcome in the score, and to > implement that outcome. It makes the appeal committee the final > arbiter of equity." True, but implying that an AC should be part of the process. > > Introduction, first paragraph (also too unworthy): (snipped, not very pertinent) > > Law 12B1, first sentence (even more unworthy): > > "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a > non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an > offending side through its infraction." So I suppose the 2017 Laws will do away with automatic revoke penalties, substituting some language acceptable to the equity enthusiasts. "Redress damage" and "take away any advantage" does not mean to barely redress or barely take away any advantage. That non-offenders get much benefit of doubt and offenders get little is part of the 100-year traditions of this wonderful game. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Apr 6 18:52:18 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:52:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match Message-ID: there were two sets of boards, one was "good" one was badly stickered, so rotated 180? Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: WILLIAM SCHODER To: blml Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Happened to me years ago in a very close match in United States team Trials for the Bermuda Bowl. Fortunately there was a segment remaining in the match and it was possible to save the match as a 96 board total comparison. I did the following: Canceled the board. The foul was done by the players who pulled out the hands because of a question in their minds and then returned them to the wrong pockets. I added another board (same board number) to the beginning of the next segment with THE SAME PLAYERS IN THE SAME SEATS (perhaps enough penalty when they were not scheduled to be in those positions for any future segments of the match - causing much pain in meals, off-time, etc.) Since the 'fouling' team lost points on the replay they appealed. the Appeal Committee questioned the appealing side's sanity and would have issued a penalty for an "appeal without merit" penalty were it not so rediculous and involved a highly placed ACBL player and official. My justification was simple. They were to play a 96 board match - not a 95 board one - and it was possible to do that without violating the Conditions of Contest, or any Laws. See Laws 6 and 86C. If the foul had been determined at the end of the match, no substitution would have been possible since it then may become what amounts to a single board match knowing the standing before play begins. Question -- were the boards passed from room to room, or did each table have it's own separate 'set'? I can't imagine how the dealing machine would do what you say without also having the East/West hands switched. I have never heard of this kind of anomaly - crazy deals, machine malfunctions, etc. -- yes --- but a complete switching of two paris of hands in a single board - not in my experience. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:45 AM Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a iti virifii par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100406/ca69e1e8/attachment-0001.html From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Apr 6 18:54:03 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:54:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <001f01cad59a$af553fc0$0dffbf40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <001f01cad59a$af553fc0$0dffbf40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <981ACFC9276246D7A74895600FA0915A@PCdeOlivier> thx no offending side, offending FFB! the board was fouled before and unnoticed with bad stickers "North", "South" ... Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match ton: The most important law might be 86D, which not only applies when the offending gets a bad result as I read in one of the replies. Was there an offending side? And if so, did that side foul the board? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens olivier.beauvillain Verzonden: dinsdag 6 april 2010 14:45 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Apr 6 19:04:49 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:04:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Fouled_board_in_knock-out_match?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1NzCCn-1xkXYW0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Hello Olivier, I think Maurizio taught us c) in San Remo (unfortunately the files of the lectures are still not available on the EBL site 3 months after the event ...) Law 87 B requires the TD to find a "sensible" (this word is not part of the law) solution. If he cancels the comparison of the board (which is sensible), he awards adjusted scores. Normally +3 / +3 which are artificial adjusted scores. Now Law 86 D says: "In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score [...], and a result has been obtained between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side)." 3 hearts making while 5 diamonds down one is not considered something very unusual, so in that (non-existent) case +3 / +3 making +/- 0 would be sensible. But here at one table 5 diamonds was let through and that team was expected to earn a lot of IMPs and the other team could heardly do anything against that. So, cancelling the board looks unfair. Maurizio told us to award an assigned adjusted score at the other table on the basis of the cards that were at the "5D-table", resulting in some swing in favour of the team that received 5 diamonds as a gift. Peter From: "olivier.beauvillain" > We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french > open team trial for Oostende in june, > was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, > > Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, > one board was fouled : N & S switched, > so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, > one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents > auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error > in defence makes, > > the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, > but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted > score because of the error? > > so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... > > Do you have a procedure in > a) international events > b) nationale events > > and do you : > c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment > d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's > available) > e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not > "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) > f) anything else > > g) do you have a regulation??? > > h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig > the same way? > > To help : > L87A > L82B1 & L84D > L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A > ... and others! > > Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, > Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 6 20:14:59 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:14:59 -0800 Subject: [BLML] partnership understandings during play References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <01EC3FCB98194FB8BC54B18D795168BE@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Frick" < > On 6 April 2010 03:08, wrote: >> In the recent ACBL Bulletin, Pam Granovetter's advice is to >> always lead >> a >> singleton if you have one. (Against trump contracts) After >> listing other >> advantages, she ends with the advantage that your partner will >> know in >> the >> play of the hand that you don't have a hidden singleton. >> >> Legal? > > Of course it is legal. > But if you always do, you have to declare it. [Robert] There is no place on the ACBL convention card to declare this. That not only makes it difficult to declare, it suggests that it need not be declared. [Marv] There is no place on the convention card for many partnership agreements that should be disclosed before hands are taken from the first board. ACBL regulation in its Alert Procedure: Pre-Alerts - Pre-Alerts are given before the auction period on the first board of a round. [They] are designed to act as an early warning of any unusual methods for which the opponents need to prepare. While this is probably not meant for unusual card-playing agreements, such agreements can indeed be shown on the CC even when there is no specific box for them. There is a blank line under "Length Leads" on which "Singleton leads a must vs suit contracts" can be written in. Ethical players will call attention to that beforehand, even if not required to do so. [Frobert] Did Pam Granovetter think it was so so obvious that this should be on the convention card that she didn't think it worth her time to mention? [Marv] sure, it should be on the convention card - written in on the space provided! [Robert] I had to make a ruling yesterday that involved on the likely location of the king of clubs. The deciding factor turned out to be that opponents do not lead away from honors. This was well-known to a player at the club, but not to me. [Marv] I wonder what they do with honors in every suit. This is a matter of style, I believe, such as never opening 1NT with a five-card major. The ACBL does not require pre-disclosure of style, but opponents can ask questions about style, which characterize proclivities that are not highly unusual.. Always leading a singleton is more than mere style in my opinion, because it is so unusual. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From schoderb at msn.com Tue Apr 6 20:26:00 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:26:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Therefore there was no player responsible for the foul. Why would anyone even attempt to conjure up a score for a matchplay event on a board which was not 'played in the exact form in both plays?' In VP sessions where all other teams play the same boards in their individual matches there is some slight justification to assign a score, but intejecting pairs IMP events, etc., into head-to-head match play scoring is ludicrous to me. Conditions of Contest are the place to provide for what to do - play one board less in this match, or play a replay board if it does not violate Law 86 C. I strongly oppose having TDs make up scores -- these almost always come back to bite you one way or another. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Laws Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 12:52 PM Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match there were two sets of boards, one was "good" one was badly stickered, so rotated 180? Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: WILLIAM SCHODER To: blml Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Happened to me years ago in a very close match in United States team Trials for the Bermuda Bowl. Fortunately there was a segment remaining in the match and it was possible to save the match as a 96 board total comparison. I did the following: Canceled the board. The foul was done by the players who pulled out the hands because of a question in their minds and then returned them to the wrong pockets. I added another board (same board number) to the beginning of the next segment with THE SAME PLAYERS IN THE SAME SEATS (perhaps enough penalty when they were not scheduled to be in those positions for any future segments of the match - causing much pain in meals, off-time, etc.) Since the 'fouling' team lost points on the replay they appealed. the Appeal Committee questioned the appealing side's sanity and would have issued a penalty for an "appeal without merit" penalty were it not so rediculous and involved a highly placed ACBL player and official. My justification was simple. They were to play a 96 board match - not a 95 board one - and it was possible to do that without violating the Conditions of Contest, or any Laws. See Laws 6 and 86C. If the foul had been determined at the end of the match, no substitution would have been possible since it then may become what amounts to a single board match knowing the standing before play begins. Question -- were the boards passed from room to room, or did each table have it's own separate 'set'? I can't imagine how the dealing machine would do what you say without also having the East/West hands switched. I have never heard of this kind of anomaly - crazy deals, machine malfunctions, etc. -- yes --- but a complete switching of two paris of hands in a single board - not in my experience. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:45 AM Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a iti virifii par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100406/200baa5b/attachment-0001.html From schoderb at msn.com Tue Apr 6 20:39:41 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:39:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: In fact the fouling occurred in my case because the empty board had been removed from the center of the table and when the hand was over the board was replaced in the center in the wrong direction. This makes the foul more than 'unlikely' with the players not having touched anyone else's cards. Since both teams placed their cards back into the board in the wrong pockets who would Mr. Pewick want me to give a PP to? I do not agree with his discussion on the poor players, and inconveniences that may be caused by the fouling, etc. when it is possible to get a result from the pairs that should have been playing that board. I feel it a big stretch of the imagination that players would not approve a plan to nulify the irregularity. The problems created when different players play the board, and there is a swing result that affects the match, etc. is asking for trouble that cannot be solved. I would caution Mr. Pewick to think that through. He seems to prefer presenting the event with a perhaps damaged result, instead of exactly what was by definition a non-play. I abhor transferring methods from one type of play to another by some conjuring of "similar.". A one board penalty for fouling a board in a pairs game makes sense. Just what exactly a 'one board penalty' would be in ahead-to-head team match escapes my ken. And, yes, it means that the TD has to do more than call the rounds, announce time remaining, and collect the results when he applies common sense to a problem which the laws provide for. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match I notice the absence of PP's. I think it unlikely that the fouling would occur without players touching cards that did not belong to their hands. in a matchpointed event, is not the PP for fouling a duplication on the order of 1 Board; so for a KO, should not the magnitude be similar? As for the consequences of requiring the the foursome to sit for the replay match as opposed to allowing the captain to seat the players, while factors such as fatigue and nourishment make have an effect, the other side might view it otherwise if the weakest link doesn't play because of it- and particularly so for the team not at fault if their weak link was forced into extra innings. And what of the issues created should one or more of the players thereby not be able to qualify due not not playing [note the leveraged effect of the 15 board segment and the 17 board segment] enough boards? With regard to the appeal that 'was without merit on its face' I would have thought that it must be heard prior to proceeding further with the match. And because of the frivolous reason I am surprised that some PP would not arise from a breach of L74. As a personal curiosity I would wonder if the outcome to the canceled play was appeared particularly favorable to a side [as in what was the issue that needed to be settled by pulling the cards from the board]. regards roger pewick From: WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 08:42 To: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Happened to me years ago in a very close match in United States team Trials for the Bermuda Bowl. Fortunately there was a segment remaining in the match and it was possible to save the match as a 96 board total comparison. I did the following: Canceled the board. The foul was done by the players who pulled out the hands because of a question in their minds and then returned them to the wrong pockets. I added another board (same board number) to the beginning of the next segment with THE SAME PLAYERS IN THE SAME SEATS (perhaps enough penalty when they were not scheduled to be in those positions for any future segments of the match - causing much pain in meals, off-time, etc.) Since the 'fouling' team lost points on the replay they appealed. the Appeal Committee questioned the appealing side's sanity and would have issued a penalty for an "appeal without merit" penalty were it not so rediculous and involved a highly placed ACBL player and official. My justification was simple. They were to play a 96 board match - not a 95 board one - and it was possible to do that without violating the Conditions of Contest, or any Laws. See Laws 6 and 86C. If the foul had been determined at the end of the match, no substitution would have been possible since it then may become what amounts to a single board match knowing the standing before play begins. Question -- were the boards passed from room to room, or did each table have it's own separate 'set'? I can't imagine how the dealing machine would do what you say without also having the East/West hands switched. I have never heard of this kind of anomaly - crazy deals, machine malfunctions, etc. -- yes --- but a complete switching of two paris of hands in a single board - not in my experience. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:45 AM Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ 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/20100406/a54824c0/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 6 22:29:55 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:29:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: You presented as fact that the offending side appealed. You presented as fact that AFTER the hand was played cards were removed from the board. And now you present contradictory facts that both sides infracted but don't deserve PP? It seems to me that such a balancing PP should carry over to the next match. Presumably the CoC provides for overriding the teams' choice of who to seat for the last segment or you would not have done so. But it also seems to me that the correct board was in actuality played by correct players and a different board played at the other table. iow, 96 boards were played that resulted in 95 comparisons. I am wondering if it also is a satisfactory remedy to not substitute a board once a correct board has been played and only the players have touched it. I don't know why you are blaming me for putting a bee in your bonnet when it was you that put it there. It is most unbecoming. regards roger pewick From: WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 13:39 To: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In fact the fouling occurred in my case because the empty board had been removed from the center of the table and when the hand was over the board was replaced in the center in the wrong direction. This makes the foul more than 'unlikely' with the players not having touched anyone else's cards. Since both teams placed their cards back into the board in the wrong pockets who would Mr. Pewick want me to give a PP to? I do not agree with his discussion on the poor players, and inconveniences that may be caused by the fouling, etc. when it is possible to get a result from the pairs that should have been playing that board. I feel it a big stretch of the imagination that players would not approve a plan to nulify the irregularity. The problems created when different players play the board, and there is a swing result that affects the match, etc. is asking for trouble that cannot be solved. I would caution Mr. Pewick to think that through. He seems to prefer presenting the event with a perhaps damaged result, instead of exactly what was by definition a non-play. I abhor transferring methods from one type of play to another by some conjuring of "similar.". A one board penalty for fouling a board in a pairs game makes sense. Just what exactly a 'one board penalty' would be in ahead-to-head team match escapes my ken. And, yes, it means that the TD has to do more than call the rounds, announce time remaining, and collect the results when he applies common sense to a problem which the laws provide for. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match I notice the absence of PP's. I think it unlikely that the fouling would occur without players touching cards that did not belong to their hands. in a matchpointed event, is not the PP for fouling a duplication on the order of 1 Board; so for a KO, should not the magnitude be similar? As for the consequences of requiring the the foursome to sit for the replay match as opposed to allowing the captain to seat the players, while factors such as fatigue and nourishment make have an effect, the other side might view it otherwise if the weakest link doesn't play because of it- and particularly so for the team not at fault if their weak link was forced into extra innings. And what of the issues created should one or more of the players thereby not be able to qualify due not not playing [note the leveraged effect of the 15 board segment and the 17 board segment] enough boards? With regard to the appeal that 'was without merit on its face' I would have thought that it must be heard prior to proceeding further with the match. And because of the frivolous reason I am surprised that some PP would not arise from a breach of L74. As a personal curiosity I would wonder if the outcome to the canceled play was appeared particularly favorable to a side [as in what was the issue that needed to be settled by pulling the cards from the board]. regards roger pewick From: WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 08:42 To: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Happened to me years ago in a very close match in United States team Trials for the Bermuda Bowl. Fortunately there was a segment remaining in the match and it was possible to save the match as a 96 board total comparison. I did the following: Canceled the board. The foul was done by the players who pulled out the hands because of a question in their minds and then returned them to the wrong pockets. I added another board (same board number) to the beginning of the next segment with THE SAME PLAYERS IN THE SAME SEATS (perhaps enough penalty when they were not scheduled to be in those positions for any future segments of the match - causing much pain in meals, off-time, etc.) Since the 'fouling' team lost points on the replay they appealed. the Appeal Committee questioned the appealing side's sanity and would have issued a penalty for an "appeal without merit" penalty were it not so rediculous and involved a highly placed ACBL player and official. My justification was simple. They were to play a 96 board match - not a 95 board one - and it was possible to do that without violating the Conditions of Contest, or any Laws. See Laws 6 and 86C. If the foul had been determined at the end of the match, no substitution would have been possible since it then may become what amounts to a single board match knowing the standing before play begins. Question -- were the boards passed from room to room, or did each table have it's own separate 'set'? I can't imagine how the dealing machine would do what you say without also having the East/West hands switched. I have never heard of this kind of anomaly - crazy deals, machine malfunctions, etc. -- yes --- but a complete switching of two paris of hands in a single board - not in my experience. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:45 AM Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100406/17473b3d/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 6 22:34:41 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 22:34:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002601cad5c8$95d4fee0$c17efca0$@no> Are you saying that the North and South stickers had been swapped on the fouled board while the East and West stickers had not? (And nobody wondered why they had to stretch across the board to get to their own cards!?!) Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain Sent: 6. april 2010 18:52 To: Laws Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match there were two sets of boards, one was "good" one was badly stickered, so rotated 180? Olivier Beauvillain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100406/3afd9c93/attachment.html From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Apr 6 23:23:10 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:23:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <002601cad5c8$95d4fee0$c17efca0$@no> References: <002601cad5c8$95d4fee0$c17efca0$@no> Message-ID: <7F2BBA04C51340CC9F76BA029378375F@PCdeOlivier> no North was South side, no stocker in EW but everybody took cards of partner in one room, so dealer was the wrong one and bidding was different : 1H p 1NT p 3H p p p vs ... ... p 1C 1H 1S 2D etc to 5D Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: Sven Pran To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match Are you saying that the North and South stickers had been swapped on the fouled board while the East and West stickers had not? (And nobody wondered why they had to stretch across the board to get to their own cards!?!) Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain Sent: 6. april 2010 18:52 To: Laws Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match there were two sets of boards, one was "good" one was badly stickered, so rotated 180? Olivier Beauvillain __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a iti virifii par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100406/4bee8ad5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 6 23:32:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 07:32:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Parsnip understandings during play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >There is no place on the ACBL convention card to declare this. Richard Hills: The current ACBL System Card butters no parsnips for me. Page 3 (inside) of the ABF System Card has a section labelled "Other Notes". Page 4 (outside) of the ABF System Card has a section labelled "Other Conventions". And Page 1 (front of the card) has a section labelled "Pre- Alerts". In my bumptious great-great-grandson-of-convicts opinion, it is way past time that the ACBL revised its System Card from two pages to four pages, abandoning its traditional but foolish policy of combining the ACBL System Card with a score card. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 6 23:44:09 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:44:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <7F2BBA04C51340CC9F76BA029378375F@PCdeOlivier> References: <002601cad5c8$95d4fee0$c17efca0$@no> <7F2BBA04C51340CC9F76BA029378375F@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <003d01cad5d2$4a4450c0$deccf240$@no> Very well. As others have already stated: The two boards were not played in identical form so no comparison was possible and the deal must be cancelled. Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain Sent: 6. april 2010 23:23 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match no North was South side, no stocker in EW but everybody took cards of partner in one room, so dealer was the wrong one and bidding was different : 1H p 1NT p 3H p p p vs ... ... p 1C 1H 1S 2D etc to 5D Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: Sven Pran To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match Are you saying that the North and South stickers had been swapped on the fouled board while the East and West stickers had not? (And nobody wondered why they had to stretch across the board to get to their own cards!?!) Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain Sent: 6. april 2010 18:52 To: Laws Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match there were two sets of boards, one was "good" one was badly stickered, so rotated 180? Olivier Beauvillain __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _____ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a iti virifii par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100406/e2f638ae/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 7 00:12:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:12:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Chief Justice Melville Fuller, Caldwell versus Texas (1891): ".....no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." William ("Kojak") Schoder: >.....the Appeal Committee questioned the appealing side's >sanity and would have issued a penalty for an "appeal without >merit" penalty were it not so ridiculous and involved a highly >placed ACBL player and official..... Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 7 01:27:23 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:27:23 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Parsnip understandings during play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <7D65538F664D4756B6483221D1F82DC4@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > In my bumptious great-great-grandson-of-convicts opinion, it is > way past time that the ACBL revised its System Card from two > pages to four pages, abandoning its traditional but foolish > policy of combining the ACBL System Card with a score card. > Yes indeed. Offensive stuff on one side, defensive stuff on the other. Just turn the appropriate side up during the auction and play. The ACBL already has special score cards for Swiss and KO play, so it would be nothing new to come out with one for matchpoint pairs, printed on both sides so that one card can be used for two sessions. I have rarely seen a player use both sides of the current CC. They use one side as a permanent record of partnership agreements and the other side, disposable, for scoring only. Some of the current sections are much too small. The NOTRUMP OVERCALLS section must cover both direct and balancing 1NT overcalls, plus unusual notrump overcalls. There just isn't enough room. The NOTRUMP OPENING BIDS section is overcrowded. My convention card is patterned after the ACBL CC, but has plenty of room for everything I play. I accomplished this by downloading the .bmp file, putting it into Paint, and erasing all the inapplicable garbage, retaining (but often moving) the lines and the section titles. For some reason the ACBL has removed that .bmp file from its web site. Perhaps they feared it would hurt sales of the printed convention card. There are many software programs available to fill out a facsimile of the ACBL CC, but they are difficult to read, with their small type and crowded spaces. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 7 03:59:13 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:59:13 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <77B0B2FF284A4D318C6904280E75B564@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > > Chief Justice Melville Fuller, Caldwell versus Texas (1891): > > ".....no State can deprive particular persons or classes of > persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge treats players unequally, depending on their presumed expertise. Law 12C1(b), Law 70, and Law 71. In the absence of a "player analyzer," I do not see how a TD or AC can judge the expertise of a huge group of players from all over the world, such as play in an NABC. The only fair approach is to imagine a virtual player with capabilities typical of the contestants in an event and treat everyone as equal to that player. Then you would not have different rulings for different players. Of course if a player reveals his expertise, or lack of it, during the auction or play of the deal in question, then he/she can be treated differently. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 7 04:29:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:29:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder: >>.....the Appeal Committee questioned the appealing side's >>sanity and would have issued a penalty for an "appeal >>without merit" penalty were it not so ridiculous and >>involved a highly placed ACBL player and official..... Chief Justice Melville Fuller, Caldwell versus Texas (1891): ".....no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." Marvin French: >The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge treats players unequally, >depending on their presumed expertise. > >Law 12C1(b), Law 70, and Law 71. >..... >The only fair approach is to imagine a virtual player with >capabilities typical of the contestants in an event and >treat everyone as equal to that player. Then you would not >have different rulings for different players..... Kurt Vonnegut, "Harrison Bergeron" "Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains....." Richard Hills: It is fallacious to argue that equal justice must imply uniformity of outcomes when circumstances differ. Mrs Guggenheim plays double squeezes less effectively than Bobby Wolff. However, Bobby Wolff makes more Law 12C1(b) "serious errors" than Mrs Guggenheim, since for Mrs Guggenheim's class of player there are zero legal calls and plays which can be defined as a Law 12C1(b) serious error. Therefore, if I was the Chair of an ACBL Appeals Committee, I would be more likely to vote for an Appeal Without Merit Warning to be imposed upon a Highly Placed ACBL Player and Official than to be imposed upon Mrs Guggenheim, because the HPACBLP&O should have known better than to appeal, while Mrs Guggenheim was much more likely to be blissfully unaware of the meritless nature of her appeal. What does lack equal justice is an ACBL Appeals Committee having "stars in their eyes"; giving a more lenient ruling to the HPACBLP&O merely because that HPACBLP&O once held the office of WBF President. Compare and contrast with this similar WBF Appeals Committee decision about a Well Known Personality and Official -> The Facts: One of the players of this match was 3 minutes late to arrive at the table. The Director: Applied the penalty, prescribed in the regulations. Ruling: 1VP Penalty The Player appealed. The Player: Is a well known personality who had been in an official meeting prior to the match. He suggested it was unfair to his team to punish them for his engagements. He commented he always plays fast enough and in fact ended the match with almost half an hour to spare. The Committee: Noted that the regulations contain automatic penalties for some good reasons. The Committee did not accept the excuse for being late and did not think that the case should have been brought to the Committee. The Committee's decision: Director?s decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Regulation B.2.1 Deposit: Forfeited WBF Comment: The player, or his captain, seems to have acted with little foresight. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 7 10:59:13 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:59:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <981ACFC9276246D7A74895600FA0915A@PCdeOlivier> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <001f01cad59a$af553fc0$0dffbf40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <981ACFC9276246D7A74895600FA0915A@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <004501cad630$99265180$cb72f480$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: In that case L86D tells that the TD has the authority to award an assigned adjusted score taking into account the result at 'the right table'. I don't understand reactions telling that he shouldn't do so, the law clearly gives him that possibility. The question is what score to give? If the 'right' result is very favorable to one side 50% of the imps comparing with the par? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens olivier.beauvillain Verzonden: dinsdag 6 april 2010 18:54 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match thx no offending side, offending FFB! the board was fouled before and unnoticed with bad stickers "North", "South" ... Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match ton: The most important law might be 86D, which not only applies when the offending gets a bad result as I read in one of the replies. Was there an offending side? And if so, did that side foul the board? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens olivier.beauvillain Verzonden: dinsdag 6 april 2010 14:45 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Apr 7 11:34:48 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:34:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <001f01cad59a$af553fc0$0dffbf40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><981ACFC9276246D7A74895600FA0915A@PCdeOlivier> <004501cad630$99265180$cb72f480$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <5690B1740FEF4D288D1F77A339CA9407@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match >ton: >In that case L86D tells that the TD has the authority to award an assigned >adjusted score taking into account the result at 'the right table'. I don't >understand reactions telling that he shouldn't do so, the law clearly gives >him that possibility. No, it doesn't. It would, the way I read it, if the same deal were played on both tables. But look at L87B. Here two _different_ deals have been played on both tables. L87B specifically tells us to consider both tables as separate groups for which two separate scores need to be computed. So if this were a MP tournament (which is the same as BAM for two tables) then both results at both tables would stand (per L87B) and would be matchpointed proportionally. In this case every group consists only of one table which means players both groups would get 50%. If this were an IMP tournament both groups would get 0 IMPs (only one table in one group). Following the same logic in a knock-out match it would make sense to assign 0 IMPs for both teams. So I cannot really see how the TD can assign other score than 0 IMPs. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kup wlasne mieszkanie za 72 tys. zl. Sprawdz najlepsze oferty >>> http://link.interia.pl/f265e From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 7 11:49:48 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:49:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott <77B0B2FF284A4D318C6904280E75B564@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <1505DE3B5B2E4086B64F68344A33037F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Equal justice under law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills wrote: > >> >> Chief Justice Melville Fuller, Caldwell versus Texas (1891): >> >> ".....no State can deprive particular persons or classes of >> persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." > > The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge treats players unequally, > depending on their presumed expertise. > > Law 12C1(b), Law 70, and Law 71. > > In the absence of a "player analyzer," I do not see how a TD or AC > can judge the expertise of a huge group of players from all over the > world, such as play in an NABC. The only fair approach is to imagine > a virtual player with capabilities typical of the contestants in an > event and treat everyone as equal to that player. Then you would not > have different rulings for different players. > +=+ The Justices of Supreme Courts do not hesitate to make such judgements when the law demands it. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 7 15:12:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:12:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law In-Reply-To: <1505DE3B5B2E4086B64F68344A33037F@Mildred> References: <77B0B2FF284A4D318C6904280E75B564@MARVLAPTOP> <1505DE3B5B2E4086B64F68344A33037F@Mildred> Message-ID: <63E4E4DE-6F1A-4A28-A07C-CD07B87715E5@starpower.net> On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Grattan wrote: >> Richard Hills wrote: >> >>> >>> Chief Justice Melville Fuller, Caldwell versus Texas (1891): >>> >>> ".....no State can deprive particular persons or classes of >>> persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." >> >> The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge treats players unequally, >> depending on their presumed expertise. >> >> Law 12C1(b), Law 70, and Law 71. >> >> In the absence of a "player analyzer," I do not see how a TD or AC >> can judge the expertise of a huge group of players from all over the >> world, such as play in an NABC. The only fair approach is to imagine >> a virtual player with capabilities typical of the contestants in an >> event and treat everyone as equal to that player. Then you would not >> have different rulings for different players. > > +=+ The Justices of Supreme Courts do not hesitate to > make such judgements when the law demands it. The Justices of Supreme Courts are dedicated full-time jurists with lifetimes of experience, chosen for their expertise in making such judgments -- and they don't always get them right. Somehow I don't think that an analogy to the bridge players chosen to serve on ACs serves us very well here. Marv has it right. If we want our ACs to avoid the appearance, if not the reality, of basing essentially arbitrary decisions on pure favoratism, the best way to do it is to interpret the "class of player involved" in an appeal as a function of the event, not the individual. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 7 19:35:36 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:35:36 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law References: <77B0B2FF284A4D318C6904280E75B564@MARVLAPTOP><1505DE3B5B2E4086B64F68344A33037F@Mildred> <63E4E4DE-6F1A-4A28-A07C-CD07B87715E5@starpower.net> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau" > Marv has it right. If we want our ACs to avoid the appearance, if > not the reality, of basing essentially arbitrary decisions on pure > favoratism, the best way to do it is to interpret the "class of > player involved" in an appeal as a function of the event, not the > individual. In an appeal, in a claim, and in the judgment of "serious error." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Apr 7 21:41:03 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement Message-ID: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but I'm not certain about the explanation. With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this auction: p - p-2C-2D p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" 4H- p-6H After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the director (the best in our area) and explained that he would have jumped to 5D instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as "shows a high card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that he would have made them guess had he known responder's pass was ambiguous as to strength, but that he feared pushing opponents to slam if he revealed the full extent of his fit and willingness to sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a responding hand that purportedly promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, rightly or wrongly, to give opponents maximum room to stop below slam. (FWIW, he had 5332 shape with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported back that the result would stand. The reason given was not that opponents would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as the 2C bidder had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a poor bid (the director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, and their view was that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite the misinformation. So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers do negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? ...and should the director have provided some other explanation for his rulling? --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100407/98b30686/attachment.html From schoderb at msn.com Wed Apr 7 21:48:08 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:48:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: First an apology - I was looking at two cases at the same time, and in composing my missive I screwed up the facts. Second, - no bee in my bonnet, hope I didn't put one in yours, Roger. I agree with Grattan on Law 87 as to applicability of Law 87B to fouled boards as being omnipotent. Particularly the part abour having regulations by the regulating authority which should tell what to do when it is possible to 'clean up' a mess, made by them and not by the players in HEAD TO HEAD match play. I think it to be counterproductive to an event, yea to our game, to force a TD and AC to start playing for the players when a logical alternative WITHIN THE LAWS - is available. I don't think it need be stated - to me it's common sense. Hopefully future reviews of the Laws will take more time to address the various scoring methods, their rectification when things go wrong, and not allow the TD and AC to take over from players when it can be avoided. It might even reduce the number of ridiculous appeals. And those who wish to apply some sort of score when there is no infraction or offender by whatever method you want to use other than either 'no score' or 'replay' in a head-tro-head match - you best take a second to contemplate what will happen when YOUR brilliance decides the loser of the match. Perhaps you can then better see that Law 87 doesn't work for this kind of irregularity, nor was it meant to (regardless of the language). Scenario: The players ask why they find themselves penalized when they didn't do anything wrong and a completely fair alternative was available BY LAW. Kojak . ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match You presented as fact that the offending side appealed. You presented as fact that AFTER the hand was played cards were removed from the board. And now you present contradictory facts that both sides infracted but don't deserve PP? It seems to me that such a balancing PP should carry over to the next match. Presumably the CoC provides for overriding the teams' choice of who to seat for the last segment or you would not have done so. But it also seems to me that the correct board was in actuality played by correct players and a different board played at the other table. iow, 96 boards were played that resulted in 95 comparisons. I am wondering if it also is a satisfactory remedy to not substitute a board once a correct board has been played and only the players have touched it. I don't know why you are blaming me for putting a bee in your bonnet when it was you that put it there. It is most unbecoming. regards roger pewick From: WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 13:39 To: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In fact the fouling occurred in my case because the empty board had been removed from the center of the table and when the hand was over the board was replaced in the center in the wrong direction. This makes the foul more than 'unlikely' with the players not having touched anyone else's cards. Since both teams placed their cards back into the board in the wrong pockets who would Mr. Pewick want me to give a PP to? I do not agree with his discussion on the poor players, and inconveniences that may be caused by the fouling, etc. when it is possible to get a result from the pairs that should have been playing that board. I feel it a big stretch of the imagination that players would not approve a plan to nulify the irregularity. The problems created when different players play the board, and there is a swing result that affects the match, etc. is asking for trouble that cannot be solved. I would caution Mr. Pewick to think that through. He seems to prefer presenting the event with a perhaps damaged result, instead of exactly what was by definition a non-play. I abhor transferring methods from one type of play to another by some conjuring of "similar.". A one board penalty for fouling a board in a pairs game makes sense. Just what exactly a 'one board penalty' would be in ahead-to-head team match escapes my ken. And, yes, it means that the TD has to do more than call the rounds, announce time remaining, and collect the results when he applies common sense to a problem which the laws provide for. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match I notice the absence of PP's. I think it unlikely that the fouling would occur without players touching cards that did not belong to their hands. in a matchpointed event, is not the PP for fouling a duplication on the order of 1 Board; so for a KO, should not the magnitude be similar? As for the consequences of requiring the the foursome to sit for the replay match as opposed to allowing the captain to seat the players, while factors such as fatigue and nourishment make have an effect, the other side might view it otherwise if the weakest link doesn't play because of it- and particularly so for the team not at fault if their weak link was forced into extra innings. And what of the issues created should one or more of the players thereby not be able to qualify due not not playing [note the leveraged effect of the 15 board segment and the 17 board segment] enough boards? With regard to the appeal that 'was without merit on its face' I would have thought that it must be heard prior to proceeding further with the match. And because of the frivolous reason I am surprised that some PP would not arise from a breach of L74. As a personal curiosity I would wonder if the outcome to the canceled play was appeared particularly favorable to a side [as in what was the issue that needed to be settled by pulling the cards from the board]. regards roger pewick From: WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 08:42 To: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Happened to me years ago in a very close match in United States team Trials for the Bermuda Bowl. Fortunately there was a segment remaining in the match and it was possible to save the match as a 96 board total comparison. I did the following: Canceled the board. The foul was done by the players who pulled out the hands because of a question in their minds and then returned them to the wrong pockets. I added another board (same board number) to the beginning of the next segment with THE SAME PLAYERS IN THE SAME SEATS (perhaps enough penalty when they were not scheduled to be in those positions for any future segments of the match - causing much pain in meals, off-time, etc.) Since the 'fouling' team lost points on the replay they appealed. the Appeal Committee questioned the appealing side's sanity and would have issued a penalty for an "appeal without merit" penalty were it not so rediculous and involved a highly placed ACBL player and official. My justification was simple. They were to play a 96 board match - not a 95 board one - and it was possible to do that without violating the Conditions of Contest, or any Laws. See Laws 6 and 86C. If the foul had been determined at the end of the match, no substitution would have been possible since it then may become what amounts to a single board match knowing the standing before play begins. Question -- were the boards passed from room to room, or did each table have it's own separate 'set'? I can't imagine how the dealing machine would do what you say without also having the East/West hands switched. I have never heard of this kind of anomaly - crazy deals, machine malfunctions, etc. -- yes --- but a complete switching of two paris of hands in a single board - not in my experience. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:45 AM Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100407/3e39a059/attachment-0001.html From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 7 21:54:14 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:54:14 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:41:03 EDT." <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> Message-ID: <201004071951.MAA16498@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Park wrote: > An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but I'm > not certain about the explanation. > > With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this auction: > > p - p-2C-2D > p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" > 4H- p-6H > > After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the director > (the best in our area) and explained that he would have jumped to 5D > instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as "shows a high > card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that he would have made > them guess had he known responder's pass was ambiguous as to strength, > but that he feared pushing opponents to slam if he revealed the full > extent of his fit and willingness to sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a > responding hand that purportedly promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, > rightly or wrongly, to give opponents maximum room to stop below slam. > (FWIW, he had 5332 shape with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) > > The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported back > that the result would stand. The reason given was not that opponents > would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as the 2C bidder > had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a poor bid (the > director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, and their view was > that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite the misinformation. > > So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers do > negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? ...and > should the director have provided some other explanation for his rulling? I would have given some a different explanation for the ruling---something along the lines of "You [the 4D bidder] are obviously making up a bunch of @#&^% just to try to get an adjustment in your favor, but I'm not buying it. Are you a politician or something?" That's why they don't let me direct. Anyway, the failure to bid as the majority of your peers isn't really the relevant factor here. Even if 4D would have been selected by a lot of other players, the 4D bidder still has to convince the director that the correct information would have made a difference, and I don't find this argument convincing at all. -- Adam From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Apr 7 22:16:18 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:16:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-ServingStatement References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> Message-ID: <7C8473333F0A476A902B7EE1B8D186E0@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Park To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:41 PM Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-ServingStatement >p - p-2C-2D >p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" I must say I have no clue what "shows game values" might mean. Having opened 2C the opening side is already forced to game so the description of the pass as "shows game values" is semantically null. By definition every hand facing 2C (eg. 0 HCP on 4333) qualifies as "game values". Because of the that I have no idea what the 4D bidder was talking about later on. I wouldn't have understood opener's explanation in the first place but appearently he did or rather he thought he did. Well, I wouldn't. And I still don't. So as the TD I would start by establishing what this pass did, in fact, mean. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------------------------------------------- Ubezpieczenia OC, AC w atrakcyjnych cenach http://link.interia.pl/f2655 From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Apr 7 22:49:03 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:49:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <201004071951.MAA16498@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201004071951.MAA16498@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4BBCEFBF.7040102@comcast.net> On 4/7/10 3:54 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Robert Park wrote: > > >> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but I'm >> not certain about the explanation. >> >> With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this auction: >> >> p - p-2C-2D >> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" >> 4H- p-6H >> >> After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the director >> (the best in our area) and explained that he would have jumped to 5D >> instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as "shows a high >> card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that he would have made >> them guess had he known responder's pass was ambiguous as to strength, >> but that he feared pushing opponents to slam if he revealed the full >> extent of his fit and willingness to sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a >> responding hand that purportedly promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, >> rightly or wrongly, to give opponents maximum room to stop below slam. >> (FWIW, he had 5332 shape with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) >> >> The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported back >> that the result would stand. The reason given was not that opponents >> would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as the 2C bidder >> had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a poor bid (the >> director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, and their view was >> that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite the misinformation. >> >> So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers do >> negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? ...and >> should the director have provided some other explanation for his rulling? >> > I would have given some a different explanation for the > ruling---something along the lines of "You [the 4D bidder] are > obviously making up a bunch of @#&^% just to try to get an adjustment > in your favor, but I'm not buying it. Are you a politician or > something?" > > That's why they don't let me direct. > > Anyway, the failure to bid as the majority of your peers isn't really > the relevant factor here. Even if 4D would have been selected by a > lot of other players, the 4D bidder still has to convince the director > that the correct information would have made a difference, and I don't > find this argument convincing at all. > > -- Adam > Neither did the director. But is this relevant? --bp From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Apr 7 22:55:29 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:55:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-ServingStatement In-Reply-To: <7C8473333F0A476A902B7EE1B8D186E0@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> <7C8473333F0A476A902B7EE1B8D186E0@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4BBCF141.6030205@comcast.net> On 4/7/10 4:16 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Park > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:41 PM > Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly > Self-ServingStatement > > >> p - p-2C-2D >> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" >> > I must say I have no clue what "shows game values" might mean. > Having opened 2C the opening side is already forced to > game so the description of the pass as "shows game values" > is semantically null. By definition every hand facing 2C > (eg. 0 HCP on 4333) qualifies as "game values". > > Because of the that I have no idea what the 4D bidder > was talking about later on. I wouldn't have understood > opener's explanation in the first place but appearently he did > or rather he thought he did. Well, I wouldn't. > And I still don't. > > So as the TD I would start by establishing what this > pass did, in fact, mean. > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > The opponents were having a good deal of argument about that. It was clear that their agreement (as stated by responder) was the the pass shows a useful value, but did not promise game values. Because opener was stating strongly that that it had shown game values and that there had been no misinformation, while his partner (a more experience player) denied that claim, I thought it best to get the director involved, if for no other reason than to educate the 2C bidder. I didn't do so until after they began arguing. --bp From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 7 23:07:28 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:07:28 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:49:03 EDT." <4BBCEFBF.7040102@comcast.net> Message-ID: <201004072105.OAA17273@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Park wrote: > On 4/7/10 3:54 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Robert Park wrote: > > > > > >> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but I'm > >> not certain about the explanation. > >> > >> With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this auction: > >> > >> p - p-2C-2D > >> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" > >> 4H- p-6H > >> > >> After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the director > >> (the best in our area) and explained that he would have jumped to 5D > >> instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as "shows a high > >> card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that he would have made > >> them guess had he known responder's pass was ambiguous as to strength, > >> but that he feared pushing opponents to slam if he revealed the full > >> extent of his fit and willingness to sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a > >> responding hand that purportedly promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, > >> rightly or wrongly, to give opponents maximum room to stop below slam. > >> (FWIW, he had 5332 shape with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) > >> > >> The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported back > >> that the result would stand. The reason given was not that opponents > >> would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as the 2C bidder > >> had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a poor bid (the > >> director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, and their view was > >> that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite the misinformation. > >> > >> So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers do > >> negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? ...and > >> should the director have provided some other explanation for his rulling? > >> > > I would have given some a different explanation for the > > ruling---something along the lines of "You [the 4D bidder] are > > obviously making up a bunch of @#&^% just to try to get an adjustment > > in your favor, but I'm not buying it. Are you a politician or > > something?" > > > > That's why they don't let me direct. > > > > Anyway, the failure to bid as the majority of your peers isn't really > > the relevant factor here. Even if 4D would have been selected by a > > lot of other players, the 4D bidder still has to convince the director > > that the correct information would have made a difference, and I don't > > find this argument convincing at all. > > > > -- Adam > > > Neither did the director. But is this relevant? Yes, by 12B1. If we're not convinced that the correct information would have made a difference, then we can't say that damage existed "because of the infraction". In this case, it appears that the 4D bidder made a judgment as to how high to preempt; whether or not others would have done the same thing, or whether or not we consider it an error, the 4D bid was due to the bidder's own judgment and not to the misinformation. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 7 23:13:57 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:13:57 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-ServingStatement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:16:18 +0200." <7C8473333F0A476A902B7EE1B8D186E0@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <201004072111.OAA17328@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > >p - p-2C-2D > >p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" > > I must say I have no clue what "shows game values" might mean. > Having opened 2C the opening side is already forced to > game so the description of the pass as "shows game values" > is semantically null. By definition every hand facing 2C > (eg. 0 HCP on 4333) qualifies as "game values". That's not a common agreement over here. The way I play, 2C shows a hand about 1 to 1.5 tricks short of game or stronger, or a 22+ balanced hand. I believe that's the most common strong-2C agreement in America, with maybe some minor variations in the numbers. So a 2C opening does not force to game, and "shows game values" generally means a trick (an ace would be enough with no other high cards). I'm not sure where Bob plays (since there are ACBL games that aren't in America), so I can't say what 2C would have meant for that pair. -- Adam From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Apr 7 23:35:37 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:35:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <201004072105.OAA17273@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201004072105.OAA17273@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4BBCFAA9.6060103@comcast.net> On 4/7/10 5:07 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Robert Park wrote: > > >> On 4/7/10 3:54 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >>> Robert Park wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but I'm >>>> not certain about the explanation. >>>> >>>> With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this auction: >>>> >>>> p - p-2C-2D >>>> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" >>>> 4H- p-6H >>>> >>>> After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the director >>>> (the best in our area) and explained that he would have jumped to 5D >>>> instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as "shows a high >>>> card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that he would have made >>>> them guess had he known responder's pass was ambiguous as to strength, >>>> but that he feared pushing opponents to slam if he revealed the full >>>> extent of his fit and willingness to sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a >>>> responding hand that purportedly promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, >>>> rightly or wrongly, to give opponents maximum room to stop below slam. >>>> (FWIW, he had 5332 shape with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) >>>> >>>> The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported back >>>> that the result would stand. The reason given was not that opponents >>>> would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as the 2C bidder >>>> had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a poor bid (the >>>> director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, and their view was >>>> that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite the misinformation. >>>> >>>> So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers do >>>> negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? ...and >>>> should the director have provided some other explanation for his rulling? >>>> >>>> >>> I would have given some a different explanation for the >>> ruling---something along the lines of "You [the 4D bidder] are >>> obviously making up a bunch of @#&^% just to try to get an adjustment >>> in your favor, but I'm not buying it. Are you a politician or >>> something?" >>> >>> That's why they don't let me direct. >>> >>> Anyway, the failure to bid as the majority of your peers isn't really >>> the relevant factor here. Even if 4D would have been selected by a >>> lot of other players, the 4D bidder still has to convince the director >>> that the correct information would have made a difference, and I don't >>> find this argument convincing at all. >>> >>> -- Adam >>> >>> >> Neither did the director. But is this relevant? >> > Yes, by 12B1. If we're not convinced that the correct information > would have made a difference, then we can't say that damage existed > "because of the infraction". In this case, it appears that the 4D > bidder made a judgment as to how high to preempt; whether or not > others would have done the same thing, or whether or not we consider > it an error, the 4D bid was due to the bidder's own judgment and not > to the misinformation. > > -- Adam > > _ > That certainly is what others thought. It may not be relevant, but that was not what I was thinking at the time. My judgment to bid 4D rather than 5D was based on the information I had received. I would have bid 5D had I received the correct information. I realize that there is no way for you or others to verify this claim, so I am sympathetic to the ruling to let the result stand. What I am questioning is the reason given for that ruling. --bp From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Apr 8 00:30:24 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 23:30:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> Message-ID: <58E57DB7-8D24-445F-8E18-4C28389AF687@btinternet.com> On 7 Apr 2010, at 20:41, Robert Park wrote: > An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but > I'm not certain about the explanation. > > With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this > auction: > > p - p-2C-2D > p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" > 4H- p-6H > > After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the > director (the best in our area) and explained that he would have > jumped to 5D instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as > "shows a high card." In what way does this make a difference? Would it be possible for responder to show game values without a high card? Would it be possible for responder to show a high card without showing game values? Gordon Rainsford From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 8 04:46:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 12:46:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 86D - Result Obtained at the Other Table In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained* between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to ***the*** non-offending side). * if commenced between the same two contestants at another table the board may be completed Law 87A - Fouled Board - Definition A board is considered to be "fouled" if the Director determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board, or if he determines that ***the dealer*** or vulnerability ***differed*** between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason. Ton Kooijman: >>In that case L86D tells that the TD has the authority to >>award an assigned adjusted score taking into account the >>result at 'the right table'. I don't understand reactions >>telling that he shouldn't do so, the law clearly gives >>him that possibility. The question is what score to give? >>If the 'right' result is very favorable to one side 50% >>of the imps comparing with the par? >> >>ton William "Kojak" Schoder: [snip] >And those who wish to apply some sort of score when there is >no infraction or offender by whatever method you want to use >other than either 'no score' or 'replay' in a head-to-head >match - you best take a second to contemplate what will >happen when YOUR brilliance decides the loser of the match. >Perhaps you can then better see that Law 86D doesn't work for >this kind of irregularity, nor was it meant to (regardless of >the language). Scenario: The players ask why they find >themselves penalized when they didn't do anything wrong and >a completely fair alternative was available BY LAW. > >Kojak Richard Hills: I agree with Kojak's assessment of Ton Kooijman as being a brilliant Director, comparable in brilliance to Herman De Wael who previously ruled under Law 86D despite two non- offending sides being at TD Herman's table. Under the 1997 Lawbook the EBU had an illegal regulation. If, for example, North-South accurately bid to a difficult but cold 6S, and when West transported the board to the other room West "accidentally" faced his ace of spades, causing the board to be unplayable at the other table, the strict 1997 requirement was that West's team would receive an artificial adjusted score of Ave-, -3 imps instead of the very likely -13 imps. The EBU illegally regulated for an assigned adjusted score of +13 imps to the non-offending side and -13 imps to the offending side. So the 2007 Law 86D was added to legalise the previously illegal EBU regulation, and to remove any incentive for any player in the world to "accidentally" foul a board. But, as Kojak has noted, regardless of the language of Law 86D it is NOT intended to override Law 87A when there are two non- offending sides because the Tournament Organizer changed the dealer on what were supposed to be two identical boards. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Apr 8 05:28:41 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:28:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <58E57DB7-8D24-445F-8E18-4C28389AF687@btinternet.com> References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> <58E57DB7-8D24-445F-8E18-4C28389AF687@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4BBD4D69.60903@comcast.net> On 4/7/10 6:30 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 7 Apr 2010, at 20:41, Robert Park wrote: > > >> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but >> I'm not certain about the explanation. >> >> With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this >> auction: >> >> p - p-2C-2D >> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" >> 4H- p-6H >> >> After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the >> director (the best in our area) and explained that he would have >> jumped to 5D instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as >> "shows a high card." >> > In what way does this make a difference? Would it be possible for > responder to show game values without a high card? Would it be > possible for responder to show a high card without showing game values? > > Gordon Rainsford > All I know is what my RHO told us after the auction was complete...that her pass showed a useful card, but was not game forcing. --bp From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Apr 8 05:39:19 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:39:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <58E57DB7-8D24-445F-8E18-4C28389AF687@btinternet.com> References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> <58E57DB7-8D24-445F-8E18-4C28389AF687@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4BBD4FE7.4040307@comcast.net> On 4/7/10 6:30 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 7 Apr 2010, at 20:41, Robert Park wrote: > > >> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but >> I'm not certain about the explanation. >> >> With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this >> auction: >> >> p - p-2C-2D >> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" >> 4H- p-6H >> >> After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the >> director (the best in our area) and explained that he would have >> jumped to 5D instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as >> "shows a high card." >> > Perhaps I can state my concern more succinctly: If a player acts on misinformation received from an opponent, what law requires him to take an action approved by a majority of his peers if he is to retain the right to redress? Related question: What law should a director cite when allowing the result to stand in a case like the one I reported? --Bob Park From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 8 06:16:58 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:16:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BBD4FE7.4040307@comcast.net> Message-ID: Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "One of the difficulties about great thinkers is that they so often think wrong." Bob Park: >Perhaps I can state my concern more succinctly: > >If a player acts on misinformation received from an opponent, >what law requires him to take an action approved by a majority >of his peers if he is to retain the right to redress? Richard Hills: "Approved" is the wrong word. If the Director polls a player's peers, and they universally deem the player's action to be "wild or gambling", then the Director need not "redress such part of the damage as is self-inflicted". Law 12C1(b). But the Director MUST redress any part of the damage which is not self-inflicted. Law 12B1. Plus all damage (self-inflicted or otherwise) must be subtracted from the offending side's score. Law 12C1(b) again: "The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." Bob Park: >Related question: What law should a director cite when allowing >the result to stand in a case like the one I reported? Richard Hills: "Result stands" is a permissible ruling if and only if the infraction caused zero damage. Law 12B1 again: "***because*** of an infraction". Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 8 08:16:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 16:16:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Under the 1997 Lawbook the EBU had an illegal regulation. >> >>If, for example, North-South accurately bid to a difficult >>but cold 6S, and when West transported the board to the >>other room West "accidentally" faced his ace of spades, >>causing the board to be unplayable at the other table, the >>strict 1997 requirement was that West's team would receive >>an artificial adjusted score of Ave-, -3 imps instead of the >>very likely -13 imps. The EBU illegally regulated for an >>assigned adjusted score of +13 imps to the non-offending >>side and -13 imps to the offending side. >> >>So the 2007 Law 86D was added to legalise the previously >>illegal EBU regulation, and to remove any incentive for any >>player in the world to "accidentally" foul a board. 2010 EBU White Book, clause 86.1, Unusual Result: If a board is cancelled when it has been played at the other table in a team game then, rather than give an artificial adjusted score, the TD can assign a score if the result at the other table was very unusual, for example if a slam made on very minimum values or missing two aces. Normally this will only be done when the non-offending side has the good score. Of course there will be times when both sides are non- offending. Such an assigned score should still be given, though a split score is possible, since both sides will be treated as non-offending. The Law permits such an assignment when the good score is obtained by a side that are partly or completely at fault. At time of writing the method of dealing with this is unclear [see the advice in #86.3]. A TD or AC who only applies this Law to benefit a non-offending side cannot be criticised. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ From Law 87A ("the contestants who should have had a >score comparison") I infer that there is no score comparison >between boards not played in identical form. > With hindsight one may argue the wisdom of stating >explicitly in the laws that "score comparisons may only be >made between boards played in identical form" and one can >understand if this perception is subliminal for composers of >regulations, but I regard the wording of Law 87A as strong >enough to establish it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Is Grattan opining that the EBU regulation is still partly illegal? That is the offending side may be awarded -13 imps in my case above when it "accidentally" exposed the ace of spades, but the OS cannot legally be awarded less than an Ave- of -3 imps when the OS "accidentally" rotates the board 180 degrees at the end of play of the lucky slam, before the board is transferred to the other room? 2010 EBU White Book, clause 86.3, Ton Kooijman opinion: When, in team play, a board cannot be played at the table for whatever reason, while it has already been played at the other table, it is possible to deviate from the routine artificial adjusted score. To do this we need an unusual result on the played board. The TD works with a range of normal results on a board, which do not ask for the application of this law. Given the fact that the innocent side will receive some imps anyway (average plus), a couple of undoubled overtricks are not considered to create an unusual result. When the innocent side received a very good score and the board is made unplayable at this table (by the other side), it is mandatory to give an assigned adjusted score with full weight to this result. Assume that the team that got a good score at one table caused the board to be cancelled at the other; if the TD gives an assigned adjusted score the weight of the good result needs to be small; 30% sounds reasonable. If the board has to be cancelled because of a mistake at the second table, and the innocent side received a very good result at the first table, it should get full weight. If the offenders received a very good score the weight can be less (50% looks reasonable). And if no side is responsible the weight could be somewhat higher (let us say 60%). 2010 EBU White Book, clause 86.3, David Stevenson footnote: It is not clear that this necessarily follows the interpretations by the WBFLC. However the WBFLC minutes have been changed so the position is unclear. 2009 WBF Laws Committee minutes, 4th September, item 3: The committee received from the Executive Council referral back of the rider entered in respect of Law 86D in the minutes of October 10th 2008. The Secretary was requested to arrange for it to be removed. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu Apr 8 09:55:41 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:55:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match - 2nd part In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <18A519F647664DA1BF770AFFCF43698C@PCdeOlivier> Ok, The fooled by-way-of-organisation board can't be scored between both tables, that's clear for everybody, but the second point has been forgotten : Both sides are NOS, When you cancel a board on witch a NOS has scored a "good" result, you may give an AS, or you can give boh sides a "+3 imp's" in round robin, you add some imps and can have a 15-17 VP in knock-out, you give "the best side" half of the difference, let's take a huge example : Playing in 7NT with 13 tops tricks, C2 & C3 are switched between declarer & dummy, of course of no-interest, a declarer misplayed and go down, or he revokes if you prefer, or he ducked the lead or anything really silly, 1) you cancel the board, easy 2) do you give back something to the "good defenders" by way of an AS ??? says it can be a 20 imp's swing if it is last segment, you can't replay one single board ... We are planning a regulation for swiss, knock-out, round-robin and want something legal and fair ... Thx Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "olivier.beauvillain" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:45 PM Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match Hello, We almost had a major problem yesterday during the final of french open team trial for Oostende in june, was on BBO last three days, may be you watched, Boards are duplicated by the FFB, by way of the well known machine, one board was fouled : N & S switched, so the board was played differents ways in both rooms, one table played 3H-N, the other 5D-S in completely differents auctions, 3H is making, 5D should be one down but after a major error in defence makes, the board is not possibly scored, according to the Law, but do you make it a zero imp's board or do you "give" an ajusted score because of the error? so our questions, hopefully this board couldn't change the winner ... Do you have a procedure in a) international events b) nationale events and do you : c) cancel the board, eventually playing one more in the next segment d) give an Ajusted score to one team because of the error (10 imp's available) e) give it because of +140/-100 with the # contracts if there is not "the defensive error" (6 imp's available) f) anything else g) do you have a regulation??? h) if the auction is "the same" (contract and meanings) are you donig the same way? To help : L87A L82B1 & L84D L81B1-C, L82B2, L84A ... and others! Please, "answer to everybody" so Claude can get yours answers, Olivier Beauvillain, who will follow Oostende thanks to BBO! __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 8 10:34:42 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:34:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law References: <77B0B2FF284A4D318C6904280E75B564@MARVLAPTOP><1505DE3B5B2E4086B64F68344A33037F@Mildred><63E4E4DE-6F1A-4A28-A07C-CD07B87715E5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2747DF209E5546388ED14CB90B79988E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Equal justice under law > > From: "Eric Landau" > >> Marv has it right. If we want our ACs to avoid the appearance, if >> not the reality, of basing essentially arbitrary decisions on pure >> favoratism, the best way to do it is to interpret the "class of >> player involved" in an appeal as a function of the event, not the >> individual. > > In an appeal, in a claim, and in the judgment of "serious error." > +=+ But not in seeding? Where the standard of a partnership is unknown to the Director the general standard of the event may be assumed. However, where the standard is known it is disadvantageous to the lesser players to judge them by the same standards as the highest calibre players. I do not believe this is the intention of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 8 11:26:59 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:26:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <531ACDD5850A411EB77BDE6E7181ED4E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Law 86D - Result Obtained at the Other Table > > In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score > (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), > and a result has been obtained* between the same contestants > at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in > IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result > appears favourable to ***the*** non-offending side). > > * if commenced between the same two contestants at another > table the board may be completed > > Law 87A - Fouled Board - Definition > > A board is considered to be "fouled" if the Director > determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the > board, or if he determines that ***the dealer*** or > vulnerability ***differed*** between copies of the same board, > and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did > not play the board in identical form for such reason. > > Ton Kooijman: > >>>In that case L86D tells that the TD has the authority to >>>award an assigned adjusted score taking into account the >>>result at 'the right table'. I don't understand reactions >>>telling that he shouldn't do so, the law clearly gives >>>him that possibility. The question is what score to give? >>>If the 'right' result is very favorable to one side 50% >>>of the imps comparing with the par? >>> >>>ton > > William "Kojak" Schoder: > > [snip] > >>And those who wish to apply some sort of score when there is >>no infraction or offender by whatever method you want to use >>other than either 'no score' or 'replay' in a head-to-head >>match - you best take a second to contemplate what will >>happen when YOUR brilliance decides the loser of the match. >>Perhaps you can then better see that Law 86D doesn't work for >>this kind of irregularity, nor was it meant to (regardless of >>the language). Scenario: The players ask why they find >>themselves penalized when they didn't do anything wrong and >>a completely fair alternative was available BY LAW. >> >>Kojak > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Kojak's assessment of Ton Kooijman as being a > brilliant Director, comparable in brilliance to Herman De > Wael who previously ruled under Law 86D despite two non- > offending sides being at TD Herman's table. > > Under the 1997 Lawbook the EBU had an illegal regulation. > > If, for example, North-South accurately bid to a difficult > but cold 6S, and when West transported the board to the other > room West "accidentally" faced his ace of spades, causing the > board to be unplayable at the other table, the strict 1997 > requirement was that West's team would receive an artificial > adjusted score of Ave-, -3 imps instead of the very likely -13 > imps. The EBU illegally regulated for an assigned adjusted > score of +13 imps to the non-offending side and -13 imps to > the offending side. > > So the 2007 Law 86D was added to legalise the previously > illegal EBU regulation, and to remove any incentive for any > player in the world to "accidentally" foul a board. But, as > Kojak has noted, regardless of the language of Law 86D it is > NOT intended to override Law 87A when there are two non- > offending sides because the Tournament Organizer changed the > dealer on what were supposed to be two identical boards. > (Grattan, mainly repeating previous) > +=+ From Law 87A ("the contestants who should have > had a score comparison") I infer that there is no score > comparison between boards not played in identical form. > With hindsight one may argue the wisdom of stating > explicitly in the laws that "score comparisons may only > be made between boards played in identical form" and > one can understand if this perception is subliminal for > composers of regulations, but I regard the wording of > Law 87A as strong enough to establish it. +=+ [Rider: Law 86D is clear in that it can be applied only when the Director is awarding an adjusted score. When he has no authority to award an adjusted score it cannot apply.] ....................................................................................... From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 8 12:36:01 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:36:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law References: <77B0B2FF284A4D318C6904280E75B564@MARVLAPTOP><1505DE3B5B2E4086B64F68344A33037F@Mildred><63E4E4DE-6F1A-4A28-A07C-CD07B87715E5@starpower.net> <2747DF209E5546388ED14CB90B79988E@Mildred> Message-ID: <2DA0DC7789EA4C8E8AE79164BB364467@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Robert Park wrote: > An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but > I'm not certain about the explanation. > > With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this > auction: > > p - p-2C-2D > p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" > 4H- p-6H > > After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the > director (the best in our area) and explained that he would have > jumped to 5D instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as > "shows a high card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that > he would have made them guess had he known responder's pass was > ambiguous as to strength, but that he feared pushing opponents to > slam if he revealed the full extent of his fit and willingness to > sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a responding hand that purportedly > promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, rightly or wrongly, to give > opponents maximum room to stop below slam. (FWIW, he had 5332 shape > with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) > > The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported > back that the result would stand. The reason given was not that > opponents would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as > the 2C bidder had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a > poor bid (the director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, > and their view was that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite > the misinformation. > > So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers > do negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? Absolutely not. To negate the possibility to claim damage requires and egregious error, i.e. (per Edgar Kaplan, who originated the concept) absurd, or ridiculous. > ...and should the director have provided some other explanation for > his rulling? I think so. I'd probably (I wasn't there) have upheld on the grounds that there is so little difference between "shows game values" and "shows a high card" (opposite a Standard American 2C bid) as to cast severe doubt on the opponent's claim that such a fine distinction was determinative to his choice of call. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Apr 8 19:03:08 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:03:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> On 4/8/10 9:09 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Robert Park wrote: > > >> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but >> I'm not certain about the explanation. >> >> With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this >> auction: >> >> p - p-2C-2D >> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" >> 4H- p-6H >> >> After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the >> director (the best in our area) and explained that he would have >> jumped to 5D instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as >> "shows a high card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that >> he would have made them guess had he known responder's pass was >> ambiguous as to strength, but that he feared pushing opponents to >> slam if he revealed the full extent of his fit and willingness to >> sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a responding hand that purportedly >> promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, rightly or wrongly, to give >> opponents maximum room to stop below slam. (FWIW, he had 5332 shape >> with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) >> >> The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported >> back that the result would stand. The reason given was not that >> opponents would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as >> the 2C bidder had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a >> poor bid (the director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, >> and their view was that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite >> the misinformation. >> >> So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers >> do negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? >> > Absolutely not. To negate the possibility to claim damage requires > and egregious error, i.e. (per Edgar Kaplan, who originated the > concept) absurd, or ridiculous. > > >> ...and should the director have provided some other explanation for >> his rulling? >> > I think so. I'd probably (I wasn't there) have upheld on the grounds > that there is so little difference between "shows game values" and > "shows a high card" (opposite a Standard American 2C bid) as to cast > severe doubt on the opponent's claim that such a fine distinction was > determinative to his choice of call. > > > Eric Landau > Hmmm...So you seem to be saying in effect saying that a player must bid as you would (or follow the herd) if he is to retain his right to redress. Interesting. Note that there was no wild or gambling action in the case cited...just a different action than other players said they would have taken. I have no idea what would have happened had I jumped to 5D instead of to 4D, as I would have had I received correct information...all I know is that the auction thereafter would have been different. FWIW, I see now that only 5 pairs out of 12 got to slam on this hand, and one did not even bid game, so it's clearly possible our opponents might not have reached slam had correct information been provided. What law says a director can discount a player's explanation of his action just because he does not agree with that action (no wild or gambling involved)? --bp From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Apr 8 19:12:46 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:12:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4BBE0E8E.1030808@aol.com> Hola! Please excuse me for using a reason that you are not supposed to state. I think it basically comes down to: does/did the TD believe you? Of course he can't say that he doesn't/didn't so he offers whatever other reason for denying your claim. That is, I think, what most of the postings have been doing. Ciao, JE Robert Park schrieb: > On 4/8/10 9:09 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >> >>> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but >>> I'm not certain about the explanation. >>> >>> With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this >>> auction: >>> >>> p - p-2C-2D >>> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" >>> 4H- p-6H >>> >>> After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the >>> director (the best in our area) and explained that he would have >>> jumped to 5D instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as >>> "shows a high card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that >>> he would have made them guess had he known responder's pass was >>> ambiguous as to strength, but that he feared pushing opponents to >>> slam if he revealed the full extent of his fit and willingness to >>> sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a responding hand that purportedly >>> promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, rightly or wrongly, to give >>> opponents maximum room to stop below slam. (FWIW, he had 5332 shape >>> with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) >>> >>> The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported >>> back that the result would stand. The reason given was not that >>> opponents would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as >>> the 2C bidder had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a >>> poor bid (the director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, >>> and their view was that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite >>> the misinformation. >>> >>> So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers >>> do negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? >>> >> Absolutely not. To negate the possibility to claim damage requires >> and egregious error, i.e. (per Edgar Kaplan, who originated the >> concept) absurd, or ridiculous. >> >> >>> ...and should the director have provided some other explanation for >>> his rulling? >>> >> I think so. I'd probably (I wasn't there) have upheld on the grounds >> that there is so little difference between "shows game values" and >> "shows a high card" (opposite a Standard American 2C bid) as to cast >> severe doubt on the opponent's claim that such a fine distinction was >> determinative to his choice of call. >> >> >> Eric Landau >> > > Hmmm...So you seem to be saying in effect saying that a player must bid > as you would (or follow the herd) if he is to retain his right to > redress. Interesting. > > Note that there was no wild or gambling action in the case cited...just > a different action than other players said they would have taken. > > I have no idea what would have happened had I jumped to 5D instead of to > 4D, as I would have had I received correct information...all I know is > that the auction thereafter would have been different. FWIW, I see now > that only 5 pairs out of 12 got to slam on this hand, and one did not > even bid game, so it's clearly possible our opponents might not have > reached slam had correct information been provided. > > What law says a director can discount a player's explanation of his > action just because he does not agree with that action (no wild or > gambling involved)? > > --bp > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at irvine.com Thu Apr 8 19:24:42 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:24:42 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:03:08 EDT." <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> Message-ID: <201004081722.KAA27681@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert wrote: > On 4/8/10 9:09 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > I think so. I'd probably (I wasn't there) have upheld on the grounds > > that there is so little difference between "shows game values" and > > "shows a high card" (opposite a Standard American 2C bid) as to cast > > severe doubt on the opponent's claim that such a fine distinction was > > determinative to his choice of call. > > Hmmm...So you seem to be saying in effect saying that a player must bid > as you would (or follow the herd) if he is to retain his right to > redress. Interesting. [snip] > What law says a director can discount a player's explanation of his > action just because he does not agree with that action (no wild or > gambling involved)? No, that is not what Eric is saying. With the hand you held, some players might have bid 5D, some might have bid 4D, maybe some 3D, maybe some passes, maybe some attempted psychs. The fact that players may have made different decisions is *not* relevant; what *is* relevant is that, in Eric's judgment (as I read it) and in mine, none of those players would have based a decision on whether the opponent's pass showed a high card or "game values"---all those players would have acted the same way in either case, even though their actual actions would have been different from other players' actions. So it isn't relevant whether the director agrees with the action you took; but it *is* relevant whether the director thinks that your explanation for why your actions would have been different in the two cases makes sense. This is a rather subtle point, and I'm doing my best to explain it, which is difficult. But the bottom line is that you are not interpreting what Eric said correctly. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 8 22:12:26 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 12:12:26 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law References: <77B0B2FF284A4D318C6904280E75B564@MARVLAPTOP><1505DE3B5B2E4086B64F68344A33037F@Mildred><63E4E4DE-6F1A-4A28-A07C-CD07B87715E5@starpower.net> <2747DF209E5546388ED14CB90B79988E@Mildred> Message-ID: <5B2E5543CDE94C3591C5F82E8621EEB6@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" >> From: "Eric Landau" >> >>> Marv has it right. If we want our ACs to avoid the appearance, >>> if >>> not the reality, of basing essentially arbitrary decisions on >>> pure >>> favoratism, the best way to do it is to interpret the "class of >>> player involved" in an appeal as a function of the event, not >>> the >>> individual. >> >> In an appeal, in a claim, and in the judgment of "serious error." >> > +=+ But not in seeding? No, not in seeding. Some unseeded players may be more expert than some seeded ones, but I suppose it would be reasonable to judge "calibre" on a seeded/unseeded basis, with all in each group treated equally. Most games are unseeded, in my experience, except in NABC+ events. > Where the standard of a partnership is unknown to the > Director the general standard of the event may be assumed. Making exceptions for known weak or strong players? That is not equal treatment under the Laws. Justice is blindfolded. > However, where the standard is known it is disadvantageous > to the lesser players to judge them by the same standards as > the highest calibre players. I do not believe this is the > intention > of the law. Of course the intention is to give both high-level and low-level players leniency in claim situations, so they are treated equally in a sense. But the calibre of most players may be unknown, and moreover they may lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, not on the edges. Better to treat everyone in an event the same. One advantage is that bias will not be suspected. Get rid of those footnotes! Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 8 21:51:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 15:51:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> Message-ID: <79F2EB92-9E64-4DDE-9CC0-15F0EF936827@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Robert Park wrote: > On 4/8/10 9:09 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but >>> I'm not certain about the explanation. >>> >>> With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this >>> auction: >>> >>> p - p-2C-2D >>> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" >>> 4H- p-6H >>> >>> After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the >>> director (the best in our area) and explained that he would have >>> jumped to 5D instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as >>> "shows a high card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that >>> he would have made them guess had he known responder's pass was >>> ambiguous as to strength, but that he feared pushing opponents to >>> slam if he revealed the full extent of his fit and willingness to >>> sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a responding hand that purportedly >>> promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, rightly or wrongly, to give >>> opponents maximum room to stop below slam. (FWIW, he had 5332 shape >>> with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) >>> >>> The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported >>> back that the result would stand. The reason given was not that >>> opponents would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as >>> the 2C bidder had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a >>> poor bid (the director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, >>> and their view was that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite >>> the misinformation. >>> >>> So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers >>> do negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? >> >> Absolutely not. To negate the possibility to claim damage requires >> and egregious error, i.e. (per Edgar Kaplan, who originated the >> concept) absurd, or ridiculous. >> >>> ...and should the director have provided some other explanation for >>> his rulling? >> >> I think so. I'd probably (I wasn't there) have upheld on the grounds >> that there is so little difference between "shows game values" and >> "shows a high card" (opposite a Standard American 2C bid) as to cast >> severe doubt on the opponent's claim that such a fine distinction was >> determinative to his choice of call. > > Hmmm...So you seem to be saying in effect saying that a player must > bid > as you would (or follow the herd) if he is to retain his right to > redress. Interesting. No, not at all. > Note that there was no wild or gambling action in the case > cited...just > a different action than other players said they would have taken. Agreed. > I have no idea what would have happened had I jumped to 5D instead > of to > 4D, as I would have had I received correct information...all I know is > that the auction thereafter would have been different. FWIW, I see now > that only 5 pairs out of 12 got to slam on this hand, and one did not > even bid game, so it's clearly possible our opponents might not have > reached slam had correct information been provided. Nor do I. But I don't think it matters. I suggested rejecting your claim that you would have jumped to 5D on the basis of having received, not incorrect information, but information arguably incorrectly phrased. This has nothing to do with what I, or some panel, or a worldwide consensus of experts, would have done with your hand. Your opponents' agreement was "shows a high card", which you claim was incorrect, having been misrepresented to you as "shows game values". But as I see it, that is *not* a misrepresentation, because opposite a S.A. strong 2C bid, "a high card" *is* "game values", and you should realize this. You may argue that they're not exactly exactly the same thing, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the difference is significant enough to have potentially affected your choice of call. > What law says a director can discount a player's explanation of his > action just because he does not agree with that action (no wild or > gambling involved)? Clearly he cannot, and I am confident that I have never suggested that he could (see the first paragraph of my previous post, above). What he can do is reject a player's assertion that he was substantively misinformed merely by a valid paraphrasing of the opponents verbatim agreement. In a nutshell, "No MI." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Apr 8 23:44:32 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:44:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <201004081722.KAA27681@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201004081722.KAA27681@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4BBE4E40.9050709@comcast.net> On 4/8/10 1:24 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Robert wrote: > > >> On 4/8/10 9:09 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> > >>> I think so. I'd probably (I wasn't there) have upheld on the grounds >>> that there is so little difference between "shows game values" and >>> "shows a high card" (opposite a Standard American 2C bid) as to cast >>> severe doubt on the opponent's claim that such a fine distinction was >>> determinative to his choice of call. >>> >> Hmmm...So you seem to be saying in effect saying that a player must bid >> as you would (or follow the herd) if he is to retain his right to >> redress. Interesting. >> > [snip] > > >> What law says a director can discount a player's explanation of his >> action just because he does not agree with that action (no wild or >> gambling involved)? >> > No, that is not what Eric is saying. With the hand you held, some > players might have bid 5D, some might have bid 4D, maybe some 3D, > maybe some passes, maybe some attempted psychs. The fact that players > may have made different decisions is *not* relevant; what *is* > relevant is that, in Eric's judgment (as I read it) and in mine, none > of those players would have based a decision on whether the opponent's > pass showed a high card or "game values"---all those players would > have acted the same way in either case, even though their actual > actions would have been different from other players' actions. > > So it isn't relevant whether the director agrees with the action you > took; but it *is* relevant whether the director thinks that your > explanation for why your actions would have been different in the two > cases makes sense. This is a rather subtle point, and I'm doing my > best to explain it, which is difficult. But the bottom line is that > you are not interpreting what Eric said correctly. > > -- Adam > > It sounds to me that you are saying I'm not allowed to use my own reasoning in deciding among actions to take based on information received from opponents...or that if I do, I'm out on a limb by myself if my choice differs from the herd's choice. Somehow that doesn't seem right. I received information and acted on it to the best of my ability (nothing wild here, both 4D and 5D would have been rational gambles). I would have chosen a different bid had I received correct information...and that assessment was made before I bid, not afterward. If you believe I am telling the truth, why should I lose my right to redress? Or are you saying that my claim is too self-serving to be believable? If so, under what law then does denial of redress for straying off the beaten path fall? The evidence that the result might have been different seems clear...only 5 of 12 pairs bid the slam. In short, the misinformation I received led to a different action than had I received correct information...and possibly to a different result. Is not the onus on the offending side here rather than on the NOS? My explanation for my action may well be self-serving, but that doesn't automatically make it untruthful or unbelievable. I hope BLML is not headed down a path that says all self-serving statements are to be dismissed! --bp From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 9 00:53:47 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:53:47 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement References: <201004081722.KAA27681@mailhub.irvine.com> <4BBE4E40.9050709@comcast.net> Message-ID: <160948E6716B41C7AB6B4FA05B7BEBA0@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Park" > My explanation for my action may well be self-serving, but that > doesn't > automatically make it untruthful or unbelievable. > > I hope BLML is not headed down a path that says all self-serving > statements are to be dismissed! > I would like to see Robert and the ACBL AC abandon this usage of "self-serving," which merriam-webster.com describes as: "Serving one's own interest in disregard of the truth or the interests of others." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 9 00:26:18 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:26:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match - 2nd part [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <18A519F647664DA1BF770AFFCF43698C@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: Olivier Beauvillain: [snip] >Playing in 7NT with 13 tops tricks, >C2 & C3 are switched between declarer & dummy, of course of >no-interest, [snip] Richard Hills: Incorrect. Of course of very much interest to the Director. Law 87A, first phrase: "A board is considered to be 'fouled' if the Director determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board" Richard Hills: The magnitude of the displaced card is irrelevant for the purposes of Law 87A. (Compare and contrast Law 13D2, for which the magnitude of the displaced card could well be relevant to the Director's ruling.) Olivier Beauvillain: >We are planning a regulation for swiss, knock-out, round-robin >and want something legal and fair ... >Thx >Olivier Beauvillain Philander C. Knox, United States Attorney-General 1901-1904: {President Theodore Roosevelt requested a legal justification for his acquisition of the Panama Canal.} "Oh, Mr. President, do not let so great an achievement suffer from any taint of legality." 2010 EBU White Book clause 86.2, Law 86C: Substitute Board (paraphrase of WBF LC minute of 1st September 1998): "Suppose a board is fouled during the last stanza of a match. If it is discovered in time so that none of the players who are to replay it know the score, then it can be replayed. But if one player knows the final score [without this board] then it cannot be replayed. There is no difficulty in this Law with replaying a board played in an earlier stanza, or if two or more boards need to be replayed." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 9 00:31:33 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:31:33 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:44:32 EDT." <4BBE4E40.9050709@comcast.net> Message-ID: <201004082229.PAA31240@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Park wrote: > > So it isn't relevant whether the director agrees with the action you > > took; but it *is* relevant whether the director thinks that your > > explanation for why your actions would have been different in the two > > cases makes sense. This is a rather subtle point, and I'm doing my > > best to explain it, which is difficult. But the bottom line is that > > you are not interpreting what Eric said correctly. > > > > -- Adam > > > > > It sounds to me that you are saying I'm not allowed to use my own > reasoning in deciding among actions to take based on information > received from opponents...or that if I do, I'm out on a limb by myself > if my choice differs from the herd's choice. Somehow that doesn't seem > right. Players do come up with rather bizarre bidding/play theories to justify things like (1) claiming they would have always made such-and-such a bid even if partner hasn't hesitated, or (2) claiming that they would have taken such-and-such an action if the opponents hadn't given misinformation, or made a deceptive hesitation, etc. It's the director's job to sort it out, which means not automatically accepting every self-serving statement a player makes. This means that sometimes you get ruled against even when you're totally sincere. It's the way it goes. Sorry. If I had been called to make this ruling in real life, it's possible I might have ruled differently---perhaps being at the table, with the opportunity to hear how you're making your responses and perhaps ask some pointed questions, might have convinced me that you would have taken a different action and there was indeed damage. That's a hazard of asking questions like this on BLML. We don't have that kind of intangible information. > I received information and acted on it to the best of my ability > (nothing wild here, both 4D and 5D would have been rational gambles). I > would have chosen a different bid had I received correct > information...and that assessment was made before I bid, not > afterward. So you say. Not all players in the same situation are 100% honest (I'm not saying they're unethical; this is a situation in which it's easy to slip and delude oneself into thinking that one was damaged by the misinformation). The director is not a mind reader. He has to judge based on what he sees. > If you believe I am telling the truth, why should I lose my right to > redress? Or are you saying that my claim is too self-serving to be > believable? Neither. We're saying that your claim is too odd to be believable. > If so, under what law then does denial of redress for > straying off the beaten path fall? Your repeated attempts to turn this into a Robert Frost poem don't really help your case. The director has to judge whether there was actual damage, and the judgment is going to be somewhat subjective. And an argument that's this far "off the beaten path" is simply going to sound less believable to a director (unless you're *really* convincing). (It certainly seemed like hogwash to me when I first saw it---please keep in mind that this was before we knew that you were the one making that argument.) The law that gives him the power to use his judgment is, I think, Law 81C4. The law that requires him to judge whether an infraction caused damage is 12B1. Those should be enough to answer your question. > The evidence that the result might have been different seems > clear...only 5 of 12 pairs bid the slam. > > In short, the misinformation I received led to a different action than > had I received correct information...and possibly to a different result. > Is not the onus on the offending side here rather than on the NOS? > > My explanation for my action may well be self-serving, but that doesn't > automatically make it untruthful or unbelievable. > > I hope BLML is not headed down a path that says all self-serving > statements are to be dismissed! Nobody has said that on this thread, ever. Saying "your particular self-serving statement should be dismissed" (because it seems strange to a lot of us) is *hardly* the same as saying "all self-serving statements should be dismissed". -- Adam From jrmayne at mindspring.com Fri Apr 9 01:01:55 2010 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement Message-ID: <18307224.1270767716006.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Adam Beneschan [big snip] > > >> I received information and acted on it to the best of my ability >> (nothing wild here, both 4D and 5D would have been rational gambles). I >> would have chosen a different bid had I received correct >> information...and that assessment was made before I bid, not >> afterward. > >So you say. Not all players in the same situation are 100% honest >(I'm not saying they're unethical; this is a situation in which it's >easy to slip and delude oneself into thinking that one was damaged by >the misinformation). I think this is critical, and does happen. On a similar situation where a relatively inexperienced partner made a bid that got undone after a very long (and thoroughly atypical) hesitation on my part (I was pretty sure I was ending the auction with whatever I did), partner was adamant that their bid was justified. Until dinner. "Damn it," said partner. "I did use the hesitation. I didn't mean to - but now that I think about it, I must have." The director is not a mind reader. He has to >judge based on what he sees. > > >> If you believe I am telling the truth, why should I lose my right to >> redress? Or are you saying that my claim is too self-serving to be >> believable? > >Neither. We're saying that your claim is too odd to be believable. > And this is it. We end up with Bayes' Theorem - the a priori odds that this particular claim is true - a different bid based on "shows at least a high card" and "shows game values," are just very, very low. If we knew, for certain, that you were always truthful but had a normal rate of self-delusion, self-delusion would be the percentage call. I'd also like to be at the scene; asking questions is good form even if highly confident; you never know. (And I've been on the other side, and convinced a director of our highly unusual methods.) And Adam's point about self-serving statements is very well taken. Self-serving statements are often true. But simply accepting them is bad directing and leads to more self-deluded and outright dishonest statements. An account that a different bid would be made under these circumstances simply sounds wrong, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not here in the accounts we've received. --JRM From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 9 01:09:39 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:09:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-ServingStatement References: <201004081722.KAA27681@mailhub.irvine.com><4BBE4E40.9050709@comcast.net> <160948E6716B41C7AB6B4FA05B7BEBA0@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <531EC8B3720846A7AF7DA207E0245873@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-ServingStatement > > From: "Robert Park" > >> My explanation for my action may well be self-serving, but that >> doesn't >> automatically make it untruthful or unbelievable. >> >> I hope BLML is not headed down a path that says all self-serving >> statements are to be dismissed! >> > I would like to see Robert and the ACBL AC abandon this usage of > "self-serving," which merriam-webster.com describes as: > > "Serving one's own interest in disregard of the truth or the > interests of others." > +=+ The Director in this case has ruled that the damage was consequent, not upon the misinformation but upon the protester's poor judgement in the auction. The assertion by the player that he would have acted differently if he had been given an accurate explanation requires some kind of support and the Director has found none. There is a high probability that, having seen the result, the player persuaded himself that he would have made the more pre-emptive bid. Doubting the truth of it consultation with the player's peers on a matter of judgement was a proper action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 9 01:23:25 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:23:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-ServingStatement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:09:39 BST." <531EC8B3720846A7AF7DA207E0245873@Mildred> Message-ID: <201004082321.QAA31768@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > +=+ The Director in this case has ruled that the damage was > consequent, not upon the misinformation but upon the protester's > poor judgement in the auction. Just a thought (and to respond to what I'm pretty sure Robert is thinking about this): I would have said "poor guess" instead of "poor judgment"---the latter meaning (to me) an action that didn't have a good chance of working, and the former meaning an action that didn't work on this particular hand. I don't really see anything wrong with pulling in a notch, vulnerable, with a flat hand, even though you do have lots of trumps. But it certainly makes sense for a Director to rule that the damage was consequent upon a poor guess and not upon the misinformation. I agree with everything else you said. -- Adam > The assertion by the player that > he would have acted differently if he had been given an accurate > explanation requires some kind of support and the Director has > found none. There is a high probability that, having seen the > result, the player persuaded himself that he would have made > the more pre-emptive bid. Doubting the truth of it consultation > with the player's peers on a matter of judgement was a proper > action. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 9 02:06:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:06:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2747DF209E5546388ED14CB90B79988E@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ But not in seeding? Where the standard of a partnership is unknown to the Director the general standard of the event may be assumed. However, where the standard is known it is disadvantageous to the lesser players to judge them by the same standards as the highest calibre players. I do not believe this is the intention of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan Endicott's EBU Law & Ethics Committee colleague David Stevenson has long held the view that any form of seeding is iniquitous. Perhaps that is why guidance for Directors on how to be a Johnny Appleseed is a noticeable omission from the 2010 EBU White Book (edited by David Stevenson). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 9 02:46:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:46:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Autodefenestration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Peter Bowler, The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: "autodefenstration, n. The act of throwing oneself out of a window. Illustrated by the true case of Mrs Vera Czermak, who discovered that her husband was being unfaithful to her and attempted to end her life by jumping out of her third-floor flat in Prague. At the moment she jumped, her husband happened to walk by beneath the window. She landed on top of him, and survived. He died." Bob Park: [big snip] >My explanation for my action may well be self-serving, but >that doesn't automatically make it untruthful or unbelievable. Richard Hills: Some self-serving statements are irrelevant. For example, in a classic UI situation the statement, "I was always going to bid 3H" is irrelevant to determining whether or not a peer of the player concerned had a Law 16B1(b) logical alternative to 3H. Bob Park: >I hope BLML is not headed down a path that says all self- >serving statements are to be dismissed! Richard Hills: In the actual case earlier quoted by Bob Park, as Director I would not dismiss his self-serving statement, instead I would rule it irrelevant. I would rule that Bob autodefenestrated because I would rule that the opponents' second explanation was merely a paraphrase of the opponents' first explanation. Zero misinformation, zero infraction, zero adjustment to the score. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 9 04:18:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:18:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Autodefenestration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wikipedia, The Second Defenestration of Prague, May 23rd 1618: "The Regents were thrown out the third floor window along with the Regents' secretary, Philip Fabricius. They fell 30 metres and landed on a large pile of manure in a dry moat and survived. Philip Fabricius was later ennobled by the Emperor and granted the title von Hohenfall (literal meaning 'of Highfall')." Bob Park asked: >Is not the onus on the offending side here rather than on the >non-offending side? Richard Hills: Yes and no. "Onus" is somewhat too strong a word. Law 84D - Director's Option (first sentence): "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side." Richard Hills: Furthermore, the Director cannot apply Law 84D until the Director has discovered whether or not _both sides_ are non- offending. If the Director's Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) judgement is that zero infraction has occurred, then Law 84D is irrelevant, and the applicable Law is instead: Law 84A - No Rectification "If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 9 07:35:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:35:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Implicit partnership understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Steve Willner, August 2004: [snip] >For example, if we agree to play a certain range >for 1NT, other openings deny a balanced hand in >that range, even without explicit discussion. [snip] Richard Hills, August 2004: Naaah. Steve has led a sheltered life. I suggest that he reads Mike Lawrence's first book (of many books), "Judgement At Bridge". In it, Lawrence related how a LOL adopted the old- fashioned advice of Charles Goren, "Don't open a balanced 16-18 1NT with a worthless doubleton!" Since the LOL held 16-18 balanced with a worthless doubleton in clubs, she was compelled by her Gorenish system to open 1C instead! :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 9 07:42:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:42:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Recursive (was Re:) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Steve Willner, August 2004: >.....the day of the week) is presumptively AI..... Richard Hills, August 2004: I think it might have been Eddie Kantar who related this (paraphrased) story -> A top-class expert became highly upset with his misguesses of two-way finesses. He finally decided on this rigid rule to save time: (a) finessing through LHO on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; (b) finessing through RHO on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays; and, (c) playing for the drop on Sundays. Towards the end of a gruelling week-long national championship, the expert's dummy noticed that the expert was palely loitering. When dummy asked for the reason, the expert replied, "I can't remember the day of the week." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 9 09:27:17 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 23:27:17 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Recursive (was Re:) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > Steve Willner, August 2004: > >>.....the day of the week) is presumptively AI..... > > Richard Hills, August 2004: > > I think it might have been Eddie Kantar who related > this (paraphrased) story -> > > A top-class expert became highly upset with his > misguesses of two-way finesses. He finally decided > on this rigid rule to save time: > > (a) finessing through LHO on Mondays, Wednesdays > and Fridays; > > (b) finessing through RHO on Tuesdays, Thursdays > and Saturdays; and, > > (c) playing for the drop on Sundays. > > Towards the end of a gruelling week-long national > championship, the expert's dummy noticed that the > expert was palely loitering. When dummy asked for > the reason, the expert replied, > > "I can't remember the day of the week." > This reminded me of the rules Barry Crane had for finding a queen (or jack). In a minor suit it lies over the jack (or 10). In a major suit the rule is reversed. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 9 09:52:21 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 23:52:21 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Implicit partnership understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <09640F20A39244958D0AD52B0073B821@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > > Steve Willner, August 2004: > > [snip] > >>For example, if we agree to play a certain range >>for 1NT, other openings deny a balanced hand in >>that range, even without explicit discussion. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills, August 2004: > > Naaah. Steve has led a sheltered life. I suggest > that he reads Mike Lawrence's first book (of many > books), "Judgement At Bridge". The Aussie edition? Here it was Judgment at Bridge. It relies primarily on example hands, and there is little depth to the analyses. A book for novices. > > In it, Lawrence related how a LOL adopted the old- > fashioned advice of Charles Goren, "Don't open a > balanced 16-18 1NT with a worthless doubleton!" Weakest suit had to be Qx, xxx, or better, and three suits had to be stopped. That rule lasted quite a while, until modernists found they could not describe 16-18 HCP hands after opening one of a suit with a weak doubleton. After 1M-2m, either 2NT or 3m doesn't show extra values for them, so they open 1NT with a five-card major and a weak doubleton when holding 15-17 HCP. Why 15-17? Because they lowered the requirements for an opening suit bid by a point, making a 1NT rebid 12-14. That forced a 15-17 1NT opening (16-19 for Goren) and two overbids: a jump rebid of 2NT with 18-19, and an opening 2NT with 20-21 (22-24 for Goren). The defense faced these days is worth a point or two for declarer, so it's all okay. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Apr 9 10:11:35 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:11:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match - 2nd part[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match - 2nd part[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Olivier Beauvillain: > > [snip] > >>Playing in 7NT with 13 tops tricks, >>C2 & C3 are switched between declarer & dummy, of course of >>no-interest, > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. Of course of very much interest to the Director. i intend "no-interest ... for the play" of course, Olivier Beauvillain > > Law 87A, first phrase: > > "A board is considered to be 'fouled' if the Director determines > that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board" > > Richard Hills: > > The magnitude of the displaced card is irrelevant for the > purposes of Law 87A. (Compare and contrast Law 13D2, for which > the magnitude of the displaced card could well be relevant to > the Director's ruling.) > > Olivier Beauvillain: > >>We are planning a regulation for swiss, knock-out, round-robin >>and want something legal and fair ... >>Thx >>Olivier Beauvillain > > Philander C. Knox, United States Attorney-General 1901-1904: > > {President Theodore Roosevelt requested a legal justification > for his acquisition of the Panama Canal.} > > "Oh, Mr. President, do not let so great an achievement suffer > from any taint of legality." > > 2010 EBU White Book clause 86.2, Law 86C: Substitute Board > (paraphrase of WBF LC minute of 1st September 1998): > > "Suppose a board is fouled during the last stanza of a match. If > it is discovered in time so that none of the players who are to > replay it know the score, then it can be replayed. But if one > player knows the final score [without this board] then it cannot > be replayed. > > There is no difficulty in this Law with replaying a board played > in an earlier stanza, or if two or more boards need to be > replayed." > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 9 10:25:26 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:25:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Equal justice under law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > +=+ But not in seeding? > Where the standard of a partnership is unknown to the > Director the general standard of the event may be assumed. > However, where the standard is known it is disadvantageous > to the lesser players to judge them by the same standards as > the highest calibre players. I do not believe this is the > intention of the law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Grattan Endicott's EBU Law & Ethics Committee colleague David > Stevenson has long held the view that any form of seeding is > iniquitous. Perhaps that is why guidance for Directors on > how to be a Johnny Appleseed is a noticeable omission from > the 2010 EBU White Book (edited by David Stevenson). > +=+ However, seeding would be a matter for the Tournament Committee and not the Laws & Ethics Committee, so David's views (of which I am unaware) would not be heard. The subject is not one of law and has no place in the White Book. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 9 11:45:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:45:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Autodefenestration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BBEF725.2090505@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Peter Bowler, The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: > > "autodefenstration, n. The act of throwing oneself out of a > window. Illustrated by the true case of Mrs Vera Czermak May I cast some doubt on the source ? All Czech women's names have to end in -a for declension reasons. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 9 12:12:00 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:12:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Autodefenestration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4BBEF725.2090505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Autodefenestration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Peter Bowler, The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: > > "autodefenstration, n. The act of throwing oneself out of a > window. Illustrated by the true case of Mrs Vera Czermak May I cast some doubt on the source ? All Czech women's names have to end in -a for declension reasons. +=+ I find her listed as Vera Czermak in all the publications I have consulted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 9 12:35:08 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:35:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a PossiblySelf-ServingStatement References: <201004082321.QAA31768@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <44C22FD204BB4D61B18D2DD2C3D8483B@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a PossiblySelf-ServingStatement > > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The Director in this case has ruled that the damage was >> consequent, not upon the misinformation but upon the protester's >> poor judgement in the auction. > > Just a thought (and to respond to what I'm pretty sure Robert is > thinking about this): I would have said "poor guess" instead of "poor > judgment"---the latter meaning (to me) an action that didn't have a > good chance of working, and the former meaning an action that didn't > work on this particular hand. I don't really see anything wrong with > pulling in a notch, vulnerable, with a flat hand, even though you do > have lots of trumps. But it certainly makes sense for a Director to > rule that the damage was consequent upon a poor guess and not upon the > misinformation. I agree with everything else you said. > > -- Adam > +=+ Oh OK Adam. So I bring you a hand and I say the bidding has gone p - p-2C-2D p*- ? (* alerted as "shows game values") it is your call. What is your guess? Would you not prefer to think you were judging your action? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 9 12:46:31 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:46:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Autodefenestration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4BBEF725.2090505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BBF0587.3050806@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : >> "autodefenstration, n. The act of throwing oneself out of a >> window. Illustrated by the true case of Mrs Vera Czermak >> > May I cast some doubt on the source ? All Czech women's names have to > end in -a for declension reasons. > > +=+ I find her listed as Vera Czermak in all the > publications I have consulted. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Concedo. Maybe the explanation lies in this sentence from Wiki : Deriving women's names from foreigners' names is often problematic since foreign names do not suit Czech language rules. The combination -cz- being Polish, not Czech, this could be the explanation. The Czech writing for this bird name is "cermak" (with hacek) . Perhaps some Polish contributor may confirm that the word does exist in their language ? Now, where does the -cz- in "Czech" come from ??? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 9 12:54:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:54:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Here is a mannerism case we'd like you to assess : South, declarer, contributes a pip card to West's lead. He turns it down quickly. West, his card still being open, requests that the card be shown again, and South has to comply; West, still on lead, has to decide whether South could possibly have falsecarded, but reasons that falsecards are there to be seen, and that South's apparent unwillingness (conscious or not) to leave his card to be seen means it can't be one. Wrong ! it was a falsecard indeed. Now, West complains that the over-quick card was intended to let him follow the abovementioned reasoning, in short a deceptive mannerism. If one agrees with him, I suppose one can apply the infamous "could have known" principle, but would you ? Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Apr 9 13:30:52 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:30:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?two-way_mannerism?= In-Reply-To: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: Alain Gottcheiner > Here is a mannerism case we'd like you to assess : > > South, declarer, contributes a pip card to West's lead. He turns it > down quickly. > West, his card still being open, requests that the card be shown > again, and South has to ?comply; > > West, still on lead, has to decide whether South could possibly have > falsecarded, but reasons that falsecards are there to be seen, and > that South's apparent unwillingness (conscious or not) to leave his > card to be seen means it can't be one. > > Wrong ! it was a falsecard indeed. > > Now, West complains that the over-quick card was intended to let him > follow the abovementioned reasoning, in short a deceptive mannerism. > > If one agrees with him, I suppose one can apply the infamous "could > have known" principle, but would you ? no Law 73 D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Apr 9 14:23:53 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:23:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <79F2EB92-9E64-4DDE-9CC0-15F0EF936827@starpower.net> References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> <79F2EB92-9E64-4DDE-9CC0-15F0EF936827@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BBF1C59.6040303@comcast.net> On 4/8/10 3:51 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 8, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Robert Park wrote: > > >> On 4/8/10 9:09 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Robert Park wrote: >>> >>> >>>> An interesting case today...the ruling may have been correct, but >>>> I'm not certain about the explanation. >>>> >>>> With both sides vulnerable at a pairs game (ACBL), we had this >>>> auction: >>>> >>>> p - p-2C-2D >>>> p*-4D-p- p * alerted as "shows game values" >>>> 4H- p-6H >>>> >>>> After play was complete (6H made), the 4D bidder called the >>>> director (the best in our area) and explained that he would have >>>> jumped to 5D instead had responder's pass been correctly alerted as >>>> "shows a high card." His reasoning (probably not relevant) was that >>>> he would have made them guess had he known responder's pass was >>>> ambiguous as to strength, but that he feared pushing opponents to >>>> slam if he revealed the full extent of his fit and willingness to >>>> sacrifice by jumping to 5D over a responding hand that purportedly >>>> promised stronger values. So he bid 4D, rightly or wrongly, to give >>>> opponents maximum room to stop below slam. (FWIW, he had 5332 shape >>>> with QJxxx in partner's suit and no other feature.) >>>> >>>> The director took the hand under advisement, and later reported >>>> back that the result would stand. The reason given was not that >>>> opponents would have gotten to 6H anyway (they might well have, as >>>> the 2C bidder had a powerhouse, but who knows), but that 4D was a >>>> poor bid (the director had polled several peers of the 4D bidder, >>>> and their view was that 5D should have been advancer's bid, despite >>>> the misinformation. >>>> >>>> So I'm curious now...does failure to bid as the majority your peers >>>> do negate the possibility to claim damage from misinformation? >>>> >>> Absolutely not. To negate the possibility to claim damage requires >>> and egregious error, i.e. (per Edgar Kaplan, who originated the >>> concept) absurd, or ridiculous. >>> >>> >>>> ...and should the director have provided some other explanation for >>>> his rulling? >>>> >>> I think so. I'd probably (I wasn't there) have upheld on the grounds >>> that there is so little difference between "shows game values" and >>> "shows a high card" (opposite a Standard American 2C bid) as to cast >>> severe doubt on the opponent's claim that such a fine distinction was >>> determinative to his choice of call. >>> >> Hmmm...So you seem to be saying in effect saying that a player must >> bid >> as you would (or follow the herd) if he is to retain his right to >> redress. Interesting. >> > No, not at all. > > >> Note that there was no wild or gambling action in the case >> cited...just >> a different action than other players said they would have taken. >> > Agreed. > > >> I have no idea what would have happened had I jumped to 5D instead >> of to >> 4D, as I would have had I received correct information...all I know is >> that the auction thereafter would have been different. FWIW, I see now >> that only 5 pairs out of 12 got to slam on this hand, and one did not >> even bid game, so it's clearly possible our opponents might not have >> reached slam had correct information been provided. >> > Nor do I. But I don't think it matters. I suggested rejecting your > claim that you would have jumped to 5D on the basis of having > received, not incorrect information, but information arguably > incorrectly phrased. This has nothing to do with what I, or some > panel, or a worldwide consensus of experts, would have done with your > hand. > > Your opponents' agreement was "shows a high card", which you claim > was incorrect, having been misrepresented to you as "shows game > values". But as I see it, that is *not* a misrepresentation, > because opposite a S.A. strong 2C bid, "a high card" *is* "game > values", and you should realize this. You may argue that they're not > exactly exactly the same thing, but you'll have a hard time > convincing me that the difference is significant enough to have > potentially affected your choice of call. > > >> What law says a director can discount a player's explanation of his >> action just because he does not agree with that action (no wild or >> gambling involved)? >> > Clearly he cannot, and I am confident that I have never suggested > that he could (see the first paragraph of my previous post, above). > What he can do is reject a player's assertion that he was > substantively misinformed merely by a valid paraphrasing of the > opponents verbatim agreement. In a nutshell, "No MI." > > > Eric Landau > OK, that is a ruling I can understand and accept, even if I don't fully agree with it. It's essentially a version of "no harm, no foul," and seems to be basically the point Richard has been making. And I thank you (and Richard) for the patience you have shown in your explanations. Yet I still have a concern, as a ruling on basis of "no MI found" seems to deprive me of my right to interpret the information I receive from an opponent. In this case that information led me to tilt one way rather than the other, though the decision was close. Please note that the opponents spent 2-3 minutes after play was completed arguing about their agreement vs. the alert given, so there were at least 3 people in the room who did see a distinction between the alert and the partnership agreement...two of whom acted on the distinction they perceived. --bp From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 9 14:43:01 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:43:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4BBF20D5.6030406@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > From: Alain Gottcheiner > >> Here is a mannerism case we'd like you to assess : >> >> South, declarer, contributes a pip card to West's lead. He turns it >> down quickly. >> West, his card still being open, requests that the card be shown >> again, and South has to comply; >> >> West, still on lead, has to decide whether South could possibly have >> falsecarded, but reasons that falsecards are there to be seen, and >> that South's apparent unwillingness (conscious or not) to leave his >> card to be seen means it can't be one. >> >> Wrong ! it was a falsecard indeed. >> >> Now, West complains that the over-quick card was intended to let him >> follow the abovementioned reasoning, in short a deceptive mannerism. >> >> If one agrees with him, I suppose one can apply the infamous "could >> have known" principle, but would you ? >> > > no > > Law 73 D1: > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to > maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, > players should be particularly careful when variations may > work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally > to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made > is not in itself an infraction. > Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn > only by an opponent, and at his own risk." > > AG : if the last centence was the only one to be relevant, one would neverpenalize thos who esitate with two small. So I'll rephrase my question : can this case be considered the same way as non-existent hesitations ? And how would you consider the case of a player who bids with apparent hesitation in the hope of being doubled ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 9 15:01:51 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:01:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <4BBF1C59.6040303@comcast.net> References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> <79F2EB92-9E64-4DDE-9CC0-15F0EF936827@starpower.net> <4BBF1C59.6040303@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4BBF253F.4060007@ulb.ac.be> Robert Park a ?crit : >> >> Your opponents' agreement was "shows a high card", which you claim >> was incorrect, having been misrepresented to you as "shows game >> values". But as I see it, that is *not* a misrepresentation, >> because opposite a S.A. strong 2C bid, "a high card" *is* "game >> values", and you should realize this. You may argue that they're not >> exactly exactly the same thing, but you'll have a hard time >> convincing me that the difference is significant enough to have >> potentially affected your choice of call. >> AG : indeed they are similar explanations, and one should ask the plaintiff which substantial difference he sees. Notice that it has been explicitly stated that different explanations between screens do not necessarily constitue discrepancy, if they are to the same effect, e.g. if one player tells about the combined strangth and the other about the indvidual strength. example, playing Roman, 1C-1NT could be either "natural and opening values" "natural and values to play at least 2NT" (live case) This means that equivalent explanations (if clear enough) may be substituted for eachother. >> >> >>> What law says a director can discount a player's explanation of his >>> action just because he does not agree with that action (no wild or >>> gambling involved)? >>> AG : IMOBO he meant "if you would have bid 5D with the other explanation, I don't agree with 4D having gotten this one". > a ruling on basis of "no MI found" seems to > deprive me of my right to interpret the information I receive from an > opponent. AG : a ruling of "no MI found" means they aren't responsible in any way of your possible misinterpretation. BTW, why did you interpret it rather than taking it at its face value or requesting more information ? > In this case that information led me to tilt one way rather > than the other, though the decision was close. > Okay. Live example. You open 2S, which is doubled. They double, alert (with screens) and explain "not genuinely punitive but shows something in the suit and is readily passable". Do you take it as penalties or as general strength ? A difference in interpretation by one of Belgium's best pairs cost them 1600, and only because I defended poorly. Now there was absolutely no MI, this is the exact definition of the bid. The problem is with the interpretation, and opponents aren't responsible in any way for that. > Please note that the opponents spent 2-3 minutes after play was > completed arguing about their agreement vs. the alert given, so there > were at least 3 people in the room who did see a distinction between the > alert and the partnership agreement...two of whom acted on the > distinction they perceived. > Okay. So, what's the difference ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 9 15:27:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:27:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Recursive In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62AC88C7-8BDC-44DC-B2DA-6CC4DAB058B2@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Marvin French wrote: > This reminded me of the rules Barry Crane had for finding a queen > (or jack). In a minor suit it lies over the jack (or 10). In a major > suit the rule is reversed. I believe this rule "works" -- or, rather, worked in Barry Crane's day. It is based on the way in which American manufacturers package decks of cards. Some small but not insignificant percentage of the boards Mr. Crane played would have been hand-dealt from freshly opened new decks, and on those boards his rule would have found the queen well over 50% of the time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 9 15:47:45 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:47:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Here is a mannerism case we'd like you to assess : > > South, declarer, contributes a pip card to West's lead. He turns it > down > quickly. > West, his card still being open, requests that the card be shown > again, > and South has to comply; > > West, still on lead, has to decide whether South could possibly have > falsecarded, but reasons that falsecards are there to be seen, and > that > South's apparent unwillingness (conscious or not) to leave his card to > be seen means it can't be one. > > Wrong ! it was a falsecard indeed. > > Now, West complains that the over-quick card was intended to let him > follow the abovementioned reasoning, in short a deceptive mannerism. Kind of like the rapist who argues that his victim's repeated refusal to have consensual sex with him was merely a "deceptive mannerism" designed to make the eventual experience all the more piquant. IMHO, if this South knew this West well enough to have deliberately taken him in in this manner, he is to be roundly congratulated for his mastery of applied psychology. > If one agrees with him, I suppose one can apply the infamous "could > have > known" principle, but would you ? I wouldn't have taken Alain for one who would post an obvious troll, but here it seems more likely than his question being a serioius one. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 9 16:05:04 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:05:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] two-way mannerism From: Alain Gottcheiner > Here is a mannerism case we'd like you to assess : > > South, declarer, contributes a pip card to West's lead. He turns it > down quickly. > West, his card still being open, requests that the card be shown > again, and South has to comply; > > West, still on lead, has to decide whether South could possibly have > falsecarded, but reasons that falsecards are there to be seen, and > that South's apparent unwillingness (conscious or not) to leave his > card to be seen means it can't be one. > > Wrong ! it was a falsecard indeed. > > Now, West complains that the over-quick card was intended to let him > follow the abovementioned reasoning, in short a deceptive mannerism. > > If one agrees with him, I suppose one can apply the infamous "could > have known" principle, but would you ? no >Law 73 D1: >"It is desirable, though not always required, for players to >maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, >players should be particularly careful when variations may >work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally >to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made >is not in itself an infraction. >Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn >only by an opponent, and at his own risk." "Otherwise", Peter, "otherwise". Meaning - only if variations in tempo _may not_ work to the benefit of the player's side. But here - they definitely might have. 73F is very clear about that. Let's read it and see if it applies: 1. Did the innocent player draw a false inference from the opponent's manner? Yes, he did. He thought that because his opponent played a card very quickly then he had no other card in his hand in this suit. 2.Did this opponent have a demonstrable bridge reason for the action? Of course he didn't. There is no demonstrable reason to play a card much quicker than other cards and to turn it down quicker than others. 3. Did this opponent could have known, at the time of his action, that the action could work to his benefit? Like hell he could - this exactly what you would like to do when you're falscarding - create an impression that you have no other cards in hand, that your play is completely automatic; So it is a clear and textbook case of a L73F ruling. We adjust the score. The "at your own risk" part applies only when the opponent does have a demonstrable bridge reason for his action. For instance your partner leads a low card and declarer thinks for a while and plays the king. You must assume that he has a bridge reason for hesitation. If he doesn't (say his king was a singleton) - there is no reason for hesitation and L73F tells us to adjust. But if he does indeed have a reaon for his hesitation - then you, as a defender, have to guess what kind of reaon it might be. Maybe he has KJx and was wondering which honor to play; maybe he has KQ10 and was considering making a finesse, or maybe he has AKQJ1092 and was contemplating taking with the 8 in dummy. Which one of the three cases it might be is for you to work out - "at your own risk". But someone has no demonstrable bridge reason for playing out of tempo (faster or slower) then he cannot hide behing "at your own risk". Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------------------------------------------- Szukasz pracy? Sprawdz oferty na praca.interia.pl! http://link.interia.pl/f265b From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 9 16:15:22 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:15:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> > IMHO, if this South knew this West well enough to have deliberately > taken him in in this manner, he is to be roundly congratulated for > his mastery of applied psychology. Huh? Let me make it clear - if my LHO leads an ace and I have Qx then for you it is perfectly OK to play the queen at the speed of light (faster than your normal tempo) and quickly turn it over? Unbelievable. I know some guys who do exactly that and up to this point I considered them cheats but it seems I have to "congratulate them for their mastery of applied psychology." So if I ever play against you and I have AQJ Kxx and you (LHO) lead a low card and I go into a tank and then say "don't finesse" to dummy which will lure you into thinking that your partner has the king then I expect that you will congratulate me on my mastery of applied psychology and won't call the TD. What happened to L73F in your copy of TFLB? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprawdz warunki na drogach! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f259f From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 9 16:16:26 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:16:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: Normally, players here fold their convention card in half and leave it convention-side up at the corner of their table. So they could try to read half of the card if they wanted. A player is coming today who does not fold it in half and leaves it in front of her. legal? I will probably ask her to change when I am called to the table, but someone asked about legality and ethics. She is a good player playing with a regular partner. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Apr 9 16:25:32 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:25:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <796587.77175.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Konrad] 3. Could this opponent have known, at the time of his action, that the action might work to his benefit? Like hell he could - this exactly what you would like to do when you're falscarding - create an impression that you have no other cards in hand, that your play is completely automatic; So it is a clear and textbook case of a L73F ruling. We adjust the score. The "at your own risk" part applies only when the opponent does have a demonstrable bridge reason for his action. [Nige1] Once again, Konrad is convincing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100409/921d56bc/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 9 16:51:04 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:51:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BBF3ED8.5090704@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Here is a mannerism case we'd like you to assess : >> >> South, declarer, contributes a pip card to West's lead. He turns it >> down >> quickly. >> West, his card still being open, requests that the card be shown >> again, >> and South has to comply; >> >> West, still on lead, has to decide whether South could possibly have >> falsecarded, but reasons that falsecards are there to be seen, and >> that >> South's apparent unwillingness (conscious or not) to leave his card to >> be seen means it can't be one. >> >> Wrong ! it was a falsecard indeed. >> >> Now, West complains that the over-quick card was intended to let him >> follow the abovementioned reasoning, in short a deceptive mannerism. >> > > Kind of like the rapist who argues that his victim's repeated refusal > to have consensual sex with him was merely a "deceptive mannerism" > designed to make the eventual experience all the more piquant. > > IMHO, if this South knew this West well enough to have deliberately > taken him in in this manner, he is to be roundly congratulated for > his mastery of applied psychology. > > >> If one agrees with him, I suppose one can apply the infamous "could >> have >> known" principle, but would you ? >> > > I wouldn't have taken Alain for one who would post an obvious troll, > but here it seems more likely than his question being a serioius one. > This isn't my question at first. Anyway, since they were discussing it, half of them will be better informed now, so where's the troll ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 9 17:00:16 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:00:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: <15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4BBF4100.9020106@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : >> IMHO, if this South knew this West well enough to have deliberately >> taken him in in this manner, he is to be roundly congratulated for >> his mastery of applied psychology. >> > > Huh? > > Let me make it clear - if my LHO leads an ace and > I have Qx then for you it is perfectly OK to play the queen > at the speed of light (faster than your normal tempo) > and quickly turn it over? Unbelievable. > > I know some guys who do exactly that and > up to this point I considered them cheats but > it seems I have to "congratulate them for > their mastery of applied psychology." > > So if I ever play against you and I have > > AQJ > > Kxx > > and you (LHO) lead a low card and > I go into a tank and then say "don't finesse" to dummy > which will lure you into thinking that your > partner has the king then I expect that you > will congratulate me on my mastery of applied psychology > and won't call the TD. > > What happened to L73F in your copy of TFLB? > > Good gracious ! Looks like the troll isn't back under his bridge yet ... From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 9 17:06:02 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:06:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4BBF425A.90307@ulb.ac.be> rfrick at rfrick.info a ?crit : > Normally, players here fold their convention card in half and leave it > convention-side up at the corner of their table. So they could try to read > half of the card if they wanted. > > A player is coming today who does not fold it in half and leaves it in > front of her. > > legal? > > I will probably ask her to change when I am called to the table, but > someone asked about legality and ethics. She is a good player playing with > a regular partner. > > _ Most COCs say you have to handle your CC to your opponents ; they didn't, ergo there is a breach of correct procedure, isn't it ? In my club, we have tables with a U-shape compartment, something like ----------------------- | | -- --- | | | | | | and that's where we put opps' CC. Try reading it there ... Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 9 17:14:47 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:14:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <4BBF425A.90307@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> <4BBF425A.90307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > rfrick at rfrick.info a ?crit : >> Normally, players here fold their convention card in half and leave it >> convention-side up at the corner of their table. So they could try to >> read >> half of the card if they wanted. >> >> A player is coming today who does not fold it in half and leaves it in >> front of her. >> >> legal? >> >> I will probably ask her to change when I am called to the table, but >> someone asked about legality and ethics. She is a good player playing >> with >> a regular partner. >> >> _ > Most COCs say you have to handle your CC to your opponents ; they > didn't, ergo there is a breach of correct procedure, isn't it ? > In my club, we have tables with a U-shape compartment, something like > > ----------------------- > | | > -- --- > | | > | | > | | > > and that's where we put opps' CC. Try reading it there ... The ACBL regulation: "Each member of a partnership MUST have a completely filled out convention card available for the opponents." She just now moved it to the side folded in half for the person who was going to complain. So I don't have to make a ruling. Still, there is the legal issue, and I am not so comfortable allowing it. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Apr 9 17:32:38 2010 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:32:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <47A50A226C724E5B956DCD6F0CAC7AB1@mikePC> At least two or three players I know simply pick up their opponents Convention Card and put it on their own lap to refer to it. That should work Mike Mike Amos -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:16 PM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] convention card placement > Normally, players here fold their convention card in half and leave it > convention-side up at the corner of their table. So they could try to read > half of the card if they wanted. > > A player is coming today who does not fold it in half and leaves it in > front of her. > > legal? > > I will probably ask her to change when I am called to the table, but > someone asked about legality and ethics. She is a good player playing with > a regular partner. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 9 17:37:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:37:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <3D45230A6C8D40C5BE1AC6BF688FDFF7@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] two-way mannerism > IMHO, if this South knew this West well enough to have deliberately > taken him in in this manner, he is to be roundly congratulated for > his mastery of applied psychology. Huh? Let me make it clear - if my LHO leads an ace and I have Qx then for you it is perfectly OK to play the queen at the speed of light (faster than your normal tempo) and quickly turn it over? Unbelievable. I know some guys who do exactly that and up to this point I considered them cheats but it seems I have to "congratulate them for their mastery of applied psychology." So if I ever play against you and I have AQJ Kxx and you (LHO) lead a low card and I go into a tank and then say "don't finesse" to dummy which will lure you into thinking that your partner has the king then I expect that you will congratulate me on my mastery of applied psychology and won't call the TD. What happened to L73F in your copy of TFLB? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland +=+ Is it unreasonable of me to think that the Director would form a view on the balance of probabilities whether the tempo was intended to deceive and, if so, whether it did in fact deceive? ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 9 17:45:23 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:45:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: <3D45230A6C8D40C5BE1AC6BF688FDFF7@Mildred> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> <3D45230A6C8D40C5BE1AC6BF688FDFF7@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BBF4B93.2000506@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > +=+ Is it unreasonable of me to think that the Director > would form a view on the balance of probabilities > whether the tempo was intended to deceive and, if so, > whether it did in fact deceive? ~ G ~ +=+ > > AG : of course not. But if I understand your position : West's claim that there was an intention to decieve and that L73 might be applied to this case is at least wotrhy of consideration. That demolishes Eric's assurance as much as Konrad intended to do. Best regards Alain From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 9 19:19:01 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:19:01 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a PossiblySelf-ServingStatement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:35:08 BST." <44C22FD204BB4D61B18D2DD2C3D8483B@Mildred> Message-ID: <201004091716.KAA08511@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The Director in this case has ruled that the damage was > >> consequent, not upon the misinformation but upon the protester's > >> poor judgement in the auction. > > > > Just a thought (and to respond to what I'm pretty sure Robert is > > thinking about this): I would have said "poor guess" instead of "poor > > judgment"---the latter meaning (to me) an action that didn't have a > > good chance of working, and the former meaning an action that didn't > > work on this particular hand. I don't really see anything wrong with > > pulling in a notch, vulnerable, with a flat hand, even though you do > > have lots of trumps. But it certainly makes sense for a Director to > > rule that the damage was consequent upon a poor guess and not upon the > > misinformation. I agree with everything else you said. > > > > -- Adam > > > +=+ Oh OK Adam. So I bring you a hand and I say the bidding > has gone > p - p-2C-2D > p*- ? (* alerted as "shows game values") > it is your call. What is your guess? > Would you not prefer to think you were judging your > action? I suppose. But I judge a certain action and it doesn't work on this hand, that doesn't make it a "bad judgment" or "poor judgment", at least not the way I think I use the phrase. Maybe for others, it would. There are subtle nuances here, and I don't even think "poor judgment" carries the exact same connotation as "poorly judged"---one seems to imply lack of knowledge or experience, and the other could be just plain bad luck. I don't know. My thinking here is that telling someone they don't get redress because of "poor judgment" could be interpreted as saying that you're not adjusting because we don't agree with the player's bid, or that you're not adjusting because you strayed off the beaten path and didn't bid like the herd. Calling it a "poor guess" or an "unfortunate guess" takes away that possible interpretation, but the argument for not adjusting is still just as valid if we're not convinced that the tiny difference in explanation would have had an effect on the guess. That's what I was trying to get at. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 9 19:37:35 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:37:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: <15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <618FF9ED-8D6A-46FB-8465-B76684B83B56@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> IMHO, if this South knew this West well enough to have deliberately >> taken him in in this manner, he is to be roundly congratulated for >> his mastery of applied psychology. > > Huh? I guess the above needed a sarcasm alert, although I trust it was a bit more obvious in context. > Let me make it clear - if my LHO leads an ace and > I have Qx then for you it is perfectly OK to play the queen > at the speed of light (faster than your normal tempo) > and quickly turn it over? Unbelievable. Well, if I were to obviously dither between two choices before showing the queen it wouldn't be much of a falsecard, now would it? Seriously, though, to show a card and then turn it over in my "normal tempo" takes about a second. It would take a particularly sharp opponent to notice the fraction-of-a-second difference between "normal tempo" and "twice as fast as that". That makes "could have known" dubious. And it would take a pathologically suspicious opponent to freight it with some subtle double-reverse-whammy intended meaning even if he did notice it. *That* makes "could have known" absurd -- unless South has been West's psychoanalyst for the past several years and knows him a lot better than anyone else ever could. In the original case, Alain writes, "West, still on lead, has to decide whether South could possibly have falsecarded, but reasons that falsecards are there to be seen, and that South's apparent unwillingness (conscious or not) to leave his card to be seen means it can't be one. Wrong! it was a falsecard indeed." So Konrad has his analogy backwards: not playing the queen "at the speed of light" to convince LHO that it is a singleton, but rather dithering between the queen and the x, then playing the queen, to convince LHO that you were trying to convince him that you had another one, so you must in fact have no reason for dithering, therefore no x to consider, so the queen must actually be a singleton after all! I suspect that Konrad has overlooked the "reverse psychology" aspect of the original protestor's claim. If we accept his analogy -- from which this aspect is missing -- as valid, it would mean that any time I lead an ace and declarer breaks tempo before playing the queen, and subsequently I misguess his holding, I have a claim for redress under L73F regardless of whether declarer's play was fast or slow, and regardless of whether it induced me to believe that the queen was a true card or a false one. > I know some guys who do exactly that and > up to this point I considered them cheats but > it seems I have to "congratulate them for > their mastery of applied psychology." When you manifestly (and deliberately) indicate a holding different from what you have, and fool your opponent into thinking that's what you hold, that's cheating. When you manifestly indicate the holding you actually do have, but your opponent assumes you are trying to cheat him and so fools himself into thinking you hold something different, that's what I called "mastery of applied psychology". It's not the same thing at all, so I had to call it something different. > So if I ever play against you and I have > > AQJ > > Kxx > > and you (LHO) lead a low card and > I go into a tank and then say "don't finesse" to dummy > which will lure you into thinking that your > partner has the king then I expect that you > will congratulate me on my mastery of applied psychology > and won't call the TD. So if I ever play against Konrad and I have AQJ xxx and Konrad (LHO) leads a low card and I immediately call for the jack with no apparent thought which will lure him into thinking that his partner does not have the king then I expect that he will call the director and ask for L73F redress. Really? > What happened to L73F in your copy of TFLB? I guess someone added a bunch of extra words. Konrad's version need say no more than, "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, the Director shall award an adjusted score." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 9 19:58:23 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:58:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <47A50A226C724E5B956DCD6F0CAC7AB1@mikePC> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> <47A50A226C724E5B956DCD6F0CAC7AB1@mikePC> Message-ID: On Apr 9, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Mike Amos wrote: > At least two or three players I know simply pick up their opponents > Convention Card and put it on their own lap to refer to it. > That should work That must get awfully awkward for those who use the ACBL Convention Card as its creators intended: with system information for the benefit of the opponents, which the player is constrained in his right to look at (L40B2(b)), on one side, and with private scores, for the benefit of the player, which are illegal for the opponents to look at, on the other. If they keep it in their lap except when its owner needs to write on it, that means passing it forth or back four times per deal, each side being careful to see only the information to which it is entitled at each pass. Of course, most ACBL players do use two separate copies of the CC form for their system card and their scorecard, which solves the problem. But then again, a lot of those do put the two forms into opposite sides of a single CC holder, which brings it back again. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 9 21:48:14 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:48:14 -0800 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><47A50A226C724E5B956DCD6F0CAC7AB1@mikePC> Message-ID: <42FF1488BF514779B305997BECBF4BDC@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > On Apr 9, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Mike Amos wrote: > >> At least two or three players I know simply pick up their >> opponents >> Convention Card and put it on their own lap to refer to it. >> That should work > > That must get awfully awkward for those who use the ACBL > Convention > Card as its creators intended: with system information for the > benefit of the opponents, which the player is constrained in his > right to look at (L40B2(b)), on one side, and with private scores, > for the benefit of the player, which are illegal for the opponents > to > look at, on the other. If they keep it in their lap except when > its > owner needs to write on it, that means passing it forth or back > four > times per deal, each side being careful to see only the > information > to which it is entitled at each pass. > > Of course, most ACBL players do use two separate copies of the CC > form for their system card and their scorecard, which solves the > problem. > > But then again, a lot of those do put the two forms into opposite > sides of a single CC holder, which brings it back again. Yes, and unfolded despite the fact that the CC was designed to be folded. When folded, the score side doesn't show and the CC takes up less space on the table. Many put the CC under their derrieres. When it's a woman, I ask to see it and then drop it like a hot potato, "Ouch, that's hot!" and ask that they leave it on the table. That puts humour into a situation that might cause indignation otherwise. The unfolded CC has another drawback, as many will flop the score side face up on the table to enter the deal result. If you say, "I shouldn't be able to see your scores," they reply, "Don't look!" There are people who make a living by looking, and these players should be given a soft lecture, with a PP for repeated violations. Folding the card should be mandatory, but players will put many CCs in the holder, one for each partnership, so that folding is not possible. That should not be allowed. When the CC is properly folded and on the table, it is a simple matter to turn it to the appropriate side during the auction or play period. Without looking at it, of course. If it is on or near the corner, each partner putting it near their LHO, oriented for their reading, not theirs, legible and complete, the CC regulations are neatly followed. I do not want to ask about something that is on the opposing CC, I want to see it. Asking is UI to partner and may help the opposition more than us. For carding especially, I want to glance at their agreements without showing my interest. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 9 20:48:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:48:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: <3D45230A6C8D40C5BE1AC6BF688FDFF7@Mildred> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> <3D45230A6C8D40C5BE1AC6BF688FDFF7@Mildred> Message-ID: On Apr 9, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > >> IMHO, if this South knew this West well enough to have deliberately >> taken him in in this manner, he is to be roundly congratulated for >> his mastery of applied psychology. > > Huh? > > Let me make it clear - if my LHO leads an ace and > I have Qx then for you it is perfectly OK to play the queen > at the speed of light (faster than your normal tempo) > and quickly turn it over? Unbelievable. > > I know some guys who do exactly that and > up to this point I considered them cheats but > it seems I have to "congratulate them for > their mastery of applied psychology." > > So if I ever play against you and I have > > AQJ > > Kxx > > and you (LHO) lead a low card and > I go into a tank and then say "don't finesse" to dummy > which will lure you into thinking that your > partner has the king then I expect that you > will congratulate me on my mastery of applied psychology > and won't call the TD. > > What happened to L73F in your copy of TFLB? > > +=+ Is it unreasonable of me to think that the Director > would form a view on the balance of probabilities > whether the tempo was intended to deceive and, if so, > whether it did in fact deceive? The problem is that a literal (perhaps overly literal) interpretation of the phrases "could have been aware" (L23) and "could have known" (L73F) makes intention irrelevant to the application of the law, leaving only the criterion "whether it did in fact deceive", which is highly problematic, as this discussion demonstrates. If the action in question manifestly suggests a particular inference, one player might choose to take it at face value and be deceived, while another (like the complainant in Alain's original thread case) might decide that has been sent a deliberately false signal by an opponent attempting to mislead him and so choose to take it as indicating the opposite of what it appears to mean, thus being equally deceived. Whichever occurs, one "could have known" that his action, *regardless of the inference drawn from it*, "could work to his benefit". As I suggested to Konrad previously, the case against this literal interpretation is that were it the intent of the authors of L73F, they could simply have left out the words between "for the action," and "the Director shall". True story from a serious event: I opened 3C, and my partner alerted. Her RHO said, "I assume that's a weak preempt", and she replied, "No, it's artificial and forcing to game." Due to some previous occurrence, and perhaps exacerbated by the somewhat supercilious manner in which the question had been put, the manner of her response was, admittedly, a tad abrupt and her voice had a bit of an "edge" to it. For reasons not clear, this convinced her RHO that she was being sarcastic, that, "No, it's artificial and forcing to game," actually meant, "Yes, of course, don't be stupid." So in he stepped. When the smoke cleared (I had a flat 25-count) he was so incensed at having been "misled" by my partner's "obvious sarcasm" that his partner had to spend perhaps a full half-minute talking him out of calling the Director and making a total fool of himself. Alain's original thread case, IMO, comes a lot closer to my story than to Konrad's suggested analogy, the principal difference being that Alain's complainant didn't have a partner sensible enough to talk him out of making a total fool of himself. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 9 21:01:49 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:01:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> <618FF9ED-8D6A-46FB-8465-B76684B83B56@starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" > I suspect that Konrad has overlooked the "reverse psychology" aspect > of the original protestor's claim. But there is no "reverse psychology" unless totally don't understand Alain's description. >From what I can tell the course of events was: 1. South had something like, say, 1032, and played the 10 to the opening lead. 2. He acted as if he had a singleton; he played the 10 very quickly and quickly turned it down. 3. He didn't have a singleton, he falscarded. So he had one holding, and acted as if he had another. Where is the "reverse psychology"? There would be if South did indeed hold a singleton 10 but, as far as I can tell, this wasn't the case. Alain - can you clarify if I'm right about what happened? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Letnie opony do 30% taniej! Darmowa dostawa Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f265d From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Apr 9 21:43:26 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:43:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement In-Reply-To: <4BBF253F.4060007@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> <79F2EB92-9E64-4DDE-9CC0-15F0EF936827@starpower.net> <4BBF1C59.6040303@comcast.net> <4BBF253F.4060007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BBF835E.5020507@comcast.net> On 4/9/10 9:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Park a ?crit : > >>> Your opponents' agreement was "shows a high card", which you claim >>> was incorrect, having been misrepresented to you as "shows game >>> values". But as I see it, that is *not* a misrepresentation, >>> because opposite a S.A. strong 2C bid, "a high card" *is* "game >>> values", and you should realize this. You may argue that they're not >>> exactly exactly the same thing, but you'll have a hard time >>> convincing me that the difference is significant enough to have >>> potentially affected your choice of call. >>> >>> > AG : indeed they are similar explanations, and one should ask the > plaintiff which substantial difference he sees. > > Notice that it has been explicitly stated that different explanations > between screens do not necessarily constitue discrepancy, if they are to > the same effect, e.g. if one player tells about the combined strangth > and the other about the indvidual strength. > example, playing Roman, 1C-1NT could be either > "natural and opening values" > "natural and values to play at least 2NT" > (live case) > > > This means that equivalent explanations (if clear enough) may be > substituted for eachother. > > > >>> >>> >>> >>>> What law says a director can discount a player's explanation of his >>>> action just because he does not agree with that action (no wild or >>>> gambling involved)? >>>> >>>> > AG : IMOBO he meant "if you would have bid 5D with the other > explanation, I don't agree with 4D having gotten this one". > > >> a ruling on basis of "no MI found" seems to >> deprive me of my right to interpret the information I receive from an >> opponent. >> > AG : a ruling of "no MI found" means they aren't responsible in any way > of your possible misinterpretation. BTW, why did you interpret it rather > than taking it at its face value or requesting more information ? > > >> In this case that information led me to tilt one way rather >> than the other, though the decision was close. >> >> > Okay. Live example. You open 2S, which is doubled. They double, alert > (with screens) and explain "not genuinely punitive but shows something > in the suit and is readily passable". Do you take it as penalties or as > general strength ? A difference in interpretation by one of Belgium's > best pairs cost them 1600, and only because I defended poorly. Now there > was absolutely no MI, this is the exact definition of the bid. The > problem is with the interpretation, and opponents aren't responsible in > any way for that. > > >> Please note that the opponents spent 2-3 minutes after play was >> completed arguing about their agreement vs. the alert given, so there >> were at least 3 people in the room who did see a distinction between the >> alert and the partnership agreement...two of whom acted on the >> distinction they perceived. >> >> > Okay. So, what's the difference ? > > LHO (the alerter) said that the his partner's pass over my partner's 2D overcall of 2C showed game values. There was no other information, so I presumed he meant facing any 2C bid. RHO (4000+ masterpoints) argued strongly later that her pass did not show game values, so there seemed to be a clear distinction between the alert and their agreement for this pair. I apparently was on the same frequency. My hand suggested to (to me, given a game-value hand to my right), that they likely had slam, as we certianly had at most one diamond trick between us and I had nothing to contribute to the defense. So, I sought a tactical action that would give them the greatest chance of stopping below slam. I judged, rightly or wrongly, that a jump to 5D was likely to give them just the push they needed to bid slam. Hence my 4D bid...with which you are free to disagree (many have). I understand Eric's and Richard's assertion that "shows game values" and "shows a useful card" are not sufficiently different in meaning as to justify choosing one action over another, but I didn't see it that way at the time. Hence my feeling that the alert and (mis)explanation nudged me away from my usual action. --bp From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sat Apr 10 01:16:25 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:16:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><4BBF425A.90307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1270854985.25724.1369188143@webmail.messagingengine.com> > The ACBL regulation: "Each member of a partnership MUST have a completely > filled out convention card available for the opponents." > > She just now moved it to the side folded in half for the person who was > going to complain. So I don't have to make a ruling. Still, there is the > legal issue, and I am not so comfortable allowing it. Little corner tables can help if there is reason to believe someone is looking at their card. Only the dimmest opponents with that concern will not think to say "please put your card down here where I can look at it" -- something that is hard to refuse without effectively admitting that the suspicions were correct. David From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 10 02:33:17 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:33:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement References: <4BBCDFCF.7080401@comcast.net> <4BBE0C4C.3070903@comcast.net> <79F2EB92-9E64-4DDE-9CC0-15F0EF936827@starpower.net> <4BBF1C59.6040303@comcast.net><4BBF253F.4060007@ulb.ac.be> <4BBF835E.5020507@comcast.net> Message-ID: <8CC05E9D228448B5BFA9A1B56AF14C9F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation: Does it Trump a Possibly Self-Serving Statement >> I understand Eric's and Richard's assertion that "shows game values" and "shows a useful card" are not sufficiently different in meaning as to justify choosing one action over another, but I didn't see it that way at the time. Hence my feeling that the alert and (mis)explanation nudged me away from my usual action. <<< +=+ Peer players asked on site took the same view as Richard and Eric. With this evidence the Director decided you had simply misjudged your action, or as Adam Beneshan expresses it "guessed" wrongly. . To me it is a misjudgement. . News that the hand is strong is likely to trigger a slam investigation; so is news that partner has a key card (one assumes in a hand that would be willing to hear more). Either way the option of a high pre-empt is on offer and you choose to go along that route or not as you judge. It will be unlikely you can have a double shot if your choice is followed by a poor result. There is just one question in my mind - arising from Law 20F5(b)(ii). I would need to think further whether that might possibly lead to a penalty, or even perhaps a split score. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Sat Apr 10 12:21:32 2010 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:21:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100410102136.DAB40485C102@relay2.webreus.nl> To a non-inhabitant of ACBL-land the local customs seem rather odd. Where did someone get the idea of putting the convention card (not to be viewed by the player who owns it) and the personal score card (not to be viewed by the opponents) in one and the same container? The solution is quite simple: make these two distinct and separate items! The convention card is to be handed over to one of the opponents - as is the custom in other countries - who can then decide where to put it. Then sit on the scorecard if you please, but not on the convention card. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sat Apr 10 13:11:09 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:11:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <20100410102136.DAB40485C102@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20100410102136.DAB40485C102@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <1270897869.12140.1369238353@webmail.messagingengine.com> > To a non-inhabitant of ACBL-land the local customs seem rather odd. to many of us inhabitants too :-) David From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Apr 11 08:39:42 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 08:39:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: On 9 April 2010 16:16, wrote: > Normally, players here fold their convention card I'm a little surprised, coming in here after a couple of days, seeing no comment at all on the "terminology" used.... There are no such thing as a convention card any more - it's called a System Card since the introduction of the 2007 laws. :-) > in half and leave it > convention-side up at the corner of their table. So they could try to read > half of the card if they wanted. > > A player is coming today who does not fold it in half and leaves it in > front of her. > > legal? > > I will probably ask her to change when I am called to the table, but > someone asked about legality and ethics. She is a good player playing with > a regular partner. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sun Apr 11 12:38:03 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 06:38:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> > I'm a little surprised, coming in here after a couple of days, seeing > no comment at all on the "terminology" used.... > There are no such thing as a convention card any more - it's called a > System Card since the introduction of the 2007 laws. :-) And there are many fewer penalties than there used to be; they have become "rectifications", but day-to-day conversation has not tracked that either. The real-world use of language is something that changes bottom-up, not top-down. As the wise old philosopher said: when you think you actually control things, try giving orders to your cat. David From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 11 15:41:24 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:41:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> <1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] convention card placement > And there are many fewer penalties than there used to be; they have become "rectifications", but day-to-day conversation has not tracked that either. The real-world use of language is something that changes bottom-up, not top-down. > +=+ Remedial measures are no longer 'penalties', they are 'rectifications; 'penalties' are punishments as Laws 90 and 91 prescribe. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Wed Apr 7 21:54:49 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:54:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law Flow Charts In-Reply-To: References: <000001cad33a$aeeafc80$0cc0f580$@com> Message-ID: <000c01cad68c$2ef45350$8cdcf9f0$@com> Bonjour Marv, Merci beaucoup for your comments on my charts. The attached file contains (I hope...) corrections you suggested, except on Law 12. This one is very difficult to set, avoiding interpretations and local applications. I will try later, but maybe I will give up. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome. Laval ____________________________________________________________________________ ____ Mon cher Laval,, I printed out this material and have not had time to examine it in detail. .................. I don't have the time (or the expertise) to go over everything carefully. I admire your work very much. Marvin French _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Laws-correction-marv.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 313344 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100407/d7a544f4/attachment-0001.ppt From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Wed Apr 7 22:40:19 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 16:40:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law Flow Charts In-Reply-To: References: <000001cad33a$aeeafc80$0cc0f580$@com> Message-ID: <000601cad692$8a994430$9fcbcc90$@com> Sorry Marv, The file I sent you wad a PPT format instead of PDF.... Becoming old.... Laval -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Laws-correction-marv.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 125179 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100407/6523fd4f/attachment-0001.pdf From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Apr 11 19:30:42 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:30:42 -0800 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" >> >> > +=+ Remedial measures are no longer 'penalties', they > are 'rectifications; 'penalties' are punishments as Laws > 90 and 91 prescribe. What about penalty cards? To call a revoke penalty anything but a penalty is pretty ridiculous. The word "penalty" in relation to games is not pejorative, but merely procedural. Anyone so sensitive to the word that it frightens them should not be playing games. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 11 20:34:12 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:34:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> <70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001401cad9a5$954a82c0$bfdf8840$@no> A penalty card is no "penalty" in itself; it can give Declarer an opportunity to make the most out of an irregular situation, but very often I experience the existence of a penalty card to be completely immaterial for the final result on the board. And my experience is also that the most common outcome of a revoke "penalty" is to restore the result that would have been without the revoke. So I do appreciate the term "rectification" in place of the former "penalty" which in many situations caused misunderstanding due to the mix with "penalty" as used in laws 90 and 91. If the Director finds cause for penalizing a player in addition to rectifying a result he always has this possibility in Laws 90 and 91. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Marvin French > Sent: 11. april 2010 19:31 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] convention card placement > > > From: "Grattan" >> > >> > > +=+ Remedial measures are no longer 'penalties', they > > are 'rectifications; 'penalties' are punishments as Laws 90 and 91 > > prescribe. > > What about penalty cards? > > To call a revoke penalty anything but a penalty is pretty ridiculous. > > The word "penalty" in relation to games is not pejorative, but merely procedural. > Anyone so sensitive to the word that it frightens them should not be playing > games. > > 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 Sun Apr 11 20:53:27 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:53:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> <70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] convention card placement > > From: "Grattan" >> >>> >> +=+ Remedial measures are no longer 'penalties', they >> are 'rectifications; 'penalties' are punishments as Laws >> 90 and 91 prescribe. > > What about penalty cards? > > To call a revoke penalty anything but a penalty is pretty > ridiculous. > 1. The creation of a 'penalty card' is a rectification. 'Penalty Card' is a term of the art. 2. The revoke laws are quite specific in referring to the measures following a revoke as a "rectification". There is no mention of a 'penalty'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Apr 11 23:44:20 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:44:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com><70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <07E81E22353F4E5FB7AED28BBC03D078@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > From: "Marvin French" > >> To call a revoke penalty anything but a penalty is pretty >> ridiculous. >> > 2. The revoke laws are quite specific in referring to the > measures following a revoke as a "rectification". There > is no mention of a 'penalty'. > QED Ignoring a long-standing tradition, but tradition means nothing to those who want to create their own more dainty universe. Imposing L90 penalties on the score card for unethical actions, traditionally dealt with outside the game rather than in the game, is another example. Does anyone know that L90's title was changed from Disciplinary Penalties to Procedural Penalties in 1975? Why do you suppose they did that, if not because the law might be used for the wrong things instead of those typified in L90B? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Apr 12 01:19:46 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:19:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law Flow Charts References: <000001cad33a$aeeafc80$0cc0f580$@com> <000601cad692$8a994430$9fcbcc90$@com> Message-ID: <2C968C7F66744682AB15DD71F8BDEA52@MARVLAPTOP> Thanks - Marv > > Becoming old.... > I'm 83 this week, becoming older. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Apr 12 08:54:36 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:54:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> <70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com> On 11 Apr 2010, at 19:53, Grattan wrote: > 2. The revoke laws are quite specific in referring to the > measures following a revoke as a "rectification". In that, they seem to be using a particularly inappropriate term. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100412/1ef8f54f/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 12 10:27:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:27:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: <618FF9ED-8D6A-46FB-8465-B76684B83B56@starpower.net> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> <618FF9ED-8D6A-46FB-8465-B76684B83B56@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BC2D95A.6010003@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >>> IMHO, if this South knew this West well enough to have deliberately >>> taken him in in this manner, he is to be roundly congratulated for >>> his mastery of applied psychology. >>> >> Huh? >> > > I guess the above needed a sarcasm alert, although I trust it was a > bit more obvious in context. > > AG : I'm a bit relieved. Never underestimate polemists' ability to understand any sentence in a polemizable (?) way. And aren't we all ? > Well, if I were to obviously dither between two choices before > showing the queen it wouldn't be much of a falsecard, now would it? > > Seriously, though, to show a card and then turn it over in my "normal > tempo" takes about a second. AG : if I'm allowed to take this without any sarcasm alert, I'll answer that it's unusual - you should give them time to see and understand your card. I would need to ask you to show your card again every time, given my limited lateral eyesight. In my country, 3 seconds is the standard timing, and they might even deem you to have played "with undue haste", perhaps deliberately. > When you manifestly (and deliberately) indicate a holding different > from what you have, and fool your opponent into thinking that's what > you hold, that's cheating. When you manifestly indicate the holding > you actually do have, In fact, it was the 8 from J86, in a case where you could also have had Qxx. So the very quick tempo has nothing to do with the number of cards, but with the fact that the player indeed could have wanted to double-cross about the falsecard status of your 8. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 12 11:45:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:45:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com><70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> <52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <564D78094A3C45E5B5C1C41361F4FC22@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com><70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> <52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com> <564D78094A3C45E5B5C1C41361F4FC22@Mildred> Message-ID: <665276.19975.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Grattan wrote: ? > The measures in question are remedial, not punitive. ? Actually they have elements of punishment as well as of remedy, which is why I think the term "rectification" is poor. If one must avoid using "penalty", then perhaps something like "adjustment" would have been broad enought to encompass the full range of what all these various measures do. ? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100412/1bf82071/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 12 12:14:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:14:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com><70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP><52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com><564D78094A3C45E5B5C1C41361F4FC22@Mildred> <665276.19975.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <655A04993E784B16955E31A9201580C1@Mildred> Grattan Endicott The measures in question are remedial, not punitive. Actually they have elements of punishment as well as of remedy, which is why I think the term "rectification" is poor. If one must avoid using "penalty", then perhaps something like "adjustment" would have been broad enough to encompass the full range of what all these various measures do. Gordon Rainsford ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100412/324c845c/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Apr 12 12:57:52 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (GORDON RAINSFORD) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:57:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <655A04993E784B16955E31A9201580C1@Mildred> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com><70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP><52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com><564D78094A3C45E5B5C1C41361F4FC22@Mildred> <665276.19975.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <655A04993E784B16955E31A9201580C1@Mildred> Message-ID: <827495.23304.qm@web86701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> +=+ We disagree. The law says exactly what it was intended to say. The measures cited are to be taken as purely remedial.? ?~ G ~?? +=+ The players don't take them like that. They don't think that losing one or two tricks more than they would have had they not revoked is "purely remedial". Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100412/b5c9a44d/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 12 13:09:51 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:09:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <827495.23304.qm@web86701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com><70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP><52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com><564D78094A3C45E5B5C1C41361F4FC22@Mildred> <665276.19975.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <655A04993E784B16955E31A9201580C1@Mildred> <827495.23304.qm@web86701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4BC2FF7F.905@ulb.ac.be> GORDON RAINSFORD a ?crit : > > +=+ We disagree. The law says exactly what it was intended to say. The > measures cited are to be taken as purely remedial. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > The players don't take them like that. They don't think that losing > one or two tricks more than they would have had they not revoked is > "purely remedial". > AG : two tricks more seem to be excluded, with the new rules. Notice that, if the laws were not a remedial, but a deterrent (to avoid the "heads I win, tails I'm even" effect), it would be reasonable and efficient, if not PC. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 12 12:14:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:14:22 -0300 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <665276.19975.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> <1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> <70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> <52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com> <564D78094A3C45E5B5C1C41361F4FC22@Mildred> <665276.19975.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:56:47 -0300, GORDON RAINSFORD wrote: > Grattan wrote: > >> The measures in question are remedial, not punitive. > Actually they have elements of punishment as well as of remedy, which > is why I think the term "rectification" is poor. If one must avoid using > "penalty", then perhaps something like "adjustment" would have been > broad enought to encompass the full range of what all these various > measures do. > Gordon Rainsford "The laws are designed ... to provide adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure." Maybe it would be better if it said "The laws are designed ... to *ensure* adequate remedy *to the nonoffending side* when there is a departure from correct procedure." From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 12 13:36:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:36:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> <1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> <70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> <52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com> <564D78094A3C45E5B5C1C41361F4FC22@Mildred> <665276.19975.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4BC305A3.8020500@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:56:47 -0300, GORDON RAINSFORD > wrote: > > >> Grattan wrote: >> >> >>> The measures in question are remedial, not punitive. >>> >> Actually they have elements of punishment as well as of remedy, which >> is why I think the term "rectification" is poor. If one must avoid using >> "penalty", then perhaps something like "adjustment" would have been >> broad enought to encompass the full range of what all these various >> measures do. >> Gordon Rainsford >> > > "The laws are designed ... to provide adequate remedy when there is a > departure from correct procedure." > > Maybe it would be better if it said "The laws are designed ... to *ensure* > adequate remedy *to the nonoffending side* when there is a departure from > correct procedure." > > AG : good idea. Perhaps even adding "(s)" after "side". From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Apr 12 13:36:49 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:36:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <4BC2FF7F.905@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com><70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP><52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com><564D78094A3C45E5B5C1C41361F4FC22@Mildred> <665276.19975.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <655A04993E784B16955E31A9201580C1@Mildred> <827495.23304.qm@web86701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4BC2FF7F.905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <95028.3605.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> AG : two tricks more seem to be > excluded, with the new rules. I saw a player recently revoke by ruffing a trick he would have won in his own hand had he not revoked. Gordon Rainsford From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Mon Apr 12 13:51:58 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:51:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <827495.23304.qm@web86701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com><70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP><52426613-8154-4840-AC28-D553B96D53D7@btinternet.com><564D78094A3C45E5B5C1C41361F4FC22@Mildred><665276.19975.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com><655A04993E784B16955E31A9201580C1@Mildred> <827495.23304.qm@web86701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1271073118.11504.1369478145@webmail.messagingengine.com> > +=+ We disagree. The law says exactly what it was intended to say. The > measures cited are to be taken as purely remedial.? > > ?~ G ~?? +=+ > > The players don't take them like that. They don't think that losing one > or two tricks more than they would have had they not revoked is "purely > remedial". It takes time to explain the remedial intent at tableside (opening TFLB and pointing to the relevant bit in the Introduction as part of the lesson), but I have found this to be an excellent use of time over the long run because the stigma of apparent punishment is gone and the players are less defensive in consequence. David From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 12 16:13:30 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:13:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> And those who wish to apply some sort of score when there is no infraction or offender by whatever method you want to use other than either 'no score' or 'replay' in a head-tro-head match - you best take a second to contemplate what will happen when YOUR brilliance decides the loser of the match. Perhaps you can then better see that Law 87 doesn't work for this kind of irregularity, nor was it meant to (regardless of the language). Scenario: The players ask why they find themselves penalized when they didn't do anything wrong and a completely fair alternative was available BY LAW. Kojak ton: I like to come back on this issue, since I do not understand this reaction from Kojak. Of course L 87 does not work here. In a) it defines a fouled board and in b) it describes what has to be done in a pairs event. We have to use L 86D. There it clearly tells the TD that he is allowed to give an assigned adjusted score in case there is a normal result at one table and no table result at the other (team) table. My English is poor, but nobody is going to tell me that 'may' in English is synonymous to 'should not' is it? And no player is penalized giving such assigned adjusted score, it just reflects a poor or very good action taken at the normal table. And if a TD can not handle the situation where this decision influences (let us avoid 'decides', unless it is a one board match) the winner of the match, he better starts doing something else. ton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100412/a9cd660a/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 12 16:19:38 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:19:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> <618FF9ED-8D6A-46FB-8465-B76684B83B56@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Apr 9, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> I suspect that Konrad has overlooked the "reverse psychology" aspect >> of the original protestor's claim. > > But there is no "reverse psychology" unless totally don't > understand Alain's description. > > From what I can tell the course of events was: > > 1. South had something like, say, 1032, and > played the 10 to the opening lead. > 2. He acted as if he had a singleton; he played the 10 > very quickly and quickly turned it down. > 3. He didn't have a singleton, he falscarded. > > So he had one holding, and acted as if he had > another. Where is the "reverse psychology"? On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > West, still on lead, has to decide whether South could possibly have > falsecarded, but reasons that falsecards are there to be seen, and > that > South's apparent unwillingness (conscious or not) to leave his card to > be seen means it can't be one. > > Wrong ! it was a falsecard indeed. So South would have had to assume that West would take his apparent attempt to prevent him from getting a good look at his card as an intended attempt to insure that he would decide to take it as significant. IOW, if South were pulling a move on West, it would require West to assume (correctly, in the hypothetical) that South was trying to pull a move on him in order for it to work rather than backfire. But unless South and West had a history of trying to "do it to" one another, why would South make such an assumption? Meeting the criterion of "could well damage the NOS" in L23 must require at minimum that the expected (in the probabalistic sense) effect of the irregularity be favorable (or at least not unfavorable) to the OS. Superficially, that doesn't seem to be the case here, so this can't be a case in which the OS has innocently taken the same action that a cheater might. So for South to "be[] aware... that this could well damage the NOS", he not only would have had to be doing it deliberately, but also would have had to have been confident that West would suspect him of doing it deliberately. It is the latter consideration that I suspect may have been overlooked by those who took Alain's original scenario as a simple prima facie L23 case. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 12 16:56:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:56:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> <618FF9ED-8D6A-46FB-8465-B76684B83B56@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BC334A9.4000905@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > So South would have had to assume that West would take his apparent > attempt to prevent him from getting a good look at his card as an > intended attempt to insure that he would decide to take it as > significant. Yes, that's what West meant. > IOW, if South were pulling a move on West, it would > require West to assume (correctly, in the hypothetical) that South > was trying to pull a move on him in order for it to work rather than > backfire. But unless South and West had a history of trying to "do > it to" one another, why would South make such an assumption? > You gave the answer : West is known as a Papa-type. Now, if you want him to suffer from his essence, there are several means to do so (ever tried some pesudo-psyche ? I love them). The question was : does this way of doing it infract the laws ? And there were rather tense discussions about it. > Meeting the criterion of "could well damage the NOS" in L23 must > require at minimum that the expected (in the probabalistic sense) > effect of the irregularity be favorable (or at least not unfavorable) > to the OS. Superficially, that doesn't seem to be the case here, so > this can't be a case in which the OS has innocently taken the same > action that a cheater might. So for South to "be[] aware... that > this could well damage the NOS", he not only would have had to be > doing it deliberately, but also would have had to have been confident > that West would suspect him of doing it deliberately. Granted. But this might well have been the case. > It is the > latter consideration that I suspect may have been overlooked by those > who took Alain's original scenario as a simple prima facie L23 case. > > Or perhaps they could have understood that the very specific occurrence that you described was indeed germane to the problem. After all, it can be deduced from West's decisions (in play and call). Best regards Alain From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Apr 12 17:18:23 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:18:23 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: ton To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match And those who wish to apply some sort of score when there is no infraction or offender by whatever method you want to use other than either 'no score' or 'replay' in a head-tro-head match - you best take a second to contemplate what will happen when YOUR brilliance decides the loser of the match. Perhaps you can then better see that Law 87 doesn't work for this kind of irregularity, nor was it meant to (regardless of the language). Scenario: The players ask why they find themselves penalized when they didn't do anything wrong and a completely fair alternative was available BY LAW. Kojak ton: I like to come back on this issue, since I do not understand this reaction from Kojak. Of course L 87 does not work here. In a) it defines a fouled board and in b) it describes what has to be done in a pairs event. We have to use L 86D. There it clearly tells the TD that he is allowed to give an assigned adjusted score in case there is a normal result at one table and no table result at the other (team) table. My English is poor, but nobody is going to tell me that 'may' in English is synonymous to 'should not' is it? And no player is penalized giving such assigned adjusted score, it just reflects a poor or very good action taken at the normal table. And if a TD can not handle the situation where this decision influences (let us avoid 'decides', unless it is a one board match) the winner of the match, he better starts doing something else. ton ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My reading is that that Kojak strongly prefers to scrub the board or replay it (when permissible) rather than give an adjusted score favouring either side when both sides are non-offending. bill _______________________________________________ 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/20100412/804eabf1/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 12 17:26:18 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:26:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <69577EEE-5F32-43E0-BFD9-7CA7E7395BE0@starpower.net> On Apr 11, 2010, at 2:39 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 9 April 2010 16:16, wrote: > >> Normally, players here fold their convention card > > I'm a little surprised, coming in here after a couple of days, seeing > no comment at all on the "terminology" used.... > There are no such thing as a convention card any more - it's called a > System Card since the introduction of the 2007 laws. :-) What the ACBL calls a "convention card" is a unique form that has the official ACBL system card on one side and a scorecard for players' private use on the other. The term "system card" refers to just the "front" of the form; "convention card" refers to the physical object. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 12 17:53:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:53:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <69577EEE-5F32-43E0-BFD9-7CA7E7395BE0@starpower.net> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be> <1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> <69577EEE-5F32-43E0-BFD9-7CA7E7395BE0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BC34205.8000107@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 11, 2010, at 2:39 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > >> On 9 April 2010 16:16, wrote: >> >> >>> Normally, players here fold their convention card >>> >> I'm a little surprised, coming in here after a couple of days, seeing >> no comment at all on the "terminology" used.... >> There are no such thing as a convention card any more - it's called a >> System Card since the introduction of the 2007 laws. :-) >> > > What the ACBL calls a "convention card" is a unique form that has the > official ACBL system card on one side and a scorecard for players' > private use on the other. The term "system card" refers to just the > "front" of the form; "convention card" refers to the physical object. > > BTW, people keep referring to the object as a 'convention card' (Herman can e.g. look at Belgian websites) and, more important, they will understand this locution. In Frecnh, we still mention "carts de conventions", perhaps for stylistic reasons germane to the French language (which is reluctant to use collectives). "Carte de syst?me" is, at best, felt as exotic. Did the well-known 'convention card program' change names ? I don't think so. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 12 18:31:44 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:31:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> <70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Apr 11, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Grattan" >> >> >> +=+ Remedial measures are no longer 'penalties', they >> are 'rectifications; 'penalties' are punishments as Laws >> 90 and 91 prescribe. > > What about penalty cards? > > To call a revoke penalty anything but a penalty is pretty > ridiculous. > > The word "penalty" in relation to games is not pejorative, but > merely procedural. Anyone so sensitive to the word that it frightens > them should not be playing games. Unless we're trying to rewrite the dictionary, we should reserve the term "rectification" for those "remedial measures" that are set according to a determination "to restore equity". Pre-determined adjustments that are automatically applied in response to an irregularity regardless of whether or to what extent the irregularity "disturbed equity" are not "rectifications" (which connotes "putting back right"); they are "penalties" by any dictionary. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Apr 12 18:36:50 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <4BC34205.8000107@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> <69577EEE-5F32-43E0-BFD9-7CA7E7395BE0@starpower.ne t> <4BC34205.8000107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BC34C22.9000909@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Apr 11, 2010, at 2:39 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >> >>> On 9 April 2010 16:16, wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Normally, players here fold their convention card >>>> >>> I'm a little surprised, coming in here after a couple of days, seeing >>> no comment at all on the "terminology" used.... >>> There are no such thing as a convention card any more - it's called a >>> System Card since the introduction of the 2007 laws. :-) >>> >> What the ACBL calls a "convention card" is a unique form that has the >> official ACBL system card on one side and a scorecard for players' >> private use on the other. The term "system card" refers to just the >> "front" of the form; "convention card" refers to the physical object. >> >> > BTW, people keep referring to the object as a 'convention card' (Herman > can e.g. look at Belgian websites) and, more important, they will > understand this locution. > > In French, we still mention "carte de conventions", perhaps for > stylistic reasons germane to the French language (which is reluctant to > use collectives). "Carte de syst?me" is, at best, felt as exotic. it's rather "feuille de conventions" (sheet) and french are reluctant to change anything! > > Did the well-known 'convention card program' change names ? I don't > think so. i thought it was cce ("e" for editor) jpr > > > Best regards > > Alain -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 12 19:14:50 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:14:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] two-way mannerism In-Reply-To: <4BC334A9.4000905@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><15EF181B3B3D41F284BE189442FB90EC@sfora4869e47f1> <618FF9ED-8D6A-46FB-8465-B76684B83B56@starpower.net> <4BC334A9.4000905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8B0D90C8-D757-4B85-8460-562687BB79BB@starpower.net> On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> So South would have had to assume that West would take his apparent >> attempt to prevent him from getting a good look at his card as an >> intended attempt to insure that he would decide to take it as >> significant. > > Yes, that's what West meant. > >> IOW, if South were pulling a move on West, it would >> require West to assume (correctly, in the hypothetical) that South >> was trying to pull a move on him in order for it to work rather than >> backfire. But unless South and West had a history of trying to "do >> it to" one another, why would South make such an assumption? > > You gave the answer : West is known as a Papa-type. > > Now, if you want him to suffer from his essence, there are several > means > to do so (ever tried some pesudo-psyche ? I love them). > The question was : does this way of doing it infract the laws ? And > there were rather tense discussions about it. > >> Meeting the criterion of "could well damage the NOS" in L23 must >> require at minimum that the expected (in the probabalistic sense) >> effect of the irregularity be favorable (or at least not unfavorable) >> to the OS. Superficially, that doesn't seem to be the case here, so >> this can't be a case in which the OS has innocently taken the same >> action that a cheater might. So for South to "be[] aware... that >> this could well damage the NOS", he not only would have had to be >> doing it deliberately, but also would have had to have been confident >> that West would suspect him of doing it deliberately. > > Granted. But this might well have been the case. > >> It is the >> latter consideration that I suspect may have been overlooked by those >> who took Alain's original scenario as a simple prima facie L23 case. > > Or perhaps they could have understood that the very specific > occurrence > that you described was indeed germane to the problem. After all, it > can > be deduced from West's decisions (in play and call). If that was the case, it's an entirely different story, but far from an obvious case in which L23 would apply. If the players are alive to the possibility of a deliberate "move", you get the problem of infinite reversals: If South expects West to suspect a true indication, he gives a false one, but if West expects South to expect West to suspect a true indication he will read it correctly, so if South expects West to expect South to expect West to give a false indication he must give a true one, but if West expects South to expect West to expect South... and so on, true one, false one, true one, false one, forever. In that situation, West has the same guess to make whether South was fast, slow, or in perfect tempo, and South could not expect "that this could well damage the NOS". Either West is naive, in which case South's original ploy would have failed (West would have no reason to consider South's tempo significant), or West is suspicious, in which case he had no more reason to expect a false "reverse" indication (here showing his card only briefly to increase the chance that it *would* be noticed and given significance) than a true "double-reverse" (or "quadruple- reverse" or "sextuple-reverse" and so on ad infinitum) one, so could not have been "misled" by it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 13 02:29:41 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:29:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott<4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1><1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com><70449D8C1AA94A67AA5E8EEB05C0CA3F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <8133B6A9F48345D79C8A69F4D2B17356@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] convention card placement > On Apr 11, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Marvin French wrote: > >> From: "Grattan" >> >>> >>> +=+ Remedial measures are no longer 'penalties', they >>> are 'rectifications; 'penalties' are punishments as Laws >>> 90 and 91 prescribe. >> >> What about penalty cards? >> >> To call a revoke penalty anything but a penalty is pretty >> ridiculous. >> >> The word "penalty" in relation to games is not pejorative, but >> merely procedural. Anyone so sensitive to the word that it frightens >> them should not be playing games. > > Unless we're trying to rewrite the dictionary, we should reserve the > term "rectification" for those "remedial measures" that are set > according to a determination "to restore equity". Pre-determined > adjustments that are automatically applied in response to an > irregularity regardless of whether or to what extent the irregularity > "disturbed equity" are not "rectifications" (which connotes "putting > back right"); they are "penalties" by any dictionary. > +=+ One problem with Eric's remarks is that we are concerned here not with dictionaries but with Definitions. ~ G ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 13 05:15:39 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:15:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 19:29 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ton > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:13 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match > > > > And those who wish to apply some sort of score > when there is no infraction or offender by whatever > method you want to use other than either 'no score' > or 'replay' in a head-tro-head match - you best take > a second to contemplate what will happen when > YOUR brilliance decides the loser of the match. > Perhaps you can then better see that Law 87 > doesn't work for this kind of irregularity, nor was > it meant to (regardless of the language). > Scenario: The players ask why they find > themselves penalized when they didn't do > anything wrong and a completely fair alternative > was available BY LAW. > Kojak > ........................................................................... > ton: > I like to come back on this issue, since I do not > understand this reaction from Kojak. > Of course L 87 does not work here. In a) it defines > a fouled board and in b) it describes what has to > be done in a pairs event. > We have to use L 86D. There it clearly tells the TD > that he is allowed to give an assigned adjusted > score in case there is a normal result at one table > and no table result at the other (team) table. > My English is poor, but nobody is going to tell me > that 'may' in English is synonymous to 'should not' > is it? > And no player is penalized giving such assigned > adjusted score, it just reflects a poor or very > good action taken at the normal table. And if a > TD can not handle the situation where this > decision influences (let us avoid 'decides', > unless it is a one board match) the winner of > the match, he better starts doing something else. > > ton > ........................................................................ > +=+ As I read Law 86D it says it only applies "when > the Director awards an adjusted score". > There is no doubt that Law 87 applies to any > board that is fouled. Law 86A says "the contestants > who should have had a score comparison did not play > the board in identical form". This wording says clearly > enough that the players do not have a score comparison > and it offers no basis for awarding an adjusted score. > However, we must ask ourselves whether this is a > case covered by Law 12A2. The situation is referred > to in Law 2 - "No board that fails to conform to these > conditions should be used. If such board is used, > however, the conditions marked on it apply for that > session". > So the board at the second table has equal > status with the board at the first table and neither can > be discarded in favour of the other. As for this chicken or the egg business, this is not my understanding of the provisions of L6F. The correct version of the board is known, and it is the incorrect version coupled with players [that were scheduled to play the correct version, but have not] learning of the correct version's contents at the time allotted for comparison that causes consternation, particularly the part concerning the TD's responsibility for delivering the incorrect version to the hapless players. Curiously, L6F has the following provision containing dubious logic: When he so instructs there shall normally be no redeal of a board (although the Director has powers to order it). -considering L86C: The Director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority to order one board redealt when the final result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant. Instead, he awards an adjusted score. regards roger pewick >The Tournament > Organizer's intention is outwith the law which is > concerned only with fact, and I do not see that an > adjusted score can be based upon one of the two > only. So it is my view that the incompatibility of the > two boards precludes award of an adjusted score. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 13 10:53:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:53:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <70515E0C011C4D3492B161261F26F1D4@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match > > As for this chicken or the egg business, this is not my understanding of > the > provisions of L6F. The correct version of the board is known, and it is > the > incorrect version coupled with players [that were scheduled to play the > correct version, but have not] learning of the correct version's contents > at > the time allotted for comparison that causes consternation, particularly > the > part concerning the TD's responsibility for delivering the incorrect > version > to the hapless players. > > Curiously, L6F has the following provision containing dubious logic: When > he > so instructs there shall normally be no redeal of a board (although the > Director has powers to order it). -considering L86C: The Director shall > not > exercise his Law 6 authority to order one board redealt when the final > result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant. > Instead, he awards an adjusted score. > > regards > +=+ Redealing the board replaces both copies with a fresh board. 6F provides no basis for awarding an adjusted score. 6F does not override 87A. (NB my earlier post contains a typo - refers at one point to 86A when quoting from 87A). As for 86C: it sends you to the question of an adjusted score but on arrival there it does not override the indication in 87A that the two versions of the board are incompatible for score adjustment. . . No-one seems to have addressed the issue when the first (favourable) score is obtained on the unintended version of the board. Since each version has equal status with the other at the tables concerned equal treatment is called for. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 13 22:22:52 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:22:52 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life (Alcatraz coup!) In-Reply-To: <70515E0C011C4D3492B161261F26F1D4@Mildred> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <70515E0C011C4D3492B161261F26F1D4@Mildred> Message-ID: One of the players in the weak section yesterday led the J from J10x in dummy towards AKx, RHO played small, then declarer revoked, and LHO played small. Then the revoke was pointed out to her (the beginner's version of the Alcatraz coup). At first I ruled that she had to play the A, not allowing her the Alcatraz coup. When I had time to think about it (I was playing director with two! fouled boards), I realized the location of the queen was UI and taking the finesse was probably the only LA. (She was on the board for the only time with a choice of two finesses.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 14 09:11:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:11:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Equal justice under law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "If those gentleman had their way, they would soon be asking me to defend the moon against a possible attack from Mars." Grattan Endicott asserted: >.....The subject [seeding] is not one of law and has no place >in the White Book. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ EBU White Book, clause 0.1 (General), third and six paragraphs: This guide is in four parts. The first part contains general comments that are related to particular Laws. The second contains longer papers on specific subjects. The third contains EBU regulations. The fourth contains the WBF's Code of Practice and alerting policy. Thus we present our new White Book. It contains general guidance for Tournament Directors and Appeals Committees that should be useful in all events whether the EBU is the Tournament Organiser or not. Much of this book applies in all competitions. Richard Hills quibbles: In the White Book's Section XII (Good Tournament Practice) one may find almost every good TD practice - arrival, checking pre- duplicated boards, travellers, relay and share movements, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera - *except* for the world's best practice approach to seeding. (I believe many years ago David Stevenson may have been mis- interpreted when he was the presenter of a seminar to ACBL Directors. David tried a compliment by informing his audience that they had world's best practice in tournament organisation, but all that the ACBL TDs noticed was the consequential less complimentary antithesis that the ACBL was NOT world's best practice in applying the highly ambiguous 1997 Lawbook.) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 14 10:10:36 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:10:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <001b01cadba9$f75d4000$e617c000$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: it seems that the eagerness to answer my mail did win it from accuracy. Let me give some comments between the lines: ........................................................................ +=+ As I read Law 86D it says it only applies "when the Director awards an adjusted score". +=+ 86D does not speak about 'only', so the restriction Grattan introduced looks wrong to me +=+ There is no doubt that Law 87 applies to any board that is fouled. +=+ As I said 87A is a definition. May I ask Grattan to apply 87B to a fouled board played in a teams event? +=+ Law 86A says "the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form". +=+ This is not in 86A but in 87A and there it is not more than the definition +=+ This wording says clearly enough that the players do not have a score comparison and it offers no basis for awarding an adjusted score. +=+ I do not read anything here about not offering a basis for an adjusted score. Where do you, Grattan, read that? +=+ However, we must ask ourselves whether this is a case covered by Law 12A2. The situation is referred to in Law 2 - "No board that fails to conform to these conditions should be used. If such board is used, however, the conditions marked on it apply for that session". So the board at the second table has equal status with the board at the first table and neither can be discarded in favour of the other. +=+ This is a very private interpretation of our laws, which is not used anywhere in the real bridge world. And apart from this eagerly written mail has never been used by Grattan either. The combination of law 2 and L 87A (definition) makes it completely clear that in a teams event a board which does not comply with the demands as described in Law 2 is considered to be the fouled board. So they do not have the same status. +=+ The Tournament Organizer's intention is outwith the law which is concerned only with fact, and I do not see that an adjusted score can be based upon one of the two only. So it is my view that the incompatibility of the two boards precludes award of an adjusted score. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In our wbf laws committee discussions as well as in the ebl TD-course it was completely clear that L86D may be used in cases where there is only one score available on a board in a teams event. More precise: the change in the 2007 edition refers to such case specifically. ton From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 14 10:19:27 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:19:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <-315806639358741256@unknownmsgid> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <-315806639358741256@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: On 14 April 2010 10:10, ton wrote: > ton: > it seems that the eagerness to answer my mail did win it from accuracy. Let > me give some comments between the lines: > ........................................................................ > +=+ As I read Law 86D it says it only applies "when > the Director awards an adjusted score". +=+ > > 86D does not speak about 'only', so the restriction Grattan introduced looks > wrong to me > > > > +=+ There is no doubt that Law 87 applies to any > board that is fouled. +=+ > > As I said 87A is a definition. ?May I ask Grattan to apply 87B to a fouled > board played in a teams event? > > +=+ ?Law 86A says "the contestants > who should have had a score comparison did not play > the board in identical form". +=+ > > This is not in 86A but in 87A and there it is not more than the definition > > +=+ This wording says clearly > enough that the players do not have a score comparison > and it offers no basis for awarding an adjusted score. +=+ > > > I do not read anything here about not offering a basis for an adjusted > score. Where do you, Grattan, read that? > > +=+ ?However, we must ask ourselves whether this is a > case covered by Law 12A2. ?The situation is referred > to in Law 2 - "No board that fails to conform to these > conditions should be used. ?If such board is used, > however, the conditions marked on it apply for that > session". ?So the board at the second table has equal > status with the board at the first table and neither can > be discarded in favour of the other. +=+ > > This is a very private interpretation of our laws, which is not used > anywhere in the real bridge world. And apart from this eagerly written mail > has never been used by Grattan either. The combination of law 2 and L 87A > (definition) makes it completely clear that in a teams event a board which > does not comply with the demands as described in Law 2 is considered to be > the fouled board. So they do not have the same status. > > > +=+ The Tournament > Organizer's intention is outwith the law which is > concerned only with fact, and ?I do not see that an > adjusted score can be based upon one of the two > only. ?So it is my view that the incompatibility of the > two boards precludes award of an adjusted score. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > In our wbf laws committee discussions as well as in the ebl TD-course it was > completely clear that L86D may be used in cases where there is only one > score available on a board in a teams event. In the OP here there are two scores, but not with identical boards. I guess it's clear which is the correct board and which one was fouled, but the OP doesn't say anything about it. Ton: Would you apply L86D when there is a good result for one of the teams at the table playing the correct board/the fouled board/both situations? Would you weight the score (like 50/50, since there are two results)? > More precise: the change in the > 2007 edition refers to such case specifically. > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 14 10:34:01 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:34:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] convention card placement In-Reply-To: <4BC34C22.9000909@meteo.fr> References: <4BBF076C.1000806@ulb.ac.be><1O0CQG-25EzA00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <78D54DB1A9904730A218C6F2C598BCD6@sfora4869e47f1> <69577EEE-5F32-43E0-BFD9-7CA7E7395BE0@starpower.ne t> <4BC34205.8000107@ulb.ac.be> <4BC34C22.9000909@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4BC57DF9.8060507@ulb.ac.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> On Apr 11, 2010, at 2:39 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 9 April 2010 16:16, wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Normally, players here fold their convention card >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm a little surprised, coming in here after a couple of days, seeing >>>> no comment at all on the "terminology" used.... >>>> There are no such thing as a convention card any more - it's called a >>>> System Card since the introduction of the 2007 laws. :-) >>>> >>>> >>> What the ACBL calls a "convention card" is a unique form that has the >>> official ACBL system card on one side and a scorecard for players' >>> private use on the other. The term "system card" refers to just the >>> "front" of the form; "convention card" refers to the physical object. >>> >>> >>> >> BTW, people keep referring to the object as a 'convention card' (Herman >> can e.g. look at Belgian websites) and, more important, they will >> understand this locution. >> >> In French, we still mention "carte de conventions", perhaps for >> stylistic reasons germane to the French language (which is reluctant to >> use collectives). "Carte de syst?me" is, at best, felt as exotic. >> > it's rather "feuille de conventions" (sheet) and french are reluctant to > change anything! > > French and Belgium are separated by the same language ... we do use "carte". From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Apr 14 11:42:33 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:42:33 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <001b01cadba9$f75d4000$e617c000$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <50A70664ABB34581BCC8EBE0FC746D2E@acer> big snip > > In our wbf laws committee discussions as well as in the ebl TD-course it > was > completely clear that L86D may be used in cases where there is only one > score available on a board in a teams event. More precise: the change in > the > 2007 edition refers to such case specifically. I understand that I am entering a subjective area here but does the WBFLC have a position on whether the adjusted score under L86D should favour a side that has obtained a favourable result when both sides at the other table are non offending? bill > ton _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 15 15:40:42 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:40:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <50A70664ABB34581BCC8EBE0FC746D2E@acer> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <001b01cadba9$f75d4000$e617c000$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <50A70664ABB34581BCC8EBE0FC746D2E@acer> Message-ID: <001501cadca1$3f25fce0$bd71f6a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton:> > In our wbf laws committee discussions as well as in the ebl TD-course it > was > completely clear that L86D may be used in cases where there is only one > score available on a board in a teams event. More precise: the change in > the > 2007 edition refers to such case specifically. I understand that I am entering a subjective area here but does the WBFLC have a position on whether the adjusted score under L86D should favour a side that has obtained a favourable result when both sides at the other table are non offending? bill ton: No I don't think so. This is a matter of regulations and as far as I know the rules and regulations committee has not decided anything (yet). From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu Apr 15 15:46:42 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:46:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: <001501cadca1$3f25fce0$bd71f6a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <001b01cadba9$f75d4000$e617c000$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><50A70664ABB34581BCC8EBE0FC746D2E@acer> <001501cadca1$3f25fce0$bd71f6a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: > > ton:> >> In our wbf laws committee discussions as well as in the ebl TD-course it >> was >> completely clear that L86D may be used in cases where there is only one >> score available on a board in a teams event. More precise: the change in >> the >> 2007 edition refers to such case specifically. > > I understand that I am entering a subjective area here but does the WBFLC > have a position on whether the adjusted score under L86D should favour a > side that has obtained a favourable result when both sides at the other > table are non offending? > > bill > > > ton: > No I don't think so. This is a matter of regulations and as far as I know > the rules and regulations committee has not decided anything (yet). yes, and that's the point of our post, we want a french (Ebl? Wbf?) regulattion on this point ... Olivier > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 15 15:57:18 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:57:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <-315806639358741256@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <001901cadca3$90799eb0$b16cdc10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> On 14 April 2010 10:10, ton wrote: > ton: > it seems that the eagerness to answer my mail did win it from accuracy. Let > me give some comments between the lines: > ........................................................................ > +=+ As I read Law 86D it says it only applies "when > the Director awards an adjusted score". +=+ > > 86D does not speak about 'only', so the restriction Grattan introduced looks > wrong to me > > > > +=+ There is no doubt that Law 87 applies to any > board that is fouled. +=+ > > As I said 87A is a definition. May I ask Grattan to apply 87B to a fouled > board played in a teams event? > > +=+ Law 86A says "the contestants > who should have had a score comparison did not play > the board in identical form". +=+ > > This is not in 86A but in 87A and there it is not more than the definition > > +=+ This wording says clearly > enough that the players do not have a score comparison > and it offers no basis for awarding an adjusted score. +=+ > > > I do not read anything here about not offering a basis for an adjusted > score. Where do you, Grattan, read that? > > +=+ However, we must ask ourselves whether this is a > case covered by Law 12A2. The situation is referred > to in Law 2 - "No board that fails to conform to these > conditions should be used. If such board is used, > however, the conditions marked on it apply for that > session". So the board at the second table has equal > status with the board at the first table and neither can > be discarded in favour of the other. +=+ > > This is a very private interpretation of our laws, which is not used > anywhere in the real bridge world. And apart from this eagerly written mail > has never been used by Grattan either. The combination of law 2 and L 87A > (definition) makes it completely clear that in a teams event a board which > does not comply with the demands as described in Law 2 is considered to be > the fouled board. So they do not have the same status. > > > +=+ The Tournament > Organizer's intention is outwith the law which is > concerned only with fact, and I do not see that an > adjusted score can be based upon one of the two > only. So it is my view that the incompatibility of the > two boards precludes award of an adjusted score. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > In our wbf laws committee discussions as well as in the ebl TD-course it was > completely clear that L86D may be used in cases where there is only one > score available on a board in a teams event. > More precise: the change in the > 2007 edition refers to such case specifically. > > ton Harald: In the OP here there are two scores, but not with identical boards. I guess it's clear which is the correct board and which one was fouled, but the OP doesn't say anything about it. Ton: Would you apply L86D when there is a good result for one of the teams at the table playing the correct board/the fouled board/both situations? Would you weight the score (like 50/50, since there are two results)? ton: You are asking about my personal approach, had I the opportunity to use it. Here it is. I would never take into account a good or bad score received playing the fouled board, whether there is one, zero or two offending side(s). I know this to be questionable. If no side is responsible for the fouled board I would apply 86D when the result with the right board is not normal, so very good or bad. In that case my feeling is that 50% of the imps compared with the par is reasonable. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 15 16:06:45 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:06:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000001cada4a$54a169a0$fde43ce0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <001b01cadba9$f75d4000$e617c000$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><50A70664ABB34581BCC8EBE0FC746D2E@acer> <001501cadca1$3f25fce0$bd71f6a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <001a01cadca4$e2ace790$a806b6b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens olivier.beauvillain Verzonden: donderdag 15 april 2010 15:47 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match > > ton:> >> In our wbf laws committee discussions as well as in the ebl TD-course it >> was >> completely clear that L86D may be used in cases where there is only one >> score available on a board in a teams event. More precise: the change in >> the >> 2007 edition refers to such case specifically. > > I understand that I am entering a subjective area here but does the WBFLC > have a position on whether the adjusted score under L86D should favour a > side that has obtained a favourable result when both sides at the other > table are non offending? > > bill > > > ton: > No I don't think so. This is a matter of regulations and as far as I know > the rules and regulations committee has not decided anything (yet). yes, and that's the point of our post, we want a french (Ebl? Wbf?) regulattion on this point ... Olivier ton: You are closer to the French fed than I am, so go ahead. You might succeed in followers. ton From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu Apr 15 17:11:54 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:11:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match Message-ID: <89D7A8AE57C949179243EE3AA8F83A2B@PCdeOlivier> > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens > olivier.beauvillain > Verzonden: donderdag 15 april 2010 15:47 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match > > > > >> >> ton:> >>> In our wbf laws committee discussions as well as in the ebl TD-course it >>> was >>> completely clear that L86D may be used in cases where there is only one >>> score available on a board in a teams event. More precise: the change in >>> the >>> 2007 edition refers to such case specifically. >> >> I understand that I am entering a subjective area here but does the WBFLC >> have a position on whether the adjusted score under L86D should favour a >> side that has obtained a favourable result when both sides at the other >> table are non offending? >> >> bill >> >> >> ton: >> No I don't think so. This is a matter of regulations and as far as I know >> the rules and regulations committee has not decided anything (yet). > > yes, and that's the point of our post, > we want a french (Ebl? Wbf?) regulattion on this point ... > Olivier > > ton: > You are closer to the French fed than I am, so go ahead. > You might succeed in followers. > > ton be sure i shall let you know our regulation, i wonder what you will do in Oostende if this happens ... Olivier > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 15 19:18:20 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:18:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples Message-ID: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> L12C1(b) If subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only. The ACBL LC did not understand this and has yet to change policies that violate this law. Accordingly, I have attempted a rewrite in simpler language: L12C1(b) If, after the irregularity, the non-offending side has damaged itself by a very serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, the normal amount (in points) of compensation for them is reduced by the number of points lost by the self-damage. The offending side is assigned the normal adjusted score, omitting the effect of any such self-inflicted damage by the non-offenders. Both the White Pages and Ton's commentary give examples that confuse me no end, with talk of imps and matchpoints and what doesn't look right to me. My examples will deal with raw scores only, and assume L12C1(e) of the 2007 Laws is in effect, but in all cases single results are clear, no weighting applicable. In each case N-S obtained "a worse result than would have been the expectation had the irregularity not occurred" (L12B1), so they were damaged. I want to give these examples to the ACBL LC, so please tell me of any error. Basic situation: Both vulnerable, N-S bid 4H and E-W bid an illegal hesitation-inspired 4S. Case 1 4S makes and 4H would have made. Adjusted scores N-S +620, E-W -620 No serious error by the NOS. Case 2 4S makes only because of a one-trick revoke by N-S, costing them 720 points (620 +100). Compensation for N-S reduced by 720. 620-720= -100, the adjusted score for N-S. Adjusted score for E-W unchanged -620 Case 3 4S is doubled down two, +500 for N-S. It should have been down three but N-S commits a one-trick revoke, costing them 300 points. Normal compensation for N-S is the difference between +620 and +500, 120 points.(500+120=620), but this is reduced by 300 points (500+120-300), so the adjusted score for N-S is +320. That's a roundabout way of saying that the normal adjusted score of +620 must be reduced by 300. Adjusted score for E-W is -800, the most unfavorable result at all probable, since the revoke effect is not included. In ACBL-land, where such bids have little risk, -620, the most unfavorable result at all probable had the irregularity not occurred. Case 4 4S is doubled and redoubled , making only because of a one-trick revoke by the NOS, costing them 1080+400 = 1480 points. Adjusted score for N-S would normally be +620, but this is reduced by 1480 points, resulting in -860. Adjusted score for E-W unchanged -620. Case 5 4S makes five because of a one-trick revoke costing 30 points, and 4H would have been off one for -100. Adjusted score for N-S -130 (4H down one, revoke loss included). Adjusted score for E-W +100. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Apr 16 08:13:26 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:13:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples In-Reply-To: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On 15 April 2010 19:18, Marvin French wrote: > L12C1(b) If subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side > has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to > the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive > relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is > self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that > it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction > only. > > The ACBL LC did not understand this and has yet to change policies > that violate this law. Accordingly, I have attempted a rewrite in > simpler language: > > L12C1(b) If, after the irregularity, the non-offending side has > damaged itself by a very serious error (unrelated to the infraction) > or by a wild or gambling action, the normal amount (in points) of > compensation for them is reduced by the number of points lost by the > self-damage. The offending side is assigned the normal adjusted > score, omitting the effect of any such self-inflicted damage by the > non-offenders. > Both the White Pages and Ton's commentary give examples that confuse > me no end, with talk of imps and matchpoints and what doesn't look > right to me. My examples will deal with raw scores only, and assume > L12C1(e) of the 2007 Laws is in effect, but in all cases single > results are clear, no weighting applicable. In each case N-S > obtained "a worse result than would have been the expectation had > the irregularity not occurred" (L12B1), so they were damaged. I want > to give these examples to the ACBL LC, so please tell me of any > error. > > Basic situation: Both vulnerable, N-S bid 4H and E-W bid an illegal > hesitation-inspired 4S. > > Case ?1 ?4S makes and 4H would have made. Adjusted scores N-S +620, > E-W -620 ?No serious error by the NOS. > > Case 2 ?4S makes only because of a one-trick revoke by N-S, costing > them 720 points (620 +100). ?Compensation for N-S reduced by 720. > 620-720= -100, the adjusted score for N-S. Adjusted score for E-W > unchanged -620 > > Case 3 ?4S is doubled down two, +500 for ?N-S. ?It should have been > down three but N-S commits a one-trick revoke, costing them 300 > points. Normal compensation ?for N-S ?is the difference between +620 > and +500, 120 points.(500+120=620), but this is reduced by 300 > points (500+120-300), so the adjusted score for N-S is ?+320. That's > a roundabout way of saying that the normal adjusted score of +620 > must be reduced by 300. Adjusted score for E-W is -800, the ?most > unfavorable result at all probable, since ?the revoke effect is not > included. In ACBL-land, where such bids have little risk, -620, the > most unfavorable result at all probable had the irregularity not > occurred. > > Case 4 ?4S is doubled and redoubled , making only because of a > one-trick revoke by the NOS, costing them ?1080+400 = 1480 points. > Adjusted score for N-S would ?normally be +620, but this is reduced > by 1480 points, resulting in -860. Adjusted score for E-W > unchanged -620. > > Case 5 ?4S makes five because of a one-trick revoke costing 30 > points, and 4H would have been off one for -100. ?Adjusted score for > N-S -130 (4H down one, revoke loss included). Adjusted score for E-W > +100. > This is patently wrong. You can't assign non-existent scores. Any such assigned scores (or weighted scores) has to be done by computing the MPs (or IMPs) for each individual score and adding these togehter. Else you (might) get totally insane results. > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Fri Apr 16 10:27:41 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:27:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] insufficient and inadvertent, redux Message-ID: <1271406461.7865.1370272867@webmail.messagingengine.com> (posted to both BLML and r.g.b.) In ACBL-land, after some rounds of bidding whose details need not concern us, South bids 4NT, RKC in hearts. West passes, North bids 5S, East passes, South bids 5H. West passes, North says "insufficient". South is clearly surprised by this, says he meant to bid 6H, and corrects his bid to 6H. Assume that there is no doubt as to South's sincerity in his statement as to having intended to bid 6H. 1. Was North within his rights to call attention to his partner's insufficient bid? ( Law 9A1 seems to me to say he was, unless there is something that brings the "unless prohibited by law" clause into operation - ?? ) 2. Of course the Director should have been called, but, that being moot, are South's rights under Law 25A1 compromised by the fact that it was his partner who called attention to the insufficient bid? If additional or different questions should be asked, please say so. David From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Apr 16 10:43:57 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:43:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] insufficient and inadvertent, redux In-Reply-To: <1271406461.7865.1370272867@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1271406461.7865.1370272867@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On 16 April 2010 10:27, David Babcock wrote: > (posted to both BLML and r.g.b.) > > In ACBL-land, after some rounds of bidding whose details need not > concern us, South bids 4NT, RKC in hearts. ?West passes, North bids 5S, > East passes, South bids 5H. ?West passes, North says "insufficient". > South is clearly surprised by this, says he meant to bid 6H, and > corrects his bid to 6H. ?Assume that there is no doubt as to South's > sincerity in his statement as to having intended to bid 6H. > > 1. ?Was North within his rights to call attention to his partner's > insufficient bid? ?( Law 9A1 seems to me to say he was, unless there is > something that brings the "unless prohibited by law" clause into > operation - ?? ?) Yes he was. The law is very clear on this. > > 2. ?Of course the Director should have been called, but, that being > moot, are South's rights under Law 25A1 compromised by the fact that it > was his partner who called attention to the insufficient bid? > No, they are not. There's nothing in the laws in that direction. However, he's got to change/try to change his misbid without pause for thought - from the moment he becomes aware of the misbid. This seems to be OK in this case, as he said that he meant to bid 6H - from the post I take it that this happened at once. > If additional or different questions should be asked, please say so. > > David > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 16 16:45:00 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:45:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match References: <9ebbc73c5a5e0e781eee6d57b0a79ad5.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <-315806639358741256@unknownmsgid> <001901cadca3$90799eb0$b16cdc10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: +=+ Since ton's understanding of the English language differs from mine we have no basis for discussion. In my belief he does not understand the language. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fouled board in knock-out match > > > On 14 April 2010 10:10, ton wrote: >> ton: >> it seems that the eagerness to answer my mail did win it from accuracy. >> Let >> me give some comments between the lines: >> ........................................................................ >> +=+ As I read Law 86D it says it only applies "when >> the Director awards an adjusted score". +=+ >> >> 86D does not speak about 'only', so the restriction Grattan introduced >> looks >> wrong to me >> >> >> >> +=+ There is no doubt that Law 87 applies to any >> board that is fouled. +=+ >> >> As I said 87A is a definition. May I ask Grattan to apply 87B to a fouled >> board played in a teams event? >> >> +=+ Law 86A says "the contestants >> who should have had a score comparison did not play >> the board in identical form". +=+ >> >> This is not in 86A but in 87A and there it is not more than the >> definition >> >> +=+ This wording says clearly >> enough that the players do not have a score comparison >> and it offers no basis for awarding an adjusted score. +=+ >> >> >> I do not read anything here about not offering a basis for an adjusted >> score. Where do you, Grattan, read that? >> >> +=+ However, we must ask ourselves whether this is a >> case covered by Law 12A2. The situation is referred >> to in Law 2 - "No board that fails to conform to these >> conditions should be used. If such board is used, >> however, the conditions marked on it apply for that >> session". So the board at the second table has equal >> status with the board at the first table and neither can >> be discarded in favour of the other. +=+ >> >> This is a very private interpretation of our laws, which is not used >> anywhere in the real bridge world. And apart from this eagerly written >> mail >> has never been used by Grattan either. The combination of law 2 and L 87A >> (definition) makes it completely clear that in a teams event a board >> which >> does not comply with the demands as described in Law 2 is considered to >> be >> the fouled board. So they do not have the same status. >> >> >> +=+ The Tournament >> Organizer's intention is outwith the law which is >> concerned only with fact, and I do not see that an >> adjusted score can be based upon one of the two >> only. So it is my view that the incompatibility of the >> two boards precludes award of an adjusted score. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> In our wbf laws committee discussions as well as in the ebl TD-course it >> was >> completely clear that L86D may be used in cases where there is only one >> score available on a board in a teams event. >> More precise: the change in the >> 2007 edition refers to such case specifically. >> >> ton > > Harald: > > In the OP here there are two scores, but not with identical boards. > I guess it's clear which is the correct board and which one was > fouled, but the OP doesn't say anything about it. > > Ton: Would you apply L86D when there is a good result for one of the > teams at the table playing the correct board/the fouled board/both > situations? > > Would you weight the score (like 50/50, since there are two results)? > > ton: > You are asking about my personal approach, had I the opportunity to use > it. > Here it is. > I would never take into account a good or bad score received playing the > fouled board, whether there is one, zero or two offending side(s). I know > this to be questionable. > If no side is responsible for the fouled board I would apply 86D when the > result with the right board is not normal, so very good or bad. In that > case my feeling is that 50% of the imps compared with the par is > reasonable. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 16 17:23:08 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match References: <89D7A8AE57C949179243EE3AA8F83A2B@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Laws" Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:11 PM Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match +=+ We start with a simple lack of understanding that when in English a statement is made "when A does (x) then N" the position is either A does (x) and N applies or A does not do (x) and N does not apply under that law. It requires a further positive statement in the laws for N to apply otherwise than as stated. One may consider the principle in the WBFLC minute 8 ('Actions authorized in the Laws') of 24th August 1998 in this connection. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Fri Apr 16 17:41:35 2010 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (Raghavan P.S.) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:11:35 +0530 Subject: [BLML] insufficient and inadvertent, redux In-Reply-To: References: <1271406461.7865.1370272867@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: When West passes 5 Hearts bid made by South, it means he has accepted the bid - though insuffient. So EW lose their right for any rectification. It is illegal on the part of North to make any comments after the opponent west has accepted the insufficient bid. Bidding 6H after the comment by North is like using UI. So the final bid is 5Heart by south with whatever the results. I request correction of my statement if need be. It should not be assumed that South made his 6H bid without pause - Lot of time has elapsed after his 5H bid - West has made a bid, North made a comment Now south making a bid is certainly using UI. With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. Editor at BridgeIndia.com BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038 Mobile = 9940273749 2010/4/16 Harald Skj?ran > On 16 April 2010 10:27, David Babcock wrote: > > (posted to both BLML and r.g.b.)fi > > > > In ACBL-land, after some rounds of bidding whose details need not > > concern us, South bids 4NT, RKC in hearts. West passes, North bids 5S, > > East passes, South bids 5H. West passes, North says "insufficient". > > South is clearly surprised by this, says he meant to bid 6H, and > > corrects his bid to 6H. Assume that there is no doubt as to South's > > sincerity in his statement as to having intended to bid 6H. > > > > 1. Was North within his rights to call attention to his partner's > > insufficient bid? ( Law 9A1 seems to me to say he was, unless there is > > something that brings the "unless prohibited by law" clause into > > operation - ?? ) > > Yes he was. The law is very clear on this. > > > > > 2. Of course the Director should have been called, but, that being > > moot, are South's rights under Law 25A1 compromised by the fact that it > > was his partner who called attention to the insufficient bid? > > > No, they are not. There's nothing in the laws in that direction. > However, he's got to change/try to change his misbid without pause for > thought - from the moment he becomes aware of the misbid. This seems > to be OK in this case, as he said that he meant to bid 6H - from the > post I take it that this happened at once. > > > If additional or different questions should be asked, please say so. > > > > David > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100416/d1a75b7f/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 16 17:57:47 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:57:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] insufficient and inadvertent, redux In-Reply-To: References: <1271406461.7865.1370272867@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000f01cadd7d$8f6a7690$ae3f63b0$@no> ?Pause? is to be considered from the moment the player becomes aware of his misbid until he changes or attempts to change it. The time passed from making the inadvertent call until he becomes aware of it is irrelevant so long as his partner has not yet subsequently called. According to OP South changed (or wanted to change) his 5H bid to 6H ?without pause? so it is a clear cut law 25A situation. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Raghavan P.S. Sent: 16. april 2010 17:42 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] insufficient and inadvertent, redux When West passes 5 Hearts bid made by South, it means he has accepted the bid - though insuffient. So EW lose their right for any rectification. It is illegal on the part of North to make any comments after the opponent west has accepted the insufficient bid. Bidding 6H after the comment by North is like using UI. So the final bid is 5Heart by south with whatever the results. I request correction of my statement if need be. It should not be assumed that South made his 6H bid without pause - Lot of time has elapsed after his 5H bid - West has made a bid, North made a comment Now south making a bid is certainly using UI. With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. Editor at BridgeIndia.com BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038 Mobile = 9940273749 2010/4/16 Harald Skj?ran On 16 April 2010 10:27, David Babcock wrote: > (posted to both BLML and r.g.b.)fi > > In ACBL-land, after some rounds of bidding whose details need not > concern us, South bids 4NT, RKC in hearts. West passes, North bids 5S, > East passes, South bids 5H. West passes, North says "insufficient". > South is clearly surprised by this, says he meant to bid 6H, and > corrects his bid to 6H. Assume that there is no doubt as to South's > sincerity in his statement as to having intended to bid 6H. > > 1. Was North within his rights to call attention to his partner's > insufficient bid? ( Law 9A1 seems to me to say he was, unless there is > something that brings the "unless prohibited by law" clause into > operation - ?? ) Yes he was. The law is very clear on this. > > 2. Of course the Director should have been called, but, that being > moot, are South's rights under Law 25A1 compromised by the fact that it > was his partner who called attention to the insufficient bid? > No, they are not. There's nothing in the laws in that direction. However, he's got to change/try to change his misbid without pause for thought - from the moment he becomes aware of the misbid. This seems to be OK in this case, as he said that he meant to bid 6H - from the post I take it that this happened at once. > If additional or different questions should be asked, please say so. > > David > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100416/e03631e6/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Fri Apr 16 19:19:03 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:19:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match In-Reply-To: References: <89D7A8AE57C949179243EE3AA8F83A2B@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <4797821.1271438343835.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert Herrick] . > "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "olivier.beauvillain" > To: "Laws" > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:11 PM > Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match > > > +=+ We start with a simple lack of understanding that > when in English a statement is made "when A does (x) > then N" the position is > either A does (x) and N applies > or A does not do (x) and N does not apply under > that law. It requires a further positive statement in the > laws for N to apply otherwise than as stated. > One may consider the principle in the > WBFLC minute 8 ('Actions authorized in the Laws') > of 24th August 1998 in this connection. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ "when A does (x) then N" means either A does (x) and N applies or A does not do (x) and no statement about N is made. Especially, when A does not do (x), then N could apply or not, you don't know from "when A does (x) then N". Worded differently, "When A then B" implies "When not B, then not A". It does not imply "When not A then not B". Thomas Traumziele - von Beschreibung bis Buchung jetzt kompakt auf den Reise-Seiten von Arcor.de! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.reise From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 16 23:56:11 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:56:11 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: From: "Harald Skj?ran" > This is patently wrong. You can't assign non-existent scores. Who says I can't? > Any such assigned scores (or weighted scores) has to be done by > computing the MPs (or IMPs) for each individual score and adding > these > togehter. Else you (might) get totally insane results. > I was just going by what the Laws say, which is to subtract serious error cost from the normal compensation for the NOS. Any insane results come from the insane methods of computing weighted outcomes. Computer-illiterate people in IMP-Pairs don't mind comparing with a Butler datum that is a non-existent score, WTP? Many Four-Deal (Chicago) players go by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge for each board, scored separately. No matchpoints, no IMPs. In case a Director is needed, the sit-out or a host performs that function. In the case of serious error, the compensation is reduced by the cost of the serious error, WTP? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 17 11:18:08 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:18:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples In-Reply-To: References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4BC97CD0.8020200@skynet.be> The problem, Marv, is that non-existent scores in Pairs make for very strange results: Imagine a board where the whole room scores +450. Due to some irregularity, at one table, a declarer claims he has been prevented from executing a very deep finesse, which would have gained a second overtrick. being in Europe, you decide to award him a very small weight of +480. Calculated as we normally do, that gives him 2% x 100MP + 98% x 50MP = 51MP, which is the small compensation we are looking for. But you would give him 2%x480 + 98%x450 = 450.6, which would be worth a top. I have deliberately given a weight of only 2% so that ACBL rulings which would give 100% of 480 would not come into things. I do not advocate awarding weights of only 2%, but if one does, the effect on the score should be minimal also. Herman. Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > >> This is patently wrong. You can't assign non-existent scores. > > Who says I can't? > >> Any such assigned scores (or weighted scores) has to be done by >> computing the MPs (or IMPs) for each individual score and adding >> these >> togehter. Else you (might) get totally insane results. >> > I was just going by what the Laws say, which is to subtract serious > error cost from the normal compensation for the NOS. Any insane > results come from the insane methods of computing weighted outcomes. > Computer-illiterate people in IMP-Pairs don't mind comparing with a > Butler datum that is a non-existent score, WTP? > > Many Four-Deal (Chicago) players go by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge > for each board, scored separately. No matchpoints, no IMPs. In case > a Director is needed, the sit-out or a host performs that function. > In the case of serious error, the compensation is reduced by the > cost of the serious error, WTP? > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2815 - Release Date: 04/16/10 20:31:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Apr 17 18:45:22 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:45:22 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <4BC97CD0.8020200@skynet.be> Message-ID: From: "Herman De Wael" > The problem, Marv, is that non-existent scores in Pairs make for > very > strange results: > Imagine a board where the whole room scores +450. Due to some > irregularity, at one table, a declarer claims he has been > prevented from > executing a very deep finesse, which would have gained a second > overtrick. being in Europe, you decide to award him a very small > weight > of +480. Calculated as we normally do, that gives him 2% x 100MP + > 98% x > 50MP = 51MP, which is the small compensation we are looking for. > But you would give him 2%x480 + 98%x450 = 450.6, which would be > worth a top. > I have deliberately given a weight of only 2% so that ACBL rulings > which > would give 100% of 480 would not come into things. > > I do not advocate awarding weights of only 2%, but if one does, > the > effect on the score should be minimal also. First, the principles exhibited in L12c1(e) should apply to weighting of potential results, given no other guidelines in L12C1(c). A 2% probability would therefore be excluded, as not likely enough for the NOS and not at all probable for the OS. Only results that satisfy the criteria of L12C1(e) should be considered.. Ask the question for the NOS: For each potential result, do you believe there was a significant possibility of this happening? Let's say two possibilities, +140 and +170, pass this test and are equiprobable. Average is +155, which will beat scores of 140 but not scores of 170 when matchpointing. If 155 gives the NOS a cold top, so be it. Wolff's PTF principle has long been rejected. +155 can be used when calculating an imp score, no problem there. For the OS ask the question: For each potential result, do you judge there was more than a remote possibility of this happening? Assign probabilities to multiple positive answers and do the weighting calculation. The two questions were suggested to me by a prominent member of the Drafting Committee, and are much more sensible than the ACBL's mathematically-expressed threshold probabilities of 1/3 for the NOS and 1/6 for the OS. There are ways of handling multiple favorable/unfavorable results that do not meet the threshold criteria individually but do meet them in total, so nitpickers please don't bring that up. But I should not be concerned about L12C1(c), since it doesn't apply in my world of duplicate bridge. However, I did stipulate that the potential outcomes in my examples were 100% probable, so L12C1(c) and L12C1(e) should provide identical adjusted scores. If not, there is something wrong with the implementation of the former. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 17 23:47:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:47:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match References: <89D7A8AE57C949179243EE3AA8F83A2B@PCdeOlivier> <4797821.1271438343835.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match > Grattan wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> Skype directory: grattan.endicott >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold >> New things succeed, as former things grow old." >> [Robert Herrick] >> . >> "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "olivier.beauvillain" >> To: "Laws" >> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:11 PM >> Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fouled board in knock-out match >> >> >> +=+ We start with a simple lack of understanding that >> when in English a statement is made "when A does (x) >> then N" the position is >> either A does (x) and N applies >> or A does not do (x) and N does not apply under >> that law. It requires a further positive statement in the >> laws for N to apply otherwise than as stated. >> One may consider the principle in the >> WBFLC minute 8 ('Actions authorized in the Laws') >> of 24th August 1998 in this connection. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > "when A does (x) then N" means > either A does (x) and N applies > or A does not do (x) and no statement about N is made. > > Especially, when A does not do (x), then N could apply > or not, you don't know from "when A does (x) then N". > > Worded differently, "When A then B" implies "When not B, then not A". > It does not imply "When not A then not B". > > > Thomas > +=+ To be read in conjunction with the WBFLC minute saying that the Laws define correct procedure and it is incorrect to argue that where a Law states something to be authorized other actions if not expressly forbidden are also legitimate. The minute (from Lille 1998) says this is not so. The Committee's interpretation sets a principle that to be authorized an action must be expressly authorized in the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 18 00:25:05 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:25:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples In-Reply-To: References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <4BC97CD0.8020200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BCA3541.8080401@skynet.be> Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> The problem, Marv, is that non-existent scores in Pairs make for >> very >> strange results: >> Imagine a board where the whole room scores +450. Due to some >> irregularity, at one table, a declarer claims he has been >> prevented from >> executing a very deep finesse, which would have gained a second >> overtrick. being in Europe, you decide to award him a very small >> weight >> of +480. Calculated as we normally do, that gives him 2% x 100MP + >> 98% x >> 50MP = 51MP, which is the small compensation we are looking for. >> But you would give him 2%x480 + 98%x450 = 450.6, which would be >> worth a top. >> I have deliberately given a weight of only 2% so that ACBL rulings >> which >> would give 100% of 480 would not come into things. >> >> I do not advocate awarding weights of only 2%, but if one does, >> the >> effect on the score should be minimal also. > > First, the principles exhibited in L12c1(e) should apply to > weighting of potential results, given no other guidelines in > L12C1(c). A 2% probability would therefore be excluded, as not > likely enough for the NOS and not at all probable for the OS. Only > results that satisfy the criteria of L12C1(e) should be considered.. > Perhaps, I'm not going to discuss this. but the same principle applies to a weight of 20%. Your method would render that a complete top as well, and that is not what is intended with a weighted score. > Ask the question for the NOS: For each potential result, do you > believe there was a significant possibility of this happening? Let's > say two possibilities, +140 and +170, pass this test and are > equiprobable. Average is +155, which will beat scores of 140 but not > scores of 170 when matchpointing. If 155 gives the NOS a cold top, > so be it. Wolff's PTF principle has long been rejected. +155 can be > used when calculating an imp score, no problem there. > Indeed no problem there, at least of the same order of magnitude as at pairs. But you are wrong when saying that 155 will be a top. When weighting scores, we are saying that the pair has a 50% chance of scoring 140, and a 50% chance of scoring 170. If 140 yields average and 170 top, then that means that the pair are judged to have a 50% chance of scoring average. Yet you give them a top, and that cannot be right (We would give them 75%, as being 50% of 50% and 50% of 100% of the available matchpoints) > For the OS ask the question: For each potential result, do you judge > there was more than a remote possibility of this happening? Assign > probabilities to multiple positive answers and do the weighting > calculation. > > The two questions were suggested to me by a prominent member of the > Drafting Committee, and are much more sensible than the ACBL's > mathematically-expressed threshold probabilities of 1/3 for the NOS > and 1/6 for the OS. > > There are ways of handling multiple favorable/unfavorable results > that do not meet the threshold criteria individually but do meet > them in total, so nitpickers please don't bring that up. > > But I should not be concerned about L12C1(c), since it doesn't apply > in my world of duplicate bridge. However, I did stipulate that the > potential outcomes in my examples were 100% probable, so L12C1(c) > and L12C1(e) should provide identical adjusted scores. If not, > there is something wrong with the implementation of the former. > yes indeed Marv, you should not be concerned with weighted scores - but we are, and your application is wrong and should therefore be called wrong. However, Marv, you are concerned with subsequent error cases, and the same principles apply there. let's take one example: After the infraction, NOS are expected to score -500, but they revoke and give away -800. They should be in +200, which is what you will give the OS. but you want to deduce the 300. In shorthand, give the NOS -100. It seems logical to me to take the MP for +200, those for -500, and for -800, and make the calculation MP(+200) - MP(-500) + MP(-800) Herman. > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2816 - Release Date: 04/17/10 08:31:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 18 22:33:52 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 22:33:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? Message-ID: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> The following question was raised, and although it seems rather hypothetical I feel that it deserves some consideration: South makes an insufficient bid and because of some previous irregularity West is forced to pass in this turn. According to Law 28 North may now call without awaiting the forced pass from West. This seems to imply that West is automatically forced, not only to pass in this turn, but also to accept the IB? My immediate reaction was that this is not correct, but I have a problem finding support in the laws for this my reaction. Comments? (Please no opinions on how it should be! I am seeking firm foundation in the laws.) From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sun Apr 18 22:59:09 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:59:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> Message-ID: <1271624349.18569.1370603225@webmail.messagingengine.com> > South makes an insufficient bid and because of some previous irregularity > West is forced to pass in this turn. > > According to Law 28 North may now call without awaiting the forced pass > from > West. > > This seems to imply that West is automatically forced, not only to pass > in > this turn, but also to accept the IB? > > My immediate reaction was that this is not correct, but I have a problem > finding support in the laws for this my reaction. > > Comments? Law 27A1 says that an insufficient bid may be accepted *at the option of* offender's LHO (emphasis added). Perhaps that language is to be understood as saying that acceptance is not to be inferred from a forced pass. One can see complications arising from that interpretation, granted. David From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 18 23:40:27 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:40:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <1271624349.18569.1370603225@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> <1271624349.18569.1370603225@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000a01cadf3f$c3229e40$4967dac0$@no> On Behalf Of David Babcock > > South makes an insufficient bid and because of some previous > > irregularity West is forced to pass in this turn. > > > > According to Law 28 North may now call without awaiting the forced > > pass from West. > > > > This seems to imply that West is automatically forced, not only to > > pass in this turn, but also to accept the IB? > > > > My immediate reaction was that this is not correct, but I have a > > problem finding support in the laws for this my reaction. > > > > Comments? > > Law 27A1 says that an insufficient bid may be accepted *at the option > of* offender's LHO (emphasis added). True, but Law 27A1 continues: It is accepted if that player calls. Where does that leave us when LHO is forced to pass? > Perhaps that language is to be understood > as saying that acceptance is not to be inferred from a forced pass. One can see > complications arising from that interpretation, granted. > > David > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 19 03:00:05 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:00:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automaticallyaccept IB? References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no><1271624349.18569.1370603225@webmail.messagingengine.com> <000a01cadf3f$c3229e40$4967dac0$@no> Message-ID: <61CCB83F839947E79AB2E7B4A3B9DB2C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automaticallyaccept IB? > On Behalf Of David Babcock >> > South makes an insufficient bid and because of some previous >> > irregularity West is forced to pass in this turn. >> > >> > According to Law 28 North may now call without awaiting the forced >> > pass from West. >> > >> > This seems to imply that West is automatically forced, not only to >> > pass in this turn, but also to accept the IB? >> > >> > My immediate reaction was that this is not correct, but I have a >> > problem finding support in the laws for this my reaction. >> > >> > Comments? >> >> Law 27A1 says that an insufficient bid may be accepted *at the option >> of* offender's LHO (emphasis added). > > True, but Law 27A1 continues: It is accepted if that player calls. > > Where does that leave us when LHO is forced to pass? > >> Perhaps that language is to be understood >> as saying that acceptance is not to be inferred from a forced pass. One > can see >> complications arising from that interpretation, granted. >> >> David <<<< +=+ He may draw attention to the irregularity whereupon Laws 9B1(a) and 9B2 kick in. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 19 03:39:34 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:39:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 15:33 To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? > The following question was raised, and although it seems rather > hypothetical > I feel that it deserves some consideration: > > South makes an insufficient bid and because of some previous irregularity > West is forced to pass in this turn. > > According to Law 28 North may now call without awaiting the forced pass > from > West. > > This seems to imply that West is automatically forced, not only to pass in > this turn, but also to accept the IB? > > My immediate reaction was that this is not correct, but I have a problem > finding support in the laws for this my reaction. > > Comments? (Please no opinions on how it should be! I am seeking firm > foundation in the laws.) Yes, I agree with Sven that L28 is unintelligent rubbish. As for what it provides: 28A A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at his RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass. The lever occurs when W has an enforced pass and it is the effect of L28A on South's partner [north] when he then COOT. L28A converts the COOT into considered to be in turn. The issue is- does N calling convert W's not calling into W passing? Or, so to speak, is considered to be in rotation the equivalent to in rotation? If so, then N's call thereby imputes the enforced call upon W. and W, having the pass imputed thereby condones the IB as legal. If not, then L28A is worse rubbish than I purported when I started this. Retreating somewhat, does W having an enforced pass to be, in and on its own power, condone S's IB immediately upon S's call? In answer is it sufficient to point out that requiring W to pass does not mean that W has passed without him actually passing. I think so. Is North calling OOT sufficient to impute [equivalent to W actually calling] the enforced pass upon W? I think so. What this translates to is that to penalize the IB W must reject it before N calls. And what if the TD is called before N calls, but N calls anyway? While L9B2 admonishes players to do nothing before the TD rules it there is a dearth of procedures for the occasion. regards roger pewick From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Apr 19 04:44:03 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:44:03 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> Message-ID: <197DB61FBBB44D3E9035738CBA94DC54@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 4:33 AM Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? > The following question was raised, and although it seems rather > hypothetical > I feel that it deserves some consideration: > > South makes an insufficient bid and because of some previous irregularity > West is forced to pass in this turn. > > According to Law 28 North may now call without awaiting the forced pass > from > West. > > This seems to imply that West is automatically forced, not only to pass in > this turn, but also to accept the IB? > > My immediate reaction was that this is not correct, but I have a problem > finding support in the laws for this my reaction. > > Comments? (Please no opinions on how it should be! I am seeking firm > foundation in the laws.) A player may be required to pass by law e.g. Law 30A. The pass is made in accordance with the appropriate regulation e.g placing a pass card appropriately. A call by a player under L 28A before his RHO has passed while perfectly legal does not appear to change the fact that RHO has not passed and may choose not to accept the insufficient bid, preferably with the director present bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 19 08:43:31 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:43:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <197DB61FBBB44D3E9035738CBA94DC54@acer> References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> <197DB61FBBB44D3E9035738CBA94DC54@acer> Message-ID: <001b01cadf8b$a15dd5d0$e4198170$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> A player may be required to pass by law e.g. Law 30A. The pass is made in accordance with the appropriate regulation e.g placing a pass card appropriately. A call by a player under L 28A before his RHO has passed while perfectly legal does not appear to change the fact that RHO has not passed and may choose not to accept the insufficient bid, preferably with the director present bill ton: This sounds to be the right approach to me. 28a tells that it is not an infraction to call before rho has made his enforced pass. But that call still has to be made and rho can not be deprived from his right to accept or not the IB. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 19 11:03:24 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:03:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <000a01cadf3f$c3229e40$4967dac0$@no> References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> <1271624349.18569.1370603225@webmail.messagingengine.com> <000a01cadf3f$c3229e40$4967dac0$@no> Message-ID: <4BCC1C5C.10002@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of David Babcock >>> South makes an insufficient bid and because of some previous >>> irregularity West is forced to pass in this turn. >>> >>> According to Law 28 North may now call without awaiting the forced >>> pass from West. >>> >>> This seems to imply that West is automatically forced, not only to >>> pass in this turn, but also to accept the IB? >>> >>> My immediate reaction was that this is not correct, but I have a >>> problem finding support in the laws for this my reaction. >>> >>> Comments? >> >> Law 27A1 says that an insufficient bid may be accepted *at the option >> of* offender's LHO (emphasis added). > > True, but Law 27A1 continues: It is accepted if that player calls. > > Where does that leave us when LHO is forced to pass? > Surely the fact that he is forced to pass does not mean that he has already passed? >> Perhaps that language is to be understood >> as saying that acceptance is not to be inferred from a forced pass. One > can see >> complications arising from that interpretation, granted. >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2819 - Release Date: 04/18/10 20:31:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 19 11:09:22 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:09:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automaticallyaccept IB? References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no><197DB61FBBB44D3E9035738CBA94DC54@acer> <001b01cadf8b$a15dd5d0$e4198170$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automaticallyaccept IB? > > > A player may be required to pass by law e.g. Law 30A. > The pass is made in accordance with the appropriate regulation e.g placing > a > > pass card appropriately. > A call by a player under L 28A before his RHO has passed while perfectly > legal does not appear to change the fact that RHO has not passed and may > choose not to accept the insufficient bid, preferably with the director > present > > bill > > > ton: > This sounds to be the right approach to me. > 28a tells that it is not an infraction to call before rho has made his > enforced pass. But that call still has to be made and rho can not be > deprived from his right to accept or not the IB. > +=+ I think that the Director should be summoned. The fact that the Director is summoned does not affect the rights of either side. To say "preferably" seems wrong to me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 19 11:20:56 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:20:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> <1271624349.18569.1370603225@webmail.messagingengine.com><000a01cadf3f$c3229e40$4967dac0$@no> <4BCC1C5C.10002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9D30D4D5A38D4A56B936AD637D22DF50@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? > > Surely the fact that he is forced to pass does not mean that he has > already passed? > +=+ However it is not an offence for the next player to bid without waiting for the LHO to do so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Apr 19 11:30:21 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:30:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_27A1=3A_Does_a_forced_pass_by_LHO_auto?= =?iso-8859-15?q?matically=09accept_IB=3F?= In-Reply-To: <9D30D4D5A38D4A56B936AD637D22DF50@Mildred> References: <9D30D4D5A38D4A56B936AD637D22DF50@Mildred> Message-ID: <1O3nJ7-11UN6m0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: "Grattan" > From: "Herman De Wael" > > Surely the fact that he is forced to pass does not mean that he has > > already passed? > > > > > +=+ However it is not an offence for the next player to bid without > waiting for the LHO to do so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ... but it is an irregularity (a deviation from correct procedure). From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Apr 19 11:31:40 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:31:40 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHOautomaticallyaccept IB? References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no><197DB61FBBB44D3E9035738CBA94DC54@acer><001b01cadf8b$a15dd5d0$e4198170$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <98413959353446619FEF028F27DD9869@acer> Snip > +=+ I think that the Director should be summoned. The fact that > the Director is summoned does not affect the rights of either side. > To say "preferably" seems wrong to me. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Preferably is incorrect bill > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Apr 19 15:00:10 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:00:10 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? References: <9D30D4D5A38D4A56B936AD637D22DF50@Mildred> <1O3nJ7-11UN6m0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? snip >> +=+ However it is not an offence for the next player to bid without >> waiting for the LHO to do so. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ... but it is an irregularity (a deviation from correct procedure). "Introduction to the 2007 laws of duplicate bridge The laws are designed to define correct procedure"..... L28A is defining a correct procedure for a specific set of circumstances. Is it an alternate correct procedure? bill > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Apr 19 15:17:12 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:17:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_27A1=3A_Does_a_forced_pass_by_LHO_auto?= =?iso-8859-15?q?matically=09accept_IB=3F?= In-Reply-To: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> Message-ID: <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" > From: "Peter Eidt" > > snip > > >> +=+ However it is not an offence for the next player to bid without > >> waiting for the LHO to do so. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > ... but it is an irregularity (a deviation from correct > > procedure). > > > > "Introduction to the 2007 laws of duplicate bridge > The laws are designed to define correct procedure"..... > L28A is defining a correct procedure for a specific set of > circumstances. > Is it an alternate correct procedure? I disagree. Law 17 C is defining the correct procedure. Law 28 A is dealing with the rectification in case of a) a player forced to pass; AND b) a call out of rotation of LHO of the player in a). It is not the correct procedure to ignore a player who must pass. But the rectification is null and the COOT is considered to be in rotation. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 19 15:24:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:24:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <000a01cadf3f$c3229e40$4967dac0$@no> References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> <1271624349.18569.1370603225@webmail.messagingengine.com> <000a01cadf3f$c3229e40$4967dac0$@no> Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of David Babcock > >>> South makes an insufficient bid and because of some previous >>> irregularity West is forced to pass in this turn. >>> >>> According to Law 28 North may now call without awaiting the forced >>> pass from West. >>> >>> This seems to imply that West is automatically forced, not only to >>> pass in this turn, but also to accept the IB? >>> >>> My immediate reaction was that this is not correct, but I have a >>> problem finding support in the laws for this my reaction. >>> >>> Comments? >> >> Law 27A1 says that an insufficient bid may be accepted *at the option >> of* offender's LHO (emphasis added). > > True, but Law 27A1 continues: It is accepted if that player calls. > > Where does that leave us when LHO is forced to pass? With no problem. LHO is forced to pass *at his turn to call*. L27A1 gives him the option of accepting or rejecting the IB *before* he calls. Neither the fact that we know what he will call when his turn comes nor the fact that he would have lost the option of rejecting the IB had he made his forced call prematurely affect this. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 19 15:33:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:33:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <000901cadf36$7607ef60$6217ce20$@no> Message-ID: <7CA27ED4-CD9A-4EFB-8483-CE97A91A4DBC@starpower.net> On Apr 18, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" > >> The following question was raised, and although it seems rather >> hypothetical >> I feel that it deserves some consideration: >> >> South makes an insufficient bid and because of some previous >> irregularity >> West is forced to pass in this turn. >> >> According to Law 28 North may now call without awaiting the forced >> pass >> from >> West. >> >> This seems to imply that West is automatically forced, not only to >> pass in >> this turn, but also to accept the IB? >> >> My immediate reaction was that this is not correct, but I have a >> problem >> finding support in the laws for this my reaction. >> >> Comments? (Please no opinions on how it should be! I am seeking firm >> foundation in the laws.) > > Yes, I agree with Sven that L28 is unintelligent rubbish. As for > what it > provides: > > 28A A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a > player at > his RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass. > > The lever occurs when W has an enforced pass and it is the effect > of L28A > on South's partner [north] when he then COOT. L28A converts the > COOT into > considered to be in turn. > > The issue is- does N calling convert W's not calling into W > passing? Or, so > to speak, is considered to be in rotation the equivalent to in > rotation? If > so, then N's call thereby imputes the enforced call upon W. and W, > having > the pass imputed thereby condones the IB as legal. If not, then > L28A is > worse rubbish than I purported when I started this. > > Retreating somewhat, does W having an enforced pass to be, in and > on its own > power, condone S's IB immediately upon S's call? In answer is it > sufficient > to point out that requiring W to pass does not mean that W has passed > without him actually passing. I think so. Is North calling OOT > sufficient > to impute [equivalent to W actually calling] the enforced pass upon > W? I > think so. > > What this translates to is that to penalize the IB W must reject it > before N > calls. And what if the TD is called before N calls, but N calls > anyway? > While L9B2 admonishes players to do nothing before the TD rules it > there is > a dearth of procedures for the occasion. L28A applies "at [North's] RHO's turn to call". When South makes an IB, L27A1 gives West the right to accept or reject it before he calls. Until he does so, either explicitly or implicitly by calling, any action by North is out of turn. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Mon Apr 19 15:35:56 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:35:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <1271684156.25412.1370715815@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Law 28 A is dealing with the rectification in case of > a) a player forced to pass; AND > b) a call out of rotation of LHO of the player in a). When Law 28A says "A call is considered to be in rotation when...", isn't it more straightforward to read that as explaining why rectification is not applicable, rather than as a rectification? David From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 19 15:38:17 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:38:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4BCC5CC9.409@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" > >> From: "Peter Eidt" >> >> snip >> >> >>>> +=+ However it is not an offence for the next player to bid without >>>> waiting for the LHO to do so. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>> >>> ... but it is an irregularity (a deviation from correct >>> procedure). >>> >>> >> "Introduction to the 2007 laws of duplicate bridge >> The laws are designed to define correct procedure"..... >> L28A is defining a correct procedure for a specific set of >> circumstances. >> Is it an alternate correct procedure? >> > > I disagree. > > Law 17 C is defining the correct procedure. > Law 28 A is dealing with the rectification in case of > a) a player forced to pass; AND > b) a call out of rotation of LHO of the player in a). > > It is not the correct procedure to ignore a player > who must pass. But the rectification is null and > the COOT is considered to be in rotation. > > Now can somebody explain to me what the difference could be, in practice, between "in this case it isn't a deviation" and "it is a deviation, but will be considered without object in this case" ? From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 19 15:44:23 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:44:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > >> +=+ However it is not an offence for the next player to bid without > > >> waiting for the LHO to do so. > > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > ... but it is an irregularity (a deviation from correct procedure). > > > > > > > "Introduction to the 2007 laws of duplicate bridge The laws are > > designed to define correct procedure"..... > > L28A is defining a correct procedure for a specific set of > > circumstances. > > Is it an alternate correct procedure? > > I disagree. > > Law 17 C is defining the correct procedure. > Law 28 A is dealing with the rectification in case of > a) a player forced to pass; AND > b) a call out of rotation of LHO of the player in a). > > It is not the correct procedure to ignore a player who must pass. But the > rectification is null and the COOT is considered to be in rotation. No, this is an incorrect understanding of Law 28A: "A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at his RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass." This is a definition of a correct procedure, not a specification of the rectification in a particular irregularity situation. However, I agree with the statements to the effect that Law 28A does not override a player's right to accept or reject his RHO's insufficient bid under Law 27A when he is forced (subsequently) to pass. Handling an insufficient bid and subsequently calling are two distinct actions; the fact that he is eventually forced to pass does not change this. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 19 16:57:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:57:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> Message-ID: <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > "A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at his > RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass." > > This is a definition of a correct procedure, not a specification of the > rectification in a particular irregularity situation. > > However, I agree with the statements to the effect that Law 28A does not > override a player's right to accept or reject his RHO's insufficient bid > under Law 27A when he is forced (subsequently) to pass. Handling an > insufficient bid and subsequently calling are two distinct actions; the fact > that he is eventually forced to pass does not change this. > I'm ready to accept this, but this may create other problems. For example, a player who has to decide whether one will accept their bid may base his judgment on thier system, OK? But one may only ask at one's turn to bid, so one wouldn't be able to do so here. Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Apr 19 17:59:31 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:59:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 19 April 2010 16:57, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Sven Pran a ?crit : >> >> "A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at his >> RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass." >> >> This is a definition of a correct procedure, not a specification of the >> rectification in a particular irregularity situation. >> >> However, I agree with the statements to the effect that Law 28A does not >> override a player's right to accept or reject his RHO's insufficient bid >> under Law 27A when he is forced (subsequently) to pass. Handling an >> insufficient bid and subsequently calling are two distinct actions; the fact >> that he is eventually forced to pass does not change this. >> > I'm ready to accept this, but this may create other problems. > > For example, a player who has to decide whether one will accept their > bid may base his judgment on thier system, OK? > But one may only ask at one's turn to bid, so one wouldn't be able to do > so here. Eh? One is allowed to ask for an explanation when it's ones turn to call. Pass is a call. Thus, even when a player is forced to pass, he has the right to ask. And it's obvious that it must be legal to ask in this situation; a bridge judgement is to be made. > > Best regards > > ?Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 20 03:06:42 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:06:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5f5099d993dc23ceeb8699c772c4260c.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Trying to use what everyone said, I got to this. (The situation is an IB, followed by partner bidding and skipping the intervening pass because it was forced by a previous irregularity.) Of course, the forced pass did not yet occur and that player has the right to accept or reject the insufficient bid. The bid by partner of the insufficient bidder is not an irregularity. L28A. However, the insufficient bid was an irregularity and hence they are the offending side. So the bid by IBer's partner is AI to the opps (various reasons depending on how you choose to interpret L16). I want to rule that the bid by IBer's partner is not withdrawn if the insufficient bid is accepted and is withdrawn if the insufficient bid is not accepted. There is no mechanism in the laws for the bid to be withdrawn if the insufficient bid is accepted. Solving that problem. There is, or should be, a general principle that when a call or play is changed, that any subsequent actions are cancelled/withdrawn. Following that, we get that when the insufficient bid is changed, the partner's bid is withdrawn and he may select any bid. The withdrawing has to occur before the IBer selects his replacement call. (I believe this is needed for the Alcatraz coup.) From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Apr 20 03:14:37 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:14:37 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically acceptIB? References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer><1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de><000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5596B304F1304772810A4D611D851C1C@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically acceptIB? > On 19 April 2010 16:57, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >>> >>> "A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at >>> his >>> RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass." >>> >>> This is a definition of a correct procedure, not a specification of the >>> rectification in a particular irregularity situation. >>> >>> However, I agree with the statements to the effect that Law 28A does not >>> override a player's right to accept or reject his RHO's insufficient bid >>> under Law 27A when he is forced (subsequently) to pass. Handling an >>> insufficient bid and subsequently calling are two distinct actions; the >>> fact >>> that he is eventually forced to pass does not change this. >>> >> I'm ready to accept this, but this may create other problems. >> >> For example, a player who has to decide whether one will accept their >> bid may base his judgment on thier system, OK? >> But one may only ask at one's turn to bid, so one wouldn't be able to do >> so here. > > Eh? One is allowed to ask for an explanation when it's ones turn to call. > Pass is a call. Thus, even when a player is forced to pass, he has the > right to ask. > And it's obvious that it must be legal to ask in this situation; a > bridge judgement is to be made. >> >> Best regards >> Under L27 as LHO your first job is to decide whether or not to accept the call. If you choose to accept the insufficient bid then it will be your turn to call. If you choose not to accept the bid then the offender must correct it by the substitution of a legal call and then it would be your turn to call. It is the director's job to determine the intent of the offender and thus the meaning of the insufficient bid. bill >> Alain >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Apr 20 04:01:54 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:01:54 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automaticallyacceptIB? References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer><1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de><000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no><4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <5596B304F1304772810A4D611D851C1C@acer> Message-ID: <33A194887F0B4139AAAAA2B5440A4F94@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automaticallyacceptIB? snip > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 11:59 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically > acceptIB? >>>> However, I agree with the statements to the effect that Law 28A does >>>> not >>>> override a player's right to accept or reject his RHO's insufficient >>>> bid >>>> under Law 27A when he is forced (subsequently) to pass. Handling an >>>> insufficient bid and subsequently calling are two distinct actions; the >>>> fact >>>> that he is eventually forced to pass does not change this. >>>> >>> I'm ready to accept this, but this may create other problems. >>> >>> For example, a player who has to decide whether one will accept their >>> bid may base his judgment on thier system, OK? >>> But one may only ask at one's turn to bid, so one wouldn't be able to do >>> so here. >> >> Eh? One is allowed to ask for an explanation when it's ones turn to call. >> Pass is a call. Thus, even when a player is forced to pass, he has the >> right to ask. >> And it's obvious that it must be legal to ask in this situation; a >> bridge judgement is to be made. >>> >>> Best regards >>> > > Under L27 as LHO your first job is to decide whether or not to accept the > call. If you choose to accept the insufficient bid then it will be your > turn > to call. If you choose not to accept the bid then the offender must > correct > it by the substitution of a legal call and then it would be your turn to > call. > It is the director's job to determine the intent of the offender and thus > the meaning of the insufficient bid. It appears we may be back at the start of the thread. If the player who must pass at their turn to call has not yet made a decision on whether to accept or reject the insufficient bid then it is not yet their turn to call so L28A does not apply and apparently the call by LHO would be out of rotation. bill. > bill > >>> Alain >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Harald Skj?ran >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 20 09:21:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:21:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > On 19 April 2010 16:57, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> >>> "A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at his >>> RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass." >>> >>> This is a definition of a correct procedure, not a specification of the >>> rectification in a particular irregularity situation. >>> >>> However, I agree with the statements to the effect that Law 28A does not >>> override a player's right to accept or reject his RHO's insufficient bid >>> under Law 27A when he is forced (subsequently) to pass. Handling an >>> insufficient bid and subsequently calling are two distinct actions; the fact >>> that he is eventually forced to pass does not change this. >>> >>> >> I'm ready to accept this, but this may create other problems. >> >> For example, a player who has to decide whether one will accept their >> bid may base his judgment on thier system, OK? >> But one may only ask at one's turn to bid, so one wouldn't be able to do >> so here. >> > > Eh? One is allowed to ask for an explanation when it's ones turn to call. > Pass is a call. Thus, even when a player is forced to pass, he has the > right to ask. > And it's obvious that it must be legal to ask in this situation; a > bridge judgement is to be made. > Sure. But if one takes to the letter the fact that "handling an insufficient bid and subsequently calling are two distinct actions", it is arguable that your turn to call comes only after handling the insufficient bid, which would imply that this isn't the right time to ask. Of course, we all know -or at least wish- that it isn't the case ; one must be allowed to ask before handling ; whence I'd prefer the handling to be deemed part of one glabal action, that includes handling IBs and COOTs if needed, enquiring, calling (the latter being subject to restrictions in some cases), and alerting (if behind screens). Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 20 09:32:20 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:32:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sean of the Dead, a romantic zombie comedy (rom-zom-com) -> Radio Newscaster: The Church of England has joined other extremist religious groups in proclaiming the phenomenon "a sign of the coming apocalypse", although Downing Street is refusing to be drawn into a religious debate. Imps Dlr: South Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass Pass (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. 3D, transfer to hearts. 3H, transfer to spades. 3S, five spades and four hearts. (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. You, East, hold: QJ75 984 854 QT3 Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 20 09:48:38 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:48:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BCD5C56.1080604@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Sean of the Dead, a romantic zombie comedy (rom-zom-com) -> > > Radio Newscaster: The Church of England has joined other > extremist religious groups in proclaiming the > phenomenon "a sign of the coming apocalypse", > although Downing Street is refusing to be > drawn into a religious debate. > Does the newcaster realize he's calling the Church of England extremist ? (cf. "other") > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) > Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) > Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. > But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. > > (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. > Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: > > 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. > 3D, transfer to hearts. > 3H, transfer to spades. > 3S, five spades and four hearts. > > (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. > AG : notice that the bidding isn't necessarily suspect of UI ; the fact that 2S shows 8+ creates several rational explanations for the 6NT bid : perhaps North realized that it would be better to bid 2NT with a stronger hand without it being systemic ; or perhaps North has miscounted and holds 24 ; perhaps also there is MI and 2NT is two-way in this case. > You, East, hold: > > QJ75 > 984 > 854 > QT3 > > Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? > The spade Queen or Jack, according to my agreements. The risk of running into the death holding is lower when RHO is significantly stronger than LHO. The H9 as a second choice. > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? > Any club or a small spade. > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? > A club honor. Notice that, if the player had led a small spade and argued that "I led 4th from my longest and strongest to avoid being suspected of making a gambling lead", I would feel compelled to accept this argument. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 20 10:11:54 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:11:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHOautomaticallyacceptIB? References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer><1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de><000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no><4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be><5596B304F1304772810A4D611D851C1C@acer> <33A194887F0B4139AAAAA2B5440A4F94@acer> Message-ID: <004037E68B874ABAA208EEED35C74B30@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHOautomaticallyacceptIB? >> >> Under L27 as LHO your first job is to decide whether or not to accept the >> call. If you choose to accept the insufficient bid then it will be your >> turn >> to call. If you choose not to accept the bid then the offender must >> correct >> it by the substitution of a legal call and then it would be your turn to >> call. >> It is the director's job to determine the intent of the offender and thus >> the meaning of the insufficient bid. > > It appears we may be back at the start of the thread. If the player who > must > pass at their turn to call has not yet made a decision on whether to > accept > or reject the insufficient bid then it is not yet their turn to call so > L28A > does not apply and apparently the call by LHO would be out of rotation. > > bill. > +=+ Always provided that when he calls attention to the IB, whether by saying it is insufficient or by asking a question, the Director is called, and nothing further is done by any player until the Director arrives. (See Law 9B). Under Law 9B2 it is an offence if the partner of an offender calls after attention is drawn to the IB, but not if he calls before attention is drawn to the IB (Law 28A). Technically at least, there should be no reply given to the question until the Director has taken charge of the incident. If the IB is accepted I see no authorization in the laws for the responder to change his call made as Law 28A allows. If he does so Law 25B applies and Laws 16D and Law 16A4. As we are aware an action not specifically authorized in the laws is extraneous. Since I am heavily migrainous this morning, "penalty of a high IQ" they comfort me ;-), I am especially open to correction in the above, my 'vision' being disturbed.* ~ Grattan ~ +=+ * excuses, excuses.... From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Apr 20 11:32:27 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:32:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <201004200932.o3K9WUcO024875@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Surely noone is suggesting in this stupid discussion, that if I am to bid with LHO forced to pass via some earlier transgression, that I get a free kick and can IB without penalty? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Apr 20 11:37:11 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:37:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004d01cae06d$0e53f200$2afbd600$@nl> [Lead after mildly suspect bidding] You, East, hold: QJ75 984 854 QT3 Probably a spade of sorts. I might lead an honor, or small. With this hand there are no serious errors, or wild or gambling leads(maybe the CQ) Given the question some AC ruled serious error to the unfortunate opening leader. I hope the AC starts to realize how many of *their* opening leads misfired the last year. Hans From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 20 12:15:02 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:15:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <201004200932.o3K9WUcO024875@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <201004200932.o3K9WUcO024875@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000a01cae072$572693c0$0573bb40$@no> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > Surely noone is suggesting in this stupid discussion, that if I am to bid with LHO > forced to pass via some earlier transgression, that I get a free kick and can IB > without penalty? > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) Well, the original question was: Exactly what law, if any, prevents exactly that? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 20 12:21:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:21:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <201004200932.o3K9WUcO024875@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <201004200932.o3K9WUcO024875@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4BCD8016.7090300@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit :Surely noone is suggesting in this stupid > discussion, that if I am to bid > with LHO forced to pass via some > earlier transgression, that I get > a free kick and can IB without > penalty? > > You sem to have misunderstood the discussion. The question is : how does one get to handle an IB when one is compelled to pass ? The problem being that LHO might bid before we do. From blml at arcor.de Tue Apr 20 13:33:48 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:33:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5770587.1271763228746.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) > Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) > Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. > But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. > > (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. > Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: > > 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. > 3D, transfer to hearts. > 3H, transfer to spades. > 3S, five spades and four hearts. > > (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. > > You, East, hold: > > QJ75 > 984 > 854 > QT3 > > Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? Difficult. spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs are possible. > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? CQ. > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? SJ and CT. Thomas Traumziele - von Beschreibung bis Buchung jetzt kompakt auf den Reise-Seiten von Arcor.de! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.reise From jrhind at therock.bm Tue Apr 20 14:13:30 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:13:30 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/20/10 4:32 AM, "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" wrote: > > Sean of the Dead, a romantic zombie comedy (rom-zom-com) -> > > Radio Newscaster: The Church of England has joined other > extremist religious groups in proclaiming the > phenomenon "a sign of the coming apocalypse", > although Downing Street is refusing to be > drawn into a religious debate. > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) > Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) > Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. > But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. > > (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. > Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: > > 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. > 3D, transfer to hearts. > 3H, transfer to spades. > 3S, five spades and four hearts. > > (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. > > You, East, hold: > > QJ75 > 984 > 854 > QT3 > > Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? SQ or Sx > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? Any C or D card. > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? CQ > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 20 14:29:16 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:29:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5770587.1271763228746.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <5770587.1271763228746.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4BCD9E1C.2010603@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Imps >> Dlr: South >> Vul: Nil >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- Pass >> Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) >> Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) >> Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. >> >> (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. >> But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. >> >> (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. >> >> (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. >> Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: >> >> 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. >> 3D, transfer to hearts. >> 3H, transfer to spades. >> 3S, five spades and four hearts. >> >> (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> QJ75 >> 984 >> 854 >> QT3 >> >> Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? >> > > Difficult. spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs are possible. > > >> Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? >> > > CQ. > > >> Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? >> > > SJ and CT. > > The spade jack won't be abnormal for pairs who play mixed sequences (high from 3-honor sequences, low from 2) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 20 15:08:37 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:08:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20 April 2010 09:32, wrote: > > Sean of the Dead, a romantic zombie comedy (rom-zom-com) -> > > Radio Newscaster: ?The Church of England has joined other > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extremist religious groups in proclaiming the > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? phenomenon "a sign of the coming apocalypse", > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? although Downing Street is refusing to be > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? drawn into a religious debate. > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? Pass > Pass ? ? ?2C (1) ? ?Pass ? ? ?2S (2) > Pass ? ? ?2NT(3) ? ?Pass ? ? ?3NT(4) > Pass ? ? ?6NT(5) ? ?Pass ? ? ?Pass > Pass > > (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. > ? ?But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. > > (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. > ? ?Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: > > ? ?3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. > ? ?3D, transfer to hearts. > ? ?3H, transfer to spades. > ? ?3S, five spades and four hearts. > > (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. > > You, East, hold: > > QJ75 > 984 > 854 > QT3 > > Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? SQ (or J if systemic). If I, for some reason, would make a passive lead, I'd lead the H9. > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? None > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? CQ or CT. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 20 15:21:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:21:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4BCD5C56.1080604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <16E0221554BA462BBBF4C097CE7614E2@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Sean of the Dead, a romantic zombie comedy (rom-zom-com) -> > > Radio Newscaster: The Church of England has joined other > extremist religious groups in proclaiming the > phenomenon "a sign of the coming apocalypse", > although Downing Street is refusing to be > drawn into a religious debate. > Does the newcaster realize he's calling the Church of England extremist ? (cf. "other") > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) > Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) > Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. > But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. > > (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. > Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: > > 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. > 3D, transfer to hearts. > 3H, transfer to spades. > 3S, five spades and four hearts. > > (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. > AG : notice that the bidding isn't necessarily suspect of UI ; the fact that 2S shows 8+ creates several rational explanations for the 6NT bid : perhaps North realized that it would be better to bid 2NT with a stronger hand without it being systemic ; or perhaps North has miscounted and holds 24 ; perhaps also there is MI and 2NT is two-way in this case. > You, East, hold: > > QJ75 > 984 > 854 > QT3 > > Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? > The spade Queen or Jack, according to my agreements. The risk of running into the death holding is lower when RHO is significantly stronger than LHO. The H9 as a second choice. > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? > Any club or a small spade. > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? > A club honor. Notice that, if the player had led a small spade and argued that "I led 4th from my longest and strongest to avoid being suspected of making a gambling lead", I would feel compelled to accept this argument. Best regards Alain ........................................................................... +=+ I would lead C10. But why the question? Are we not free to lead, at our own risk,whatever we fancy? There are a host of logical alternatives here. If partner made a slow Pass the Director may find it indicated a lead or even, if empty of values in the suit, that it was likely to deter a lead. If there is misinformation, might correct information affect our choice of lead? Depends what it was. Choice of an aggressive lead rather than a passive one is not per se WoG.. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 20 15:45:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:45:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:32 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) > Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) > Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. > But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. > > (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. > > (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. > Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: > > 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. > 3D, transfer to hearts. > 3H, transfer to spades. > 3S, five spades and four hearts. > > (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. > > You, East, hold: > > QJ75 > 984 > 854 > QT3 > > Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? Probably SQ (normal), possibly H9 (ultra-passive) or even S5 (shooting). Depends on the opponents and the state of my game. > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? > Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? CQ. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 20 15:56:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:56:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead In-Reply-To: <4BCD9E1C.2010603@ulb.ac.be> References: <5770587.1271763228746.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> <4BCD9E1C.2010603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Apr 20, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Imps >>> Dlr: South >>> Vul: Nil >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- --- Pass >>> Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) >>> Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) >>> Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass >>> Pass >>> >>> (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. >>> >>> (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. >>> But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. >>> >>> (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. >>> >>> (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. >>> Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: >>> >>> 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. >>> 3D, transfer to hearts. >>> 3H, transfer to spades. >>> 3S, five spades and four hearts. >>> >>> (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. >>> >>> You, East, hold: >>> >>> QJ75 >>> 984 >>> 854 >>> QT3 >>> >>> Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? >> >> Difficult. spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs are possible. >> >>> Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? >> >> CQ. >> >>> Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? >> >> SJ and CT. > > The spade jack won't be abnormal for pairs who play mixed sequences > (high from 3-honor sequences, low from 2) Even if the Q is normal, one could easily justify the deceptive SJ. North should have 25 HCP for his presumably legitimate leap to 6NT, and one might well credit South with a 10-count for his huddle over 2NT, leaving partner with no high cards. Your only chance to beat this just might be to convince declarer to (mis-) play on spades in preference to a more normal, successful, line. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 20 16:11:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:11:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <16E0221554BA462BBBF4C097CE7614E2@Mildred> References: <4BCD5C56.1080604@ulb.ac.be> <16E0221554BA462BBBF4C097CE7614E2@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BCDB62E.9020906@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > ........................................................................... > +=+ I would lead C10. > But why the question? Are we not free to lead, at our > own risk,whatever we fancy? There are a host of logical > alternatives here. If partner made a slow Pass the Director > may find it indicated a lead or even, if empty of values in > the suit, that it was likely to deter a lead. > AG : seems like the problem was whether there exists some lead which is "gambling" enough to deprive us from our rights to claim redress after opps' UI use. Apparently, blml agrees that there ain't, except perhaps the CQ. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 20 16:18:13 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:18:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead In-Reply-To: References: <5770587.1271763228746.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> <4BCD9E1C.2010603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BCDB7A5.4070209@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 20, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Imps >>>> Dlr: South >>>> Vul: Nil >>>> >>>> The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> --- --- --- Pass >>>> Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) >>>> Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) >>>> Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass >>>> Pass >>>> >>>> (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. >>>> >>>> (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. >>>> But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. >>>> >>>> (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. >>>> >>>> (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. >>>> Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: >>>> >>>> 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. >>>> 3D, transfer to hearts. >>>> 3H, transfer to spades. >>>> 3S, five spades and four hearts. >>>> >>>> (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. >>>> >>>> You, East, hold: >>>> >>>> QJ75 >>>> 984 >>>> 854 >>>> QT3 >>>> >>>> Which of your 13 cards do you select as your opening lead? >>>> >>> Difficult. spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs are possible. >>> >>> >>>> Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a serious error to lead? >>>> >>> CQ. >>> >>> >>>> Which of your 13 cards do you believe are a wild or gambling lead? >>>> >>> SJ and CT. >>> >> The spade jack won't be abnormal for pairs who play mixed sequences >> (high from 3-honor sequences, low from 2) >> > > Even if the Q is normal, one could easily justify the deceptive SJ. > North should have 25 HCP for his presumably legitimate leap to 6NT, > and one might well credit South with a 10-count for his huddle over > 2NT, leaving partner with no high cards. Your only chance to beat > this just might be to convince declarer to (mis-) play on spades in > preference to a more normal, successful, line. > > Like playing on clubs, or even a squeeze for trick 13. Okay, but it would need a very gullible declarer to think that we led from Jx, given that we have two pazsive leads (you're assuming .they hold AKQJ in both red suits, right ?) Notice that the inference "dummy holds a 10-count" isn't valid. He could have been thinking about making some other non-slam bid, like a Puppet 3C with Kxx-QJx-Qxxx-xxx. Best regards Alain From bbickford at charter.net Tue Apr 20 20:27:52 2010 From: bbickford at charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:27:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fw: pre-alert??? Message-ID: <33450499AC3948CF956C097DE8128EFB@D32K5JC1> I thought the list would appreciate this correspondence............../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: Rulings at acbl.org To: Bill Bickford Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:02 Subject: Re: pre-alert??? Good morning Bill, Mike and I have talked this one over. In our view Pam was simply espousing a 'style' not an 'agreement'. No, don't pre-alert as it will only confuse your opponents. Rick Beye *************************************************************************************** On page 39 of the April 2010 Bulletin, Pam Granovetter recommends an automatic lead of a singleton against a suit contract. Does this treatment require a pre-aler? Cheers...................../Bill Bickford = -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 2182 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/20100420/1a69b967/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 20 21:38:34 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:38:34 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Fw: pre-alert??? References: <33450499AC3948CF956C097DE8128EFB@D32K5JC1> Message-ID: <77AD53FFDC1C4BA7B05A62BAB409B63F@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Bill Bickford" I thought the list would appreciate this correspondence............../Bill Bickford On page 39 of the April 2010 Bulletin, Pam Granovetter recommends an automatic lead of a singleton against a suit contract. Does this treatment require a pre-aler? Cheers...................../Bill Bickford To: Bill Bickford Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:02 Subject: Re: pre-alert??? Good morning Bill, Mike and I have talked this one over. In our view Pam was simply espousing a 'style' not an 'agreement'. No, don't pre-alert as it will only confuse your opponents. Rick Beye *************************************************************************************** Inadequate response. ACBL Alert Procedure: UNUSUAL CARDING AGREEMENTS - Except for leading low from a doubleton which requires a Pre-Alert, carding agreements do not require an Alert of any kind. However, the box at the bottom, [with SPECIAL CARDING on the left and PLEASE ASK on the right] must be checked when playing a completely unexpected method or one that is not easily or clearly described by checking a box. DECLARER IS EXPECTED TO EXAMINE AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTION CARD WITHOUT PROMPTING IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THEIR DEFENSIVE METHODS. The box should be checked by Ms Granovetter. Those who like to disclose their special partnership agreements will not be satisfied with this and will say as they sit down, "Against suit contracts we always lead a singleton if we have one." There is a blank line under LENGTH LEADS against suit contracts, not red to indicate Alertability, where there is room to write: "Singleton always led" Perhaps that should suffice. I don't see how that would "confuse your opponents." Rick and Mike are not infallible. Both say that negative inferences are not Alertable, despite the fact that the ACBL Alert Procedure requires an Alert for at least four of them. With no indication that these are exceptions, and no general rule stated, that should constitute a general principle that all negative inferences associated with a convention should be Alerted. Before going to tournament Directors for an answer, players should first check the authoritative ACBL Alert Procedure and Convention Charts to see if their question is answered there. Both are downloadable from acbl.org (if you can find them). A faster source for both is my website, under Bridge Laws and Regulations. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 20 20:46:45 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:46:45 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:21:58 -0300, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> On 19 April 2010 16:57, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Sven Pran a ?crit : >>> >>>> "A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player >>>> at his >>>> RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass." >>>> >>>> This is a definition of a correct procedure, not a specification of >>>> the >>>> rectification in a particular irregularity situation. >>>> >>>> However, I agree with the statements to the effect that Law 28A does >>>> not >>>> override a player's right to accept or reject his RHO's insufficient >>>> bid >>>> under Law 27A when he is forced (subsequently) to pass. Handling an >>>> insufficient bid and subsequently calling are two distinct actions; >>>> the fact >>>> that he is eventually forced to pass does not change this. >>>> >>>> >>> I'm ready to accept this, but this may create other problems. >>> >>> For example, a player who has to decide whether one will accept their >>> bid may base his judgment on thier system, OK? >>> But one may only ask at one's turn to bid, so one wouldn't be able to >>> do >>> so here. >>> >> >> Eh? One is allowed to ask for an explanation when it's ones turn to >> call. >> Pass is a call. Thus, even when a player is forced to pass, he has the >> right to ask. >> And it's obvious that it must be legal to ask in this situation; a >> bridge judgement is to be made. >> > Sure. But if one takes to the letter the fact that "handling an > insufficient bid and subsequently calling are two distinct actions", it > is arguable that your turn to call comes only after handling the > insufficient bid, which would imply that this isn't the right time to > ask. > > Of course, we all know -or at least wish- that it isn't the case ; one > must be allowed to ask before handling ; whence I'd prefer the handling > to be deemed part of one glabal action, that includes handling IBs and > COOTs if needed, enquiring, calling (the latter being subject to > restrictions in some cases), and alerting (if behind screens). The law should read that players can ask when it is their turn to take action. That's just common sense. So I think interpret it as an error in the laws and let players ask whenever they need to do something. My best example is this. 2D X RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on the meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Apr 20 22:03:39 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:03:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > My best example is this. > > 2D ?X > > RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on the > meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the > 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. > I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the question. I suggest this procedure: 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then simply alert. 2. If they ask you to explain, that's when you ask for the meaning of 2D. 3. If they do not ask you to explain, then you ask the meaning of 2D at your next turn to call. That procedure is perfectly legal. Sometimes an opponent will call the director because he wants me to explain the alert without my asking any questions, but the director makes him answer. Jerry Fusselman From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 20 23:21:20 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:21:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <4BC97CD0.8020200@skynet.be> <4BCA3541.8080401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5D3345A1A0FF406AA299C1C8291AD674@MARVLAPTOP> > Marvin French wrote: >> >> From: "Herman De Wael" > > Perhaps, I'm not going to discuss this. but the same principle > applies > to a weight of 20%. Your method would render that a complete top > as > well, and that is not what is intended with a weighted score. > >> Ask the question for the NOS: For each potential result, do you >> believe there was a significant possibility of this happening? >> Let's >> say two possibilities, +140 and +170, pass this test and are >> equiprobable. Average is +155, which will beat scores of 140 but >> not >> scores of 170 when matchpointing. If 155 gives the NOS a cold >> top, >> so be it. Wolff's PTF principle has long been rejected. +155 can >> be >> used when calculating an imp score, no problem there. >> > > Indeed no problem there, at least of the same order of magnitude > as at > pairs. > But you are wrong when saying that 155 will be a top. If the major suit contract of 3H is based on a 4-3 fit and everyone else is +150 in a minor suit or notrump part score, then +155 will be a well-deserved top. It is the weighted average of two potential results, isn't it? When weighting > scores, we are saying that the pair has a 50% chance of scoring > 140, and > a 50% chance of scoring 170. If 140 yields average and 170 top, > then > that means that the pair are judged to have a 50% chance of > scoring > average. Yet you give them a top, and that cannot be right (We > would > give them 75%, as being 50% of 50% and 50% of 100% of the > available > matchpoints) I did not say 140 yields average, it could be a zero. See above. > >> But I should not be concerned about L12C1(c), since it doesn't >> apply >> in my world of duplicate bridge. However, I did stipulate that >> the >> potential outcomes in my examples were 100% probable, so L12C1(c) >> and L12C1(e) should provide identical adjusted scores. If not, >> there is something wrong with the implementation of the former. >> > > yes indeed Marv, you should not be concerned with weighted > scores - but > we are, and your application is wrong and should therefore be > called wrong. > However, Marv, you are concerned with subsequent error cases, and > the > same principles apply there. let's take one example: > After the infraction, NOS are expected to score -500, but they > revoke > and give away -800. They should be in +200, which is what you will > give > the OS. but you want to deduct the 300. In shorthand, give the > NOS -100. I can't find that. You must be thinking of this: Case 3 4S is doubled down two, +500 for N-S. It should have been down three but N-S commits a one-trick revoke, costing them 300 points. Normal compensation for N-S is the difference between +620 and +500, 120 points.(500+120=620), but this is reduced by 300 points (500+120-300), so the adjusted score for N-S is +320. That's a roundabout way of saying that the normal adjusted score of +620 must be reduced by 300. Adjusted score for E-W is -800, the most unfavorable result at all probable, since the revoke effect is not included. In ACBL-land, where such bids have little risk, it's -620, the most unfavorable result at all probable *had the irregularity not occurred.* As L12C1(b) says, which is deduct the cost of subsequent serious error from the normal amount of compensation, *in points* I was interested in weighted scores only because I wanted to explain them to Jeff Rubens. He is against unbalanced adjustments and I thought this was a way to satisfy him. He didn't buy that, so I'll forget the subject. I am curious, however. You implied that you would probably not include a 2% probable result. Shouldn't there be a probability threshold for weighting a potential result? And isn't that threshold implied in L12C1(e)? Does "had the irregularity not occurred" apply to the OS potential result(s) when weighting results? "Potential results" need defining. The potential result of an action not taken by the OS is an impossible result, isn't it? Grattan: A result that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may be reached via an action that did not occur at the table but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper implementation of the partnership understandings. I wish he had given an example, because it applies to both weighted scores and the WBF version of L12C1(e). Do you agree with that, Herman? Now please go back for me, Herman, and apply only L12C1(e) to the examples. Do you see any errors in my answers? Grattan, are you there? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 21 04:22:26 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:22:26 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:03:39 -0300, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> My best example is this. >> >> 2D X >> >> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on >> the >> meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the >> 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. >> > > I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the > question. I suggest this procedure: > > 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then > simply alert. > > 2. If they ask you to explain, that's when you ask for the meaning of 2D. You seem to be agreeing that in this situation it is okay to ask for the meaning of the 2D bid even though it is not your turn to call. > > 3. If they do not ask you to explain, then you ask the meaning of 2D > at your next turn to call. > > That procedure is perfectly legal. Sometimes an opponent will call > the director because he wants me to explain the alert without my > asking any questions, but the director makes him answer. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Apr 21 06:17:32 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:17:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:03:39 -0300, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> My best example is this. >>> >>> 2D ?X >>> >>> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on >>> the >>> meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the >>> 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. >>> >> >> I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the >> question. ?I suggest this procedure: >> >> 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then >> simply alert. >> >> 2. If they ask you to explain, that's when you ask for the meaning of 2D. > > You seem to be agreeing that in this situation it is okay to ask for the > meaning of the 2D bid even though it is not your turn to call. > Yes, but only if asked and never before alerting. In your original post, above, I imagined you were discussing a situation where the player butts in a question about the call out of order while holding his hand in the air trying to prevent RHO from calling while he determines whether or not to say "alert." Sorry if I misinterpreted the scenario you had in mind. Was very much like mine? Jerry Fusselman From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 21 09:16:11 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:16:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples In-Reply-To: References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On 16 April 2010 23:56, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > >> This is patently wrong. You can't assign non-existent scores. > > Who says I can't? Anyone using these methods say so. And it's the only logical way to do it. Just try and think this through yourself. Ask the EBL or WBF how to do this and see what answers you get. Try this very simple example: You're playing IMPed teams. Due to a misexplanation from opps you reach 3NT, going one off when opps cach their five spade tricks on lead. The TD/AC judges that with correct information there's a 50% probability you'll reach 5C, making, and a 50% probability you'll still reach 3NT. Opponents reached 5C at the other table, scoring +600. Scoring it "my" way, you'll get 50% of 0 IMPs for +600 vs 600 and 50% of -12 IMPs for -100 vs +600. This means you lose 6 IMPs, exactly half the IMPs differance between making 5C and going one down in 3NT. Scoring it your way, you'll get a 350 (-100-600/2) difference in score, losing 8 IMPs instead. > >> Any such assigned scores (or weighted scores) has to be done by >> computing the MPs (or IMPs) for each individual score and adding >> these >> togehter. Else you (might) get totally insane results. >> > I was just going by what the Laws say, which is to subtract serious > error cost from the normal compensation for the NOS. Any insane > results come from the insane methods of computing weighted outcomes. Not true. You get perfectly sane results by computing weighted outcomes. > > Computer-illiterate people in IMP-Pairs don't mind comparing with a > Butler datum that is a non-existent score, WTP? Yes, I know. It's a simple methods that obtains reasonable outcomes. Although cross-IMPing is a much better method. > > Many Four-Deal (Chicago) players go by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge > for each board, scored separately. No matchpoints, no IMPs. In case > a Director is needed, the sit-out or a host performs that function. > In the case of serious error, the compensation is reduced by the > cost of the serious error, WTP? True. But now you're talking about an "event" where your actual scores are your results. MP and IMP are totally different - you're comparing apples and oranges. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 21 09:25:43 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:25:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically acceptIB? References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer><1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de><000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be><4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically acceptIB? On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:03:39 -0300, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> My best example is this. >>> >>> 2D X >>> >>> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on >>> the >>> meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the >>> 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. >>> >> >> I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the >> question. I suggest this procedure: >> >> 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then >> simply alert. >> >> 2. If they ask you to explain, that's when you ask for the meaning of 2D. > > You seem to be agreeing that in this situation it is okay to ask for the > meaning of the 2D bid even though it is not your turn to call. > Yes, but only if asked and never before alerting. In your original post, above, I imagined you were discussing a situation where the player butts in a question about the call out of order while holding his hand in the air trying to prevent RHO from calling while he determines whether or not to say "alert." Sorry if I misinterpreted the scenario you had in mind. Was very much like mine? +=+ It depends upon the alerting regulations, does it not? If a call has alternative meanings dependent upon the meaning of opponent's last call I would have expected that most regulations would consider this to be something that opponents would not expect, and so alertable without any need to ask a question until one's turn in the auction. If asked to explain, a full explanation would state the alternative possibilities and the basis for each. So I would think the relevant alerting requirement in regulations applying should be quoted when offering comment. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 21 09:36:02 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:36:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <44C86BDDA37A42A395DD28B566A5C991@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples > On 16 April 2010 23:56, Marvin French wrote: >> >> From: "Harald Skj?ran" >> >>> This is patently wrong. You can't assign non-existent scores. >> >> Who says I can't? > > Anyone using these methods say so. > And it's the only logical way to do it. Just try and think this > through yourself. > Ask the EBL or WBF how to do this and see what answers you get. > > Try this very simple example: > You're playing IMPed teams. > Due to a misexplanation from opps you reach 3NT, going one off when > opps cach their five spade tricks on lead. > The TD/AC judges that with correct information there's a 50% > probability you'll reach 5C, making, and a 50% probability you'll > still reach 3NT. > Opponents reached 5C at the other table, scoring +600. > > Scoring it "my" way, you'll get 50% of 0 IMPs for +600 vs 600 and 50% > of -12 IMPs for -100 vs +600. > This means you lose 6 IMPs, exactly half the IMPs differance between > making 5C and going one down in 3NT. > > Scoring it your way, you'll get a 350 (-100-600/2) difference in > score, losing 8 IMPs instead. > >> >>> Any such assigned scores (or weighted scores) has to be done by >>> computing the MPs (or IMPs) for each individual score and adding >>> these >>> togehter. Else you (might) get totally insane results. >>> >> I was just going by what the Laws say, which is to subtract serious >> error cost from the normal compensation for the NOS. Any insane >> results come from the insane methods of computing weighted outcomes. > > Not true. You get perfectly sane results by computing weighted outcomes. > >> >> Computer-illiterate people in IMP-Pairs don't mind comparing with a >> Butler datum that is a non-existent score, WTP? > > Yes, I know. It's a simple methods that obtains reasonable outcomes. > Although cross-IMPing is a much better method. > >> >> Many Four-Deal (Chicago) players go by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge >> for each board, scored separately. No matchpoints, no IMPs. In case >> a Director is needed, the sit-out or a host performs that function. >> In the case of serious error, the compensation is reduced by the >> cost of the serious error, WTP? > > True. But now you're talking about an "event" where your actual scores > are your results. > MP and IMP are totally different - you're comparing apples and oranges. > +=+ Weighted scores are recorded in the ultimate form of scoring for the event. I see no obstacle to giving a pair 50% of the matchpoints for +600 and 50% of the matchpoints for -100. An appeals committee will award 50% of 'A' and 50% of 'B', leaving the Director (or the Scorer) to translate this into matchpoints. Do you have a problem with this? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 21 10:07:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:07:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BCD5C56.1080604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Sean of the Dead, a romantic zombie comedy (rom-zom-com) -> Radio Newscaster: The Church of England has joined other extremist religious groups in proclaiming the phenomenon "a sign of the coming apocalypse", although Downing Street is refusing to be drawn into a religious debate. Alain Gottcheiner asked: >Does the newcaster realize he's calling the Church of England >extremist? (cf. "other") Richard Hills replies: No, but the scriptwriter did. A comic film must contain jokes. The complete deal -> Imps AK843 Dlr: South AQ5 Vul: Nil AT7 AJ 6 QJ75 T32 984 K963 854 98652 QT3 T92 KJ76 QJ2 K74 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- --- --- Pass Pass 2C (1) Pass 2S (2) Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT(4) Pass 6NT(5) Pass Pass Pass (1) Either game force or 21-22 hcp balanced. (2) Artificial, 8-11 hcp with any shape. But most unbalanced 11 hcp hands would have opened as dealer. (3) 21-22 hcp balanced. (4) Non-forcing, but with break in tempo. Below 3NT bids that South may have been thinking about were: 3C, Puppet Stayman for 4- and 5-card majors. 3D, transfer to hearts. 3H, transfer to spades. 3S, five spades and four hearts. (5) Non-forcing, without break in tempo. Double dummy 6NT (and even 6S) is cold on any lead, but at the table 6NT is likely to fail on a passive red suit lead. However, since spades had never been bid naturally, and Puppet Stayman had not been used, my partner Hashmat Ali unluckily led the five of spades. At the end of the deal we summoned the Director, Sean Mullamphy, to request a Law 16 ruling. His ruling was that there was no logical alternative to North's 6NT. (It later transpired during agreement of the facts at the appeal that Sean of the Deaf had misheard 2S as promising **9**-11 hcp.) The Appeals Committee were old timers, well acquainted with the Lawbook. Unfortunately it was the 1997 Lawbook, Law 12C3: "Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." which they wanted to apply so as to give our opponents +490 and ourselves -990. The Chair said, "We can make any ruling that we like!" But Sean Mullamphy ordered the Appeals Committee to reconsider, stating that such a Reveley Ruling was inherently unLawful under the 2007 Lawbook. So the eventual outcome was an adjustment to 12 tricks in 3NT for both sides. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 21 10:11:24 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:11:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples In-Reply-To: <5D3345A1A0FF406AA299C1C8291AD674@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <4BC97CD0.8020200@skynet.be> <4BCA3541.8080401@skynet.be> <5D3345A1A0FF406AA299C1C8291AD674@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4BCEB32C.4070703@skynet.be> Sorry Marc, we are cross-using two examples here: Marvin French wrote: > > >> Marvin French wrote: >>> >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> Perhaps, I'm not going to discuss this. but the same principle >> applies >> to a weight of 20%. Your method would render that a complete top >> as >> well, and that is not what is intended with a weighted score. >> >>> Ask the question for the NOS: For each potential result, do you >>> believe there was a significant possibility of this happening? >>> Let's >>> say two possibilities, +140 and +170, pass this test and are >>> equiprobable. Average is +155, which will beat scores of 140 but >>> not >>> scores of 170 when matchpointing. If 155 gives the NOS a cold >>> top, >>> so be it. Wolff's PTF principle has long been rejected. +155 can >>> be >>> used when calculating an imp score, no problem there. >>> >> >> Indeed no problem there, at least of the same order of magnitude >> as at >> pairs. >> But you are wrong when saying that 155 will be a top. > > If the major suit contract of 3H is based on a 4-3 fit and everyone > else is +150 in a minor suit or notrump part score, then +155 will > be a well-deserved top. It is the weighted average of two potential > results, isn't it? > Your 155 was the result of averaging 140 and 170. If absolutely no-one is in 170, then indeed 155 is a top, but so would 151 and 169 be. What is then the difference between a table at which you award 170 straight away, one at which you give 170 99%, and one at which you give 40% of 170? Surely different weights should lead to different final scores? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 21 10:18:26 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:18:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> I do not agree with this: Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> My best example is this. >> >> 2D X >> >> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on the >> meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the >> 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. >> > > I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the > question. I suggest this procedure: > > 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then > simply alert. > In many cases, an alert is a very clear indication of the meaning of a particular bid, so opponents won't ask, but rather assume it's the indicated meaning. We do not need to fault them if they are mistaken because the bid was not alertable after all, and alerter was merely waiting for his turn to be able to ask what an opponent's bid meant. After all, when the laws state one is only allowed to ask questions at one's turn, that is to avoid being able to ask before partner has bid, isn't it? But when needing to alert, surely partner has bid and asking cannot harm your side - what is then the problem with asking before being able to alert? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 21 10:25:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:25:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically acceptIB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer><1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de><000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be><4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BCEB677.9040801@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:17 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically > acceptIB? > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:03:39 -0300, Jerry Fusselman >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> My best example is this. >>>> >>>> 2D X >>>> >>>> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on >>>> the >>>> meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the >>>> 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. >>>> >>>> >>> I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the >>> question. I suggest this procedure: >>> >>> 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then >>> simply alert. >>> >>> 2. If they ask you to explain, that's when you ask for the meaning of 2D. >>> >> You seem to be agreeing that in this situation it is okay to ask for the >> meaning of the 2D bid even though it is not your turn to call. >> >> > > Yes, but only if asked and never before alerting. > Okay, but then do you alert or not ? (assuming that doubles are alertable in your country) From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Apr 21 10:26:11 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:26:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples In-Reply-To: <44C86BDDA37A42A395DD28B566A5C991@Mildred> References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <44C86BDDA37A42A395DD28B566A5C991@Mildred> Message-ID: <56CDD6AE-8360-4F9C-B471-8AF8E8976178@btinternet.com> On 21 Apr 2010, at 08:36, Grattan wrote: > > +=+ Weighted scores are recorded in the ultimate form of > scoring for the event. Traditionally they've been calculated in the ultimate form of scoring for the board, not the event. In teams events scored by VPs they've been calculated in IMPs, not VPs, though you will remember from San Remo that Maurizion di Sacco presented a seminar in which he argued that they should (or perhaps only could) be done in VPs. I didn't have the impression that he got much support for this idea. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100421/a4624d9b/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 21 10:32:02 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:32:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BCEB802.7020702@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > At the end of the deal we summoned the Director, Sean Mullamphy, > to request a Law 16 ruling. His ruling was that there was no > logical alternative to North's 6NT. (It later transpired during > agreement of the facts at the appeal that Sean of the Deaf had > misheard 2S as promising **9**-11 hcp.) > And ... 22 + 9 = ??? > The Appeals Committee were old timers, well acquainted with the > Lawbook. Unfortunately it was the 1997 Lawbook, Law 12C3: > > "Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals > committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do > equity." > > which they wanted to apply so as to give our opponents +490 and > ourselves -990. The Chair said, "We can make any ruling that we > like!" But Sean Mullamphy ordered the Appeals Committee to > reconsider, stating that such a Reveley Ruling was inherently > unLawful under the 2007 Lawbook. If it is, too bad. If the damage to the NOS is self-inflicted, why should the OS get an illegally obtained good score ??? (not that I pretend it to be the case here) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 21 10:39:35 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:39:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I do not agree with this: > > Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> My best example is this. >>> >>> 2D X >>> >>> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on the >>> meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the >>> 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. >>> >>> >> I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the >> question. I suggest this procedure: >> >> 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then >> simply alert. >> >> > > In many cases, an alert is a very clear indication of the meaning of a > particular bid, so opponents won't ask, but rather assume it's the > indicated meaning. We do not need to fault them if they are mistaken > because the bid was not alertable after all, and alerter was merely > waiting for his turn to be able to ask what an opponent's bid meant. > > After all, when the laws state one is only allowed to ask questions at > one's turn, that is to avoid being able to ask before partner has bid, > isn't it? But when needing to alert, surely partner has bid and asking > cannot harm your side - what is then the problem with asking before > being able to alert? > Asking OOT could always carry the information that you're interested in the meaning of the bid. But it's a minor problem here. As a matter of fact, asking at this point could "save the deal" in case 2D wans't alerted but should have been. It's still time for partner to change one's double. Notice that, if you use different meanings for double, *not* asking, then doubling, could create UI, but if the player argues that he knew and didn't want to ask a "pro question" you can't do anything about it. Best regards Alain > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 21 11:53:44 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:53:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> I do not agree with this: >> >> Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> My best example is this. >>>> >>>> 2D X >>>> >>>> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on the >>>> meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the >>>> 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. >>>> >>>> >>> I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the >>> question. I suggest this procedure: >>> >>> 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then >>> simply alert. >>> >>> >> >> In many cases, an alert is a very clear indication of the meaning of a >> particular bid, so opponents won't ask, but rather assume it's the >> indicated meaning. We do not need to fault them if they are mistaken >> because the bid was not alertable after all, and alerter was merely >> waiting for his turn to be able to ask what an opponent's bid meant. >> >> After all, when the laws state one is only allowed to ask questions at >> one's turn, that is to avoid being able to ask before partner has bid, >> isn't it? But when needing to alert, surely partner has bid and asking >> cannot harm your side - what is then the problem with asking before >> being able to alert? >> > Asking OOT could always carry the information that you're interested in > the meaning of the bid. But it's a minor problem here. > No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what information does your asking carry? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 21 12:31:43 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:31:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> I do not agree with this: >>> >>> Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> My best example is this. >>>>> >>>>> 2D X >>>>> >>>>> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on the >>>>> meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of the >>>>> 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the >>>> question. I suggest this procedure: >>>> >>>> 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then >>>> simply alert. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> In many cases, an alert is a very clear indication of the meaning of a >>> particular bid, so opponents won't ask, but rather assume it's the >>> indicated meaning. We do not need to fault them if they are mistaken >>> because the bid was not alertable after all, and alerter was merely >>> waiting for his turn to be able to ask what an opponent's bid meant. >>> >>> After all, when the laws state one is only allowed to ask questions at >>> one's turn, that is to avoid being able to ask before partner has bid, >>> isn't it? But when needing to alert, surely partner has bid and asking >>> cannot harm your side - what is then the problem with asking before >>> being able to alert? >>> >>> >> Asking OOT could always carry the information that you're interested in >> the meaning of the bid. But it's a minor problem here. >> >> > > No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what > information does your asking carry? > > > Human reactions being, er, human, we know that not waiting to ask could be construed as a specific mark of interest. And asker's partner knows that, too. That's why we consider as possibly improper to enquire about only one of a series of alerted bid. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 21 12:42:48 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:42:48 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:17:32 -0300, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:03:39 -0300, Jerry Fusselman >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Robert Frick >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> My best example is this. >>>> >>>> 2D X >>>> >>>> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning depends on >>>> the >>>> meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard would ask the meaning of >>>> the >>>> 2D bid at this point, even though it is not his turn to call. >>>> >>> >>> I don't agree with this, in part because it is illegal timing of the >>> question. I suggest this procedure: >>> >>> 1. If one of the possible meanings of the double is alertable, then >>> simply alert. >>> >>> 2. If they ask you to explain, that's when you ask for the meaning of >>> 2D. >> >> You seem to be agreeing that in this situation it is okay to ask for the >> meaning of the 2D bid even though it is not your turn to call. >> > > Yes, but only if asked and never before alerting. > > In your original post, above, I imagined you were discussing a > situation where the player butts in a question about the call out of > order while holding his hand in the air trying to prevent RHO from > calling while he determines whether or not to say "alert." Sorry if I > misinterpreted the scenario you had in mind. Was very much like mine? I hadn't gotten as far as handling the alert problem. I was just considering if the player is asked what his partner's double meant. Everyone would then ask what the 2D bid meant, even though it is not their turn to call. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 21 15:17:34 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:17:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what >> information does your asking carry? >> >> >> > Human reactions being, er, human, we know that not waiting to ask could > be construed as a specific mark of interest. And asker's partner knows > that, too. > That's why we consider as possibly improper to enquire about only one of > a series of alerted bid. > > But here the specific interest is quite well known "I need to know what the previous bid means in order for me to know what my partner's bid means". And partner also knows that his bid is dependent on the meaning of that previous bid - so what specific interest is there to be shown? Even for humans being only human. Don't forget the situation: North bids something - East (probably silently) enquires what it means, and bids something. In order for West to know what East's bid means, he has to know what North's bid means. And he needs to know this before he can alert South to the meaning of East's bid. Either in order to explain if asked, AND in order to correctly alert, West must know the meaning of North's bid. And since East has already called, the question cannot possibly help him. Nor can it hinder South. OTOH, if West has to wait until South has bid before he can correctly alert, South may have made a call based on misinformation. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 21 15:37:00 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:37:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what >>> information does your asking carry? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Human reactions being, er, human, we know that not waiting to ask could >> be construed as a specific mark of interest. And asker's partner knows >> that, too. >> That's why we consider as possibly improper to enquire about only one of >> a series of alerted bid. >> >> >> > > But here the specific interest is quite well known "I need to know what > the previous bid means in order for me to know what my partner's bid > means". And partner also knows that his bid is dependent on the meaning > of that previous bid - so what specific interest is there to be shown? > AG : it is very easy to comply with alert and disclosure regulations, without asking. Alert, and if asked, say "over 2D meaning A, we play X ; if B, Y ; if C, Z" Furthermore, you avoid giving UI about how you intend to understand the double - something you, Herman, consider important. That's how I try to do it if needed, and I maintain that asking before answering can fail to be neutral enough, although not very frequently. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 21 18:34:51 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:34:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP><44C86BDDA37A42A395DD28B566A5C991@Mildred> <56CDD6AE-8360-4F9C-B471-8AF8E8976178@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:37:00 -0300, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>>> No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what >>>> information does your asking carry? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Human reactions being, er, human, we know that not waiting to ask could >>> be construed as a specific mark of interest. And asker's partner knows >>> that, too. >>> That's why we consider as possibly improper to enquire about only one >>> of >>> a series of alerted bid. >>> >>> >>> >> >> But here the specific interest is quite well known "I need to know what >> the previous bid means in order for me to know what my partner's bid >> means". And partner also knows that his bid is dependent on the meaning >> of that previous bid - so what specific interest is there to be shown? >> > AG : it is very easy to comply with alert and disclosure regulations, > without asking. > Alert, and if asked, say "over 2D meaning A, we play X ; if B, Y ; if C, > Z" I don't think this counts as "very easy". I would not even rate it as easy. It sounds like making a lot of trouble to follow the letter of a law. A law that you have thought about a lot more than the person who wrote the law. If the opps claim they misunderstood your explanation, I am not sure that the ruling will be in your favor. I am sure that the director will not be amused. > > Furthermore, you avoid giving UI about how you intend to understand the > double - something you, Herman, consider important. > > That's how I try to do it if needed, and I maintain that asking before > answering can fail to be neutral enough, although not very frequently. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Apr 22 04:51:54 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:51:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:37:00 -0300, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> >> AG : it is very easy to comply with alert and disclosure regulations, >> without asking. >> Alert, and if asked, say "over 2D meaning A, we play X ; if B, Y ; if C, >> Z" > > I don't think this counts as "very easy". I would not even rate it as easy. > > It sounds like making a lot of trouble to follow the letter of a law. A > law that you have thought about a lot more than the person who wrote the > law. > > If the opps claim they misunderstood your explanation, I am not sure that > the ruling will be in your favor. I am sure that the director will not be > amused. > It is easy for me to agree with Robert, as usual. For Alain's way to have any chance of working well, he would have to be sure that his list of if-meaning-A-we-play-X's is finite, exhaustive, has absolutely clear boundaries, and would be understood by everyone as he understands it himself. The opponents don't want to hear all of your internal codes, switches, and conditionals; they want to know what your partner's bid shows in this auction. Is there really a place on the planet where you must explain Alain's way and are not allowed to comply directly and quickly with the opponent's request to explain an understanding? I vividly remember the last time this came up in the ACBL for me. The director smirked at the opponents for temporarily refusing to explain their bid so that I could explain the call they had just asked me to explain. The director thought it almost too obvious for words that they should just answer my question. Finally, he said something like, "If the meaning of Jerry's partner's call depends on the meaning of your call, how could Jerry possibly answer your question without finding out the meaning of your call?" I don't think that directors make a habit of asking you to give convoluted and difficult-to-decipher-and-pin-down explanations. Jerry Fusselman From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Apr 22 08:38:46 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:38:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 22 April 2010 03:01, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:37:00 -0300, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>>> No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what >>>>> information does your asking carry? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Human reactions being, er, human, we know that not waiting to ask could >>>> be construed as a specific mark of interest. And asker's partner knows >>>> that, too. >>>> That's why we consider as possibly improper to enquire about only one >>>> of >>>> a series of alerted bid. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> But here the specific interest is quite well known "I need to know what >>> the previous bid means in order for me to know what my partner's bid >>> means". And partner also knows that his bid is dependent on the meaning >>> of that previous bid - so what specific interest is there to be shown? >>> >> AG : it is very easy to comply with alert and disclosure regulations, >> without asking. >> Alert, and if asked, say "over 2D meaning A, we play X ; if B, Y ; if C, >> Z" > > I don't think this counts as "very easy". I would not even rate it as easy. > > It sounds like making a lot of trouble to follow the letter of a law. A > law that you have thought about a lot more than the person who wrote the > law. I doubt that statement is true. > > If the opps claim they misunderstood your explanation, I am not sure that > the ruling will be in your favor. I am sure that the director will not be > amused. If opps have trouble with the explanation, they "obviously" can tell you the meaning of 2D and ask for an explanation of the double. > > > >> >> Furthermore, you avoid giving UI about how you intend to understand the >> double - something you, Herman, consider important. >> >> That's how I try to do it if needed, and I maintain that asking before >> answering can fail to be neutral enough, although not very frequently. >> >> Best regards >> >> ? Alain >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 22 10:07:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:07:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BD003CD.8010600@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:37:00 -0300, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what >>>>> information does your asking carry? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Human reactions being, er, human, we know that not waiting to ask could >>>> be construed as a specific mark of interest. And asker's partner knows >>>> that, too. >>>> That's why we consider as possibly improper to enquire about only one >>>> of >>>> a series of alerted bid. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> But here the specific interest is quite well known "I need to know what >>> the previous bid means in order for me to know what my partner's bid >>> means". And partner also knows that his bid is dependent on the meaning >>> of that previous bid - so what specific interest is there to be shown? >>> >>> >> AG : it is very easy to comply with alert and disclosure regulations, >> without asking. >> Alert, and if asked, say "over 2D meaning A, we play X ; if B, Y ; if C, >> Z" >> > > I don't think this counts as "very easy". I would not even rate it as easy. > > It sounds like making a lot of trouble to follow the letter of a law. A > law that you have thought about a lot more than the person who wrote the > law. > > If the opps claim they misunderstood your explanation, I am not sure that > the ruling will be in your favor. I am sure that the director will not be > amused. > > AG : you underestimate the human brain's potential to extract the information it wants ; the popularity of superstition is a proof of this. From my experience (and I don't play at a very high level), they can select the information they want. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 22 10:29:58 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:29:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> No Alain, wrong, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > AG : it is very easy to comply with alert and disclosure regulations, > without asking. > Alert, even that may be a wrong explanation. You may be thinking of cases where all meanings are alertable, but what in a case where one meaning is alertable and another not. When one alerts, the opponents may reasonably assume that the meaning is an alertable one, and thay may (at their own risk with regards to multiple alertable meanings) assume that it is one particular alertable one. If it turns out to be the non-alertable meaning, you have misinformed. > and if asked, say "over 2D meaning A, we play X ; if B, Y ; if C, Z" > yes, you can do that, but you can also ask if it is A, B or C, and then tell them X, Y or Z. Much easier, and much clearer. And all you need to do is ask what it means, something no-one can accuse you of giving UI - after all, you clearly show (and your partner knows) that you have a valid reason -totally unrelated to your hand- for asking what the bid means: you need it in order to be able to explain correctly your partner's bid. You don't even show that you are interested (yourself) in the meaning of your partner's bid - you need the information in order to correctly inform the opponents. What UI can this transmit? And even if it would transmit UI, that UI is totally useless, since your partner has already called and you would, in your system, also ask the meaning when it is, at last, your turn. But you prefer to have your opponents make a call based on misinformation first! > Furthermore, you avoid giving UI about how you intend to understand the > double - something you, Herman, consider important. > What UI about how you understand the double? You ask if it is A B or C, and you need that information - no need to tell anyone how you understand it, since they are asking anyway! > That's how I try to do it if needed, and I maintain that asking before > answering can fail to be neutral enough, although not very frequently. > Not very frequently? No, never at all! > Best regards > > Alain -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 22 11:51:42 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:51:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > No Alain, wrong, > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> AG : it is very easy to comply with alert and disclosure regulations, >> without asking. >> Alert, >> > > even that may be a wrong explanation. You may be thinking of cases where > all meanings are alertable, but what in a case where one meaning is > alertable and another not. When one alerts, the opponents may reasonably > assume that the meaning is an alertable one, and thay may (at their own > risk with regards to multiple alertable meanings) assume that it is one > particular alertable one. If it turns out to be the non-alertable > meaning, you have misinformed. > AG : in theory you're right, but nobody has never been considered to have gien MI for alerting once too many. FWIW, if you don't know whether it's alertable, you do alert. > yes, you can do that, but you can also ask if it is A, B or C, and then > tell them X, Y or Z. AG : Can ? Yes; May ??? >> Furthermore, you avoid giving UI about how you intend to understand the >> double - something you, Herman, consider important. >> >> > > What UI about how you understand the double? You ask if it is A B or C, > and you need that information - no need to tell anyone how you > understand it, since they are asking anyway! > AG : I remember of somebody stating that there might be UI that you and partner ere on the same wavelength, based on explanations. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 22 12:13:07 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:13:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? Message-ID: Grattan Endicott "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 10:03 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by >> LHO automatically accept IB? >> >> >>> >>> Surely the fact that he is forced to pass does not mean that he has >>> already passed? >>> >> +=+ However it is not an offence for the next player to bid without >> waiting for the LHO to do so. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > +=+ Correction. I should of course say 'call' not 'bid' +=+ > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 22 12:37:45 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:37:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be><4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? AG : in theory you're right, but nobody has never been considered to have gien MI for alerting once too many. FWIW, if you don't know whether it's alertable, you do alert. +=+ The essential point is that information from an *unexpected* alert or failure to alert is UI for partner. If you alert and opponent asks your duty is to give a *full* explanation. So it is right to say that the meaning depends on the meaning of the prior call, and go on to say "if A then X, if B then Y, and so on. You have no need at that point to ask about the prior call and if you do so it is likely to tell partner the basis of your subsequent action, giving him UI. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 22 13:16:38 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:16:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be><4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BD03016.9000908@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:51 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass > by LHO automatically accept IB? > > > AG : in theory you're right, but nobody has never been > considered to have gien MI for alerting once too many. > FWIW, if you don't know whether it's alertable, you > do alert. > > +=+ The essential point is that information from an > *unexpected* alert or failure to alert is UI for partner. > If you alert and opponent asks your duty is to > give a *full* explanation. So it is right to say that the > meaning depends on the meaning of the prior call, > and go on to say "if A then X, if B then Y, and so on. > You have no need at that point to ask about the prior > call and if you do so it is likely to tell partner the basis > of your subsequent action, giving him UI. > That's precisely what I meant. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 22 12:23:40 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:23:40 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:38:46 -0300, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 22 April 2010 03:01, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:37:00 -0300, Alain Gottcheiner >> wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> >>>>>> No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what >>>>>> information does your asking carry? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Human reactions being, er, human, we know that not waiting to ask >>>>> could >>>>> be construed as a specific mark of interest. And asker's partner >>>>> knows >>>>> that, too. >>>>> That's why we consider as possibly improper to enquire about only one >>>>> of >>>>> a series of alerted bid. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> But here the specific interest is quite well known "I need to know >>>> what >>>> the previous bid means in order for me to know what my partner's bid >>>> means". And partner also knows that his bid is dependent on the >>>> meaning >>>> of that previous bid - so what specific interest is there to be shown? >>>> >>> AG : it is very easy to comply with alert and disclosure regulations, >>> without asking. >>> Alert, and if asked, say "over 2D meaning A, we play X ; if B, Y ; if >>> C, >>> Z" >> >> I don't think this counts as "very easy". I would not even rate it as >> easy. >> >> It sounds like making a lot of trouble to follow the letter of a law. A >> law that you have thought about a lot more than the person who wrote the >> law. > > I doubt that statement is true. What I meant was, there is a question for any law whether it applies just to calls and plays, or whether it applies to other actions a player may take or need to take. It seems to me that in general, no one thought about this when the laws were constructed. To give another example, suppose there is a revoke. If the revoke is corrected, shouldn't *everything* the nonoffending side did after the revoke should be changeable? I think so. But according to the laws, only the play of cards can be changed (L62C1). > >> >> If the opps claim they misunderstood your explanation, I am not sure >> that >> the ruling will be in your favor. I am sure that the director will not >> be >> amused. > > If opps have trouble with the explanation, they "obviously" can tell > you the meaning of 2D and ask for an explanation of the double. If you want to stick to the technical meaning of the law, I am pretty sure the opponents are not allowed to volunteer the meaning of a bid. If you aren't going to stick your knee in your ear just to follow some law which is probably wrong, then you can just ask what the 2D bid meant. >> >> >> >>> >>> Furthermore, you avoid giving UI about how you intend to understand the >>> double - something you, Herman, consider important. >>> >>> That's how I try to do it if needed, and I maintain that asking before >>> answering can fail to be neutral enough, although not very frequently. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Alain >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 22 13:59:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:59:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BD03A33.5040209@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > > What I meant was, there is a question for any law whether it applies just > to calls and plays, or whether it applies to other actions a player may > take or need to take. It seems to me that in general, no one thought about > this when the laws were constructed. > > To give another example, suppose there is a revoke. If the revoke is > corrected, shouldn't *everything* the nonoffending side did after the > revoke should be changeable? I think so. But according to the laws, only > the play of cards can be changed (L62C1). > > AG : I'm ready to agree with this, it fits my view of the game, but I don't see what else may need a change in this case. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 22 13:47:58 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:47:58 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD03A33.5040209@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD03A33.5040209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:59:47 -0300, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >> >> What I meant was, there is a question for any law whether it applies >> just >> to calls and plays, or whether it applies to other actions a player may >> take or need to take. It seems to me that in general, no one thought >> about >> this when the laws were constructed. >> >> To give another example, suppose there is a revoke. If the revoke is >> corrected, shouldn't *everything* the nonoffending side did after the >> revoke should be changeable? I think so. But according to the laws, only >> the play of cards can be changed (L62C1). >> >> > AG : I'm ready to agree with this, it fits my view of the game, but I > don't see what else may need a change in this case. I am not sure what you are asking. Other laws that should be more general than just calls and plays: L16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." L16B1: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play...." L16D? "When a call or play has been withdrawn as these Laws provide...." L68A1: "A player also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed." L73A2, L73D1. L74C2 and L76B2. From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 22 15:22:48 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:22:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD03A33.5040209@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be><4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be><4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be><4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD03A33.5040209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 06:59 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >> >> What I meant was, there is a question for any law whether it applies just >> to calls and plays, or whether it applies to other actions a player may >> take or need to take. It seems to me that in general, no one thought >> about >> this when the laws were constructed. >> >> To give another example, suppose there is a revoke. If the revoke is >> corrected, shouldn't *everything* the nonoffending side did after the >> revoke should be changeable? I think so. But according to the laws, only >> the play of cards can be changed (L62C1). >> >> > AG : I'm ready to agree with this, it fits my view of the game, but I > don't see what else may need a change in this case. I can't comprehend what Everything includes that would cause the need to make a statement that implies that there is more than the cards played. My view is that bridge answers how THESE players solve the hand by the calls THEY make and the plays THEY make. Which means among other things that the calls and plays are the everything. As for the proper remedy of a revoke, it ought to include if revoker has gotten information from subsequent play then if it is to be corrected his LHO should have the opportunity to choose to require it be corrected by the highest or lowest card held. regards roger pewick From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 22 15:53:52 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:53:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what >>> information does your asking carry? >> >> Human reactions being, er, human, we know that not waiting to ask >> could >> be construed as a specific mark of interest. And asker's partner >> knows >> that, too. >> That's why we consider as possibly improper to enquire about only >> one of >> a series of alerted bid. > > But here the specific interest is quite well known "I need to know > what > the previous bid means in order for me to know what my partner's bid > means". And partner also knows that his bid is dependent on the > meaning > of that previous bid - so what specific interest is there to be shown? > Even for humans being only human. > Don't forget the situation: > > North bids something - East (probably silently) enquires what it > means, > and bids something. In order for West to know what East's bid > means, he > has to know what North's bid means. And he needs to know this > before he > can alert South to the meaning of East's bid. Either in order to > explain > if asked, AND in order to correctly alert, West must know the > meaning of > North's bid. And since East has already called, the question cannot > possibly help him. Nor can it hinder South. > OTOH, if West has to wait until South has bid before he can correctly > alert, South may have made a call based on misinformation. This is a non-problem. North bids something. East bids something. West alerts. If (and only if) South inquires, West informs him that he cannot answer the inquiry without knowing the meaning of East's bid. South now has the choice of accepting that answer and continuing or (as inevitably happens) volunteering an explanation (technically unasked, so there's no L20F issue) of East's bid in return for an explanation of North's. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 22 16:16:20 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:16:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <16363F51-591D-4196-AFE1-40B0BC066287@starpower.net> On Apr 22, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 22 April 2010 03:01, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:37:00 -0300, Alain Gottcheiner >> >> wrote: >> >>> AG : it is very easy to comply with alert and disclosure >>> regulations, >>> without asking. >>> Alert, and if asked, say "over 2D meaning A, we play X ; if B, >>> Y ; if C, >>> Z" >> >> I don't think this counts as "very easy". I would not even rate it >> as easy. >> >> It sounds like making a lot of trouble to follow the letter of a >> law. A >> law that you have thought about a lot more than the person who >> wrote the >> law. > > I doubt that statement is true. > >> If the opps claim they misunderstood your explanation, I am not >> sure that >> the ruling will be in your favor. I am sure that the director will >> not be >> amused. > > If opps have trouble with the explanation, they "obviously" can tell > you the meaning of 2D and ask for an explanation of the double. And they obviously will, every time. Why would they put you through Alain's rigamarole, and themselves to the trouble of taking it all in and then figuring out what's relevant, wasting all that time and air, when they know for sure that as soon as they make a call you will inquire about 2D anyhow, in turn, and they will be required to answer? If they don't, a creative TD could easily find a L74 violation somewhere. On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I vividly remember the last time this came up in the ACBL for me. The > director smirked at the opponents for temporarily refusing to explain > their bid so that I could explain the call they had just asked me to > explain. The director thought it almost too obvious for words that > they should just answer my question. Finally, he said something like, > "If the meaning of Jerry's partner's call depends on the meaning of > your call, how could Jerry possibly answer your question without > finding out the meaning of your call?" > > I don't think that directors make a habit of asking you to give > convoluted and difficult-to-decipher-and-pin-down explanations. That's how I would handle the situation as TD (minus the smirk, hopefully), as, AFAICT, would most ACBL TDs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 22 16:24:19 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:24:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>>> No, absolutely not a problem! Your partner has called - so what >>>> information does your asking carry? >>>> >>> Human reactions being, er, human, we know that not waiting to ask >>> could >>> be construed as a specific mark of interest. And asker's partner >>> knows >>> that, too. >>> That's why we consider as possibly improper to enquire about only >>> one of >>> a series of alerted bid. >>> >> But here the specific interest is quite well known "I need to know >> what >> the previous bid means in order for me to know what my partner's bid >> means". And partner also knows that his bid is dependent on the >> meaning >> of that previous bid - so what specific interest is there to be shown? >> Even for humans being only human. >> Don't forget the situation: >> >> North bids something - East (probably silently) enquires what it >> means, >> and bids something. In order for West to know what East's bid >> means, he >> has to know what North's bid means. And he needs to know this >> before he >> can alert South to the meaning of East's bid. Either in order to >> explain >> if asked, AND in order to correctly alert, West must know the >> meaning of >> North's bid. And since East has already called, the question cannot >> possibly help him. Nor can it hinder South. >> OTOH, if West has to wait until South has bid before he can correctly >> alert, South may have made a call based on misinformation. >> > > This is a non-problem. North bids something. East bids something. > West alerts. If (and only if) South inquires, West informs him that > he cannot answer the inquiry without knowing the meaning of East's > bid. South now has the choice of accepting that answer and > continuing or (as inevitably happens) volunteering an explanation > (technically unasked, so there's no L20F issue) of East's bid in > return for an explanation of North's. > AG : I don't agree. "I can't answer" isn't the right answer. West should be able to tell what is in his system, and should be able to do so to a third person (say the TD) who doesn't know NS's system. The right answer should be "It depends on the meaning of 2D. Would you want to hear about all cases or tell me so that I can answer unequivocally ?" From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 22 16:33:02 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:33:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be><4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> Message-ID: <740AB327-1B10-4145-9D49-AD1BC7DFBC80@starpower.net> On Apr 22, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > AG : in theory you're right, but nobody has never been > considered to have gien MI for alerting once too many. > FWIW, if you don't know whether it's alertable, you > do alert. > > +=+ The essential point is that information from an > *unexpected* alert or failure to alert is UI for partner. > If you alert and opponent asks your duty is to > give a *full* explanation. So it is right to say that the > meaning depends on the meaning of the prior call, > and go on to say "if A then X, if B then Y, and so on. > You have no need at that point to ask about the prior > call and if you do so it is likely to tell partner the basis > of your subsequent action, giving him UI. The only way in which your asking can reveal anything about the basis of your subsequent action is if partner assumes, correctly, that you do not know the answer but would nevertheless not have asked, properly in turn, before taking that action, which seem absurd, both the fact and the assumption. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 22 16:48:18 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:48:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2FBCB41D-F6CE-4695-BF85-5F261CB4CD20@starpower.net> On Apr 22, 2010, at 6:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > What I meant was, there is a question for any law whether it > applies just > to calls and plays, or whether it applies to other actions a player > may > take or need to take. It seems to me that in general, no one > thought about > this when the laws were constructed. If someone had thought about it, they could simply have replaced "call" with "act" in the first sentence of L20F1, and this discussion would not exist, which suggests that Bob is correct. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 22 17:32:56 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:32:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> This is a non-problem. North bids something. East bids something. >> West alerts. If (and only if) South inquires, West informs him that >> he cannot answer the inquiry without knowing the meaning of East's >> bid. South now has the choice of accepting that answer and >> continuing or (as inevitably happens) volunteering an explanation >> (technically unasked, so there's no L20F issue) of East's bid in >> return for an explanation of North's. > > AG : I don't agree. "I can't answer" isn't the right answer. West > should > be able to tell what is in his system, and should be able to do so > to a > third person (say the TD) who doesn't know NS's system. > The right answer should be "It depends on the meaning of 2D. Would you > want to hear about all cases or tell me so that I can answer > unequivocally ?" If West knew the meaning of North's bid and provided an unequivocal explanation, South would have absolutely no right or entitlement to an explanation of "all [other] cases", and would, arguably, violate several laws by demanding one. Is that really so different from the problem case as to justify interpreting the law to dictate the diametric opposite? Does West's ignorance of the meaning of North's bid really entitle South to all sorts of information he would otherwise not be permitted? Moreover, if South knows (imagine West telling him so explicitly) that West will inquire as to the meaning of North's call at his first legal opportunity -- to wit, immediately after South makes his own call -- how is demanding to "hear about all cases" not a prima facie violation of L74B4? Finally, as a practical matter, we need consider not only the law, but also the clock. Personally, if I open 1NT, LHO bids 2D, partner bids 2H, and I have to cover all of the possible meanings of 2D of which I'm aware, I will need a half an hour at the very least. And if, as Alain's interpretation would suggest, I must also explain those meta-agreements that would be relevant to any possible meanings of 2D that may be new to me, make it a full hour. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 22 19:30:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:30:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> This is a non-problem. North bids something. East bids something. >>> West alerts. If (and only if) South inquires, West informs him that >>> he cannot answer the inquiry without knowing the meaning of East's >>> bid. South now has the choice of accepting that answer and >>> continuing or (as inevitably happens) volunteering an explanation >>> (technically unasked, so there's no L20F issue) of East's bid in >>> return for an explanation of North's. >>> >> AG : I don't agree. "I can't answer" isn't the right answer. West >> should >> be able to tell what is in his system, and should be able to do so >> to a >> third person (say the TD) who doesn't know NS's system. >> The right answer should be "It depends on the meaning of 2D. Would you >> want to hear about all cases or tell me so that I can answer >> unequivocally ?" >> > > If West knew the meaning of North's bid and provided an unequivocal > explanation, South would have absolutely no right or entitlement to > an explanation of "all [other] cases", and would, arguably, violate > several laws by demanding one. The contrary has been said many times on blml, namely that a pair has full rights to know all about their opponents' methods, including bids that weren't made or couldn't have been made. (remember the thread about answers to a nonexistent BW ?) Now, perhaps here is a reason for mitigating this statement. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 22 22:07:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:07:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> If West knew the meaning of North's bid and provided an unequivocal >> explanation, South would have absolutely no right or entitlement to >> an explanation of "all [other] cases", and would, arguably, violate >> several laws by demanding one. > > The contrary has been said many times on blml, namely that a pair has > full rights to know all about their opponents' methods, including bids > that weren't made or couldn't have been made. (remember the thread > about > answers to a nonexistent BW ?) > Now, perhaps here is a reason for mitigating this statement. The contrary has been said many times on BLML, perhaps most often by me -- holding forth for the purity and continuing validity of the Kaplan paradigm for full disclosure, and all that. But I thought I had lost that discussion to a consensus that while we may not be sure of exactly what L20F1 grants you the right to ask about, it is not unlimited. I would remind readers that this was something of a side issue, not my primary rebuttal to Alain's line of argument (that one may be required to inform the opponents of all possible meanings of partner's call over all possible meanings of his RHO's). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 23 03:08:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:08:17 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:30:47 -0300, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> >>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>> >>>> This is a non-problem. North bids something. East bids something. >>>> West alerts. If (and only if) South inquires, West informs him that >>>> he cannot answer the inquiry without knowing the meaning of East's >>>> bid. South now has the choice of accepting that answer and >>>> continuing or (as inevitably happens) volunteering an explanation >>>> (technically unasked, so there's no L20F issue) of East's bid in >>>> return for an explanation of North's. >>>> >>> AG : I don't agree. "I can't answer" isn't the right answer. West >>> should >>> be able to tell what is in his system, and should be able to do so >>> to a >>> third person (say the TD) who doesn't know NS's system. >>> The right answer should be "It depends on the meaning of 2D. Would you >>> want to hear about all cases or tell me so that I can answer >>> unequivocally ?" >>> >> >> If West knew the meaning of North's bid and provided an unequivocal >> explanation, South would have absolutely no right or entitlement to >> an explanation of "all [other] cases", and would, arguably, violate >> several laws by demanding one. > The contrary has been said many times on blml, namely that a pair has > full rights to know all about their opponents' methods, including bids > that weren't made or couldn't have been made. (remember the thread about > answers to a nonexistent BW ?) > Now, perhaps here is a reason for mitigating this statement. I think the two situations are different. In one case, the opps want to know what 5Di would mean if 4NT was Blackwood. Are the entitled? In this case, the opps want to know what the X means if 2D is multi. Telling them what the double means if 2Di is Flannery is not what they are asking and could be construed as a worthless information dump. (If 2Di is multi and they at some point suspect your partner did not realize that, then they might show an interest in what the double would have meant if 2Di was Flannery. Then the WBF minute kicks in.) From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 23 09:16:03 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:16:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > AG : in theory you're right, but nobody has never been considered to > have gien MI for alerting once too many. FWIW, if you don't know whether > it's alertable, you do alert. > No you don't. An alert is an indication that something is not as the non-alertable option would be. That may be enough for opponents. If it then turns out that it was in fact the non-alertable option, then the opponents are misinformed. And saying "I did not know if it's alertable" is NOT a valid excuse. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 23 09:24:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:24:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be><4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BD14B11.3050902@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > > +=+ The essential point is that information from an > *unexpected* alert or failure to alert is UI for partner. > If you alert and opponent asks your duty is to > give a *full* explanation. So it is right to say that the > meaning depends on the meaning of the prior call, > and go on to say "if A then X, if B then Y, and so on. > You have no need at that point to ask about the prior > call and if you do so it is likely to tell partner the basis > of your subsequent action, giving him UI. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, think this through before writing something which is manifestly untrue: You are West, and North makes a call. South alerts, and your partner east looks at the system card and discovers what it is. Now your partner makes a call, and the meaning of that call depends on the meaning of North's call. OK? So now you want to alert, or not, depending on the meaning. So you need to know the meaning of North's call. Now whatever you do - look at the SC, ask South what it was, or simply tell South to wait a moment before bidding - is UI to your partner. Indeed. BUT: your partner has already called, so there is nothign he can do with the UI he receives. And the knowledge that the meaning of his call depended on the meaning of North's, is just as known to him as the meaning of his call, which you are going to tell the table next. So if that meaning is not considered UI, why in heaven's name should we consider the premature asking about North's meaning any UI. Quite the contrary. By asking now, and for the clear purpose of being able to correctly explain partner's bid, you tell the table that you are interested in North's meaning not for your own needs, but merely for your opponent's. So in fact you have prevented the sending of some other piece of UI. Really guys, you are right in theory that this is not allowed, but you are far from the table presence if you insist that this is how it should be or that breaking it causes any damage. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 23 09:26:19 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:26:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BD14B9B.6030808@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > This is a non-problem. North bids something. East bids something. > West alerts. If (and only if) South inquires, West informs him that > he cannot answer the inquiry without knowing the meaning of East's > bid. South now has the choice of accepting that answer and > continuing or (as inevitably happens) volunteering an explanation > (technically unasked, so there's no L20F issue) of East's bid in > return for an explanation of North's. > As I already stated, this is a non-non-problem. Alerting something which might be natural is just as wrong as not alerting something which might be conventional (or vice-versa, if the alerting regulations stipulate that the natural meaning is the alertable one). -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 23 10:03:50 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:03:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BD15466.8030401@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > I would remind readers that this was something of a side issue, not > my primary rebuttal to Alain's line of argument (that one may be > required to inform the opponents of all possible meanings of > partner's call over all possible meanings of his RHO's). > > Sorry, Eric, you didn't understand my argument; Irt isn't that you are required to explain all possible conditional meanings, it is that doing so will help abiding by some rule points. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 23 10:06:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:06:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BD154EF.4030909@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I think the two situations are different. In one case, the opps want to > know what 5Di would mean if 4NT was Blackwood. Are the entitled? In this > case, the opps want to know what the X means if 2D is multi. Telling them > what the double means if 2Di is Flannery is not what they are asking and > could be construed as a worthless information dump. > AG : even that isn't a certainty. If partner doubled without asking, he has a hand that justifies a double over any 2D opening. That's UI to me, but AI to them. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 23 11:11:31 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:11:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> <4BD15466.8030401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1A079189C37B49219090F2069B304871@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > I would remind readers that this was something of a side issue, not > my primary rebuttal to Alain's line of argument (that one may be > required to inform the opponents of all possible meanings of > partner's call over all possible meanings of his RHO's). > > Sorry, Eric, you didn't understand my argument; It isn't that you are required to explain all possible conditional meanings, it is that doing so will help abiding by some rule points. < +=+I would have thought that if it becomes apparent to South later in the auction that East, who seemingly thought he knew the meaning of 2D, actually got it wrong, South should be entitled to know what meaning to attach to East's call without telling West or North that he knows East got it wrong. So I do believe an explanation should comply with Law 20F1. I note also that 20F1 does not authorize West to ask a question until his turn; but (see following referral) there may be a minute on the question of "only at his own turn to call" in 20F1. Interestingly (?) I think someone has mentioned "the WBFLC minute" but I am unclear what minute he has in mind. Could this be clarified? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 23 12:58:46 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:58:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <1A079189C37B49219090F2069B304871@Mildred> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> <4BD15466.8030401@ulb.ac.be> <1A079189C37B49219090F2069B304871@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BD17D66.3070303@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:03 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced > pass by LHO automatically accept IB? > > > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >> I would remind readers that this was something of a side issue, not >> my primary rebuttal to Alain's line of argument (that one may be >> required to inform the opponents of all possible meanings of >> partner's call over all possible meanings of his RHO's). >> >> > Sorry, Eric, you didn't understand my argument; > > It isn't that you are required to explain all possible conditional > meanings, it is that doing so will help abiding by some rule points. > < > +=+I would have thought that if it becomes apparent > to South later in the auction that East, who seemingly > thought he knew the meaning of 2D, actually got it wrong, > South should be entitled to know what meaning to attach > to East's call without telling West or North that he knows > East got it wrong. So I do believe an explanation should > comply with Law 20F1. I note also that 20F1 does not > authorize West to ask a question until his turn; but (see > following referral) there may be a minute on the question > of "only at his own turn to call" in 20F1. > Interestingly (?) I think someone has mentioned "the > WBFLC minute" but I am unclear what minute he has in > mind. Could this be clarified? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > He has in mind one of the two minutes given in Beijing - the one concerning the Blackwood responses. What you write above, Grattan, is exactly the opposite of what you maintained concerning the Blackwood responses - and had put in the Beijing minute. Let me explain the situation in full: North bids something, and South alerts (correctly). East assumes he knows what North's bid meant, and does not ask. He makes a call, based on what he presumes. South asks West to explain. (let's forget the previous discussion for the moment) - West looks at the SC and learns the correct meaning of North's call. He gives South the corresponding meaning of East's call. (Let's make it easier now, and give the reason why South knows East got it wrong in its simplest form) East hears this explanation and also takes a look at the SC. He realizes he misinterpreted North's call and his call is a mistake. And - oh, horror - he says something about this to the table. Of course that makes UI to West, but the question is now: If South knows (or assumes) what East thought Noerth's bid means, can he ask West what East's reply would mean? I believe he can, but I see no substantial difference with the Blackwood case. There, the responder misinterpreted his partner's bid, here, it is an opponents' one. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 23 15:08:52 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:08:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:16 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> AG : in theory you're right, but nobody has never been considered to >> have gien MI for alerting once too many. FWIW, if you don't know >> whether >> it's alertable, you do alert. > > No you don't. An alert is an indication that something is not as the > non-alertable option would be. That may be enough for opponents. If it > then turns out that it was in fact the non-alertable option, then the > opponents are misinformed. And saying "I did not know if it's > alertable" > is NOT a valid excuse. It's baaaaaack... the absurd canard that any given auction has "the [i.e. one and only one] non-alertable option". I thought we had driven stake through the heart of that one years ago. The ACBL has this right. "Alert" is shorthand for "we think you might want to ask". It doesn't mean that you're playing any one particular method, or one of some specific set of methods; it just means "we think you might want to ask". Alain's "if you don't know whether it's alertable, you do alert" is a stated ACBL guideline. Perhaps the "the non-alertable option" thing could make sense in some jurisdiction whose alert protocols are simple, clearly stated, widely dissemimated, generally understood, and rarely changed, but does any such jurisdiction exist? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 23 15:42:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:42:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD14B11.3050902@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be><4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> <4BD14B11.3050902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56FB1191-20AF-4F5B-9796-C40291D3CE12@starpower.net> On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:24 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The essential point is that information from an >> *unexpected* alert or failure to alert is UI for partner. >> If you alert and opponent asks your duty is to >> give a *full* explanation. So it is right to say that the >> meaning depends on the meaning of the prior call, >> and go on to say "if A then X, if B then Y, and so on. >> You have no need at that point to ask about the prior >> call and if you do so it is likely to tell partner the basis >> of your subsequent action, giving him UI. > > Grattan, think this through before writing something which is > manifestly > untrue: > You are West, and North makes a call. South alerts, and your partner > east looks at the system card and discovers what it is. Now your > partner > makes a call, and the meaning of that call depends on the meaning of > North's call. OK? So now you want to alert, or not, depending on the > meaning. So you need to know the meaning of North's call. > Now whatever you do - look at the SC, ask South what it was, or simply > tell South to wait a moment before bidding - is UI to your partner. > Indeed. > > BUT: your partner has already called, so there is nothign he can do > with > the UI he receives. And the knowledge that the meaning of his call > depended on the meaning of North's, is just as known to him as the > meaning of his call, which you are going to tell the table next. So if > that meaning is not considered UI, why in heaven's name should we > consider the premature asking about North's meaning any UI. > > Quite the contrary. By asking now, and for the clear purpose of being > able to correctly explain partner's bid, you tell the table that > you are > interested in North's meaning not for your own needs, but merely for > your opponent's. So in fact you have prevented the sending of some > other > piece of UI. > > Really guys, you are right in theory that this is not allowed, but you > are far from the table presence if you insist that this is how it > should > be or that breaking it causes any damage. Herman's argument is not only correct, but particularly cogent as a rebuttal to Grattan, who has, in the past, defended the (uniquely?) British notion that it is improper to inquire about an opponent's call if the answer will not affect one's immediately subsequent action. If that's so, it becomes especially clear that a technically illegal request for disclosure at the time of the inquiry so as to provide a determinative answer must convey less (unauthorized) information than does giving a Grattanesque answer to the inquiry, waiting (only) until RHO has called, and then asking. Let's remember that the real-life (legal) alternative to asking the question immediately and giving a determinative answer *isn't* not asking the question and giving a Grattanesque answer, it is giving a Grattanesque answer and then asking the question, waiting only until RHO has called. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 23 15:55:20 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:55:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <56FB1191-20AF-4F5B-9796-C40291D3CE12@starpower.net> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be><4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> <4BD14B11.3050902@skynet.be> <56FB1191-20AF-4F5B-9796-C40291D3CE12@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BD1A6C8.4010600@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:24 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Grattan wrote: >> >> >>> +=+ The essential point is that information from an >>> *unexpected* alert or failure to alert is UI for partner. >>> If you alert and opponent asks your duty is to >>> give a *full* explanation. So it is right to say that the >>> meaning depends on the meaning of the prior call, >>> and go on to say "if A then X, if B then Y, and so on. >>> You have no need at that point to ask about the prior >>> call and if you do so it is likely to tell partner the basis >>> of your subsequent action, giving him UI. >>> >> Grattan, think this through before writing something which is >> manifestly >> untrue: >> You are West, and North makes a call. South alerts, and your partner >> east looks at the system card and discovers what it is. Now your >> partner >> makes a call, and the meaning of that call depends on the meaning of >> North's call. OK? So now you want to alert, or not, depending on the >> meaning. So you need to know the meaning of North's call. >> Now whatever you do - look at the SC, ask South what it was, or simply >> tell South to wait a moment before bidding - is UI to your partner. >> Indeed. >> >> BUT: your partner has already called, so there is nothign he can do >> with >> the UI he receives. And the knowledge that the meaning of his call >> depended on the meaning of North's, is just as known to him as the >> meaning of his call, which you are going to tell the table next. So if >> that meaning is not considered UI, why in heaven's name should we >> consider the premature asking about North's meaning any UI. >> >> Quite the contrary. By asking now, and for the clear purpose of being >> able to correctly explain partner's bid, you tell the table that >> you are >> interested in North's meaning not for your own needs, but merely for >> your opponent's. So in fact you have prevented the sending of some >> other >> piece of UI. >> >> Really guys, you are right in theory that this is not allowed, but you >> are far from the table presence if you insist that this is how it >> should >> be or that breaking it causes any damage. >> > > Herman's argument is not only correct, but particularly cogent as a > rebuttal to Grattan, who has, in the past, defended the (uniquely?) > British notion that it is improper to inquire about an opponent's > call if the answer will not affect one's immediately subsequent > action. This doesn't hold water. If you don't ask, and then bid, and partner knows you can't know, you're conveying huge UI that your call fits with all possibilities (as could be the case here about the double, although it might also be the case that you knew) And a rebuttal to those who think that over 1NT-2D (at leat 7 version that I can think of) it will take too long to explain all possible cases. My explanation would be : "if 2D is linked to diamonds, double is for takeout ; if it is linked to one or several other suit(s), it suggests doubling them in that suit (on one of those suits)" 11 seconds. If your explanation takes 2 minutes, then perhaps you're playing a system that's too complicated to be allowed. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 23 15:56:56 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:56:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> No you don't. An alert is an indication that something is not as the >> non-alertable option would be. That may be enough for opponents. If it >> then turns out that it was in fact the non-alertable option, then the >> opponents are misinformed. And saying "I did not know if it's >> alertable" >> is NOT a valid excuse. > > It's baaaaaack... the absurd canard that any given auction has "the > [i.e. one and only one] non-alertable option". I thought we had > driven stake through the heart of that one years ago. > > The ACBL has this right. "Alert" is shorthand for "we think you > might want to ask". It doesn't mean that you're playing any one > particular method, or one of some specific set of methods; it just > means "we think you might want to ask". Alain's "if you don't know > whether it's alertable, you do alert" is a stated ACBL guideline. > > Perhaps the "the non-alertable option" thing could make sense in some > jurisdiction whose alert protocols are simple, clearly stated, widely > dissemimated, generally understood, and rarely changed, but does any > such jurisdiction exist? > Eric, I agree with you that one should not always accept the non-alert as "this means X". However: this is a general thread, and therefore: a) there are situations where the non-alert DOES indeed mean just one possible situation "this means X"; and b) even when it doesn't, it still has a meaning "this has a non-alertable meaning", and a player should not be blamed for assuming that it means X or Y, but not Z. A non-alert is also an explanation, and if the alert should have come, a misexplanation. BTW, my argument here was not about a non-alert , but rather about a (mistaken) alert. Just like with a non-alert, an alerted call can have several meanings, but we should not blame an opponent for not asking which meaning it is, when any alertable meaning to him is the same, but not a non-alertable one. For example, let's say that transfers are alertable. 2Di is alerted, and so the player assumes that it is a transfer and does not ask. It turns out that it is a sign-off (and that the partner mistakenly thought this was alertable because strange). The alert was a misexplanation. Herman. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2829 - Release Date: 04/22/10 20:31:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 23 16:02:44 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:02:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD154EF.4030909@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> <4BD154EF.4030909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2010, at 4:06 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : > >> I think the two situations are different. In one case, the opps >> want to >> know what 5Di would mean if 4NT was Blackwood. Are the entitled? >> In this >> case, the opps want to know what the X means if 2D is multi. >> Telling them >> what the double means if 2Di is Flannery is not what they are >> asking and >> could be construed as a worthless information dump. > > AG : even that isn't a certainty. If partner doubled without > asking, he > has a hand that justifies a double over any 2D opening. That's UI > to me, > but AI to them. That's a very radical notion. I not sure our general approach to disclosure can even function unless we are prepared to presume that if partner doubled without asking it is because he knows the answer, not because he doesn't care. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 23 16:17:49 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:17:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BD1AC0D.9080406@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > Eric, I agree with you that one should not always accept the non-alert > as "this means X". > However: this is a general thread, and therefore: > a) there are situations where the non-alert DOES indeed mean just one > possible situation "this means X"; and > b) even when it doesn't, it still has a meaning "this has a > non-alertable meaning", and a player should not be blamed for assuming > that it means X or Y, but not Z. > AG : what about bids that are deemed to "carry their own alert" ? > For example, let's say that transfers are alertable. 2Di is alerted, and > so the player assumes that it is a transfer and does not ask. It turns > out that it is a sign-off (and that the partner mistakenly thought this > was alertable because strange). The alert was a misexplanation. > And if the player assumes that it's a transfer and it happens to be forcing Stayman, or Gladiator, or spade-oriented Stayman, or Truscott, he'll just look plain silly. Since the meaning "natural, invitational" (uncommon for diamonds but occasionally seen about majors) is alertable, even assuming it is artificial would be dangerous. That's why the alert itself will seldom be considered a misexplanation. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 23 16:19:45 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <10123544-3CEB-4849-9962-88D5F173F174@starpower.net> <4BD05C13.80007@ulb.ac.be> <4BD087C7.9040105@ulb.ac.be> <4BD154EF.4030909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BD1AC81.1040207@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 23, 2010, at 4:06 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >> >>> I think the two situations are different. In one case, the opps >>> want to >>> know what 5Di would mean if 4NT was Blackwood. Are the entitled? >>> In this >>> case, the opps want to know what the X means if 2D is multi. >>> Telling them >>> what the double means if 2Di is Flannery is not what they are >>> asking and >>> could be construed as a worthless information dump. >>> >> AG : even that isn't a certainty. If partner doubled without >> asking, he >> has a hand that justifies a double over any 2D opening. That's UI >> to me, >> but AI to them. >> > > That's a very radical notion. I not sure our general approach to > disclosure can even function unless we are prepared to presume that > if partner doubled without asking it is because he knows the answer, > not because he doesn't care. > AG : agreed, but at least *they* are allowed to assume "doesn't care" (at their own risk) and therefore are allowed to know all possible meanings. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 23 16:24:34 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD1A6C8.4010600@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be><4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> <4BD14B11.3050902@skynet.be> <56FB1191-20AF-4F5B-9796-C40291D3CE12@starpower.net> <4BD1A6C8.4010600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > This doesn't hold water. If you don't ask, and then bid, and partner > knows you can't know, you're conveying huge UI that your call fits > with > all possibilities (as could be the case here about the double, > although > it might also be the case that you knew) > > And a rebuttal to those who think that over 1NT-2D (at leat 7 version > that I can think of) it will take too long to explain all possible > cases. > > My explanation would be : "if 2D is linked to diamonds, double is for > takeout ; if it is linked to one or several other suit(s), it suggests > doubling them in that suit (on one of those suits)" > 11 seconds. > If your explanation takes 2 minutes, then perhaps you're playing a > system that's too complicated to be allowed. I might be able to explain all the possibilities for 1NT-2D-X in under two minutes myself; Alain offers a relatively easy case. Perhaps he might want to take on 1NT-2D-2H. Around here, possible meanings of 2D include diamonds, diamonds and hearts, diamonds and spades, diamonds and an unspecified major, hearts, hearts and spades, hearts and clubs, hearts and an unspecified minor, and Ripstra (4-4 in the majors with diamond tolerance). Any of these variations might be played as weak, strong (at least roughly opening-bid strength), any strength, or two-way (either weak or strong enough to bid again, but not in between). I play relatively simple methods myself, but if Alain can cover all of that in under two minutes his methods must be a lot simpler than mine. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 23 16:49:48 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:49:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >>> No you don't. An alert is an indication that something is not as the >>> non-alertable option would be. That may be enough for opponents. >>> If it >>> then turns out that it was in fact the non-alertable option, then >>> the >>> opponents are misinformed. And saying "I did not know if it's >>> alertable" >>> is NOT a valid excuse. >> >> It's baaaaaack... the absurd canard that any given auction has "the >> [i.e. one and only one] non-alertable option". I thought we had >> driven stake through the heart of that one years ago. >> >> The ACBL has this right. "Alert" is shorthand for "we think you >> might want to ask". It doesn't mean that you're playing any one >> particular method, or one of some specific set of methods; it just >> means "we think you might want to ask". Alain's "if you don't know >> whether it's alertable, you do alert" is a stated ACBL guideline. >> >> Perhaps the "the non-alertable option" thing could make sense in some >> jurisdiction whose alert protocols are simple, clearly stated, widely >> dissemimated, generally understood, and rarely changed, but does any >> such jurisdiction exist? > > Eric, I agree with you that one should not always accept the non-alert > as "this means X". > However: this is a general thread, and therefore: > a) there are situations where the non-alert DOES indeed mean just one > possible situation "this means X"; and > b) even when it doesn't, it still has a meaning "this has a > non-alertable meaning", and a player should not be blamed for assuming > that it means X or Y, but not Z. > A non-alert is also an explanation, and if the alert should have > come, a > misexplanation. Fortunately for us North Americans, the ACBL does not require us to memorize and master the alert regulations, analyze them in detail, and educate ourselves as to all their logical consequences however subtle. So while there are surely a great many situations in which the various alert rules combine by force of logic to unamibiguously define situations corresponding to Herman's (a) and (b) above, players are not held legally responsible for knowing what those are. Indeed, we have seen several examples in which the ACBL has demonstrated that they (in the person of some TD, official, or Bulletin contributor) are unable to work them out themselves. > BTW, my argument here was not about a non-alert , but rather about a > (mistaken) alert. Just like with a non-alert, an alerted call can have > several meanings, but we should not blame an opponent for not asking > which meaning it is, when any alertable meaning to him is the same, > but > not a non-alertable one. > > For example, let's say that transfers are alertable. 2Di is > alerted, and > so the player assumes that it is a transfer and does not ask. It turns > out that it is a sign-off (and that the partner mistakenly thought > this > was alertable because strange). The alert was a misexplanation. Not in ACBL-land. Perhaps in Belgium. Different strokes for different folks. Perhaps the ACBL's alert rules really are that much more complicated, ambiguous and frequently changed than Belgium's, or anyone else's, but I doubt it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 23 18:05:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:05:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BD1C55B.9020500@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 23, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >>>> No you don't. An alert is an indication that something is not as the >>>> non-alertable option would be. That may be enough for opponents. >>>> If it >>>> then turns out that it was in fact the non-alertable option, then >>>> the >>>> opponents are misinformed. And saying "I did not know if it's >>>> alertable" >>>> is NOT a valid excuse. >>>> >>> It's baaaaaack... the absurd canard that any given auction has "the >>> [i.e. one and only one] non-alertable option". I thought we had >>> driven stake through the heart of that one years ago. >>> >>> The ACBL has this right. "Alert" is shorthand for "we think you >>> might want to ask". It doesn't mean that you're playing any one >>> particular method, or one of some specific set of methods; it just >>> means "we think you might want to ask". Alain's "if you don't know >>> whether it's alertable, you do alert" is a stated ACBL guideline. >>> >>> Perhaps the "the non-alertable option" thing could make sense in some >>> jurisdiction whose alert protocols are simple, clearly stated, widely >>> dissemimated, generally understood, and rarely changed, but does any >>> such jurisdiction exist? >>> >> Eric, I agree with you that one should not always accept the non-alert >> as "this means X". >> However: this is a general thread, and therefore: >> a) there are situations where the non-alert DOES indeed mean just one >> possible situation "this means X"; and >> b) even when it doesn't, it still has a meaning "this has a >> non-alertable meaning", and a player should not be blamed for assuming >> that it means X or Y, but not Z. >> A non-alert is also an explanation, and if the alert should have >> come, a >> misexplanation. >> > > Fortunately for us North Americans, the ACBL does not require us to > memorize and master the alert regulations, analyze them in detail, > and educate ourselves as to all their logical consequences however > subtle. So while there are surely a great many situations in which > the various alert rules combine by force of logic to unamibiguously > define situations corresponding to Herman's (a) and (b) above, > players are not held legally responsible for knowing what those are. > Indeed, we have seen several examples in which the ACBL has > demonstrated that they (in the person of some TD, official, or > Bulletin contributor) are unable to work them out themselves. > > >> BTW, my argument here was not about a non-alert , but rather about a >> (mistaken) alert. Just like with a non-alert, an alerted call can have >> several meanings, but we should not blame an opponent for not asking >> which meaning it is, when any alertable meaning to him is the same, >> but >> not a non-alertable one. >> >> For example, let's say that transfers are alertable. 2Di is >> alerted, and >> so the player assumes that it is a transfer and does not ask. It turns >> out that it is a sign-off (and that the partner mistakenly thought >> this >> was alertable because strange). The alert was a misexplanation. >> > > Not in ACBL-land. Perhaps in Belgium. If it can reassure you, please notice that, in that very country (assuming it is still a country), a TD who ruled that by alerting a rebid that, apparently, shouldn't be alerted, a player let his opponents think that 2C was artificial, saw his ruling overturned. The bid was 1D-1H-1NT-2C, showing longer clubs. (NB many in Belgium play this as a relay, and this is what you could expect if they alerted) Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 23 18:17:12 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:17:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Well, I don't want to criticize, but alert regulations about which no-one realizes what an alert and a non-alert mean, are virtually useless. No further comment needed, surely! Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 23, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>> No you don't. An alert is an indication that something is not as the >>>> non-alertable option would be. That may be enough for opponents. >>>> If it >>>> then turns out that it was in fact the non-alertable option, then >>>> the >>>> opponents are misinformed. And saying "I did not know if it's >>>> alertable" >>>> is NOT a valid excuse. >>> >>> It's baaaaaack... the absurd canard that any given auction has "the >>> [i.e. one and only one] non-alertable option". I thought we had >>> driven stake through the heart of that one years ago. >>> >>> The ACBL has this right. "Alert" is shorthand for "we think you >>> might want to ask". It doesn't mean that you're playing any one >>> particular method, or one of some specific set of methods; it just >>> means "we think you might want to ask". Alain's "if you don't know >>> whether it's alertable, you do alert" is a stated ACBL guideline. >>> >>> Perhaps the "the non-alertable option" thing could make sense in some >>> jurisdiction whose alert protocols are simple, clearly stated, widely >>> dissemimated, generally understood, and rarely changed, but does any >>> such jurisdiction exist? >> >> Eric, I agree with you that one should not always accept the non-alert >> as "this means X". >> However: this is a general thread, and therefore: >> a) there are situations where the non-alert DOES indeed mean just one >> possible situation "this means X"; and >> b) even when it doesn't, it still has a meaning "this has a >> non-alertable meaning", and a player should not be blamed for assuming >> that it means X or Y, but not Z. >> A non-alert is also an explanation, and if the alert should have >> come, a >> misexplanation. > > Fortunately for us North Americans, the ACBL does not require us to > memorize and master the alert regulations, analyze them in detail, > and educate ourselves as to all their logical consequences however > subtle. So while there are surely a great many situations in which > the various alert rules combine by force of logic to unamibiguously > define situations corresponding to Herman's (a) and (b) above, > players are not held legally responsible for knowing what those are. > Indeed, we have seen several examples in which the ACBL has > demonstrated that they (in the person of some TD, official, or > Bulletin contributor) are unable to work them out themselves. > >> BTW, my argument here was not about a non-alert , but rather about a >> (mistaken) alert. Just like with a non-alert, an alerted call can have >> several meanings, but we should not blame an opponent for not asking >> which meaning it is, when any alertable meaning to him is the same, >> but >> not a non-alertable one. >> >> For example, let's say that transfers are alertable. 2Di is >> alerted, and >> so the player assumes that it is a transfer and does not ask. It turns >> out that it is a sign-off (and that the partner mistakenly thought >> this >> was alertable because strange). The alert was a misexplanation. > > Not in ACBL-land. Perhaps in Belgium. Different strokes for > different folks. Perhaps the ACBL's alert rules really are that much > more complicated, ambiguous and frequently changed than Belgium's, or > anyone else's, but I doubt it. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2829 - Release Date: 04/22/10 20:31:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Apr 23 19:00:14 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:00:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, I don't want to criticize, but alert regulations about which > no-one realizes what an alert and a non-alert mean, are virtually useless. > No further comment needed, surely! > No one said that in the ACBL no one knows what a nonalert means. We just don't know for sure what an alert means until we ask. In the ACBL, the sequence 1S-2S unalerted shows a raise worth about 6-10. If you play 8-10 ("constructive raise"), then (officially and specifically) you must alert, but there are many other possible alertable meanings of 2S. I would alert it if the raise was balanced or denied 4-card support. The ACBL alert regulations include several alertable natural treatments. And sufficiently unusual or unexpected natural treatments are alertable except when specifically exempted. So there are any number of reasons to alert that imply no artificiality. I don't have enough data to know, but I hypothesize that in the last ten years, adverse MI or UI rulings solely due to an unneeded alert have been rare or nonexistant in the ACBL. Jerry Fusselman From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Apr 23 19:15:26 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:15:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <830156.81876.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Another legal dilemma that may provide a fascinating topic for debate by directors until 2018 -- and perhaps later -- without resolution. Simplifed and universal laws on (eg on disclosure) could reduce the fun for directors but allow players to enjoy comprehensible and consistent rulings. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 23 19:33:39 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:33:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD1C55B.9020500@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C55B.9020500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Fortunately for us North Americans, the ACBL does not require us to >> memorize and master the alert regulations, analyze them in detail, >> and educate ourselves as to all their logical consequences however >> subtle. So while there are surely a great many situations in which >> the various alert rules combine by force of logic to unamibiguously >> define situations corresponding to Herman's (a) and (b) above, >> players are not held legally responsible for knowing what those are. >> Indeed, we have seen several examples in which the ACBL has >> demonstrated that they (in the person of some TD, official, or >> Bulletin contributor) are unable to work them out themselves. >> >> On Apr 23, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> BTW, my argument here was not about a non-alert , but rather about a >>> (mistaken) alert. Just like with a non-alert, an alerted call can >>> have >>> several meanings, but we should not blame an opponent for not asking >>> which meaning it is, when any alertable meaning to him is the same, >>> but >>> not a non-alertable one. >>> >>> For example, let's say that transfers are alertable. 2Di is >>> alerted, and >>> so the player assumes that it is a transfer and does not ask. It >>> turns >>> out that it is a sign-off (and that the partner mistakenly thought >>> this >>> was alertable because strange). The alert was a misexplanation. >> >> Not in ACBL-land. Perhaps in Belgium. > > If it can reassure you, please notice that, in that very country > (assuming it is still a country), a TD who ruled that by alerting a > rebid that, apparently, shouldn't be alerted, a player let his > opponents > think that 2C was artificial, saw his ruling overturned. It sounds like Belgium's alert regulations really are much simpler than the ACBL's, if one can deduce from an alert that the call must have been artificial. > The bid was 1D-1H-1NT-2C, showing longer clubs. (NB many in Belgium > play > this as a relay, and this is what you could expect if they alerted) That definitely requires an alert in the ACBL if clubs are guaranteed to be longer than hearts, and might (the rules really are unclear on this) require one merely for being non-forcing. Just for starters. It's ain't that easy. One not uncommon treatment of this auction is forcing, suggesting a possible continued interest in playing a major, and promising at least three clubs. Natural or artificial? Answer: Natural ("convenient force") for old-fashioned four-card major players (and unavoidable if playing Flannery); artificial ("checkback Stayman" or "new minor forcing") for modern five-card major players. Alertable or not? Could it possibly be either, depending on the rest of your system, even though it carries the same meaning and covers the same set of hands in either case? -- I don't think so. Either way, and regardless of system, reliable inferences from nothing more than the word "alert" or absense thereof are not so easy to find or articulate. Of course, the new L40B does open the possibility for RAs to permit any particular call on any particular auction only if it has one of exactly two precise possible meanings, which is what would be required to make "the alertable meaning" or "the non-alertable meaning" mean anything. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 23 19:58:56 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:58:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <1O3qqe-24Eq6i0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <000601cadfc6$6be02210$43a06630$@no> <4BCC6F61.5090003@ulb.ac.be> <4BCD5616.1010006@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEB4D2.6060907@skynet.be> <4BCEB9C7.4080300@ulb.ac.be> <4BCECB28.40100@skynet.be> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <21C0AAD6-13EB-49D2-A6DE-881B98CB7FF7@starpower.net> On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, I don't want to criticize, but alert regulations about which > no-one realizes what an alert and a non-alert mean, are virtually > useless. > No further comment needed, surely! > > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Fortunately for us North Americans, the ACBL does not require us to >> memorize and master the alert regulations, analyze them in detail, >> and educate ourselves as to all their logical consequences however >> subtle. So while there are surely a great many situations in which >> the various alert rules combine by force of logic to unamibiguously >> define situations corresponding to Herman's (a) and (b) above, >> players are not held legally responsible for knowing what those are. >> Indeed, we have seen several examples in which the ACBL has >> demonstrated that they (in the person of some TD, official, or >> Bulletin contributor) are unable to work them out themselves. Oh, we ACBLers do know "what an alert and a non-alert mean". [FTR: Alert means we think you might want to ask about our auction; non- alert means we don't think you have any need to ask about our auction. See alert chart for guidance. Alert if not sure.] It's just that their meanings aren't precise enough for Herman's taste. Sometimes, though, broad, vague guideines applied generously and cooperatively are a lot more efficacious and useful, and work a lot better in the long run, than precise, specific rules applied to the letter, with penalties -- 'scuse me, rectifications -- for getting some minor detail wrong. Most of the time, in fact, IME. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 24 00:07:21 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:07:21 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: Trying to impress a director who was talking down to me, I posed this problem. A player is on track to win 12 tricks. While running the diamond suit in dummy, there is a revoke in diamonds. This has no effect on play, so declarer is now going to make 12 + 1. The second revoke in diamonds, however, stops the run of diamonds and declarer makes only 9 tricks. How do you rule? He said 12. I said it was 13. He tried to explain to me why I was wrong, without much success. BTW, I mentioned the WBF and he said they are irrelevant to the ACBL. So we went to a director who seemed really good at knowing the rules. She said 12. So I went to a national tournament director. He took a lot of time to explain why the correct answer is 12. First, there is no rectification for a second revoke. As he had rule book, I could point out that this wasn't right, but that did not slow him down. He then explained that Law 64C does not apply to *each* revoke. The way I should see it is this. The goal of the laws is to restore equity and equity on this board is making 12 tricks. And when I mentioned WBF, he said "Don't quote WBF regulations to me." With little hope now I went to the DIC, another national tournament director often treated as a diety around here. His answer was 12. One reason is that there is no rectification for a second revoke. He of all people was not completely put off by the existence of the WBF. He assured me that everyone in the WBF would rule the same way. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Apr 24 10:32:28 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:32:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 24 April 2010 00:07, Robert Frick wrote: > Trying to impress a director who was talking down to me, I posed this > problem. > > A player is on track to win 12 tricks. While running the diamond suit in > dummy, there is a revoke in diamonds. This has no effect on play, so > declarer is now going to make 12 + 1. The second revoke in ?diamonds, > however, stops the run of diamonds and declarer makes only 9 tricks. How > do you rule? > > He said 12. I said it was 13. He tried to explain to me why I was wrong, > without much success. BTW, I mentioned the WBF and he said they are > irrelevant to the ACBL. > > So we went to a director who seemed really good at knowing the rules. She > said 12. > > So I went to a national tournament director. He took a lot of time to > explain why the correct answer is 12. First, there is no rectification for > a second revoke. As he had rule book, I could point out that this wasn't > right, but that did not slow him down. ?He then explained that Law 64C > does not apply to *each* revoke. The way I should see it is this. The goal > of the laws is to restore equity and equity on this board is making 12 > tricks. > > And when I mentioned WBF, he said "Don't quote WBF regulations to me." > > With little hope now I went to the DIC, another national tournament > director often treated as a diety around here. His answer was 12. One > reason is that there is no rectification for a second revoke. He of all > people was not completely put off by the existence of the WBF. He assured > me that everyone in the WBF would rule the same way. They were all wrong. The rectification for the first revoke would give declarer all 13 tricks. At the point of the second revoke, the expected outcome of the deal was 13 tricks. Thus, L64C applied for the second revoke, leads to an adjustment to 13 tricks. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Sat Apr 24 12:24:45 2010 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:24:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100424102448.07F03990C08E@relay2.webreus.nl> On 24-4-2010, Robert Frick wrote: > > So I went to a national tournament director. He took a lot of time to > > explain why the correct answer is 12. First, there is no rectification for > > a second revoke. As he had rule book, I could point out that this wasn't > > right, but that did not slow him down. ? He then explained that Law 64C > > does not apply to *each* revoke. The way I should see it is this. The goal > > of the laws is to restore equity and equity on this board is making 12 > > tricks. There is indeed no rectification for the second revoke, but L64C *is* applicable to each revoke, as is explicitly mentioned in the 2007 Laws: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: 1. if the offending side did not win either the revoke trick or any subsequent trick. 2. if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. Law 64C may apply. ..." The director should take away the damage caused by the second revoke and award 13 tricks From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Apr 24 12:29:40 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:29:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: It's worth asking them whether they think the revoker should be able to improve their result by committing a second infraction. Gordon Rainsford On 23 Apr 2010, at 23:07, Robert Frick wrote: > Trying to impress a director who was talking down to me, I posed this > problem. > > A player is on track to win 12 tricks. While running the diamond > suit in > dummy, there is a revoke in diamonds. This has no effect on play, so > declarer is now going to make 12 + 1. The second revoke in diamonds, > however, stops the run of diamonds and declarer makes only 9 > tricks. How > do you rule? > > He said 12. I said it was 13. He tried to explain to me why I was > wrong, > without much success. BTW, I mentioned the WBF and he said they are > irrelevant to the ACBL. > > So we went to a director who seemed really good at knowing the > rules. She > said 12. > > So I went to a national tournament director. He took a lot of time to > explain why the correct answer is 12. First, there is no > rectification for > a second revoke. As he had rule book, I could point out that this > wasn't > right, but that did not slow him down. He then explained that Law 64C > does not apply to *each* revoke. The way I should see it is this. > The goal > of the laws is to restore equity and equity on this board is making 12 > tricks. > > And when I mentioned WBF, he said "Don't quote WBF regulations to me." > > With little hope now I went to the DIC, another national tournament > director often treated as a diety around here. His answer was 12. One > reason is that there is no rectification for a second revoke. He of > all > people was not completely put off by the existence of the WBF. He > assured > me that everyone in the WBF would rule the same way. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 24 14:17:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:17:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be><4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be><4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be><4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be><4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56111AD2FA2E4358A46DB442215D4646@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Day in the Life > It's worth asking them whether they think the revoker should be able > to improve their result by committing a second infraction. > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 23 Apr 2010, at 23:07, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Trying to impress a director who was talking down to me, I posed this >> problem. >> >> A player is on track to win 12 tricks. While running the diamond >> suit in >> dummy, there is a revoke in diamonds. This has no effect on play, so >> declarer is now going to make 12 + 1. The second revoke in diamonds, >> however, stops the run of diamonds and declarer makes only 9 >> tricks. How do you rule? >> >> He said 12. I said it was 13. He tried to explain to me why I was >> wrong, without much success. BTW, I mentioned the WBF and he >> said they are irrelevant to the ACBL. >> >> So we went to a director who seemed really good at knowing the >> rules. She said 12. >> >> So I went to a national tournament director. He took a lot of time to >> explain why the correct answer is 12. First, there is no rectification >> for a second revoke. As he had rule book, I could point out that this >> wasn't >> right, but that did not slow him down. He then explained that >> Law 64C does not apply to *each* revoke. The way I should see >> it is this.the goal of the laws is to restore equity and equity on this >> board is making 12 tricks. >> >> And when I mentioned WBF, he said "Don't quote WBF regulations >> to me." >> >> With little hope now I went to the DIC, another national tournament >> director often treated as a deity around here. His answer was 12. One >> reason is that there is no rectification for a second revoke. He of >> all >> people was not completely put off by the existence of the WBF. He >> assured >> me that everyone in the WBF would rule the same way. >> +=+ I suggest that the Director should study Law 12B1 The question here is the application of a law. Is 12B1 different in the esoteric ACBL law book? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 25 10:07:03 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:07:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BD3F827.7020302@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Well, I don't want to criticize, but alert regulations about which >> no-one realizes what an alert and a non-alert mean, are virtually useless. >> No further comment needed, surely! >> > > No one said that in the ACBL no one knows what a nonalert means. We > just don't know for sure what an alert means until we ask. > Of course an alert always carries more possible meanings than a non-alert. > In the ACBL, the sequence 1S-2S unalerted shows a raise worth about > 6-10. If you play 8-10 ("constructive raise"), then (officially and > specifically) you must alert, but there are many other possible > alertable meanings of 2S. I would alert it if the raise was balanced > or denied 4-card support. > The same is true in Belgium. > The ACBL alert regulations include several alertable natural > treatments. And sufficiently unusual or unexpected natural treatments > are alertable except when specifically exempted. So there are any > number of reasons to alert that imply no artificiality. > > I don't have enough data to know, but I hypothesize that in the last > ten years, adverse MI or UI rulings solely due to an unneeded alert > have been rare or nonexistant in the ACBL. > I realize that they are rare, but they are nevertheless possible. I am certain that the reason for their absense is that most players simply won't trust an alert on face value and will indeed ask. But surely you can imagine cases where the alert will not be questioned and merely doubled for the lead. Which will then be passed out and made. We had a case recently where a fourth suit was not alerted (as is normal in Belgium if it is a standard fourth suit forcing); only it turned out to be a natural bid suit, doubled and made. Here, the non-alert was erroneous, but imagine this is in a different legislation, where the rules are reversed. Then you have a case of an erroneous alert. Imagine the alerter stating, I did not know what it was, so I alerted? Surely that cannot be a good excuse. Which is where all this started. It cannot be a good practice to alert "just in case", when you don't know -yet- what the meaning of partner's bid is. Better to make certain before deciding whether or not to alert. Herman. > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2832 - Release Date: 04/24/10 08:31:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 25 15:11:16 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:11:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be><4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be><4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be><4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be><4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7136E9BAE400497F9D66825A0FCDC659@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 11:07 PM Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life > Trying to impress a director who was talking down to me, I posed this > problem. > > A player is on track to win 12 tricks. While running the diamond suit in > dummy, there is a revoke in diamonds. This has no effect on play, so > declarer is now going to make 12 + 1. The second revoke in diamonds, > however, stops the run of diamonds and declarer makes only 9 tricks. How > do you rule? > > He said 12. I said it was 13. He tried to explain to me why I was wrong, > without much success. BTW, I mentioned the WBF and he said they are > irrelevant to the ACBL. > > So we went to a director who seemed really good at knowing the rules. She > said 12. > > So I went to a national tournament director. He took a lot of time to > explain why the correct answer is 12. First, there is no rectification for > a second revoke. As he had rule book, I could point out that this wasn't > right, but that did not slow him down. He then explained that Law 64C > does not apply to *each* revoke. The way I should see it is this. The goal > of the laws is to restore equity and equity on this board is making 12 > tricks. > > And when I mentioned WBF, he said "Don't quote WBF regulations to me." > > With little hope now I went to the DIC, another national tournament > director often treated as a diety around here. His answer was 12. One > reason is that there is no rectification for a second revoke. He of all > people was not completely put off by the existence of the WBF. He assured > me that everyone in the WBF would rule the same way. > +=+ The WBF Chief Tournament Director informs me that he would award 13 tricks. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Apr 25 19:21:41 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:21:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD3F827.7020302@skynet.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> <4BD3F827.7020302@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > > I don't have enough data to know, but I hypothesize that in the last > > ten years, adverse MI or UI rulings solely due to an unneeded alert > > have been rare or nonexistant in the ACBL. > > > > I realize that they are rare, but they are nevertheless possible. I am > certain that the reason for their absense is that most players simply > won't trust an alert on face value and will indeed ask. > > But surely you can imagine cases where the alert will not be questioned > and merely doubled for the lead. Yes, but in those cases the only infraction I can imagine is illegal communication by the doubling side. (We are assuming that the doubler has not checked the convention card either---he just does not know the meaning.) I think it will be a clear infraction if the following hold: * The alert usually would be that it is artificial; * The double is for the lead if it is artificial; * The double is something else if it is natural; * Doubler does not ask; * Partner of the doubler notices that doubler did not ask and treats it as lead directing; * The actual alert would have been some natural meaning; * The result for the doubling side is likely better than it would have been had there been no lead direction. The infraction is that doubler's partner used doubler's lack of a question to change the meaning of their double. You cannot play, in effect, a two-system method where the meaning of your call depends on questions asked or not asked. Right? > Which will then be passed out and made. But I see no infraction here from the alerting side. Maybe you need to add some details so I can see it. > We had a case recently where a fourth suit was not alerted (as is normal > in Belgium if it is a standard fourth suit forcing); only it turned out > to be a natural bid suit, doubled and made. Yeah, the nonalert was MI. > Here, the non-alert was > erroneous, but imagine this is in a different legislation, where the > rules are reversed. I am not sure how to interpret this. Are you asking me to imagine a different law book? > Then you have a case of an erroneous alert. I would call it a nonrequired alert. > Imagine > the alerter stating, I did not know what it was, so I alerted? Surely > that cannot be a good excuse. I am not sure what you mean by "good excuse", but no one is saying that alerting automatically prevents any MI problems. This alerter's statement may well constitute MI. > Which is where all this started. It cannot be a good practice to alert > "just in case", when you don't know -yet- what the meaning of partner's > bid is. This practice is exactly what I recommend. I cannot think of anything better. All of the other options in this thread are slower, more confusing, and more explicitly illegal. > Better to make certain before deciding whether or not to alert. But how would you make certain without breaking important laws? You would rather stop the auction out of turn and ask questions than make a possibly ex-post nonrequired alert? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Apr 25 20:36:07 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:36:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: <4BD1A6C8.4010600@ulb.ac.be> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCED40F.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> <4BD14B11.3050902@skynet.be> <56FB1191-20AF-4F5B-9796-C40291D3CE12@starpower.net> <4BD1A6C8.4010600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > And a rebuttal to those who think that over 1NT-2D (at leat 7 version > that I can think of) it will take too long to explain all possible cases. > > My explanation would be : "if 2D is linked to diamonds, double is for > takeout ; if it is linked to one or several other suit(s), it suggests > doubling them in that suit (on one of those suits)" > 11 seconds. > If your explanation takes 2 minutes, then perhaps you're playing a > system that's too complicated to be allowed. > Perhaps "all possible cases" means something different than what I think it means, but I think that Alain has proven Eric's case, for he did not tell us how he would handle these five cases: A. 2D shows short diamonds plus either long hearts or a black two-suiter. B. 2D shows either a red two-suiter or long hearts with three diamonds. C. 2D shows three or four diamonds (usually three) and a long major. D. 2D shows either long hearts or a very strong hand with at least two hearts. E. 2D shows either long diamonds, a major two-suiter, or a black two-suiter. These are some of the cases I thought of when Eric said it would take him far too long to explain every case at the table. I don't think I could do it right in under an hour, so I was impressed that Eric thought he might be able to. Eric, did your imagined explanations cover these five cases? I cannot tell how Alain would handle these. I guess the crucial issue is whether it is linked to diamonds or not. Is A linked to diamonds or not? I played against A once, and I called the director, because it is GCC illegal. But I consider it a good method other than that defect. B is what I like to play. Is it linked to diamonds or not? C is similar to B, but is it linked to diamonds? I think this is GCC legal, just barely, but some directors won't think so. (The issue is whether or not the 3-card minor makes it sufficiently natural.) D is another one I consider good, but it also happens to be GCC illegal. (It is quite similar to something I play at a lower denomination.) Would Alain treat it the same as if it just showed hearts? E is also GCC illegal, but it is similar to something I play against Precision. Is it linked to diamonds or not? Does it matter how often the diamond meaning happens? So all five of these are agreements I consider good, but I cannot tell what you play against them. Can anyone else tell? It is irrelevant whether or not Alain can tell, because his self-chosen task was to come up with a complete statement that handled "all possible cases." (I don't know how many of them are legal where Alain plays.) And it gets worse. I chose five agreements that I consider good. Alain's list should cover not just agreements he considers good, but "all possible cases", good or not. Some examples: F. 2D shows a very strong hand, saying nothing about any suit. G. 2D shows a very weak, distributional hand, saying nothing about any suit. I cannot tell what for sure Alain does against these either. Who can? No, I don't think an hour is long enough to cover every possibility. How about just alerting and then, if asked to explain, find out the one meaning that applies so that you can state the agreement that is relevant to the opponents? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Apr 25 22:27:40 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:27:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27A1: Does a forced pass by LHO automatically accept IB? In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <6FBC41D202EA488CBA3F4334B963B52C@Mildred> <4BD14B11.3050902@skynet.be> <56FB1191-20AF-4F5B-9796-C40291D3CE12@starpower.net> <4BD1A6C8.4010600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > And a rebuttal to those who think that over 1NT-2D (at leat 7 version > that I can think of) it will take too long to explain all possible cases. > > My explanation would be : "if 2D is linked to diamonds, double is for > takeout ; if it is linked to one or several other suit(s), it suggests > doubling them in that suit (on one of those suits)" Two more cases to stump Alain's explanation: H. ?2D shows a red two-suiter. I. ? ?2D shows diamonds and a major. Does Alain's rule cover these two common cases? I am not sure, because he does not say what to do if both conditions are satisfied. Consider H. After thinking for a few minutes, perhaps I would decide that the conditions are not mutually exclusive, and that it means takeout of diamonds as well as penalty of hearts. Did I get it right? But a few minutes to work this out is far too long. And I am not sure whether it promises four spades---could it have a great penalty hand for hearts and only three spades? Could it have a so-so double of hearts with four strong spades? Might he have only two clubs if both majors are strong? > If your explanation takes 2 minutes, then perhaps you're playing a > system that's too complicated to be allowed. Joseph M Williams writes that there are two kinds of complexity: Necessary for the subject, and unnecessary for the subject. The only kind that should be criticized is the unnecessary. I have tried to demonstrate that a truly complete list of A's implies B's causes necessary complexity, far beyond what one might believe when he first tries it. Even if you try to cover my nine cases, there are most likely others that would not be clear. The complexity here is caused by the task of full delineation that Alain chose. Rather than undertaking such a difficult task, I would leave the burden of deciding which meta-agreement applies to the side that best understands it. Jerry Fusselman From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 26 11:59:07 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:59:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Beginners Message-ID: <4BD563EB.6080806@skynet.be> I directed the Flemish beginners' tournament yesterday. For one ruling I needed to get my lawbook out. Have you ever seen a bidding like this? 1He pass 2Cl pass Dbl pass 2Sp pass 3Sp at which point one of the caddies (a bridge teacher of course, in this tournament) called me. Also, surprisingly, beginners never seem to revoke. There was only one revoke ruling, and it was because I was watching the play. I had to wait for several minutes for them to write down the result before telling them of the revoke (and ruling under 64C that the table result could stand). Quite a fun day was had by all! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 26 13:52:23 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:52:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Beginners In-Reply-To: <4BD563EB.6080806@skynet.be> References: <4BD563EB.6080806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01cae536$f0524a80$d0f6df80$@no> Well, there was a famous story in Norway: The dealer started the auction with a Double. In response to the reactions at the table he said: "I wanted partner to bid his best suit!" He remembered the T/O Double; I guess your player remembered the negative double? Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 26. april 2010 11:59 > To: blml > Subject: [BLML] Beginners > > I directed the Flemish beginners' tournament yesterday. > For one ruling I needed to get my lawbook out. Have you ever seen a bidding like > this? > 1He pass 2Cl pass > Dbl pass 2Sp pass > 3Sp > at which point one of the caddies (a bridge teacher of course, in this > tournament) called me. > > Also, surprisingly, beginners never seem to revoke. There was only one revoke > ruling, and it was because I was watching the play. I had to wait for several > minutes for them to write down the result before telling them of the revoke (and > ruling under 64C that the table result could stand). > > Quite a fun day was had by all! > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 26 14:26:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:26:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Beginners In-Reply-To: <000c01cae536$f0524a80$d0f6df80$@no> References: <4BD563EB.6080806@skynet.be> <000c01cae536$f0524a80$d0f6df80$@no> Message-ID: <4BD5865F.5020305@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > Well, there was a famous story in Norway: The dealer started the auction > with a Double. > > In response to the reactions at the table he said: "I wanted partner to bid > his best suit!" > Once upon a time one was allowe to open 0 NT. This player seems to have reinvented it. > -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Herman De Wael >> Sent: 26. april 2010 11:59 >> To: blml >> Subject: [BLML] Beginners >> >> I directed the Flemish beginners' tournament yesterday. >> For one ruling I needed to get my lawbook out. Have you ever seen a >> > bidding like > >> this? >> 1He pass 2Cl pass >> Dbl pass 2Sp pass >> 3Sp >> at which point one of the caddies (a bridge teacher of course, in this >> tournament) called me. >> Was he allowed to ? Can a caddy draw attention on a nirregularity ? Isn't he a specific kind of kibitzer ? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 27 04:39:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:39:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BCEB802.7020702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "The witness of history is uniform to this, that Nemesis may spare the sagacious criminal, but never fails to overtake the weak, the undecided and the over-charitable fool." Richard Hills (previous post): >>His ruling was that there was no logical alternative to >>North's 6NT. (It later transpired during agreement of the >>facts at the appeal that Sean of the Deaf had misheard 2S as >>promising **9**-11 hcp.) Alain Gottcheiner: >And ... 22 + 9 = ??? Richard Hills (current post): Implicit in Sean Mullamphy's ruling was that North did not hold an average 22 count AK843 AQ5 AT7 AJ but rather North's hand was "worth" at least 23 hcp. Note in particular that the defence cannot cash the first two tricks against 6NT, since North holds all the aces. Richard Hills (previous post): >>the 1997 Lawbook, Law 12C3: >> >>"Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals >>committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do >>equity." >> >>which they wanted to apply so as to give our opponents +490 >>and ourselves -990. The Chair said, "We can make any ruling >>that we like!" But Sean Mullamphy ordered the Appeals >>Committee to reconsider, stating that such a Reveley Ruling >>was inherently unLawful under the 2007 Lawbook. Alain Gottcheiner: >If it is, too bad. If the damage to the NOS is self-inflicted, >why should the OS get an illegally obtained good score ??? >(not that I pretend it to be the case here) Richard Hills (current post): Alain has misconstrued Sean Mullamphy's over-riding of the Appeals Committee. Under the current 2007 Lawbook it is impossible (except in the ACBL) for the OS to get an illegally obtained good score when the NOS indulges in subsequent wild or gambling behaviour. Sean Mullamphy was preventing the AC giving my NOS an illegally obtained bad score when my partner's spade lead against 6NT was not a serious error (in the opinion of Sean and also those blmlers polled earlier in this thread). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 27 04:27:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:27:22 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life In-Reply-To: <7136E9BAE400497F9D66825A0FCDC659@Mildred> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> <7136E9BAE400497F9D66825A0FCDC659@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:11:16 -0300, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert > Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 11:07 PM > Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life > > >> Trying to impress a director who was talking down to me, I posed this >> problem. >> >> A player is on track to win 12 tricks. While running the diamond suit in >> dummy, there is a revoke in diamonds. This has no effect on play, so >> declarer is now going to make 12 + 1. The second revoke in diamonds, >> however, stops the run of diamonds and declarer makes only 9 tricks. How >> do you rule? >> >> He said 12. I said it was 13. He tried to explain to me why I was wrong, >> without much success. BTW, I mentioned the WBF and he said they are >> irrelevant to the ACBL. >> >> So we went to a director who seemed really good at knowing the rules. >> She >> said 12. >> >> So I went to a national tournament director. He took a lot of time to >> explain why the correct answer is 12. First, there is no rectification >> for >> a second revoke. As he had rule book, I could point out that this wasn't >> right, but that did not slow him down. He then explained that Law 64C >> does not apply to *each* revoke. The way I should see it is this. The >> goal >> of the laws is to restore equity and equity on this board is making 12 >> tricks. >> >> And when I mentioned WBF, he said "Don't quote WBF regulations to me." >> >> With little hope now I went to the DIC, another national tournament >> director often treated as a diety around here. His answer was 12. One >> reason is that there is no rectification for a second revoke. He of all >> people was not completely put off by the existence of the WBF. He >> assured >> me that everyone in the WBF would rule the same way. >> > +=+ The WBF Chief Tournament Director informs me that he would > award 13 tricks. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thanks. Prudence suggested that I not bring this up to the directors. But I was dying to. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 27 09:38:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:38:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F1 (was Law 27A1...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 20F1, first sentence: "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but ***only*** at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents' prior auction." Robert Frick: >The law should read that players can ask when it is their turn >to take action. That's just common sense. So I think interpret >it as an error in the laws and let players ask whenever they >need to do something. > >My best example is this. > >2D X > >RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning >depends on the meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard >would ask the meaning of the 2D bid at this point, even though >it is not his turn to call. Richard Hills: Since Bob is arguing "even Richard", I counter-argue that my common sense differs from Bob. To me, common sense dictates that I read the opponents' System Card at the start of the round or match. Thus I common- sensically know whether 2D is Benjamin, showing an artificial game force -- in which case my partner's double is lead- directing for diamonds -- or whether 2D is Multi -- in which case my partner's double is 15+ hcp and almost completely artificial (denies 17-20 hcp balanced). If, however, the opponents have both bid five times, then my partnership's common-sense agreement is that our calls have only one meaning. Otherwise, if the meaning of our call hinged upon the meaning of an opponent's fifth round call, we would be up a gum tree without a paddle if an opponent truthfully stated, "We have no agreement about this fifth round call." Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ It depends upon the alerting regulations, does it not? >> If a call has alternative meanings dependent upon the >>meaning of opponent's last call I would have expected that >>most regulations would consider this to be something that >>opponents would not expect, and so alertable without any >>need to ask a question until one's turn in the auction. If >>asked to explain, a full explanation would state the >>alternative possibilities and the basis for each. >> So I would think the relevant alerting requirement in >>regulations applying should be quoted when offering comment. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The Australian Bridge Federation has a witty solution to the problem of alerting ambiguous doubles. The ABF prohibits any alerting of doubles during the auction, to prevent fuzzy partnerships from solving their lack of agreements by listening to pard's alerts and non-alerts during the auction. But the ABF mandates pre-alerts of frequent unusual agreements (doubles or otherwise). The Belgian and Polish Regulating Authorities have half-witted solutions to the problem of alerting ambiguous doubles, since they vary from the ABF by leaving pre-alerting optional. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784): "This man [Lord Chesterfield] I thought had been a Lord among wits; but, I find, he is only a wit among Lords." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Apr 27 14:44:26 2010 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:44:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life In-Reply-To: References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be><4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be><4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be><4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be><4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be><7136E9BAE400497F9D66825A0FCDC659@Mildred> Message-ID: <8AF141340F0E4CADA48078EF16BADAF8@mikePC> Robert has posed an interesting problem which has lead me to read from the Lawbook Law 64C has a title "Director Responsible for Equity" - but it isn't really anything to do with equity at all it's about compensation (and indeed the word "equity" isn't in the Law at all. I'm sure that if your director's had read the Law Robert they might have avoided the error. Law 23 might be another way of pointing out the error of awarding 12 tricks Mike Amos -------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Frick" Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:27 AM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Day in the Life > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:11:16 -0300, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> Skype directory: grattan.endicott >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold >> New things succeed, as former things grow old." >> [Robert >> Herrick] . >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 11:07 PM >> Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life >> >> >>> Trying to impress a director who was talking down to me, I posed this >>> problem. >>> >>> A player is on track to win 12 tricks. While running the diamond suit in >>> dummy, there is a revoke in diamonds. This has no effect on play, so >>> declarer is now going to make 12 + 1. The second revoke in diamonds, >>> however, stops the run of diamonds and declarer makes only 9 tricks. How >>> do you rule? >>> >>> He said 12. I said it was 13. He tried to explain to me why I was wrong, >>> without much success. BTW, I mentioned the WBF and he said they are >>> irrelevant to the ACBL. >>> >>> So we went to a director who seemed really good at knowing the rules. >>> She >>> said 12. >>> >>> So I went to a national tournament director. He took a lot of time to >>> explain why the correct answer is 12. First, there is no rectification >>> for >>> a second revoke. As he had rule book, I could point out that this wasn't >>> right, but that did not slow him down. He then explained that Law 64C >>> does not apply to *each* revoke. The way I should see it is this. The >>> goal >>> of the laws is to restore equity and equity on this board is making 12 >>> tricks. >>> >>> And when I mentioned WBF, he said "Don't quote WBF regulations to me." >>> >>> With little hope now I went to the DIC, another national tournament >>> director often treated as a diety around here. His answer was 12. One >>> reason is that there is no rectification for a second revoke. He of all >>> people was not completely put off by the existence of the WBF. He >>> assured >>> me that everyone in the WBF would rule the same way. >>> >> +=+ The WBF Chief Tournament Director informs me that he would >> award 13 tricks. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Thanks. Prudence suggested that I not bring this up to the directors. But > I was dying to. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 27 16:33:51 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:33:51 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F1 (was Law 27A1...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:38:17 -0300, wrote: > Law 20F1, first sentence: > > "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may > request, but ***only*** at his own turn to call, an explanation > of the opponents' prior auction." > > Robert Frick: > >> The law should read that players can ask when it is their turn >> to take action. That's just common sense. So I think interpret >> it as an error in the laws and let players ask whenever they >> need to do something. >> >> My best example is this. >> >> 2D X >> >> RHO asks the meaning of your partner's double. That meaning >> depends on the meaning of the 2D bid. I think even Richard >> would ask the meaning of the 2D bid at this point, even though >> it is not his turn to call. > > Richard Hills: > > Since Bob is arguing "even Richard", I counter-argue that my > common sense differs from Bob. > > To me, common sense dictates that I read the opponents' System > Card at the start of the round or match. Thus I common- > sensically know whether 2D is Benjamin, showing an artificial > game force -- in which case my partner's double is lead- > directing for diamonds -- or whether 2D is Multi -- in which > case my partner's double is 15+ hcp and almost completely > artificial (denies 17-20 hcp balanced). > > If, however, the opponents have both bid five times, then my > partnership's common-sense agreement is that our calls have > only one meaning. Otherwise, if the meaning of our call > hinged upon the meaning of an opponent's fifth round call, we > would be up a gum tree without a paddle if an opponent > truthfully stated, "We have no agreement about this fifth > round call." I will argue that it is more practical to allow players explanations when it is there turn to act. But I find it comforting that someone is trying to follow this law. I apologize for misrepresenting you. Let's see, the opps ask you before opening lead to explain your bids (L20F1). You don't remember one of your bids. You....? From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 27 18:40:12 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:40:12 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life In-Reply-To: <8AF141340F0E4CADA48078EF16BADAF8@mikePC> References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer> <4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be> <4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be> <4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be> <4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be> <4BD14933.504@skynet.be> <4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be> <4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be> <7136E9BAE400497F9D66825A0FCDC659@Mildred> <8AF141340F0E4CADA48078EF16BADAF8@mikePC> Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:44:26 -0300, Mike Amos wrote: > Robert has posed an interesting problem which has lead me to read from > the > Lawbook > > Law 64C has a title "Director Responsible for Equity" - but it isn't > really > anything to do with equity at all it's about compensation (and indeed the > word "equity" isn't in the Law at all. > I'm sure that if your director's had read the Law Robert they might have > avoided the error. > > Law 23 might be another way of pointing out the error of awarding 12 > tricks > > Mike Amos > Between that ruling and another ruling by a different director, I got the feeling that "equity" was being used to refer to the par result on the hand. It was just a feeling, and I can't document that very well so I could be wrong. It wouldn't be worrisome except, for both rulings, the directors seemed to be more concerned with equity than following the details of the law. That makes the definition of equity very important. In the second ruling, there was a claim, first without stating a line a play. LHO could lead a diamond and RHO over-ruff dummy if dummy didn't ruff high. LHO then asked declarer how she would play the hand. LHO claimed that declarer just said she would ruff the diamond, whilst declarer claimed she said she would ruff the diamond high. The ruling was that the claim was good. Whatever you want to make of this ruling, one of the justifications was that ruffing high preserved equity. I can't see how this justification can be correct. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 28 01:05:23 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:05:23 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: From: "Harald Skj?ran" > Marvin French wrote: >> >> From: "Harald Skj?ran" >> >>> This is patently wrong. You can't assign non-existent scores. >> >> Who says I can't? > > Anyone using these methods say so. > And it's the only logical way to do it. Just try and think this > through yourself. > Ask the EBL or WBF how to do this and see what answers you get. That's like asking the ACBL how they do things, please no appeal to supposed authorities other than those on the Drafting Committee. They are the ones who know what intentions they had when creating the Laws. I do not hear them saying that "such a score replaces the score obtained in play" refers to anything but bridge scores, not bastardized imp versions of bridge scores or matchpoint scores. > > Try this very simple example: > You're playing IMPed teams. Try IMPed pairs and see what happens. > Due to a misexplanation from opps you reach 3NT, going one off > when > opps cach their five spade tricks on lead. > The TD/AC judges that with correct information there's a 50% > probability you'll reach 5C, making, and a 50% probability you'll > still reach 3NT. > Opponents reached 5C at the other table, scoring +600. What happens at the other table has nothing to do with what happens at my table. > > Scoring it "my" way, you'll get 50% of 0 IMPs for +600 vs 600 and > 50% > of -12 IMPs for -100 vs +600. > This means you lose 6 IMPs, exactly half the IMPs differance > between > making 5C and going one down in 3NT. > > Scoring it your way, you'll get a 350 (-100-600/2) difference in > score, losing 8 IMPs instead. So what? That's what the law says I get. > >> >>> Any such assigned scores (or weighted scores) has to be done by >>> computing the MPs (or IMPs) for each individual score and adding >>> these >>> togehter. Else you (might) get totally insane results. Give me an example of an insane result. >>> >> I was just going by what the Laws say, which is to subtract >> serious >> error cost from the normal compensation for the NOS. Any insane >> results come from the insane methods of computing weighted >> outcomes. > > Not true. You get perfectly sane results by computing weighted > outcomes. Fine. But weighted outcome of bridge scores, not artificial scores. > >> >> Computer-illiterate people in IMP-Pairs don't mind comparing with >> a >> Butler datum that is a non-existent score, WTP? > > Yes, I know. It's a simple methods that obtains reasonable > outcomes. > Although cross-IMPing is a much better method. > >> >> Many Four-Deal (Chicago) players go by the Laws of Duplicate >> Bridge >> for each board, scored separately. No matchpoints, no IMPs. In >> case >> a Director is needed, the sit-out or a host performs that >> function. >> In the case of serious error, the compensation is reduced by the >> cost of the serious error, WTP? > > True. But now you're talking about an "event" where your actual > scores > are your results. > MP and IMP are totally different - you're comparing apples and > oranges. My results are actual scores artificially turned into IMPs and MPs. First, determine the adjusted score, then turn it into MPs or IMPs. Don't put the cart before the horse. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 28 02:54:47 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:54:47 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <4BC97CD0.8020200@skynet.be> <4BCA3541.8080401@skynet.be><5D3345A1A0FF406AA299C1C8291AD674@MARVLAPTOP> <4BCEB32C.4070703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8F84667C275D40978678D394122160C1@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Surely different weights should lead to different final scores? > Different adjusted scores need not be a change in IMPs or MPs Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 28 03:01:39 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:01:39 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <44C86BDDA37A42A395DD28B566A5C991@Mildred> Message-ID: <9A2884FB6D72458D959BBF5402012281@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > > +=+ Weighted scores are recorded in the ultimate form of > scoring for the event. I see no obstacle to giving a pair 50% > of the matchpoints for +600 and 50% of the matchpoints > for -100. An appeals committee will award 50% of 'A' and > 50% of 'B', leaving the Director (or the Scorer) to translate > this into matchpoints. Do you have a problem with this? > And I thought you agreed with my view, my mistake. Why should an adjusted score depend on what other pairs in the field are doing? It has been a well-established principle that you don't look at other results when deciding on an adjusted score. Why should weighted scores be any different? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Apr 28 03:47:40 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:47:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? Message-ID: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is over, but it turns out not to be over, have you passed? Example 1: South makes a bid, West doubles, North and East pass, and South (who didn't notice the double) picks up his cards. Is this a final pass, so that South may not make a bid when someone says, "2C doubled"? Example 2: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles. North (who didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is over and picks up his cards. Can he correct his pass? Example 3: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles, and North passes. East (who didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is over and that North made a redundant fourth pass, and picks up his cards. Can he correct his pass? (Example 3 happened to me at the club last night. I made a balancing double and partner, who thought the auction was over, left it in for penalties.) From geller at nifty.com Wed Apr 28 05:02:44 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:02:44 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> Message-ID: <4BD7A554.9090901@nifty.com> Picking up one's bidding cards rather than making a call is an infraction, but should not constitute making a call. (This is handled by regulations of the RA, not TLB, so presumably an RA could adopt other regulations.) The director should require all the bidding cards to be restored and the auction should continue. The premature picking up of bidding cards is UI to the picker-upper's partner. The director should caution the premature picker-upper to follow proper procedure in the future, e.g., placing a pass card on the table even as the final call in the auction. Repeated violations could be subject to PP. Incidentally, here in Japan we require bidding cards to be kept on the table till the opening lead is faced (after 3rd hand is done with questions). I've read that some other RAs also require this. I personally think this rule is a good idea, and it would solve the problems raised in David's letter. -Bob David Grabiner ????????: > If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is over, but it > turns out not to be over, have you passed? > > Example 1: South makes a bid, West doubles, North and East pass, and South (who > didn't notice the double) picks up his cards. Is this a final pass, so that > South may not make a bid when someone says, "2C doubled"? > > Example 2: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles. North (who > didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is over and picks up his > cards. Can he correct his pass? > > Example 3: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles, and North > passes. East (who didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is over and > that North made a redundant fourth pass, and picks up his cards. Can he correct > his pass? > > (Example 3 happened to me at the club last night. I made a balancing double and > partner, who thought the auction was over, left it in for penalties.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 28 09:04:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:04:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> Message-ID: WBF 2009 General Conditions of Contest, page 20: "If a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed to have passed." But in a non-WBF event which lacks such a regulation, picking up your bidding cards during the auction would constitute an infraction. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 28 09:57:00 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:57:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples In-Reply-To: <8F84667C275D40978678D394122160C1@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <4BC97CD0.8020200@skynet.be> <4BCA3541.8080401@skynet.be><5D3345A1A0FF406AA299C1C8291AD674@MARVLAPTOP> <4BCEB32C.4070703@skynet.be> <8F84667C275D40978678D394122160C1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4BD7EA4C.4000309@skynet.be> Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> Surely different weights should lead to different final scores? >> > Different adjusted scores need not be a change in IMPs or MPs > Well, actually I happen to believe that they should. But the analogy is flawed, Marv. When awarding a weighted score in IMPs, we will often get that weights of, say, 30%, 35% and 40% (of one score and the remainder of another score) will all yield a result of +6IMPs. 41% up to 53% will then yield +7IMPs, but no score will be able to yield +6.5IMPS, because that simply does not exist (or rather, it does, but we round every time). So in the IMPs case, the reason why different weights yield the same result is because we round them to the same whole number. In theory, different weights DO give different results. So too in the standard way of calculating MPs after weighing scores. Every different weight yields a different MP, but perhaps we round them to the same numbers. Not so with your system. if half the room score +420, and half score +450, and you give a weighted score to one table, then in my system the MP for that table will move from 25%MP to 75%MP when the lower weight is changed from 0% to 100%, but in your system every possible weight will give a score of 50%MP to that table. And that is simply wrong. Really Marv, this is settled by WBF practice. And the practice is sound. > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 28 09:57:36 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:57:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> Message-ID: <000001cae6a8$77eac810$67c05830$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > WBF 2009 General Conditions of Contest, page 20: > > "If a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes his bidding cards from > the table he is deemed to have passed." > > But in a non-WBF event which lacks such a regulation, picking up your bidding > cards during the auction would constitute an infraction. Infraction? Of which law (or regulation)? I would call it an irregularity. Not that it matters much, except that there could hardly be any penalty or rectification for picking up the bidding cards prematurely. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 28 09:58:30 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:58:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples In-Reply-To: <9A2884FB6D72458D959BBF5402012281@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <44C86BDDA37A42A395DD28B566A5C991@Mildred> <9A2884FB6D72458D959BBF5402012281@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4BD7EAA6.2020705@skynet.be> Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Grattan" >> >> +=+ Weighted scores are recorded in the ultimate form of >> scoring for the event. I see no obstacle to giving a pair 50% >> of the matchpoints for +600 and 50% of the matchpoints >> for -100. An appeals committee will award 50% of 'A' and >> 50% of 'B', leaving the Director (or the Scorer) to translate >> this into matchpoints. Do you have a problem with this? >> > And I thought you agreed with my view, my mistake. > > Why should an adjusted score depend on what other pairs in the field > are doing? It has been a well-established principle that you don't > look at other results when deciding on an adjusted score. Why should > weighted scores be any different? > That is true, and the director will not look at the other scores when determining the weight of 50%. But surely he must look at the other scores in order to compare this adjusted score to - or else how is he going to calculate the outcome? > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2838 - Release Date: 04/27/10 08:27:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Wed Apr 28 10:21:39 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:21:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> Message-ID: <1272442899.10097.1372305833@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:47 -0400, "David Grabiner" wrote: > If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is over, but > it > turns out not to be over, have you passed? ... > Example 3: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles, and > North > passes. East (who didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is > over and > that North made a redundant fourth pass, and picks up his cards. Can he > correct > his pass? I phoned ACBL about something similar to Example 3 a few months back: the difference was that East stopped in mid-pick-up when he belatedly saw the double card, and made a bid. The opps were not happy. Butch Campbell at ACBL said that removing the cards does not constitute a call. The language "correct his pass" thus would seem to beg the question: there was no pass. Butch went on to suggest that a PP might put an end to the bad habit of picking up the cards. David From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Apr 28 10:49:04 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:49:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) examples In-Reply-To: <9A2884FB6D72458D959BBF5402012281@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6615114BE9854800A33EDFE0648D5842@MARVLAPTOP> <44C86BDDA37A42A395DD28B566A5C991@Mildred> <9A2884FB6D72458D959BBF5402012281@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <127A125D-C39D-421B-891B-CF601EA04119@btinternet.com> On 28 Apr 2010, at 02:01, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Grattan" >> >> +=+ Weighted scores are recorded in the ultimate form of >> scoring for the event. I see no obstacle to giving a pair 50% >> of the matchpoints for +600 and 50% of the matchpoints >> for -100. An appeals committee will award 50% of 'A' and >> 50% of 'B', leaving the Director (or the Scorer) to translate >> this into matchpoints. Do you have a problem with this? >> > And I thought you agreed with my view, my mistake. > > Why should an adjusted score depend on what other pairs in the field > are doing? It has been a well-established principle that you don't > look at other results when deciding on an adjusted score. Why should > weighted scores be any different? What leads you to believe they are? Gordon Rainsford From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Wed Apr 28 10:57:10 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:57:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 Message-ID: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com> Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East pass. South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of discussion here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. Director is called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S rather than 650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post comes from discussion later. The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table whether it was passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. What is the correct ruling in a situation where the UI (BIT in this case) clearly conveyed uncertainty about the chosen action but it is not clear what alternative(s) the UI transmitter had in mind? David From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 28 12:41:33 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:41:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life References: <5BC94C9AF76146AB9ED1B4997CAA42D9@acer><4BCEFAEE.20708@skynet.be><4BCEFF7C.80302@ulb.ac.be><4BD00906.4030903@skynet.be><4BD01C2E.8000504@ulb.ac.be><4BD14933.504@skynet.be><4BD1A728.1010509@skynet.be><4BD1C808.7030104@skynet.be><7136E9BAE400497F9D66825A0FCDC659@Mildred> <8AF141340F0E4CADA48078EF16BADAF8@mikePC> Message-ID: <0BCF2A8498BB48079665CCE74C7831B0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Day in the Life > Robert has posed an interesting problem which has lead me to read from the > Lawbook > > Law 64C has a title "Director Responsible for Equity" - but it isn't > really > anything to do with equity at all it's about compensation (and indeed the > word "equity" isn't in the Law at all. > I'm sure that if your director's had read the Law Robert they might have > avoided the error. > > Law 23 might be another way of pointing out the error of awarding 12 > tricks > > Mike Amos > +=+ Law 12 defines 'damage' and is the law that applies "when after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score". Perhaps we need to read over again the given facts. As I understand the position we are dealing here with the position immediately prior to the second revoke when the expectation is 13 tricks, this including the rectification of the first revoke. If that rectification had only set the player on course for 12 tricks the answer would be 12 tricks, but this is not what I am reading in the example. The case quoted says " While running the diamond suit in dummy there is a revoke in diamonds. This has no effect on play, so declarer is now going to make 12 + 1. The second revoke in diamonds, however, stops the run of diamonds and declarer makes only 9 tricks." The situation described has to be one in which Law 64A2 applies. This can only be so if there is a 'subsequent' trick to transfer. The damage is the difference between 9 tricks and 13 tricks I do not even think it necessary to refer to Law 23 in these circumstances to obtain justice for the NOS. The error to avoid is to suggest a trick to be transferred is a trick won prior to the first revoke and not, therefore, available for transfer. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Apr 28 14:13:08 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:13:08 +0800 Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <251941986C4840EA976BCA0F65A74A20@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Babcock" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:57 PM Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and > opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East pass. > South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of discussion > here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. Director is > called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S rather than > 650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post comes > from discussion later. > > The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been > suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table whether it was > passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. > > What is the correct ruling in a situation where the UI (BIT in this > case) clearly conveyed uncertainty about the chosen action but it is not > clear what alternative(s) the UI transmitter had in mind? > We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. In this case, North must consider his alternatives. To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", and most likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a director consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could have been suggested by the BIT. bill > David > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Apr 28 14:49:26 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 28 Apr 2010 14:49:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?the_intent_of_Law_16B1?= Message-ID: <20100428124927.021B743EC3C@f55.poczta.interia.pl> "Bill & Helen Kemp" pisze: > We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. So far, so good. The doubler isn't certain whether he should double or not. But that doesn't make 5H any more attractive than it was before. > In this case, North must consider his alternatives. > To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", Nope. The doubler might as well have a heart void and AQx of spades. For him 5H might be totally out of the question and the only thing he was contemplating was "how sure am I that they will go down? How often will they score 590 despite my spades?" This is a similar situation to, say, 1NT - 2NT (slow) where 2NT is invitational. > and most > likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). > After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a > director > consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could have > been > suggested by the BIT. This is exactly what you cannot do. The double cannot, by definition, make both calls (pass and 5H) more attractive. This is a contradiction in terms. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------- Atrakcyjne mieszkania i dzialki. Sprawdz oferty! http://linkint.pl/f265f From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 28 14:55:51 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:55:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com> <251941986C4840EA976BCA0F65A74A20@acer> Message-ID: <0E192C004BF64259AA7BBCA22614B554@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Babcock" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:57 PM > Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > >> Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and >> opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East pass. >> South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of discussion >> here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. Director is >> called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S rather than >> 650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post comes >> from discussion later. >> >> The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been >> suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table whether it was >> passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. >> >> What is the correct ruling in a situation where the UI (BIT in this >> case) clearly conveyed uncertainty about the chosen action but it is not >> clear what alternative(s) the UI transmitter had in mind? >> > We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. > In this case, North must consider his alternatives. > To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", and most > likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). > After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a > director > consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could have > been > suggested by the BIT. > > bill > >> David < +=+ The question to be answered is whether action (for example bidding 5H) is demonstrably more suggested by the BIT than is inaction - i.e.Pass. Personally I think it is. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml at arcor.de Wed Apr 28 15:17:24 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:17:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 In-Reply-To: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <15701446.1272460644410.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> David Babcock wrote: > Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and > opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East pass. > South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of discussion > here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. Director is > called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S rather than > 650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post comes > from discussion later. > > The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been > suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table whether it was > passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. Yes, this is a poster child for a "demonstrably suggested" bid. However, you also have to check whether pass was an LA for N. Thomas Traumziele - von Beschreibung bis Buchung jetzt kompakt auf den Reise-Seiten von Arcor.de! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.reise From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Apr 28 15:18:00 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:18:00 +0800 Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com><251941986C4840EA976BCA0F65A74A20@acer> <0E192C004BF64259AA7BBCA22614B554@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:13 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Babcock" >> To: "BLML" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:57 PM >> Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 >> >> >>> Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and >>> opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East pass. >>> South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of discussion >>> here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. Director is >>> called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S rather than >>> 650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post comes >>> from discussion later. >>> >>> The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been >>> suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table whether it was >>> passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. >>> >>> What is the correct ruling in a situation where the UI (BIT in this >>> case) clearly conveyed uncertainty about the chosen action but it is not >>> clear what alternative(s) the UI transmitter had in mind? >>> >> We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. >> In this case, North must consider his alternatives. >> To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", and most >> likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). >> After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a >> director >> consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could have >> been >> suggested by the BIT. >> >> bill >> >>> David > < > +=+ The question to be answered is whether action (for example > bidding 5H) is demonstrably more suggested by the BIT > than is inaction - i.e.Pass. > Personally I think it is. . > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The original director (and I) also believe this. My problem with this law is the word "could" which appears to be often ignored in discussions on the law. Does "could" in the law reduce the burden of proof required from probable to at least as probable as other alternatives' bill > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Wed Apr 28 15:36:42 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:36:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 In-Reply-To: References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com><251941986C4840EA976BCA0F65A74A20@acer> <0E192C004BF64259AA7BBCA22614B554@Mildred> Message-ID: <15442943.1272461802623.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:55 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ******************************** > > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > > [Robert Herrick] > . > > > "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''' > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:13 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > > > > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "David Babcock" > >> To: "BLML" > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:57 PM > >> Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > >> > >> > >>> Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and > >>> opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East pass. > >>> South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of discussion > >>> here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. Director is > >>> called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S rather than > >>> 650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post comes > >>> from discussion later. > >>> > >>> The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been > >>> suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table whether it > was > >>> passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. > >>> > >>> What is the correct ruling in a situation where the UI (BIT in this > >>> case) clearly conveyed uncertainty about the chosen action but it is > not > >>> clear what alternative(s) the UI transmitter had in mind? > >>> > >> We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. > >> In this case, North must consider his alternatives. > >> To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", and most > >> likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). > >> After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a > >> director > >> consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could have > >> been > >> suggested by the BIT. > >> > >> bill > >> > >>> David > > < > > +=+ The question to be answered is whether action (for example > > bidding 5H) is demonstrably more suggested by the BIT > > than is inaction - i.e.Pass. > > Personally I think it is. . > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The original director (and I) also believe this. > My problem with this law is the word "could" which appears to be often > ignored in discussions on the law. > Does "could" in the law reduce the burden of proof required from probable to > at least as probable as other alternatives' The law means that, compared to without a hesitation, a bid has become in some sense significantly more likely to succeed that without hesitation. If you think that, o without the hesitation bidding 5H has a 10% chance of being successful o with the hesitation, bidding 5H has a 25% chance of being successful, the 5H is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. Thomas Traumziele - von Beschreibung bis Buchung jetzt kompakt auf den Reise-Seiten von Arcor.de! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.reise From jrmayne at mindspring.com Wed Apr 28 15:36:45 2010 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 Message-ID: <26757883.1272461805471.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: info at caperesort.com > >Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and >opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East pass. >South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of discussion >here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. Director is >called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S rather than >650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post comes >from discussion later. > >The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been >suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table whether it was >passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. Who cares? If S was considering passing, this makes pulling the double more attractive than if S has a comfortable double. If S was considering bidding, this makes pulling the double way more attractive. Further, after 4H-P-P-4S/P-P-X, this is a pass-or-die double. This does not invite the 4H bidder to do anything; if the 4H bidder had 1=10=2=0, she should have bid 5H on the frontside. This looks to me to be an easy ruling - and we haven't even seen the hands. --JRM > >What is the correct ruling in a situation where the UI (BIT in this >case) clearly conveyed uncertainty about the chosen action but it is not >clear what alternative(s) the UI transmitter had in mind? > >David >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Apr 28 15:37:25 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:37:25 +0800 Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com><251941986C4840EA976BCA0F65A74A20@acer><0E192C004BF64259AA7BBCA22614B554@Mildred> Message-ID: <662164DACF414529BB8A67BBB13DD478@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 large snip > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:55 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > >>> We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. >>> In this case, North must consider his alternatives. >>> To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", and most >>> likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). >>> After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a >>> director >>> consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could have >>> been >>> suggested by the BIT. >>> >>> bill >>> >>>> David >> < >> +=+ The question to be answered is whether action (for example >> bidding 5H) is demonstrably more suggested by the BIT >> than is inaction - i.e.Pass. >> Personally I think it is. . >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The original director (and I) also believe this. > My problem with this law is the word "could" which appears to be often > ignored in discussions on the law. > Does "could" in the law reduce the burden of proof required from probable > to > at least as probable as other alternatives' > I have put this badly I will attempt to ask the correct question when I clarify it in my mind bill > bill >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 28 15:45:00 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:45:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> Message-ID: On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:47 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is > over, but it > turns out not to be over, have you passed? > > Example 1: South makes a bid, West doubles, North and East pass, > and South (who > didn't notice the double) picks up his cards. Is this a final > pass, so that > South may not make a bid when someone says, "2C doubled"? > > Example 2: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles. > North (who > didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is over and picks > up his > cards. Can he correct his pass? > > Example 3: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles, > and North > passes. East (who didn't notice the double) thinks that the > auction is over and > that North made a redundant fourth pass, and picks up his cards. > Can he correct > his pass? This isn't a question for this forum. TFLB is totally silent on the use of bidding cards, so the answer is entirely a matter for zonal regulation or delegation by the ZA to lower-level RAs [L18F]. Absent any guidance from above, an individual TD can only make his own determination based on prevailing local practice. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Apr 28 16:18:13 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:18:13 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> Message-ID: <3FA0E7F669F545BCBE281035505DB710@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? > On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:47 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > >> If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is >> over, but it >> turns out not to be over, have you passed? >> >> Example 1: South makes a bid, West doubles, North and East pass, >> and South (who >> didn't notice the double) picks up his cards. Is this a final >> pass, so that >> South may not make a bid when someone says, "2C doubled"? >> >> Example 2: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles. >> North (who >> didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is over and picks >> up his >> cards. Can he correct his pass? >> >> Example 3: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles, >> and North >> passes. East (who didn't notice the double) thinks that the >> auction is over and >> that North made a redundant fourth pass, and picks up his cards. >> Can he correct >> his pass? > > This isn't a question for this forum. TFLB is totally silent on the > use of bidding cards, so the answer is entirely a matter for zonal > regulation or delegation by the ZA to lower-level RAs [L18F]. Absent > any guidance from above, an individual TD can only make his own > determination based on prevailing local practice. > Regardless of the RA authorizing a method of making calls under L18F unless they have regulated for this specific instance (picking up bidding cards instead of passing) then L22A.2 shows that the auction has not ended and that North may still call. bill > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 28 16:31:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:31:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 In-Reply-To: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <3839F593-A2EE-4C3E-9AF2-AA5664EC8821@starpower.net> On Apr 28, 2010, at 4:57 AM, David Babcock wrote: > Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and > opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East pass. > South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of discussion > here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. Director is > called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S rather than > 650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post comes > from discussion later. > > The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been > suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table whether > it was > passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. > > What is the correct ruling in a situation where the UI (BIT in this > case) clearly conveyed uncertainty about the chosen action but it > is not > clear what alternative(s) the UI transmitter had in mind? The director determines the set of possible alternatives to South's double that might have accounted for his huddle, and decides whether they, collectively, "could demonstrably have [suggested]" [L16B1(a)] that North's 5H bid was more likely to be successful than some other "[choice] from among [his] logical alternatives". This does not depend on whether South's set of possible alternatives has one member or more than one, notwithstanding that the latter will typically make the TD's job a bit harder. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 28 16:29:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:29:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <3FA0E7F669F545BCBE281035505DB710@acer> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <3FA0E7F669F545BCBE281035505DB710@acer> Message-ID: <4BD84650.802@ulb.ac.be> Bill & Helen Kemp a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:45 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? > > > >> On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:47 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> >> >>> If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is >>> over, but it >>> turns out not to be over, have you passed? >>> >>> Example 1: South makes a bid, West doubles, North and East pass, >>> and South (who >>> didn't notice the double) picks up his cards. Is this a final >>> pass, so that >>> South may not make a bid when someone says, "2C doubled"? >>> >>> Example 2: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles. >>> North (who >>> didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is over and picks >>> up his >>> cards. Can he correct his pass? >>> >>> Example 3: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles, >>> and North >>> passes. East (who didn't notice the double) thinks that the >>> auction is over and >>> that North made a redundant fourth pass, and picks up his cards. >>> Can he correct >>> his pass? >>> >> This isn't a question for this forum. TFLB is totally silent on the >> use of bidding cards, so the answer is entirely a matter for zonal >> regulation or delegation by the ZA to lower-level RAs [L18F]. Absent >> any guidance from above, an individual TD can only make his own >> determination based on prevailing local practice. >> >> > Regardless of the RA authorizing a method of making calls under L18F unless > they have regulated for this specific instance (picking up bidding cards > instead of passing) then L22A.2 shows that the auction has not ended and > that North may still call. > Minor or not so minor quibble : shan't bidding cards rest on the table until the lead ? (not that I always comply with this ; in fact, in Brussels, picking up one's cards, or not putting any when in passout of an opening bid, is fairly common) Notice that in example 1, that somenoe assumes that pcking the cards was equialent to a pass , and if it's picker's partner, picker might be disallowed to change one's bid. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Apr 28 16:53:51 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:53:51 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <3FA0E7F669F545BCBE281035505DB710@acer> <4BD84650.802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <246EF5E1A3874C01A0E7ECF5D7136B9B@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? Bill & Helen Kemp a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:45 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? > Snip >>> >> This isn't a question for this forum. TFLB is totally silent on the >> use of bidding cards, so the answer is entirely a matter for zonal >> regulation or delegation by the ZA to lower-level RAs [L18F]. Absent >> any guidance from above, an individual TD can only make his own >> determination based on prevailing local practice. >> >> > Regardless of the RA authorizing a method of making calls under L18F > unless > they have regulated for this specific instance (picking up bidding cards > instead of passing) then L22A.2 shows that the auction has not ended and > that North may still call. > Minor or not so minor quibble : shan't bidding cards rest on the table until the lead ? (not that I always comply with this ; in fact, in Brussels, picking up one's cards, or not putting any when in passout of an opening bid, is fairly common) Notice that in example 1, that somenoe assumes that pcking the cards was equialent to a pass , and if it's picker's partner, picker might be disallowed to change one's bid. > I don't believe that the director can determine a players call unless it is predetermined by law or regulation. He may choose to advise players of their legal obligations but it is up to the players to judge that the calls that they make conform to the legal and ethical standards required by the laws (and up to directors to adjust where lapses occur). bill _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Apr 28 17:01:09 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:01:09 +0800 Subject: [BLML] The intent of could in Law 16B1 - was the intent of Law 16B1 References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com><251941986C4840EA976BCA0F65A74A20@acer><0E192C004BF64259AA7BBCA22614B554@Mildred> <662164DACF414529BB8A67BBB13DD478@acer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:18 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > large snip > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Grattan" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 >> >>>> We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. >>>> In this case, North must consider his alternatives. >>>> To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", and most >>>> likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). >>>> After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a >>>> director >>>> consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could have >>>> been >>>> suggested by the BIT. >>>> >>>> bill >>>> >>>>> David >>> < >>> +=+ The question to be answered is whether action (for example >>> bidding 5H) is demonstrably more suggested by the BIT >>> than is inaction - i.e.Pass. >>> Personally I think it is. . >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> The original director (and I) also believe this. >> My problem with this law is the word "could" which appears to be often >> ignored in discussions on the law. >> Does "could" in the law reduce the burden of proof required from probable >> to >> at least as probable as other alternatives' >> > > I have put this badly > I will attempt to ask the correct question when I clarify it in my mind > > bill > >> bill I think that I only need to know whether "could" in L16B.1 is simply the past tense of can or whether it has a softer meaning as suggested in some online dictionaries? bill >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 28 17:18:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:18:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 In-Reply-To: References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com><251941986C4840EA976BCA0F65A74A20@acer> <0E192C004BF64259AA7BBCA22614B554@Mildred> Message-ID: <9805B423-D8CA-41D9-9730-8AC80CD9DB01@starpower.net> On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > From: "Grattan" > >>> From: "David Babcock" >>> >>>> Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and >>>> opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East >>>> pass. >>>> South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of >>>> discussion >>>> here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. >>>> Director is >>>> called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S >>>> rather than >>>> 650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post >>>> comes >>>> from discussion later. >>>> >>>> The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been >>>> suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table >>>> whether it was >>>> passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. >>>> >>>> What is the correct ruling in a situation where the UI (BIT in this >>>> case) clearly conveyed uncertainty about the chosen action but >>>> it is not >>>> clear what alternative(s) the UI transmitter had in mind? >>> >>> We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. >>> In this case, North must consider his alternatives. >>> To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", >>> and most >>> likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). >>> After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a >>> director >>> consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could >>> have >>> been >>> suggested by the BIT. >>>> >> >> +=+ The question to be answered is whether action (for example >> bidding 5H) is demonstrably more suggested by the BIT >> than is inaction - i.e.Pass. >> Personally I think it is. . > > The original director (and I) also believe this. > My problem with this law is the word "could" which appears to be often > ignored in discussions on the law. > Does "could" in the law reduce the burden of proof required from > probable to > at least as probable as other alternatives' Wouldn't that raise the burden of proof rather than reduce it? We know that TFLB uses "probable" in the sense of "plausible" rather than in the sense of "greater than 50%" -- as, for example, in L12C1 (e)(ii). The history of the evolution of the laws as I understand it suggests that the phrase "could... have been" [L16B1(a)] is there to allow the director to determine that the specific circumstances of a particular case are such that it "could not have been" for reasons beyond the purview of L16. Imagine a North making a low-level double, defined in his methods as 100% penalty, after a prolonged and obvious show of uncertainty, and South subsequently taking it out with a hand on which leaving it appears to be a reasonable choice, in an obvious apparent violation of L16B1. But now imagine that immediately upon hearing West's call, South, on the same side of the screen, has scribbled a note to him that says "I will pull any double". The TD might then decide that his pull "could not have been suggested", despite whatever UI might be generated, by anything that occurred afterwards. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Wed Apr 28 17:19:02 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:19:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] The intent of could in Law 16B1 - was the intent of Law 16B1 In-Reply-To: References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com><251941986C4840EA976BCA0F65A74A20@acer><0E192C004BF64259AA7BBCA22614B554@Mildred> <662164DACF414529BB8A67BBB13DD478@acer> Message-ID: <24143735.1272467942970.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:18 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > > > > large snip > > > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Grattan" > >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:55 PM > >> Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > >> > >>>> We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. > >>>> In this case, North must consider his alternatives. > >>>> To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", and > most > >>>> likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). > >>>> After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a > >>>> director > >>>> consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could have > >>>> been > >>>> suggested by the BIT. > >>>> > >>>> bill > >>>> > >>>>> David > >>> < > >>> +=+ The question to be answered is whether action (for example > >>> bidding 5H) is demonstrably more suggested by the BIT > >>> than is inaction - i.e.Pass. > >>> Personally I think it is. . > >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > >> The original director (and I) also believe this. > >> My problem with this law is the word "could" which appears to be often > >> ignored in discussions on the law. > >> Does "could" in the law reduce the burden of proof required from > probable > >> to > >> at least as probable as other alternatives' > >> > > > > I have put this badly > > I will attempt to ask the correct question when I clarify it in my mind > > > > bill > > > >> bill > > I think that I only need to know whether "could" in L16B.1 is simply the > past tense of can or whether it has a softer meaning as suggested in some > online dictionaries? The intent is "demonstrably suggested". Not "hypothetically suggested". "demonstrably" was added to L16B1 in I think the 1997 law book to clarify the intent. Thomas Traumziele - von Beschreibung bis Buchung jetzt kompakt auf den Reise-Seiten von Arcor.de! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.reise From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Apr 28 17:31:24 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:31:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 In-Reply-To: <9805B423-D8CA-41D9-9730-8AC80CD9DB01@starpower.net> References: <1272445030.15350.1372308459@webmail.messagingengine.com><251941 986C4840EA976BCA0F65A74A20@acer><0E192C004BF64259AA7BBCA22614B554@Mildred>< FEEC46C335CA435091D6EF146E118DD5@acer> <9805B423-D8CA-41D9-9730-8AC80CD9DB01@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BD854CC.3040208@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > >> From: "Grattan" >> >>>> From: "David Babcock" >>>> >>>>> Open Swiss at an ACBL Regional. Red against white, North deals and >>>>> opens 4H. East and South pass. West bids 4S. North and East >>>>> pass. >>>>> South breaks tempo (assume that is agreed for the sake of >>>>> discussion >>>>> here) and eventually doubles. North pulls to 5H, making. >>>>> Director is >>>>> called and rules the result is 4SX down three, 500 for N/S >>>>> rather than >>>>> 650. N/S are unhappy but their team does not appeal; this post >>>>> comes >>>>> from discussion later. >>>>> >>>>> The question was whether the 5H bid "demonstrably could have been >>>>> suggested" by the BIT, when it was not clear at the table >>>>> whether it was >>>>> passing or bidding rather than doubling that South was considering. >>>>> >>>>> What is the correct ruling in a situation where the UI (BIT in this >>>>> case) clearly conveyed uncertainty about the chosen action but >>>>> it is not >>>>> clear what alternative(s) the UI transmitter had in mind? >>>> We have been told that the BIT clearly conveyed uncertainty. >>>> In this case, North must consider his alternatives. >>>> To me the BIT says, "your choice, leave it in or take it out", >>>> and most >>>> likely has suggested that North pass or bid (probably 5H). >>>> After checking the hand record for unexpected problems I would as a >>>> director >>>> consider that I had demonstrated that either of these calls could >>>> have >>>> been >>>> suggested by the BIT. >>> +=+ The question to be answered is whether action (for example >>> bidding 5H) is demonstrably more suggested by the BIT >>> than is inaction - i.e.Pass. >>> Personally I think it is. . >> The original director (and I) also believe this. >> My problem with this law is the word "could" which appears to be often >> ignored in discussions on the law. >> Does "could" in the law reduce the burden of proof required from >> probable to >> at least as probable as other alternatives' > > Wouldn't that raise the burden of proof rather than reduce it? We > know that TFLB uses "probable" in the sense of "plausible" rather > than in the sense of "greater than 50%" -- as, for example, in L12C1 > (e)(ii). > > The history of the evolution of the laws as I understand it suggests > that the phrase "could... have been" [L16B1(a)] is there to allow the > director to determine that the specific circumstances of a particular > case are such that it "could not have been" for reasons beyond the > purview of L16. > > Imagine a North making a low-level double, defined in his methods as > 100% penalty, after a prolonged and obvious show of uncertainty, and > South subsequently taking it out with a hand on which leaving it > appears to be a reasonable choice, in an obvious apparent violation > of L16B1. > > But now imagine that immediately upon hearing West's call, South, on > the same side of the screen, has scribbled a note to him that says "I > will pull any double". The TD might then decide that his pull "could > not have been suggested", despite whatever UI might be generated, by > anything that occurred afterwards. hum! UI insurance back? prior discussion on blml didn't acknowledge the practice. jpr > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Apr 28 18:56:56 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:56:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 In-Reply-To: <20100428124927.021B743EC3C@f55.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20100428124927.021B743EC3C@f55.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <809319.41120.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Konrad Ciborowski] This is exactly what you cannot do. The double cannot, by definition, make both calls (pass and 5H) more attractive. This is a contradiction in terms. [Nigel] Konrad is right, again. That is why the law-book should stipulate that when the director polls a player's peers, he should ask them *two* questions: "what would you do (without the unauthorised information)?" and "which actions were made more attractive by the unauthorised information?" Also the law book should simply refer to "alternatives" rather than "*logical* alternatives" Theory is fun. Unfortunately, in real life, Konrad will admit that an experienced partnership *know* which alternative was suggested, even when it is unclear to the director or other players. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Apr 29 02:40:03 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:40:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute apass? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cae6a8$77eac810$67c05830$@no> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <000001cae6a8$77eac810$67c05830$@no> Message-ID: <7A931393704947D2A34B67C82D150A37@erdos> "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> WBF 2009 General Conditions of Contest, page 20: >> >> "If a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes his bidding > cards from >> the table he is deemed to have passed." >> >> But in a non-WBF event which lacks such a regulation, picking up your > bidding >> cards during the auction would constitute an infraction. > > Infraction? Of which law (or regulation)? > > I would call it an irregularity. > > Not that it matters much, except that there could hardly be any penalty or > rectification for picking up the bidding cards prematurely. It is unauthorized information, though. When my partner mistakenly picked up his bidding cards after I made a balancing double, I had the UI that he didn't notice my double, and I was required to make the one lead which would have been a LA absent the UI, my singleton trump. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 29 09:46:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:46:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> Message-ID: <4BD93939.7040303@skynet.be> I think this problem should be simple: When a player who knows he has to make a call, takes up his bidding cards instead, he has made an infraction. We must treat this as a pass, since otherwise an infractor gets away with two calls for the price of one. However, when a player who does not know he has to make a call (because he has not noticed some call by his LHO) picks up his bidding cards, he is innocent of everything except inattention. We must treat this as a call not made, otherwise a non-infractor gets punished for an infraction sadly all too frequently made by others. Taking up one's bidding cards when one believes there is no more call to be made is not an infraction (except in countries like Japan and Belgium, where the bidding cards have to be left until the opening lead), so one cannot be punished for it. The inattention will be brought to his attention, and no useful UI has been passed. Of course the problem remains of someone not noticing a double on his last call. He picks up the bidding cards and starts to play his contract, which he believes to be undoubled. But I think there is no solution to that one. Herman. David Grabiner wrote: > If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is over, but it > turns out not to be over, have you passed? > > Example 1: South makes a bid, West doubles, North and East pass, and South (who > didn't notice the double) picks up his cards. Is this a final pass, so that > South may not make a bid when someone says, "2C doubled"? > > Example 2: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles. North (who > didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is over and picks up his > cards. Can he correct his pass? > > Example 3: North makes a bid, East and South pass, West doubles, and North > passes. East (who didn't notice the double) thinks that the auction is over and > that North made a redundant fourth pass, and picks up his cards. Can he correct > his pass? > > (Example 3 happened to me at the club last night. I made a balancing double and > partner, who thought the auction was over, left it in for penalties.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2838 - Release Date: 04/27/10 08:27:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 29 10:06:28 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:06:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BD93939.7040303@skynet.be> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BD93939.7040303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301cae772$df4fd700$9def8500$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > I think this problem should be simple: > When a player who knows he has to make a call, takes up his bidding cards > instead, he has made an infraction. We must treat this as a pass, since otherwise > an infractor gets away with two calls for the price of one. > However, when a player who does not know he has to make a call (because he > has not noticed some call by his LHO) picks up his bidding cards, he is innocent of > everything except inattention. We must treat this as a call not made, otherwise a > non-infractor gets punished for an infraction sadly all too frequently made by > others. "Infraction" requires a law (or regulation). Which law is violated? I expect you to say Law 17C, but he hasn't violated that law. He just hasn't made his call in this turn yet. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 29 10:23:33 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:23:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BD93939.7040303@skynet.be> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BD93939.7040303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BD94205.5080809@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I think this problem should be simple: > When a player who knows he has to make a call, takes up his bidding > cards instead, he has made an infraction. We must treat this as a pass, > since otherwise an infractor gets away with two calls for the price of one. > However, when a player who does not know he has to make a call (because > he has not noticed some call by his LHO) picks up his bidding cards, he > is innocent of everything except inattention. We must treat this as a > call not made, otherwise a non-infractor gets punished for an infraction > sadly all too frequently made by others. > > Taking up one's bidding cards when one believes there is no more call to > be made is not an infraction (except in countries like Japan and > Belgium, where the bidding cards have to be left until the opening > lead), so one cannot be punished for it. The inattention will be brought > to his attention, and no useful UI has been passed. > > Of course the problem remains of someone not noticing a double on his > last call. He picks up the bidding cards and starts to play his > contract, which he believes to be undoubled. But I think there is no > solution to that one. > I agree with the first two paragraphs ; about the third one, there was once a trend to suggest that the final contract be mentioned orally by declarer, all other players being responsible for correction ; OBs would be well advised to make this a rule. From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 29 10:29:06 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:29:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BD94205.5080809@ulb.ac.be> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BD93939.7040303@skynet.be> <4BD94205.5080809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001cae776$08d95b20$1a8c1160$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > I think this problem should be simple: > > When a player who knows he has to make a call, takes up his bidding > > cards instead, he has made an infraction. We must treat this as a > > pass, since otherwise an infractor gets away with two calls for the price of one. > > However, when a player who does not know he has to make a call > > (because he has not noticed some call by his LHO) picks up his bidding > > cards, he is innocent of everything except inattention. We must treat > > this as a call not made, otherwise a non-infractor gets punished for > > an infraction sadly all too frequently made by others. > > > > Taking up one's bidding cards when one believes there is no more call > > to be made is not an infraction (except in countries like Japan and > > Belgium, where the bidding cards have to be left until the opening > > lead), so one cannot be punished for it. The inattention will be > > brought to his attention, and no useful UI has been passed. > > > > Of course the problem remains of someone not noticing a double on his > > last call. He picks up the bidding cards and starts to play his > > contract, which he believes to be undoubled. But I think there is no > > solution to that one. > > > I agree with the first two paragraphs ; about the third one, there was once a trend > to suggest that the final contract be mentioned orally by declarer, all other players > being responsible for correction ; OBs would be well advised to make this a rule. So that while maintaining the protection against other tables hearing the auction all tables shall be given the opportunity to hear the final contract at every other table (within hearing distance)? I don't think this is such a good idea. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 29 10:42:33 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:42:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <000001cae776$08d95b20$1a8c1160$@no> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BD93939.7040303@skynet.be> <4BD94205.5080809@ulb.ac.be> <000001cae776$08d95b20$1a8c1160$@no> Message-ID: <4BD94679.30807@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> >> I agree with the first two paragraphs ; about the third one, there was >> > once a trend > >> to suggest that the final contract be mentioned orally by declarer, all >> > other players > >> being responsible for correction ; OBs would be well advised to make this >> > a rule. > > So that while maintaining the protection against other tables hearing the > auction all tables shall be given the opportunity to hear the final contract > at every other table (within hearing distance)? > AG : notice that if this is e.g. a Patton-like teams competition, or separate matches, as we often play in Belgium team competition, then knowing what the contract is at nearby tables, where they play other deals, would be of little help. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 29 10:48:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:48:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cae6a8$77eac810$67c05830$@no> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>But in a non-WBF event which lacks such a regulation, picking >>up your bidding cards during the auction would constitute an >>infraction. Sven Pran: >Infraction? Of which law (or regulation)? Introduction, first sentence: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure." Law 90B8 - Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty: "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director." Richard Hills: And a bidding box regulation is a tournament regulation pursuant to Law 18F which defines correct procedure for the use of bidding boxes. Sven Pran: >I would call it an irregularity. Richard Hills: My belief, not yet refuted by a corporate decision of the WBF Laws Committee, is that an irregularity committed by a player is necessarily an infraction. Sven Pran: >Not that it matters much, except that there could hardly be >any penalty or rectification for picking up the bidding cards >prematurely. Richard Hills: Yes and no. Some informal methods of passing can create confusion about when the auction has legally ended. For example, on Tuesday night an opponent accidentally tapped the table, which the rest of us deemed to be a synonym for a pass, but the opponent was still considering her call. Such informality in failing to pedantically draw a green card from one's bidding box, and failing to assume that one's opponents might be pedants, has many times resulted in the application of Law 24B for a premature opening lead. Herman De Wael: >>I think this problem should be simple: [snip] >>We must treat this as a pass, [snip] >>We must treat this as a call not made, [big snip] Richard Hills: Who is "we"? If "we" are Directors across the world, then "we" must abide by the international 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, and by our local Regulating Authority's Law 18F bidding box rules, in accordance with Law 81B2. Since Herman De Wael is part of that "we", he MUST NOT violate Law 81B2. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 29 10:52:21 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:52:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> Message-ID: <002401cae779$48c50150$da4f03f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> > If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is > over, but it > turns out not to be over, have you passed? > Eric responds: This is isn't a question for this forum. TFLB is totally silent on the use of bidding cards, so the answer is entirely a matter for zonal regulation or delegation by the ZA to lower-level RAs [L18F]. Absent any guidance from above, an individual TD can only make his own determination based on prevailing local practice ton: I don't agree with this approach. One question is whether an RA may deviate from the bridge laws in its regulations. I don't think it should. But as long as such regulation doesn't exist it certainly is bound by the laws themselves. And our laws demand three consecutive passes after a bid to close the auction. So the intention of the player picking up his cards determines the decision to be made. If he wanted to pass OK, but if he thought the auction being closed already he just picked up his cards and did not pass. And even if a RA defines such action as a pass independent of the player's intention we still have L25A telling the TD that such pass can be replaced if it was unintended. Conclusion: picking up bidding cards should not be treated as passing by default. ton From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Thu Apr 29 11:29:14 2010 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:29:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100429092923.E4919990C0B8@relay2.webreus.nl> At 10:18 29-4-2010, Herman de Wael wrote: >I think this problem should be simple: >When a player who knows he has to make a call, takes up his bidding >cards instead, he has made an infraction. We must treat this as a >pass, since otherwise an infractor gets away with two calls for the >price of one. >However, when a player who does not know he has to make a call >(because he has not noticed some call by his LHO) picks up his >bidding cards, he is innocent of everything except inattention. We >must treat this as a call not made, otherwise a non-infractor gets >punished for an infraction sadly all too frequently made by others. I think this problem should be made even simpler by considering picking up your bidding cards as a pass. The definition of a pass in the Law book is: Pass ? a call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to bid, double or redouble. while a call is defined as: Call ? Any bid, double, redouble or pass. Thus a pass is a call and a call is (amongst other things) a pass. As soon as we say that picking up your cards is a pass it fits both definitions. Suppose the bidding goes (pubc = pick up bidding cards): 1NT pass 3NT pubc pubc dbl Would you say the double is out of turn? From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Apr 29 11:40:44 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:40:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <20100429092923.E4919990C0B8@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20100429092923.E4919990C0B8@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4BD9541C.5090104@meteo.fr> Peter Smulders a ?crit : > At 10:18 29-4-2010, Herman de Wael wrote: > >> I think this problem should be simple: >> When a player who knows he has to make a call, takes up his bidding >> cards instead, he has made an infraction. We must treat this as a >> pass, since otherwise an infractor gets away with two calls for the >> price of one. >> However, when a player who does not know he has to make a call >> (because he has not noticed some call by his LHO) picks up his >> bidding cards, he is innocent of everything except inattention. We >> must treat this as a call not made, otherwise a non-infractor gets >> punished for an infraction sadly all too frequently made by others. > > I think this problem should be made even simpler by considering > picking up your bidding cards as a pass. The definition of a pass in > the Law book is: > > Pass ? a call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to > bid, double or redouble. > > while a call is defined as: > > Call ? Any bid, double, redouble or pass. > > Thus a pass is a call and a call is (amongst other things) a pass. > As soon as we say that picking up your cards is a pass it fits both > definitions. this would be a bad thing, as it would generate UI. a pass is a denial to call, double or redouble at the current turn but a pubc is a denial at any following turn. > > Suppose the bidding goes (pubc = pick up bidding cards): > > 1NT pass 3NT pubc > pubc dbl > > Would you say the double is out of turn? yes. a case of multiple infractions. jpr > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Apr 29 12:18:00 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:18:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BD9541C.5090104@meteo.fr> References: <20100429092923.E4919990C0B8@relay2.webreus.nl> <4BD9541C.5090104@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <176912.17388.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> IMO, the law-book should include bidding-box protocol and stipulate that you must call by placing the appropriate card on the table. Also that calls must be left face-up until the opening lead. It is a poor idea to allow players to remove their cards instead of passing, for the reasons, already mentioned. Also, law-makers create the potential for unauthorised information whenever they provide different ways to make a call. Relegating this kind of thing to local regulation imposes an unecessary burden on law-makers, directors, and players. Local regulators come up with a variety of solutions that confuse players and encourage this kind of sloppiness. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 29 13:04:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:04:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 References: <20100428124927.021B743EC3C@f55.poczta.interia.pl> <809319.41120.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <236620FF4C634DF8894673B66EAFA62C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] the intent of Law 16B1 > [Konrad Ciborowski] > This is exactly what you cannot do. The double cannot, by definition, make both calls (pass and 5H) more attractive. > This is a contradiction in terms. > > [Nigel] > Konrad is right, again. That is why the law-book should stipulate that when the director polls a player's peers, he should ask them *two* questions: > "what would you do (without the unauthorised information)?" > and > "which actions were made more attractive by the unauthorised information?" > > Also the law book should simply refer to "alternatives" rather than "*logical* alternatives" > > Theory is fun. Unfortunately, in real life, Konrad will admit that an experienced partnership *know* which alternative was suggested, even when it is unclear to the director or other players. > _______________________________________________ +=+ Although the law book does not specify it to be so and has a different definition, it has long seemed evident to me that, whatever his peers may think, the player in question does believe his chosen action to be logical, and to be numbered among the logical alternative actions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 29 15:02:38 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:02:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BD94205.5080809@ulb.ac.be> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BD93939.7040303@skynet.be> <4BD94205.5080809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8DC5FEC6-5283-4BC6-B749-82875023AFCD@starpower.net> On Apr 29, 2010, at 4:23 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I agree with the first two paragraphs ; about the third one, there was > once a trend to suggest that the final contract be mentioned orally by > declarer, all other players being responsible for correction ; OBs > would > be well advised to make this a rule. I (and some others around here) tend to do this on opening lead ("My lead against 4SX?"), confirming both the opening leader and the contract. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 29 18:15:52 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:15:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <002401cae779$48c50150$da4f03f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <002401cae779$48c50150$da4f03f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "ton" Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 03:52 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? > > >> If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is >> over, but it >> turns out not to be over, have you passed? >> > > Eric responds: > > This is isn't a question for this forum. TFLB is totally silent on the > use of bidding cards, so the answer is entirely a matter for zonal > regulation or delegation by the ZA to lower-level RAs [L18F]. Absent > any guidance from above, an individual TD can only make his own > determination based on prevailing local practice > > ton: > > I don't agree with this approach. One question is whether an RA may > deviate > from the bridge laws in its regulations. I don't think it should. But as > long as such regulation doesn't exist it certainly is bound by the laws > themselves. > > > And our laws demand three consecutive passes after a bid to close the > auction. So the intention of the player picking up his cards determines > the > decision to be made. If he wanted to pass OK, but if he thought the > auction > being closed already he just picked up his cards and did not pass. And > even > if a RA defines such action as a pass independent of the player's > intention > we still have L25A telling the TD that such pass can be replaced if it was > unintended. > > Conclusion: picking up bidding cards should not be treated as passing by > default. > > ton Should it be noteworthy that when bidding cards are picked up that a change of state has occurred? And that for a change of state to occur it is necessary for action to have caused the change of state. This is a round about way of saying that picking up bidding cards is an action in every bit the same can be said that putting bidding cards on the table is an action. This probably is important. A call is an action. A call is made by acting on the bidding cards. Pass is an action of a player that elects to not bid, double, or redouble at that turn. Picking up the bidding cards is an action, an action that is not a bid, double, or redouble. Is it an insurmountable leap that picking the bidding cards at one's turn is equivalent to a pass? Before responding consider that the act of picking the up bidding cards conveys bridge information to partner every bit as much as the partnership's agreements to the bidding cards actually placed on the table. Also consider that the law recognizes the utilization of euphemisms such as provided by L46 when settling the incomplete designation of a card. Also consider that L21 provides that a player that acts on his own misunderstanding during the auction [as he does when he fails to satisfy the bidding box regulations] does not have the expectation of indemnification. >From my personal vantage point when a player picks up his bidding cards before the auction is over it appears to me that he has imparted bridge information to partner which is equivalent to have taken a turn. It is my view that when a turn has been taken there are consequences- one of which being that he does not get another turn until the rotation gives him one. It also appears to me that the player has invoked a euphemism, whether intentionally or not. As to the idea of assigning as a matter of regulation a pass to the player picking up his bidding cards, the idea is an abomination. It is untenable in cases where the player is correcting his call, or the TD cancels calls, not to mention when the auction has in fact ended. But that does not mean it is not justice, which it is, to resolve the matter by imputing pass when a player with a turn to take instead picks up his old bidding cards. regards roger pewick From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 29 18:46:01 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:46:01 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos><002401cae779$48c50150$da4f03f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <2969F1B1B47447C6BF0DE05C2253C8EE@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Roger Pewick" > As to the idea of assigning as a matter of regulation a pass to > the player > picking up his bidding cards, the idea is an abomination. It is > untenable > in cases where the player is correcting his call, or the TD > cancels calls, > not to mention when the auction has in fact ended. But that does > not mean it > is not justice, which it is, to resolve the matter by imputing > pass when a > player with a turn to take instead picks up his old bidding cards. > Many players are starting to gather up their cards before the auction is over, with LHO still to call.. This could be a signal that the player doesn't want to hear anything further from partner. We need a regulation that says the pass card must be used in lieu of picking up previous calls to indicate a pass. A fourth-seat player picking up the cards to indicate a pass is not as bad, but cheaters could vary their practice to pass information. The pass card should be mandatory even in that case. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Apr 30 00:34:53 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:34:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> Message-ID: <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> On 4/27/2010 9:47 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is over, but it > turns out not to be over, have you passed? A few thoughts: 1. Unless there's an RA rule that applies, picking up bidding cards prematurely is an irregularity, and any player can call attention to it. Players would be well advised to take advantage of this if they know their partner hasn't seen the auction. 2. If your partner is in the habit of picking up his bidding cards in lieu of an intended pass, you will be hard pressed to take advantage of item 1. If, on the other hand, your partner obsessively uses the green card, you will be in good position if he fails to put one out when he might have. 3. I _think_ there is an ACBL LC minute (or perhaps from some other official body) saying that taking away the bidding cards is deemed to be a pass. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Of course as Ton wrote, if no call at all was intended, L25A would seem to apply. What's the time limit on 25A when the auction is apparently over? 4. Despite all that, the practical ruling I've seen in the ACBL is that taking away bidding cards _is_ a pass, and no change is allowed. I don't think this is legal, but since when does that matter? :-( From geller at nifty.com Fri Apr 30 01:04:47 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:04:47 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4BDA108F.8070002@nifty.com> Unfortunately the ACBL bidding box regs are silent on this matter. http://www.acbl.org/play/bidboxes.html -Bob Steve Willner writes: > On 4/27/2010 9:47 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is over, but it >> turns out not to be over, have you passed? > > A few thoughts: > > 1. Unless there's an RA rule that applies, picking up bidding cards > prematurely is an irregularity, and any player can call attention to it. > Players would be well advised to take advantage of this if they know > their partner hasn't seen the auction. > > 2. If your partner is in the habit of picking up his bidding cards in > lieu of an intended pass, you will be hard pressed to take advantage of > item 1. If, on the other hand, your partner obsessively uses the green > card, you will be in good position if he fails to put one out when he > might have. > > 3. I _think_ there is an ACBL LC minute (or perhaps from some other > official body) saying that taking away the bidding cards is deemed to be > a pass. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Of course as Ton wrote, if > no call at all was intended, L25A would seem to apply. What's the time > limit on 25A when the auction is apparently over? > > 4. Despite all that, the practical ruling I've seen in the ACBL is that > taking away bidding cards _is_ a pass, and no change is allowed. I > don't think this is legal, but since when does that matter? :-( > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From geller at nifty.com Fri Apr 30 03:41:06 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:41:06 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BDA108F.8070002@nifty.com> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <4BDA108F.8070002@nifty.com> Message-ID: <4BDA3532.4030505@nifty.com> The ACBL laws commission minutes for 2009-2000 are here: http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html Unfortunately there is no obvious way to search, so it appears necessary to read each of the 30 files to see if this issue is mentioned. If anyone does this please inform of if you find anything. Thanks. -Bob Robert Geller wrote: > Unfortunately the ACBL bidding box regs are silent on this matter. > http://www.acbl.org/play/bidboxes.html > -Bob > > Steve Willner writes: >> On 4/27/2010 9:47 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>> If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is over, but it >>> turns out not to be over, have you passed? >> A few thoughts: >> >> 1. Unless there's an RA rule that applies, picking up bidding cards >> prematurely is an irregularity, and any player can call attention to it. >> Players would be well advised to take advantage of this if they know >> their partner hasn't seen the auction. >> >> 2. If your partner is in the habit of picking up his bidding cards in >> lieu of an intended pass, you will be hard pressed to take advantage of >> item 1. If, on the other hand, your partner obsessively uses the green >> card, you will be in good position if he fails to put one out when he >> might have. >> >> 3. I _think_ there is an ACBL LC minute (or perhaps from some other >> official body) saying that taking away the bidding cards is deemed to be >> a pass. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Of course as Ton wrote, if >> no call at all was intended, L25A would seem to apply. What's the time >> limit on 25A when the auction is apparently over? >> >> 4. Despite all that, the practical ruling I've seen in the ACBL is that >> taking away bidding cards _is_ a pass, and no change is allowed. I >> don't think this is legal, but since when does that matter? :-( >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Apr 30 05:17:41 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:17:41 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Day in the Life References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net><4BDA108F.8070002@nifty.com> <4BDA3532.4030505@nifty.com> Message-ID: >Trying to impress a director who was talking down to me, I posed this >problem. > >A player is on track to win 12 tricks. While running the diamond suit in >dummy, there is a revoke in diamonds. This has no effect on play, so >declarer is now going to make 12 + 1. The second revoke in diamonds, >however, stops the run of diamonds and declarer makes only 9 tricks. How >do you rule? >He said 12. I said it was 13. He tried to explain to me why I was wrong, >without much success. BTW, I mentioned the WBF and he said they are >irrelevant to the ACBL. > >So we went to a director who seemed really good at knowing the rules. She >said 12. > >So I went to a national tournament director. He took a lot of time to >explain why the correct answer is 12. First, there is no rectification for >a second revoke. As he had rule book, I could point out that this wasn't >right, but that did not slow him down. He then explained that Law 64C >does not apply to *each* revoke. The way I should see it is this. The goal >of the laws is to restore equity and equity on this board is making 12 >tricks. >And when I mentioned WBF, he said "Don't quote WBF regulations to me." >With little hope now I went to the DIC, another national tournament >director often treated as a diety around here. His answer was 12. One >reason is that there is no rectification for a second revoke. He of all >people was not completely put off by the existence of the WBF. He assured >me that everyone in the WBF would rule the same way.>Robert Frick"MINUTES >OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION HILTON HOTEL, HOUSTON, TX MARCH 14, 2009" >snip"In applying Law 64C to Law 64B2, the director firsts looks atthe >non-offending side's equity after the first revoke e.g. a one trick penalty >would have been awarded). So while there is no automatic penalty for second >revoke in the same suitby the same player, there may still be an adjustment >if therevoking side regains a trick that might have been lost due tothe >penalty after the first revoke. There was no consensusconcerning the >application of these Laws."You may still find an ACBL director who will >give you 13 tricksif they have read the minute.bill From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 30 08:42:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:42:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401cae779$48c50150$da4f03f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >I don't agree with this approach. One question is whether an >RA may deviate from the bridge laws in its regulations. I >don't think it should. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Ton is chasing a red herring. Sure an RA is prohibited from deviating from Bridge Law, but an RA has very wide scope for action under Bridge Law 18F (Different Methods): "Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls." Ton Kooijman: [snip] >we still have L25A telling the TD that such pass can be >replaced if it was unintended. > >Conclusion: picking up bidding cards should not be treated >as passing by default. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Ton's premise does not justify Ton's conclusion. If an RA, such as the WBF, rules under Law 18F that there are two legal ways of demonstrating a "final" pass, that does not inhibit the operation of Law 25 in general and Law 25A3 in particular: "If the auction ends before it reaches the player's partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22)." Note that under Law 22B the auction period is longer than the auction. So no matter what the method for showing a so-called third-and-final pass, that "final" pass may be retracted if unintended and discovered before the play period begins. For what it is worth, the ABF Bidding Box Regulations have just been updated, on 1st April 2010. Relevant clauses to the blml debate on this thread are: "3.5 A call is considered made (without screens) when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that the call has been made." [Note: The language of clause 3.5 was deliberately chosen to replicate the language in Law 45C2.] "3.8 When screens are not in use, all the bidding cards should remain on the table until after the opening lead has been faced." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 30 09:48:42 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:48:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000701cae839$8e767bf0$ab6373d0$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner ................ > 3. I _think_ there is an ACBL LC minute (or perhaps from some other official body) > saying that taking away the bidding cards is deemed to be a pass. Can anyone > confirm or refute this? .......... There is a WBFLC ruling (actually a CoC) that a player taking back his bidding cards when his pass would be the closing pass in the auction is deemed to pass. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Fri Apr 30 10:00:38 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:00:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <000701cae839$8e767bf0$ab6373d0$@no> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos><4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <000701cae839$8e767bf0$ab6373d0$@no> Message-ID: <1272614438.29593.1372691049@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:48 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: > .......... > There is a WBFLC ruling (actually a CoC) that a player taking back his > bidding cards when his pass would be the closing pass in the auction is > deemed to pass. A URL for that would be appreciated. BTW does the minute/CoC clarify the point in the action of removing the cards and putting them back in the bidding box at which the pass is deemed to have been completed? David From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 30 10:05:35 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:05:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <000701cae839$8e767bf0$ab6373d0$@no> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <000701cae839$8e767bf0$ab6373d0$@no> Message-ID: <4BDA8F4F.8070400@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > ................ > >> 3. I _think_ there is an ACBL LC minute (or perhaps from some other >> > official body) > >> saying that taking away the bidding cards is deemed to be a pass. Can >> > anyone > >> confirm or refute this? >> > .......... > There is a WBFLC ruling (actually a CoC) that a player taking back his > bidding cards when his pass would be the closing pass in the auction is > deemed to pass. > AG : in that case, what are we arguing about in the last 250 messages ? From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 30 10:11:42 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:11:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <002401cae779$48c50150$da4f03f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4BDA90BE.6060706@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > Should it be noteworthy that when bidding cards are picked up that a change > of state has occurred? And that for a change of state to occur it is > necessary for action to have caused the change of state. This is a round > about way of saying that picking up bidding cards is an action in every bit > the same can be said that putting bidding cards on the table is an action. > This probably is important. > It is true, but whether it is important is another matter. > A call is an action. A call is made by acting on the bidding cards. Pass is > an action of a player that elects to not bid, double, or redouble at that > turn. Picking up the bidding cards is an action, an action that is not a > bid, double, or redouble. Is it an insurmountable leap that picking the > bidding cards at one's turn is equivalent to a pass? > It is not insurmountable - but is it necessary? > Before responding consider that the act of picking the up bidding cards > conveys bridge information to partner every bit as much as the partnership's > agreements to the bidding cards actually placed on the table. > Well, I've considered it, and rejected it. If it is clear to everyone that the player who picked up his bidding cards did not notice that one of the three preceding players had not passed, then the action of picking up the bidding cards conveys as only information that the player thought the bidding was over, something which was clear from the other information as well. Therefore, it is not worth considering that the picker-upper conveyed bridge information: he did not. > Also consider that the law recognizes the utilization of euphemisms such as > provided by L46 when settling the incomplete designation of a card. > Indeed, and a player who picks up his bidding cards when having seen that his pass would have been the third one, has indeed used such a euphemism, and must be consider to have passed. But the picker-upper has not used any euphemism to convey anything other than "I believe there have been three passes and the bidding is over". > Also consider that L21 provides that a player that acts on his own > misunderstanding during the auction [as he does when he fails to satisfy the > bidding box regulations] does not have the expectation of indemnification. > That is worth a consideration. Whatever else his picking up might or might not convey - he did make a mistake, and there should be no qualms in the law-writers in making him pay for it. >> From my personal vantage point when a player picks up his bidding cards > before the auction is over it appears to me that he has imparted bridge > information to partner which is equivalent to have taken a turn. It is my > view that when a turn has been taken there are consequences- one of which > being that he does not get another turn until the rotation gives him one. > It also appears to me that the player has invoked a euphemism, whether > intentionally or not. > > As to the idea of assigning as a matter of regulation a pass to the player > picking up his bidding cards, the idea is an abomination. It is untenable > in cases where the player is correcting his call, or the TD cancels calls, > not to mention when the auction has in fact ended. But that does not mean it > is not justice, which it is, to resolve the matter by imputing pass when a > player with a turn to take instead picks up his old bidding cards. > The opinion of justice might differ. There is no reason to let this player suffer from his mistake, he has not caused any harm in doing so. Now I do not mind there being a regulation that picking up the bidding cards is equivalent to passing, even when it is by mistake. At least that solves the problem of a player pretending he did not notice something, when in fact he did. But such a regulation needs to be written out clearly - and it provides dishonest players with an excuse for using two different methods of passing out the auction. Three, if you count leaving the bidding cards until the lead: - leave the bidding cards = I want you to lead my suit - pass but take away the bidding cards = I want you to lead something else - take away the bidding cards = Lead your own best one, I have nothing special to contribute. Do we really want to emphasise that an incorrect action is equivalent to a correct one? > regards > roger pewick > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From geller at nifty.com Fri Apr 30 10:22:53 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:22:53 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BDA8F4F.8070400@ulb.ac.be> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <000701cae839$8e767bf0$ab6373d0$@no> <4BDA8F4F.8070400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BDA935D.4000306@nifty.com> > AG : in that case, what are we arguing about in the last 250 messages ? The WBF ruling only applies to WBF tourneys (it is a reg., not a law ruling). So we're arguing about how other RAs (e.g., ACBL) would/should/do handle this. -Bob Alain Gottcheiner ????????: > Sven Pran a ?crit : >> On Behalf Of Steve Willner >> ................ >> >>> 3. I _think_ there is an ACBL LC minute (or perhaps from some other >>> >> official body) >> >>> saying that taking away the bidding cards is deemed to be a pass. Can >>> >> anyone >> >>> confirm or refute this? >>> >> .......... >> There is a WBFLC ruling (actually a CoC) that a player taking back his >> bidding cards when his pass would be the closing pass in the auction is >> deemed to pass. >> > AG : in that case, what are we arguing about in the last 250 messages ? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 30 11:33:33 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:33:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BDA90BE.6060706@skynet.be> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <002401cae779$48c50150$da4f03f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BDA90BE.6060706@skynet.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 03:11 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? > Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> Should it be noteworthy that when bidding cards are picked up that a >> change >> of state has occurred? And that for a change of state to occur it is >> necessary for action to have caused the change of state. This is a round >> about way of saying that picking up bidding cards is an action in every >> bit >> the same can be said that putting bidding cards on the table is an >> action. >> This probably is important. >> > > It is true, but whether it is important is another matter. > >> A call is an action. A call is made by acting on the bidding cards. Pass >> is >> an action of a player that elects to not bid, double, or redouble at that >> turn. Picking up the bidding cards is an action, an action that is not a >> bid, double, or redouble. Is it an insurmountable leap that picking the >> bidding cards at one's turn is equivalent to a pass? >> > > It is not insurmountable - but is it necessary? > >> Before responding consider that the act of picking the up bidding cards >> conveys bridge information to partner every bit as much as the >> partnership's >> agreements to the bidding cards actually placed on the table. > Well, I've considered it, and rejected it. Once you have established this... > If it is clear to everyone that the player who picked up his bidding > cards did not notice that one of the three preceding players had not > passed, then the action of picking up the bidding cards conveys as only > information that the player thought the bidding was over, something > which was clear from the other information as well. > Therefore, it is not worth considering that the picker-upper conveyed > bridge information: he did not. > >> Also consider that the law recognizes the utilization of euphemisms such >> as >> provided by L46 when settling the incomplete designation of a card. >> > > Indeed, and a player who picks up his bidding cards when having seen > that his pass would have been the third one, has indeed used such a > euphemism, and must be consider to have passed. But the picker-upper has > not used any euphemism to convey anything other than "I believe there > have been three passes and the bidding is over". > >> Also consider that L21 provides that a player that acts on his own >> misunderstanding during the auction [as he does when he fails to satisfy >> the >> bidding box regulations] does not have the expectation of >> indemnification. >> > > That is worth a consideration. > Whatever else his picking up might or might not convey - he did make a > mistake, and there should be no qualms in the law-writers in making him > pay for it. > >>> From my personal vantage point when a player picks up his bidding cards >> before the auction is over it appears to me that he has imparted bridge >> information to partner which is equivalent to have taken a turn. It is >> my >> view that when a turn has been taken there are consequences- one of which >> being that he does not get another turn until the rotation gives him one. >> It also appears to me that the player has invoked a euphemism, whether >> intentionally or not. >> >> As to the idea of assigning as a matter of regulation a pass to the >> player >> picking up his bidding cards, the idea is an abomination. It is >> untenable >> in cases where the player is correcting his call, or the TD cancels >> calls, >> not to mention when the auction has in fact ended. But that does not mean >> it >> is not justice, which it is, to resolve the matter by imputing pass when >> a >> player with a turn to take instead picks up his old bidding cards. >> > > The opinion of justice might differ. There is no reason to let this > player suffer from his mistake, he has not caused any harm in doing so. > > Now I do not mind there being a regulation that picking up the bidding > cards is equivalent to passing, even when it is by mistake. At least > that solves the problem of a player pretending he did not notice > something, when in fact he did. But such a regulation needs to be > written out clearly - and it provides dishonest players with an excuse > for using two different methods of passing out the auction. Three, if > you count leaving the bidding cards until the lead: > - leave the bidding cards = I want you to lead my suit > - pass but take away the bidding cards = I want you to lead something else > - take away the bidding cards = Lead your own best one, I have nothing > special to contribute. > Do we really want to emphasise that an incorrect action is equivalent to > a correct one? ...there is no point in you contemplating this. regards roger pewick >> regards >> roger pewick >> > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Fri Apr 30 14:58:11 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:58:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BDA935D.4000306@nifty.com> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <000701cae839$8e767bf0$ab6373d0$@no><4BDA8F4F.8070400@ulb.ac.be> <4BDA935D.4000306@nifty.com> Message-ID: <1272632291.5633.1372725759@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:22 +0900, "Robert Geller" wrote: > > AG : in that case, what are we arguing about in the last 250 messages ? > The WBF ruling only applies to WBF tourneys (it is a reg., not a law > ruling). So we're arguing about how other RAs (e.g., ACBL) > would/should/do handle this. The target isn't necessarily that narrow. When our RAs fall down on the job of providing guidance, we club directors have to do the best we can, and that "best" may sometimes profit from awareness of what is done in other jurisdictions in similar situations -- just as courts will sometimes look to other jurisdictions for insight when there is nothing clearer. David From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 30 15:47:07 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:47:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <86950A26-825A-4858-B70A-6C8FA32C0B1D@starpower.net> On Apr 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 4/27/2010 9:47 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > >> If you pick up your bidding cards, thinking that the auction is >> over, but it >> turns out not to be over, have you passed? > > A few thoughts: > > 1. Unless there's an RA rule that applies, picking up bidding cards > prematurely is an irregularity, and any player can call attention > to it. > Players would be well advised to take advantage of this if they know > their partner hasn't seen the auction. > > 2. If your partner is in the habit of picking up his bidding cards in > lieu of an intended pass, you will be hard pressed to take > advantage of > item 1. If, on the other hand, your partner obsessively uses the > green > card, you will be in good position if he fails to put one out when he > might have. > > 3. I _think_ there is an ACBL LC minute (or perhaps from some other > official body) saying that taking away the bidding cards is deemed > to be > a pass. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Of course as Ton > wrote, if > no call at all was intended, L25A would seem to apply. What's the > time > limit on 25A when the auction is apparently over? > > 4. Despite all that, the practical ruling I've seen in the ACBL is > that > taking away bidding cards _is_ a pass, and no change is allowed. I > don't think this is legal, but since when does that matter? :-( My experience (exclusively ACBL) is that picking up your bidding cards is treated as a pass if it would end the auction. Otherwise play continues, with partner constrained by the UI that you were prepared to make the final pass on whatever auction you thought you heard. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 30 15:48:50 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:48:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <1272632291.5633.1372725759@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos> <4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <000701cae839$8e767bf0$ab6373d0$@no><4BDA8F4F.8070400@ulb.ac.be> <4BDA935D.4000306@nifty.com> <1272632291.5633.1372725759@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <4BDADFC2.7030904@ulb.ac.be> David Babcock a ?crit : > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:22 +0900, "Robert Geller" > wrote: > >> > AG : in that case, what are we arguing about in the last 250 messages ? >> The WBF ruling only applies to WBF tourneys (it is a reg., not a law >> ruling). So we're arguing about how other RAs (e.g., ACBL) >> would/should/do handle this. >> > > The target isn't necessarily that narrow. When our RAs fall down on the > job of providing guidance, we club directors have to do the best we can, > and that "best" may sometimes profit from awareness of what is done in > other jurisdictions in similar situations -- just as courts will > sometimes look to other jurisdictions for insight when there is nothing > clearer. > > Yes, this is more like my feeling. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Fri Apr 30 15:53:20 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:53:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <86950A26-825A-4858-B70A-6C8FA32C0B1D@starpower.net> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos><4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <86950A26-825A-4858-B70A-6C8FA32C0B1D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1272635600.14401.1372735949@webmail.messagingengine.com> > My experience (exclusively ACBL) is that picking up your bidding > cards is treated as a pass if it would end the auction. Has that issue arisen in an ACBL tournament in your experience? Precedents from ACBL TDs (as opposed to others at my level of benightedness) would certainly be useful. David From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 30 16:12:00 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:12:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <1272635600.14401.1372735949@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos><4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <86950A26-825A-4858-B70A-6C8FA32C0B1D@starpower.net> <1272635600.14401.1372735949@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <4BDAE530.4020906@ulb.ac.be> David Babcock a ?crit : >> My experience (exclusively ACBL) is that picking up your bidding >> cards is treated as a pass if it would end the auction. >> > > Has that issue arisen in an ACBL tournament in your experience? > Precedents from ACBL TDs (as opposed to others at my level of > benightedness) would certainly be useful. > I think it's more general than that, in the same way as one card is played if the player has in any way indicated one's intention to play it, like naming it while one's hands weren't free, a call should be deemed made when the player indicated that one intended to make it. This includes picking up one's cards, as well as some other ways. When in passout seat of an opening, I often nod and open my hand ; others say "your lead". Some might argue that those gestures or words may transmit information, even unintentionally. but that's not the point here. The point is that the player has let know that one passed, and I'd like it to be treated as such (e.g. for L20 and L25 purposes). Best regards Alain From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Fri Apr 30 16:19:17 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:19:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <1272635600.14401.1372735949@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos><4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <86950A26-825A-4858-B70A-6C8FA32C0B1D@starpower.net> <1272635600.14401.1372735949@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000301cae870$1f2ec360$5d8c4a20$@com> Hi all, I have not been an active ACBL TD for a long time, but I had such a case sometimes and ruled as I always have done in my club: picking the card is not a call. The auction goes on, but... The chief TD never told me I was wrong. Laval Du Breuil Quebec -----Message d'origine----- De?: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de David Babcock Envoy??: 30 avril 2010 09:53 ??: Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet?: Re: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? > My experience (exclusively ACBL) is that picking up your bidding > cards is treated as a pass if it would end the auction. Has that issue arisen in an ACBL tournament in your experience? Precedents from ACBL TDs (as opposed to others at my level of benightedness) would certainly be useful. David _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml