From henk at ripe.net Wed Dec 1 01:01:01 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 1 01:33:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:33:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Hermione Granger: "Actually I'm highly logical which allows me to look past extraneous detail and perceive clearly that which others over- look." Swiss Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1S X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs You, East, hold: T82 83 87652 652 What is your opening lead? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 1 03:57:20 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 02:57:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <146910.73408.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Swiss Teams North/East-West. You, East, hold: T82 83 87652 652 --- 1D Pass 1S X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs What is your opening lead? [Nigel] IMO H8 = 10, C6 = 9, ST = 8, Dx = 2. I hope partner has a 5-card suit that will benefit from my only chance to lead. From henk at ripe.net Wed Dec 1 09:48:13 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:48:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201012010848.oB18mDrR004792@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for November 2010 Posts From ----- ---- 70 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 46 blml (at) arcor.de 41 ehaa (at) starpower.net 40 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 37 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 37 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 31 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 26 svenpran (at) online.no 25 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 20 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 20 gampas (at) aol.com 13 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 13 adam (at) tameware.com 7 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 6 henk (at) ripe.net 5 sater (at) xs4all.nl 4 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 4 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 3 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 3 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 3 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au 3 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 Ron.Johnson (at) NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca 3 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 2 swillner (at) nhcc.net 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 2 hirsch9000 (at) gmail.com 2 bpark56 (at) comcast.net 1 zecurado (at) gmail.com 1 what (at) can 1 madam (at) civilradio.hu 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 jjlbridge (at) free.fr 1 geller (at) nifty.com From bridge at vwalther.de Wed Dec 1 13:32:39 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:32:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CF64067.2070602@vwalther.de> On 01.12.2010 01:33, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Hermione Granger: > > "Actually I'm highly logical which allows me to look past > extraneous detail and perceive clearly that which others over- > look." > > Swiss Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1S > X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs > > You, East, hold: > > T82 > 83 > 87652 > 652 > > What is your opening lead? > Probably a club. Partner did not double 3NT and did not bid 2H. I do not want to start with a heart finesse against him. Greetings, Volker Walther From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 1 14:57:02 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:57:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CF64067.2070602@vwalther.de> References: <4CF64067.2070602@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4CF6542E.2010009@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/12/2010 13:32, Volker Walther a ?crit : > On 01.12.2010 01:33, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Hermione Granger: >> >> "Actually I'm highly logical which allows me to look past >> extraneous detail and perceive clearly that which others over- >> look." >> >> Swiss Teams >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1D Pass 1S >> X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT >> Pass 3NT Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> T82 >> 83 >> 87652 >> 652 >> >> What is your opening lead? >> AG : at teams, hopes are limited. However, since partner would perhaps bid 2H on 54 but surely not 2C on 45, I'm inclined to lead a club. Of course, partner might hold xxx-KQJT-Ax-Axxx as well as xxx-Axxx-Ax-KQJT, so it's not more than a guess. Style (i.e. whether they open 1C or 1D on 44) can be an element, but doesn't help choose between the two abovementioned hands. Response to what I guess to be the second question : no, the tempo doesn't suggest any lead more than another. Best regards Alain From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Wed Dec 1 16:31:16 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:31:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of blml-request at rtflb.org Sent: December 1, 2010 06:00 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 21, Issue 1 Send Blml mailing list submissions to blml at rtflb.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to blml-request at rtflb.org You can reach the person managing the list at blml-owner at rtflb.org From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1S > X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs > > You, East, hold: > > T82 > 83 > 87652 > 652 > > What is your opening lead? My inclination is to go passive. 8D I'm not inclined to lead a heart here. Feels like that's doing declarer's work for him. From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Dec 1 22:44:34 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:44:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Measurement for Bidding Screens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi folks, We are having someone build some bidding screens for us here in Bermuda. Does anyone know the measurement of the window that is closed during bidding and open during play? If you have such information please email me directly at jrhind at therock.bm. Best regards, Jack From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 1 23:34:28 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:34:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CF6542E.2010009@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Swiss Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1S X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs You, East, hold: T82 83 87652 652 What is your opening lead? Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : at teams, hopes are limited. However, since partner would >perhaps bid 2H on 54 Richard Hills: Not any "perhaps" in my style. I hate failing in 3NT when 4H with a 5-3 trump fit is cold. Alain Gottcheiner: >but surely not 2C on 45, I'm inclined to lead a club. > >Of course, partner might hold xxx-KQJT-Ax-Axxx as well as xxx- >Axxx-Ax-KQJT, so it's not more than a guess. Richard Hills: East's relative lengths in hearts and clubs makes it more than a guess. Ron Johnson: >>I'm not inclined to lead a heart here. Feels like that's doing >>declarer's work for him. Alain Gottcheiner: >Response to what I guess to be the second question : no, the >tempo doesn't suggest any lead more than another. Jamie Whyte, Crimes Against Logic, page 5: 1. If someone is entitled to an opinion then her opinion is well- supported by evidence. (This is precisely what it means to be entitled to an opinion.) 2. I am entitled to my opinion (as is everyone in a democratic society). 3. Therefore, my opinion is well-supported by evidence. Swiss Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH Alain SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1S X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs (2) Break in tempo Alain Gottcheiner, East, holds: T82 83 87652 652 What does West's break in tempo demonstrably suggest to someone of the same _class of player_ as Alain Gottcheiner? Which opening leads remain legal for Alain Gottcheiner (with it being irrelevant that Alain -- perhaps incorrectly -- believes that he is unrestricted in choice of opening lead)? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 2 00:43:36 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:43:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <939357.79712.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [richard hills] --- 1D Pass 1S X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs (2) Break in tempo What does West's break in tempo demonstrably suggest to someone of the same _class of player_ as Alain Gottcheiner? Which opening leads remain legal for Alain Gottcheiner (with it being irrelevant that Alain -- perhaps incorrectly -- believes that he is unrestricted in choice of opening lead)? [Nigel] IMO... The director should ask about partnership agreements for other calls that the player, who broke tempo, could have made over 2N, instead of passing. Assuming no special agreements... It is important that the director ask these questions if he polls a sample of the leader's peers. Otherwise the leader could be damned no matter what choice he makes. Here, you might argue that the BIT makes any lead other than a diamond more attractive. So that a diamond becomes the only logical alternative. I wouldn't argue that way myself, because I don't really considered a diamond to be a logical alternative, in the first place. From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 2 01:11:39 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 01:11:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1244611893.47091.1291248699180.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Swiss Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1S > X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs > > You, East, hold: > > T82 > 83 > 87652 > 652 > > What is your opening lead? Nothing yet. I inquire about their methods. Say, do they play four card majors or five card majors? Do they open 1C or 1D with 4-4 in the minors? Does N's 1NT rebid deny three spades? I consider hearts, clubs, and spades. Partner might easily have four spades on this auction; they made no attempt to find an 8 card spade fit. He is somewhat unlikely to have five hearts; I expect either dummy or opener to have four. Thomas From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Dec 2 08:41:53 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:41:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid Message-ID: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> The bidding has gone West North East South 1C 1H(1) 1S Just after bidding 1S, East notices the alert and asks for the meaning. Has his turn to bid expired at the moment he has bid (or selected) the 1S bid? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 2 08:58:21 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:58:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > The bidding has gone > > West North East South > 1C 1H(1) 1S > > Just after bidding 1S, East notices the > alert and asks for the meaning. Has > his turn to bid expired at the moment > he has bid (or selected) the 1S bid? > I would say it had. However, one of the criteria to decide if an alert has been made in a correct way is that the opponent has noticed it. It is up to the alerter to make certain of that. So, if the 1S bidder can make the TD believe that the alert was made in such a way that he did not notice it, then he can ask that TD to rule "call based on misinformation" and ask it to be changed. But the call has been made and should stand otherwise. > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3291 - Release Date: 12/01/10 08:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 2 09:32:54 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:32:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Tony Musgrove wrote: > > The bidding has gone > > > > West North East South > > 1C 1H(1) 1S > > > > Just after bidding 1S, East notices the alert and asks for the > > meaning. Has his turn to bid expired at the moment he has bid (or > > selected) the 1S bid? > > > > I would say it had. > However, one of the criteria to decide if an alert has been made in a correct way is > that the opponent has noticed it. It is up to the alerter to make certain of that. > So, if the 1S bidder can make the TD believe that the alert was made in such a > way that he did not notice it, then he can ask that TD to rule "call based on > misinformation" and ask it to be changed. > But the call has been made and should stand otherwise. Herman is (at least almost) correct. I don't know the applicable regulation "down yonder", but in Norway there is a hope for East: Our regulation states explicitly that it is the responsibility of the alerter to make sure opponents notice his alert, so a Norwegian director would most likely allow East to replace his 1S call without much ado. Only if the alert was made in the "safe" and recommended way: By placing the alert card immediately on top of the alerted call (we use bid cards in Norway) will the director obviously rule inattention by East. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 2 11:11:33 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:11:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> Message-ID: <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Sven Pran] Our regulation states explicitly that it is the responsibility of the alerter to make sure opponents notice his alert, so a Norwegian director would most likely allow East to replace his 1S call without much ado. Only if the alert was made in the "safe" and recommended way: By placing the alert card immediately on top of the alerted call (we use bid cards in Norway) will the director obviously rule inattention by East. [Nigel] An excellent protocol! I hope the next edition of the law-book (in 2018 or whenever) includes as *law*, most of what is now delegated as *local regulation*. This would help promulgate sensible bidding-box regulations. For example, the laws should stipulate Sven's Norwegian alert protocol and the EBU stop-card protocol. Such new laws could be *defaults* that bolshy chauvinistic local-legislators could over-ride with local-regulations for local-people. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 2 11:21:02 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:21:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1244611893.47091.1291248699180.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <1244611893.47091.1291248699180.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CF7730E.3090103@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/12/2010 1:11, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Swiss Teams >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1D Pass 1S >> X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT >> Pass 3NT Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> T82 >> 83 >> 87652 >> 652 >> >> What is your opening lead? > Nothing yet. I inquire about their methods. > Say, do they play four card majors or five > card majors? Do they open 1C or 1D with > 4-4 in the minors? Does N's 1NT rebid deny three spades? > > I consider hearts, clubs, and spades. > Partner might easily have four spades on this auction; > they made no attempt to find an 8 card spade fit. AG : perhaps that is what would be suggested by a tempo : partner wanted to double for a lead of dummy's suit, except that he didn't have a sure set even with htis lead. Ex : AQJxx - Axxx - x - Axx. I initially meant "neither of H or C are suggested over the other" From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 2 11:26:40 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:26:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CF77460.5020709@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/12/2010 11:11, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Sven Pran] > Our regulation states explicitly that it is the responsibility of the > > alerter to make sure opponents notice his alert, so a Norwegian director > would most likely allow East to replace his 1S call without much ado. Only > if the alert was made in the "safe" and recommended way: By placing the > alert card immediately on top of the alerted call (we use bid cards in > Norway) will the director obviously rule inattention by East. > > [Nigel] > An excellent protocol! I hope the next edition of the law-book (in 2018 or > whenever) > includes as *law*, most of what is now delegated as *local regulation*. This > would help promulgate sensible bidding-box regulations. For example, the laws > should stipulate Sven's Norwegian alert protocol and the EBU stop-card protocol. > Such new laws could be *defaults* that bolshy chauvinistic local-legislators > could over-ride with local-regulations for local-people. Good way to do it behind screens. However, having to place your alert card over the bid at the other side of the table would be more difficult - expecially if you have to do it quickly enough to avoid any bid by RHO. It occurred more than once that I _said _"Alert" because I was sorting my cards and would have been too slow to reach for the Alert card. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101202/4807bda1/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 2 11:33:20 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:33:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01bf01cb920c$574b0bf0$05e123d0$@nl> Screen regulations have been like that for ages. The issue is not devising a protocol that works if everybody follows it, but a protocol that works with human beings. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie Sent: donderdag 2 december 2010 11:12 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Your turn to bid [Sven Pran] Our regulation states explicitly that it is the responsibility of the alerter to make sure opponents notice his alert, so a Norwegian director would most likely allow East to replace his 1S call without much ado. Only if the alert was made in the "safe" and recommended way: By placing the alert card immediately on top of the alerted call (we use bid cards in Norway) will the director obviously rule inattention by East. [Nigel] An excellent protocol! I hope the next edition of the law-book (in 2018 or whenever) includes as *law*, most of what is now delegated as *local regulation*. This would help promulgate sensible bidding-box regulations. For example, the laws should stipulate Sven's Norwegian alert protocol and the EBU stop-card protocol. Such new laws could be *defaults* that bolshy chauvinistic local-legislators could over-ride with local-regulations for local-people. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 2 11:44:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:44:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <01bf01cb920c$574b0bf0$05e123d0$@nl> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <01bf01cb920c$574b0bf0$05e123d0$@nl> Message-ID: <4CF77894.8080107@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/12/2010 11:33, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Screen regulations have been like that for ages. > > The issue is not devising a protocol that works if everybody follows it, but > a protocol that works with human beings. AG : I would like to remark that the actual protocol (ensuring that your opponent did see the alert) works poorly with human beings, who will often be absent-minded enough not to notice the most obvious gestures. And TDs are compelled to agree with their claim that the alert wans't obvious enough, because the criterion isn't "is plain in view" but "has been seen". (notice that even putting your alert card on top of the bid won't work perfectly, as it often happens that you don't notice that RHO has bid at all) Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 11:56:28 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:56:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/2 Nigel Guthrie : > [Sven Pran] > Our regulation states explicitly that it is the responsibility of the > > alerter to make sure opponents notice his alert, so a Norwegian director > would most likely allow East to replace his 1S call without much ado. Only > if the alert was made in the "safe" and recommended way: By placing the > alert card immediately on top of the alerted call (we use bid cards in > Norway) will the director obviously rule inattention by East. > > [Nigel] > An excellent protocol! I hope the next edition of the law-book (in 2018 or > whenever) > includes as *law*, most of what is now delegated as *local regulation*. This > would help promulgate sensible bidding-box regulations. For example, the laws > should stipulate Sven's Norwegian alert protocol and the EBU stop-card protocol. > Such new laws could be *defaults* that bolshy chauvinistic local-legislators > could over-ride with local-regulations for local-people. I must admint I've never seen a player do this at the table. Most players alert by knocking the table. A few alert by taking the alert card and put it in front of them on the table or wave it in the air. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Dec 2 12:54:38 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:54:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CF788FE.7020802@aol.com> In the local club with one partner I use a system that is relatively unknown here. (Everything is unknown here except the standard French system.) When alerting I tap the alert card a few times on the tray so that there is an acoustic signal as well. I then wave the alert card in front of each opponent. They are puzzled and bemused but they always notice the alert. Ciao, JE Am 02.12.2010 11:56, schrieb Harald Skj?ran: > 2010/12/2 Nigel Guthrie: >> [Sven Pran] >> Our regulation states explicitly that it is the responsibility of the >> >> alerter to make sure opponents notice his alert, so a Norwegian director >> would most likely allow East to replace his 1S call without much ado. Only >> if the alert was made in the "safe" and recommended way: By placing the >> alert card immediately on top of the alerted call (we use bid cards in >> Norway) will the director obviously rule inattention by East. >> >> [Nigel] >> An excellent protocol! I hope the next edition of the law-book (in 2018 or >> whenever) >> includes as *law*, most of what is now delegated as *local regulation*. This >> would help promulgate sensible bidding-box regulations. For example, the laws >> should stipulate Sven's Norwegian alert protocol and the EBU stop-card protocol. >> Such new laws could be *defaults* that bolshy chauvinistic local-legislators >> could over-ride with local-regulations for local-people. > I must admint I've never seen a player do this at the table. > Most players alert by knocking the table. > A few alert by taking the alert card and put it in front of them on > the table or wave it in the air. > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 2 13:28:50 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:28:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <4CF788FE.7020802@aol.com> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4CF7519D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> <153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CF788FE.7020802@aol.com> Message-ID: <4CF79102.30305@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/12/2010 12:54, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > In the local club with one partner I use a system that is relatively > unknown here. (Everything is unknown here except the standard French > system.) When alerting I tap the alert card a few times on the tray so > that there is an acoustic signal as well. I then wave the alert card in > front of each opponent. They are puzzled and bemused but they always > notice the alert. Ciao, JE Isn't producing an audio signal UI creation ? (I assume screens because you mention trays) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Dec 2 15:50:22 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:50:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au><4CF7519 D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no><153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yaho o.com> Message-ID: <4CF7B22E.1060007@meteo.fr> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2010/12/2 Nigel Guthrie : >> [Sven Pran] >> Our regulation states explicitly that it is the responsibility of the >> >> alerter to make sure opponents notice his alert, so a Norwegian director >> would most likely allow East to replace his 1S call without much ado. Only >> if the alert was made in the "safe" and recommended way: By placing the >> alert card immediately on top of the alerted call (we use bid cards in >> Norway) will the director obviously rule inattention by East. >> >> [Nigel] >> An excellent protocol! I hope the next edition of the law-book (in 2018 or >> whenever) >> includes as *law*, most of what is now delegated as *local regulation*. This >> would help promulgate sensible bidding-box regulations. For example, the laws >> should stipulate Sven's Norwegian alert protocol and the EBU stop-card protocol. >> Such new laws could be *defaults* that bolshy chauvinistic local-legislators >> could over-ride with local-regulations for local-people. > > I must admint I've never seen a player do this at the table. > Most players alert by knocking the table. most players claim without a word and without showing their cards; most players stop exposing pass cards when, in their opinion, there will not be any more bidding... is this enough reason to give up correct procedures? jpr > A few alert by taking the alert card and put it in front of them on > the table or wave it in the air. > -- _______________________________________________ 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 Dec 2 16:11:27 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:11:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <4CF7B22E.1060007@meteo.fr> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au><4CF7519 D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no><153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yaho o.com> <4CF7B22E.1060007@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <176082.20594.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] Most players claim without a word and without showing their cards; most players stop exposing pass cards when, in their opinion, there will not be any more bidding... is this enough reason to give up correct procedures? [Nigel] No. On the contrary, I agree that It is a reason to start actively enforcing some of them! From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 2 16:37:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:37:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <4CF7B22E.1060007@meteo.fr> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au><4CF7519 D.9060001@skynet.be> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no><153995.93698.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yaho o.com> <4CF7B22E.1060007@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4CF7BD4A.8010604@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/12/2010 15:50, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > > most players claim without a word and without showing their cards; most > players stop exposing pass cards when, in their opinion, there will not > be any more bidding... is this enough reason to give up correct procedures? > jpr > > AG : IMHO there is at least one reason to change the alert procedure and the onus on the alerter that one's alert is seen : insincere opponents can pretend that the alert was insufficiently obvious, with 100% certainty of succeding if the present criterion is used to the letter. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Dec 2 22:05:48 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:05:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <201012022106.oB2L6FLW025554@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Original post: At 06:41 PM 2/12/2010, you wrote: >The bidding has gone > > West North East South > 1C 1H(1) 1S > >Just after bidding 1S, East notices the >alert and asks for the meaning. Has >his turn to bid expired at the moment >he has bid (or selected) the 1S bid? Let us suppose that East saw the alert and realised that it meant that North had either spades, or the minors. East was intending to bid spades in any case but wished to let his partner know (belatedly) what the alert was about. South says "its too late, you've already bid" Cheers, Tony >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 2 22:18:26 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 22:18:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <201012022106.oB2L6FLW025554@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <201012022106.oB2L6FLW025554@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000801cb9266$75712560$60537020$@no> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > Original post: > > At 06:41 PM 2/12/2010, you wrote: > >The bidding has gone > > > > West North East South > > 1C 1H(1) 1S > > > >Just after bidding 1S, East notices the alert and asks for the meaning. > >Has his turn to bid expired at the moment he has bid (or selected) the > >1S bid? > > Let us suppose that East saw the alert > and realised that it meant that North had either spades, or the minors. East was > intending to bid spades in any case but wished to let his partner know (belatedly) > what the alert was about That I would take as an insinuation of deliberate communication between partners, a serious violation of Law 73. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 2 23:03:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:03:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: >The bidding has gone > > West North East South > 1C 1H(1) 1S > >Just after bidding 1S, East notices the >alert and asks for the meaning. Has >his turn to bid expired at the moment >he has bid (or selected) the 1S bid? > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) If this problem arose in a part of Sydney which still uses written bidding, then ABF regulations require South both to draw a circle around the 1H bid, and also to audibly announce "Alert!" If South did both of these things, then the unlucky East is subject to Law 21A: "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." Have a cool yule, Richard (Canberra) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 2 23:33:28 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:33:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801cb9266$75712560$60537020$@no> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >>Let us suppose that East saw the alert and realised that it >>meant that North had either spades, or the minors. East was >>intending to bid spades in any case but wished to let his >>partner know (belatedly) what the alert was about. Sven Pran: >That I would take as an insinuation of deliberate communication >between partners, a serious violation of Law 73. Tony Musgrove: >>South says "its too late, you've already bid". Richard Hills: Even if East had asked a timely question about the alert, the question would still be an unLawful question if East already knew the correct answer. Law 20G1: "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Harald Skj?ran: >>Most players alert by knocking the table. Jeff Easterson: >In the local club with one partner I use a system that is >relatively unknown here. (Everything is unknown here except >the standard French system.) When alerting I tap the alert >card a few times on the tray so that there is an acoustic >signal as well. I then wave the alert card in front of each >opponent. They are puzzled and bemused but they always notice >the alert. Ciao, JE Richard Hills: As correctly stated by David Burn, the purpose of an Alert regulation is not to narrowly obey the Alert regulation; rather the purpose is to inform the opponents. So Jeff's irregular protocol does not damage the opponents, but Harald's "most players" might damage a slightly deaf opponent. If such damage occurred, then applicable is the final sentence of Law 21B1(a): "Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 3 00:07:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:07:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CF7730E.3090103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html At the Mathematical Association of America's website, Keith Devlin writes: [snip] In the 1960s, there was a popular weekly US television quiz show called Let's Make a Deal. Each week, at a certain point in the program, the host, Monty Hall, would present the contestant with three doors. Behind one door was a substantial prize; behind the others there was nothing. Monty asked the contestant to pick a door. Clearly, the chance of the contestant choosing the door with the prize was 1 in 3. So far so good. Now comes the twist. Instead of simply opening the chosen door to reveal what lay behind, Monty would open one of the two doors the contestant had not chosen, revealing that it did not hide the prize. (Since Monty knew where the prize was, he could always do this.) He then offered the contestant the opportunity of either sticking with their original choice of door, or else switching it for the other unopened door. The question now is, does it make any difference to the contestant's chances of winning to switch, or might they just as well stick with the door they have already chosen? When they first meet this problem, most people think that it makes no difference if they switch. They reason like this: "There are two unopened doors. The prize is behind one of them. The probability that it is behind the one I picked is 1/2, the probability that it is behind the one I didn't is also 1/2, so it makes no difference if I switch." Surprising though it seems at first, this reasoning is wrong. Switching actually DOUBLES the contestant's chance of winning. The odds go up from the original 1/3 for the chosen door, to 2/3 that the OTHER unopened door hides the prize. [snip] I think the reason the Monty Hall problem raises people's ire is because a basic ability to estimate likelihoods of events is important in everyday life. We make (loose, and generally non-numeric) probability estimates all the time. Our ability to do this says something about our rationality - our capacity to live a successful life - and hence can become a matter of pride, something to be defended. The human brain did not evolve to calculate mathematical probabilities, but it did evolve to ensure our survival. A highly successful survival strategy throughout human evolutionary history, and today, is to base decisions on the immediate past and on the evidence immediately to hand. [snip] Richard Hills (May 2004): A practical variant on the Monty Hall trap is the counter-intuitive principle of restricted choice, and the parallel principle of available places. An excellent book is "For Experts Only", a collection of bridge essays edited by Matthew and Pamela Granovetter. It contains an extensive article on some practical Monty Hall applications, which can improve your assessment of probabilities during the play of the cards. But the Lawfully important Monty Hall trap arises when a TD or an AC has to calculate the differing chances of hypothetical alternatives when adjusting the score. When reading through appeals casebooks, occasionally I have noticed that a TD or AC routinely goes with the flow -> with a first-level estimate that two chances must be 50% each -> rather than doing a second-level Monty Hall estimate of the true likelihoods based upon restricted choice and/or available places. >Swiss Teams >Board no 25 >Dealer North >EW vulnerable > > J9 > JT7 > AKT3 > AKT4 > KQ5 T82 > AKQ942 83 > Q4 87652 > 97 652 > A7643 > 65 > J9 > QJ83 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1S > Dbl(1) 1NT Pass 2NT > Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs > (2) Agreed hesitation > > Result at table: > 3NT -2 by North, NS -100, lead 8 of hearts > > [big snip] > > Appeals Committee decision: > Table score re-instated > Deposit returned > > Appeals Committee's comments: > We feel that the hesitation only implied that there was > probably a long suit or better hand with West and gave no > information that it was hearts rather than clubs. So we > felt that the lead at the table was unaffected by the > hesitation. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 3 00:21:08 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:21:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <703025.24408.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] When reading through appeals casebooks, occasionally I have noticed that a TD or AC routinely goes with the flow -> with a first-level estimate that two chances must be 50% each -> rather than doing a second-level Monty Hall estimate of the true likelihoods based upon restricted choice and/or available places. [Nigel] Intriguing. Would Richard please explain how the director might apply Monty Hall reasoning to the case that he cites. And the conclusion at which he would be likely to arrive. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 3 01:30:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:30:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >>In the local club with one partner I use a system that is >>relatively unknown here. (Everything is unknown here except >>the standard French system.) When alerting I tap the alert >>card a few times on the tray so that there is an acoustic >>signal as well. I then wave the alert card in front of each >>opponent. They are puzzled and bemused but they always notice >>the alert. Ciao, JE Richard Hills (first thoughts): >As correctly stated by David Burn, the purpose of an Alert >regulation is not to narrowly obey the Alert regulation; rather >the purpose is to inform the opponents. So Jeff's irregular >protocol does not damage the opponents, but Harald's "most >players" might damage a slightly deaf opponent. If such damage >occurred, then applicable is the final sentence of Law 21B1(a): > >"Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the >Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation." Richard Hills (second thoughts): Rather than "irregular" (which has connotations of a player's irregularity or infraction), I should instead have used another word, "supererogatory" (going beyond the requirements of duty), to describe Jeff's protocol. An alerter is not responsible for any duty but to obey the local Alert regulation. As David Burn has noted, that duty is not enough if the local Alert regulation is poorly designed. It seems to me that the French Alert regulation is significantly inadequate, since Jeff's post did not mention any requirement of the French Alert regulation for Jeff to Pre-Alert his unusual (non-French Standard American) system. I parochially believe that the ABF Alert regulation is state of the art. http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFAlertRegs09.pdf Not only does the ABF Alert regulation include Pre-Alerts (and also Post-Alerts), but it also requires normal Alerts during the auction to be simultaneously executed in two different ways, both verbal and also visible. ABF Alert Regulation Clause 7.4: "Alerts are made by audibly saying, 'Alert' and, if written bidding is in use, circling the call on the bidding pad. Circling a call provides prima-facie evidence that it has been alerted. (If bidding boxes are in use, an alert card should be placed across the relevant call.)" Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 3 02:05:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 12:05:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <703025.24408.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Swiss Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1S X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs (2) Break in tempo East held: T82 83 87652 652 Opening lead 8 of hearts, six heart tricks cashed by West (x) Which suit(s) were logical alternatives for the opening lead if the hesitation had not occurred? (y) What does the hesitation demonstrably suggest? (z) Which suit(s) remain legal logical alternatives? Richard Hills, May 2004: >>When reading through appeals casebooks, occasionally I have >>noticed that a TD or AC routinely goes with the flow -> with >>a first-level estimate that two chances must be 50% each -> >>rather than doing a second-level Monty Hall estimate of the >>true likelihoods based upon restricted choice and/or >>available places. Nigel Guthrie, December 2010: >Intriguing. Would Richard please explain how the director >might apply Monty Hall reasoning to the case that he >cites. And the conclusion at which he would be likely to >arrive. Hilda R. Lirsch, Ruritania's Chief Director, December 2010: My answer to question (x) is that only hearts and clubs are logical alternatives. Ron Johnson's suggestion of a passive diamond lead is very logical, but not a logical alternative. Alain Gottcheiner's suggestion of an aggressive spade lead is very logical, but not a logical alternative. My answer to question (y) is that partner's initial double is based on a long and strong single suit, which she initially thought was too strong to make a mere overcall. Her break in tempo over 2NT demonstrably suggests that she now realises that her initial double was an error, regretting that she did not overcall her strong single suit initially, and also regretting that she is too wimpy to show that suit at the rarefied air of the three level. My answer to question (z) is that pard's UI promising a long suit does not matter, since the long suit is equally likely to be hearts or clubs. No adjusted score. Richard Hills, Ruritania's Appeals Committee, December 2010: My answer to question (z) is that East started with tripleton clubs and doubleton hearts, so Monty Hall available places demonstrably suggest partner's long suit is more likely to be hearts than clubs. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Fri Dec 3 08:35:08 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:35:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: <4CF7B22E.1060007@meteo.fr> References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> <4CF7B22E.1060007@meteo.fr> Message-ID: 2010/12/2 Jean-Pierre Rocafort : > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> 2010/12/2 Nigel Guthrie : >>> [Sven Pran] >>> Our regulation states explicitly that it is the responsibility of the >>> >>> alerter to make sure opponents notice his alert, so a Norwegian director >>> would most likely allow East to replace his 1S call without much ado. Only >>> if the alert was made in the "safe" and recommended way: By placing the >>> alert card immediately on top of the alerted call (we use bid cards in >>> Norway) will the director obviously rule inattention by East. >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> An excellent protocol! I hope the next edition of the law-book (in 2018 or >>> whenever) >>> includes as *law*, most of what is now delegated as *local regulation*. This >>> would help promulgate sensible bidding-box regulations. For example, the laws >>> should stipulate Sven's Norwegian alert protocol and the EBU stop-card protocol. >>> Such new laws could be *defaults* that bolshy chauvinistic local-legislators >>> could over-ride with local-regulations for local-people. >> >> I must admint I've never seen a player do this at the table. >> Most players alert by knocking the table. > most players claim without a word and without showing their cards; most > players stop exposing pass cards when, in their opinion, there will not > be any more bidding... is this enough reason to give up correct procedures? Alerting by knocking the table is correct procedure, at least in Norway. Our alert regulation say that you either alert by knocking the table or by showing the alert card (you might put it on the bidding cards). > jpr > >> A few alert by taking the alert card and put it in front of them on >> the table or wave it in the air. >> > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 3 09:19:02 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:19:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Your turn to bid In-Reply-To: References: <201012020742.oB27gHD8018586@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000301cb91fb$844f27f0$8ced77d0$@no> <4CF7B22E.1060007@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000301cb92c2$bf06b670$3d142350$@no> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran ......... > Alerting by knocking the table is correct procedure, at least in Norway. > Our alert regulation say that you either alert by knocking the table or by showing > the alert card (you might put it on the bidding cards). It is indeed, but it is still the responsibility of the alerter that opponents catch the alert. (A rather weak knock on the table may easily go unnoticed) From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 3 10:29:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:29:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CF8B896.6060807@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/12/2010 2:05, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Swiss Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1S > X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT > Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs > (2) Break in tempo > > East held: > > T82 > 83 > 87652 > 652 > > Opening lead 8 of hearts, six heart tricks cashed by West > > (x) Which suit(s) were logical alternatives for the opening > lead if the hesitation had not occurred? > > (y) What does the hesitation demonstrably suggest? > > (z) Which suit(s) remain legal logical alternatives? > > Richard Hills, May 2004: > >>> When reading through appeals casebooks, occasionally I have >>> noticed that a TD or AC routinely goes with the flow -> with >>> a first-level estimate that two chances must be 50% each -> >>> rather than doing a second-level Monty Hall estimate of the >>> true likelihoods based upon restricted choice and/or >>> available places. > Nigel Guthrie, December 2010: > >> Intriguing. Would Richard please explain how the director >> might apply Monty Hall reasoning to the case that he >> cites. And the conclusion at which he would be likely to >> arrive. > Hilda R. Lirsch, Ruritania's Chief Director, December 2010: > > My answer to question (x) is that only hearts and clubs are > logical alternatives. Ron Johnson's suggestion of a passive > diamond lead is very logical, but not a logical alternative. > Alain Gottcheiner's suggestion of an aggressive spade lead is > very logical, but not a logical alternative. > > My answer to question (y) is that partner's initial double is > based on a long and strong single suit, which she initially > thought was too strong to make a mere overcall. Her break in > tempo over 2NT demonstrably suggests that she now realises > that her initial double was an error, regretting that she did > not overcall her strong single suit initially, and also > regretting that she is too wimpy to show that suit at the > rarefied air of the three level. > > My answer to question (z) is that pard's UI promising a long > suit does not matter, since the long suit is equally likely > to be hearts or clubs. No adjusted score. AG : since partner can't hold more than a 16-counte, the "very srtrong 1-suiter" interpretation is dubious. ; I'm more inclined to consider the 4H/6C hand. Could it be 64 the other way ? It depends on partner's style, whence whether clubs are suggested over hearts can't be ascertained. From gampas at aol.com Fri Dec 3 14:06:55 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:06:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD6102181EEE62-888-1E07@webmail-m099.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] My answer to question (x) is that only hearts and clubs are logical alternatives. Ron Johnson's suggestion of a passive diamond lead is very logical, but not a logical alternative. Alain Gottcheiner's suggestion of an aggressive spade lead is very logical, but not a logical alternative. [Paul Lamford] Indeed the diamond is ludicrous, bringing to mind the lyric: Da doo? Ron? Ron! [Richard Hills] My answer to question (y) is that partner's initial double is based on a long and strong single suit, which she initially thought was too strong to make a mere overcall. Her break in tempo over 2NT demonstrably suggests that she now realises that her initial double was an error, regretting that she did not overcall her strong single suit initially, and also regretting that she is too wimpy to show that suit at the rarefied air of the three level. [Paul Lamford] I think that a long and strong single suit is an unlikely reason for the break in tempo. A double by partner now would, I believe, say lead a *spade*, and I would impose a maximum PP for a successful spade lead after the BIT. [Richard Hills] My answer to question (z) is that pard's UI promising a long suit does not matter, since the long suit is equally likely to be hearts or clubs. No adjusted score. Richard Hills, Ruritania's Appeals Committee, December 2010: My answer to question (z) is that East started with tripleton clubs and doubleton hearts, so Monty Hall available places demonstrably suggest partner's long suit is more likely to be hearts than clubs. [Paul Lamford] I agree that the second most likely explanation for the BIT is either solid hearts or solid clubs, and the former is more likely on available spaces, but partner is more likely to have bid hearts than clubs, which probably about cancels it out. Perhaps we have to select the non-logical alternative of a diamond, as that it is the only selection which carefullly avoids taking advantage of the UI. Note that Law 73C does NOT require you to select an LA when complying. So you do do well, Ron. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 3 14:32:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:32:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD6102181EEE62-888-1E07@webmail-m099.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD6102181EEE62-888-1E07@webmail-m099.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CF8F18A.8060501@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/12/2010 14:06, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [Paul Lamford] > I agree that the second most likely explanation for the BIT is either > solid hearts or solid clubs, and the former is more likely on available > spaces, but partner is more likely to have bid hearts than clubs, which > probably about cancels it out. AG : this depends heavily on partnership. In mine, the most likely explanation is that partner doubled to show two suits, intending to bid his long suit next, but the sequence made it slightly too risky to do so. My partners would typcally hold Kx - AJxx - x - KQJxxx. Would reversing rounded suits be possible ? Yes, but not facing everyone. So, in some partnerships, clubs are suggested, while in others, the two logical alternatives of a heart and a club aren't suggested over eachother. But the important part is : nobody would dream of making a lead-directing double against 2NT, holding short diamonds, when they can so easily escape to diamonds. Best regards Alain From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Fri Dec 3 15:45:59 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:45:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Swiss Teams >Board no 25 >Dealer North >EW vulnerable > > J9 > JT7 > AKT3 > AKT4 > KQ5 T82 > AKQ942 83 > Q4 87652 > 97 652 > A7643 > 65 > J9 > QJ83 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1S > Dbl(1) 1NT Pass 2NT > Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs > (2) Agreed hesitation > > Result at table: > 3NT -2 by North, NS -100, lead 8 of hearts > > [big snip] > > Appeals Committee decision: > Table score re-instated > Deposit returned > > Appeals Committee's comments: > We feel that the hesitation only implied that there was probably a > long suit or better hand with West and gave no information that it was > hearts rather than clubs. So we felt that the lead at the table was > unaffected by the hesitation. I see Richard's point. You can't know precisely whether it's hearts or clubs (knowledge of the partnership and bidding style/agreements may make this less of a guess than it seems at first glance) but the break in tempo brings the likely winning options down to those two suits. My reading of the Laws says that's not sufficient to adjust which frankly feels wrong. EW are clearly ahead of the game after UI has been introduced by them. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 4 17:50:34 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:50:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFA715A.2090104@nhcc.net> [East has given UI to indicate possession of a long suit.] On 12/3/2010 9:45 AM, Johnson, Ron wrote: > EW are clearly > ahead of the game after UI has been introduced by > them. Sorry, Ron, but I don't follow you here. Absent UI, West (who holds no values) will be hoping for East to have a long suit and will try to find it. With UI, West knows his hopes will be realized if he guesses right, but he still has to find the suit. I don't see how the UI changes anything unless it indicates one suit over another. FWIW, I think a spade lead would be illegal as suggested over hearts or clubs. Diamond doesn't seem a LA to me, though it's certainly legal if West chooses it. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Dec 5 07:56:29 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 22:56:29 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 Message-ID: <245AE827927B4F64BE97B0ADE4A44065@MARVLAPTOP> I wrote: > My choice is none of the above, label it ZZ:: > > -980 for the NOS, -50 for the OS. Per L12C1(b) the former get no > redress, and the latter do not get the revoke. > > Now I'm off to the Orlando NABC for a week. > Okay, I'm back. After talking to Adam Wildavsky, Mike Flader, and others, I have verified that the ACBL will retain its current policies for adjusting scores when the NOS has committed a serious error: For the example provided in the WBF minutes, that means: -980 for the NOS, +480 for the OS. The effect of a serious error by the NOS is not removed from the OS score adjustment. Also, such serious error means no redress for the NOS, never partial redress. In the subject example, the cost of the revoke was 980 + 50 (if no revoke) = 1030. Had the NOS been deprived of a 1430 contract by the illegal 6S bid, they would still retain the -980, and not get 1430-1030 = 400. Adam, if you have reconsidered this, let us know. Since the ACBL does not accept what L12C1(b) says, in their version of the Laws they should delete the words "for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted" in the first sentence and should delete the second sentence entirely.. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5674 (20101204) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Dec 5 12:37:49 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:37:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <245AE827927B4F64BE97B0ADE4A44065@MARVLAPTOP> References: <245AE827927B4F64BE97B0ADE4A44065@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <003a01cb9470$d810d1a0$883274e0$@nl> Marvin, Please remember you are the only one that uses total point scoring in giving adjusted scores in a pairs tournament. The rest of the world adds and subtracts percentages(or IMPS in teams). Hans From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Dec 5 17:52:15 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 08:52:15 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 References: <245AE827927B4F64BE97B0ADE4A44065@MARVLAPTOP> <003a01cb9470$d810d1a0$883274e0$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren > Marvin, > > Please remember you are the only one that uses total point scoring > in giving > adjusted scores in a pairs tournament. > The rest of the world adds and subtracts percentages(or IMPS in > teams). So what? The principles of L12C1(b) still apply, don't they? 1. Partial redress for the NOS when the cost of a serious error is less than their normal compensation. 2. The effect of a serious error is not to be included in the adjusted score of the OS. I suspect that weighting practices do not always accord with these two requirements, but that's is only conjecture on my part. In the absence of an ACBL Laws Mailing List, I must discuss the Laws in regard to the ACBL environment, sorry about that. Besides, Item 5 spoke in terms ot points, not imps or matchpoints. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5675 (20101205) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 6 02:31:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:31:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sir Humphrey Appleby: "The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, but to protect officials." Swiss Teams Board no 25 Dealer North EW vulnerable J9 JT7 AKT3 AKT4 KQ5 T82 AKQ942 83 Q4 87652 97 652 A7643 65 J9 QJ83 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1S X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs (2) Agreed hesitation Result at table: 3NT -2 by North, NS -100, lead 8 of hearts [big snip] Appeals Committee decision: Table score re-instated Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: We feel that the hesitation only implied that there was probably a long suit or better hand with West and gave no information that it was hearts rather than clubs. So we felt that the lead at the table was unaffected by the hesitation. Ron Johnson: >I see Richard's point. You can't know precisely whether >it's hearts or clubs (knowledge of the partnership and >bidding style/agreements may make this less of a guess >than it seems at first glance) but the break in tempo >brings the likely winning options down to those two >suits. Richard Hills: Not quite my point. My argument is that: (a) only hearts and clubs were initially logical alternatives for the opening lead, (b) pard could have two types of hands, either (i) relatively balanced with both hearts and clubs, or (ii) long strong suit with either hearts or clubs, as was the case at the table. (c) pard's hesitation demonstrably suggested (ii). Ron Johnson: >My reading of the Laws says that's not sufficient to >adjust which frankly feels wrong. EW are clearly ahead >of the game after UI has been introduced by them. Richard Hills: Yes, in my opinion, East was clearly ahead of the game. No, in my opinion, the Laws permit an adjustment. If West holds a type (i) relatively balanced hand with both hearts and clubs, then a club logical alternative lead is indicated over a heart logical alternative lead. If, however, West holds a type (ii) unbalanced hand with either long strong hearts or long strong clubs, then... Steve Willner: >>>>Sorry, Ron, but I don't follow you here. Absent UI, >>>>East (who holds no values) will be hoping for West >>>>to have a long suit and will try to find it. With >>>>UI, West knows his hopes will be realized if he >>>>guesses right, but he still has to find the suit. Richard Hills: Sorry Steve, but I do not follow you here. Absent UI, the winning strategy for East is not necessarily to find West's long suit. If the logical alternative of a club lead turns out to be a passive lead, 3NT might still fail. Even the very logical non-LA of a super-passive diamond lead might triumph versus aggressive loons who pickle their partner's holding of KJ96 of hearts sitting under declarer's AQT7 of hearts by wasting their heart 8 on the opening lead. Ron Johnson (earlier 13-cards-only opening lead post): >>My inclination is to go passive. >> >>8D >> >>I'm not inclined to lead a heart here. Feels like >>that's doing declarer's work for him. Steve Willner: >>>>I don't see how the UI changes anything unless it >>>>indicates one suit over another... Richard Hills: Sorry Steve, but I do not follow you here. If one stipulates that UI demonstrably suggests that West holds AKQxxx in either hearts or clubs (or a weaker long suit with an outside entry), then it is true only "a priori" that hearts are not indicated over clubs. But "a posteriori" East's doubleton heart versus tripleton club indicates the logical alternative of a heart opening lead over the other logical alternative of a club opening lead. Alain Gottcheiner: >>>...partner might hold xxx-KQJT-Ax-Axxx as well as >>>xxx-Axxx-Ax-KQJT, so it's not more than a guess... Richard Hills: Yes, if AI suggests "a guess" between a heart or a club opening lead, but UI suggests "a better guess" of a heart opening lead, then Law 73C requires East to be clubbed with a hearty adjusted score. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 6 03:18:59 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 02:18:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <686216.69850.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Yes, if AI suggests "a guess" between a heart or a club opening lead, but UI suggests "a better guess" of a heart opening lead, then Law 73C requires East to be clubbed with a hearty adjusted score. [Nigel] Richard has convinced me. IMO, a protocol, written into the (2018) law-book, would improve players' understanding of UI and improve directors' UI decisions. e.g. 1. * A sample of the players' peers should be given the putative offender's hand but should not be shown the other hands or told the board-result. A peer should be defined as a player of roughly the same standard as all the competitors -- not a match for the individual. The poll group should include only players, who accept as reasonable, the player's previous actions on the board. * The director should ask them what action (call/play) they would take, in context, and what other actions they would consider. * The director should collate a list of logical alternatives, defined as an action, given practical consideration by a specified percentage (say 30%) of peers. * If it is not already on the list, the director should add the action that the player actually took. * The peers should assess the relative merits of the logical alternatives (rank the complete list in order of merit or award marks out of 10). 2. * Now, the director should tell the peers the nature of the unauthorised information (UI). The director should ask the peers which actions are suggested by the UI i.e re-order the logical alternatives, assuming the UI was authorised. N.B. The peers must still be kept ignorant of the other hands and actual results. * Those actions that improve in rank are "suggested alternatives". If the putative offender chose a suggested action, he would be penalized (procedural penalty). * In addition, if there were consequent damage, a favourable result would be restored. (determined by some other practical procedure -- IMO, the director should be allowed to consider actual results at other tables as an aid to such a determination). 3. * The director won't always have an actual group of peers but he can still perform the above thought experiment to arrive at a judgement. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 6 04:03:27 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:03:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Henry Taylor, The Statesman (1836): "A secret may be sometimes best kept by keeping the secret of its being a secret." Swiss Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1S X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs You, East, hold: T82 83 87652 652 What is your opening lead? Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >partner might hold xxx-KQJT-Ax-Axxx as well as xxx-Axxx-Ax-KQJT, >so it's not more than a guess. [snip] Richard Hills: partner might hold 543-KQJ2-A3-A743 as well as 543-A543-A3-KQJ3, so it is much more than a guess. In the first case 3NT is cold, as the opponents have two heart stoppers even if a heart opening lead is guessed. In the second case 3NT might be beaten on a club opening lead, if North-South lack a second club stopper due to the opponents' clubs dividing 3-3. Thus if one is aiming for pard's strong and short suit, a club opening lead is indicated. If UI suggests to aim for pard's strong and long suit, a heart opening lead is indicated. What's the problem? The problem is -> Keith Devlin: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html [snip] >>Now, experience tells me that if you haven't come across this >>problem before, there is a probability of at most 1 in 3 that >>the above explanation convinces you. So let me say a bit more >>for the benefit of the remaining 2/3 who believe I am just one >>sandwich short of a picnic (as one NPR listener delightfully >>put it). >> >>The instinct that compels people to reject the above explanation >>is, I think, a deep rooted sense that probabilities are fixed. [snip] >>Indeed, some individuals I have encountered are so convinced >>that their (faulty) reasoning is correct that when you try to >>explain where they are going wrong, they become passionate, >>sometimes angry, and occasionally even abusive. Abusive over a >>math problem? [snip] >>But why the passion with which many continue to hold on to their >>false conclusion? I have not encountered such a reaction when I >>have corrected students' mistakes in algebra or calculus. [snip] Richard Hills: Abusive over a blml problem??? Surely no blmler would do that??? And surely no blmler would be so passionate about her false conclusions that she would ostracise another blmler who satirised her arguments (due to her falsely perceiving "ad hominem" abuse when only satire was intended)??? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 6 05:39:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:39:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01cb9470$d810d1a0$883274e0$@nl> Message-ID: >Marvin, > >Please remember you are the only one that uses total point >scoring in giving adjusted scores in a pairs tournament. > >The rest of the world adds and subtracts percentages (or >IMPS in teams). > >Hans I do not understand; Marvin French is not the only one. For any Assigned Adjusted Score it is standard in Australia for a Director to calculate a total point score (or scores, for a split and/or weighted adjustment) _en route_ to a _later_ award of a matchpoint percentage or imp variation. Only for Artificial Adjusted Scores do Australian Directors proceed _directly_ to percentages or imps. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 6 06:23:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:23:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3: "Referring to Ton Kooijman's Appendix conveying his opinions on matters of law on the WBF web site it was agreed that the mention of his title as chairman of the committee shall be removed." Ton Kooijman's Appendix, pages 2-3: [snip] Serious error In bridge, it is normal to make mistakes; they are part of the game. When considering the damage related to an infraction, a player should not be punished for making such a mistake unless this is considered to be really unacceptable. Example 1: Dealer South. N/S Vulnerable North (dummy) K8 K AQ62 AKT863 East J976 T874 J97 52 West North East South --- --- --- 1D Pass 3C Pass 3NT Pass 4D Pass 4H Pass 4S Pass 4NT Pass 5S Pass 6D Pass 7D Pass Pass Pass * NS play 5-card majors with better minor. 5S shows two aces and the DQ. South has broken tempo before bidding 6D. * The lead is HQ taken by HK in dummy; CA and CK follow; then C3. * The grand slam seems unbeatable, South will overruff. So East discards a heart, but with South holding D K84, East can defeat the contract if he ruffs with D9 or DJ, as this promotes West's D T53. * If the TD decides that Pass is a logical alternative for 7D, he should regard the possible misplay by East as being within the range of normal bridge, and adjust the score for both sides to 6D+1. [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 09:19:17 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:19:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cb9470$d810d1a0$883274e0$@nl> Message-ID: 2010/12/6 : >>Marvin, >> >>Please remember you are the only one that uses total point >>scoring in giving adjusted scores in a pairs tournament. >> >>The rest of the world adds and subtracts percentages (or >>IMPS in teams). >> >>Hans > > I do not understand; Marvin French is not the only one. ?For > any Assigned Adjusted Score it is standard in Australia for > a Director to calculate a total point score (or scores, for > a split and/or weighted adjustment) _en route_ to a _later_ > award of a matchpoint percentage or imp variation. > > Only for Artificial Adjusted Scores do Australian Directors > proceed _directly_ to percentages or imps. Well, yes and no. :-) Marvin French would would adjust to a score of 440 where all others would adjust to 60% of the IMPs for 620 and 40% of the IMPs for 170. If at IMPs the other tables result was 620, Marvin's adjustment would lead to a score difference of 220, converting to 6 IMPs, wheras the rest of the world would give 40% of 10 IMPs, or 4 IMPs. In MP the scenario might be: On a 50 top (26 tables), 20 tables scored 620 and 5 tables scored 170. Marvid would adjust to 440, giving 10-40 in score. I would adjust to 60% of the MP score for 620 and 40% of the MP score for 170, giving 19.2-31.8 in score. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section > Specialist Recruitment Team > Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental 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 sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 6 09:26:26 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:26:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computing 12C1b scores In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cb9470$d810d1a0$883274e0$@nl> Message-ID: <005c01cb951f$4693fea0$d3bbfbe0$@nl> I was referring to the following line from Marvin: << Also, such serious error means no redress for the NOS, never partial redress. In the subject example, the cost of the revoke was 980 + 50 (if no revoke) = 1030. Had the NOS been deprived of a 1430 contract by the illegal 6S bid, they would still retain the -980, and not get 1430-1030 = 400. >> Here he takes a potential outcome(1430) subtracts the cost of a mistake(1030) and arrives at a score of 400. This is total point scoring. Should a director ever decide to subtract the cost of the mistake from a potential score he should do the following: Let V() be the function that computes the value of a score(in matchpoint scoring the percentage, in teams the IMPs, whatever), and a pair could have scored 1430, but their opponents illegally ended up in a contract that should score them 50, but due to a serious mistake scores -980. Then the director should assign V(1430)-(V(50)-V(-980)), so the value of their due score minus the damage they did to themselves. Removing parentheses this is V(1430)-V(50)+V(-980) which is surely not the same as V(1430-50-980)=V(400). There is an extra complication in computing since it is not always possible to look up V(1430) since it might not be on the frequency table but I leave this as an exercise to the reader. The reason I reacted at all is that Marvin has made this point more often, so I feared that people might use it. I wanted to make the counter-point and explain how this is done at international level at least, and should be done. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: maandag 6 december 2010 5:39 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >Marvin, > >Please remember you are the only one that uses total point >scoring in giving adjusted scores in a pairs tournament. > >The rest of the world adds and subtracts percentages (or >IMPS in teams). > >Hans I do not understand; Marvin French is not the only one. For any Assigned Adjusted Score it is standard in Australia for a Director to calculate a total point score (or scores, for a split and/or weighted adjustment) _en route_ to a _later_ award of a matchpoint percentage or imp variation. Only for Artificial Adjusted Scores do Australian Directors proceed _directly_ to percentages or imps. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Mon Dec 6 11:18:01 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:18:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFCB859.3050604@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/12/2010 2:31, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Richard Hills: > > Not quite my point. My argument is that: > > (a) only hearts and clubs were initially logical > alternatives for the opening lead, > > (b) pard could have two types of hands, either > (i) relatively balanced with both hearts and clubs, > or > (ii) long strong suit with either hearts or clubs, > as was the case at the table. > > (c) pard's hesitation demonstrably suggested (ii). > AG : but this might be taken as promoting long Hearts from a 1/4 probability to a 1/2 probability, whence suggested. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 6 11:27:18 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:27:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFCBA86.3030403@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/12/2010 4:03, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Henry Taylor, The Statesman (1836): > > "A secret may be sometimes best kept by keeping the secret of > its being a secret." > > Swiss Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1S > X (1) 1NT Pass 2NT > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs > > You, East, hold: > > T82 > 83 > 87652 > 652 > > What is your opening lead? > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >> partner might hold xxx-KQJT-Ax-Axxx as well as xxx-Axxx-Ax-KQJT, >> so it's not more than a guess. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > partner might hold 543-KQJ2-A3-A743 as well as 543-A543-A3-KQJ3, > so it is much more than a guess. > > In the first case 3NT is cold, as the opponents have two heart > stoppers even if a heart opening lead is guessed. > > In the second case 3NT might be beaten on a club opening lead, if > North-South lack a second club stopper due to the opponents' clubs > dividing 3-3. > > Thus if one is aiming for pard's strong and short suit, a club > opening lead is indicated. If UI suggests to aim for pard's > strong and long suit, a heart opening lead is indicated. > > What's the problem? > > The problem is -> > > Keith Devlin: > http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html > > [snip] > >>> Now, experience tells me that if you haven't come across this >>> problem before, there is a probability of at most 1 in 3 that >>> the above explanation convinces you. So let me say a bit more >>> for the benefit of the remaining 2/3 who believe I am just one >>> sandwich short of a picnic (as one NPR listener delightfully >>> put it). >>> >>> The instinct that compels people to reject the above explanation >>> is, I think, a deep rooted sense that probabilities are fixed. > [snip] > >>> Indeed, some individuals I have encountered are so convinced >>> that their (faulty) reasoning is correct that when you try to >>> explain where they are going wrong, they become passionate, >>> sometimes angry, and occasionally even abusive. Abusive over a >>> math problem? > [snip] > >>> But why the passion with which many continue to hold on to their >>> false conclusion? I have not encountered such a reaction when I >>> have corrected students' mistakes in algebra or calculus. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Abusive over a blml problem??? Surely no blmler would do that??? > > And surely no blmler would be so passionate about her false > conclusions that she would ostracise another blmler who satirised > her arguments (due to her falsely perceiving "ad hominem" abuse > when only satire was intended)??? > AG : I voluntary let the whole message as a proof of how intricate this case might be. Now, we seem to have forgotten one word : "demonstrably" in the wording of L16. The fact that scholars (i.e. us) can't agree on what could have been suggested obviously implies that nothing has been demonstrably suggested. Isn't that enough to exonerate East ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101206/2c526843/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 6 12:59:15 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 12:59:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] you wouldn't have taken so long Message-ID: <4CFCD013.2070003@ulb.ac.be> Discussion after the match (screens on) : East to West : you took a good decision not to reopen bidding on #28 ; you could have pushed them into game. West to East : the chariot took a while in coming back, and I know you wouldn't have taken so long. This raises two questions : a) what if *South* draws such an inference ? Can there be UI ? I suppose the answer is random timing by East ? b) knowing partne's thought pattten, East could begin taking some time when he doesn't want partner to bid, which is probably illegal, but how can it be fought, as random timing is allowed, and even encouraged ? Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 6 13:34:53 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:34:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?you_wouldn=27t_have_taken_so_long?= In-Reply-To: <4CFCD013.2070003@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CFCD013.2070003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1PPaHO-0UyTZI0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> From: Alain Gottcheiner > Discssion after the match (screens on) : > > East to West : you took a good decision not to reopen bidding on #28 ; > you could have pushed them into game. > West to East : the chariot took a while in coming back, and I know you > wouldn't have taken so long. > > This raises two questions : > > a) what if *South* draws such an inference ? Can there be UI ? I > suppose the answer is random timing by East ? > > b) knowing partne's thought pattten, East could begin taking some time > when he doesn't want partner to bid, which is probably illegal, but > how can it be fought, as random timing is allowed, and even encouraged > ? if you practise random timing - as encouraged by regulation - more than once in while, the above part of the discussion (West to East) would not have happened. Peter From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 6 14:20:57 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:20:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [richard.hills quotes WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3] "Referring to Ton Kooijman's Appendix conveying his opinions on matters of law on the WBF web site it was agreed that the mention of his title as chairman of the committee shall be removed." Ton Kooijman's Appendix, pages 2-3: [snip] Serious error In bridge, it is normal to make mistakes; they are part of the game. When considering the damage related to an infraction, a player should not be punished for making such a mistake unless this is considered to be really unacceptable. Example 1: Dealer South. N/S Vulnerable North (dummy) K8 K AQ62 AKT863 East J976 T874 J97 52 West North East South --- --- --- 1D Pass 3C Pass 3NT Pass 4D Pass 4H Pass 4S Pass 4NT Pass 5S Pass 6D Pass 7D Pass Pass Pass * NS play 5-card majors with better minor. 5S shows two aces and the DQ. South has broken tempo before bidding 6D. * The lead is HQ taken by HK in dummy; CA and CK follow; then C3. * The grand slam seems unbeatable, South will overruff. So East discards a heart, but with South holding D K84, East can defeat the contract if he ruffs with D9 or DJ, as this promotes West's D T53. * If the TD decides that Pass is a logical alternative for 7D, he should regard the possible misplay by East as being within the range of normal bridge, and adjust the score for both sides to 6D+1. [snip] {Nigel] IMO... 1. It may be an error for the defender to fail to ruff high but Ton is right that, for legal purposes, it should not be regarded as a serious error. 2. Should the adjustment be to 6D=. (For the offenders, at least). 3. Should the director consider a PP against South even if there is no damage (e.g. if defenders had defeated 7D). 4. Anyway, all this "serious error" nonsense should be scrapped. IMO, when opponents seem to be up to something illegal, it is easy to get flustered and make mistakes. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 14:33:51 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:33:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/6 Nigel Guthrie : > [richard.hills quotes WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3] > > "Referring to Ton Kooijman's Appendix conveying his opinions on > matters of law on the WBF web site it was agreed that the mention > of his title as chairman of the committee shall be removed." > Ton Kooijman's Appendix, pages 2-3: > [snip] > Serious error > In bridge, it is normal to make mistakes; they are part of the > game. When considering the damage related to an infraction, a > player should not be punished for making such a mistake unless > this is considered to be really unacceptable. > Example 1: > Dealer South. N/S Vulnerable > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?North (dummy) > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?K8 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?K > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AQ62 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AKT863 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? East > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? J976 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? T874 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? J97 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 52 > > West ? ? ?North ? ? East ? ? ?South > --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? 1D > Pass ? ? ?3C ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?3NT > Pass ? ? ?4D ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?4H > Pass ? ? ?4S ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?4NT > Pass ? ? ?5S ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?6D > Pass ? ? ?7D ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?Pass > Pass > > * NS play 5-card majors with better minor. 5S shows two aces and > the DQ. South has broken tempo before bidding 6D. > > * The lead is HQ taken by HK in dummy; CA and CK follow; then C3. > > * The grand slam seems unbeatable, South will overruff. So East > discards a heart, but with South holding D K84, East can defeat > the contract if he ruffs with D9 or DJ, as this promotes West's > D T53. > > * If the TD decides that Pass is a logical alternative for 7D, he > should regard the possible misplay by East as being within the > range of normal bridge, and adjust the score for both sides to > 6D+1. > [snip] > > {Nigel] IMO... > 1. It may be an error for the defender to fail to ruff high but Ton is right > that, for legal purposes, it should not be regarded as a serious error. > 2. Should the adjustment be to 6D=. (For the offenders, at least). > 3. Should the director consider a PP against South even if there is no damage > (e.g. if defenders had defeated 7D). > 4. Anyway, all this "serious error" nonsense should be scrapped. IMO, when > opponents seem to be up to something illegal, it is easy to get flustered and > make mistakes. The laws don't punish mistakes, only serious errors, so this nonsense about scrapping "serious error nonsense" is...... nonsense. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 6 15:23:19 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:23:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <668262.55651.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Harald Skj?ran] The laws don't punish mistakes, only serious errors, so this nonsense about scrapping "serious error nonsense" is...... nonsense. [Nigel] "Serious error" and similar legislation appears to be an unnecessary complication that few directors or players understand. BLML often discusses cases that involve mistakes by non-offenders. There is rarely agreement as to whether the error is serious enough to affect redress or by how much it should reduce redress. Sometimes, especially in team-matches, offenders gain and non-offenders lose, compared with what was likely without the infraction. Such rulings seem inconsistent and unfair. Serious error legislation seems to add no value whatsoever. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 15:43:02 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:43:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <668262.55651.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <668262.55651.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/6 Nigel Guthrie : > [Harald Skj?ran] > > The laws don't punish mistakes, only serious errors, so this nonsense > about scrapping "serious error nonsense" is...... nonsense. > > [Nigel] > "Serious error" and similar legislation appears to be an unnecessary > complication that few directors or players understand. BLML often discusses > cases that involve mistakes by non-offenders. There is rarely agreement as to > whether the error is serious enough to affect redress or by how much it should > reduce redress. Sometimes, especially in team-matches, offenders gain and > non-offenders lose, compared with what was likely without the infraction. Such > rulings seem inconsistent and unfair. Serious error legislation seems to add no > value whatsoever. I wonder where you play to have such an assessment of the TDs/ACs. This is so far from my own experience that I'm lost for words. Of course, since bridge is a game of judgement, a lot of decisions, both at the table and when it comes to rulings, are not clearcut. And mistakes in judgement will happen. Far more often by players than TDs/ACs. As a player and TD at a reasonalby high level (I won the national swiss teams championship this year and had been a TD in our national open pairs championship the last ten years), I'm relatively satisfied with the bridge laws. Of course there's room for improvement, and it's a pity the WBF LC didn't follow Grattan on completely rewriting the laws. But in general the laws we have work very well. And most discussions here on blml is on subjects and problems that "never" happen in real life. Some (few) discussions in here has very little, if any, practical value. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 6 15:48:18 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:48:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <668262.55651.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <668262.55651.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002601cb9554$9f09c440$dd1d4cc0$@no> On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > [Harald Skj?ran] > > The laws don't punish mistakes, only serious errors, so this nonsense about > scrapping "serious error nonsense" is...... nonsense. > > [Nigel] > "Serious error" and similar legislation appears to be an unnecessary complication > that few directors or players understand. BLML often discusses cases that involve > mistakes by non-offenders. There is rarely agreement as to whether the error is > serious enough to affect redress or by how much it should reduce redress. > Sometimes, especially in team-matches, offenders gain and non-offenders lose, > compared with what was likely without the infraction. Such rulings seem > inconsistent and unfair. Serious error legislation seems to add no value > whatsoever. The way I have always understood this rule is that the laws hit the players who after an irregularity by opponents try something wild and gambling with the intention to seek redress if it fails. More ordinary mistakes are not covered by this rule. I have a feeling that the distinction must be similar to what separates irrational plays from inferior? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 6 16:00:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:00:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] you wouldn't have taken so long In-Reply-To: <1PPaHO-0UyTZI0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <4CFCD013.2070003@ulb.ac.be> <1PPaHO-0UyTZI0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4CFCFA7A.1040307@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/12/2010 13:34, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > From: Alain Gottcheiner >> Discssion after the match (screens on) : >> >> East to West : you took a good decision not to reopen bidding on #28 ; >> you could have pushed them into game. >> West to East : the chariot took a while in coming back, and I know you >> wouldn't have taken so long. >> >> This raises two questions : >> >> a) what if *South* draws such an inference ? Can there be UI ? I >> suppose the answer is random timing by East ? >> >> b) knowing partne's thought pattten, East could begin taking some time >> when he doesn't want partner to bid, which is probably illegal, but >> how can it be fought, as random timing is allowed, and even encouraged >> ? > if you practise random timing - as encouraged by regulation - > more than once in while, the above part of the discussion > (West to East) would not have happened. AG : i woul,d if i only knew how to make it random ... From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Dec 6 16:39:07 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:39:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CFD039B.9050006@meteo.fr> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2010/12/6 Nigel Guthrie : >> [richard.hills quotes WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3] >> >> "Referring to Ton Kooijman's Appendix conveying his opinions on >> matters of law on the WBF web site it was agreed that the mention >> of his title as chairman of the committee shall be removed." >> Ton Kooijman's Appendix, pages 2-3: >> [snip] >> Serious error >> In bridge, it is normal to make mistakes; they are part of the >> game. When considering the damage related to an infraction, a >> player should not be punished for making such a mistake unless >> this is considered to be really unacceptable. >> Example 1: >> Dealer South. N/S Vulnerable >> >> North (dummy) >> K8 >> K >> AQ62 >> AKT863 >> East >> J976 >> T874 >> J97 >> 52 >> >> West North East South >> --- --- --- 1D >> Pass 3C Pass 3NT >> Pass 4D Pass 4H >> Pass 4S Pass 4NT >> Pass 5S Pass 6D >> Pass 7D Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> * NS play 5-card majors with better minor. 5S shows two aces and >> the DQ. South has broken tempo before bidding 6D. >> >> * The lead is HQ taken by HK in dummy; CA and CK follow; then C3. >> >> * The grand slam seems unbeatable, South will overruff. So East >> discards a heart, but with South holding D K84, East can defeat >> the contract if he ruffs with D9 or DJ, as this promotes West's >> D T53. >> >> * If the TD decides that Pass is a logical alternative for 7D, he >> should regard the possible misplay by East as being within the >> range of normal bridge, and adjust the score for both sides to >> 6D+1. >> [snip] >> >> {Nigel] IMO... >> 1. It may be an error for the defender to fail to ruff high but Ton is right >> that, for legal purposes, it should not be regarded as a serious error. >> 2. Should the adjustment be to 6D=. (For the offenders, at least). >> 3. Should the director consider a PP against South even if there is no damage >> (e.g. if defenders had defeated 7D). >> 4. Anyway, all this "serious error" nonsense should be scrapped. IMO, when >> opponents seem to be up to something illegal, it is easy to get flustered and >> make mistakes. > > The laws don't punish mistakes, only serious errors, so this nonsense > about scrapping "serious error nonsense" is...... nonsense. > ok, this error is not serious, but... once more we are discussing about an irrational situation: we are told north has ui he uses to call a stupid 7D contract. it seems ui is no more very reliable in recent times! we should rather wonder whether the BIT was meaningful and demonstrably suggested the action north took. this is a situation where a BIT is not unexpected and may have different causes. apparently south's hand was AQ54,A653,K84,74 and his problem was not level but strain. 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 6 16:45:54 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:45:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CFCBA86.3030403@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CFCBA86.3030403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4CFD0532.8040601@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > AG : I voluntary let the whole message as a proof of how intricate this > case might be. > > Now, we seem to have forgotten one word : "demonstrably" in the wording > of L16. > > The fact that scholars (i.e. us) can't agree on what could have been > suggested obviously implies that nothing has been demonstrably suggested. > > Isn't that enough to exonerate East ? > I don't think so, Alain. Especially because of the word "demonstrably", one must accept demonstrations. What Richard has shown is that there is a demonstrable reason why the heart lead is suggested. The fact that a number of players, without the demonstration, don't see the suggestion, does not alter the fact that it has been demonstrated. Only if you, Alain, can "demonstrate" some reason why a club lead might be suggested, can there be a discussion. But the fact that you did not see the reason, when asked at first, does not change the fact that the reason has now been demonstrated. Which of course begs another question. Is a player, who cannot find the demonstrable reason at the table, bound by L16? > > Best regards > > > Alain > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 6 17:39:50 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:39:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CFD0532.8040601@skynet.be> References: <4CFCBA86.3030403@ulb.ac.be> <4CFD0532.8040601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CFD11D6.3070104@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/12/2010 16:45, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> AG : I voluntary let the whole message as a proof of how intricate this >> case might be. >> >> Now, we seem to have forgotten one word : "demonstrably" in the wording >> of L16. >> >> The fact that scholars (i.e. us) can't agree on what could have been >> suggested obviously implies that nothing has been demonstrably suggested. >> >> Isn't that enough to exonerate East ? >> > I don't think so, Alain. > > Especially because of the word "demonstrably", one must accept > demonstrations. > What Richard has shown is that there is a demonstrable reason why the > heart lead is suggested. > The fact that a number of players, without the demonstration, don't see > the suggestion, does not alter the fact that it has been demonstrated. > Only if you, Alain, can "demonstrate" some reason why a club lead might > be suggested, can there be a discussion. But the fact that you did not > see the reason, when asked at first, does not change the fact that the > reason has now been demonstrated. Well, i can. Many players would double with 46 ; few would with 62 ou 63, even if double showed "4+". Whence 6 clubs are more probable than 6 hearts. And what about at least two contributors, who said that a spade was demonstrably suggested ? You see, if you can demonstrate two contradictory facts, you can prove that you are the Pope (don't laugh, it has been made !) From blml at arcor.de Mon Dec 6 18:23:56 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 18:23:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html > At the Mathematical Association of America's website, > Keith Devlin writes: > > [snip] > > In the 1960s, there was a popular weekly US > television quiz show called Let's Make a Deal. Each > week, at a certain point in the program, the host, > Monty Hall, would present the contestant with three > doors. Behind one door was a substantial prize; > behind the others there was nothing. Monty asked the > contestant to pick a door. Clearly, the chance of > the contestant choosing the door with the prize was > 1 in 3. So far so good. > > Now comes the twist. Instead of simply opening the > chosen door to reveal what lay behind, Monty would > open one of the two doors the contestant had not > chosen, revealing that it did not hide the prize. > (Since Monty knew where the prize was, he could > always do this.) He then offered the contestant the > opportunity of either sticking with their original > choice of door, or else switching it for the other > unopened door. > > The question now is, does it make any difference to > the contestant's chances of winning to switch, or > might they just as well stick with the door they > have already chosen? > > When they first meet this problem, most people think > that it makes no difference if they switch. They > reason like this: "There are two unopened doors. The > prize is behind one of them. The probability that it > is behind the one I picked is 1/2, the probability > that it is behind the one I didn't is also 1/2, so > it makes no difference if I switch." > > Surprising though it seems at first, this reasoning > is wrong. Switching actually DOUBLES the > contestant's chance of winning. The odds go up from > the original 1/3 for the chosen door, to 2/3 that > the OTHER unopened door hides the prize. > > [snip] > > I think the reason the Monty Hall problem raises > people's ire is because a basic ability to estimate > likelihoods of events is important in everyday life. > We make (loose, and generally non-numeric) > probability estimates all the time. Our ability to do > this says something about our rationality - our > capacity to live a successful life - and hence can > become a matter of pride, something to be defended. > > The human brain did not evolve to calculate > mathematical probabilities, but it did evolve to > ensure our survival. A highly successful survival > strategy throughout human evolutionary history, and > today, is to base decisions on the immediate past and > on the evidence immediately to hand. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills (May 2004): > > A practical variant on the Monty Hall trap is the > counter-intuitive principle of restricted choice, and > the parallel principle of available places. > > An excellent book is "For Experts Only", a collection > of bridge essays edited by Matthew and Pamela > Granovetter. It contains an extensive article on some > practical Monty Hall applications, which can improve > your assessment of probabilities during the play of > the cards. > > But the Lawfully important Monty Hall trap arises when > a TD or an AC has to calculate the differing chances > of hypothetical alternatives when adjusting the score. > > When reading through appeals casebooks, occasionally I > have noticed that a TD or AC routinely goes with the > flow -> with a first-level estimate that two chances > must be 50% each -> rather than doing a second-level > Monty Hall estimate of the true likelihoods based upon > restricted choice and/or available places. > > >Swiss Teams > >Board no 25 > >Dealer North > >EW vulnerable > > > > J9 > > JT7 > > AKT3 > > AKT4 > > KQ5 T82 > > AKQ942 83 > > Q4 87652 > > 97 652 > > A7643 > > 65 > > J9 > > QJ83 > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- 1D Pass 1S > > Dbl(1) 1NT Pass 2NT > > Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass > > Pass > > > > (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs > > (2) Agreed hesitation > > > > Result at table: > > 3NT -2 by North, NS -100, lead 8 of hearts > > > > [big snip] > > > > Appeals Committee decision: > > Table score re-instated > > Deposit returned > > > > Appeals Committee's comments: > > We feel that the hesitation only implied that there was > > probably a long suit or better hand with West and gave no > > information that it was hearts rather than clubs. So we > > felt that the lead at the table was unaffected by the > > hesitation. This hand makes a poor example because bidding by both sides was horrible. W doubled instead of overcalling 2H, and then was too chicken to bid either 3H, or double 2NT or 3NT. N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in W's announce suit either; depending on local alert regulations that might be MI. In the actual hand, I don't think that W's hesitation "demonstrably" suggests a long suit. Any sensible player would have anticipated later problems in the auction at this vulnerability, and would have simply overcalled 2H with W's hand. W normally cannot have this hand, and thus, as he is expected to not have it, the hesitation cannot "demonstrably" suggest such a hand. Unfortunately, the information provided does not indicate whether W's unusual bidding was systemic. To me, it looks like a case of "W has no idea what he is doing". I use the following litmus test: I check whether an unethical player would be able to deliberately exploit the UI, and I don't see that here. Leaving the actual hand aside, Richard seems to consider the possibility that the hesitation "demonstrably" suggested a heart lead because east had two hearts and three clubs and thus would consider it more likely that the long suit is hearts. I have to reject that - the knowledge that east's hand holds two hearts and three clubs is AI to east. To adjust the score, a TD or AC would have to come to the conclusion that the hesitation suggested leading to find west's long suit over logical alternatives. That does not mean that E/W are off the hook if leading spades or diamonds is not considered an LA. For example, playing W for something like xxx,Axxx,Ax,KQT9 (try to develop three tricks in W's better four card suit) might still be an LA. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 6 18:41:20 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:41:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > This hand makes a poor example because bidding by > both sides was horrible. W doubled instead of overcalling 2H, > and then was too chicken to bid either 3H, or double 2NT or 3NT. > > N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even > though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind > that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in > W's announce suit either; depending on > local alert regulations that might be MI. AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could reconsider if LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is alertable ? > In the actual hand, I don't think that W's hesitation "demonstrably" > suggests a long suit. Any sensible player would have anticipated > later problems in the auction at this vulnerability, and would have simply overcalled 2H > with W's hand. W normally cannot have this hand, and thus, > as he is expected to not have it, the hesitation cannot "demonstrably" suggest > such a hand. AG : more or less my point. However, some twisted mind could argue that the hesitation suggests that the first bid was wrong, ergo ... Anyway, the hesitation over 2NT (rather than 3) could also suggest that you have a genuine 2-suited hand (say 56). > I use the following litmus test: I check whether an unethical > player would be able to deliberately exploit the UI, and I don't see that here. AG : good point. From blml at arcor.de Mon Dec 6 18:54:04 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 18:54:04 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > This hand makes a poor example because bidding by > > both sides was horrible. W doubled instead of overcalling 2H, > > and then was too chicken to bid either 3H, or double 2NT or 3NT. > > > > N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even > > though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind > > that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in > > W's announce suit either; depending on > > local alert regulations that might be MI. > > AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a > stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 > heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could reconsider if > LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. > And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is alertable ? A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather than pass. Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid has to be alerted. Example here: http://bridge-verband.de/regelseite/doku.php?id=regelseite:dkt_101018_bluff Thomas From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 6 20:38:46 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 19:38:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <668262.55651.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <724284.46144.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Nigel] "Serious error" and similar legislation appears to be an unnecessary complication that few directors or players understand. BLML often discusses cases that involve mistakes by non-offenders. There is rarely agreement as to whether the error is serious enough to affect redress or by how much it should reduce redress. Sometimes, especially in team-matches, offenders gain and non-offenders lose, compared with what was likely without the infraction. Such rulings seem inconsistent and unfair. Serious error legislation seems to add no value whatsoever. [Harald Skj?ran] I wonder where you play to have such an assessment of the TDs/ACs. This is so far from my own experience that I'm lost for words. Of course, since bridge is a game of judgement, a lot of decisions, both at the table and when it comes to rulings, are not clearcut. And mistakes in judgement will happen. Far more often by players than TDs/ACs. As a player and TD at a reasonalby high level (I won the national swiss teams championship this year and had been a TD in our national open pairs championship the last ten years), I'm relatively satisfied with the bridge laws. Of course there's room for improvement, and it's a pity the WBF LC didn't follow Grattan on completely rewriting the laws. But in general the laws we have work very well. And most discussions here on blml is on subjects and problems that "never" happen in real life. Some (few) discussions in here has very little, if any, practical value. [Nigel] I enjoy Bridge. Although I criticise some of the laws. I admire and respect directors. I accept that, at the table, directors do sometimes exercise judgement on complex cases with disputed facts. On BLML (and other fora), however, legal experts disagree about simple, basic cases, with agreed facts. I'm not a director, so I rely on cases presented to discussion groups like this, appeal reports (eg NABC), and my own experience at the table. From this evidence, it seems that few players or directors understand the law. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 6 21:17:38 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:17:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3BB68DF3-D4FD-4A3D-B3C6-160F24066899@starpower.net> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:23 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3: > > "Referring to Ton Kooijman's Appendix conveying his opinions on > matters of law on the WBF web site it was agreed that the mention > of his title as chairman of the committee shall be removed." > > Ton Kooijman's Appendix, pages 2-3: > > [snip] > > Serious error > > In bridge, it is normal to make mistakes; they are part of the > game. When considering the damage related to an infraction, a > player should not be punished for making such a mistake unless > this is considered to be really unacceptable. > > Example 1: > Dealer South. N/S Vulnerable > > North (dummy) > K8 > K > AQ62 > AKT863 > East > J976 > T874 > J97 > 52 > > West North East South > --- --- --- 1D > Pass 3C Pass 3NT > Pass 4D Pass 4H > Pass 4S Pass 4NT > Pass 5S Pass 6D > Pass 7D Pass Pass > Pass > > * NS play 5-card majors with better minor. 5S shows two aces and > the DQ. South has broken tempo before bidding 6D. > > * The lead is HQ taken by HK in dummy; CA and CK follow; then C3. > > * The grand slam seems unbeatable, South will overruff. So East > discards a heart, but with South holding D K84, East can defeat > the contract if he ruffs with D9 or DJ, as this promotes West's > D T53. > > * If the TD decides that Pass is a logical alternative for 7D, he > should regard the possible misplay by East as being within the > range of normal bridge, and adjust the score for both sides to > 6D+1. > > [snip] I find this advice dismaying (albeit indubitably correct), as it suggests that the example, merely by virtue of its being chosen, is something close to a marginal case, a suggestion with which I strongly disagree. IMO, the failure to find a crucial uppercut, even one a lot more obvious than this one (as, for instance, had the auction strongly suggested the possibility of a three-card trump holding by declarer), doesn't come even close to approaching the level of egregiousness that must be obtained before an NOS's error should affect an otherwise warranted adjustment. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 6 22:36:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:36:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4CFCBA86.3030403@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CFCBA86.3030403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0782D812-2C74-4409-8BAB-4F58E085847B@starpower.net> On Dec 6, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Now, we seem to have forgotten one word : "demonstrably" in the > wording of L16. > > The fact that scholars (i.e. us) can't agree on what could have > been suggested obviously implies that nothing has been demonstrably > suggested. > > Isn't that enough to exonerate East ? Alain is to be thanked for his timely reminder of the effect of "demonstrably" on L16. It was a careful and deliberate replacement for the word "reasonably", and its effect is precisely as Alain states: if the adjudicators (collectively) cannot decide which of the alternative actions has been suggested, then none of them have been "demonstrably" suggested. In effect, it is likely to be the agreement among the parties to the adjudication (TD, committee members and/or consultees) as to what may have been suggested that provides the required "demonstration". Adjustments can no longer be justified -- as they routinely were before the 1997 lawbook, and occasionally (but illegally) still are -- on the grounds that it is "reasonable" to assume that the alleged offender can see some particular suggestion in some UI from his partner that the adjudicators, because they are less intimately familiar with his partner, cannot. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 7 01:37:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:37:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Nellie Armstrong, Tranquility Base, 20th July 1969: "That's one small step for a girl, one giant leap for girlkind." Appeals Committee's comments: We feel that the hesitation only implied that there was probably a long suit or better hand with West and gave no information that it was hearts rather than clubs. So we felt that the lead at the table was unaffected by the hesitation. Alain Gottcheiner: >>>..... >>>Now, we seem to have forgotten one word : "demonstrably" in >>>the wording of L16. >>> >>>The fact that scholars (i.e. us) can't agree on what could >>>have been suggested obviously implies that nothing has been >>>demonstrably suggested. >>> >>>Isn't that enough to exonerate East ? Eric Landau: >>Alain is to be thanked for his timely reminder of the effect >>of "demonstrably" on L16. It was a careful and deliberate >>replacement for the word "reasonably", and its effect is >>precisely as Alain states: >>..... Richard Hills: Yes and no. The rationale for replacing "reasonably" with "demonstrably" was to ensure that at least one logical alternative was Lawful. Under the former wording Directors and Appeals Committees could "reasonably" rule any and all successful actions were unLawful. Notwithstanding the possibility that an Appeals Committee may disagree 3-2 (with Landau and Gottcheiner in the scholarly minority) on what West's hesitation "demonstrably" suggests to East, the judgement of the majority of the AC must _necessarily_ prevail.(1) So East-West were not "exonerated" by the _actual_ AC, who ruled that West's actual hesitation with a long suit actually and demonstrably suggested to East that West held a long suit. Thomas Dehn: >..... >Leaving the actual hand aside, Richard seems to consider the >possibility that the hesitation "demonstrably" suggested a >heart lead because East had two hearts and three clubs and thus >would consider it more likely that the long suit is hearts. I >have to reject that - the knowledge that East's hand holds two >hearts and three clubs is AI to East. Richard Hills: Yes and no. Many semi-expert bridge partnerships have this understanding -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT Pass 3NT X = lead a spade and this understanding WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT Pass 3NT slooow Pass = also lead a spade (too wimpy to double) so in the second case it matters not whether North holds a doubleton or tripleton spade, a spade is the demonstrably suggested logical alternative. But a minority(2) of semi-expert partnerships instead use -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT Pass 3NT X = lead shorter major and use WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT Pass 3NT slooow Pass = also lead shorter major (too wimpy to double) so in this fourth case North with a tripleton spade and a doubleton heart may not lead the demonstrably suggested heart, and with a doubleton spade and a tripleton heart may not lead the demonstrably suggested spade. Unless, of course, the Appeals Committee rules that the demonstrably suggested logical alternative is the only logical alternative. Thomas Dehn: >To adjust the score, a TD or AC would have to come to the >conclusion that the hesitation suggested leading to find >West's long suit over logical alternatives. That does not >mean that E/W are off the hook if leading spades or diamonds >is not considered an LA. > >For example, playing W for something like xxx,Axxx,Ax,KQT9 >(try to develop three tricks in W's better four card suit) >might still be an LA. Yes and yes. Merry Christmas, Richard Hills (1) However, some jurisdictions have introduced a policy that a Law 92A decision to deem an appeal to be without merit requires a unanimous decision of the Appeals Committee. (2) Ali-Hills ultra-minority partnership understandings -> WEST Ali EAST Hills 1NT Pass 3NT X = Lightner double (for any of the four(3) unbid suits) and this understanding WEST Ali EAST Hills 1NT Pass 3NT slooow Pass = thinking about the double squeeze on the previous deal (never too wimpy to double) (3) But partner is permitted to lead the fifth unbid suit. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 7 02:32:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:32:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CFD039B.9050006@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Jamie Whyte, Crimes Against Logic, page 131: 1. Given God's existence, the existence of humans is probable, does not entail, 2. Given the existence of humans, God's existence is probable. Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >..... >we should rather wonder whether the BIT was meaningful and >demonstrably suggested the action North took. >..... >South's hand was AQ54,A653,K84,74 and his problem was not >level but strain. Richard Hills: Which demonstrates what an excellent indicative example Ton Kooijman created. In a Hesitation Blackwood situation, where the Blackwooder signs off in a small slam, the demonstrable suggestion to partner is that a grand slam was being considered. The fact that South most unusually held only three diamonds and was therefore considering a different small slam is utterly and completely irrelevant. 3. Given the existence of a three-card diamond suit, a hesitation is probable, does not entail, 4. Given the existence of a hesitation, a three-card diamond suit is demonstrably suggested. Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 7 04:17:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:17:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CFD0532.8040601@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >The fact that a number of players, without the demonstration, >don't see the suggestion, does not alter the fact that it has >been demonstrated. > >Only if you, Alain, can "demonstrate" some reason why a club >lead might be suggested, can there be a discussion. > >But the fact that you did not see the reason, when asked at >first, does not change the fact that the reason has now been >demonstrated. Jamie Whyte, Crimes Against Logic, page 87: Suppose that, when asked why he thinks homosexuality should be illegal, Jack replies, "Because it is denounced in the Bible." Jack's reply implicitly invokes a generalization: namely that everything denounced in the Bible should be illegal. Without this generalization, it would not follow from homosexuality's biblical denunciation that it should be illegal. If Jack is consistent, he will seek the criminalization of everything denounced in the Bible, including adultery, banking, wearing mixed-fibre fabrics, and eating anything from the sea that lacks fins or scales, such as lobster.(1) Richard Hills: Suppose that, when asked why he thinks that East's heart lead should be illegal, Richard replies, "Because it is demonstrably suggested to me by my argument." What may be demonstrably suggested to Richard is not necessarily demonstrably suggested to East (East's Bible is likely to be much less idiosyncratic than Richard's Bible). Herman De Wael: >Which of course begs another question. Is a player, who cannot >find the demonstrable reason at the table, bound by L16? Richard Hills: A player may misjudge, thinking that pard's hesitation does not demonstrably suggest anything. But that misjudging player is still _bound_ by Laws 16B / 73C after choosing a "lucky" opening lead from a doubleton heart, since The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. and that includes the Director then applying the Law 85 "balance of probabilities" to determine whether or not a Laws 16B / 73C infraction is deemed to have occurred. Merry Christmas Richard Hills (1) These biblical prohibitions are to be found, respectively, in Leviticus 18:20, Deuteronomy 23:19, Deuteronomy 22:11, and Leviticus 11:9. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 7 04:57:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:57:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] 3. Should the director consider a PP against South even if there is no damage (e.g. if defenders had defeated 7D). [snip] Richard Hills: No. If the event was an Individual Championship, only North might receive a Law 90 procedural penalty. South has not committed any infraction, since South had a bridge problem to resolve, and "bridge is a thinking game". It was North (not South) who infracted Law 73D1: "...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..." Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 7 05:45:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:45:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only >>half a stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem >>if EW cashed 4 heart tricks (the most probable number), and >>that he could reconsider if LHO bid hearts. This is a >>reasonable decision, not system. >> >>And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is >>alertable ? Thomas Dehn: >A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper >rather than pass. > >Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might >well be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is >a partnership agreement to bid NT without a stopper in >opponents' suit, the 1NT bid has to be alerted. Richard Hills: In Australia the Alert requirements are: (a) 1NT overcall in the direct seat with no stopper = Alert! (b) 1NT overcall in the balancing seat with no stopper = schtum (c) 1NT rebid after RHO's double holding one of two stoppers??? ABF Alert Regulation, clause 3.2.2: Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. (a) The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: *Responder's first round jump shift on weak hands. *A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid (whether or not after intervention). *A pass which forces partner to take action (e.g. SW1NE). (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: *A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a stopper in the overcalled suit. *A jump raise of opener's one level bid which may be weak or pre-emptive. *A single raise of partner's suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. 1D - 2D forcing. *The rebid in a canap? sequence where the second suit may be longer than the first. *A 1H opening which denies holding 4+ spades. Richard Hills: So because of the ABF Alert Regulation's "unlikely to expect", if Alain Gottcheiner or Marvin French failed to Alert their partners' "reasonable decisions" while visiting Australia, then Alain and Marv may suffer adverse MI rulings from Aussie Directors. Now if (c) 1NT rebid after RHO's double holding one of two stoppers??? was perpetrated by my partner, would I Alert? Yes and no. :-) :-) I would alert versus novices, who would be "unlikely to expect" anything but Roc solid 1NT rebids. I would not alert versus semi-experts, who would be "likely to expect" that I was a Sin bad man. Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 7 06:20:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:20:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <686216.69850.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [very big snip] >award marks out of 10). [very big snip] Richard Hills: Awarding marks out of 10 (as done in Bridge Magazine) or out of 100 (as done in The Bridge World) for bidding contests is all very well. But such a methodology is not useful under Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Thus only a three-point scale is needed: (1) "What call* do you select?" (2) "What other call(s)*, if any, do you seriously consider? (3) "What residual call(s)* (e.g. electing to open 7NT as dealer) do you unseriously reconsider?" * or play(s) Merry Christmas, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 7 07:14:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:14:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >>..... >>Any sensible player would have anticipated later problems >>in the auction at this vulnerability, and would have simply >>overcalled 2H with W's hand. W normally cannot have this >>hand, and thus, as he is expected to not have it, the >>hesitation cannot "demonstrably" suggest such a hand. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : more or less my point. However, some twisted mind >could argue that the hesitation suggests that the first bid >was wrong, ergo ... >..... Richard Hills: More or less my point. Merry Christmas, Megamind +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ July 2004 posting on a player who "cannot have this hand" The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. Imps, Knockout Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: Ali NORTH Hills SOUTH --- Pass 1D(1) Pass 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass 2D(4) Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the first step in an artificial game force relay. (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. You, South, hold: AK732 5 T854 875 What call do you select? What other call(s), if any, do you seriously consider? What residual call(s) (e.g. Pass) do you unseriously reconsider? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 7 08:04:09 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:04:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 In-Reply-To: <3BB68DF3-D4FD-4A3D-B3C6-160F24066899@starpower.net> References: <3BB68DF3-D4FD-4A3D-B3C6-160F24066899@starpower.net> Message-ID: <018001cb95dc$f1e65920$d5b30b60$@nl> [Eric about the 7D case] I find this advice dismaying (albeit indubitably correct), as it suggests that the example, merely by virtue of its being chosen, is something close to a marginal case, a suggestion with which I strongly disagree. IMO, the failure to find a crucial uppercut, even one a lot more obvious than this one (as, for instance, had the auction strongly suggested the possibility of a three-card trump holding by declarer), doesn't come even close to approaching the level of egregiousness that must be obtained before an NOS's error should affect an otherwise warranted adjustment. [Hans] Indeed, but Ton has written a lot of other examples, with far worse misplays, that he still judges as not serious enough. Unfortunately they were all cases where TD or AC judged the serious error clause to be applicable. Basically you should only rule serious error in very wild cases, such as a revoke, or not covering the Q from dummy when you have KJ, or bidding so crazy that you have to travel the land to find someone that agrees. The whole reason this law is in the book is to prevent double shots, you cannot without risk try crazy things after your opponents do something you think the director will rule against. You are supposed to keep playing bridge, and bridge included errors. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 7 09:23:33 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 09:23:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFDEF05.1060601@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > >> Which of course begs another question. Is a player, who cannot >> find the demonstrable reason at the table, bound by L16? > > Richard Hills: > > A player may misjudge, thinking that pard's hesitation does not > demonstrably suggest anything. But that misjudging player is > still _bound_ by Laws 16B / 73C after choosing a "lucky" opening > lead from a doubleton heart, since > > The Director (not the players) has the responsibility > for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. > > and that includes the Director then applying the Law 85 "balance > of probabilities" to determine whether or not a Laws 16B / 73C > infraction is deemed to have occurred. > Well, Richard, much as I like your argument, there is something here which we must consider: Suppose in a UI case, there is a general consensus that from two logical actions, neither is considered more suggested than another. So no UI ruling is given. The up springs one Richard Hills, who conclusively proves that one of the actions, through the UI, has become one percent more likely to succeed than the other. Even if everyone including Alain Gottcheiner were to agree to the demonstration, does this mean that the player was bound to that, at the time of his possible infraction? I feel that there must be some lower treshold here. > Merry Christmas > I am not so well versed in Biblical references - what is christmas? ;) > Richard Hills > > (1) These biblical prohibitions are to be found, respectively, > in Leviticus 18:20, Deuteronomy 23:19, Deuteronomy 22:11, > and Leviticus 11:9. > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 7 09:38:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 09:38:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CFDF26B.5060604@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/12/2010 18:54, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>> This hand makes a poor example because bidding by >>> both sides was horrible. W doubled instead of overcalling 2H, >>> and then was too chicken to bid either 3H, or double 2NT or 3NT. >>> >>> N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even >>> though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind >>> that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in >>> W's announce suit either; depending on >>> local alert regulations that might be MI. >> AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a >> stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 >> heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could reconsider if >> LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. >> And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is alertable ? > A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather than pass. > Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well > be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership > agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid > has to be alerted. AG : what if there is an agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT ? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 7 11:24:51 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:24:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <959527.30195.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Nigel Guthrie] [very big snip] award marks out of 10 [very big snip] [Richard Hills] Awarding marks out of 10 (as done in Bridge Magazine) or out of 100 (as done in The Bridge World) for bidding contests is all very well. But such a methodology is not useful under Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Thus only a three-point scale is needed: (1) "What call* do you select?" (2) "What other call(s)*, if any, do you seriously consider? (3) "What residual call(s)* (e.g. electing to open 7NT as dealer) do you unseriously reconsider?" * or play(s) Merry Christmas, [Nige2] I fear this snip indicates that Richard again failed to appreciate the nub of another constructive suggestion (a way of establishing whether UI altered the attractiveness of logical alternatives and ensuring that one or more are free of censure). But I'm grateful to Richard, for at least reading and criticising a phrase from it :) Merry Christmas :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 7 11:40:25 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:40:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFE0F19.9060709@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/12/2010 7:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > July 2004 posting on a player who "cannot have this hand" > > The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. > > Imps, Knockout Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > Ali NORTH Hills SOUTH > --- Pass 1D(1) Pass > 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass > 2D(4) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > first step in an artificial game force relay. > > (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. > > You, South, hold: > > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > What call do you select? AG : the question should only be asked to that player's peers, i.e. those who would not overcall 1S (or more) at green. Are there any on blml ? But I guess that they would bid 2S, expecting partner not to hold umpteen hearts, as he has some values and didn't open, not even a weak 2-bid, and therefore some amount of fit in spades (3514 perhaps). The benefit of pushing them to 3D, failing because of the bad breaks, or of making 3S aren't to be scoffed at. Do you want me to consider passing because they might have had a misunderstanding ? > What other call(s), if any, do you seriously consider? Pass, for the abovementioned reason ; but I'm ready to bid 2S and summoning the TD if 2D happened to be a relay. > What residual call(s) (e.g. Pass) do you unseriously > reconsider? > > Penalty double (should be penalties indeed) From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 7 11:43:28 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:43:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CFDF26B.5060604@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4CFDF26B.5060604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <647046.8415.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : what if there is an agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT ? [Nigel] I sympathise with that argument but suppose for example, you sometimes overcall one notrump on tram-tickets because you are happy to play 1N if all pass. Is that agreement alertable? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 7 11:49:24 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:49:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <647046.8415.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4CFDF26B.5060604@ulb.ac.be> <647046.8415.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CFE1134.8040509@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/12/2010 11:43, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > > AG : what if there is an agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT ? > > [Nigel] > I sympathise with that argument but suppose for example, you sometimes overcall > one notrump on tram-tickets because you are happy to play 1N if all pass. Is > that agreement alertable? AG: I'd say, as much as a mini-notrump opening (which has the same basic property), hence it is. The difference, of course, is what happens when you're doubled. If you're ready to let it in, then you really meant 1NT, even with only 0.6 stopper, and it's natural in the purest sense (I occasionally overcall 1NT with Qx as a stopper) Of course, there remains to be decided whether a 15-17 (apparently) 1NT rebid does need an alert. It would here. From blml at arcor.de Tue Dec 7 13:18:35 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:18:35 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1642186996.262115.1291724315237.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >>AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only > >>half a stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem > >>if EW cashed 4 heart tricks (the most probable number), and > >>that he could reconsider if LHO bid hearts. This is a > >>reasonable decision, not system. > >> > >>And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is > >>alertable ? > > Thomas Dehn: > > >A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper > >rather than pass. > > > >Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might > >well be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is > >a partnership agreement to bid NT without a stopper in > >opponents' suit, the 1NT bid has to be alerted. > > Richard Hills: > > In Australia the Alert requirements are: > > (a) 1NT overcall in the direct seat with no stopper = Alert! > (b) 1NT overcall in the balancing seat with no stopper = schtum > (c) 1NT rebid after RHO's double holding one of two stoppers??? I understood the double here as promising four or more hearts, but not clubs. I.e., only one suit to stop, albeit likely a four card suit rather than a five card suit. Thomas From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Tue Dec 7 15:14:12 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:14:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a >>stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 >>heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could reconsider >>if LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. >> >>And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is alertable >>? Thomas Dehn: >A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather than >pass. > >Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well be not >alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership >agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid >has to be alerted. Richard Hills: In Australia the Alert requirements are: (a) 1NT overcall in the direct seat with no stopper = Alert! Ron Johnson All of this surprises me. Jeff Rubens has spent over 4 decades demonstrating that he can construct situations where a stopperless NT overcall will be the plurality choice (in partnerships that have not agreed that it's OK to overcall 1NT without a stopper) Many comments are on the order of "Showing my stopper" or "you got me", "but the alternatives are worse" or "after they run the hearts the play should be easy" It would be way down on my list of things to discuss in any partnership. From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Tue Dec 7 15:27:06 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:27:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : what if there is an agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT ? [Nigel] I sympathise with that argument but suppose for example, you sometimes overcall one notrump on tram-tickets because you are happy to play 1N if all pass. Is that agreement alertable? There's a famous case from quite a few years ago (in the Blue Ribbon Pairs -- IE a very strong pairs game in the ACBL) Steve Robinson/Kit Woolsey were the pair in question. There was a 1NT overcall, alerted by his partner as "occasionally psychic" Robinson/Woolsey were subsequently ruled to have been playing an illegal convention -- the comic notrump. While nobody disputed the right to ban the convention (wisdom is a separate thing), the problem here is that that's not what Robinson/Woolsey were playing. They occasionally overcalled on any hand type -- without the runout structure that the comic NT implies -- as you suggest above. What it came down to is that it became in effect illegal to psyche a 1NT overcall in the ACBL. All psychic 1NT overcalls would be called "comic" and comic NT was banned. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 7 16:32:37 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:32:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 In-Reply-To: References: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7EF437C5-0143-4030-9C3B-53E090BC8B18@starpower.net> On Dec 6, 2010, at 8:33 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2010/12/6 Nigel Guthrie : >> >> IMO... >> 1. It may be an error for the defender to fail to ruff high but >> Ton is right >> that, for legal purposes, it should not be regarded as a serious >> error. >> 2. Should the adjustment be to 6D=. (For the offenders, at least). >> 3. Should the director consider a PP against South even if there >> is no damage >> (e.g. if defenders had defeated 7D). >> 4. Anyway, all this "serious error" nonsense should be scrapped. >> IMO, when >> opponents seem to be up to something illegal, it is easy to get >> flustered and >> make mistakes. > > The laws don't punish mistakes, only serious errors, so this nonsense > about scrapping "serious error nonsense" is...... nonsense. As I see it, the problem with "serious error" is that someone, loath to use the somewhat obscure word "egregious" (the original term used in the formative discussions of this aspect of the law), plucked "serious" out of a thesaurus as denotationally synonymous -- in context, both "egregious" and "serious" mean "suffienctly bad". But "egregious" connotes something far worse than "serious". The result has been a WBF minute (at least one) emphasizing that "serious" is to be read as something a lot closer to "egregious" than to "serious" with its normal, relatively mild, connotation. The problem is that too many people don't read WBF minutes, and think that TFLB actually means what it appears to say. A player who loses the count and discards the wrong card in a two- card pseudo-squeeze ending, for example, has, in anyone's English, committed a "serious error", but not necessarily an "egregious" one, and not, IMO, one that the lawmakers intended should necessarily trigger the denial-of-redress provision of L12C1(b). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 7 16:50:11 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:50:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 In-Reply-To: <002601cb9554$9f09c440$dd1d4cc0$@no> References: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <668262.55651.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <002601cb9554$9f09c440$dd1d4cc0$@no> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie >> >> "Serious error" and similar legislation appears to be an >> unnecessary complication >> that few directors or players understand. BLML often discusses >> cases that involve >> mistakes by non-offenders. There is rarely agreement as to whether >> the error is >> serious enough to affect redress or by how much it should reduce >> redress. >> Sometimes, especially in team-matches, offenders gain and non- >> offenders lose, >> compared with what was likely without the infraction. Such rulings >> seem >> inconsistent and unfair. Serious error legislation seems to add no >> value >> whatsoever. > > The way I have always understood this rule is that the laws hit the > players > who after an irregularity by opponents try something wild and > gambling with > the intention to seek redress if it fails. More ordinary mistakes > are not > covered by this rule. L16C1(b) refers to "a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or... a wild or gambling action", two separate criteria each of which is sufficient to trigger denial of redress. Sven captures the intent of the latter criterion, but his understanding would be the same absent the former one, and it is that one which is giving us trouble. > I have a feeling that the distinction must be similar to what > separates > irrational plays from inferior? It should be; the problem is that in real adjudications it usually isn't so interpreted. The origin of the legal principle is to be found in the writings of Edgar Kaplan, who consistently (and quite deliberately) used the word "egregious" to describe an error that rose to the level of "breaking the connection between the infraction and the damage" (also Mr. Kaplan's formulation), and in normal English usage, "egregious" comes a lot closer to "irrational" than to merely "serious". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 7 17:15:44 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:15:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <293690.61589.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Ron Johnston] There's a famous case from quite a few years ago (in the Blue Ribbon Pairs -- IE a very strong pairs game in the ACBL) Steve Robinson/Kit Woolsey were the pair in question. There was a 1NT overcall, alerted by his partner as "occasionally psychic" Robinson/Woolsey were subsequently ruled to have been playing an illegal convention -- the comic notrump. While nobody disputed the right to ban the convention (wisdom is a separate thing), the problem here is that that's not what Robinson/Woolsey were playing. They occasionally overcalled on any hand type -- without the runout structure that the comic NT implies -- as you suggest above. What it came down to is that it became in effect illegal to psyche a 1NT overcall in the ACBL. All psychic 1NT overcalls would be called "comic" and comic NT was banned. [Nigel] The same problem occurs when players open on very weak hands where such opening bids are illegal. In the UK, directors seem to regard such deviations as legitimate psychs provided they don't occur regularly enough to be an obvious implicit agreement. Unfortunately, turning a blind eye to such "psychs" penalises the masochists who try to conform to such regulations. Of course the obvious long-term solution is to get rid of daft system-regulation. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 7 17:22:56 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:22:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8E6869BB-67CE-4170-AF6D-DCAA276284F2@starpower.net> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > I use the following litmus test: I check whether an unethical > player would be able to deliberately exploit the UI, and I don't > see that here. That's simple, easy, consistent with the history of the laws, and solves the problem, which is, What kind of "demonstration" is sufficient to regard an action as "demonstrably hav[ing] been suggested over another by the [UI]" [L16B1(a)]? The criterion is met if you can logically "demonstrate" that the questionable action is one that would be consistently taken by someone deliberately attempting to take advantage of the UI in conscious violation of L16. One should not be held to have "taken advantage" unless it was apparent which way the advantage lay. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 7 17:34:14 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:34:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even >>> though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind >>> that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in >>> W's announce suit either; depending on >>> local alert regulations that might be MI. >> >> AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a >> stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 >> heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could >> reconsider if >> LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. >> And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is >> alertable ? > > A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather > than pass. > Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well > be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership > agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid > has to be alerted. What is the difference between (a) an agreement that 1NT means "I want to play in 1NT" absent a specific agreement that it additionally guarantees a stopper in the opponents' suit and (b) an "agreement to bid 1NT without a stopper in [the] opponents' suit"? Surely there must be one, else a German who has ever attempted a 1NT call without the requisite stopper would be required to alert forever after. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 7 17:43:57 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:43:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 In-Reply-To: <7EF437C5-0143-4030-9C3B-53E090BC8B18@starpower.net> References: <430820.96953.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7EF437C5-0143-4030-9C3B-53E090BC8B18@starpower.net> Message-ID: <339507.62206.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric landau] As I see it, the problem with "serious error" is that someone, loath to use the somewhat obscure word "egregious" (the original term used in the formative discussions of this aspect of the law), plucked "serious" out of a thesaurus as denotationally synonymous -- in context, both "egregious" and "serious" mean "suffienctly bad". But "egregious" connotes something far worse than "serious". The result has been a WBF minute (at least one) emphasizing that "serious" is to be read as something a lot closer to "egregious" than to "serious" with its normal, relatively mild, connotation. The problem is that too many people don't read WBF minutes, and think that TFLB actually means what it appears to say. A player who loses the count and discards the wrong card in a two- card pseudo-squeeze ending, for example, has, in anyone's English, committed a "serious error", but not necessarily an "egregious" one, and not, IMO, one that the lawmakers intended should necessarily trigger the denial-of-redress provision of L12C1(b). [Nigel] Discussion of simple basic cases, here and elsewhere, shows that directors differ as to what errors are "serious". For example, some directors seem to judge almost all errors as "serious". Furthermore, does "serious" depend on the "calibre of the player" or the "standard of the event" or is it independent of both. Different directors also seem to use different ways of computing the effect of such errors on redress. There is no consistency in appeals decisions, for example. There may be unequivocal guidance in an appendix or minute but until explanations are incorporated in place, in the law-book, itself, they are of no use to players and little use to most directors. There is even less agreement over what is "wild and gambling". In my experience, the so-called "double-shot" is a myth. Nobody can explain why these laws are needed or, in fact, how they add any value at all. From blml at arcor.de Tue Dec 7 18:15:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:15:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1409357725.285168.1291742132898.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Thomas Dehn: > > >>..... > >>Any sensible player would have anticipated later problems > >>in the auction at this vulnerability, and would have simply > >>overcalled 2H with W's hand. W normally cannot have this > >>hand, and thus, as he is expected to not have it, the > >>hesitation cannot "demonstrably" suggest such a hand. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >AG : more or less my point. However, some twisted mind > >could argue that the hesitation suggests that the first bid > >was wrong, ergo ... > >..... > > Richard Hills: > > More or less my point. > > Merry Christmas, > > Megamind > > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > > July 2004 posting on a player who "cannot have this hand" > > The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. > > Imps, Knockout Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > Ali NORTH Hills SOUTH > --- Pass 1D(1) Pass > 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass > 2D(4) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > first step in an artificial game force relay. > > (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. > > You, South, hold: > > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > What call do you select? 2S. Automatic. > What other call(s), if any, do you seriously consider? None. > What residual call(s) (e.g. Pass) do you unseriously > reconsider? Pass. And yes, I am fine with S's pass over 1D. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Tue Dec 7 20:00:37 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:00:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1205897719.282977.1291748437384.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Le 6/12/2010 18:54, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>> > >>> This hand makes a poor example because bidding by > >>> both sides was horrible. W doubled instead of overcalling 2H, > >>> and then was too chicken to bid either 3H, or double 2NT or 3NT. > >>> > >>> N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even > >>> though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind > >>> that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in > >>> W's announce suit either; depending on > >>> local alert regulations that might be MI. > >> AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a > >> stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 > >> heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could reconsider if > >> LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. > >> And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is alertable ? > > A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather than pass. > > Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well > > be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership > > agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid > > has to be alerted. > > AG : what if there is an agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT ? Basically, all your partnership understandings have to be disclosed, and the regulation authority gets to decide how that is done. Pre-alerts, alerts, announcements, convention cards, answering questions. Whatever. And "partnership understandings" goes beyond explicit systemic agreements. RAs typically require alerts etc. for some of the following: o partnership understandings which nowadays are unusual/uncommon/surprising. This includes natural bidding that is unusual. Say, low level penalty doubles where the default meaning would be takeout might have to be alerted. o partnership understandings which once were unusual/uncommon/surprising, thus had to be alerted back then, and those old alert rules are still in place. o to reduce the amount of situations where questions have to be asked. See for example those regulations where a weak NT has to be alerted or announced. o artificial calls The RAs typically are not perfectly logical in their alert regulations, you'll typically have to alert some bids which are the normal bid, and have to not alert some unusual bids. Now, for "an agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT", of course whether that has to be alerted is up to the RA, but what is that supposed to mean? Usually you have some more precise partnership understanding, if only from experience of playing with that partner. An RA might easily have some rules that disallows your explanation, on the theory that "an agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT" is not you actual partnership understanding because you know more than that about partner's tendencies, and that has to be disclosed. For example, in Germany the popular memory overcalling a strong club with 1S showing "13 cards" was disallowed on the theory that partner will have some experience with which 13 cards a player will bid something else rather than overcall 1S. The RA might decide to have the following alerted (or pre-alerted, or announced, or disclosed via convention card, or even disallowed) o uncommon NT ranges even if otherwise perfectly natural, including split ranges and unusually large ranges. E.g. a 10-12 1NT opener usually has to be alerted. o NT bids that may contain more semi-balanced and unbalanced hands than normal. Say, NT rebids that can contain a singleton, NT openers with a six card minor or a five card major. o NT bids that frequently contain no stopper in a suit an opponent has shown. o NT bids where majors are bypassed. o NT bids based upon playing tricks in long suits rather than high cards strength. In case your actual partnership understandings are somewhat orthogonal to such a regulation, e.g. your "an agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT" example, then you have to map your partnership understandings to the RA's regulations. If the RA decides that you have to alert an NT bid that "frequently" has no stopper in opponents' suit, and your "agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT" causes you to "frequently" bid 1NT without a stopper in NT's suit, then you'd have to alert. A fairly typical example is a CC requirement to state HCP range for your 1NT opener. You'll have to fill that in even if you agreement is "open 1NT when you want to play 1NT". Thomas From blml at arcor.de Tue Dec 7 20:45:53 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:45:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> References: <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1868792466.285413.1291751153686.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau > On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > >> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >> > >>> N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even > >>> though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind > >>> that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in > >>> W's announce suit either; depending on > >>> local alert regulations that might be MI. > >> > >> AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a > >> stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 > >> heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could > >> reconsider if > >> LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. > >> And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is > >> alertable ? > > > > A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather > > than pass. > > Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well > > be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership > > agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid > > has to be alerted. > > What is the difference between (a) an agreement that 1NT means "I > want to play in 1NT" absent a specific agreement that it additionally > guarantees a stopper in the opponents' suit and (b) an "agreement to > bid 1NT without a stopper in [the] opponents' suit"? Surely there > must be one, else a German who has ever attempted a 1NT call without > the requisite stopper would be required to alert forever after. No bidding system is perfect, and it is normal that on some hands a player has to decide between bids that misdescribe his hand. Again, all partnership understandings have to be disclosed. If you happen to run into a sequence where you know your system has a hole that might cause partner to misdescribe his hand, that has to be disclosed. If you happen to run into a sequence where you know partner has a tendency to misdescribe his hand, that has top be disclosed. For example, I like raising a weak NT to 3NT with a good seven card minor and not much else. That has to be disclosed, even though I am perfectly willing to play 3NT, possibly even doubled. Some such holes might be deemed illegal or disallowed. E.g., the systemic agreement that a 1NT opener shows 10-12 and 1x - 1y -1NT shows 14-16 will not make the TD happy when opener happens to have a balanced 13 HCP. An "agreement to bid 1NT without a stopper in [the] opponents' suit" means that the partnership would in some sense frequently bid 1NT with hands with no stopper in opponents' suit, rather than only rarely on a limited set of hands where 1NT without a stopper merely is the least of all evils, or a psyche. Thomas From info at honorsbridgeclub.org Tue Dec 7 20:53:35 2010 From: info at honorsbridgeclub.org (Honors Bridge Club) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:53:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1b question Message-ID: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Would appreciate your opinions, The auction goes: South - 1C West - 1C* *West thought that South passed and his 1C is showing 15+ hcp, any shape (1NT opening would be 12-14). West's 1C is not accepted by North. According to the new law 27B1(b), can West legally change his bid to 1NT showing 15+ to 18 hcp in a balanced hand with clubs stopped without any further rectification? Thank you, Honors Bridge Club New York, NY __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5682 (20101207) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Dec 7 21:01:13 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:01:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_27B1b_question?= In-Reply-To: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <1PQ3ir-0KcOMy0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> From: Honors Bridge Club > Would appreciate your opinions, > > The auction goes: > South - 1C > West - 1C* > *West thought that South passed and his 1C is showing 15+ hcp, any > shape (1NT opening would be 12-14). > West's 1C is not accepted by North. > According to the new law 27B1(b), can West legally change his bid to > 1NT showing 15+ to 18 hcp in a balanced hand with clubs stopped > without any further rectification? yes, surely. 1 NT now is more precise than a 1C opening; and all hands that now bid 1 NT would have opened 1C. Even if West has slightly more than 18 HCP or does not have a club stopper, it would be a perfect 27 B1b replacement bid. Peter From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 7 22:32:24 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:32:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1b question In-Reply-To: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <5BA729AD-343B-49C5-8C82-1C3CD4A005ED@starpower.net> On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Honors Bridge Club wrote: > Would appreciate your opinions, > > The auction goes: > South - 1C > West - 1C* > *West thought that South passed and his 1C is showing 15+ hcp, any > shape > (1NT opening would be 12-14). > West's 1C is not accepted by North. > According to the new law 27B1(b), can West legally change his bid > to 1NT > showing 15+ to 18 hcp in a balanced hand with clubs stopped without > any > further rectification? Yes. The operative question is whether the Insufficient bid conveys any additional information not conveyed by the replacement call; if not, the replacement call can be made without penalty. Since "15+ HCP, any shape" doesn't add any extra information to "15+ to 18 HCP, balanced hand, club stopper", West may bid 1NT with no further penalty to E-W. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From info at honorsbridgeclub.org Tue Dec 7 22:52:08 2010 From: info at honorsbridgeclub.org (Honors Bridge Club) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:52:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 21, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFEAC88.6020804@honorsbridgeclub.org> On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Honors Bridge Club wrote: >> Would appreciate your opinions, >> >> The auction goes: >> South - 1C >> West - 1C* >> *West thought that South passed and his 1C is showing 15+ hcp, any >> shape >> (1NT opening would be 12-14). >> West's 1C is not accepted by North. >> According to the new law 27B1(b), can West legally change his bid >> to 1NT >> showing 15+ to 18 hcp in a balanced hand with clubs stopped without >> any >> further rectification? > Yes. The operative question is whether the Insufficient bid conveys > any additional information not conveyed by the replacement call; if > not, the replacement call can be made without penalty. Since "15+ > HCP, any shape" doesn't add any extra information to "15+ to 18 HCP, > balanced hand, club stopper", West may bid 1NT with no further > penalty to E-W. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net What about if 1NT opening by that pair is 13 to15? What about if 1C opening was 16+? __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5682 (20101207) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 00:47:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:47:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In Australia the Alert requirements are: >> >>(a) 1NT overcall in the direct seat with no stopper >> = Alert! Ron Johnson: >All of this surprises me. Jeff Rubens has spent over >4 decades demonstrating that he can construct >situations where a stopperless NT overcall will be >the plurality choice (in partnerships that have not >agreed that it's OK to overcall 1NT without a >stopper). > >Many comments are on the order of "Showing my >stopper" or "you got me", "but the alternatives are >worse" or "after they run the hearts the play should >be easy". Richard Hills: I agree with Jeff Rubens' analysis. In my opinion it is technically correct to immediately show pard that one holds a strong balanced hand, thus enabling pard to seize captaincy of the auction (maybe reaching a laydown 4H on working values and a good fit, which contract could not be achieved after a so-called "textbook" Trap Pass due to lack of a stopper). Thus Ali-Hills have the pre-existing explicit mutual partnership understanding that any and all natural bids of NT at the one-level neither promise nor deny stopper(s). However..... Merely because a partnership agreement about a non- conventional call is technically correct does _not_ necessarily mean that that natural call is not to be Alerted. If the vast majority of opponents expect a technically incorrect partnership understanding, in Australia the ABF has correctly deemed that the vast majority should be protected with an Alert. Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 03:11:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:11:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <959527.30195.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [very big snip] >>>award marks out of 10 [very big snip] Richard Hills: [tall dwarf snip] >>Thus only a three-point scale is needed: [tall dwarf snip] Nigel Guthrie: >I fear this [very big] snip indicates that Richard again >failed to appreciate the nub of another constructive >suggestion (a way of establishing whether UI altered the >attractiveness of logical alternatives and ensuring that >one or more are free of censure). > >But I'm grateful to Richard, for at least reading and >criticising a phrase from it :) > >Merry Christmas :) Robert Bolt, author of A Man For All Seasons (an award- winning play and Oscar-winning movie): Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial! More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied. Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it? More: The world must construe according to its wits; this blml must construe according to the law. Merry Christmas, William Roper (the Younger) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Wed Dec 8 04:02:43 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 04:02:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1352902772.22007.1291777363690.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> "Johnson, Ron" wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >>AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a > >>stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 > >>heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could reconsider > >>if LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. > >> > >>And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is alertable > > >>? > > Thomas Dehn: > > >A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather than > >pass. > > > >Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well be not > >alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership > >agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid > >has to be alerted. > > Richard Hills: > > In Australia the Alert requirements are: > > (a) 1NT overcall in the direct seat with no stopper = Alert! > > Ron Johnson > > All of this surprises me. Jeff Rubens has spent over > 4 decades demonstrating that he can construct > situations where a stopperless NT overcall will > be the plurality choice (in partnerships that > have not agreed that it's OK to overcall 1NT > without a stopper) > > Many comments are on the order of "Showing my stopper" > or "you got me", "but the alternatives are worse" or > "after they run the hearts the play should be easy" > > It would be way down on my list of things to discuss > in any partnership. I suspect you are posting based upon ACBL experience, where players are hanged for psyches, misbids, and misunderstandings. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 06:11:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:11:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Do you Alert a psyche which is a partnership understanding? Do you Alert a tall dwarf? Ron Johnson: >There's a famous case from quite a few years ago (in the Blue >Ribbon Pairs -- i.e. a very strong pairs game in the ACBL) > >Steve Robinson/Kit Woolsey were the pair in question. > >There was a 1NT overcall, alerted by his partner as >"occasionally psychic" [snip] >They occasionally over-called on any hand type -- without the >runout structure that the comic NT implies [snip] Richard Hills: If the 2008 ACBL Lawbook had applied way back when, the Alert should instead have been "A two-way overcall, due to a Law 40C1 implicit partnership understanding created because I have 'more reason to be aware' than you that partner likes it both ways." Law 40C1: "...Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods..." Richard Hills: A call which is part of the partnership's methods is in my very firm opinion definitely not a psychic call. Plus Law 40C1 renders totally irrelevant the fact that Robinson/ Woolsey were not playing the Comic 1NT convention (which has so- called "psychic control" responses), but were instead playing a new Hilarious 1NT convention (with deathwish Titanic responses). Merry Christmas, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 06:30:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:30:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <293690.61589.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >...In the UK, directors seem to regard such deviations as >legitimate psychs provided they don't occur regularly enough >to be an obvious implicit agreement... Rectification of typographical errors -> "In the UK, directors correctly regard such deviations as legitimate psychs provided they don't occur regularly enough to be an actual implicit agreement." Merry Christmas (especially to UK Directors), Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 06:46:07 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:46:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >...and in normal English usage, "egregious"... I doubt that the word "egregious" is in normal English usage. Sure this word appears on page 257 of my Pocket Oxford Dictionary, but on the same page is the word "eirenicon". Does any blmler (without use of a dictionary's UI) wish to hazard a guess as to what "eirenicon" means? Off-topic note; this classic party game for nerds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_(game) can be enhanced by using this prop Josepha Heifetz Byrne, Mrs Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure and Preposterous Words Merry partying, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 07:30:13 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:30:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >What is the difference between > >(a) an agreement that 1NT means "I want to play in 1NT" absent >a specific agreement that it additionally guarantees a stopper >in the opponents' suit > >and > >(b) an "agreement to bid 1NT without a stopper in [the] >opponents' suit"? > >Surely there must be one Richard Hills: This is a pons asinorum question. The basic type (a) agreement can exist only in very new partnerships. Once a partnership is of long-standing, they must then necessarily progress to either type (b), or to type (c) an agreement to bid 1NT only when guaranteeing all stoppers Merry Christmas, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 8 14:52:51 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:52:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> References: <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CFF8DB3.40301@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/12/2010 17:34, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> >>>> N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even >>>> though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind >>>> that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in >>>> W's announce suit either; depending on >>>> local alert regulations that might be MI. >>> AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a >>> stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 >>> heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could >>> reconsider if >>> LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. >>> And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is >>> alertable ? >> A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather >> than pass. >> Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well >> be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership >> agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid >> has to be alerted. > What is the difference between (a) an agreement that 1NT means "I > want to play in 1NT" absent a specific agreement that it additionally > guarantees a stopper in the opponents' suit and (b) an "agreement to > bid 1NT without a stopper in [the] opponents' suit"? Surely there > must be one, else a German who has ever attempted a 1NT call without > the requisite stopper would be required to alert forever after. > AG : there can be. In one of my partnerships, the sequence 1m (1S) 1NT (only), by agreement, doesn't promise a stopper. We alert it. This is different from having no agreement that it would promise a stopper, since 1m (1H) 1NT does, by agreement. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 8 14:59:24 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:59:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1205897719.282977.1291748437384.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <1205897719.282977.1291748437384.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CFF8F3C.8060702@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/12/2010 20:00, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Now, for "an agreement to bid 1NT when you want to play 1NT", > of course whether that has to be alerted is up to the RA, > but what is that supposed to mean? It means that shape, trick-taking ability and general honor pattern are at least as important in my decision as my holding in one specific suit, be it the opponents', and the RA shouldn't be allowed to compel me to think otherwise. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 8 15:01:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:01:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <1868792466.285413.1291751153686.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1868792466.285413.1291751153686.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CFF8F9F.2080106@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/12/2010 20:45, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Eric Landau >> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even >>>>> though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind >>>>> that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in >>>>> W's announce suit either; depending on >>>>> local alert regulations that might be MI. >>>> AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a >>>> stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 >>>> heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could >>>> reconsider if >>>> LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. >>>> And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is >>>> alertable ? >>> A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather >>> than pass. >>> Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well >>> be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership >>> agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid >>> has to be alerted. >> What is the difference between (a) an agreement that 1NT means "I >> want to play in 1NT" absent a specific agreement that it additionally >> guarantees a stopper in the opponents' suit and (b) an "agreement to >> bid 1NT without a stopper in [the] opponents' suit"? Surely there >> must be one, else a German who has ever attempted a 1NT call without >> the requisite stopper would be required to alert forever after. > No bidding system is perfect, and it is normal that on some > hands a player has to decide between bids that > misdescribe his hand. Again, all partnership understandings have > to be disclosed. If you happen to run into a sequence where > you know your system has a hole that might cause partner > to misdescribe his hand, that has to be disclosed. If you happen > to run into a sequence where you know partner has a tendency > to misdescribe his hand, that has top be disclosed. For example, > I like raising a weak NT to 3NT with a good seven card minor > and not much else. That has to be disclosed, even though I am > perfectly willing to play 3NT, possibly even doubled. > > Some such holes might be deemed illegal or disallowed. E.g., the > systemic agreement that a 1NT opener shows 10-12 and 1x - 1y -1NT > shows 14-16 will not make the TD happy when opener happens > to have a balanced 13 HCP. AG : I don't think that a TD can compel me to open on a balanced and non-upgradeable 13-count. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 8 15:02:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:02:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1b question In-Reply-To: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <4CFF9012.5040802@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/12/2010 20:53, Honors Bridge Club a ?crit : > Would appreciate your opinions, > > The auction goes: > South - 1C > West - 1C* > *West thought that South passed and his 1C is showing 15+ hcp, any shape > (1NT opening would be 12-14). > West's 1C is not accepted by North. > According to the new law 27B1(b), can West legally change his bid to 1NT > showing 15+ to 18 hcp in a balanced hand with clubs stopped without any > further rectification? AG : yes, he may. And the fact that his bid might be slightly flawed in order to avoir the constraints on other bids isn't a problem, because it isn't an agreement, just plain bridge logic. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 8 15:05:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:05:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 21, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <4CFEAC88.6020804@honorsbridgeclub.org> References: <4CFEAC88.6020804@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <4CFF9093.5060708@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/12/2010 22:52, Honors Bridge Club a ?crit : > On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Honors Bridge Club wrote: >>> Would appreciate your opinions, >>> >>> The auction goes: >>> South - 1C >>> West - 1C* >>> *West thought that South passed and his 1C is showing 15+ hcp, any >>> shape >>> (1NT opening would be 12-14). >>> West's 1C is not accepted by North. >>> According to the new law 27B1(b), can West legally change his bid >>> to 1NT >>> showing 15+ to 18 hcp in a balanced hand with clubs stopped without >>> any >>> further rectification? >> Yes. The operative question is whether the Insufficient bid conveys >> any additional information not conveyed by the replacement call; if >> not, the replacement call can be made without penalty. Since "15+ >> HCP, any shape" doesn't add any extra information to "15+ to 18 HCP, >> balanced hand, club stopper", West may bid 1NT with no further >> penalty to E-W. >> >> >> Eric Landau >> 1107 Dale Drive >> Silver Spring MD 20910 >> ehaa at starpower.net > What about if 1NT opening by that pair is 13 to15? If 1C is 16+ ? AG : disallowed in both mentioned cases. The set of hands which are a 1NT opening isn't a subset of the hands which open 1C. (my personal feeling is that it should be allowed, unless partner takes the information into account, since the distorsion is minor, but that's not what the laws say) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 8 15:51:17 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:51:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 21, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <4CFEAC88.6020804@honorsbridgeclub.org> References: <4CFEAC88.6020804@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <780F037A-D7E9-4EFD-A7E0-1B4EB8D1D054@starpower.net> On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Honors Bridge Club wrote: > On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Honors Bridge Club wrote: > >>> Would appreciate your opinions, >>> >>> The auction goes: >>> South - 1C >>> West - 1C* >>> *West thought that South passed and his 1C is showing 15+ hcp, any >>> shape >>> (1NT opening would be 12-14). >>> West's 1C is not accepted by North. >>> According to the new law 27B1(b), can West legally change his bid >>> to 1NT >>> showing 15+ to 18 hcp in a balanced hand with clubs stopped without >>> any >>> further rectification? >> >> Yes. The operative question is whether the Insufficient bid conveys >> any additional information not conveyed by the replacement call; if >> not, the replacement call can be made without penalty. Since "15+ >> HCP, any shape" doesn't add any extra information to "15+ to 18 HCP, >> balanced hand, club stopper", West may bid 1NT with no further >> penalty to E-W. > > What about if 1NT opening by that pair is 13 to15? That doesn't matter, as 1NT did not figure in the auction prior to the insufficient bid. > What about if 1C opening was 16+? That's a potential problem, as now the insufficient bid adds information, changing "15+ to 18 HCP, balanced hand, club stopper" into "16+ to 18 HCP, balanced hand, club stopper". The WBFLC has issued an interpretation of L27B1(b) which gives a bit of leeway to allow a penalty-free correction in "close but not quite exact" cases, but that seems to be aimed more at negative inferences than at real HCP differences, even of only one point. My personal opinion would be not to allow a penalty-free correction here, but I won't be surprised if other members of this forum disagree with that. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 8 16:07:59 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:07:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 21, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <780F037A-D7E9-4EFD-A7E0-1B4EB8D1D054@starpower.net> References: <4CFEAC88.6020804@honorsbridgeclub.org> <780F037A-D7E9-4EFD-A7E0-1B4EB8D1D054@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CFF9F4F.80104@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/12/2010 15:51, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Honors Bridge Club wrote: > >> On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Honors Bridge Club wrote: >> >>>> Would appreciate your opinions, >>>> >>>> The auction goes: >>>> South - 1C >>>> West - 1C* >>>> *West thought that South passed and his 1C is showing 15+ hcp, any >>>> shape >>>> (1NT opening would be 12-14). >>>> West's 1C is not accepted by North. >>>> According to the new law 27B1(b), can West legally change his bid >>>> to 1NT >>>> showing 15+ to 18 hcp in a balanced hand with clubs stopped without >>>> any >>>> further rectification? >>> Yes. The operative question is whether the Insufficient bid conveys >>> any additional information not conveyed by the replacement call; if >>> not, the replacement call can be made without penalty. Since "15+ >>> HCP, any shape" doesn't add any extra information to "15+ to 18 HCP, >>> balanced hand, club stopper", West may bid 1NT with no further >>> penalty to E-W. >> What about if 1NT opening by that pair is 13 to15? > That doesn't matter, as 1NT did not figure in the auction prior to > the insufficient bid. AG : I beg to disagree. Playing 13-15 notrumps means that one doesn't open 1C with balanced plain 15's , making the situation similar to the next one : partner knows a bit more about your overcall. >> What about if 1C opening was 16+? > That's a potential problem, as now the insufficient bid adds > information, changing "15+ to 18 HCP, balanced hand, club stopper" > into "16+ to 18 HCP, balanced hand, club stopper". The WBFLC has > issued an interpretation of L27B1(b) which gives a bit of leeway to > allow a penalty-free correction in "close but not quite exact" cases, > but that seems to be aimed more at negative inferences than at real > HCP differences, even of only one point. AG : one case where I suggested the TD to allow correction was allowing a change from a strong club to a double of 2D (indeed meaning 16+) although the pair's 2NT opening (21-22) was excluded dfrom the 1C opening but not from the double. > My personal opinion would > be not to allow a penalty-free correction here, but I won't be > surprised if other members of this forum disagree with that. AG : well, I'd like to disagree with that but am unsure whether I may go that far. From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 8 16:30:07 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:30:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 21, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <4CFF9F4F.80104@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CFEAC88.6020804@honorsbridgeclub.org> <780F037A-D7E9-4EFD-A7E0-1B4EB8D1D054@starpower.net> <4CFF9F4F.80104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601cb96ec$cc0355d0$640a0170$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. > AG : one case where I suggested the TD to allow correction was allowing a > change from a strong club to a double of 2D (indeed meaning 16+) although the > pair's 2NT opening (21-22) was excluded dfrom the 1C opening but not from the > double. > > > My personal opinion would > > be not to allow a penalty-free correction here, but I won't be > > surprised if other members of this forum disagree with that. > AG : well, I'd like to disagree with that but am unsure whether I may go that far. WBFLC has so far been very consistent that the replacement call must not include hands that would not have made the insufficient bid had this been sufficient. I don't think the addition of hands that would have opened 2NT rather than strong 1C can be included as a minor varying here, so I would not have allowed this under Law 27B1b. From roger-eymard at orange.fr Wed Dec 8 17:41:41 2010 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:41:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : Bidding (pairs, without screen) : S W N E pass pass 1NT pass 3NT all pass NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. East is on lead with : S : A985 H : 97654 D : 93 C : J10 What would you lead ? What other lead would you consider ? Thank you Roger Eymard From blml at arcor.de Wed Dec 8 17:45:28 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:45:28 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <820561949.327462.1291826728822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Roger Eymard wrote: > I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : > Bidding (pairs, without screen) : > S W N E > pass pass 1NT pass > 3NT all pass > > NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. > > East is on lead with : > S : A985 > H : 97654 > D : 93 > C : J10 > > What would you lead ? A small heart. Most likely the 7, but I almost might lead a 4th best H5 or a 4th best H4. > What other lead would you consider ? spade 5. Thomas From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 8 18:03:05 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:03:05 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <33D8E832D9BF4B9682A77CDFAC494AEE@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Roger Eymard" >I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : > Bidding (pairs, without screen) : > S W N E > pass pass 1NT pass > 3NT all pass > > NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. > > East is on lead with : > S : A985 > H : 97654 > D : 93 > C : J10 > > What would you lead ? Heart 5 > What other lead would you consider ? None. My partners always assume a shorter suit when I lead second best. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5685 (20101208) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From gampas at aol.com Wed Dec 8 18:19:06 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:19:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <8CD651327054ADE-10C0-D64@webmail-m020.sysops.aol.com> [Roger Eymard] I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : Bidding (pairs, without screen) : S W N E pass pass 1NT pass 3NT all pass NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. East is on lead with : S : A985 H : 97654 D : 93 C : J10 What would you lead ? What other lead would you consider ? [Paul Lamford] I tried to do a simulation on what was right and it was very close between a heart and a spade. It was too close to call at MPs. If partner hesitates before passing it out, he can only be thinking of doubling, and will probably have a weak two in clubs. If we are playing a weak two diamonds, then he cannot have been thinking of doubling based on diamonds. So, a PP for a club or a diamond, and neither a heart or spade are demonstrably suggested by anything, Now if partner has four fingers holding his cards, I think you have to lead a spade; three is normal, so you can choose either, and the ungainly two should cause you to lead a a heart. From adam at irvine.com Wed Dec 8 18:19:49 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:19:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:41:41 +0100." Message-ID: <201012081659.IAA03651@mailhub.irvine.com> Roger wrote: > I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : > Bidding (pairs, without screen) : > S W N E > pass pass 1NT pass > 3NT all pass > > NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. > > East is on lead with : > S : A985 > H : 97654 > D : 93 > C : J10 > > What would you lead ? The only card that lets the contract make, of course! Seriously: probably H7 but maybe not. > What other lead would you consider ? For the purposes of ruling, this is a total guess, especially since this is matchpoints and you don't yet know whether you're trying to beat the contract or just hold it to the minimum. In any case, I believe I'd consider all 13 cards to be logical alternatives if I had to rule. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 8 18:25:40 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:25:40 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1b question References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4CFF9012.5040802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <25BB463289054A1D948BD531B53B655A@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "Honors Bridge Club" Le 7/12/2010 20:53, Honors Bridge Club a ?crit : > Would appreciate your opinions, > > The auction goes: > South - 1C > West - 1C* > *West thought that South passed and his 1C is showing 15+ hcp, any > shape > (1NT opening would be 12-14). > West's 1C is not accepted by North. > According to the new law 27B1(b), can West legally change his bid > to 1NT > showing 15+ to 18 hcp in a balanced hand with clubs stopped > without any > further rectification? AG : yes, he may. And the fact that his bid might be slightly flawed in order to avoir the constraints on other bids isn't a problem, because it isn't an agreement, just plain bridge logic. [Marv] Since 1NT over 1C shows clubs stopped, and 1C would not, it seems to me that responder must not allow for the absence of a club stopper in his bidding. Hard to think of an example, but as responder I would shut out the insufficient bid from my mind (creating a virtual screen) when deciding on calls during the auction.. If that is not required by law, okay, but I do it anyway. Likewise as opener I would not let partner's knowledge of the insufficient bid affect my actions. Another virtual screen. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5685 (20101208) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 23:38:06 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:38:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Eymard: >I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : >Bidding (pairs, without screen) : >S W N E >pass pass 1NT pass >3NT pass pass pass > >NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. > >East is on lead with : >S : A985 >H : 97654 >D : 93 >C : J10 > >What would you lead ? >What other lead would you consider ? Richard Hills: I do not lead. I do not consider any other lead. I do not play matchpoint pairs. If this was an imp problem I would select the ace of spades -- but NOT the five of spades, which might block the spade suit. Declarer QT Pard Us K7632 A985 Dummy J9 Double-dummy the unblocking eight of spades might on other layouts work better than the ace of spades, but single-dumy the eight of spades is extremely likely to confuse pard. Of course, pard may hold the magic cards to enable us to cash first five heart tricks, or declarer may have the magic holding of just one heart stopper plus needing a spade trick for her contract. However, the percentage action to take when needing a miracle to defeat a contract is to hope for small miracles rather than large miracles. Expert friends of mine who do play matchpoint pairs have advised that defeating a defeatable 3NT via an aggressive ace lead gains more matchpoints on average (converting a below-average score to an outright top) than a passive non- ace lead gains in saving an overtrick (which merely converts a below-average score to an above-average score). Those expert friends advise that the crime of "going to bed with an ace" also causes below-average scores. Merry Christmas, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 9 00:16:53 2010 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Sm9z6SBNaWd1ZWw=?= ) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 00:16:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: My first option could be the CJ, it's possible than I must not risk a trick rather than beat the contract. I can consider also one of: H7, H5, S5 or even H4 or D9 (not so easy lead in this hand) Jos? -------Mensaje original------- De: Roger Eymard Fecha: 08/12/2010 17:41:42 Para: Bridge Laws Mailing List I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : Bidding (pairs, without screen) : S W N E pass pass 1NT pass 3NT all pass NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. East is on lead with : S : A985 H : 97654 D : 93 C : J10 What would you lead ? What other lead would you consider ? Thank you Roger Eymard _______________________________________________ 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/20101208/2b756b73/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 7162 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101208/2b756b73/attachment-0001.png From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 9 00:36:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:36:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1409357725.285168.1291742132898.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. Imps, Knockout Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: Ali NORTH Hills SOUTH --- Pass 1D(1) Pass 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass 2D(4) Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the first step in an artificial game force relay. (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. You, South, hold: AK732 5 T854 875 What call do you select? Alain Gottcheiner: >>AG : the question should only be asked to that player's >>peers, i.e. those who would not overcall 1S (or more) >>at green. Are there any on blml ? Thomas Dehn: >2S. Automatic. >..... >And yes, I am fine with S's pass over 1D. Alain Gottcheiner: >>But I guess that they would bid 2S, expecting partner >>not to hold umpteen hearts, as he has some values and >>didn't open, not even a weak 2-bid, and therefore some >>amount of fit in spades (3514 perhaps). The benefit of >>pushing them to 3D, failing because of the bad breaks, >>or of making 3S aren't to be scoffed at. Richard Hills: I do scoff at those benefits. In my opinion, Zone 1 and Zone 2 semi-experts play way too much matchpoint pairs. This distorts their competitive bidding judgement, so they then undertake way too many balances of 2S at imped knockout teams. "Diamond preference" is not the same as "diamond fit", so North-South do not necessarily have a consequential spade fit. At matchpoint pairs converting -130 into -800 on a misfit deal is merely converting an average score to a zero score on a single board. At imped knockout teams it is wild or gambling, converting the entire match from won to lost. Alain Gottcheiner: >>Do you want me to consider passing because they might >>have had a misunderstanding ? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ 6th July 2004 Pawel Szymonik: Pass. Opponents misunderstanding seems obvious to me. West bid of 2Dia was probably intended as next relay. And if North really passed his 12 count we still dont have a guarantee of making 2Spa. Cheers Pawel Richard Hills: We have a winner! The complete deal was -> J8 K9874 K96 943 QT965 4 AQT2 J63 AJ Q732 K6 AQJT2 AK732 5 T854 875 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Ali Hills --- Pass 1D Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 2D (1) Pass Pass 2S X (2) Pass 3D Pass 3NT(3) Pass Pass Pass (1) Pard forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. (2) Penalty double. (3) At this point in the auction, I alerted the opponents to the fact that partner had forgotten the system. South was unimpressed both with my pard, and with her own marginal balancing bid. The Hills Theory of Balancing - "Don't" - strikes again! This was a Canberra Bridge Club event. My partnership and my opponents had been regular attendees at this club for donkey's years. The opponents sportingly did not summon the Director, since they knew that my regular partner and I had been playing Symmetric Relay for a decade-and-a-half, and that this was a rare careless stuffup in our well-practised bonkers system. As well as accurately describing my system as bonkers, John (MadDog) Probst wrote (in the earlier thread "Penalised for not knowing your system"): It is my opinion that to forget your system is insulting to your opponents. It spoils their enjoyment. it is an offence against the proprieties. I can issue a DP, but not a PP. My favourite DP was to Robert Proops who was being particularly noisy so I read him the bit about following all reasonable requests of the TD and then told him to "Drop dead". "Seems reasonable" he said :) My partnership's stuffup gave the opponents a chance of enjoyably watching us play a cold game in a partscore. If MadDog was the Canberra TD, would he really inflict a DP on our partnership? Or would he simply suggest that our partnership buy the opponents a beer? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ 7th July 2004 John (MadDog) Probst: I'd write you up in the psyche book, I think. There is no basis at all for a PP but I'd do a DP ruling. My ruling is as follows: "The 2S bidder is to buy his partner a drink for the lunatic balancing action. The 2D bidder is to buy the 2S bidder a drink for letting him back into the auction. RJH is to buy his partner a drink as the stress of playing with RJH is clearly sending the man demented. The partner of the 2S bidder is to buy the TD a drink because it's all his fault (a general catch-all, where DP's are concerned). The TD is to buy RJH a drink for providing the best entertainment of the evening. The rest of the room is to stop giggling or I'll issue some more DP's." I tell you DP's can be exacted in any form, they're far better than PP's. I charge a pint of bitter to people who throw their bidding box on the floor, gravely citing 91 as my justification. John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john at asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john Merry Christmas, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 9 01:16:10 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:16:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Frodo Baggins: "Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes." >I do not play matchpoint pairs. > >If this was an imp problem I would select the ace of spades >-- but NOT the five of spades, which might block the spade >suit. > > Declarer > QT >Pard Us >K7632 A985 > Dummy > J9 If I did play matchpoint pairs, then choosing to lead the blocking five of spades would not matter, as I would still get an Ave+ score due to the fouled board. Thus I pedantically proofread pips -> Declarer QT Pard Us K6432 A985 Dummy J7 Merry Christmas, Elrond -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Dec 9 02:01:23 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 02:01:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D002A63.7090209@aol.com> I use the word "egregious" occasionally (and thus know what it means) but then I am generally not considered normal. I don't use the word "eirenicon" or know what it means (and haven't bothered to check). Defining "normal English usage" is a questionable position. See the abominable Bush who doesn't use adverbs. Is that now normal? It probably depends to a great extent on your intellectual level and who wants to admit to anything but the highest one? Ciao, JE Am 08.12.2010 06:46, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > Eric Landau: > >> ...and in normal English usage, "egregious"... > I doubt that the word "egregious" is in normal English usage. > Sure this word appears on page 257 of my Pocket Oxford > Dictionary, but on the same page is the word "eirenicon". > Does any blmler (without use of a dictionary's UI) wish to > hazard a guess as to what "eirenicon" means? > > Off-topic note; this classic party game for nerds > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_(game) > > can be enhanced by using this prop > > Josepha Heifetz Byrne, Mrs Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, > Obscure and Preposterous Words > > Merry partying, > > Richard Hills > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 9 02:21:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:21:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CFDEF05.1060601@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Suppose in a UI case, there is a general consensus that from >two logical actions, neither is considered more suggested >than another. So no UI ruling is given. Richard Hills: At the actual table the actual Director ruled that the UI demonstrably suggested an opening lead from a doubleton heart suit versus 3NT, and that another lead from a tripleton club suit was a logical alternative. Similar but more obvious Directors' rulings have occurred in the past and future, when the opening leader versus 3NT uses UI to lead her singleton rather than lead from a 5-card suit. Herman De Wael: >Then up springs one Richard Hills, who conclusively proves >that one of the actions, through the UI, has become one >percent more likely to succeed than the other. Even if >everyone including Alain Gottcheiner were to agree to the >demonstration, does this mean that the player was bound to >that, at the time of his possible infraction? > >I feel that there must be some lower threshold here. Richard Hills: At the actual table the actual Appeals Committee actually over-ruled the actual Director with actually erroneous reasoning. But the Appeals Committee's ruling, while illogical, was not illegal, since it was entirely up to the judgement of the Appeals Committee to define the lower threshold for the criterion "demonstrably". Samuel Leibowitz (1893-1978), American defence attorney: "I defended about one hundred and forty people for murder in this country and I think in all of the cases I received just one Christmas card from all of these defendants." Merry Christmas, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 9 04:18:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:18:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 12th October 2010, item 3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D002A63.7090209@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >..... >Defining "normal English usage" is a questionable position. See >the abominable Bush Normal English usage from C.S. Lewis in Prince Caspian: " ... and in the most abhominable, - don't forget to spell it with an H, Doctor - bloody, and unnatural murder of your kindly lord and brother King Caspian Ninth of that name. Wherefore we most heartily provoke, challenge, and defy your Lordship to the said combat and monomachy ... " Jeff Easterson: >who doesn't use adverbs. Is that now normal? >..... Morris Bishop (1893-1973) American scholar, historian, biographer, author and humorist, on normal English usage of prepositions: I lately lost a preposition; It hid, I thought, beneath my chair; And angrily I cried, "Perdition! Up from out of in under there!" Correctness is my vade mecum, And straggling phrases I abhor, And yet I wonder, "What should he come Up from out of in under for?" Merry monomachy, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Dec 9 07:09:40 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 22:09:40 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. Message-ID: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, 1. What is the cost of the revoke, 30 points or 980+50=1030 points? 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5686 (20101208) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 9 07:54:12 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:54:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <027701cb976d$e33b60e0$a9b222a0$@nl> My answers(totalpoint scoring) 1) The cost is 1030, the difference between what they could have scored and actually scored 2) Therefore the adjusted score, assuming the director indeed applies 12C1b, is 1430-1030=400 Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Marvin French Sent: donderdag 9 december 2010 7:10 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, 1. What is the cost of the revoke, 30 points or 980+50=1030 points? 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5686 (20101208) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 09:00:17 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:00:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: <027701cb976d$e33b60e0$a9b222a0$@nl> References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> <027701cb976d$e33b60e0$a9b222a0$@nl> Message-ID: 2010/12/9 Hans van Staveren : > My answers(totalpoint scoring) > > 1) The cost is 1030, the difference between what they could have scored and > actually scored > 2) Therefore the adjusted score, assuming the director indeed applies 12C1b, > is 1430-1030=400 Agreed. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Marvin French > Sent: donderdag 9 december 2010 7:10 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. > > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' ?vulnerable 6H. The spade slam > makes only because of ?a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, > nothing to the play, and would have scored ?+1430. > > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, > > 1. What ?is ?the cost of the revoke, 30 points ?or 980+50=1030 > points? > > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 5686 (20101208) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 9 13:12:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:12:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D00C799.5060602@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/12/2010 23:38, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Roger Eymard: > >> I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : >> Bidding (pairs, without screen) : >> S W N E >> pass pass 1NT pass >> 3NT pass pass pass >> >> NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. >> >> East is on lead with : >> S : A985 >> H : 97654 >> D : 93 >> C : J10 >> >> What would you lead ? >> What other lead would you consider ? > Richard Hills: > > I do not lead. > I do not consider any other lead. > I do not play matchpoint pairs. > > If this was an imp problem I would select the ace of spades > -- but NOT the five of spades, which might block the spade > suit. > AG : this, by the way, is one of the main reson for using 3rd/5th leads. Whence the answer is twofold : I lead the 7 of hearts playing 4th best, and the 8 of spades playing 3rd/5th. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 9 13:14:50 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:14:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D00C83A.7050508@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/12/2010 0:36, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. > > Imps, Knockout Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > Ali NORTH Hills SOUTH > --- Pass 1D(1) Pass > 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass > 2D(4) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > first step in an artificial game force relay. > > (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. > > You, South, hold: > > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > What call do you select? > > Richard Hills: > > I do scoff at those benefits. In my opinion, Zone 1 and > Zone 2 semi-experts play way too much matchpoint pairs. > This distorts their competitive bidding judgement, so > they then undertake way too many balances of 2S at imped > knockout teams. > > "Diamond preference" is not the same as "diamond fit" AG : you forgot something. This is preference to a 4-card suit over a 5-card suit, whence it will usually provide 4-card support. One is expected to pass with 32. From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 9 16:19:16 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:19:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <849654534.27376.1291907956520.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. > > Imps, Knockout Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > Ali NORTH Hills SOUTH > --- Pass 1D(1) Pass > 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass > 2D(4) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > first step in an artificial game force relay. > > (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. > > You, South, hold: > > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > What call do you select? > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >>AG : the question should only be asked to that player's > >>peers, i.e. those who would not overcall 1S (or more) > >>at green. Are there any on blml ? > > Thomas Dehn: > > >2S. Automatic. > >..... > >And yes, I am fine with S's pass over 1D. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >>But I guess that they would bid 2S, expecting partner > >>not to hold umpteen hearts, as he has some values and > >>didn't open, not even a weak 2-bid, and therefore some > >>amount of fit in spades (3514 perhaps). The benefit of > >>pushing them to 3D, failing because of the bad breaks, > >>or of making 3S aren't to be scoffed at. > > Richard Hills: > > I do scoff at those benefits. In my opinion, Zone 1 and > Zone 2 semi-experts play way too much matchpoint pairs. > This distorts their competitive bidding judgement, so > they then undertake way too many balances of 2S at imped > knockout teams. > > "Diamond preference" is not the same as "diamond fit", so > North-South do not necessarily have a consequential spade > fit. At matchpoint pairs converting -130 into -800 on a > misfit deal is merely converting an average score to a > zero score on a single board. At imped knockout teams it > is wild or gambling, converting the entire match from won > to lost. Even without knowing the system, I can conclude that at minimum opponents have a 4-3 fit. With six hearts, responder might bid 2H, and with 2-2 in the minors and similar responder would pass 2C. Letting them play 2D when wrong (you can make a part score or push them into a non-making 3D) costs approximately five IMPs. That is significant, thus you cannot afford to be too cautious in the part score battle. The IMPs vs. MPs argument then goes both ways. The exchange rates in 2SX are much better at IMPs. If they double and are wrong, you have game, an extra 10 IMPs your way, possibly more if you make overtricks or are vulnerable. Whereas -50 vs. -100 or -100 vs. -200 or even -100 vs. -300 isn't that big at IMPs. > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >>Do you want me to consider passing because they might > >>have had a misunderstanding ? > > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > > 6th July 2004 > > Pawel Szymonik: > > Pass. Opponents misunderstanding seems obvious to me. West > bid of 2Dia was probably intended as next relay. And if > North really passed his 12 count we still dont have a > guarantee of making 2Spa. > > Cheers > Pawel > > Richard Hills: > > We have a winner! The complete deal was -> > > J8 > K9874 > K96 > 943 > QT965 4 > AQT2 J63 > AJ Q732 > K6 AQJT2 > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Ali Hills > --- Pass 1D Pass > 1H Pass 2C Pass > 2D (1) Pass Pass 2S > X (2) Pass 3D Pass > 3NT(3) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Pard forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. > > (2) Penalty double. > > (3) At this point in the auction, I alerted the opponents > to the fact that partner had forgotten the system. > South was unimpressed both with my pard, and with her > own marginal balancing bid. The Hills Theory of > Balancing - "Don't" - strikes again! > > This was a Canberra Bridge Club event. My partnership and > my opponents had been regular attendees at this club for > donkey's years. > > The opponents sportingly did not summon the Director, > since they knew that my regular partner and I had been > playing Symmetric Relay for a decade-and-a-half, and that > this was a rare careless stuffup in our well-practised > bonkers system. The auction is too simple to seriously consider the possibility that an experienced expert partnership like Ali/Hills had a serious misunderstanding in the auction. Yes, I've balanced them into game before. More than once, actually. But I've pushed them one level higher thousands of times. In any case, with the description above, I'd rule a misbid rather than MI, thus the table result of 3NT making whatever stands. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 9 21:39:09 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 21:39:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4CFF8F9F.2080106@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CFF8F9F.2080106@ulb.ac.be> <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1868792466.285413.1291751153686.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1558291281.42999.1291927149888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 7/12/2010 20:45, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Eric Landau > >> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> > >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> > >>>> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>>> > >>>>> N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even > >>>>> though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind > >>>>> that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in > >>>>> W's announce suit either; depending on > >>>>> local alert regulations that might be MI. > >>>> AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a > >>>> stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 > >>>> heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could > >>>> reconsider if > >>>> LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. > >>>> And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is > >>>> alertable ? > >>> A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather > >>> than pass. > >>> Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well > >>> be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership > >>> agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid > >>> has to be alerted. > >> What is the difference between (a) an agreement that 1NT means "I > >> want to play in 1NT" absent a specific agreement that it additionally > >> guarantees a stopper in the opponents' suit and (b) an "agreement to > >> bid 1NT without a stopper in [the] opponents' suit"? Surely there > >> must be one, else a German who has ever attempted a 1NT call without > >> the requisite stopper would be required to alert forever after. > > No bidding system is perfect, and it is normal that on some > > hands a player has to decide between bids that > > misdescribe his hand. Again, all partnership understandings have > > to be disclosed. If you happen to run into a sequence where > > you know your system has a hole that might cause partner > > to misdescribe his hand, that has to be disclosed. If you happen > > to run into a sequence where you know partner has a tendency > > to misdescribe his hand, that has top be disclosed. For example, > > I like raising a weak NT to 3NT with a good seven card minor > > and not much else. That has to be disclosed, even though I am > > perfectly willing to play 3NT, possibly even doubled. > > > > Some such holes might be deemed illegal or disallowed. E.g., the > > systemic agreement that a 1NT opener shows 10-12 and 1x - 1y -1NT > > shows 14-16 will not make the TD happy when opener happens > > to have a balanced 13 HCP. > AG : I don't think that a TD can compel me to open on a balanced and > non-upgradeable 13-count. Agree, but I wrote "opener". This implies that the hand was actually opened rather than passed. ;-) Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 10 00:05:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:05:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <849654534.27376.1291907956520.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >>>...thus you cannot afford to be too cautious in the part >>>score battle... Richard Hills: Many blmlers have this slavish assumption that the bidding system of a partnership is God. So when such a blmler is a Director, she therefore misinterprets Law 16B1(b): " ... using the methods of the partnership ... " to mean that a logical alternative cannot incorporate the possibility that a player has intentionally violated or unintentionally forgotten the methods of the partnership. This balance versus a misbidding relay partnership was a rather unusual counter-example to divine bidding systems. Much more commonplace is the Biltcliffe Coup. WEST Pard EAST You 1C Pass 1H Pass 2H Pass Pass 2S 3H Pass 4H Pass Pass X Pass Pass Pass 10 cold tricks, -790 And an example of intentionally violating the methods of the partnership being a logical alternative is The Bridge World, Master Solvers' Club June 1994, Problem C Rubber bridge Dlr: South Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Double 2S 3H Pass 4D (1) Pass ? (1) 100% forcing You, South, hold: AQ62 J742 6 T853 What call do you make? Ron Johnson, 29th January 2005 >>Pass. Bad hand for diamonds. What other calls do you consider making? Ron Johnson, 29th January 2005: >>The 4H (obvious question mark) that I often heard in >>clubs is just about perfect. (One big plus about bidding >>boxes, this form of magic is a lot tougher to pull off) >> >>Shows doubts about hearts, and warns against diamonds. >> >>I can bid 4NT, my partnership agreements are that 4NT is >>natural and regressive in this type of position (and in >>most positions). >> >>Risky for most people. Richard Hills, 29th January 2005: >Calling "natural 4NT" is the winning action, but in a >normal anti-adjectival form of bridge, pard is certain to >interpret 4NT as Blackwood. Nigel Guthrie, 29th January 2005: This problem is unique to Australia. The rest of the world uses bidding boxes rather than written bidding. Before "4N", Kojak, David Stevenson and I would, of course, face our "Stop" card :) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 10 00:53:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:53:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: And an example of intentionally violating the methods of the partnership being a logical alternative is The Bridge World, Master Solvers' Club June 1994, Problem C Rubber bridge Dlr: South Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Double 2S 3H Pass 4D (1) Pass ? (1) 100% forcing You, South, hold: AQ62 J742 6 T853 What call do you make? June 1994 MSC panellist Zia Mahmood: >Pass. Rubber bridge has its own laws. The trick is >handling the table and the varying abilities - there are >_never_ four good players in the game, so I feel the >conditions [of the MSC] are wrong. Where I play, if my >partner bid four diamonds (I play that forcing), I would >bid three notrump - nobody would notice this is >insufficient. June 1994 MSC panellist Bart Bramley: >Five clubs. Four notrump is Blackwood at rubber bridge. >I'm not sure what it is elsewhere, except as an experiment >in terror. No thanks! Five diamonds is possible, but I >might as well try five clubs on the way, in case partner >has four. June 1994 MSC panellist Sami Kehela: >Four notrump. Natural, but if I could not manage it in >tempo I would pass. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Ed Reppert assertion, 30th January 2005: So what? That doesn't make the system violating action a logical alternative. Richard Hills syllogism, 31st January 2005: (1) For many people, an agreement to play high-level forcing passes is accident prone, with frequent forgetting and/or misinterpretation. (2) I used to played high-level forcing passes (an agreement now removed from my system). But, when I perpetrated an in-tempo forcing pass, my pard would often routinely pass also, for a red-faced score of +250 for us, instead of our cold slam. (3) A sloooow forcing pass is demonstrably an "aid to memory". [2007 Law 40C3(a)] (4) *If* a sloooow forcing pass has jogged a snoozy partner's memory, *then* violating system is a Law 16 non-suggested logical alternative. Note a parallel posting on this thread, in which Sami Kehela would bid a (natural) 4NT if he could achieve the call in tempo, but would ethically refuse to bid a sloooow (natural) 4NT, since the slowness would jog a snoozy partner's memory that this 4NT call was a special exception to the normal default of Blackwood. Ed Reppert quibble, 1st February 2005: I have no problem with a player doing something designed to avoid giving his partner an ethical problem, but I don't think the law requires it. Richard Hills counter-quibble, 3rd February 2005: Let us consider two hypothetical instances -> (a) Kehela bids his (natural) 4NT in tempo. (b) Kehela knows that - unprompted - his partner will remember that 4NT is natural 60% of the time. Result: Kehela reaches the par contract of 4NT 60% of the time, but has a major Blackwood debacle 40% of the time. (x) Kehela cannot bid in tempo (y) Kehela knows that - prompted by UI - his partner's ability to remember that 4NT is natural will increase from 60% of the time to 100% of the time. (z) Kehela therefore passes partner's forcing 4D. Result: By passing a forcing 4D, Kehela has a minor debacle. But, since bidding a sloooow (natural) 4NT would require the TD to adjust the score, pursuant to Law 16, to the pre-UI 40% debacle, Kehela's active ethics are rewarded with a lesser debacle. Note: In my opinion, in case (y), *if* a (hypothetical) Kehela did bid a sloooow (natural) 4NT, *then* Kehela's partner would be obliged by Law 73C to assume that 4NT was Blackwood, so then kamikaze at the five-level with a response to Blackwood. Merry Christmas (especially to Ed Reppert, who is spreading the Good News on other online Laws fora), Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 10 02:09:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:09:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <849654534.27376.1291907956520.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >> J8 >> K9874 >> K96 >> 943 >>QT965 4 >>AQT2 J63 >>AJ Q732 >>K6 AQJT2 >> AK732 >> 5 >> T854 >> 875 >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>Ali Hills >>--- Pass 1D (1) Pass >>1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass >>2D (4) Pass Pass 2S >>X (5) Pass 3D Pass >>3NT(6) Pass Pass Pass >> >> >>(1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4- >> card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. >> >>(2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a >> heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or >> the first step in an artificial game force relay. >> >>(3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. >> >>(4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. Pard >> forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. >> >>(5) Penalty double. >> >>(6) At this point in the auction, I alerted the opponents >> to the fact that partner had forgotten the system. David Babcock, July 2004: >However well-intentioned, is this allowed before the final >pass? Sven Pran, July 2004: >[2007 Law 20F5]: NO! (And for defenders to be not until >after the play ends). John (MadDog) Probst, July 2004: >Que? MI is illegal. Creation of UI isn't. Would you >accept I must alert 3NT and when asked by opponents gravely >explain "This call is anti-systemic". I much prefer >"Partner is a complete plonker and has forgotten the >system". cheers john Sven Pran asked, July 2004: >Had you previously given an incorrect explanation or did >your partner forget the system? Richard Hills replied, July 2004: >Both. :-) > >At the point that pard bid 3NT, not only did I know that >pard had forgotten the system, but I also knew that I had >an implicit agreement with pard as to exactly *how* pard >had forgotten the system. > >(In our relay methods almost always the cheapest bid is >the relay; this particular auction was an idiosyncratic >exception to the general rule.) > >The opponents are entitled to know what I now implicitly >knew, by partnership agreement, arising from the calls of >the current deal. Thomas Dehn, December 2010: >The auction is too simple to seriously consider the possibility >that an experienced expert partnership like Ali/Hills had a serious >misunderstanding in the auction. >..... >In any case, with the description above, I'd rule a misbid rather >than MI, thus the table result of 3NT making whatever stands. Richard Hills: But how would Director De Wael rule? Merry Christmas to all past, present and future blmlers. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Dec 10 04:17:54 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:17:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <426D0B99EEB1454DA698385E4FE899C4@erdos> Total points make the damage calculation easy. The infraction damaged the NOS by 1380 points, as the infraction put them in a +50 position and they would have been +1430 without the infraction. Therefore, we adjust the score to -980+1380=+400 for the NOS; the other 1030 points of damage were self-inflicted. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 1:09 AM Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam > makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, > nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. > > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, > > 1. What is the cost of the revoke, 30 points or 980+50=1030 > points? > > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 5686 (20101208) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Fri Dec 10 06:13:36 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:13:36 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1560572695.48084.1291958016428.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Thomas Dehn: > > >>>...thus you cannot afford to be too cautious in the part > >>>score battle... > > Richard Hills: > > Many blmlers have this slavish assumption that the bidding > system of a partnership is God. So when such a blmler is a > Director, she therefore misinterprets Law 16B1(b): > > " ... using the methods of the partnership ... " > > to mean that a logical alternative cannot incorporate the > possibility that a player has intentionally violated or > unintentionally forgotten the methods of the partnership. Of course you can do either. I pass forcing bids once in a while. Lets say one forcing bid passed in 2000 hands. You are free to put all your own eggs into one basket and bet that your national championship caliber opponent has forgotten a very basic sequence. However, when you do that, you are bidding your own hand rather than directing. Surely in the case of considering a passing a forcing bid not passing it is a logical alternative. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Fri Dec 10 07:06:52 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:06:52 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <61820230.48610.1291961212930.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au > The Bridge World, Master Solvers' Club June 1994, Problem C I think you need to modify that a bit Total points scoring Dlr: South Vul: None WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Double(1) 2S 3H Pass 4D (2) Pass 4NT(3) Pass 5C(4) Pass 5D (5) Pass 6D All Pass. (1) North had a very greedy look on his face after picking up hist hand, and appeared to be surprised that W has enough to open. (2) alerted as 100% forcing. System notes confirm that this is 100% forcing. (3) in tempo. System notes do not cover this scenario. S says it should be to play, N says he interpreted it as RKCB. 4NT was not alerted, in line with local alert regulations. (4) 1 or 4 keycards (5) in tempo South holds: AQ62 J742 6 T853 North holds: x AQT AQJ87543 A 6D makes on the H finesse. E/W call the director claim that the UI indicates that N has an unusually good hand and thus suggests bidding on over passing 4D. E/W furthermore claim that passing 4D is a logical alternative, as bidding on with the apparent misfit can lead to a huge disaster, whereas passing 4D is only a minor disaster. N/S don't dispute the UI but claim that S could not possibly have passed 4D as it is 100% forcing, and never in their life would they ever pass a forcing bid. Your ruling please. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 10 08:56:16 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:56:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D01DD20.1010403@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > But how would Director De Wael rule? > The same as all other directors! It i only player De Wael who will act differently from most other players, by making certain he does not give UI to partner, even at the cost of giving MI to opponents. After acting that wasy, player De Wael will expect director De Wael to come down as a ton of bricks on the MI ruling. player De Wael will also expect all other directors to come down as two tons of bricks on the UI infraction of all other players. > Merry Christmas to all past, present and future blmlers. > And to you, dear sir. > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 10 10:31:55 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:31:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <1558291281.42999.1291927149888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <4CFF8F9F.2080106@ulb.ac.be> <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1868792466.285413.1291751153686.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <1558291281.42999.1291927149888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D01F38B.4050701@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/12/2010 21:39, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 7/12/2010 20:45, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> Eric Landau >>>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>>> >>>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even >>>>>>> though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind >>>>>>> that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in >>>>>>> W's announce suit either; depending on >>>>>>> local alert regulations that might be MI. >>>>>> AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a >>>>>> stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 >>>>>> heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could >>>>>> reconsider if >>>>>> LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. >>>>>> And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is >>>>>> alertable ? >>>>> A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather >>>>> than pass. >>>>> Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well >>>>> be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a partnership >>>>> agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid >>>>> has to be alerted. >>>> What is the difference between (a) an agreement that 1NT means "I >>>> want to play in 1NT" absent a specific agreement that it additionally >>>> guarantees a stopper in the opponents' suit and (b) an "agreement to >>>> bid 1NT without a stopper in [the] opponents' suit"? Surely there >>>> must be one, else a German who has ever attempted a 1NT call without >>>> the requisite stopper would be required to alert forever after. >>> No bidding system is perfect, and it is normal that on some >>> hands a player has to decide between bids that >>> misdescribe his hand. Again, all partnership understandings have >>> to be disclosed. If you happen to run into a sequence where >>> you know your system has a hole that might cause partner >>> to misdescribe his hand, that has to be disclosed. If you happen >>> to run into a sequence where you know partner has a tendency >>> to misdescribe his hand, that has top be disclosed. For example, >>> I like raising a weak NT to 3NT with a good seven card minor >>> and not much else. That has to be disclosed, even though I am >>> perfectly willing to play 3NT, possibly even doubled. >>> >>> Some such holes might be deemed illegal or disallowed. E.g., the >>> systemic agreement that a 1NT opener shows 10-12 and 1x - 1y -1NT >>> shows 14-16 will not make the TD happy when opener happens >>> to have a balanced 13 HCP. >> AG : I don't think that a TD can compel me to open on a balanced and >> non-upgradeable 13-count. > Agree, but I wrote "opener". This implies that the hand > was actually opened rather than passed. ;-) > AG : sorry, you misunderstood. An agreement that we open 1NT with 10-12, 1m followed by 1NT with 14-16 and pass with 13 is legal, in the same way as opening a weak 2 in the 5-8 range and not opening with 9-10. Whence you shouldn't disallow this "hole". From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 10 12:39:39 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:39:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D02117B.8040604@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 2:09, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > >>> J8 >>> K9874 >>> K96 >>> 943 >>> QT965 4 >>> AQT2 J63 >>> AJ Q732 >>> K6 AQJT2 >>> AK732 >>> 5 >>> T854 >>> 875 >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> Ali Hills >>> --- Pass 1D (1) Pass >>> 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass >>> 2D (4) Pass Pass 2S >>> X (5) Pass 3D Pass >>> 3NT(6) Pass Pass Pass >>> >>> >>> (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >>> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >>> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4- >>> card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. >>> >>> (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a >>> heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or >>> the first step in an artificial game force relay. >>> >>> (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. >>> >>> (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. Pard >>> forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. >>> >>> (5) Penalty double. >>> >>> (6) At this point in the auction, I alerted the opponents >>> to the fact that partner had forgotten the system. > > Richard Hills: > > But how would Director De Wael rule? AG : I, for one, think that is a case where "disruption" comes in. One should be allowed to split the score, -630 and +110. Not allowed by current rules ? perhaps, but should be. Since the laws are there to restore equity, that is, give you the result that you're entitled to, the "MI-no redress" part tastes bad. Another way would be to be allowed to have written explanation from both opponents. The misunderstanding would be easy to detect. Of course, the way the question was asked, a misunderstanding was the most probable trick. This doesn't void the fact that : 1) the cards might as well have been dealt : W - Jxxx / KQxxx / Qxxx / Q N - Qxx / Jxxx / A / Kxxxx E - x / Axx / KJxx / AJxxx 2) that's how the bidding tells us they are 3) if it isn't the case, we've been robbed of our possibility of a good score. The problem is, in many systems, one might detect opponents' misunderstanding from common knowledge. In a more unusual system, one can't. this is an unfair advantage. And please note that I'm a heavy relay-user. (of course, if you read about your opponents' system, it might help you) Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 10 13:23:29 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:23:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> After my initial reply as director, I will now give this matter some thought as "player". I assume that this is without screens - or the problems would not arise. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> J8 >>> K9874 >>> K96 >>> 943 >>> QT965 4 >>> AQT2 J63 >>> AJ Q732 >>> K6 AQJT2 >>> AK732 >>> 5 >>> T854 >>> 875 >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> Ali Hills >>> --- Pass 1D (1) Pass >>> 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass >>> 2D (4) Pass Pass 2S >>> X (5) Pass 3D Pass >>> 3NT(6) Pass Pass Pass >>> >>> >>> (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >>> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >>> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4- >>> card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. >>> This corresponds to the hand of East, so I presume it is also correctly explained like this by West. >>> (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a >>> heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or >>> the first step in an artificial game force relay. >>> idem, mm. >>> (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. >>> perfectly correct. >>> (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. Pard >>> forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. >>> Here the misbid occurs. Presumably East explained it correctly. West now has UI. >>> (5) Penalty double. >>> West should perhaps not have done this, since it might give East information about the previous misbid. Pass is a LA, I think, and Double is suggested a better by the UI. But this is only a maybe - I will easily give way to some other analysis. (later:) Again, 3NT shows partner that there has been a misbid before - as partner has indeed concluded. So perhaps 3NT was again suggested by the UI, and pass a LA. Same caveat as above. >>> (6) At this point in the auction, I alerted the opponents >>> to the fact that partner had forgotten the system. East did not receive UI, so he's free to pass on 3NT. Also, he has a duty to explain to opponents everything he concludes from the auction. His understanding of 2D is obviously better than his opponent's, and he concludes from the later double and 3NT that partner has made a mistake. That conclusion cannot be called obvious to opponents, so East should indeed alert opponents to it. Also, since East has good reason to believe which of the three calls was made erroneously (the 2D, with the logican forgetting of the unnatural relay), he should tell his opponents that. East acted completely correctly in explaining, and his pass cannot be called in question since he did not have UI. > > David Babcock, July 2004: > >> However well-intentioned, is this allowed before the final >> pass? > Of course it is - he is not telling his partner gave a misexplanation, he gave one himself (however small the previous MI was - "partner tends to forget this"), and he should correct it. > Sven Pran, July 2004: > >> [2007 Law 20F5]: NO! (And for defenders to be not until >> after the play ends). > YES!! Sven should read L20F5 again. It concerns misexplanations by partner, not misbids, and not misexplanations by player himself. > John (MadDog) Probst, July 2004: > >> Que? MI is illegal. Creation of UI isn't. Would you >> accept I must alert 3NT and when asked by opponents gravely >> explain "This call is anti-systemic". I much prefer >> "Partner is a complete plonker and has forgotten the >> system". cheers john > One quibble with John. I consider creation of UI as an infraction - why else would it be punished so harshly by L16? Which is why I would not criticize East for not saying what he said - but what he said would certainly count as "entiteled information" to NS. > Sven Pran asked, July 2004: > >> Had you previously given an incorrect explanation or did >> your partner forget the system? > This does not really matter. From the ensueing calls, East realized his previous explanation does not conform to the hand partner has, and he should tell this to the opponents. > Richard Hills replied, July 2004: > >> Both. :-) >> >> At the point that pard bid 3NT, not only did I know that >> pard had forgotten the system, but I also knew that I had >> an implicit agreement with pard as to exactly *how* pard >> had forgotten the system. >> >> (In our relay methods almost always the cheapest bid is >> the relay; this particular auction was an idiosyncratic >> exception to the general rule.) >> >> The opponents are entitled to know what I now implicitly >> knew, by partnership agreement, arising from the calls of >> the current deal. > > Thomas Dehn, December 2010: > >> The auction is too simple to seriously consider the possibility >> that an experienced expert partnership like Ali/Hills had a serious >> misunderstanding in the auction. >> ..... >> In any case, with the description above, I'd rule a misbid rather >> than MI, thus the table result of 3NT making whatever stands. > > Richard Hills: > > But how would Director De Wael rule? > As I stated above: either 2S by NS or 3D by East, whichever scores the best for NS. But on totally other reasons than above. When West hears he has misbid, this is UI for him. He should not choose, among LAs, the alternative which makes the misbid most clear for partner. I leave it to others whether pass ans pass should be considered LAs. > Merry Christmas to all past, present and future blmlers. > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 10 14:08:18 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:08:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D022642.8000300@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 13:23, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > After my initial reply as director, I will now give this matter some > thought as "player". > > I assume that this is without screens - or the problems would not arise. > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Richard Hills: >> >>>> J8 >>>> K9874 >>>> K96 >>>> 943 >>>> QT965 4 >>>> AQT2 J63 >>>> AJ Q732 >>>> K6 AQJT2 >>>> AK732 >>>> 5 >>>> T854 >>>> 875 >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> Ali Hills >>>> --- Pass 1D (1) Pass >>>> 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass >>>> 2D (4) Pass Pass 2S >>>> X (5) Pass 3D Pass >>>> 3NT(6) Pass Pass Pass >>>> >>>> >>>> (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >>>> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >>>> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4- >>>> card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. >>>> > This corresponds to the hand of East, so I presume it is also correctly > explained like this by West. > > >>>> (5) Penalty double. >>>> > West should perhaps not have done this, since it might give East > information about the previous misbid. Pass is a LA, I think, and Double > is suggested a better by the UI. But this is only a maybe - I will > easily give way to some other analysis. AG : I think that passing isn't a LA with 16 HCP, 5 trumps and partner's opening; 3NT is perhaps a LA, but also one that would awaken partner as to what happened. NB : the fact that partner isn't on the same wavelength as you (without knowing who's right) is AI from his pass. > > East did not receive UI, so he's free to pass on 3NT. Also, he has a > duty to explain to opponents everything he concludes from the auction. AG : indeed. I would say "I'm sure a wheel has gone off about the 2D bid". That's the only possible conclusion that I can come at from this strange auction. Facing some partners, you'd know you're right ; facing some other, you'd know he is ; facing some, you don't. If you do, state it. > > As I stated above: either 2S by NS or 3D by East, whichever scores the > best for NS. > But on totally other reasons than above. > > When West hears he has misbid, this is UI for him. AG : .Nope. With so strong a hand, you don't need any information from partner, except that he has opened, to know that you want to play a game (or punish them). You're allowed to act in due consequence. Of course, if your partner is foolish enough to psyche plaing a relay system, you're in trouble. When partner, who has opened, passes over your 2D bid, you know that something has happened. Just another case of UI matching AI. , From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 10 16:30:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:30:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14172933-8365-484F-8B6B-47B4F1DDF21F@starpower.net> On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:47 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> In Australia the Alert requirements are: >>> >>> (a) 1NT overcall in the direct seat with no stopper >>> = Alert! > > Ron Johnson: > >> All of this surprises me. Jeff Rubens has spent over >> 4 decades demonstrating that he can construct >> situations where a stopperless NT overcall will be >> the plurality choice (in partnerships that have not >> agreed that it's OK to overcall 1NT without a >> stopper). >> >> Many comments are on the order of "Showing my >> stopper" or "you got me", "but the alternatives are >> worse" or "after they run the hearts the play should >> be easy". > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Jeff Rubens' analysis. In my opinion it > is technically correct to immediately show pard that > one holds a strong balanced hand, thus enabling pard > to seize captaincy of the auction (maybe reaching a > laydown 4H on working values and a good fit, which > contract could not be achieved after a so-called > "textbook" Trap Pass due to lack of a stopper). > > Thus Ali-Hills have the pre-existing explicit mutual > partnership understanding that any and all natural > bids of NT at the one-level neither promise nor deny > stopper(s). > > However..... > > Merely because a partnership agreement about a non- > conventional call is technically correct does _not_ > necessarily mean that that natural call is not to be > Alerted. If the vast majority of opponents expect a > technically incorrect partnership understanding, in > Australia the ABF has correctly deemed that the vast > majority should be protected with an Alert. An agreement that a 1NT overcall shows x to y HCP in a balanced hand (not suitable for a systemic takeout double) does not define one's agreement as to what action one will take with such a hand. There are essentially three possibilities: 1. Bid 1NT with a stopper in the opponents' bid suit, otherwise pass. Partner raises NT freely. 2. Bid 1NT with a stopper, otherwise seek a systemically flawed alternative call that approximately describes your hand (e.g. an overcall on a good four-card suit, a somewhat off-shape double, or a 1NT overcall with a "suitable non-stopper" such as Jxx or xxxx); if none is to be found, pass. Partner raises NT freely. 3. Bid 1NT. Partner does not raise NT without checking back for a stopper unless he has one himself. #1 is taught to beginners. #2 is standard practice among competitive players. #3 is an unusual agreement that should obviously require an alert. But requiring an alert to disclose that partner's 1NT overcall "does not promise a stopper in your suit" covers both #2 and #3, which, IMO, confuses more than it clarifies and is thus a bad idea. One might argue that it is "common bridge knowledge" that there is a difference between "shows a stopper" (partner presumes a stopper, and raises freely) and "100% absolutely guarantees a stopper". One might also argue that the only difference between these agreements is that partnerships with the latter call their stopper-less 1NT overcalls "psychs" rather than "minor tactical deviations". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 10 17:01:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:01:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98AE05BC-073D-4F0C-A4D4-4CC56D91108D@starpower.net> On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:11 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Do you Alert a psyche which is a partnership understanding? > Do you Alert a tall dwarf? > > Ron Johnson: > >> There's a famous case from quite a few years ago (in the Blue >> Ribbon Pairs -- i.e. a very strong pairs game in the ACBL) >> >> Steve Robinson/Kit Woolsey were the pair in question. >> >> There was a 1NT overcall, alerted by his partner as >> "occasionally psychic" > > [snip] > >> They occasionally over-called on any hand type -- without the >> runout structure that the comic NT implies > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > If the 2008 ACBL Lawbook had applied way back when, the Alert > should instead have been "A two-way overcall, due to a Law 40C1 > implicit partnership understanding created because I have 'more > reason to be aware' than you that partner likes it both ways." > > Law 40C1: > > "...Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which > then form part of the partnership's methods..." > > Richard Hills: > > A call which is part of the partnership's methods is in my very > firm opinion definitely not a psychic call. > > Plus Law 40C1 renders totally irrelevant the fact that Robinson/ > Woolsey were not playing the Comic 1NT convention (which has so- > called "psychic control" responses), but were instead playing a > new Hilarious 1NT convention (with deathwish Titanic responses). Richard is of course correct from a strictly legal perspective, given the current state of our jurisprudence on such matters. But the "strictly legal perspective" terminology we employ on BLML is quite different from the terminology commonly used at real bridge tables. Players know what "systemic psychs" or "controlled psychs" are, notwithstanding legal doctrine that makes them self-contradictory, meaningless terms. For them, TFLB straightforwardly translates the legally nonsensical "occasionally psychic" to "an occasional deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or suit length", which is perfectly understandable at the table. Without using the word "psychic" in its "street sense", as opposed to its strict legal meaning, I would be hard pressed to come up with an equally clear concise description of Robinson-Woolsey's actual agreement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 10 17:06:26 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:06:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <14172933-8365-484F-8B6B-47B4F1DDF21F@starpower.net> References: <14172933-8365-484F-8B6B-47B4F1DDF21F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D025002.6070508@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 16:30, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:47 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Richard Hills: >> >>>> In Australia the Alert requirements are: >>>> >>>> (a) 1NT overcall in the direct seat with no stopper >>>> = Alert! >> Ron Johnson: >> >>> All of this surprises me. Jeff Rubens has spent over >>> 4 decades demonstrating that he can construct >>> situations where a stopperless NT overcall will be >>> the plurality choice (in partnerships that have not >>> agreed that it's OK to overcall 1NT without a >>> stopper). >>> >>> Many comments are on the order of "Showing my >>> stopper" or "you got me", "but the alternatives are >>> worse" or "after they run the hearts the play should >>> be easy". >> Richard Hills: >> >> I agree with Jeff Rubens' analysis. In my opinion it >> is technically correct to immediately show pard that >> one holds a strong balanced hand, thus enabling pard >> to seize captaincy of the auction (maybe reaching a >> laydown 4H on working values and a good fit, which >> contract could not be achieved after a so-called >> "textbook" Trap Pass due to lack of a stopper). >> >> Thus Ali-Hills have the pre-existing explicit mutual >> partnership understanding that any and all natural >> bids of NT at the one-level neither promise nor deny >> stopper(s). >> >> However..... >> >> Merely because a partnership agreement about a non- >> conventional call is technically correct does _not_ >> necessarily mean that that natural call is not to be >> Alerted. If the vast majority of opponents expect a >> technically incorrect partnership understanding, in >> Australia the ABF has correctly deemed that the vast >> majority should be protected with an Alert. > An agreement that a 1NT overcall shows x to y HCP in a balanced hand > (not suitable for a systemic takeout double) does not define one's > agreement as to what action one will take with such a hand. There > are essentially three possibilities: > > 1. Bid 1NT with a stopper in the opponents' bid suit, otherwise > pass. Partner raises NT freely. > > 2. Bid 1NT with a stopper, otherwise seek a systemically flawed > alternative call that approximately describes your hand (e.g. an > overcall on a good four-card suit, a somewhat off-shape double, or a > 1NT overcall with a "suitable non-stopper" such as Jxx or xxxx); if > none is to be found, pass. Partner raises NT freely. > > 3. Bid 1NT. Partner does not raise NT without checking back for a > stopper unless he has one himself. > > #1 is taught to beginners. #2 is standard practice among competitive > players. #3 is an unusual agreement that should obviously require an > alert. > > But requiring an alert to disclose that partner's 1NT overcall "does > not promise a stopper in your suit" covers both #2 and #3, which, > IMO, confuses more than it clarifies and is thus a bad idea. One > might argue that it is "common bridge knowledge" that there is a > difference between "shows a stopper" (partner presumes a stopper, and > raises freely) and "100% absolutely guarantees a stopper". One might > also argue that the only difference between these agreements is that > partnerships with the latter call their stopper-less 1NT overcalls > "psychs" rather than "minor tactical deviations". > AG : if I understand you, you mean that the possibility of "minor tactical deviations" is inherent to bridge (else there wouldn't be bidding contest columns) and therefore shan't be alerted, because you would have to alert every bid. In that case, a local rule that you have to alert bids which can be deviated from would be totally impractical. I'm fortunate enough to live in a land where most TDs understand this; Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 10 17:18:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:18:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <98AE05BC-073D-4F0C-A4D4-4CC56D91108D@starpower.net> References: <98AE05BC-073D-4F0C-A4D4-4CC56D91108D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0252C6.4070308@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 17:01, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:11 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Do you Alert a psyche which is a partnership understanding? >> Do you Alert a tall dwarf? >> >> Ron Johnson: >> >>> There's a famous case from quite a few years ago (in the Blue >>> Ribbon Pairs -- i.e. a very strong pairs game in the ACBL) >>> >>> Steve Robinson/Kit Woolsey were the pair in question. >>> >>> There was a 1NT overcall, alerted by his partner as >>> "occasionally psychic" >> [snip] >> >>> They occasionally over-called on any hand type -- without the >>> runout structure that the comic NT implies >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> If the 2008 ACBL Lawbook had applied way back when, the Alert >> should instead have been "A two-way overcall, due to a Law 40C1 >> implicit partnership understanding created because I have 'more >> reason to be aware' than you that partner likes it both ways." >> >> Law 40C1: >> >> "...Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which >> then form part of the partnership's methods..." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> A call which is part of the partnership's methods is in my very >> firm opinion definitely not a psychic call. >> >> Plus Law 40C1 renders totally irrelevant the fact that Robinson/ >> Woolsey were not playing the Comic 1NT convention (which has so- >> called "psychic control" responses), but were instead playing a >> new Hilarious 1NT convention (with deathwish Titanic responses). > Richard is of course correct from a strictly legal perspective, given > the current state of our jurisprudence on such matters. But the > "strictly legal perspective" terminology we employ on BLML is quite > different from the terminology commonly used at real bridge tables. > Players know what "systemic psychs" or "controlled psychs" are, > notwithstanding legal doctrine that makes them self-contradictory, > meaningless terms. For them, TFLB straightforwardly translates the > legally nonsensical "occasionally psychic" to "an occasional > deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or suit > length", which is perfectly understandable at the table. Without > using the word "psychic" in its "street sense", as opposed to its > strict legal meaning, I would be hard pressed to come up with an > equally clear concise description of Robinson-Woolsey's actual > agreement. > I think Robinson/Woolsey are right. There are a few bids which I alert and, if needed, explain as "written as such-and-such, but my partner is known to be rather creative in such circumstances". (the most usual case is the Spanish Dutch 2-bid) This seems to be what's covered by "regular deviations" as mentioned in L40. since they're a well-established partnership, and know when they're prone to deviate, they also have a few bids that they should alert for the same reason. Notice that I don't see "controlled psyche" as a contradiction. If your agreements include the fact that over each and every opening and overcall, the 6th step bid says "I have a hunch that you psyched. Please confirm by bidding the first step, or describe else and we'll bid into the stratosphere", there are still psyches (i.e. occasional misstatements with no specific pattern or inferences), and a way to check for the fact. BTW, I know one pair who played that way. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 10 17:25:17 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:25:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <433E4AEF-61CB-4D39-951C-15118FD0551B@starpower.net> On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : > Bidding (pairs, without screen) : > S W N E > pass pass 1NT pass > 3NT all pass > > NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. > > East is on lead with : > S : A985 > H : 97654 > D : 93 > C : J10 > > What would you lead ? Systemic heart (in my preferred lead methods, H7). > What other lead would you consider ? Systemic spade (ditto, S5), CJ. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 10 17:49:00 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:49:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead In-Reply-To: <433E4AEF-61CB-4D39-951C-15118FD0551B@starpower.net> References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> <433E4AEF-61CB-4D39-951C-15118FD0551B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0259FC.30609@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 17:25, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > >> I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : >> Bidding (pairs, without screen) : >> S W N E >> pass pass 1NT pass >> 3NT all pass >> >> NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. >> >> East is on lead with : >> S : A985 >> H : 97654 >> D : 93 >> C : J10 >> >> What would you lead ? > Systemic heart (in my preferred lead methods, H7). > >> What other lead would you consider ? > Systemic spade (ditto, S5), CJ. > > AG : one must also consider non-systemic Heart. e.g. if your style is to avoid leading from a weak 5-card suit when you hold a fair 4-card suit, but you consider this case an exception because it's headed by the Ace and you're leading into the strong hand, you might consider leading a high heart even though you usually play strict 3/5 leads, kind of alarmclock card. (partner will read you for length on seeing the dummy, and will be able to read your card as non-systemic) Some would consider this to be systemic : "lead an unusually high card when holding Axxx or AHxx in another suit and RHO is the storng hand" but this sems too specific - in that case leading system notes don't fit in a medium-sized agenda. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Dec 10 18:03:49 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:03:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D01F38B.4050701@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D01F38B.4050701@ulb.ac.be> <4CFF8F9F.2080106@ulb.ac.be> <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1868792466.285413.1291751153686.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <1558291281.42999.1291927149888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1870053642.78656.1292000629922.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/12/2010 21:39, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 7/12/2010 20:45, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>> Eric Landau > >>>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Le 6/12/2010 18:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> N/S bid to 3NT with no stopper in hearts even > >>>>>>> though W had announced a heart suit. Never mind > >>>>>>> that S did not alert N's 1NT without a stopper in > >>>>>>> W's announce suit either; depending on > >>>>>>> local alert regulations that might be MI. > >>>>>> AG : I don't get it. North has decided to bid 1NT on only half a > >>>>>> stopper, thinking that it wouldn't be a major problem if EW cashed 4 > >>>>>> heart tricks (the most probable number), and that he could > >>>>>> reconsider if > >>>>>> LHO bid hearts. This is a reasonable decision, not system. > >>>>>> And BTW, when 1NT bids mean "I want to play in 1NT", what is > >>>>>> alertable ? > >>>>> A partnership agreement to rebid 1NT with no heart stopper rather > >>>>> than pass. > >>>>> Again, this depends on local alert regulations and it might well > >>>>> be not alertable where you play. In Germany, if there is a > partnership > >>>>> agreement to bid NT without a stopper in opponents' suit, the 1NT bid > >>>>> has to be alerted. > >>>> What is the difference between (a) an agreement that 1NT means "I > >>>> want to play in 1NT" absent a specific agreement that it additionally > >>>> guarantees a stopper in the opponents' suit and (b) an "agreement to > >>>> bid 1NT without a stopper in [the] opponents' suit"? Surely there > >>>> must be one, else a German who has ever attempted a 1NT call without > >>>> the requisite stopper would be required to alert forever after. > >>> No bidding system is perfect, and it is normal that on some > >>> hands a player has to decide between bids that > >>> misdescribe his hand. Again, all partnership understandings have > >>> to be disclosed. If you happen to run into a sequence where > >>> you know your system has a hole that might cause partner > >>> to misdescribe his hand, that has to be disclosed. If you happen > >>> to run into a sequence where you know partner has a tendency > >>> to misdescribe his hand, that has top be disclosed. For example, > >>> I like raising a weak NT to 3NT with a good seven card minor > >>> and not much else. That has to be disclosed, even though I am > >>> perfectly willing to play 3NT, possibly even doubled. > >>> > >>> Some such holes might be deemed illegal or disallowed. E.g., the > >>> systemic agreement that a 1NT opener shows 10-12 and 1x - 1y -1NT > >>> shows 14-16 will not make the TD happy when opener happens > >>> to have a balanced 13 HCP. > >> AG : I don't think that a TD can compel me to open on a balanced and > >> non-upgradeable 13-count. > > Agree, but I wrote "opener". This implies that the hand > > was actually opened rather than passed. ;-) > > > AG : sorry, you misunderstood. > > An agreement that we open 1NT with 10-12, 1m followed by 1NT with 14-16 > and pass with 13 is legal, in the same way as opening a weak 2 in the > 5-8 range and not opening with 9-10. Whence you shouldn't disallow this > "hole". And so what? Those are not the conditions I stated. In the conditions I stated, the pair informs opponents that they open 1NT with 10-12, 1m followed by 1NT with 14-16. They actually do not pass with 13 balanced, but open some of those hands with 1NT and some other of those hands with 1m. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 10 18:46:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:46:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Dec 10, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>>> J8 >>>> K9874 >>>> K96 >>>> 943 >>>> QT965 4 >>>> AQT2 J63 >>>> AJ Q732 >>>> K6 AQJT2 >>>> AK732 >>>> 5 >>>> T854 >>>> 875 >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> Ali Hills >>>> --- Pass 1D (1) Pass >>>> 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass >>>> 2D (4) Pass Pass 2S >>>> X (5) Pass 3D Pass >>>> 3NT(6) Pass Pass Pass >>>> >>>> (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >>>> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >>>> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4- >>>> card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > This corresponds to the hand of East, so I presume it is also > correctly > explained like this by West. > >>>> (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a >>>> heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or >>>> the first step in an artificial game force relay. > > idem, mm. > >>>> (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > perfectly correct. > >>>> (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. Pard >>>> forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. > > Here the misbid occurs. Presumably East explained it correctly. > West now has UI. > >>>> (5) Penalty double. > > West should perhaps not have done this, since it might give East > information about the previous misbid. Pass is a LA, I think, and > Double > is suggested a better by the UI. But this is only a maybe - I will > easily give way to some other analysis. > > (later:) > > Again, 3NT shows partner that there has been a misbid before - as > partner has indeed concluded. So perhaps 3NT was again suggested by > the > UI, and pass a LA. Same caveat as above. Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding without having "used" any UI. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Dec 10 19:02:06 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:02:06 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> <433E4AEF-61CB-4D39-951C-15118FD0551B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <35D39A17E8204B6D9FF937405ACEDEBD@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > >> I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : >> Bidding (pairs, without screen) : >> S W N E >> pass pass 1NT pass >> 3NT all pass >> >> NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. >> >> East is on lead with : >> S : A985 >> H : 97654 >> D : 93 >> C : J10 >> >> What would you lead ? > > Systemic heart (in my preferred lead methods, H7). > >> What other lead would you consider ? > > Systemic spade (ditto, S5), CJ. > Meckwell leads the 9 from A98x (and J98x), as recommended by Marshall Miles many years ago.Briefly, the leads make it possible for partner to realize he should not continue the suit in some situations. Unblocking for partner is another possibility. For instance, when the leader has A982 and dummy 10xx, third hand knows to duck with Qxx when dummy plays low, and not to continue the suit when in if declarer is to be denied a second trick with his KJx. He can later continue the suit with a low card if he judges the lead was from five, declarer holding KJ doubleton. He can't play correctly if he must allow for better holdings in leader's hand. The duck must be made in normal tempo, which should be routinely slow. When the leader has J982 and the 10 is played from dummy's 1076, third hand knows not to continue the suit after playing the ace from Axx. He can't play correctly if he has to allow for the king or queen in the leader's hand Meckwell also leads the 9 from 109xx and 9x, so the 9 is useed to deny the king or queen.. Marv Marvin L French http://marvinfrench.com/p1/defensehandbook/defensesections.htm __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5693 (20101210) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 10 19:15:53 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:15:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <1870053642.78656.1292000629922.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <4D01F38B.4050701@ulb.ac.be> <4CFF8F9F.2080106@ulb.ac.be> <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1868792466.285413.1291751153686.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <1558291281.42999.1291927149888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <1870053642.78656.1292000629922.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:03 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 9/12/2010 21:39, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> Le 7/12/2010 20:45, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> No bidding system is perfect, and it is normal that on some >>>>> hands a player has to decide between bids that >>>>> misdescribe his hand. Again, all partnership understandings have >>>>> to be disclosed. If you happen to run into a sequence where >>>>> you know your system has a hole that might cause partner >>>>> to misdescribe his hand, that has to be disclosed. If you happen >>>>> to run into a sequence where you know partner has a tendency >>>>> to misdescribe his hand, that has top be disclosed. For example, >>>>> I like raising a weak NT to 3NT with a good seven card minor >>>>> and not much else. That has to be disclosed, even though I am >>>>> perfectly willing to play 3NT, possibly even doubled. >>>>> >>>>> Some such holes might be deemed illegal or disallowed. E.g., the >>>>> systemic agreement that a 1NT opener shows 10-12 and 1x - 1y -1NT >>>>> shows 14-16 will not make the TD happy when opener happens >>>>> to have a balanced 13 HCP. >>>> >>>> AG : I don't think that a TD can compel me to open on a balanced >>>> and >>>> non-upgradeable 13-count. >>> >>> Agree, but I wrote "opener". This implies that the hand >>> was actually opened rather than passed. ;-) >> >> AG : sorry, you misunderstood. >> >> An agreement that we open 1NT with 10-12, 1m followed by 1NT with >> 14-16 >> and pass with 13 is legal, in the same way as opening a weak 2 >> in the >> 5-8 range and not opening with 9-10. Whence you shouldn't disallow >> this >> "hole". > > And so what? Those are not the conditions I stated. > In the conditions I stated, the pair informs opponents > that they open 1NT with 10-12, 1m followed by 1NT with 14-16. > They actually do not pass with 13 balanced, but open > some of those hands with 1NT and some other of those hands with 1m. Alain's misunderstanding is entirely reasonable, and would likely be replicated by this pair's at-the-table opponents. They do not have a "hole" in their agreed methods, as Thomas suggests, but are, rather, simply misrepresenting them. Their actual agreement is to open 1NT with 10-13, not 10-12, and to bid 1x-1y-1NT iwth 13-16, not 14-16. No systemic issue here, just plain old MI. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Fri Dec 10 19:26:38 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:26:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <291122530.81531.1292005598019.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 10, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >>>> J8 > >>>> K9874 > >>>> K96 > >>>> 943 > >>>> QT965 4 > >>>> AQT2 J63 > >>>> AJ Q732 > >>>> K6 AQJT2 > >>>> AK732 > >>>> 5 > >>>> T854 > >>>> 875 > >>>> > >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>>> Ali Hills > >>>> --- Pass 1D (1) Pass > >>>> 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass > >>>> 2D (4) Pass Pass 2S > >>>> X (5) Pass 3D Pass > >>>> 3NT(6) Pass Pass Pass > >>>> > >>>> (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > >>>> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > >>>> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4- > >>>> card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > > > This corresponds to the hand of East, so I presume it is also > > correctly > > explained like this by West. > > > >>>> (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > >>>> heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or > >>>> the first step in an artificial game force relay. > > > > idem, mm. > > > >>>> (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > > > perfectly correct. > > > >>>> (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. Pard > >>>> forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. > > > > Here the misbid occurs. Presumably East explained it correctly. > > West now has UI. > > > >>>> (5) Penalty double. > > > > West should perhaps not have done this, since it might give East > > information about the previous misbid. Pass is a LA, I think, and > > Double > > is suggested a better by the UI. But this is only a maybe - I will > > easily give way to some other analysis. > > > > (later:) > > > > Again, 3NT shows partner that there has been a misbid before - as > > partner has indeed concluded. So perhaps 3NT was again suggested by > > the > > UI, and pass a LA. Same caveat as above. > > Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an LA for > West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite a partner who > has opened the bidding. When his partner passes what he thought was > a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he is allowed to "know" that he > is having a misunderstanding without having "used" any UI. Maybe partner psyched 1D? Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 10 20:38:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:38:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <291122530.81531.1292005598019.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> <291122530.81531.1292005598019.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an LA for >> West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite a partner who >> has opened the bidding. When his partner passes what he thought was >> a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he is allowed to "know" that he >> is having a misunderstanding without having "used" any UI. > > Maybe partner psyched 1D? Maybe he did, but how can that possibly matter? If it were considered "logical" to take the possibility of a psych (which would be of unknown character, by definition, and thus could "logically" show anything at all) into account in selecting one's call, then literally any legal call becomes a "logical alternative" to a systemic call suggested by UI. There can be no such thing as a "no LA" finding, because there's always the chance that partner psyched, so that some ridiculous-looking non-systemic call could be the winner absent any UI: If partner "might" have psyched with nothing, it could be right to pass 3D here, but, equally, if partner "might" have been "walking the dog" with 11 diamonds, it could be right to raise to slam. If we allow the possibility of a psych to affect our evaluation of "suggested alternatives", then we must rule that a player who has unambiguous knowledge from UI that his partner has *not* psyched must, to preclude a score adjustment, make a call that that would make sense only if he believed that partner did psych. I don't think we want to go there. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Fri Dec 10 22:02:48 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:02:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> <291122530.81531.1292005598019.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <692173590.83310.1292014968682.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an LA for > >> West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite a partner who > >> has opened the bidding. When his partner passes what he thought was > >> a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he is allowed to "know" that he > >> is having a misunderstanding without having "used" any UI. > > > > Maybe partner psyched 1D? > > Maybe he did, but how can that possibly matter? If it were > considered "logical" to take the possibility of a psych (which would > be of unknown character, by definition, and thus could "logically" > show anything at all) into account in selecting one's call, then > literally any legal call becomes a "logical alternative" to a > systemic call suggested by UI. Partner has passed 2D which West thought is a forcing relay. One of the logical alternative is that this pass wakes up West and West then remembers that 2D actually was not forcing. This LA is suggested by the UI. The question is whether there are other LAs. For that, one has to consider what West might conclude from the AI that partner passed 2D. Consider the following auction: Ali NORTH Hills SOUTH --- Pass 1D(1) Pass 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass 2D(4) Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the first step in an artificial game force relay. (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. (4) Alerted by East as artificial game force relay. What conclusions might West draw from this? Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 10 22:51:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:51:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <692173590.83310.1292014968682.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> <291122530.81531.1292005598019.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> <692173590.83310.1292014968682.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Dec 10, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an LA for >>>> West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite a partner >>>> who >>>> has opened the bidding. When his partner passes what he thought >>>> was >>>> a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he is allowed to "know" >>>> that he >>>> is having a misunderstanding without having "used" any UI. >>> >>> Maybe partner psyched 1D? >> >> Maybe he did, but how can that possibly matter? If it were >> considered "logical" to take the possibility of a psych (which would >> be of unknown character, by definition, and thus could "logically" >> show anything at all) into account in selecting one's call, then >> literally any legal call becomes a "logical alternative" to a >> systemic call suggested by UI. > > Partner has passed 2D which West thought is a forcing relay. > One of the logical alternative is that this pass wakes > up West and West then remembers that 2D actually was not forcing. > This LA is suggested by the UI. I don't understand this. A "logical alternative action" [L16B1(b)] ("LA") is a "call or play". "Waking up" by itself is not a logical alternative action. Partner's pass of 2D might well suggest that 2D was actually not forcing (as it did here), but doesn't change the fact that West has a game force and knows it, even though he is now aware that he accidentally made a non-forcing bid. It would be improper, for example, for him to leap to a game in lieu of making a more descriptive call, knowing that his partner didn't take 2D as a game force (and so might pass the LA), but nothing like that has occurred here. > The question is whether there are other LAs. > For that, one has to consider what West might conclude > from the AI that partner passed 2D. > Consider the following auction: > > Ali NORTH Hills SOUTH > --- Pass 1D(1) Pass > 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass > 2D(4) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > first step in an artificial game force relay. > > (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > (4) Alerted by East as artificial game force relay. > > What conclusions might West draw from this? Whatever he likes. He certainly can't be UI-constrained just because partner confirmed his a priori understanding of his own bid. He can play partner to have psyched with any hand he can imagine if he wants to, and bid anything he wants, from pass to 7NT, accordingly. But we can't just turn that around and say that if partner had overturned his understanding of 2D instead of confirming it, he must select the least suggested of his uncontrained alternatives, taking the worst result that would have followed from calling anything from pass to 7NT. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 12 23:32:28 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:32:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D02117B.8040604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I, for one, think that is a case where "disruption" >comes in. One should be allowed to split the score, -630 >and +110. > >Not allowed by current rules ? perhaps, but should be. Richard Hills: "Should be" butters no parsnips. If East misexplained West's correct bid, then there has been an infraction, and East-West get their score adjusted to +110. If East correctly explained West's misbid, then there has been no infraction, and East-West keep their table score of +630. If the 2018 Lawbook redefines all misbids and psyches and undiscussed calls as infractions, then there will be unintended consequences flowing on from such a fundamental change to the nature of Duplicate Bridge. Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >1) the cards might as well have been dealt : >W - Jxxx / KQxxx / Qxxx / Q >N - Qxx / Jxxx / A / Kxxxx >E - x / Axx / KJxx / AJxxx > >2) that's how the bidding tells us they are >..... Richard Hills: Not necessarily. West should not hold 14 cards. So it is more plausible that the cards have been dealt thusly -> 4 Q76432 KJ KJ96 QJT9 865 AK962 8 765 AQ97 2 AQT43 AK732 5 T854 875 -> when one takes into account that North passed as dealer (in this constructed case because North's suit quality mitigated against opening a weak two in hearts). Team-mates will not be impressed at you electing to declare 2Sx when the opponents not only hold more high cards than you (a certain fact on the bidding, but also hold more trumps than you (a significant possibility on the bidding, since West's failure to make a game try suggests a misfit). Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 13 04:43:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:43:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an >LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite >a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes >what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he >is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding >without having "used" any UI. Richard Hills: Wrong argument. There is not any "knowledge" that East-West must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card. (Several times in the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.) Ergo, in my opinion Eric's argument about "knowledge" is inconsistent with Law 75A (below is a Law 75A version which has been customised for the circumstances of this relay case): LAW 75A - RELAY MISTAKE CAUSING UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the relayers (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example: Imps, Knockout Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West West holds QT965 AQT2 AJ K6 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1D (1) Pass 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass 2D (4) Pass Pass 2S ? (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4- card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the first step in an artificial game force relay. (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. (4) West intended 2D as a non-descriptive game-forcing relay. East described 2D as a signoff, with West holding a heart suit + diamond preference. Whether or not East's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, West, having heard East's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is 'unauthorized information' (see Law 16A), so West must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, once South balances with 2S, West has the unauthorized information that East is likely to have held the values for an opening bid and that a penalty double of 2S is likely to be the winning action; but West's responsibility is to act as though East did describe 2D as a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East did elect to voluntarily Pass the game force, so AI suggests that East has psyched a near-yarborough with long diamonds, thus AI suggests that West discreetly Pass the 2S balance, because AI suggests that West is more likely to defeat 2S by South rather than 3C by North. Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Dec 13 06:07:52 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:07:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 02:43 PM 13/12/2010, you wrote: >Eric Landau: > > >Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an > >LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite > >a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes > >what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he > >is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding > >without having "used" any UI. > >Richard Hills: > >Wrong argument. There is not any "knowledge" that East-West >must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it >to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts >and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then >East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card. (Several times in >the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between >explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.) Just a philosophical question from someone who knows nothing of the system. Is it safer to psyche playing a relay system where you hope partner will at some stage relay in a suit you can drop him in? More Christmas Cheers to all, and not having heard of John Probst's condition for some time, hopes for his continuing progress, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 13 06:59:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:59:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Ambrose Bierce: "All are lunatics, but he who can analyse his delusion is called a philosopher." Tony Musgrove: >Just a philosophical question from someone who knows >nothing of the system. Is it safer to psyche playing a >relay system where you hope partner will at some stage >relay in a suit you can drop him in? Richard Hills: Yes and no. Many years ago, in the Palaeolithic Age, I was fortunate to have the expert Steve Hurley as my youth bridge partner. On one hand Steve dealt and opened a strong 1C, RHO passed, and I held a yarborough with a 6-card club suit. So I dropped Steve in 1C. However, my LHO must have been a very distant cousin of Thomas Dehn, so elected to balance. Steve now promptly rebid 4S (due to holding ten playing tricks in spades), then equally promptly remarked to my RHO, "I don't know whose pard is worse, yours or mine." Tony Musgrove: >More Christmas Cheers to all, and not having heard of >John Probst's condition for some time, hopes for his >continuing progress, > >Tony (Sydney) Richard Hills: Yes, my thoughts are also with MadDog. Until he is well enough to return to blml, I will continue to reprint his pertinent posts of the past. Richard (Canberra) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 13 08:21:36 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:21:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. Message-ID: <009c01cb9a96$60667390$21335ab0$@nl> Last weekend, Dutch national top teams. A long standing, but not very frequently playing partnership gives different explanations on two sides of the screen. This matters for the opening lead. The person on lead receives the explanation as written down in the system book. However, when I asked at the other side whether the book correct explanation, in hindsight, seems to be correct I am answered: I don't know, partner is more system sure than I am, I would have to look this one up. And not the usual "O yeah sure, I forgot". Now the question is if I should accept the explanation to the opening leader as their agreement. If so, score stands, if not adjusted score. There are things to be said for both views. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101213/171b0437/attachment.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 13 08:31:36 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:31:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Agreement_or_no_agreement=3F_That_is_the_questio?= =?utf-8?q?n=2E?= In-Reply-To: <009c01cb9a96$60667390$21335ab0$@nl> References: <009c01cb9a96$60667390$21335ab0$@nl> Message-ID: <1PS2si-29LLOq0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> From: "Hans van Staveren" > Last weekend, Dutch national top teams. > > A long standing, but not very frequently playing partnership gives > different explanations on two sides of the screen. This matters for > the opening lead. The person on lead receives the explanation as > written down in the system book. However, when I asked at the other > side whether the book correct explanation, in hindsight, seems to be > correct I am answered: > > I don't know, partner is more system sure than I am, I would have to > look this one up. > > And not the usual "O yeah sure, I forgot". > > Now the question is if I should accept the explanation to the opening > leader as their agreement. If so, score stands, if not adjusted score. > > There are things to be said for both views. Hi Hans, for me this one looks easy. You have a table explanation that ist backed up by the system book _and_ by partner's statement that the system book is _on_ (whatever there's written in it). So this means (for me) that the explanation on the crucial side is the correct one and therefore score stands. Peter From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 10:26:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:26:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D05E6AE.8050908@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 18:46, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 10, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>>>> J8 >>>>> K9874 >>>>> K96 >>>>> 943 >>>>> QT965 4 >>>>> AQT2 J63 >>>>> AJ Q732 >>>>> K6 AQJT2 >>>>> AK732 >>>>> 5 >>>>> T854 >>>>> 875 >>>>> >>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>>> Ali Hills >>>>> --- Pass 1D (1) Pass >>>>> 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass >>>>> 2D (4) Pass Pass 2S >>>>> X (5) Pass 3D Pass >>>>> 3NT(6) Pass Pass Pass >>>>> >>>>> (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >>>>> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >>>>> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4- >>>>> card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. >> This corresponds to the hand of East, so I presume it is also >> correctly >> explained like this by West. >> >>>>> (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a >>>>> heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or >>>>> the first step in an artificial game force relay. >> idem, mm. >> >>>>> (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. >> perfectly correct. >> >>>>> (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. Pard >>>>> forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. >> Here the misbid occurs. Presumably East explained it correctly. >> West now has UI. >> >>>>> (5) Penalty double. >> West should perhaps not have done this, since it might give East >> information about the previous misbid. Pass is a LA, I think, and >> Double >> is suggested a better by the UI. But this is only a maybe - I will >> easily give way to some other analysis. >> >> (later:) >> >> Again, 3NT shows partner that there has been a misbid before - as >> partner has indeed concluded. So perhaps 3NT was again suggested by >> the >> UI, and pass a LA. Same caveat as above. > Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an LA for > West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite a partner who > has opened the bidding. When his partner passes what he thought was > a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, AG : or non GF, by the way. > he is allowed to "know" that he > is having a misunderstanding without having "used" any UI. > AG : perfect case of AI matching UI, hence usable. But please notice that I would like "convention disruption" to apply to such cases. When you play a complex system, you have the unfair advantage that your misunderstandings are more difficult to spot, and this should be compensated by stronger duties. An essential thought from a former partner, who was a great systems inventor. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 10:31:59 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:31:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Opening lead In-Reply-To: <35D39A17E8204B6D9FF937405ACEDEBD@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4CFE90BF.8080602@honorsbridgeclub.org> <433E4AEF-61CB-4D39-951C-15118FD0551B@starpower.net> <35D39A17E8204B6D9FF937405ACEDEBD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4D05E80F.1050106@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 19:02, Marvin French a ?crit : > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: >> >>> I would appreciate your opinions on the following case : >>> Bidding (pairs, without screen) : >>> S W N E >>> pass pass 1NT pass >>> 3NT all pass >>> >>> NS plays 1 NT 15 -17, with usual Stayman and transfers. >>> >>> East is on lead with : >>> S : A985 >>> H : 97654 >>> D : 93 >>> C : J10 >>> >>> What would you lead ? >> Systemic heart (in my preferred lead methods, H7). >> >>> What other lead would you consider ? >> Systemic spade (ditto, S5), CJ. >> > Meckwell leads the 9 from A98x (and J98x), as recommended by > Marshall Miles many years ago.Briefly, the leads make it possible > for partner to realize he should not continue the suit in some > situations. Unblocking for partner is another possibility. > AG : some pairs use "journalist" leads down to the 8. This, too, would solve many problems. But i suppose this is more consistent with 3rd/5th leads From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 10:35:21 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:35:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D01F38B.4050701@ulb.ac.be> <4CFF8F9F.2080106@ulb.ac.be> <1D5D1F5A-8B37-4926-AF1D-5D5AE04FEE36@starpower.net> <4CFD2040.2060809@ulb.ac.be> <711338718.230129.1291656236226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <612752015.226595.1291658044395.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1868792466.285413.1291751153686.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <1558291281.42999.1291927149888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <1870053642.78656.1292000629922.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D05E8D9.9080104@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 19:15, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:03 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Le 9/12/2010 21:39, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> >>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le 7/12/2010 20:45, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> No bidding system is perfect, and it is normal that on some >>>>>> hands a player has to decide between bids that >>>>>> misdescribe his hand. Again, all partnership understandings have >>>>>> to be disclosed. If you happen to run into a sequence where >>>>>> you know your system has a hole that might cause partner >>>>>> to misdescribe his hand, that has to be disclosed. If you happen >>>>>> to run into a sequence where you know partner has a tendency >>>>>> to misdescribe his hand, that has top be disclosed. For example, >>>>>> I like raising a weak NT to 3NT with a good seven card minor >>>>>> and not much else. That has to be disclosed, even though I am >>>>>> perfectly willing to play 3NT, possibly even doubled. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some such holes might be deemed illegal or disallowed. E.g., the >>>>>> systemic agreement that a 1NT opener shows 10-12 and 1x - 1y -1NT >>>>>> shows 14-16 will not make the TD happy when opener happens >>>>>> to have a balanced 13 HCP. >>>>> AG : I don't think that a TD can compel me to open on a balanced >>>>> and >>>>> non-upgradeable 13-count. >>>> Agree, but I wrote "opener". This implies that the hand >>>> was actually opened rather than passed. ;-) >>> AG : sorry, you misunderstood. >>> >>> An agreement that we open 1NT with 10-12, 1m followed by 1NT with >>> 14-16 >>> and pass with 13 is legal, in the same way as opening a weak 2 >>> in the >>> 5-8 range and not opening with 9-10. Whence you shouldn't disallow >>> this >>> "hole". >> And so what? Those are not the conditions I stated. >> In the conditions I stated, the pair informs opponents >> that they open 1NT with 10-12, 1m followed by 1NT with 14-16. >> They actually do not pass with 13 balanced, but open >> some of those hands with 1NT and some other of those hands with 1m. > Alain's misunderstanding is entirely reasonable, and would likely be > replicated by this pair's at-the-table opponents. They do not have a > "hole" in their agreed methods, as Thomas suggests, but are, rather, > simply misrepresenting them. Their actual agreement is to open 1NT > with 10-13, not 10-12, and to bid 1x-1y-1NT iwth 13-16, not 14-16. > No systemic issue here, just plain old MI. > Some Belgian pairs open 2S systemically NV on any fair suit and no more than 7 HCP. It seems right to assume that they don't open at all with 8-9 and 5 spades, don't consider this a hole in their system and are pleased with the way they play it. BTW, i know more than one player who uses mini-notrumps (9-11) and woud be plleased to pass on 12. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 10:42:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:42:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <291122530.81531.1292005598019.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> <291122530.81531.1292005598019.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D05EA6D.8020307@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 19:26, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Dec 10, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>>>>> J8 >>>>>> K9874 >>>>>> K96 >>>>>> 943 >>>>>> QT965 4 >>>>>> AQT2 J63 >>>>>> AJ Q732 >>>>>> K6 AQJT2 >>>>>> AK732 >>>>>> 5 >>>>>> T854 >>>>>> 875 >>>>>> >>>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>>>> Ali Hills >>>>>> --- Pass 1D (1) Pass >>>>>> 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass >>>>>> 2D (4) Pass Pass 2S >>>>>> X (5) Pass 3D Pass >>>>>> 3NT(6) Pass Pass Pass >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >>>>>> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >>>>>> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4- >>>>>> card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. >>> This corresponds to the hand of East, so I presume it is also >>> correctly >>> explained like this by West. >>> >>>>>> (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a >>>>>> heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or >>>>>> the first step in an artificial game force relay. >>> idem, mm. >>> >>>>>> (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. >>> perfectly correct. >>> >>>>>> (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. Pard >>>>>> forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. >>> Here the misbid occurs. Presumably East explained it correctly. >>> West now has UI. >>> >>>>>> (5) Penalty double. >>> West should perhaps not have done this, since it might give East >>> information about the previous misbid. Pass is a LA, I think, and >>> Double >>> is suggested a better by the UI. But this is only a maybe - I will >>> easily give way to some other analysis. >>> >>> (later:) >>> >>> Again, 3NT shows partner that there has been a misbid before - as >>> partner has indeed concluded. So perhaps 3NT was again suggested by >>> the >>> UI, and pass a LA. Same caveat as above. >> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an LA for >> West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite a partner who >> has opened the bidding. When his partner passes what he thought was >> a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he is allowed to "know" that he >> is having a misunderstanding without having "used" any UI. > Maybe partner psyched 1D? > AG : a partner who is silly enough to psych an opening in a relay system and pass an artificial unlimited bid thereafter wouldn't remain the parrner of anybody. I didn't need those 30+ years of relay systems to understand that they don't get on well with psyches (if only because TDs will never believe you). Opposite a non-crazy player who is accustomed to relay systems, the probability of a problem in the system, however low, is much higher than that of a psyche. BTW, I showed this problem to three other relay freaks, and no one ever imagined a psyche. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 10:47:11 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:47:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <692173590.83310.1292014968682.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> <291122530.81531.1292005598019.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> <692173590.83310.1292014968682.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D05EB9F.4070205@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/12/2010 22:02, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > The question is whether there are other LAs. > For that, one has to consider what West might conclude > from the AI that partner passed 2D. > Consider the following auction: > > Ali NORTH Hills SOUTH > --- Pass 1D(1) Pass > 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass > 2D(4) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > first step in an artificial game force relay. > > (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > (4) Alerted by East as artificial game force relay. > > What conclusions might West draw from this? > AG : may i repeat that, facing a sane relay bidder, the possibility of a psyche is much lower than the probability of, say, a slip of the bidding box (wanted to pull "stop"). I would therefore suppose the latter. Notice that even facing a psyche, I would double 2S. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 11:22:04 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:22:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D05F3CC.1010406@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/12/2010 23:32, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : I, for one, think that is a case where "disruption" >> comes in. One should be allowed to split the score, -630 >> and +110. >> >> Not allowed by current rules ? perhaps, but should be. > Richard Hills: > > "Should be" butters no parsnips. If East misexplained > West's correct bid, then there has been an infraction, > and East-West get their score adjusted to +110. If > East correctly explained West's misbid, then there has > been no infraction, and East-West keep their table > score of +630. > > If the 2018 Lawbook redefines all misbids and psyches > and undiscussed calls as infractions, then there will > be unintended consequences flowing on from such a > fundamental change to the nature of Duplicate Bridge. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> ..... >> 1) the cards might as well have been dealt : >> W - Jxxx / KQxxx / Qxxx / Q >> N - Qxx / Jxxx / A / Kxxxx >> E - x / Axx / KJxx / AJxxx >> >> 2) that's how the bidding tells us they are >> ..... > Richard Hills: > > Not necessarily. West should not hold 14 cards. So it is > more plausible that the cards have been dealt thusly -> > > 4 > Q76432 > KJ > KJ96 > QJT9 865 > AK962 8 > 765 AQ97 > 2 AQT43 > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > -> when one takes into account that North passed as > dealer (in this constructed case because North's suit > quality mitigated against opening a weak two in hearts). AG : matter of style. I would never pass at green with this hand. I' m lucky to have a system which includes both Multi and Dutch twos (not to mention occasional light 1-bids in majors), so i would have chosen one of those slightly flawed possibilites rather than passing (be very aggressive with 6421 shape - Goldsmith). Of course, this was taken into account when deciding what to do. The fact that a 2-bid on thse hand wouldn't bring me a good score is irrelevant to the problem. ...well, anyway, I would have overcallrd as South, so my opinion is irrelevant to the problem too. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 11:31:21 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:31:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/12/2010 6:07, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 02:43 PM 13/12/2010, you wrote: >> Eric Landau: >> >>> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an >>> LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite >>> a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes >>> what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he >>> is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding >>> without having "used" any UI. >> Richard Hills: >> >> Wrong argument. There is not any "knowledge" that East-West >> must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it >> to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts >> and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then >> East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card. (Several times in >> the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between >> explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.) > Just a philosophical question from someone who knows > nothing of the system. Is it safer to psyche playing a > relay system where you hope partner will at some stage > relay in a suit you can drop him in? AG : it is, but it is illegal. It creates a pattern in psyches. From blml at arcor.de Mon Dec 13 12:25:34 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:25:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 13/12/2010 6:07, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > > At 02:43 PM 13/12/2010, you wrote: > >> Eric Landau: > >> > >>> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an > >>> LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite > >>> a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes > >>> what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he > >>> is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding > >>> without having "used" any UI. > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Wrong argument. There is not any "knowledge" that East-West > >> must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it > >> to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts > >> and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then > >> East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card. (Several times in > >> the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between > >> explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.) > > Just a philosophical question from someone who knows > > nothing of the system. Is it safer to psyche playing a > > relay system where you hope partner will at some stage > > relay in a suit you can drop him in? > AG : it is, but it is illegal. It creates a pattern in psyches. What makes you think that this would be illegal? Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 13:00:13 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:00:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/12/2010 12:25, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 13/12/2010 6:07, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >>> At 02:43 PM 13/12/2010, you wrote: >>>> Eric Landau: >>>> >>>>> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an >>>>> LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite >>>>> a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes >>>>> what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he >>>>> is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding >>>>> without having "used" any UI. >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> Wrong argument. There is not any "knowledge" that East-West >>>> must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it >>>> to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts >>>> and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then >>>> East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card. (Several times in >>>> the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between >>>> explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.) >>> Just a philosophical question from someone who knows >>> nothing of the system. Is it safer to psyche playing a >>> relay system where you hope partner will at some stage >>> relay in a suit you can drop him in? >> AG : it is, but it is illegal. It creates a pattern in psyches. > What makes you think that this would be illegal? > It isn't difficult to become conscious that partner, when he opens a psychic 1D holding diamonds, will respond 2C to your enquiry, hoping for a new relay, that one may pass. Then you'll bid 2D even when you know how to conclude (e.g. on a 4432 15-count with honors in the majors, 3NT is obvious). That will very soon be making the sequence a concealed agreement. In fact, relay-conscious players could guess it without an expicit agreement. It's a bit like the old trick of psyching a 2S response over 2H knowing that partner knows that he shouldn't raise it. And this is much more easy than in natural systems. Explanation : in natural bidding, you have to cope with many more bashes to game and forcing bids in various denominations. You can't guess whether the bidding will be 1D-1H-2C-2S or 1D-1S-2C-2H ! The only more-or-less safe psychic opening that I've found in natural systems, except some illegal ones (strong 2C with diamonds), is 1NT with a weak 55 in clubs and hearts. Check it. But I perpetrated it only once, and until today it must have been forgotten. BTW, dio those who think a psyche by East is a plausible explanation for his pass check the seat & vulnerability ? Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 13 13:04:00 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:04:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> References: <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D060BB0.9080403@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 13/12/2010 6:07, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >> At 02:43 PM 13/12/2010, you wrote: >>> Eric Landau: >>> >>>> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an >>>> LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite >>>> a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes >>>> what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he >>>> is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding >>>> without having "used" any UI. >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Wrong argument. There is not any "knowledge" that East-West >>> must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it >>> to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts >>> and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then >>> East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card. (Several times in >>> the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between >>> explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.) >> Just a philosophical question from someone who knows >> nothing of the system. Is it safer to psyche playing a >> relay system where you hope partner will at some stage >> relay in a suit you can drop him in? > AG : it is, but it is illegal. It creates a pattern in psyches. And why should a pattern in psyches be illegal? Everyone has a pattern in psyches. Most people have the pattern "I never psyche". All others also have "some" pattern. Most of the time unknown to partner, or even to the player himself. But the pattern exists. So Alain should not be so quick. I am not saying that the particular pattern "I psyche when I expect to be able to drop partner into a forcing relay" would not be illegal. But it cannot be illegal from its mere existence. FWIW, I could consider such a pattern a grave form of misinformation, bordering on the c****ing if done deliberately. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 13 13:05:56 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:05:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D060C24.4040000@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> AG : it is, but it is illegal. It creates a pattern in psyches. >> What makes you think that this would be illegal? >> > It isn't difficult to become conscious that partner, when he opens a > psychic 1D holding diamonds, will respond 2C to your enquiry, hoping for > a new relay, that one may pass. > Then you'll bid 2D even when you know how to conclude (e.g. on a 4432 > 15-count with honors in the majors, 3NT is obvious). That will very soon > be making the sequence a concealed agreement. In fact, relay-conscious > players could guess it without an expicit agreement. It's a bit like the > old trick of psyching a 2S response over 2H knowing that partner knows > that he shouldn't raise it. > I am satisfied with Alain's reasoning why this particular psyching pattern should be illegal. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 13 13:08:22 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:08:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D05E6AE.8050908@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D021BC1.2040803@skynet.be> <4D05E6AE.8050908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D060CB6.3080205@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> he is allowed to "know" that he >> is having a misunderstanding without having "used" any UI. >> > AG : perfect case of AI matching UI, hence usable. > > But please notice that I would like "convention disruption" to apply to > such cases. > > When you play a complex system, you have the unfair advantage that your > misunderstandings are more difficult to spot, and this should be > compensated by stronger duties. Indeed. which is why the TD should rule that when the misunderstanding is spotted by the bidders, they should be forced to tell their opponents "this bidding is impossible - the wheel must have come off, either there or there". > An essential thought from a former partner, who was a great systems > inventor. > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 14:14:12 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D060BB0.9080403@skynet.be> References: <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <4D060BB0.9080403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D061C24.4040401@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/12/2010 13:04, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 13/12/2010 6:07, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >>> At 02:43 PM 13/12/2010, you wrote: >>>> Eric Landau: >>>> >>>>> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an >>>>> LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite >>>>> a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes >>>>> what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he >>>>> is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding >>>>> without having "used" any UI. >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> Wrong argument. There is not any "knowledge" that East-West >>>> must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it >>>> to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts >>>> and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then >>>> East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card. (Several times in >>>> the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between >>>> explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.) >>> Just a philosophical question from someone who knows >>> nothing of the system. Is it safer to psyche playing a >>> relay system where you hope partner will at some stage >>> relay in a suit you can drop him in? >> AG : it is, but it is illegal. It creates a pattern in psyches. > And why should a pattern in psyches be illegal? > Everyone has a pattern in psyches. > Most people have the pattern "I never psyche". > All others also have "some" pattern. Most of the time unknown to > partner, or even to the player himself. But the pattern exists. > > So Alain should not be so quick. > > I am not saying that the particular pattern "I psyche when I expect to > be able to drop partner into a forcing relay" would not be illegal. But > it cannot be illegal from its mere existence. AG : agreed, but you, specialist of implicit agreement detection, will agree that experience of relay systems makes some psyches much more probable than others because the probability of escaping damage is much greater. Furthermore, opponents will find it difficult to guess. Everything that partner knows better than opponents, due to knowledge of your style and system rather dan to general knowledge of the game, pertains to the "implicit agreement" category, and as such is inconsistent with the principles of psyching. And I agree with your conclusion about how severe this is. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 13 15:55:59 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:55:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bridge or gambling? Art 12C1c revisited Message-ID: <001501cb9ad5$da7344d0$8f59ce70$@nl> Yesterday I awarded an adjusted score: 1/3 4S making, 2/3 4S one down. Although there were no questions, appeals, or whatever, later on it occurred to me that at the stage where this match took place it could well have been that both parties were not very interested in moderate scores, but more in extremes. I thought about the following possibility: instead of awarding 1/3 of 12 IMPS and 2/3 of 0 IMPS(calculated as 4 IMPS) what about throwing a dice? If 5 or 6 comes up award 12 IMPS, if 1,2,3 or 4 comes up award 0 IMPS. Same expectation but more extreme. Now I do not believe the law at this point allows me to do this, but I am more interested in the question if this might be a fairer way of handling 12C1c. In reality this board could never have scored 4 IMPS. It was either 12 or 0. So isn't the dice method more like real bridge? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101213/6e2be7ae/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 16:33:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:33:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bridge or gambling? Art 12C1c revisited In-Reply-To: <001501cb9ad5$da7344d0$8f59ce70$@nl> References: <001501cb9ad5$da7344d0$8f59ce70$@nl> Message-ID: <4D063CAF.1050205@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/12/2010 15:55, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > > Yesterday I awarded an adjusted score: 1/3 4S making, 2/3 4S one down. > > Although there were no questions, appeals, or whatever, later on it > occurred to me that at the stage where this match took place it could > well have been that both parties were not very interested in moderate > scores, but more in extremes. I thought about the following > possibility: instead of awarding 1/3 of 12 IMPS and 2/3 of 0 > IMPS(calculated as 4 IMPS) what about throwing a dice? If 5 or 6 comes > up award 12 IMPS, if 1,2,3 or 4 comes up award 0 IMPS. Same > expectation but more extreme. > > Now I do not believe the law at this point allows me to do this, but I > am more interested in the question if this might be a fairer way of > handling 12C1c. In reality this board could never have scored 4 IMPS. > It was either 12 or 0. So isn't the dice method more like real bridge? > > AG : is umpiring real bridge ? Um... Do you mean that you could have ascertained with reasonable certainty that no side could win if you awarded a (perfectly correct) score of 4 IMPs ? Then you knew too much. TDs and ACs should decide without knowing whether their decision can have an impact on results, and which one. And this case pinpoints one of the reasons. Another one, albeit unfrequent, that makes this absolutely necessary, is the so-called pairwise dependence phenomenon (as explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem) : by changing the score of A so that they "have a chance", you might change the effect on the ranking of B vs C. This prompted a change in artistic skating scoring - but only after the problem occurred, of course. If you want to take special steps to give a fair chance to the two teams in dispute, you risk being unfair to another team which has nothing to do with the umpiring problem. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101213/8db66d12/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 16:39:42 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:39:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Bridge or gambling? Art 12C1c revisited In-Reply-To: <4D063CAF.1050205@ulb.ac.be> References: <001501cb9ad5$da7344d0$8f59ce70$@nl> <4D063CAF.1050205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: There is ample academic precedence for the methodology that you are suggesting. Conceptually, assigning a score seems very similar what?s known as a ?missing data? problem in statistics. There?s a wide variety of different techniques used to handle missing data problems (case-wise deletion, regression substitution, etc.) each with their relative strengths and weaknesses. The system that you?re suggesting is a degenerate case of what?s known as ?multiple imputation?. (Typically, when you use multiple imputation, you run a full blown Monte Carlo simulation rather than rolling your die once) Here?s a more concrete illustration based on your original example ? Roll your die 100 times and assign scores based on the number shown on the d6 ? Compute the results of the match for each case ? Average the results of all of the ?virtual? matches ? Set the results of the ?real? match equal to this mean [In simple examples like the one we?re discussing you can do this all analytically rather than requiring a monte carlo] Conceptually, the difference would seem to be whether we care about estimating a plausible value for the individual board or for that match? -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101213/eedb75cb/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 17:02:13 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:02:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bridge or gambling? Art 12C1c revisited In-Reply-To: References: <001501cb9ad5$da7344d0$8f59ce70$@nl> Message-ID: <4D064385.6010204@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/12/2010 16:14, olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > i love that, and we can have the complete result with a lotery as > well, but best players (Fantoni-Nunes have more chances to win that i > have) can have two or more bulletins! > and when it is 1/2 +600 1/3 +150 1/24 +120 1/24 -50 you have 24 faces > dices, > 2/7 of +150 and 5/7 of +400, use the 7 faces ... > hopefully, some dungeons & dragons players have all the dices uo to > 2.456 faces :)) AG : You can buy dice with 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20, 24, 30 and 48 faces. The 24-sided die is a tetrahexahedron. The so-called 100-sided die isn't fair. (you need a face-regular solid) There can theoretically be dice with any even number of faces (antiprisms, as for the classical d10). For odd numbers, use teetotums. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101213/07648200/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Mon Dec 13 17:22:12 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:22:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 13/12/2010 12:25, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 13/12/2010 6:07, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > >>> At 02:43 PM 13/12/2010, you wrote: > >>>> Eric Landau: > >>>> > >>>>> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an > >>>>> LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite > >>>>> a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes > >>>>> what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he > >>>>> is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding > >>>>> without having "used" any UI. > >>>> Richard Hills: > >>>> > >>>> Wrong argument. There is not any "knowledge" that East-West > >>>> must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it > >>>> to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts > >>>> and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then > >>>> East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card. (Several times in > >>>> the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between > >>>> explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.) > >>> Just a philosophical question from someone who knows > >>> nothing of the system. Is it safer to psyche playing a > >>> relay system where you hope partner will at some stage > >>> relay in a suit you can drop him in? > >> AG : it is, but it is illegal. It creates a pattern in psyches. > > What makes you think that this would be illegal? > > > It isn't difficult to become conscious that partner, when he opens a > psychic 1D holding diamonds, will respond 2C to your enquiry, hoping for > a new relay, that one may pass. > Then you'll bid 2D even when you know how to conclude (e.g. on a 4432 > 15-count with honors in the majors, 3NT is obvious). That will very soon > be making the sequence a concealed agreement. In fact, relay-conscious > players could guess it without an expicit agreement. It's a bit like the > old trick of psyching a 2S response over 2H knowing that partner knows > that he shouldn't raise it. Of course if you are aware of your partner's tendencies to psyche in certain auctions, or you run into a bidding sequence where your system makes a psyche low risk, that has to be disclosed to opponents. But that does not make the psyches illegal. And they exist in natural systems, too. Say, 1H X 1S Here, responder's 1S quite frequently is a psyche. Thomas From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Mon Dec 13 17:41:41 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:41:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : a partner who is silly enough to psych an opening in a relay system > and pass an artificial unlimited bid thereafter wouldn't remain the > parrner of anybody. Well Rubin-Becker (Ultimate Club) had a long standing partnership and psyched more than any top level partnership I can think of. True, their partnership did eventually break up. And part of the reason might have been a series of adverse rulings related to their psyching (one of the last matches they played together was a win in spite of 3 rulings against -- all related to psyches) > I didn't need those 30+ years of relay systems to > understand that they don't get on well with psyches (if only because TDs > will never believe you). As the Rubin/Becker experience seems to show. > Opposite a non-crazy player who is accustomed > to relay systems, the probability of a problem in the system, however > low, is much higher than that of a psyche. Well one of the secrets of their success I guess is that they never allowed for a psyche. (In the same way that Meckwell never give their partner any room even though they are aware that their partner is frequently a king light) > BTW, I showed this problem to three other relay freaks, and no one ever > imagined a psyche. And I doubt Rubin and/or Becker would have imagined a psyche either. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 13 18:00:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:00:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bridge or gambling? Art 12C1c revisited In-Reply-To: <4D064385.6010204@ulb.ac.be> References: <001501cb9ad5$da7344d0$8f59ce70$@nl> <4D064385.6010204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D065140.6010100@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 13/12/2010 16:14, olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : >> i love that, and we can have the complete result with a lotery as >> well, but best players (Fantoni-Nunes have more chances to win that i >> have) can have two or more bulletins! >> and when it is 1/2 +600 1/3 +150 1/24 +120 1/24 -50 you have 24 faces >> dices, >> 2/7 of +150 and 5/7 of +400, use the 7 faces ... >> hopefully, some dungeons & dragons players have all the dices uo to >> 2.456 faces :)) > AG : You can buy dice with 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20, 24, 30 and 48 faces. > The 24-sided die is a tetrahexahedron. > The so-called 100-sided die isn't fair. (you need a face-regular solid) > > There can theoretically be dice with any even number of faces > (antiprisms, as for the classical d10). > For odd numbers, use teetotums. > > Wouldn't it be simpler to use some other method of randomizing - perhaps we might find a pack of cards in the average bridge club? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 13 18:21:30 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:21:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D06561A.9070907@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/12/2010 17:22, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 13/12/2010 12:25, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> Le 13/12/2010 6:07, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >>>>> At 02:43 PM 13/12/2010, you wrote: >>>>>> Eric Landau: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an >>>>>>> LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite >>>>>>> a partner who has opened the bidding. When his partner passes >>>>>>> what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he >>>>>>> is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding >>>>>>> without having "used" any UI. >>>>>> Richard Hills: >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong argument. There is not any "knowledge" that East-West >>>>>> must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it >>>>>> to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts >>>>>> and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then >>>>>> East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card. (Several times in >>>>>> the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between >>>>>> explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.) >>>>> Just a philosophical question from someone who knows >>>>> nothing of the system. Is it safer to psyche playing a >>>>> relay system where you hope partner will at some stage >>>>> relay in a suit you can drop him in? >>>> AG : it is, but it is illegal. It creates a pattern in psyches. >>> What makes you think that this would be illegal? >>> >> It isn't difficult to become conscious that partner, when he opens a >> psychic 1D holding diamonds, will respond 2C to your enquiry, hoping for >> a new relay, that one may pass. >> Then you'll bid 2D even when you know how to conclude (e.g. on a 4432 >> 15-count with honors in the majors, 3NT is obvious). That will very soon >> be making the sequence a concealed agreement. In fact, relay-conscious >> players could guess it without an expicit agreement. It's a bit like the >> old trick of psyching a 2S response over 2H knowing that partner knows >> that he shouldn't raise it. > Of course if you are aware of your partner's tendencies > to psyche in certain auctions, or you run into a bidding > sequence where your system makes a psyche low risk, > that has to be disclosed to opponents. > > But that does not make the psyches illegal. And they exist > in natural systems, too. Say, > 1H X 1S > Here, responder's 1S quite frequently is a psyche. > AG : yes, but they know it, too. That'(s a big difference. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 13 18:23:51 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:23:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Of course if you are aware of your partner's tendencies > to psyche in certain auctions, or you run into a bidding > sequence where your system makes a psyche low risk, > that has to be disclosed to opponents. > > But that does not make the psyches illegal. And they exist > in natural systems, too. Say, > 1H X 1S > Here, responder's 1S quite frequently is a psyche. That's not, however, the way things work in the ACBL, where even this common and well-known "baby psych", once perpetrated within a partnership, immediately morphs into an illegal implicit agreement, which, as such, may not be repeated. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 14 04:36:23 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:36:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D05EA6D.8020307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>AG : a partner who is silly enough to psych an opening in a >>relay system and pass an artificial unlimited bid thereafter >>wouldn't remain the partner of anybody. Ron Johnson: >Well Rubin-Becker (Ultimate Club) had a long standing >partnership and psyched more than any top level partnership I >can think of. Richard Hills: The long standing (two decades) partnership of Ali-Hills had a psyche strike rate greater than any other semi-expert Canberra partnership I can think of. Hills Ali 1S (1) 1NT(2) Pass(3) (4) (1) 10-14 hcp, 5+ spades, 4 or fewer hearts (2) Artificial game force relay (3) A balanced near yarborough with 3 spades; triumphantly reaching my preferred level and denomination (4) The opponents cashed the first seven tricks for -50; alas team-mates were -420 defending a cold 4S (pard's relay was based on the fond belief that either 6S or 7S was the par contract, and a relay auction could resolve which) Ron Johnson: >True, their partnership did eventually break up. And part of the >reason might have been a series of adverse rulings related to >their psyching (one of the last matches they played together was >a win in spite of 3 rulings against -- all related to psyches) Richard Hills: I have never had an adverse pseudo-psyche (undisclosed implicit partnership understanding) ruling against me, in part because I understand the WBF Code of Practice criterion (page 8) for a true psyche to "have faded from mind". That is, my psyches are spaced out in time and vary in nature so that Law 40C2, not Law 40C1, is the applicable Law. Law 40C2: "Other than the above [Law 40C1] no player has any obligation to disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods." Alain Gottcheiner: >>Opposite a non-crazy player who is accustomed to relay systems, >>the probability of a problem in the system, however low, is much >>higher than that of a psyche. Ron Johnson: >Well one of the secrets of their success I guess is that they >never allowed for a psyche. (In the same way that Meckwell never >give their partner any room even though they are aware that their >partner is frequently a king light) WBF Code of Practice, Disclosure of psychic tendencies (page 8): "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." Alain Gottcheiner: >>BTW, I showed this problem to three other relay freaks, and no >>one ever imagined a psyche. Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of Four (1890): "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Richard Hills: Under Law 75A a player MUST "eliminate the impossible" misbid -- in this case under discussion, West MUST assume that his 2D was not a misbid -- from his calculations, so "whatever remains" -- in this case under discussion a Very Unlikely psychic opening bid of 1D by East -- "must be the truth". Law 75A, concluding phrase [with bracketed interpolation]: " .. but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a [Very Unlikely] strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values." Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 14 06:17:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:17:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1PS2si-29LLOq0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: [snip] >>"I don't know, partner is more system sure than I am, I would >>have to look this one up." >> >>And not the usual "O yeah sure, I forgot". >> >>Now the question is if I should accept the explanation to the >>opening leader as their agreement. If so, score stands, if >>not adjusted score. >> >>There are things to be said for both views. Peter Eidt: >Hi Hans, > >for me this one looks easy. > >You have a table explanation that is backed up by the system >book _and_ by partner's statement that the system book is _on_ >(whatever there's written in it). > >So this means (for me) that the explanation on the crucial >side is the correct one and therefore score stands. > >Peter Richard Hills: Hi Peter, for me this one looks easy. You have a table explanation that a player has been too lazy to read page number 42 of the system notes. A unilateral set of system notes written by one partner is not a pre-existing mutual understanding of both partners. So this means (for me) that the misexplanation on the crucial side is indeed an incorrect one (correct would have been "we do not have any partnership understanding, due to partner having been too lazy to read page 42 of the system notes) and therefore the score does not stand. What's the problem? The problem is that normally written evidence has greater weight than verbal evidence, but in this case the verbal evidence is the direct opposite of self-serving. Damon Knight, To Serve Man, punch line: [spoiler deleted] Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 06:44:14 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 23:44:14 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Of course if you are aware of your partner's tendencies > > to psyche in certain auctions, or you run into a bidding > > sequence where your system makes a psyche low risk, > > that has to be disclosed to opponents. > > > > But that does not make the psyches illegal. And they exist > > in natural systems, too. Say, > > 1H X 1S > > Here, responder's 1S quite frequently is a psyche. > > That's not, however, the way things work in the ACBL, where even this > common and well-known "baby psych", once perpetrated within a > partnership, immediately morphs into an illegal implicit agreement, > which, as such, may not be repeated. > Why do you say illegal? It could be described as a conventional defense to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. Jerry Fusselman From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 14 07:57:21 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:57:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1PS2si-29LLOq0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <005b01cb9b5c$27b68280$77238780$@nl> [Hans van Staveren] [snip] >>"I don't know, partner is more system sure than I am, I would >>have to look this one up." >> >>And not the usual "O yeah sure, I forgot". >> >>Now the question is if I should accept the explanation to the >>opening leader as their agreement. If so, score stands, if >>not adjusted score. >> >>There are things to be said for both views. [Peter Eidt] >for me this one looks easy. > >You have a table explanation that is backed up by the system >book _and_ by partner's statement that the system book is _on_ >(whatever there's written in it). > >So this means (for me) that the explanation on the crucial >side is the correct one and therefore score stands. [Richard Hills] for me this one looks easy. You have a table explanation that a player has been too lazy to read page number 42 of the system notes. A unilateral set of system notes written by one partner is not a pre-existing mutual understanding of both partners. So this means (for me) that the misexplanation on the crucial side is indeed an incorrect one (correct would have been "we do not have any partnership understanding, due to partner having been too lazy to read page 42 of the system notes) and therefore the score does not stand. What's the problem? The problem is that normally written evidence has greater weight than verbal evidence, but in this case the verbal evidence is the direct opposite of self-serving. [Hans] See how easy this is, you can rule both sides. When this happened I was alone as a director, there being only twelve tables left in play. Luckily Jeanne vd Meiracker was present as a spectator, she is a very high-ranking EBL TD. After I explained the issue her gut feeling was to rule like Peter, because that is the way it is universally done in EBL tournaments. System is King, and System is what the system-notes say. I wanted to rule like Richard, because the fact that something is on paper does not necessarily mean it is the current agreement. I persuaded her that my point of view was also valid, and I ruled MI. I explained the players about my perhaps non-standard point of view. No appeal. This is a problematic part of the director's job. In the past I have been extremely critical about the Dutch national AC, that would have ruled MI here without thought. But even then I wrote in publications that the fact that something is on paper is not enough for it to be seen as an agreement. For example, if players cannot agree on follow-up bidding for example it suggests they wrote it down without thought, which makes it a problematic case. Just for fun, think about the following. A pair has an agreement somewhere at the bottom of page 73. It has never occurred, and they both forgot. The situation occurs, and they misbid, and mis-explain correspondingly. Now of course nobody will call the TD. But is it MI? Hans From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 14 10:23:02 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:23:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <60845.61893.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau] That's not, however, the way things work in the ACBL, where even this common and well-known "baby psych", once perpetrated within a partnership, immediately morphs into an illegal implicit agreement, which, as such, may not be repeated. [Jerry Fusselman] Why do you say illegal? It could be described as a conventional defence to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. [Nigel] Jerry has pin-pointed a difficulty. There are many tactical situations where some players deviate from system. For example - 3rd in hand openers. - 1H (X) bid. - 1N over-calls. - Interfering with opponent's strong artificial 1C/2C - Passing partner's pass/convert response in the the wrong suit. - Spurious trial/cue/exclusion bids. - "Game-forcing" calls on tram-tickets. The problem is that different partnerships have different favourite situations and hand-types; and some never "psych" at all. Regular "psychs" in a regular partnership aren't true psychs. Even if only occasionally used, they are probabilistic conventions. The disclosure problem is that: - Partnerships convince themselves that these are true psychs; hence not disclosable. - Partnerships defend their personal idiosyncratic "psyching" propensities as "general knowledge". - Partnerships feel that they *cannot disclose* these understandings because the agreements would be illegal. For instance, there may be strength requirements for opening bids; or "Random" bid agreements may be banned; or non-symmetric methods may be banned (some partnerships comprise a straight man and a comedian). Manifestly, undisclosed, such agreements are illegal. This problem would be mitigated if system-restrictions were scrapped, because partnerships would then be more ready to admit to such understandings. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 14 11:01:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:01:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D07408B.90908@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/12/2010 4:36, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of Four (1890): > > "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however > improbable, must be the truth." > > Richard Hills: > > Under Law 75A a player MUST "eliminate the impossible" misbid -- in > this case under discussion, West MUST assume that his 2D was not a > misbid -- from his calculations, so "whatever remains" -- in this > case under discussion a Very Unlikely psychic opening bid of 1D by > East -- "must be the truth". AG : if I were opener and Sherlock Holmes assumed that I opened a psyche, second in hand and vul vs not, he'd rather run fast. (the most plausible explanation for the non-alert and pass would be that I saw some other bid than 2D, perhaps 2H or 3D, both non-forcing I presume) One should never, never be compelled to assume partner has psyched. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 14 11:04:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:04:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D07412B.1000201@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/12/2010 6:17, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > Hi Peter, > > for me this one looks easy. > > You have a table explanation that a player has been too lazy to > read page number 42 of the system notes. A unilateral set of > system notes written by one partner is not a pre-existing mutual > understanding of both partners. AG : are you saying that system notes aren't to be taken as proof of the system when one of the players states that they aren't ? Isn't that a wee bit dangerous ? From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 14 12:32:39 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:32:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <60845.61893.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <60845.61893.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D0755D7.4050001@skynet.be> Nigel is absolutely correct except for one minor quibble: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Nigel] > Jerry has pin-pointed a difficulty. > > There are many tactical situations where some players deviate from system. For > example > - 3rd in hand openers. > - 1H (X) bid. > - 1N over-calls. > - Interfering with opponent's strong artificial 1C/2C > - Passing partner's pass/convert response in the the wrong suit. > - Spurious trial/cue/exclusion bids. > - "Game-forcing" calls on tram-tickets. > > The problem is that different partnerships have different favourite situations > and hand-types; and some never "psych" at all. > > Regular "psychs" in a regular partnership aren't true psychs. Even if only > occasionally used, they are probabilistic conventions. > A good name, which however does not help us any. Since every single psyche has a certain frequency (even if partner does not precisely know what the correct frequency is, he could be aware of it and so it should be made known to opponents), every psyche is a probabilistic convention. I believe it is better to name probabilistic conventions: psyches. Then we can make a distinction which Nigel does not yet make: those probabilistic conventions that are systemically catered for, and those that are not - psyches in other words. > > The disclosure problem is that: > - Partnerships convince themselves that these are true psychs; hence not > disclosable. Partnerships should know better. But this is not a problem. > - Partnerships defend their personal idiosyncratic "psyching" propensities as > "general knowledge". Which sometimes is true. > - Partnerships feel that they *cannot disclose* these understandings because the > agreements would be illegal. For instance, there may be strength requirements > for opening bids; or "Random" bid agreements may be banned; or non-symmetric > methods may be banned (some partnerships comprise a straight man and a > comedian). > Which is why these "agreements" should not be illegal. > Manifestly, undisclosed, such agreements are illegal. > And this is where Nigel, again, makes the common error. The non-disclosure does not make the agreement illegal. It merely creates a MI situation, which the TD will rectify if the opponents are damaged through the non-disclosure. By continually labelling psyches as "illegal", the average TD (and many above average) feels that the psyche, when not disclosed, should be changed into a 40% AS. Rather, he should treat the non-disclosed psyche as any other MI, and ask himelf (and the opponents) "what would opponents have bid if they had been told that this player psyches this bid, with this particular hand, about 5% of the time". Most often, they would not have acted differently. > This problem would be mitigated if system-restrictions were scrapped, because > partnerships would then be more ready to admit to such understandings. That too is a problem. Most Directors believe that the system regulation regarding light openings are very strict: "if you do it, and there is even the slightest doubt that you have doe it before, then your agreement is a banned one". That cannot be the correct interpretation of a piece of system regulation, as that would be tantamount to the well-known ACBL rule: "it's OK to psyche, provided you never do it". -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Tue Dec 14 12:56:18 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:56:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hans van Staveren: > > [snip] > > >>"I don't know, partner is more system sure than I am, I would > >>have to look this one up." > >> > >>And not the usual "O yeah sure, I forgot". > >> > >>Now the question is if I should accept the explanation to the > >>opening leader as their agreement. If so, score stands, if > >>not adjusted score. > >> > >>There are things to be said for both views. > > Peter Eidt: > > >Hi Hans, > > > >for me this one looks easy. > > > >You have a table explanation that is backed up by the system > >book _and_ by partner's statement that the system book is _on_ > >(whatever there's written in it). > > > >So this means (for me) that the explanation on the crucial > >side is the correct one and therefore score stands. > > > >Peter > > Richard Hills: > > Hi Peter, > > for me this one looks easy. > > You have a table explanation that a player has been too lazy to > read page number 42 of the system notes. A unilateral set of > system notes written by one partner is not a pre-existing mutual > understanding of both partners. > > So this means (for me) that the misexplanation on the crucial > side is indeed an incorrect one (correct would have been "we do > not have any partnership understanding, due to partner having > been too lazy to read page 42 of the system notes) and therefore > the score does not stand. > > What's the problem? > > The problem is that normally written evidence has greater weight > than verbal evidence, but in this case the verbal evidence is > the direct opposite of self-serving. No, it is not that easy. There exist quite a few scenarios. One is "It has to be somewhere in our system notes, but I never read it". Then indeed one might rule that they do not have an agreement. Another one is "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I forgot. Partner knows this part of the system better than I do". Then they have an agreement, but one player forgot. You might have an MI ruling because the player who forgot cannot correctly explain to his screen mate, but you should not rule that there is no agreement. Yes another one is "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I never can remember". Then again one might rule that they do not have an agreement. Thomas From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 14 13:12:39 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:12:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <151015.13305.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Thamas Dehn] No, it is not that easy. There exist quite a few scenarios. One is "It has to be somewhere in our system notes, but I never read it". Then indeed one might rule that they do not have an agreement. Another one is "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I forgot. Partner knows this part of the system better than I do". Then they have an agreement, but one player forgot. You might have an MI ruling because the player who forgot cannot correctly explain to his screen mate, but you should not rule that there is no agreement. Yes another one is "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I never can remember". Then again one might rule that they do not have an agreement. [Nigel] A simpler and more sensible law is that your system-card or your system-notes or published system-book (that you agreed to play) *is* in fact your agreement. In almost any other real-life context, this would be the normal English interpretation of the word "agreement". From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 14 14:03:43 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:03:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0755D7.4050001@skynet.be> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <60845.61893.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D0755D7.4050001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D076B2F.8050200@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/12/2010 12:32, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > That too is a problem. Most Directors believe that the system regulation > regarding light openings are very strict: "if you do it, and there is > even the slightest doubt that you have doe it before, then your > agreement is a banned one". That cannot be the correct interpretation of > a piece of system regulation, as that would be tantamount to the > well-known ACBL rule: "it's OK to psyche, provided you never do it". > Problem is, the limit is very thin and use of partnership history can seldom be proven. But it happens, and, as written now, is illegal if they aren't aware of it. Therefore, one (bad) solution is to ban those agreements which cause problems. Here is one example: AQ9xx - xx - Qxx - Jxx pass pass 1H 1NT pass 2NT pass 3NT Partner seems to have opened on tram tickets - is he allowed to do so ? Perhaps (depending the conditions of contest). Even if your system doesn't provide for it, Herman says that he should be allowed it. You don't double, and the TD asks you why (having in mind that you have guessed that partner opened light and such an agreement is disallowed). You may defend yourself in two ways : - I saw the bidding, there were too many points, and i don't think they would play it funny (3NT re-raise !). Right ? - If 3NT goes down, I have a good board. If RHO is operating on a long minor, I can't be sure of defeating 4m. Right ? The answer to those two "right?"s may depend on appreciation. But perhaps you'll go away with it. Now what do you lead ? If you say to yourself "I'll lead partner's suit, even though they advertized a good stopper.. It should be rather strong to have opened that weak", you're using information about partner's style, that opponents aren't aware of if you didn't mention light openers, and that will be very difficult to prove. Yet it doesn't abide by rules of full disclosure. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 14 14:05:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:05:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/12/2010 12:56, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Hans van Staveren: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> "I don't know, partner is more system sure than I am, I would >>>> have to look this one up." >>>> >>>> And not the usual "O yeah sure, I forgot". >>>> >>>> Now the question is if I should accept the explanation to the >>>> opening leader as their agreement. If so, score stands, if >>>> not adjusted score. >>>> >>>> There are things to be said for both views. >> Peter Eidt: >> >>> Hi Hans, >>> >>> for me this one looks easy. >>> >>> You have a table explanation that is backed up by the system >>> book _and_ by partner's statement that the system book is _on_ >>> (whatever there's written in it). >>> >>> So this means (for me) that the explanation on the crucial >>> side is the correct one and therefore score stands. >>> >>> Peter >> Richard Hills: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> for me this one looks easy. >> >> You have a table explanation that a player has been too lazy to >> read page number 42 of the system notes. A unilateral set of >> system notes written by one partner is not a pre-existing mutual >> understanding of both partners. >> >> So this means (for me) that the misexplanation on the crucial >> side is indeed an incorrect one (correct would have been "we do >> not have any partnership understanding, due to partner having >> been too lazy to read page 42 of the system notes) and therefore >> the score does not stand. >> >> What's the problem? >> >> The problem is that normally written evidence has greater weight >> than verbal evidence, but in this case the verbal evidence is >> the direct opposite of self-serving. > No, it is not that easy. > > There exist quite a few scenarios. > > One is > "It has to be somewhere in our system notes, but I never read it". > Then indeed one might rule that they do not have an agreement. > > Another one is > "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I forgot. > Partner knows this part of the system better than I do". > Then they have an agreement, but one player forgot. > You might have an MI ruling because the player who forgot > cannot correctly explain to his screen mate, but you > should not rule that there is no agreement. > > Yes another one is > "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I never > can remember". > Then again one might rule that they do not have an agreement. > AG : one big snag with this distinguo is that you're dependent on what the potential offending side says to you. And they might have reasons to lie. Do you believe them or do you believe what's written ? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Dec 14 14:24:43 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:24:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C Message-ID: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101214/e057d06a/attachment-0001.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Dec 14 14:52:06 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:52:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_L15C?= In-Reply-To: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> Message-ID: <1PSVIV-0lSaMC0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Hi Jeff (and Andras), the answer is in the cited law. "If any cal differs [...] the TD shall cancel the board." Now Law 12 C2a tells us to give artificial adjusted scores - no matter how "near" the first and the second auction were in touch and whether the cancellation was at the beginning, the end or somewhere in the middle of the auction. Peter From: Jeff Easterson > A friend sent me the email (below) and asked me to post it at blml > for your opinions. Ciao, JE > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Betreff: L15C > > Datum: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:02:21 +0100 > > Von: BOOC > [1] > > An: 'Jeff Easterson' > [2] > > Hi, let me disturb you with a question concerning L15C . > > > Example. N-S are bidding the hand (pairs) and finish in 6 > H - all passed when E-W players are realizing > they are at the wrong table. The proper E-W arrives and > the bidding starts again. N-S applying the same bids > arrive to 6 H but it is doubled. > > Now you apply L15C, the hand cannot be played. How would > you score it if > > - 6 H can always fulfilled > > - 6 H is down only on one lead (let's > say any club, not obvious from the OL's hand, as he does > not have AK, or KQJ from the suit) > > - 6 H is always down on any lead > > Maybe you can ask the opinion from BLML.... > > > Thanks, > Andras From adam at tameware.com Tue Dec 14 15:01:28 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:01:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Marvin French wrote: > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam > makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, > nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. Total point team play? Before I answer I want to make sure I understand what that is. Is it the way knockouts were scored before the introduction of the IMP scale? Each pair has a net score. The team's net score is the sum of the pair's scores -- if the sum is positive they win their match. Are you specifying team play to bring the question down to its most essential form? I'm all for that. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101214/dd326176/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Dec 14 15:04:17 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:04:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Marvin French wrote: > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' ?vulnerable 6H. The spade slam > makes only because of ?a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, > nothing to the play, and would have scored ?+1430. Total point team play? Before I answer I want to make sure I understand what that is. Is this the way knockouts were scored before the introduction of the IMP scale? Each pair has a net score. The team's net score is the sum of the pair's scores -- if the sum is positive they win their match. Are you specifying team play to bring the question down to its most essential form? I'm all for that. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Tue Dec 14 15:05:24 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:05:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701cb9b97$f483dac0$dd8b9040$@com> Hi BLMLrs, Law 15C: If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board. Law 12A-2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board. This board cannot be played and was not. The director shall award artificial scores. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City ____________________________________________________________________________ ______________ De?: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Jeff Easterson Envoy??: 14 d?cembre 2010 08:25 ??: Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet?: [BLML] Fwd: L15C A friend sent me the email (below) and asked me to post it at blml for your opinions.? Ciao,? JE Hi, ?let me disturb you with a question concerning L15C . ? Example. N-S are bidding the hand (pairs) and finish in 6 H ? all passed when E-W players are realizing they are at the wrong table. The proper E-W arrives and the bidding starts again. N-S applying the same bids arrive to 6 H but it is doubled. Now you apply L15C, the hand cannot be played. How would you score it if -???????? 6 H can always fulfilled -???????? 6 H is down only on one lead (let?s say any club, not obvious from the OL?s hand, as he does not have AK, or KQJ from the suit) -???????? 6 H is always down on any lead ? Maybe you can ask the opinion from BLML . ? Thanks, ? Andras ? From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 14 15:08:20 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:08:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> Message-ID: <001601cb9b98$5ded7b10$19c87130$@no> The error was discovered during the auction period so the Director correctly cancelled the first auction and let the auction start again with the correct pairs seated. The new auction was not identical to the first auction so the Director must cancel the board (without any play attempted). We have Law 12A2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below). And Law 12C2a: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault. It is clear to me that the (new) E-W pair who thus becomes unable to play this board shall receive an artificial A+ score (60%). What scores shall be awarded to the other two or three pairs involved depend on several factors and judgments: 1: N-S at this table may be ruled fully responsible and thus receive A- (40%), or only partially responsible and then receive A (50%) 2: If the incorrectly seated E-W pair had already played the board in a previous round then there seems to be no further damage and no cause for further adjusted scores, but they may be judged eligible for a PP because of partial or full responsibility on this irregularity. 3: If however, they has yet to play the board against a fourth pair and the board becomes cancelled in that schedule then this fourth pair shall receive A+ (60%) and their opponents (the originally incorrectly seated E-W pair) shall receive A- (40%) in that schedule. Regards Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: 14. desember 2010 14:25 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C A friend sent me the email (below) and asked me to post it at blml for your opinions. Ciao, JE -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: L15C Datum: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:02:21 +0100 Von: BOOC An: 'Jeff Easterson' Hi, let me disturb you with a question concerning L15C . Example. N-S are bidding the hand (pairs) and finish in 6 H - all passed when E-W players are realizing they are at the wrong table. The proper E-W arrives and the bidding starts again. N-S applying the same bids arrive to 6 H but it is doubled. Now you apply L15C, the hand cannot be played. How would you score it if - 6 H can always fulfilled - 6 H is down only on one lead (let's say any club, not obvious from the OL's hand, as he does not have AK, or KQJ from the suit) - 6 H is always down on any lead Maybe you can ask the opinion from BLML.. Thanks, Andras -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101214/3a889c23/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 14 15:47:27 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:47:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Of course if you are aware of your partner's tendencies >>> to psyche in certain auctions, or you run into a bidding >>> sequence where your system makes a psyche low risk, >>> that has to be disclosed to opponents. >>> >>> But that does not make the psyches illegal. And they exist >>> in natural systems, too. Say, >>> 1H X 1S >>> Here, responder's 1S quite frequently is a psyche. >> >> That's not, however, the way things work in the ACBL, where even this >> common and well-known "baby psych", once perpetrated within a >> partnership, immediately morphs into an illegal implicit agreement, >> which, as such, may not be repeated. > > Why do you say illegal? It could be described as a conventional > defense to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. Because it also could be -- and has been -- described as an "agreement [] whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? methods", illegal under even the Superchart. This provision has been used primarily to ban any method with even a vague hint of "psych" to it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 14 15:57:06 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:57:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. In-Reply-To: <005b01cb9b5c$27b68280$77238780$@nl> References: <1PS2si-29LLOq0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <005b01cb9b5c$27b68280$77238780$@nl> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:57 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Just for fun, think about the following. A pair has an agreement > somewhere > at the bottom of page 73. It has never occurred, and they both > forgot. The > situation occurs, and they misbid, and mis-explain correspondingly. > Now of > course nobody will call the TD. But is it MI? Yes, at least in the ACBL. There was a case at an NABC not long ago in which an adjusted score was awarded to a player who had been given an incorrect explanation of his opponents' partnership agreement as to the meaning of a bid by declarer, but one which happened to correctly describe declarer's actual hand, and was able to claim successfully that had he had the correct explanation, notwithstanding that it would have misled him as to declarer's actual holding, he would have chosen a more successful opening lead. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 14 16:22:15 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:22:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <60845.61893.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <60845.61893.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <683FEC09-EC93-4E08-8E67-75587E39601B@starpower.net> On Dec 14, 2010, at 4:23 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > There are many tactical situations where some players deviate from > system. For > example > - 3rd in hand openers. > - 1H (X) bid. > - 1N over-calls. > - Interfering with opponent's strong artificial 1C/2C > - Passing partner's pass/convert response in the the wrong suit. > - Spurious trial/cue/exclusion bids. > - "Game-forcing" calls on tram-tickets. > > The problem is that different partnerships have different favourite > situations > and hand-types; and some never "psych" at all. > > Regular "psychs" in a regular partnership aren't true psychs. Even > if only > occasionally used, they are probabilistic conventions. > > The disclosure problem is that: > - Partnerships convince themselves that these are true psychs; > hence not > disclosable. > - Partnerships defend their personal idiosyncratic "psyching" > propensities as > "general knowledge". > - Partnerships feel that they *cannot disclose* these > understandings because the > agreements would be illegal. For instance, there may be strength > requirements > for opening bids; or "Random" bid agreements may be banned; or non- > symmetric > methods may be banned (some partnerships comprise a straight man and a > comedian). > > Manifestly, undisclosed, such agreements are illegal. > > This problem would be mitigated if system-restrictions were > scrapped, because > partnerships would then be more ready to admit to such understandings. Blaming the problem on system restrictions per se is overkill. The underlying cause of the problem is the notion that any "implicit understanding" gained through partnership experience is legally identical to and indistinguishable from the partnership's explicit agreements, which leaves them subject to the same restrictions. That creates legal requirements that are literally impossible to fulfill short of abandoning partnerships that have been "poisoned" by illegal implicit knowledge. An agreement explicitly reached can be explicitly abandoned, but one's experience of one's partner's bidding tendencies cannot be "un-experienced". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 16:36:51 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:36:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: <001601cb9b98$5ded7b10$19c87130$@no> References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> <001601cb9b98$5ded7b10$19c87130$@no> Message-ID: 2010/12/14 Sven Pran > The error was discovered during the auction period so the Director > correctly cancelled the first auction and let the auction start again with > the correct pairs seated. The new auction was not identical to the first > auction so the Director must cancel the board (without any play attempted). > > > > We have Law 12A2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no > rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 > below). > > And Law 12C2a: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained > [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according > to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the > available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average > (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at > least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault. > > > > It is clear to me that the (new) E-W pair who thus becomes unable to play > this board shall receive an artificial A+ score (60%). > > > > What scores shall be awarded to the other two or three pairs involved > depend on several factors and judgments: > > 1: N-S at this table may be ruled fully responsible and thus receive A- > (40%), or only partially responsible and then receive A (50%) > I've got a problem with ruling N-S fully or partially responsible for E-W sitting at the wrong table. I'd award them 60%. > 2: If the incorrectly seated E-W pair had already played the board in a > previous round then there seems to be no further damage and no cause for > further adjusted scores, but they may be judged eligible for a PP because of > partial or full responsibility on this irregularity. > > 3: If however, they has yet to play the board against a fourth pair and the > board becomes cancelled in that schedule then this fourth pair shall receive > A+ (60%) and their opponents (the originally incorrectly seated E-W pair) > shall receive A- (40%) in that schedule. > > > > Regards Sven > > *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf > Of *Jeff Easterson > *Sent:* 14. desember 2010 14:25 > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* [BLML] Fwd: L15C > > > > A friend sent me the email (below) and asked me to post it at blml for your > opinions. Ciao, JE > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > *Betreff: * > > L15C > > *Datum: * > > Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:02:21 +0100 > > *Von: * > > BOOC > > *An: * > > 'Jeff Easterson' > > > > Hi, let me disturb you with a question concerning L15C . > > > > Example. N-S are bidding the hand (pairs) and finish in 6 H ? all passed > when E-W players are realizing they are at the wrong table. The proper E-W > arrives and the bidding starts again. N-S applying the same bids arrive to 6 > H but it is doubled. > > Now you apply L15C, the hand cannot be played. How would you score it if > > - 6 H can always fulfilled > > - 6 H is down only on one lead (let?s say any club, not obvious > from the OL?s hand, as he does not have AK, or KQJ from the suit) > > - 6 H is always down on any lead > > > > Maybe you can ask the opinion from BLML?. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andras > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101214/92a30c4f/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 14 17:13:49 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:13:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: <1PSVIV-0lSaMC0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> <1PSVIV-0lSaMC0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4D0797BD.2080007@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/12/2010 14:52, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Hi Jeff (and Andras), > > the answer is in the cited law. > "If any cal differs [...] the TD shall cancel the board." > > Now Law 12 C2a tells us to give artificial adjusted > scores - no matter how "near" the first and the > second auction were in touch and whether the > cancellation was at the beginning, the end or > somewhere in the middle of the auction. AG : not only that, but if the meaning of any one call differs, the board shall be cancelled too. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 14 17:22:16 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:22:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0799B8.5010402@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/12/2010 15:47, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>>> Of course if you are aware of your partner's tendencies >>>> to psyche in certain auctions, or you run into a bidding >>>> sequence where your system makes a psyche low risk, >>>> that has to be disclosed to opponents. >>>> >>>> But that does not make the psyches illegal. And they exist >>>> in natural systems, too. Say, >>>> 1H X 1S >>>> Here, responder's 1S quite frequently is a psyche. >>> That's not, however, the way things work in the ACBL, where even this >>> common and well-known "baby psych", once perpetrated within a >>> partnership, immediately morphs into an illegal implicit agreement, >>> which, as such, may not be repeated. >> Why do you say illegal? It could be described as a conventional >> defense to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. > Because it also could be -- and has been -- described as an "agreement > [] whose primary purpose is to destroy the > opponents? methods", illegal under even the Superchart. This > provision has been used primarily to ban any method with even a vague > hint of "psych" to it. > AG : totally ridiculous. With this criterion, you'd ban preepmts. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 14 17:26:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:26:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> <001601cb9b98$5ded7b10$19c87130$@no> Message-ID: <4D079ABD.20406@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/12/2010 16:36, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2010/12/14 Sven Pran > > > The error was discovered during the auction period so the Director > correctly cancelled the first auction and let the auction start > again with the correct pairs seated. The new auction was not > identical to the first auction so the Director must cancel the > board (without any play attempted). > > We have Law 12A2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score > if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of > the board (see C2 below). > > And Law 12C2a: When owing to an irregularity no result can be > obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial > adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: > average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) > to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a > contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in > pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault. > > It is clear to me that the (new) E-W pair who thus becomes unable > to play this board shall receive an artificial A+ score (60%). > > What scores shall be awarded to the other two or three pairs > involved depend on several factors and judgments: > > 1: N-S at this table may be ruled fully responsible and thus > receive A- (40%), or only partially responsible and then receive A > (50%) > > > I've got a problem with ruling N-S fully or partially responsible for > E-W sitting at the wrong table. > I'd award them 60%. AG : if N/S were handled a movement card (as is the case in triangular movements made to accomodate any number of pairs), then they could be deemed partially responsable for not checking their opponents' pair number. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101214/3e36c5c5/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Dec 14 18:41:33 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:41:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0799B8.5010402@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <4D0799B8.5010402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D07AC4D.8090606@comcast.net> On 12/14/10 11:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 14/12/2010 15:47, Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>>> >>>>> Of course if you are aware of your partner's tendencies >>>>> to psyche in certain auctions, or you run into a bidding >>>>> sequence where your system makes a psyche low risk, >>>>> that has to be disclosed to opponents. >>>>> >>>>> But that does not make the psyches illegal. And they exist >>>>> in natural systems, too. Say, >>>>> 1H X 1S >>>>> Here, responder's 1S quite frequently is a psyche. >>>> That's not, however, the way things work in the ACBL, where even this >>>> common and well-known "baby psych", once perpetrated within a >>>> partnership, immediately morphs into an illegal implicit agreement, >>>> which, as such, may not be repeated. >>> Why do you say illegal? It could be described as a conventional >>> defense to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. >> Because it also could be -- and has been -- described as an "agreement >> [] whose primary purpose is to destroy the >> opponents? methods", illegal under even the Superchart. This >> provision has been used primarily to ban any method with even a vague >> hint of "psych" to it. >> > AG : totally ridiculous. With this criterion, you'd ban preepmts. It seems to me that if the agreement (alerted as such) is "Natural...or very weak with heart support," then the 'baby psych' is not purely destructive, and hence cannot be banned...at least in ACBL land. --Bob Park From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Tue Dec 14 18:43:49 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:43:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Alain Gottcheiner AG : one big snag with this distinguo is that you're dependent on what the potential offending side says to you. And they might have reasons to lie. Do you believe them or do you believe what's written ? RJ: I know of one case where a partnership was not able to prove the existence of an agreement from their own system note, but Meckwell had a defence to the agreement in their partnership notes. (and yes, the notes specified that the partnership in question played the agreement) Mind you, relying on Rodwell for the documentation of your agreements is kind of iffy. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Dec 14 18:47:22 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:47:22 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: From: "Adam Wildavsky" > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Marvin French > wrote: > >> In total point team play the OS bids an illegal >> hesitation-inspired >> non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam >> makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, >> nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. > > > Total point team play? Before I answer I want to make sure I > understand what > that is. Is it the way knockouts were scored before the > introduction of the > IMP scale? Each pair has a net score. The team's net score is the > sum of the > pair's scores -- if the sum is positive they win their match. > > Are you specifying team play to bring the question down to its > most > essential form? I'm all for that. > Yes, I had to do that because most BLMLers outside ACBL-land adjust with imps or matchpoints instead of score points when applying L12C1(c). I could also have used Chicago with duplicate scoring for the example. No imps, no matchpoints, just points in score adjustments, as in ACBL-land. Total point team play remains the best contest when the number of deals is very large, as in the Culbertson-Lenz match. IMPs were invented to artificially water down the effect of large slam swings and give more credit to small partscore swings in the shorter matches of today. It was a necessary evil. Slam swings are an attractive aspect of the game in long matches, enabling a losing side to do some catchup. Off-topic, a letter to the ACBL Bulletin editor recommended that a percentage of duplicate boards have labels designating the existence of a partscore for one or both sides. That would be fun. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5702 (20101214) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From jeff.ford at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 18:55:16 2010 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:55:16 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> Message-ID: Others have answered the original question, but I have a related one. Does the director need to check whether the double is reasonable? Is E/W allowed to look at LHO, RHO, and the field, decide they're about to get a bad score for a slam bid against them and double to "ensure" 60% instead? Jeff On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > A friend sent me the email (below) and asked me to post it at blml for > your opinions. Ciao, JE > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: L15C Datum: Sun, 12 Dec > 2010 17:02:21 +0100 Von: BOOC An: > 'Jeff Easterson' > > Hi, let me disturb you with a question concerning L15C . > > > > Example. N-S are bidding the hand (pairs) and finish in 6 H ? all passed > when E-W players are realizing they are at the wrong table. The proper E-W > arrives and the bidding starts again. N-S applying the same bids arrive to 6 > H but it is doubled. > > Now you apply L15C, the hand cannot be played. How would you score it if > > - 6 H can always fulfilled > > - 6 H is down only on one lead (let?s say any club, not obvious > from the OL?s hand, as he does not have AK, or KQJ from the suit) > > - 6 H is always down on any lead > > > > Maybe you can ask the opinion from BLML?. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andras > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101214/5f88895c/attachment-0001.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Dec 14 19:07:42 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:07:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_L15C?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1PSZHr-1KSTHk0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> From: Jeff Ford > Others have answered the original question, but I have a related one.? > Does the director need to check whether the double is reasonable?? Is > E/W allowed to look at LHO, RHO, and the field, decide they're about > to get a bad score for a slam bid against them and double to "ensure" > 60% instead? No, they are not allowed to. Yes, the TD should check. Law 15 C: "[...] The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board." Peter From jeff.ford at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 19:49:39 2010 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:49:39 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: <1PSZHr-1KSTHk0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <1PSZHr-1KSTHk0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Jeff Ford > > Others have answered the original question, but I have a related one. > > Does the director need to check whether the double is reasonable? Is > > E/W allowed to look at LHO, RHO, and the field, decide they're about > > to get a bad score for a slam bid against them and double to "ensure" > > 60% instead? > > No, they are not allowed to. > Yes, the TD should check. > > Law 15 C: "[...] The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an > adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful > attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board." > Right, but what is the threshold here? It is easy to envision a situation in which a player has a call available that they are quite sure the previous player did not make, and which they believe they would make at least some of the time in the same position. Is making this call considered "a purposeful attempt to preclude normal play" if they believe they would make the call about half the time in an untainted auction? What about a higher or lower fraction? And of course judging this is difficult at the table, so we're putting pressure on a non-offender to do the right thing. Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101214/b2891686/attachment.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Dec 14 20:01:50 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:01:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_L15C?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1PSa8E-13cMaG0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: Jeff Ford > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Peter Eidt [1]> wrote: > From: Jeff Ford > > Others have answered the original question, but I have a related > > one.?Does the director need to check whether the double is > > reasonable??Is E/W allowed to look at LHO, RHO, and the field, > > decide they're about to get a bad score for a slam bid > > against them and double to "ensure" 60% instead? > > No, they are not allowed to. > Yes, the TD should check. > > Law 15 C: "[...] The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an > adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful > attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board." > > Right, but what is the threshold here? It is easy to envision a > situation in which a player has a call available that they are quite > sure the previous player did not make, and which they believe they > would make at least some of the time in the same position.? Is making > this call considered "a purposeful attempt to preclude normal play" if > they believe they would make the call about half the time in an > untainted auction?? What about a higher or lower fraction?? > > And of course judging this is difficult at the table, so we're > putting pressure on a non-offender to do the right thing. The keywords - in this respect - in the law are "The Director may [...] if of the opinion ...". As far as I'm aware the lawmakers want the TD to build up his mind, and if he's of the opinion that someone did spoil the auction intentionally, then the TD should / may act. The TD at the table may realize players' body speech to give him the impression of a "foul" call. On the other hand he should give them some leeway in "critical" or obviously "two-way" situations. Peter From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 14 20:51:02 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:51:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > A friend sent me the email (below) and asked me to post it at blml > for your opinions. Ciao, JE > > Von: BOOC > > Hi, let me disturb you with a question concerning L15C . > Example. N-S are bidding the hand (pairs) and finish in 6 H ? all > passed when E-W players are realizing they are at the wrong table. > The proper E-W arrives and the bidding starts again. N-S applying > the same bids arrive to 6 H but it is doubled. > Now you apply L15C, the hand cannot be played. How would you score > it if > > - 6 H can always fulfilled > > - 6 H is down only on one lead (let?s say any club, not > obvious from the OL?s hand, as he does not have AK, or KQJ from the > suit) > > - 6 H is always down on any lead > > Maybe you can ask the opinion from BLML?. > The board must be cancelled "if any call differs in any way" [L15C], so the prospective results are irrelevant. The E-W pair that belongs at the table is "in no way at fault" [L12C2(a)] and gets an artificial 60% score (subject to L12C2(c)). Local regulations/ jurisprudence may differ as to whether the N-S pair gets 40% ("directly at fault") or 50% ("only partly at fault"). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Tue Dec 14 21:38:37 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:38:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <163855899.247008.1292359117680.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 14/12/2010 12:56, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Hans van Staveren: > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >>>> "I don't know, partner is more system sure than I am, I would > >>>> have to look this one up." > >>>> > >>>> And not the usual "O yeah sure, I forgot". > >>>> > >>>> Now the question is if I should accept the explanation to the > >>>> opening leader as their agreement. If so, score stands, if > >>>> not adjusted score. > >>>> > >>>> There are things to be said for both views. > >> Peter Eidt: > >> > >>> Hi Hans, > >>> > >>> for me this one looks easy. > >>> > >>> You have a table explanation that is backed up by the system > >>> book _and_ by partner's statement that the system book is _on_ > >>> (whatever there's written in it). > >>> > >>> So this means (for me) that the explanation on the crucial > >>> side is the correct one and therefore score stands. > >>> > >>> Peter > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Hi Peter, > >> > >> for me this one looks easy. > >> > >> You have a table explanation that a player has been too lazy to > >> read page number 42 of the system notes. A unilateral set of > >> system notes written by one partner is not a pre-existing mutual > >> understanding of both partners. > >> > >> So this means (for me) that the misexplanation on the crucial > >> side is indeed an incorrect one (correct would have been "we do > >> not have any partnership understanding, due to partner having > >> been too lazy to read page 42 of the system notes) and therefore > >> the score does not stand. > >> > >> What's the problem? > >> > >> The problem is that normally written evidence has greater weight > >> than verbal evidence, but in this case the verbal evidence is > >> the direct opposite of self-serving. > > No, it is not that easy. > > > > There exist quite a few scenarios. > > > > One is > > "It has to be somewhere in our system notes, but I never read it". > > Then indeed one might rule that they do not have an agreement. > > > > Another one is > > "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I forgot. > > Partner knows this part of the system better than I do". > > Then they have an agreement, but one player forgot. > > You might have an MI ruling because the player who forgot > > cannot correctly explain to his screen mate, but you > > should not rule that there is no agreement. > > > > Yes another one is > > "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I never > > can remember". > > Then again one might rule that they do not have an agreement. > > > AG : one big snag with this distinguo is that you're dependent on what > the potential offending side says to you. And they might have reasons to > lie. Do you believe them or do you believe what's written ? Agree, there exist problems. But then there exist problems with simply believing their system notes. For example, player A easily might have a different copy of system notes than player B. System notes are evidence of an agreement. But just as with any other evidence, contradictory stronger evidence can exist. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 14 22:19:42 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:19:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> <001601cb9b98$5ded7b10$19c87130$@no> Message-ID: <27361848-16EB-4D5C-9633-67D1D094EC37@starpower.net> On Dec 14, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2010/12/14 Sven Pran >> 1: N-S at this table may be ruled fully responsible and thus >> receive A- (40%), or only partially responsible and then receive A >> (50%) >> >> > > I've got a problem with ruling N-S fully or partially responsible > for E-W sitting at the wrong table. > I'd award them 60%. L7D might or might not be deemed to apply, but this is patently a matter of local regulation and practice. N-S Mitchell players in the ACBL are expected to verify the pair number of their E-W opponents when they arrive at the table, and would be held at fault for failing to do so. By the same token, however, the N-S pair is held blameless if the E-W pair that sits down against them has the correct pair number but is in the wrong section. This is concomitant to the N-S pair's obligation to keep score, as the score form requires pair numbers but not section identifiers. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 14 22:31:33 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:31:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C References: <1PSa8E-13cMaG0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <11CA421425B04421B5F34F3EEFA621C5@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: L15C ........................WXW..................................... > > The keywords - in this respect - in the law are > "The Director may [...] if of the opinion ...". > > As far as I'm aware the lawmakers want the TD > to build up his mind, and if he's of the opinion that > someone did spoil the auction intentionally, then > the TD should / may act. The TD at the table may > realize players' body speech to give him the > impression of a "foul" call. On the other hand he > should give them some leeway in "critical" or > obviously "two-way" situations. > > Peter > +=+ "the TD should / may act" = i.e. the Director has power to act. What the lawmakers want, primarily, is that the Director should use his judgement as to what is the fairest resolution of the incident, and they have armed him with power to make that judgement and act upon it. If his determination of the matter is unreasonable the appeals committee will provide a safety net. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 14 22:37:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:37:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 15C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 15C - Play of a Wrong Board - Discovered during Auction Period If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players must repeat the calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise the auction and play continue normally. ***The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board.*** Jeff Ford: >Right, but what is the threshold here? It is easy to envision a >situation in which a player has a call available that they are >quite sure the previous player did not make, and which they >believe they would make at least some of the time in the same >position.? Is making this call considered "a purposeful attempt >to preclude normal play" if they believe they would make the call >about half the time in an untainted auction?? What about a higher >or lower fraction? > >And of course judging this is difficult at the table, so we're >putting pressure on a non-offender to do the right thing. Richard Hills: Under the 1997 Lawbook the final sentence of the current 2007 Law 15C was missing. So before 2008 a non-offender often had an incentive to open or overcall 7NT to gain a certain 60% when otherwise the "a priori" percentage expectation against the current opponents was lower. The 1998-2004 regime of the WBF Laws Committee tried to fix this hole in the 1997 Law 15C by waving its wand, invoking "Expecto Patronum!" and ruling that the 1997 Law 74A2 prevented a 7NT opening bid because 7NT would "cause annoyance" to an opponent. There were two disadvantages to this WBF Laws Committee ruling: (a) almost all grass-roots Directors prefer reading the routinely available Lawbook to reading ridiculously recondite rulings, and (b) the WBF Laws Committee ruling was illegal, altering the scope of Law 74A2 (for example, a 3C preempt would "cause annoyance" to an opponent, but is not an infraction of Law 74A2). Merry Christmas, and a Legal New Year to the WBF Laws Committee Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 14 22:51:06 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:51:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0799B8.5010402@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <4D0799B8.5010402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 14/12/2010 15:47, Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> Why do you say illegal? It could be described as a conventional >>> defense to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. >> >> Because it also could be -- and has been -- described as an >> "agreement >> [] whose primary purpose is to destroy the >> opponents? methods", illegal under even the Superchart. This >> provision has been used primarily to ban any method with even a vague >> hint of "psych" to it. > > AG : totally ridiculous. With this criterion, you'd ban preepmts. Totally ridiculous indeed. And although the ACBL hasn't (as yet) banned preempts altogether, they have, histrorically, used this criterion, or one very much like it, to set arbitrary limits on them. At one time, for example, opening a weak two-bid with less than 5 HCP was not only not allowed by agreement, but would incur an automatic penalty if done unexpectedly. TPTB rely on being able to make their own arbitrary determinations of a method's "primary purpose" to ban whatever they choose to, based on their purported insight into the motivational psychology of the method's proponents. Whether a bid is "primarily constructive" or "primarily destructive" depends on whether or not they want to allow it, not the other way around. I should acknowledge, however, that this sort of flagrant abuse of authority is nowhere near as egregious as it was a couple of decades ago, and this isn't much of a problem today. Unless you like to make what, outside of the ACBL, are common, ordinary "baby psychs" universally accepted elsewhere, which brings us back to where we started. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 14 22:59:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:59:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D07AC4D.8090606@comcast.net> Message-ID: >It seems to me that if the agreement (alerted as such) is >"Natural...or very weak with heart support," then the 'baby >psych' is not purely destructive, and hence cannot be >banned...at least in ACBL land. > --Bob Park Yes and no. Almost every so-called "baby psyche" is actually a pre- existing mutual implicit partnership understanding. So, if undisclosed, such a "baby psyche" is a CPU infraction of Law 40B4. But even if disclosed, the two-way meaning of WEST NORTH EAST 1H X 1S = either spades, or weak with hearts makes it entirely legal for ACBL land to deem the "baby psyche" to be a Special Partnership Understanding and to rule that even a fully disclosed "baby psyche" is a banned infraction of Law 40B5. Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 04:02:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:02:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <683FEC09-EC93-4E08-8E67-75587E39601B@starpower.net> Message-ID: Donald Rumsfeld, 12th February 2002, asserted: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know here are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones that we don't know we don't know." Eric Landau, 14th December 2010, asserted: >Blaming the problem on system restrictions per se is overkill. >The underlying cause of the problem is the notion that any >"implicit understanding" gained through partnership experience >is legally identical to and indistinguishable from the >partnership's explicit agreements, which leaves them subject >to the same restrictions. That creates legal requirements >that are literally impossible to fulfil short of abandoning >partnerships that have been "poisoned" by illegal implicit >knowledge. An agreement explicitly reached can be explicitly >abandoned, but one's experience of one's partner's bidding >tendencies cannot be "un-experienced". Richard Hills, 15th December 2010, quibbles: My advice to Donald and Eric is "pull the other one, it's got bells on!" because Law 40B2(a) concludes with this bracketed exception: (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method). The known knowns of partner's _style and judgement_ are fully legal and the partnership does not get "poisoned". If, however, the known knowns of partner's _methods_ include an implicit partnership understanding that pard will use unLawful pseudo-psyches, then the partnership does not get "poisoned" if pard repents her infractions and eschews future pseudo-psyches. It is an unknown known that I enjoy psyching; but it is a known unknown that I have severely reduced my psyche strike rate in the past few years. The reduction was to minimise any chance that one of my attempts at psyching would actually be deemed to be a pseudo-psychic implicit partnership understanding. What's the unknown unknown problem? In my opinion, the problem is that Eric's long-standing hobby- horse has been resolved by the 2008 Laws 40B and 40C1, but not resolved in a way that Eric would prefer. C'est la vie. Merry Christmas and a Hobby-Horse New Year Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 05:11:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:11:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D0755D7.4050001@skynet.be> Message-ID: John Lloyd and John Mitchinson, Advanced Banter, page 50: "Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer." Herman De Wael: >And this is where Nigel, again, makes the common error. The non- >disclosure does not make the agreement illegal. It merely >creates a MI situation, which the TD will rectify if the >opponents are damaged through the non-disclosure. > >By continually labelling psyches as "illegal", the average TD >(and many above average) feels that the psyche, when not >disclosed, should be changed into a 40% AS. Rather, he should >treat the non-disclosed psyche as any other MI, and ask himself >(and the opponents) "what would opponents have bid if they had >been told [snip] Richard Hills: And this is where Herman, again, makes the common error. While almost all pseudo-psyches are MI infractions of Law 40B4 -- partnerships like Robinson-Woolsey who Alert their pseudo-psyches are rare -- the archetypal pseudo-psyche is in addition an illegal convention infraction of Law 40B5 (typically an illegal Highly Unusual Method convention, as in the H1H convention). For ordinary MI under Law 40B4 a Director has to determine the result(s) as if there had been a correct explanation. But for an extraordinary illegal convention Law 40B5 ruling the Director has an often impossible task of determining the result(s) as if there had been a correct auction. So that is why the EBU White Book mandates Artificial Adjusted Scores for EBU Directors applying Law 40B5. Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 06:04:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:04:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Meme, Counter-meme [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Lirsch's Law of Psyche Inanity: As a blml discussion grows longer, the probability of an inane post redefining a pseudo- psyche as a psyche approaches one. Hills' Corollary of Criticism: As a blml discussion grows longer, the probability of an inane Richardian post which criticises a so-called "illegal" WBF Laws Committee ruling approaches one. Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 06:29:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:29:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D025002.6070508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: > ..... a local rule that you have to alert bids which can >be deviated from would be totally impractical. > >I'm fortunate enough to live in a land where most TDs >understand this Richard Hills: ..... a local rule that you can conceal implicit partnership understandings would be totally unLawful. I'm fortunate enough to live in a land where most TDs understand this, thanks to a well-written ABF Alert reg. ABF Alert regulation, clause 9.1, first two sentences: "If an enquiry is made, a full explanation of the call must be given. This includes any conventional or partnership agreement, whether the agreement is explicit or based on partnership experience." ABF Alert regulation, clause 9.2, second sentence: "When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to the opponents." Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Dec 15 07:56:03 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:56:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. In-Reply-To: References: <1PS2si-29LLOq0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <005b01cb9b5c$27b68280$77238780$@nl> Message-ID: <4D086683.2030806@aol.com> Wow!!! Am 14.12.2010 15:57, schrieb Eric Landau: > On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:57 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > >> Just for fun, think about the following. A pair has an agreement >> somewhere >> at the bottom of page 73. It has never occurred, and they both >> forgot. The >> situation occurs, and they misbid, and mis-explain correspondingly. >> Now of >> course nobody will call the TD. But is it MI? > Yes, at least in the ACBL. There was a case at an NABC not long ago > in which an adjusted score was awarded to a player who had been given > an incorrect explanation of his opponents' partnership agreement as > to the meaning of a bid by declarer, but one which happened to > correctly describe declarer's actual hand, and was able to claim > successfully that had he had the correct explanation, notwithstanding > that it would have misled him as to declarer's actual holding, he > would have chosen a more successful opening lead. > > > 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 08:09:03 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 01:09:03 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. In-Reply-To: References: <1PS2si-29LLOq0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <005b01cb9b5c$27b68280$77238780$@nl> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Yes, at least in the ACBL. ?There was a case at an NABC not long ago > in which an adjusted score was awarded to a player who had been given > an incorrect explanation of his opponents' partnership agreement as > to the meaning of a bid by declarer, but one which happened to > correctly describe declarer's actual hand, and was able to claim > successfully that had he had the correct explanation, notwithstanding > that it would have misled him as to declarer's actual holding, he > would have chosen a more successful opening lead. > Does anyone recall which case this was? Jerry Fusselman From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 15 08:48:03 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:48:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> References: <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00d201cb9c2c$676ea670$364bf350$@nl> AG : one big snag with this distinguo is that you're dependent on what the potential offending side says to you. And they might have reasons to lie. Do you believe them or do you believe what's written ? This is always a mentioned problem. In my experience however players at the table, directly after the incident, are generally truthful. Often they wouldn't even know which way their advantage lies, since their knowledge of the laws is usually skimpy. It is only when you ask them an hour after the match that they have convinced themselves, or others have convinced them, that reality was not what it looked like. Hans From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Dec 15 10:07:46 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:07:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: L15C In-Reply-To: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> References: <4D07701B.6030803@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D088562.7070308@meteo.fr> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > A friend sent me the email (below) and asked me to post it at blml for your > opinions. Ciao, JE > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: L15C > Datum: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:02:21 +0100 > Von: BOOC > An: 'Jeff Easterson' > > > > Hi, let me disturb you with a question concerning L15C . > i agree the board can't be played but i would have tried to investigate why ew did double 6H. maybe they realized it was the way to avoid a bad result. did this happen in perpignan at la loge? jpr. > > > Example. N-S are bidding the hand (pairs) and finish in 6 H ? all passed when > E-W players are realizing they are at the wrong table. The proper E-W arrives > and the bidding starts again. N-S applying the same bids arrive to 6 H but it is > doubled. > > Now you apply L15C, the hand cannot be played. How would you score it if > > - 6 H can always fulfilled > > - 6 H is down only on one lead (let?s say any club, not obvious from the > OL?s hand, as he does not have AK, or KQJ from the suit) > > - 6 H is always down on any lead > > > > Maybe you can ask the opinion from BLML?. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andras -- _______________________________________________ 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 madam at civilradio.hu Wed Dec 15 10:33:04 2010 From: madam at civilradio.hu (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFneWFyIMFk4W0=?=) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:33:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L15C In-Reply-To: <11CA421425B04421B5F34F3EEFA621C5@Mildred> References: <1PSa8E-13cMaG0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <11CA421425B04421B5F34F3EEFA621C5@Mildred> Message-ID: Hi all, I was the director at the table, and it seems that you're missing the point. When NS first played the board, there was no double, when they re-started against the right opponents, they doubled. The double seemed reasonable in MP's, the doubler having KJTxxx over dummy's suit, the trump ace and a side king (so maybe this is more than reasonable). But the doubler may have noticed some irregularity, since the TD was watching the auction. He is clearly the NOS, he is just doubling normally, but he gets 60% instead of 100%, what 6H doubled -2 would have scored. I gave them 60, opponents 40, what the Laws say, they appealed. They said that maybe the text of the laws sounds like this (I've shown him 15C), but not the spirit. Could you give them more than 60% according to the (spirit of the) Laws, and would you, if you could? After you've given your opinion, I'll tell you what the appeals committee gave. Adam Magyar From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Dec 15 10:42:49 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:42:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?L15C?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1PSnso-18yGcC0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> From: Magyar ?d?m > I was the director at the table, and it seems that you're missing the > point. since we were discussing a case without the (real) facts, I don't think we were missing any point ;-) > When NS first played the board, there was no double, when they > re-started against the right opponents, they doubled. The double > seemed reasonable in MP's, the doubler having KJTxxx over dummy's > suit, the trump ace and a side king (so maybe this is more than > reasonable). But the doubler may have noticed some irregularity, since > the TD was watching the auction. > > He is clearly the NOS, he is just doubling normally, but he gets 60% > instead of 100%, what 6H doubled -2 would have scored. > > I gave them 60, opponents 40, what the Laws say, they appealed. They > said that maybe the text of the laws sounds like this (I've shown him > 15C), but not the spirit. Since even some LC members not always know the spirit of the laws, it might be better not to argue with that ... especially not with biased players. > Could you give them more than 60% according to the (spirit of the) > Laws, and would you, if you could? After you've given your opinion, > I'll tell you what the appeals committee gave. No, you can not give them more than 60% and neither can the AC do. This is a simple book ruling and the AC is not allowed to overrule the TD in matters of Law (see Law 93 B3). For the NOS it is just bad luck (although 60% isn't that bad). Peter From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Dec 15 10:52:52 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:52:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L15C In-Reply-To: References: <1 PSa8E-13cMaG0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de><11CA421425B04421B5F34F3EEFA621C5@Mildr ed> Message-ID: <4D088FF4.7090908@meteo.fr> Magyar ?d?m a ?crit : > Hi all, > > I was the director at the table, and it seems that you're missing the point. we were missing part of the facts. > > > When NS first played the board, there was no double, when they re-started > against the right opponents, they doubled. The double seemed reasonable in > MP's, the doubler having KJTxxx over dummy's suit, the trump ace and a side > king (so maybe this is more than reasonable). But the doubler may have > noticed some irregularity, since the TD was watching the auction. > > He is clearly the NOS, he is just doubling normally, but he gets 60% instead > of 100%, what 6H doubled -2 would have scored. fine: you investigated about ew's double, you investigated about ns's responsability. maybe also why ew were so late to reach the table? > > I gave them 60, opponents 40, what the Laws say, they appealed. They said > that maybe the text of the laws sounds like this (I've shown him 15C), but > not the spirit. bridge is not life, the spirit is defined by the text of the laws, nothing more. jpr > > Could you give them more than 60% according to the (spirit of the) Laws, and > would you, if you could? After you've given your opinion, I'll tell you what > the appeals committee gave. > > Adam Magyar > -- _______________________________________________ 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Dec 15 11:03:45 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:03:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L15C In-Reply-To: References: <1PSa8E-13cMaG0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <11CA421425B04421B5F34F3EEFA621C5@Mildred> Message-ID: <41F434CA-53A6-4397-8D9A-A2ACE69EB1DE@btinternet.com> On 15 Dec 2010, at 09:33, Magyar ?d?m wrote: > But the doubler may have > noticed some irregularity, since the TD was watching the auction. Surely you explained to them the whole situation, and hence your presence there would not be a surprise? Gordon Rainsford From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Dec 15 11:10:59 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:10:59 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. In-Reply-To: References: <1PS2si-29LLOq0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <005b01cb9b5c$27b68280$77238780$@nl> Message-ID: <2DE6BE88-8E60-461B-A9DA-C8CCEEB1BA97@btinternet.com> I don't know this case, but there was an older one with the same principle involving Garozzo and a question of four-card or five-card majors, and we had another one in the English Premier League (with screens) last season. I thought this was one of those well- established pieces of TD training and practice. Gordon Rainsford On 15 Dec 2010, at 07:09, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Yes, at least in the ACBL. There was a case at an NABC not long ago >> in which an adjusted score was awarded to a player who had been given >> an incorrect explanation of his opponents' partnership agreement as >> to the meaning of a bid by declarer, but one which happened to >> correctly describe declarer's actual hand, and was able to claim >> successfully that had he had the correct explanation, notwithstanding >> that it would have misled him as to declarer's actual holding, he >> would have chosen a more successful opening lead. >> > > Does anyone recall which case this was? > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 15 11:34:51 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:34:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L15C In-Reply-To: References: <1PSa8E-13cMaG0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <11CA421425B04421B5F34F3EEFA621C5@Mildred> Message-ID: <002101cb9c43$b633a190$229ae4b0$@no> On Behalf Of Magyar ?d?m > Hi all, > > I was the director at the table, and it seems that you're missing the point. > > > When NS first played the board, there was no double, when they re-started > against the right opponents, they doubled. The double seemed reasonable in > MP's, the doubler having KJTxxx over dummy's suit, the trump ace and a side king > (so maybe this is more than reasonable). But the doubler may have noticed some > irregularity, since the TD was watching the auction. > > He is clearly the NOS, he is just doubling normally, but he gets 60% instead of > 100%, what 6H doubled -2 would have scored. > > I gave them 60, opponents 40, what the Laws say, they appealed. They said that > maybe the text of the laws sounds like this (I've shown him 15C), but not the spirit. > > Could you give them more than 60% according to the (spirit of the) Laws, and > would you, if you could? After you've given your opinion, I'll tell you what the > appeals committee gave. No, NOS shall have 60%. The board could not be played and TD is not at liberty to judge what he believes a result would be. Notice that even if 6H undoubled would most likely have resulted in a better score than 60% the fact that NOS doubled and thus caused an artificial score to be assigned NOS would still receive "only" 60%. The reason for TD being present at the table and the condition for a play of the board to be allowed should be known to both sides during the second auction, so it is just bad luck for NOS that the incorrectly seated E-W in the first auction did not also made the reasonable double of the final contract. (NOS must of course not in advance be told how the original auction had proceeded!) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Dec 15 15:36:18 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:36:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. In-Reply-To: References: <1PS2si-29LLOq0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><005b01cb9b5c$27b68280$7723878 0$@nl> Message-ID: <4D08D262.30101@meteo.fr> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> Yes, at least in the ACBL. There was a case at an NABC not long ago >> in which an adjusted score was awarded to a player who had been given >> an incorrect explanation of his opponents' partnership agreement as >> to the meaning of a bid by declarer, but one which happened to >> correctly describe declarer's actual hand, and was able to claim >> successfully that had he had the correct explanation, notwithstanding >> that it would have misled him as to declarer's actual holding, he >> would have chosen a more successful opening lead. >> > > Does anyone recall which case this was? i have an indistinct recollection it involved an italian pair but no more. there is a reference to a similar case in perth, described by e. kaplan: Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr. Krishnan, Oct 8, 1989. Dear Mr. Krishnan, Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer explained to her screenmate, who would be the opening leader, that her response to Exclusion Blackwood promised one Ace;declarer did indeed hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as correctly explained on the other side of the screen actually promised zero (or three) aces by partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would have defeated the contract. It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was wrong - after all, opening leader was correctly told the number of aces in declarer's hand, so what harm was done? That reasoning may be common sense but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she holds, but bridge law requires something quite different: declarer must give her opponent an accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. She didn't, of course - it is inevitable that a player who forgets her agreement behind a screen will break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. She will be morally blameless, since she explains in all honesty and good faith, but what the law demands of the explanation is not good faith, the law demands accuracy. Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough to determine the director's ruling, since information about aces obviously might affect the decision whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee's ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that the opening lead would have been different had the opening leader been given the accurate explanation (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was far from convinced that the one-ace explanation would have induced the singleton lead (had it been convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, "average plus" to the innocent team. Note that the strange circumstances of this case arose only because of a screen procedure, where a player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd requirement that she give an accurate explanation of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens, is the position in which you know that your partner has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you hold S. A x x H. KQJ x x D. J 10 x.x.x C void. It is obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. First though, your right-hand opponent asks about the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be "Strong four hearts opening with a very good heart suit". That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your partnership agreement, not your partner's hand. That legal obligation remains the same when, behind screens, you must explain your own action. I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. Sincerely, Edgar Kaplan. Oct. 8th 1989. > > Jerry Fusselman -- _______________________________________________ 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 gampas at aol.com Wed Dec 15 15:57:30 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:57:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Opening Lead Message-ID: <8CD6A7F87E3BC70-10EC-9756@webmail-m098.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] In any case, North-South deserve a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty for them repeatedly infracting the most important Law in the Lawbook, 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." [Paul Lamford] I would go further; if East-West indeed had a method of signalling the lengths of each suit illicitly, then Law 73B2 says it all. The penalty should be roughly on the same lines as that given to a compatriat of mine who substituted his own pack of cards for one provided by the organisers - a 10 year ban. The false allegation of cheating would not merit a ban of that length, but it should certainly be commensurate with the serious of the allegation, and I would not be against banning North-South for two years. This is roughly in line with the ratio of the sentencing for rape and for false allegations of rape. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 15 16:05:31 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:05:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2010, at 10:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Donald Rumsfeld, 12th February 2002, asserted: > > "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always > interesting to me because, as we know, there are known knowns; > there are things we know we know. We also know there are known > unknowns; that is to say we know here are some things we do not > know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones that we > don't know we don't know." > > Eric Landau, 14th December 2010, asserted: > >> Blaming the problem on system restrictions per se is overkill. >> The underlying cause of the problem is the notion that any >> "implicit understanding" gained through partnership experience >> is legally identical to and indistinguishable from the >> partnership's explicit agreements, which leaves them subject >> to the same restrictions. That creates legal requirements >> that are literally impossible to fulfil short of abandoning >> partnerships that have been "poisoned" by illegal implicit >> knowledge. An agreement explicitly reached can be explicitly >> abandoned, but one's experience of one's partner's bidding >> tendencies cannot be "un-experienced". > > Richard Hills, 15th December 2010, quibbles: > > My advice to Donald and Eric is "pull the other one, it's got > bells on!" because Law 40B2(a) concludes with this bracketed > exception: > > (such a regulation must not restrict > style and judgement, only method). > > The known knowns of partner's _style and judgement_ are fully > legal and the partnership does not get "poisoned". > > If, however, the known knowns of partner's _methods_ include an > implicit partnership understanding that pard will use unLawful > pseudo-psyches, then the partnership does not get "poisoned" if > pard repents her infractions and eschews future pseudo-psyches. > > It is an unknown known that I enjoy psyching; but it is a known > unknown that I have severely reduced my psyche strike rate in > the past few years. The reduction was to minimise any chance > that one of my attempts at psyching would actually be deemed to > be a pseudo-psychic implicit partnership understanding. > > What's the unknown unknown problem? > > In my opinion, the problem is that Eric's long-standing hobby- > horse has been resolved by the 2008 Laws 40B and 40C1, but not > resolved in a way that Eric would prefer. C'est la vie. > > Merry Christmas and a Hobby-Horse New Year I have told the story of the origin of this particular "hobby-horse" so many times that I apologize to those who are tired of reading it. One day many years ago, a regular partner and I were sitting around idly discussing bidding theory, as we often did. The discussion wandered into the theory behind handling insufficient bids -- what, for example, was the difference between accepting an IB of say, 2S-2H-, and bidding 3S, versus refusing to accept and then bidding 3S over the (then-) inevitable 3H replacement call. Not long after, an opponent made an IB at the table, partner accepted it and jumped, and I alerted; the opponents asked, and I recounted the substance of our prior discussion. The director was called, and informed us that we were in violation of an ACBL regulation that prohibited any partnership agreements as to the "special meaning" of calls made over opponents' irregularities. I argued that we had the discussion we had, couldn't "un-have" it, and hence my only choices were to inform the opponents of relevant knowledge that I had that they didn't, or to keep it to myself, and that one of those (presumably the former, obviously) had be legal. This didn't impress the TD, who awarded A+/A-. The AC was similarly unimpressed. Their bottom line was that "they'd let us get away with it this time, but we were never to do it again". What, we asked, was it exactly that were never to do again: discuss bidding theory (but what if it had previously come up at the table without prior discussion?)? provide the opponents with disclosure when we had relevant information they didn't? continue the auction the next time an insufficient bid was made against us? play as a partnership -- seemingly the only way to avoid a potential recurrence? The committee's response was that the hearing was over, and we should go home. We remain constrained by this long-ago ruling "never to do it again", but in over 30 years I have yet to determine just what "it" is that we're never supposed to do again. Richard's opinion to the contrary, I don't see how the latest rewrite of L40 does anything to solve this particular dilemma. Deleting knowledge gained from partnership experience from one's brain is not the same thing as deleting an explicit partnership agreement from one's system notes, and it can only create problems for the laws to fail to recognize the difference. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 15 16:29:09 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53754.31256.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau] One day many years ago, a regular partner and I were sitting around idly discussing bidding theory, as we often did. The discussion wandered into the theory behind handling insufficient bids -- what, for example, was the difference between accepting an IB of say, 2S-2H-, and bidding 3S, versus refusing to accept and then bidding 3S over the (then-) inevitable 3H replacement call. Not long after, an opponent made an IB at the table, partner accepted it and jumped, and I alerted; the opponents asked, and I recounted the substance of our prior discussion. The director was called, and informed us that we were in violation of an ACBL regulation that prohibited any partnership agreements as to the "special meaning" of calls made over opponents' irregularities. I argued that we had the discussion we had, couldn't "un-have" it, and hence my only choices were to inform the opponents of relevant knowledge that I had that they didn't, or to keep it to myself, and that one of those (presumably the former, obviously) had be legal. This didn't impress the TD, who awarded A+/A-. [Nigel] Sometimes it is obvious to vary your methods over an opponent's infraction, even with a strange partner and without discussion. For example partner deals but LHO opens 4H out of turn. The director tells partner his options and he chooses to accept the bid and doubles it. Even if this double would normally be for take-out it is obviously penalty in this context. And if you ever discuss similar contingencies, then you will have more comprehensive understandings. As usual, the solution is not even more incomprehensible, complex, convoluted, and sophisticated law. Such problems would disappear if the law were simplified: - the law should not provide the option of accepting a insufficient bid or a call out of turn. In fact, if you attempt to accept it, that should be an infraction. - The law-breaker's illegal call should be cancelled and his partner silenced throughout. A simple fair law that players and directors could understand :) From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 15 16:46:27 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:46:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <53754.31256.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <53754.31256.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e201cb9c6f$3c105f80$b4311e80$@nl> [Eric Landau] I argued that we had the discussion we had, couldn't "un-have" it, and hence my only choices were to inform the opponents of relevant knowledge that I had that they didn't, or to keep it to myself, and that one of those (presumably the former, obviously) had be legal. This didn't impress the TD, who awarded A+/A-. [Hans] Sometimes I wonder how it is to play bridge in the USA. I did, a couple of times, but never seriously. Then again, it seems playing seriously is not appreciated anyway. Hans From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Dec 15 19:19:39 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:19:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D0906BB.3050205@comcast.net> On 12/14/10 4:59 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Almost every so-called "baby psyche" is actually a pre- > existing mutual implicit partnership understanding. So, if > undisclosed, such a "baby psyche" is a CPU infraction of Law > 40B4. But even if disclosed, the two-way meaning of > > WEST NORTH EAST > 1H X 1S = either spades, or weak with hearts > > makes it entirely legal for ACBL land to deem the "baby > psyche" to be a Special Partnership Understanding and to > rule that even a fully disclosed "baby psyche" is a banned > infraction of Law 40B5. Maybe so, but then they would be contradicting the permission granted via the ACBL General Convention Chart, which authorizes free rein to defenses to conventional calls, provided the primary purpose is not to destroy opponents' methods. (1NT opening bids and overcalls that violate the ACBL's sensitivities w/r/t opening ranges do impose some exceptions, as do some weak 2-bids.) Since the ACBL has said it's OK to bid a short suit when running from 1NT-(x), planning to redouble for takeout if the short-suit bid gets doubled, it would be inconsistent for it to rule against an alerted, rather similar agreement that 1H-(X)-1S "may be very weak with heart support." Note that these understandings/conventions both have constructive elements. --Bob Park From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Wed Dec 15 21:46:40 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:46:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Alain Gottcheiner Le 14/12/2010 15:47, Eric Landau a ?crit : > Because it also could be -- and has been -- described as an "agreement > [] whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? methods", > illegal under even the Superchart. This provision has been used > primarily to ban any method with even a vague hint of "psych" to it. > AG : totally ridiculous. With this criterion, you'd ban preepmts. Not really. Or at least not by most players. Listen to the vast majority of players discuss their preempts and they do so in a constructive manner. I know that makes no sense from the theoretical point of view, but the intent is descriptive not obstructive for the vast majority of players. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 23:32:58 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:32:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >One day many years ago, a regular partner and I were sitting >around idly discussing bidding theory, as we often did. The >discussion wandered into the theory behind handling >insufficient bids [snip] >We remain constrained by this long-ago ruling "never to do >it again", but in over 30 years I have yet to determine just >what "it" is that we're never supposed to do again. >Richard's opinion to the contrary, I don't see how the >latest rewrite of L40 does anything to solve this particular >dilemma. [snip] 2008 Law 40B3: "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity." +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Scenario A Eric NORTH Eric's partner 1S 2H X = negative, by partnership agreement Eric NORTH Eric's partner 1S 1H X = negative, by partnership agreement Result: An unvarying understanding, cannot be disallowed +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Scenario B Eric NORTH Eric's partner 1S 2H X = negative, by partnership agreement Eric NORTH Eric's partner 1S 1H X = penalty, by partnership agreement Result: A varying understanding, may be (and is) disallowed +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Scenario Syllogisms 1. Concealed Partnership Understandings are illegal 2. Psyches are legal 3. Concealed Partnership Understandings we rename Psyches 4. ergo our Concealed Partnership Understandings are legal 1. Concealed Partnership Understandings are illegal 2. we do not field our Concealed Partnership Understandings 3. ergo our Concealed Partnership Understandings are legal 1. Concealed Partnership Understandings are illegal 2. all of our Partnership Understandings are revealed 3. ergo all of our Partnership Understandings are legal 1. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid 2. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid 3. ergo we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 16 00:19:28 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:19:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53754.31256.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Friedrich Nietzche: "Some people do not become thinkers simply because their memories are too good." Nigel Guthrie: > ... For example partner deals but LHO opens 4H out of turn. The >director tells partner his options and he chooses to accept the >bid and doubles it. Even if this double would normally be for >take-out it is obviously penalty in this context. ... Richard Hills: "Obviously"??? I am obviously not a thinker, since my good memory recalls this exact scenario being debated on blml a few years ago. And then I gave this obvious counter-example -> Strong three-suited hands are notoriously difficult to bid (one version of Blue Club incorporated a special call for such hands). So holding 4-1-4-4 with 17 hcp pard would prefer a completely descriptive takeout double of 4H to starting with a very non- descriptive 1C (or 1D, depending on partnership methods) opening bid which is going to face a 4H later preempt in any case. Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 16 01:58:18 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:58:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <163855899.247008.1292359117680.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <163855899.247008.1292359117680.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D09642A.2020903@nhcc.net> On 12/14/2010 3:38 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > System notes are evidence of an agreement. > But just as with any other evidence, contradictory > stronger evidence can exist. I think this is the best summary I've yet seen. It's often helpful to imagine what a "perfect" explanation would have been. Perhaps, in the original case, it might have been something like "The system notes say X, but we haven't played together in awhile, and partner occasionally forgets agreements that don't come up a lot, and this situation is one that doesn't come up a lot." Now judge whether, having received a perfect explanation, the NOS would have done anything different. (In most of the world, you can weight possible results.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 16 02:27:07 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:27:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D09642A.2020903@nhcc.net> References: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <163855899.247008.1292359117680.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <4D09642A.2020903@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:58:18 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 12/14/2010 3:38 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> System notes are evidence of an agreement. >> But just as with any other evidence, contradictory >> stronger evidence can exist. > > I think this is the best summary I've yet seen. > > It's often helpful to imagine what a "perfect" explanation would have > been. Perhaps, in the original case, it might have been something like > "The system notes say X, but we haven't played together in awhile, and > partner occasionally forgets agreements that don't come up a lot, and > this situation is one that doesn't come up a lot." Now judge whether, > having received a perfect explanation, the NOS would have done anything > different. (In most of the world, you can weight possible results.) I would not accept this as an explanation of the partnership agreements. To be more exact, I would happily send the player away from the table and have his partner explain what he thought the system agreement was. I am pretty sure people cannot give an explanation like "I am 90% sure our agreement is....". Wouldn't that lead to chaos? How would anyone ever rule Mistaken explanation? From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 16 06:24:03 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 06:24:03 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1774182614.49514.1292477043379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 1. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid > 2. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid > 3. ergo we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid I believe such a regulation to conflict with TFLB. L27A1 gives LHO the choice between accepting and not accepting an IB. Such regulations take away the right to accept the IB through the back door. Example: Assume I play that over 1D pass 4NT(RKCB) 5H double shows an even number of aces, and pass shows an odd number of aces. 1S pass 4NT(RKCB) 4H(IB, accepted). Is opener now supposed to double with an even number of aces? Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 16 10:26:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:26:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <4D0799B8.5010402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D09DB2B.905@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/12/2010 22:51, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 14/12/2010 15:47, Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> >>>> Why do you say illegal? It could be described as a conventional >>>> defense to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. >>> Because it also could be -- and has been -- described as an >>> "agreement >>> [] whose primary purpose is to destroy the >>> opponents? methods", illegal under even the Superchart. This >>> provision has been used primarily to ban any method with even a vague >>> hint of "psych" to it. >> AG : totally ridiculous. With this criterion, you'd ban preepmts. > Totally ridiculous indeed. And although the ACBL hasn't (as yet) > banned preempts altogether, they have, histrorically, used this > criterion, or one very much like it, to set arbitrary limits on > them. At one time, for example, opening a weak two-bid with less > than 5 HCP AG : I remember that when this was made, Jeff Rubens wrote about how ridiculous those limitations were, giving the example of the new, absurd, and hopefully quick forgotten Dutch regulation that was to become Law of 19 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 16 15:36:33 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:36:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:32 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >> One day many years ago, a regular partner and I were sitting >> around idly discussing bidding theory, as we often did. The >> discussion wandered into the theory behind handling >> insufficient bids > > [snip] > >> We remain constrained by this long-ago ruling "never to do >> it again", but in over 30 years I have yet to determine just >> what "it" is that we're never supposed to do again. >> Richard's opinion to the contrary, I don't see how the >> latest rewrite of L40 does anything to solve this particular >> dilemma. > > [snip] > > 2008 Law 40B3: > > "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a > partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or > play following a question asked, a response to a question, or > any irregularity." > > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > > Scenario A > > Eric NORTH Eric's partner > 1S 2H X = negative, by partnership agreement > > Eric NORTH Eric's partner > 1S 1H X = negative, by partnership agreement > > Result: An unvarying understanding, cannot be disallowed > > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > > Scenario B > > Eric NORTH Eric's partner > 1S 2H X = negative, by partnership agreement > > Eric NORTH Eric's partner > 1S 1H X = penalty, by partnership agreement > > Result: A varying understanding, may be (and is) disallowed > > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > > Scenario Syllogisms > > 1. Concealed Partnership Understandings are illegal > 2. Psyches are legal > 3. Concealed Partnership Understandings we rename Psyches > 4. ergo our Concealed Partnership Understandings are legal > > 1. Concealed Partnership Understandings are illegal > 2. we do not field our Concealed Partnership Understandings > 3. ergo our Concealed Partnership Understandings are legal > > 1. Concealed Partnership Understandings are illegal > 2. all of our Partnership Understandings are revealed > 3. ergo all of our Partnership Understandings are legal > > 1. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid > 2. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid > 3. ergo we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid Richard has the story wrong. Nobody "varied their methods" after an insufficient bid. Nobody "invented" any new agreements, or agreed to any "variations", that applied after an IB. All we did is discuss bidding theory: how our agreed general "meta- rules" (e.g. jumps show more than non-jumps) plus obvious common sense (if you can double them at either of two levels, the higher level must be for penalty, and the lower level something else) would apply after in IB by an opponent, assuming (a near-certainty at the time) that an opponent given an opportunity to make a penalty-free correction would do so (this was, of course, before L27B1(b)). The discussion added nothing new or different to our system or methods. Nevertheless, the discussion did refine our understanding of the meaning of auctions subsequent to an opponent's IB, did put me in the position of having to decide whether or not to share this refined understanding with our opponents when the situation arose, did get me an adverse adjustment that I could have avoided by saying nothing, and did result in the committee placing our partnership under a permanent injunction never again to do something that they were unable or unwilling to specify. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 16 16:17:56 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:17:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/12/2010 15:36, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:32 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Eric Landau: >> >> [snip] >> >>> One day many years ago, a regular partner and I were sitting >>> around idly discussing bidding theory, as we often did. The >>> discussion wandered into the theory behind handling >>> insufficient bids >> [snip] >> >>> We remain constrained by this long-ago ruling "never to do >>> it again", but in over 30 years I have yet to determine just >>> what "it" is that we're never supposed to do again. >>> Richard's opinion to the contrary, I don't see how the >>> latest rewrite of L40 does anything to solve this particular >>> dilemma. >> [snip] >> >> 2008 Law 40B3: >> >> "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a >> partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or >> play following a question asked, a response to a question, or >> any irregularity." >> >> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ >> >> Scenario A >> >> Eric NORTH Eric's partner >> 1S 2H X = negative, by partnership agreement >> >> Eric NORTH Eric's partner >> 1S 1H X = negative, by partnership agreement >> >> Result: An unvarying understanding, cannot be disallowed >> >> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ >> >> Scenario B >> >> Eric NORTH Eric's partner >> 1S 2H X = negative, by partnership agreement >> >> Eric NORTH Eric's partner >> 1S 1H X = penalty, by partnership agreement >> >> Result: A varying understanding, may be (and is) disallowed >> >> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ >> >> Scenario Syllogisms >> >> 1. Concealed Partnership Understandings are illegal >> 2. Psyches are legal >> 3. Concealed Partnership Understandings we rename Psyches >> 4. ergo our Concealed Partnership Understandings are legal >> >> 1. Concealed Partnership Understandings are illegal >> 2. we do not field our Concealed Partnership Understandings >> 3. ergo our Concealed Partnership Understandings are legal >> >> 1. Concealed Partnership Understandings are illegal >> 2. all of our Partnership Understandings are revealed >> 3. ergo all of our Partnership Understandings are legal >> >> 1. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid >> 2. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid >> 3. ergo we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid > Richard has the story wrong. > > Nobody "varied their methods" after an insufficient bid. > > Nobody "invented" any new agreements, or agreed to any "variations", > that applied after an IB. > > All we did is discuss bidding theory: how our agreed general "meta- > rules" (e.g. jumps show more than non-jumps) plus obvious common > sense (if you can double them at either of two levels, the higher > level must be for penalty, and the lower level something else) would > apply after in IB by an opponent, assuming (a near-certainty at the > time) that an opponent given an opportunity to make a penalty-free > correction would do so (this was, of course, before L27B1(b)). The > discussion added nothing new or different to our system or methods. AG : granted, but substracting elements from your system could be constructed as "varying one's agreements" too. The problem is even more compound : say you play lebensohl after a 1NT opening. It can also be described as "lebensohl 2NT". Now consider the following situation : 2NT (2H). You might as well pretend you don't change anything by playing lebensohl (that will be a 2NT bid, right ?), or that you don't change anything by not playing it (that's after 1NT only, right ?) ... and a grumbler might consider either as "changing one's methods".for criss-crossed reasons. Perhaps "changing one's methods" can't be defined after all; Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 16 16:47:21 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:47:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0A3489.7000709@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/12/2010 15:36, Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ >> >> Scenario A >> >> Eric NORTH Eric's partner >> 1S 2H X = negative, by partnership agreement >> >> Eric NORTH Eric's partner >> 1S 1H X = negative, by partnership agreement >> >> Result: An unvarying understanding, cannot be disallowed >> >> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ >> >> Scenario B >> >> Eric NORTH Eric's partner >> 1S 2H X = negative, by partnership agreement >> >> Eric NORTH Eric's partner >> 1S 1H X = penalty, by partnership agreement >> >> Result: A varying understanding, may be (and is) disallowed >> AG : don't agree. If your agreement was that "penalties is the default value for undiscussed doubles", scenario B would be conform to your system, whence not called a change in methods. And in that case, A would arguably be suspect, because it would mean that the situation had been at least somewhat discussed. Even more tricly, if you played take-out doubles after 1C (1H) but penalty doubles after 1S (2H) (my own agreement BTW), it would be impossible to assess against which part of the system the present situation should be checked, as it contains a bit of both. . In fact, this is a good example of what I meant in my previous post, that is, there are cases when both options may be considered non-changes, and, worse, both may be considered changes, leaving you with no legal options. Best regards Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 16 17:23:04 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:23:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> On 12/16/2010 10:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Perhaps "changing one's methods" can't be defined after all; Of course it can be defined, but it doesn't in general mean that different auctions have to have the same meaning. As far as I can tell, what the ACBL requires is that in the auction (say) 1S-(1H oops 2H), calls must have the same meaning as they would in 1S-(2H) with no irregularity. As Alain says in his subsequent message, the auctions 1C-(1H), 1C-(2H), 1S-(2H), and 1S-(1H accepted) are entirely different from each other, and it's perfectly reasonable to have different agreements for each case. I see nothing in the ACBL regulation that prohibits that, though as always with the ACBL, no one can be certain. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 16 17:58:31 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:58:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <163855899.247008.1292359117680.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <4D09642A.2020903@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4D0A4537.4000408@nhcc.net> >> It's often helpful to imagine what a "perfect" explanation would have >> been. Perhaps, in the original case, it might have been something like >> "The system notes say X, but we haven't played together in awhile, and >> partner occasionally forgets agreements that don't come up a lot, and >> this situation is one that doesn't come up a lot." On 12/15/2010 8:27 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I would not accept this as an explanation of the partnership agreements. > To be more exact, I would happily send the player away from the table and > have his partner explain what he thought the system agreement was. The original case was behind screens, so that last doesn't apply, but I have a very practical interest in the "no screens" situation. With one occasional partner, I play "KSU straight from the online notes." He remembers the notes 100%; I remember about 95%. The things I forget come up probably less than once per session, but they do occur. What, in your view, would be a correct explanation of our agreements? In particular, what should my partner say in one of the rare situations where I might have forgotten, but he doesn't know whether I have or not this time? And what do you expect me to say if you send him away from the table? > I am pretty sure people cannot give an explanation like "I am 90% sure our > agreement is....". Nobody has suggested that. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 16 18:56:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:56:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 12/16/2010 10:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Perhaps "changing one's methods" can't be defined after all; > > Of course it can be defined, but it doesn't in general mean that > different auctions have to have the same meaning. As far as I can > tell, > what the ACBL requires is that in the auction (say) 1S-(1H oops 2H), > calls must have the same meaning as they would in 1S-(2H) with no > irregularity. There are two problems with this view. We can define, as Steve does, what it means to "not change your methods" in the auction 1S - 1H, not accepted, corrected to 2H - 2S (viz. 2S must have the same meaning as in 1S-2H-2S), but the obligation imposed by the ACBL also applies to 1S - 1H, accepted - 1S, or to 1S - 1H, accepted - 2S, where there is no corresponding auction lacking the IB, so that just doesn't work. In order to "not change your methods" in the sense of Steve's definition, you must decline to accept any IB, and the ACBL doesn't (one hopes) have the regulatory authority to outlaw accepting an IB. Even on the auction where it works, it would prohibit you from "just playing bridge". When your partner refuses to accept the IB and then bids 2S over 2H, you are necessarily aware of the fact that he might have chosen to accept the IB and bid some number of spades over it (including 1). I don't see how an RA can prohibit you from thinking about what partner might have done had he accepted the IB, or taking account of its implications as to the choice he actually made. > As Alain says in his subsequent message, the auctions 1C-(1H), 1C- > (2H), > 1S-(2H), and 1S-(1H accepted) are entirely different from each other, > and it's perfectly reasonable to have different agreements for each > case. I see nothing in the ACBL regulation that prohibits that, > though > as always with the ACBL, no one can be certain. The ACBL regulation prohibits *any agreement whatsoever* as to the meaning of calls subsequent to opponents' irregularities. That would perforce include *any agreement whatsoever* as to the meaning of any call after 1S-1H, whether accepted or not. Yet, as Steve says, the auctions 1C-1H, 1S-2H and 1S-1H "are entirely different from each other", which means that Alain is correct to argue that requiring you "not to change your methods" when you encounter the auction 1S-1H "can't be defined after all". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 16 19:23:03 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:23:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D0A4537.4000408@nhcc.net> References: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <163855899.247008.1292359117680.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <4D09642A.2020903@nhcc.net> <4D0A4537.4000408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:58:31 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >>> It's often helpful to imagine what a "perfect" explanation would have >>> been. Perhaps, in the original case, it might have been something like >>> "The system notes say X, but we haven't played together in awhile, and >>> partner occasionally forgets agreements that don't come up a lot, and >>> this situation is one that doesn't come up a lot." > > On 12/15/2010 8:27 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> I would not accept this as an explanation of the partnership agreements. >> To be more exact, I would happily send the player away from the table >> and >> have his partner explain what he thought the system agreement was. > > The original case was behind screens, so that last doesn't apply, but I > have a very practical interest in the "no screens" situation. With one > occasional partner, I play "KSU straight from the online notes." He > remembers the notes 100%; I remember about 95%. The things I forget > come up probably less than once per session, but they do occur. > > What, in your view, would be a correct explanation of our agreements? > In particular, what should my partner say in one of the rare situations > where I might have forgotten, but he doesn't know whether I have or not > this time? And what do you expect me to say if you send him away from > the table? > >> I am pretty sure people cannot give an explanation like "I am 90% sure >> our >> agreement is....". > > Nobody has suggested that. I was reading it wrong. Sorry. To be technical, your agreement is what it says in the online notes, assuming there is no contradiction. Your partner is not required to add about the probability of you forgetting. Right? It seems generous that he does, although at least in theory that gives you useful information. (You know you shouldn't make a potentially confusing bid on your next turn to call; for example, you bid 2D, your partner describes that as probably a transfer; now would be a bad time to show diamonds as a second suit.) From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 16 21:05:50 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:05:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0A711E.5050706@nhcc.net> On 12/16/2010 12:56 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > We can define, as Steve does, what it means to "not change your > methods" in the auction 1S - 1H, not accepted, corrected to 2H - 2S > (viz. 2S must have the same meaning as in 1S-2H-2S) Yes. > but the > obligation imposed by the ACBL also applies to 1S - 1H, accepted - > 1S, or to 1S - 1H, accepted - 2S, where there is no corresponding > auction lacking the IB, What "obligation" applies there? As you say, these auctions are entirely different from any auction lacking an IB. Why should agreements be the same or even similar? The ACBL regulation is unclear, but interpreting it this way makes no sense. > In order to "not > change your methods" in the sense of Steve's definition, you must > decline to accept any IB, Not at all. We're allowed to have different methods over 1S-(2C) than 1S-(3C) because these are different auctions. Why is the rule any different for 1S-(1C)? Read Alain's message again. > Even on the auction where it works, it would prohibit you from "just > playing bridge". When your partner refuses to accept the IB and then > bids 2S over 2H, you are necessarily aware of the fact that he might > have chosen to accept the IB and bid some number of spades over it > (including 1). I don't see how an RA can prohibit you from thinking > about what partner might have done had he accepted the IB, or taking > account of its implications as to the choice he actually made. This is a good point; there will certainly be negative inferences even when the auction is (by regulation) the same. My view is that the regulation applies to the basic meaning of various actions (strong/weak or penalty/takeout) and not to the negative inferences, but I have not seen any official interpretation. (My personal preference would be to scrap the regulation altogether, but nobody at the ACBL cares what I think.) > The ACBL regulation prohibits *any agreement whatsoever* as to the > meaning of calls subsequent to opponents' irregularities. Huh?! Are you thinking of the old regulation that was rescinded in, I think, 1997? The current regulation says nothing of the kind. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 16 21:15:49 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:15:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <163855899.247008.1292359117680.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <4D09642A.2020903@nhcc.net> <4D0A4537.4000408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4D0A7375.3060608@nhcc.net> On 12/16/2010 1:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > To be technical, your agreement is what it says in the online notes, > assuming there is no contradiction. Your partner is not required to add > about the probability of you forgetting. That's the question being debated in this thread. Our _explicit_ agreement is the online notes, but we both have full knowledge and will allow for the fact that I sometimes forget. In my view, opponents are entitled to know our tacit agreement about this. > at least in theory that gives you useful information. Any of partner's explanations can give UI; nothing new here. Obviously it would be better if I remembered the notes 100%, but the issue for BLML is the legal position if I don't. There _must_ be some 100% legal explanation we could in principle give our opponents (though I may be incapable of giving it at the table by reason of faulty memory). The question is what that "perfect" explanation would be. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 16 22:39:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:39:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0A711E.5050706@nhcc.net> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> <4D0A711E.5050706@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <397AF731-CFAF-4B22-A7AA-1D94AC590117@starpower.net> On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 12/16/2010 12:56 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> The ACBL regulation prohibits *any agreement whatsoever* as to the >> meaning of calls subsequent to opponents' irregularities. > > Huh?! Are you thinking of the old regulation that was rescinded in, I > think, 1997? The current regulation says nothing of the kind. I guess I must be, as I was unaware that that regulation had been rescinded and replaced. My "never do it again" anecdote, which I posted to this thread, took place in the 1970s; that was the regulation at the time, and the one that was cited by the committee. Am I now free of that decades-old obligation; may I now "do it again", whatever it was? Steve's explanation of the current regulation at least means that now one can accept an insufficient bid without perforce breaking the rules by manifesting an illegal "partnership experience". But it still outlaws clear and obvious "bridge logic". If my agreement is that 1S-2H-X is for takeout ("negative"), I'm allowed to play 1S-1H (accepted)-X for penalty while "continuing" to play 1S-(1H declined) 2H-X for takeout, but not allowed to play the double of 1H for takeout and of 2H for penalty!? That is so patently perverse and illogical that I would expect any partner above the rank beginner level, ignorant of the silly rules, to work out that the latter (which is prohibited) must be correct, as the alternative (which is permitted) is obvious lunacy. I humbly request that Steve (or anyone else) either post the current regulation or provide a pointer to a published version on the net. Thank you. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 03:24:16 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:24:16 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <397AF731-CFAF-4B22-A7AA-1D94AC590117@starpower.net> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> <4D0A711E.5050706@nhcc.net> <397AF731-CFAF-4B22-A7AA-1D94AC590117@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Am I now free of that decades-old obligation; may I now "do it > again", whatever it was? Yes, I believe so, though for a reason having nothing nothing to do with the new laws. Personally, I would have assumed I was free of the obligation the instant they refused to elaborate on what I was not allowed to "do again." If they cannot articulate and clarity what you cannot do, why imagine that their statement means anything whatsoever? Indeed, I have had three similar statements by ACBL directors at regionals and nationals, and in all cases, their unwillingness to clarify when asked what they meant led to my assuming that there was no binding obligation on my part. If they cannot clarify a direct question, why imagine it means anything? They are obviously embarrassed that their statement has no logical meaning. But what I really want to know is this: Did you manage to have this sort of thing happen only once in the ABCL? From our personal conversations, I know that you have played more often in the ACBL than I have. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 03:44:59 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:44:59 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>>> Of course if you are aware of your partner's tendencies >>>> to psyche in certain auctions, or you run into a bidding >>>> sequence where your system makes a psyche low risk, >>>> that has to be disclosed to opponents. >>>> >>>> But that does not make the psyches illegal. And they exist >>>> in natural systems, too. Say, >>>> 1H X 1S >>>> Here, responder's 1S quite frequently is a psyche. >>> >>> That's not, however, the way things work in the ACBL, where even this >>> common and well-known "baby psych", once perpetrated within a >>> partnership, immediately morphs into an illegal implicit agreement, >>> which, as such, may not be repeated. >> >> Why do you say illegal? ?It could be described as a conventional >> defense to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. > > Because it also could be -- and has been -- described as an "agreement > [] whose primary purpose is to destroy the > opponents? methods", illegal under even the Superchart. ?This > provision has been used primarily to ban any method with even a vague > hint of "psych" to it. > I see what you mean. I would have agreed with you, Eric, had you written, "immediately morphs into a might-be-deemed-illegal implicit agreement." I suppose that almost any unusual agreement can be ruled illegal by almost any ACBL director at any time if he decides it might "destroy the opponents' methods"---whatever that means. How about the agreement that 3S in 1S-X-3S is preemptive? If 3S is not designed to destroy the opponents' methods, I don't know what is. My hypothesis is that the only reason that that 3S it is allowed in the ACBL by all directors is because it is so widely employed. Eric, your original statement was that this possibility of 1S in 1H-X-1S was an "implicit illegal agreement" not that it "might be deemed an illegal implicit agreement." There is a world of difference between "might be deemed illegal" and "is illegal." I would guess that most directors would allow 1S after 1H-X- to possibly not show spades, if that was disclosed with adequate precision. Do you think I am wrong? Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Dec 17 04:42:14 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:42:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <397AF731-CFAF-4B22-A7AA-1D94AC590117@starpower.net> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> <4D0A711E.5050706@nhcc.net> <397AF731-CFAF-4B22-A7AA-1D94AC590117@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0ADC16.7000705@nhcc.net> On 12/16/2010 4:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Am I now free of that decades-old obligation; may I now "do it > again", whatever it was? Heh! Yes, I think a change of regulation means you are off the hook to obey the old one. The new one is in _Duplicate Decisions_, on the web at http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/clubs/Duplicate-Decisions-2008.pdf "Partnerships may not vary their agreements during the auction or play period following a question, a response or any irregularity." > If my agreement is > that 1S-2H-X is for takeout ("negative"), I'm allowed to play 1S-1H > (accepted)-X for penalty while "continuing" to play 1S-(1H declined) > 2H-X for takeout, That's how I read it, anyway. Though to be blunt, I am not confident of my chances if my opponent is an ACBL official. > but not allowed to play the double of 1H for > takeout and of 2H for penalty!? The first seems to be legal but not the second. > That is so patently perverse and > illogical that I would expect any partner above the rank beginner > level, ignorant of the silly rules, to work out that the latter > (which is prohibited) must be correct, as the alternative (which is > permitted) is obvious lunacy. Accepting the IB and doubling for penalty is, I thought, the traditional rubber bridge meaning. Lunacy it may be, but it's what I'd play. If you have a penalty double, the IBer might well not bid at the higher level. But as we all know, ACBL rules aren't always logical. Personally, I'd allow any agreement (subject to the normal convention chart) after an IB, but nobody asked me. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 17 10:15:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:15:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4D0B2A2F.1050904@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/12/2010 17:23, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 12/16/2010 10:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Perhaps "changing one's methods" can't be defined after all; > Of course it can be defined, but it doesn't in general mean that > different auctions have to have the same meaning. As far as I can tell, > what the ACBL requires is that in the auction (say) 1S-(1H oops 2H), > calls must have the same meaning as they would in 1S-(2H) with no > irregularity. AG : whence it is disallowed to make them pay for not seeing that partner opened, by having a crack at 2H. How ridiculous. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 17 11:14:25 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:14:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0B3801.8030104@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/12/2010 3:44, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > Eric, your original statement was that this possibility of 1S in > 1H-X-1S was an "implicit illegal agreement" not that it "might be > deemed an illegal implicit agreement." There is a world of difference > between "might be deemed illegal" and "is illegal." AG : of course, in texts. But in practice you'll be wary to use it in both cases. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 17 14:00:17 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:00:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D076BAB.6070409@ulb.ac.be> <1351236787.213754.1292327778324.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <163855899.247008.1292359117680.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <4D09642A.2020903@nhcc.net> <4D0A4537.4000408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4D0B5EE1.5080605@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > To be technical, your agreement is what it says in the online notes, > assuming there is no contradiction. Your partner is not required to add > about the probability of you forgetting. Right? It seems generous that he > does, although at least in theory that gives you useful information. (You > know you shouldn't make a potentially confusing bid on your next turn to > call; for example, you bid 2D, your partner describes that as probably a > transfer; now would be a bad time to show diamonds as a second suit.) Which is precisely what you should therefore do! And what the TD will impose on you (and impose a pass on partner) in case you don't do it - when you have that second suit. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 17 15:04:42 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:04:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L15C References: <1PSa8E-13cMaG0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de><11CA421425B04421B5F34F3EEFA621C5@Mildred> Message-ID: <5ADC9EC562724E66B337546CF0A264D9@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L15C > Hi all, > > I was the director at the table, and it seems that you're missing the > point. > > > When NS first played the board, there was no double, when they re-started > against the right opponents, they doubled. The double seemed reasonable in > MP's, the doubler having KJTxxx over dummy's suit, the trump ace and a > side > king (so maybe this is more than reasonable). But the doubler may have > noticed some irregularity, since the TD was watching the auction. > > He is clearly the NOS, he is just doubling normally, but he gets 60% > instead > of 100%, what 6H doubled -2 would have scored. > > I gave them 60, opponents 40, what the Laws say, they appealed. They said > that maybe the text of the laws sounds like this (I've shown him 15C), but > not the spirit. > > Could you give them more than 60% according to the (spirit of the) Laws, > and > would you, if you could? After you've given your opinion, I'll tell you > what > the appeals committee gave. > > Adam Magyar > +=+ The picture we were given was this: ........................................................................................ " N-S are bidding the hand (pairs) and finish in 6 H ? all passed when E-W players are realizing they are at the wrong table. The proper E-W arrives and the bidding starts again. N-S applying the same bids arrive to 6 H but it is doubled. Now you apply L15C, the hand cannot be played. How would you score it if - 6 H can always fulfilled - 6 H is down only on one lead (let?s say any club, not obvious from the OL?s hand, as he does not have AK, or KQJ from the suit) - 6 H is always down on any lead " ........................................................................................., It looks as though the only real question is what to do when 6H is down on any lead. Is this not so? There is no doubt the board must be cancelled. It may be considered that owing to the irregularity no result can be obtained on the board. If so Law 12C2 applies. In that case unless Law 12C2(c) applies the adjusted score will be as Law 12C2(a) provides. The Director has to determine whether under the applicable regulations (Conditions of Contest) NS are deemed responsible or partly responsible for the irregularity - did the regulations specify that they had a duty to establish that the right opponents were seated (or had the Director given any such prior instruction)? This will determine the basis for the NS adjustment. It is within the bounds of possibility that both sides were non-offending, in which case, for those who think NS deserve 6S-1 and EW should get 100%, neither side will receive its just deserts. But to quote the WBF CTD, "we're still in the Auction Period as there hasn't been an opening lead, so surely the board has to be cancelled regardless of whether 6Hx is making/going off/might make". So stop wriggling and just do what the law says. I paused to consider whether, since the auction was twice complete, it could be argued that an assigned adjusted score should be awarded. However, with no play having occurred this seems too broad a reading of the 12C1(a) phrase "the score obtained in play". Until the board is played out no score is obtained. But it might be argued and is maybe something to look at in another place. There is nothing in the law that authorizes the Director or the TAC to exercise some kind of discretion or sympathy vote and go outside of the law. If the TAC did some such thing it should be overturned upon reference to the national authority. If he believes this is the situation the Director may refer the matter to the national authority under Law 81C7 even if there is no further appeal by either side. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 17 15:19:51 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:19:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> <4D0A711E.5050706@nhcc.net> <397AF731-CFAF-4B22-A7AA-1D94AC590117@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Am I now free of that decades-old obligation; may I now "do it >> again", whatever it was? > > Yes, I believe so, though for a reason having nothing nothing to do > with the new laws. > > Personally, I would have assumed I was free of the obligation the > instant they refused to elaborate on what I was not allowed to "do > again." If they cannot articulate and clarity what you cannot do, why > imagine that their statement means anything whatsoever? I never have. But I don't really fault the committee; they were trying their best to apply a regulation that didn't really mean anything whatsoever. > Indeed, I have had three similar statements by ACBL directors at > regionals and nationals, and in all cases, their unwillingness to > clarify when asked what they meant led to my assuming that there was > no binding obligation on my part. If they cannot clarify a direct > question, why imagine it means anything? They are obviously > embarrassed that their statement has no logical meaning. > > But what I really want to know is this: Did you manage to have this > sort of thing happen only once in the ABCL? From our personal > conversations, I know that you have played more often in the ACBL than > I have. Well, it was only one conversation, with one particular partner, that created the incident, and it's not the sort of thing I was in the habit of doing all that often, so I have only the one relevant personal anecdote to report. And while it's probably true that I've played a lot more ACBL sessions than Jerry has, I suspect he beats me easily on ACBL sessions played since, say, the 1997 laws took effect. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 17 16:05:56 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:05:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That's not, however, the way things work in the ACBL, where even >>>> this >>>> common and well-known "baby psych", once perpetrated within a >>>> partnership, immediately morphs into an illegal implicit agreement, >>>> which, as such, may not be repeated. >>> >>> Why do you say illegal? It could be described as a conventional >>> defense to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. >> >> Because it also could be -- and has been -- described as an >> "agreement >> [] whose primary purpose is to destroy the >> opponents? methods", illegal under even the Superchart. This >> provision has been used primarily to ban any method with even a vague >> hint of "psych" to it. > > I see what you mean. > > I would have agreed with you, Eric, had you written, "immediately > morphs into a might-be-deemed-illegal implicit agreement." I suppose > that almost any unusual agreement can be ruled illegal by almost any > ACBL director at any time if he decides it might "destroy the > opponents' methods"---whatever that means. > > How about the agreement that 3S in 1S-X-3S is preemptive? If 3S is > not designed to destroy the opponents' methods, I don't know what is. > > My hypothesis is that the only reason that that 3S it is allowed in > the ACBL by all directors is because it is so widely employed. "Primary purpose" gives TPTB a lot of wiggle room. Some would say that the "primary purpose" of a method that preempts the opponents' auction is deemed "constructive" if the folks who run the ACBL use it, "destructive" if they do not wish to play against it. > Eric, your original statement was that this possibility of 1S in > 1H-X-1S was an "implicit illegal agreement" not that it "might be > deemed an illegal implicit agreement." There is a world of difference > between "might be deemed illegal" and "is illegal." > > I would guess that most directors would allow 1S after 1H-X- to > possibly not show spades, if that was disclosed with adequate > precision. Do you think I am wrong? I do. I think if you offered it as a two-way conventional method, 1S forcing, either natural with spades or weak with heart support and spade shortness, you would not be allowed to play it. Perhaps "some" directors would allow it, but "most" is almost certainlty a serious overbid. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 17 16:14:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:14:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0ADC16.7000705@nhcc.net> References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> <4D0A711E.5050706@nhcc.net> <397AF731-CFAF-4B22-A7AA-1D94AC590117@starpower.net> <4D0ADC16.7000705@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0E6DD125-69E9-438B-9C58-CA80DB77FB66@starpower.net> On Dec 16, 2010, at 10:42 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 12/16/2010 4:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Am I now free of that decades-old obligation; may I now "do it >> again", whatever it was? > > Heh! Yes, I think a change of regulation means you are off the > hook to > obey the old one. > > The new one is in _Duplicate Decisions_, on the web at > http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/clubs/Duplicate- > Decisions-2008.pdf > "Partnerships may not vary their agreements during > the auction or play period following a question, a response or any > irregularity." > >> If my agreement is >> that 1S-2H-X is for takeout ("negative"), I'm allowed to play 1S-1H >> (accepted)-X for penalty while "continuing" to play 1S-(1H declined) >> 2H-X for takeout, > > That's how I read it, anyway. Though to be blunt, I am not > confident of > my chances if my opponent is an ACBL official. > >> but not allowed to play the double of 1H for >> takeout and of 2H for penalty!? > > The first seems to be legal but not the second. > >> That is so patently perverse and >> illogical that I would expect any partner above the rank beginner >> level, ignorant of the silly rules, to work out that the latter >> (which is prohibited) must be correct, as the alternative (which is >> permitted) is obvious lunacy. > > Accepting the IB and doubling for penalty is, I thought, the > traditional > rubber bridge meaning. Lunacy it may be, but it's what I'd play. If > you have a penalty double, the IBer might well not bid at the higher > level. But as we all know, ACBL rules aren't always logical. > Personally, I'd allow any agreement (subject to the normal convention > chart) after an IB, but nobody asked me. It is not at all clear to me that the new regulation, with regard to agreements over irregularities, is in practice being interpreted as any different from the old one. It still fails to address what "vary [ing] their agreements" means in situations (such as after an accepted IB) where there are no existing "agreements" to be "varied". Steve's view is that such situations are not covered by the regulation, leaving partnerships to form whatever agreements they like for those situations, but I'd be very surprised if the regulators at the ACBL see things the same way. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Dec 17 16:23:18 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:23:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> On 12/17/10 10:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Eric Landau >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's not, however, the way things work in the ACBL, where even >>>>> this >>>>> common and well-known "baby psych", once perpetrated within a >>>>> partnership, immediately morphs into an illegal implicit agreement, >>>>> which, as such, may not be repeated. >>>> Why do you say illegal? It could be described as a conventional >>>> defense to a conventional call, perfectly legal under even the GCC. >>> Because it also could be -- and has been -- described as an >>> "agreement >>> [] whose primary purpose is to destroy the >>> opponents? methods", illegal under even the Superchart. This >>> provision has been used primarily to ban any method with even a vague >>> hint of "psych" to it. >> I see what you mean. >> >> I would have agreed with you, Eric, had you written, "immediately >> morphs into a might-be-deemed-illegal implicit agreement." I suppose >> that almost any unusual agreement can be ruled illegal by almost any >> ACBL director at any time if he decides it might "destroy the >> opponents' methods"---whatever that means. >> >> How about the agreement that 3S in 1S-X-3S is preemptive? If 3S is >> not designed to destroy the opponents' methods, I don't know what is. >> >> My hypothesis is that the only reason that that 3S it is allowed in >> the ACBL by all directors is because it is so widely employed. > "Primary purpose" gives TPTB a lot of wiggle room. Some would say > that the "primary purpose" of a method that preempts the opponents' > auction is deemed "constructive" if the folks who run the ACBL use > it, "destructive" if they do not wish to play against it. > >> Eric, your original statement was that this possibility of 1S in >> 1H-X-1S was an "implicit illegal agreement" not that it "might be >> deemed an illegal implicit agreement." There is a world of difference >> between "might be deemed illegal" and "is illegal." >> >> I would guess that most directors would allow 1S after 1H-X- to >> possibly not show spades, if that was disclosed with adequate >> precision. Do you think I am wrong? > I do. I think if you offered it as a two-way conventional method, 1S > forcing, either natural with spades or weak with heart support and > spade shortness, you would not be allowed to play it. Perhaps "some" > directors would allow it, but "most" is almost certainlty a serious > overbid. > Maybe so (as I said before), but the ACBL does allow 1NT-(X)-2m, for example, as "Presumably natural, but possibly short and 2-suited...planning a conventional run-out if doubled." I fail to see a significant difference in the two cases...other than that one is a countermeasure to a conventional double and the other is an action after a 1NT opening that satisfies ACBL range requirements for continuations. In both cases, the GCC permits free rein to countermeasures, so long as not designed purely to destroy opponents' methods. --Bob Park From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 17 18:32:39 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:32:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> Message-ID: <745DC439-F74D-4FFE-969A-62AF7C4F4FDE@starpower.net> On Dec 17, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Robert Park wrote: > On 12/17/10 10:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> Eric, your original statement was that this possibility of 1S in >>> 1H-X-1S was an "implicit illegal agreement" not that it "might be >>> deemed an illegal implicit agreement." There is a world of >>> difference >>> between "might be deemed illegal" and "is illegal." >>> >>> I would guess that most directors would allow 1S after 1H-X- to >>> possibly not show spades, if that was disclosed with adequate >>> precision. Do you think I am wrong? > >> I do. I think if you offered it as a two-way conventional method, 1S >> forcing, either natural with spades or weak with heart support and >> spade shortness, you would not be allowed to play it. Perhaps "some" >> directors would allow it, but "most" is almost certainlty a serious >> overbid. > > Maybe so (as I said before), but the ACBL does allow 1NT-(X)-2m, for > example, as "Presumably natural, but possibly short and > 2-suited...planning a conventional run-out if doubled." > > I fail to see a significant difference in the two cases...other than > that one is a countermeasure to a conventional double and the other is > an action after a 1NT opening that satisfies ACBL range > requirements for > continuations. In both cases, the GCC permits free rein to > countermeasures, so long as not designed purely to destroy opponents' > methods. Yes, but what does "not designed purely to destroy opponents' methods" mean? ("Designed"? "Purely"?) AFAICT there's no extant operational definition, which means that its application in practice is entirely arbitrary. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Dec 17 18:46:51 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:46:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <745DC439-F74D-4FFE-969A-62AF7C4F4FDE@starpower.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> <745DC439-F74D-4FFE-969A-62AF7C4F4FDE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0BA20B.2040107@comcast.net> On 12/17/10 12:32 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Yes, but what does "not designed purely to destroy opponents' > methods" mean? ("Designed"? "Purely"?) AFAICT there's no extant > operational definition, which means that its application in practice > is entirely arbitrary. > I agree that lack of workable definition promotes arbitrariness. That seems to be at the heart of a large portion of the cases, debates and disagreements here on BLML. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 17 19:08:49 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:08:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0BA20B.2040107@comcast.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> <745DC439-F74D-4FFE-969A-62AF7C4F4FDE@starpower.net> <4D0BA20B.2040107@comcast.net> Message-ID: <782602.96541.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Robert Park] I agree that lack of workable definition promotes arbitrariness. That seems to be at the heart of a large portion of the cases, debates and disagreements here on BLML. [Nigel] Bridge Laws and Regulations, as a whole, are too vague, subjective, and complex. Bridge rules could be made simple enough for players and directors to understand, so increasing players' enjoyment of the game, without changing its nature. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 20:06:41 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:06:41 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Robert Park wrote: > > Maybe so (as I said before), but the ACBL does allow 1NT-(X)-2m, for > example, as "Presumably natural, but possibly short and > 2-suited...planning a conventional run-out if doubled." > Interesting. I must have missed what you said before. Was it your agreement that was banned? I'll assume it was. Would you be willing to list the steps you went through to establish that the ACBL does not allow 2D to have this meaning? Was it just one hurried director at one event? Did you discuss it with him afterwards? Directors are human, and might sometimes make a mistake. For definiteness, suppose the auction is 1NT (15-17) - (X) - 2C. Under the GCC (responses and rebids, #10), you are allowed any meaning of 2C that is properly disclosed, unless its "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? methods." The meaning of the double is immaterial as to what agreement you are allowed. My reading of the GCC is that "constructive" implies that the call is not primarily destructive. Perhaps you did not explain your agreement in the best way. The explanation of the alert matters for two reasons. First, its coherence affects whether you have proper disclosure. Second, the language you choose will affect what its primary purpose is deemed to be. How could it not? For example, which of the following explanations of an alerted 2C would lead to the agreement being banned by the ACBL?: A. 2C "says nothing about his hand." B. 2C "might show long clubs, and it might not." C. 2C "Presumably natural, but possibly short and 2-suited...planning a conventional run-out if doubled." D. 2C "No game interest. He either has long clubs or a two- or three-suited hand with short clubs." E. 2C "shows one of four possible hands: Either four hearts, or four spades, or a long minor with no interest in game, or a majorless hand worth a game invitation." I think A shows one of the easiest ways to get an agreement banned in the ACBL---to explain that it says nothing at all. B is similarly likely for the chopping block, due to poor disclosure. I think explanation C is not the best style. Some directors might be troubled by the vagueness of the word "presumably." They might think the agreement is not adequately disclosed. I find explanation D much clearer. It clears the disclosure hurdle better than C does. It says a great deal about your hand. It does not sound like you are trying to con the opponents. It just sounds like you have put multiple meanings into one bid. Evidently, you are trying to deal with as many 1- 2- and 3-suited hands as you can while staying at the two level, and in exchange for being able to show so many hand patterns, you accept an occasional bad contract if it is undoubled. I would be amazed if D was ruled illegal by the ACBL, for it so obviously constructive. Explanation E is the agreement I like to use when the double is conventional and might be weak. Even though it is a four-way bid, it has never yet been ruled illegal. I don't even alert it, for it just my version of Stayman. I do not think that there is any intrinsic "destructive purpose" in two-way bids, provided they are properly disclosed and have an articulable constructive purpose. However, the language you use to describe a call can affect its legality. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 20:57:38 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:57:38 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <745DC439-F74D-4FFE-969A-62AF7C4F4FDE@starpower.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> <745DC439-F74D-4FFE-969A-62AF7C4F4FDE@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Yes, but what does "not designed purely to destroy opponents' > methods" mean? ?("Designed"? ?"Purely"?) ?AFAICT there's no extant > operational definition, which means that its application in practice > is entirely arbitrary. > About 15 years ago, I called the ACBL office to ask what it means. The answer they gave me was immediate: The call must say something about your hand. For example, (1C artificial and forcing) - 1S is disallowed if it says nothing about your hand. But if 1S shows a 4441 hand pattern with the singleton anywhere (I think that was one of the examples he gave me), then it is allowed. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 22:27:59 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:27:59 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> >> I would guess that most directors would allow 1S after 1H-X- to >> possibly not show spades, if that was disclosed with adequate >> precision. ?Do you think I am wrong? > > I do. ?I think if you offered it as a two-way conventional method, 1S > forcing, either natural with spades or weak with heart support and > spade shortness, you would not be allowed to play it. ?Perhaps "some" > directors would allow it, but "most" is almost certainlty a serious > overbid. > Are there any ACBL directors reading this who would tell us how they would rule (I.e., is the agreement legal under the GCC?) after 1H - (X takeout) - 1S if 1S shows: A. Either 4 spades with 6+ points, or a weaker hand with 3 hearts and spade shortness. B. Either 4 spades with 6+ points, or a 3-card limit raise of hearts. C. Transfer to 1NT a la Lebensohl with one of several hands, but saying nothing about spades. D. Same as forcing NT (i.e., over a conventional double, 1NT and 1S are switched so that we can stop in 1NT). Personally, I like D. It does not deny four spades---I might have four spades if I have three hearts and a hand worth less than 6 points in support. Each of these are two-way calls, which would you allow, and which would you not? Perhaps there are conditions under which you would allow them. For example, would you allow example B if 1H - (X takeout) - 3H was preemptive and our system had no other way to show a 3-card limit raise? Jerry Fusselman From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 22:53:31 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:53:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: X is a conventional bid You can (essentially) play anything you want over the opponents conventional bids. On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > >> > >> I would guess that most directors would allow 1S after 1H-X- to > >> possibly not show spades, if that was disclosed with adequate > >> precision. Do you think I am wrong? > > > > I do. I think if you offered it as a two-way conventional method, 1S > > forcing, either natural with spades or weak with heart support and > > spade shortness, you would not be allowed to play it. Perhaps "some" > > directors would allow it, but "most" is almost certainlty a serious > > overbid. > > > > Are there any ACBL directors reading this who would tell us how they > would rule (I.e., is the agreement legal under the GCC?) after 1H - (X > takeout) - 1S if 1S shows: > > A. Either 4 spades with 6+ points, or a weaker hand with 3 hearts and > spade shortness. > B. Either 4 spades with 6+ points, or a 3-card limit raise of hearts. > C. Transfer to 1NT a la Lebensohl with one of several hands, but > saying nothing about spades. > D. Same as forcing NT (i.e., over a conventional double, 1NT and 1S > are switched so that we can stop in 1NT). > > Personally, I like D. It does not deny four spades---I might have > four spades if I have three hearts and a hand worth less than 6 points > in support. > > Each of these are two-way calls, which would you allow, and which would you > not? > > Perhaps there are conditions under which you would allow them. For > example, would you allow example B if 1H - (X takeout) - 3H was > preemptive and our system had no other way to show a 3-card limit > raise? > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101218/f6eb3b0a/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 23:00:27 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:00:27 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> <4D0A711E.5050706@nhcc.net> <397AF731-CFAF-4B22-A7AA-1D94AC590117@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Am I now free of that decades-old obligation; may I now "do it >>> again", whatever it was? >> >> Yes, I believe so, though for a reason having nothing nothing to do >> with the new laws. >> >> Personally, I would have assumed I was free of the obligation the >> instant they refused to elaborate on what I was not allowed to "do >> again." ?If they cannot articulate and clarity what you cannot do, why >> imagine that their statement means anything whatsoever? > > I never have. ?But I don't really fault the committee; they were > trying their best to apply a regulation that didn't really mean > anything whatsoever. > Interesting. It sounds like you are saying that you have felt still under some obligation all this time. Since then, what have you *not* been doing to fulfill the obligation you felt? I don't think the regulation (i.e., disallowing "... agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods") is meaningless, though I admit that it's wording far too vague for my taste. The ACBL could, if they chose, give a more complete interpretation of the regulation and list some examples going each way. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 23:40:43 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:40:43 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> >> I would guess that most directors would allow 1S after 1H-X- to >> possibly not show spades, if that was disclosed with adequate >> precision. ?Do you think I am wrong? > > I do. ?I think if you offered it as a two-way conventional method, 1S > forcing, either natural with spades or weak with heart support and > spade shortness, you would not be allowed to play it. ?Perhaps "some" > directors would allow it, but "most" is almost certainlty a serious > overbid. > We are talking here about conventional calls where the GCC allows conventional calls except for the ones "whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods." We are only talking about cases where the GCC allows conventional calls with no other restriction. It sounds to me like your reasoning process here is to focus on whether the conventional call is one-way or two-way: If it is one-way (such as 1H - (X takeout) - 1S showing 5 or more clubs), allow it; if it is two-way (or more than two) and conventional, disallow it. I don't think that the ACBL enforcement of the GCC employs such a simplistic heuristic. For example, these conventional calls are two-way, yet they are explicitly allowed by the GCC: (1H) - 2H Spades plus a minor, but don't know which minor (1H) - 1NT Diamonds plus a black suit. (1H) - 4NT Two suits with any two suits other than hearts. Even more telling against your (if I understand you correctly) if-it-is-two-way-it-must-be-illegal heuristic are the following two-way conventional bids that are commonly employed in the ACBL yet are never outlawed: Stayman takeout doubles (which can have any shape if strong enough) SOS redoubles (with unknown suits) Lebensohl (with one of several weak or strong hands) The DONT double of a 1NT opening CRASH (On the Internet, there are scores of references to its GCC legality against a strong, artificial club) (1S) - P - (2S) - (P) - P - 2NT (Two suiter with any two suits) Italian cue bids that show either an ace or a void (but we don't know which) 2H - (X) - XX (Transfer to spades, either to play, or about to raise hearts asking for a spade lead) the Fishbein convention the Good-bad 2NT 1NT - P - 2NT (Either both minors, or long diamonds) Being two-way is clearly neither necessary nor sufficient for a call to be deemed primarily destructive. Besides, as far as "destroying the opponents methods" in the original case (i.e., 1H - (X takeout) - 1S), the opponents would have to be pretty stupid or inexperienced players if their methods were destroyed by the 1S bid. You have more options than you would have had had they passed! If you wanted to bid 1S over the takeout double, it does not take a genius to substitute double for 1S. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 00:21:46 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:21:46 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: No doubt, someone will yet again complain about my multiple posts in one thread (Horrors!), but I have one more thing to add: A quote from 2005 by Jeff Goldsmith: "If some convention is better than natural methods unless the opponents can use some given defense, in which case it is worse, then preventing the use of the defense isn't doing what convention regulations are meant to do, but rather is distorting the game severely, making someone's preferred methods superior for no good reason. Taken to the extreme---imagine if, when I opened a strong club, you were not allowed to bid anything in the direct overcall seat. Wouldn't everyone feel forced to use a strong club? I know I would." From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 00:38:52 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:38:52 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 3:53 PM, richard willey wrote: > X is a conventional bid > > You can (essentially) play anything you want over the opponents conventional > bids. > True, but we are exploring what essentially means. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 00:57:31 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:57:31 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0B3801.8030104@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <4D0B3801.8030104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 17/12/2010 3:44, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> >> Eric, your original statement was that this possibility of 1S in >> 1H-X-1S was an "implicit illegal agreement" not that it "might be >> deemed an illegal implicit agreement." ?There is a world of difference >> between "might be deemed illegal" and "is illegal." > > AG : of course, in texts. But in practice you'll be wary to use it in both > cases. > Perhaps I should clarify. On the auction (1H) - 1NT* (two suiter---diamonds plus a black suit), I have been told several times by national ACBL directors that it was GCC illegal. But it is not. Some directors make mistakes sometimes. OK. They generally correct themselves when given a chance. But I don't want to change all of my methods to be so ordinary that no director would ever rule them illegal. Jerry Fusselman From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 01:02:17 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:02:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > True, but we are exploring what essentially means. > _______________________________________________ > I've played strong club for a long time I've never heard of a conventional defense to a strong club opening being disallowed Curious whether anyone else has -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101219/9c1e00d8/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 01:16:55 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:16:55 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 6:02 PM, richard willey wrote: > > I've played strong club for a long time > > I've never heard of a conventional defense to a strong club opening being > disallowed > Curious whether anyone else has > Well, if Eric is right (or at least if what I understand Eric to be saying is right), then you have thrown away lots of match points. Every time the opponents use a two-way defense, call the director, and usually you will get their defense ruled illegal. You see, a two-way defense is proof that the method is primarily destructive. At least, that is my reading of what Eric wrote. In my opinion, Eric is one of the best writers on BLML, and he is not of the habit of writing unsubstantiatable statements willy nilly. Jerry Fusselman From mikopera at nyc.rr.com Sun Dec 19 01:20:15 2010 From: mikopera at nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:20:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0D4FBF.2050507@nyc.rr.com> At one point we played a 1S overcall to handle any hand we felt like coming in on that didn't fit any other overcall. That pretty much meant a balanced hand with less than opening values. That was disallowed. Calling it the "nuisance spade" might have contributed to that (this was also before the "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? methods.") On 12/18/2010 7:02 PM, richard willey wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: > > > > True, but we are exploring what essentially means. > _______________________________________________ > > > > I've played strong club for a long time > > I've never heard of a conventional defense to a strong club opening > being disallowed > Curious whether anyone else has > > > > > > > -- > I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate > Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate > priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression > (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek > > Those were simpler times > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Mike Kopera We cannot solve problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 02:00:48 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:00:48 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0D4FBF.2050507@nyc.rr.com> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0D4FBF.2050507@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Michael Kopera wrote: > At one point we played a 1S overcall to handle any hand we felt like > coming in on that didn't fit any other overcall. That pretty much meant > a balanced hand with less than opening values. That was disallowed. > Calling it the "nuisance spade" might have contributed to that (this was > also before the "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? methods.") > Right. The name matters, as it should. I am almost sure that CRASH was illegal during the early nineties in the ACBL, but can anyone name a precise and well-explained defense to Precision that has been ruled illegal under GCC in the last, say, five years? From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 02:40:10 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:40:10 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0D4FBF.2050507@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: Maybe the coolest example is the destructive pass, presuming that all two-way bids are destructive. I like to play 1C - (X takeout) - P* to show either a hand that would pass 1C, or a hand that has 10+ HCP but no fit in C. This is clearly a two-way agreement. If the two-way aspect means that it must be deemed destructive, then we have a case (according to Eric's interpretation of how the GCC is interpreted) of a pass destroying the opponent's methods. A pass that destroys the opponents methods. Wow! I don't buy it. What destroys the opponents are their silly sequences like 1C - (X) - P* - (1S) - P - (2S) where 2S shows no extras, it just keeps the auction open because 1S has too large of a range. The 1S bidder might have five clubs, three spades, and zero points. Is it really possible that an otherwise legal conventional pass can destroy the opponents' methods? I don't think that a method being two-way is the ACBL's heuristic for determining whether a call is primarily destructive or not. Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 19 11:38:48 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:38:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1774182614.49514.1292477043379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <81D4323F463C4E9083325F3C4FBACBAB@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> 1. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid >> 2. we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid >> 3. ergo we may not vary our methods after an insufficient bid > > I believe such a regulation to conflict with TFLB. > L27A1 gives LHO the choice between accepting > and not accepting an IB. Such regulations > take away the right to accept the IB through the back door. > > Example: > > Assume I play that over > 1D pass 4NT(RKCB) 5H > double shows an even number of aces, and pass shows an odd number > of aces. > > 1S pass 4NT(RKCB) 4H(IB, accepted). > > Is opener now supposed to double with an even number of aces? > Thomas +++ +=+ I have found this thread confusing and have kept out of it. I did apparently see somewhere early on a false suggestion that if the partnership does not field psyches they are not psyches (or at least not subject to law and lawful regulation). The question has nothing to do with whether the psyche is fielded but rests on the issue of whether the partner has more reason to be aware of it than opponent even if he does not field it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 19 12:22:59 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:22:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <81D4323F463C4E9083325F3C4FBACBAB@Mildred> References: <1774182614.49514.1292477043379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <81D4323F463C4E9083325F3C4FBACBAB@Mildred> Message-ID: <4D0DEB13.4080709@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > +++ > +=+ I have found this thread confusing and have kept out of it. > I did apparently see somewhere early on a false suggestion > that if the partnership does not field psyches they are not > psyches (or at least not subject to law and lawful regulation). > The question has nothing to do with whether the psyche is > fielded but rests on the issue of whether the partner has more > reason to be aware of it than opponent even if he does not > field it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I would like to ask Grattan the following question: I live in a region where psyching is almost unheard of. Several times in the past, I have psyched against people who had never in their life come accross one before, and did not know such a thing existed. Of course my partner is aware of the possibility that I might psyche, but those opponents were not, so my "partner has more reason to be aware of it than opponent". Did that make my psyche illegal? And if it did, what is the penalty. I am of the opinion that it did indeed make "my psyche illegal", but only in the sense that my opponents were misinformed. In order to make it "legal", I should have said at the beginning of every single round "opponents, there exists something called a psyche, and I may do one against you in the coming 10 years". Of course I do not say that, and that should count as misinformation, with the Director ruling that opponents should not be expected to act differently if something is only likely to happen once in ten years. But could Grattal please explain what he means by "illegal" psyches, and how they should be treated. And please Grattan, make your reply WBF-conform, I do not belileve the EBU have grasped this matter completely correct. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Dec 19 18:15:23 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 09:15:23 -0800 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1774182614.49514.1292477043379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><81D4323F463C4E9083325F3C4FBACBAB@Mildred> <4D0DEB13.4080709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6B5A42E346EE4007988FC2C7E4D86FE3@MARVLAPTOP> I am top-posting this to say that Herman is right. A person who psychs rarely may have a partner who is more aware of the possibility than his opponents. Why? Because he knows the game of bridge and the opponents do not. Let them learn that psychs are a part of the game as part of their bridge education. > Grattan wrote: >> +++ >> +=+ I have found this thread confusing and have kept out of it. >> I did apparently see somewhere early on a false suggestion >> that if the partnership does not field psyches they are not >> psyches (or at least not subject to law and lawful regulation). >> The question has nothing to do with whether the psyche is >> fielded but rests on the issue of whether the partner has more >> reason to be aware of it than opponent even if he does not >> field it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > I would like to ask Grattan the following question: > > I live in a region where psyching is almost unheard of. Several > times in > the past, I have psyched against people who had never in their > life come > accross one before, and did not know such a thing existed. Of > course my > partner is aware of the possibility that I might psyche, but those > opponents were not, so my "partner has more reason to be aware of > it > than opponent". > Did that make my psyche illegal? > And if it did, what is the penalty. > > I am of the opinion that it did indeed make "my psyche illegal", > but > only in the sense that my opponents were misinformed. In order to > make > it "legal", I should have said at the beginning of every single > round > "opponents, there exists something called a psyche, and I may do > one > against you in the coming 10 years". Of course I do not say that, > and > that should count as misinformation, with the Director ruling that > opponents should not be expected to act differently if something > is only > likely to happen once in ten years. > > But could Grattal please explain what he means by "illegal" > psyches, and > how they should be treated. > > And please Grattan, make your reply WBF-conform, I do not belileve > the > EBU have grasped this matter completely correct. > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 5714 (20101218) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5716 (20101219) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 19:08:17 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:08:17 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6B5A42E346EE4007988FC2C7E4D86FE3@MARVLAPTOP> References: <1774182614.49514.1292477043379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <81D4323F463C4E9083325F3C4FBACBAB@Mildred> <4D0DEB13.4080709@skynet.be> <6B5A42E346EE4007988FC2C7E4D86FE3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Marvin French wrote: > I am top-posting this to say that Herman is right. A person who > psychs rarely may have a partner who is more aware of the > possibility than his opponents. Why? Because he knows the game of > bridge and the opponents do not. Let them learn that psychs are a > part of the game as part of their bridge education. > >> Grattan wrote: >>> The question has nothing to do with whether the psyche is >>> fielded but rests on the issue of whether the partner has more >>> reason to be aware of it than opponent even if he does not >>> field it. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ >>> >> I agree with Herman and Marvin. But it seems to me probable that Grattan agrees as well. Maybe we will find out. Grattan wrote "the issue of whether the partner has more reason to be aware of it than opponent." He talked about "has more reason to be aware" rather than "is more aware." If Grattan had written "is aware," then he would have been wrong: We do not give advantages to players who believe (or claim to believe) that psyches never happen over players who realize they sometimes do. Grattan's wording seems to me consistent with Herman's and Marvin's points. Jerry Fusselman From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Dec 19 21:40:00 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:40:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome Message-ID: Dear list, Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring errors have steeply increased. At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their top into a bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. The error was only discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading to some acrimony. We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so players can start their return journeys. 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing differences is quite a challenge, especially when some players leave immediately after the session. 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite some players check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: - extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will have taken their prizes home) - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with the Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will then be delayed by about half an hour, making most players go home before that and annoying the organizer) - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if they have any) with the frequency sheets (and living with having perhaps 5-10% mis-scores) I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this problem, and any constructive suggestions. Regards, Petrus From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 19 22:57:16 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:57:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <620132.37145.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Petrus Schuster] Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring errors have steeply increased. At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their top into a bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. The error was only discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading to some acrimony. We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so players can start their return journeys. 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing differences is quite a challenge, especially when some players leave immediately after the session. 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite some players check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: - extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will have taken their prizes home) - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with the Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will then be delayed by about half an hour, making most players go home before that and annoying the organizer) - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if they have any) with the frequency sheets (and living with having perhaps 5-10% mis-scores) I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this problem, and any constructive suggestions. [Nigel] I think Bridge-mates are an enormous improvement on travellers for convenience and efficiency, so I am sure players are happy to live with the occasional mistake. Some HBIs... As well as correcting the score, issue a PP to North if he enters an erroneous score to his benefit. Designate a specific player eg East to check the entry. As well as correcting the score, issue a PP to East if he ratifies an erroneous core to his benefit. Allow the Bridge-mate to see the hand-record and double-dummy analysis, so that its program can flag anomalies. Insist that players enter the opening lead as well as every thing else, for the program to check and flag if appropriate. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Dec 19 23:26:06 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:26:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_79C2_regulation_-_suggestions_welcome?= In-Reply-To: <620132.37145.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <620132.37145.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1PURhe-0KeroG0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> > [Petrus Schuster] > Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring > > errors have steeply increased. > At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their > top into a bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. > The error was only discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading > to some acrimony. > We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. > 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so > players can start their return journeys. > 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. > 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing > differences is quite a challenge, especially when some players leave > immediately after the session. > 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite > some players check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. > > There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: - > extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will > have taken their prizes home) > - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with > the Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will > then be delayed by about half an hour, making most players go home > before that and annoying the organizer) > - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if > they have any) with the frequency sheets (and living with having > perhaps 5-10% mis-scores) > > I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this > problem, and any constructive suggestions. > > [Nigel] > I think Bridge-mates are an enormous improvement on travellers for > convenience and efficiency, so I am sure players are happy to live > with the occasional mistake. > > Some HBIs... > > As well as correcting the score, issue a PP to North if he enters an > erroneous score to his benefit. > Designate a specific player eg East to check the entry. As well as > correcting the score, issue a PP to East if he ratifies an erroneous > core to his benefit. > Allow the Bridge-mate to see the hand-record and double-dummy > analysis, so that its program can flag anomalies. > Insist that players enter the opening lead as well as every thing > else, for the program to check and flag if appropriate. [Peter] yes, this last one item is the one that might help most ... ... unfortunately it does not help in practise :( The scoring program I use has this feature to alert me when the opening lead does not match for the handrecords. But, as a lot of entering players do not bother to enter the correct lead in time (when it is face up on the table) they try to guess it when prompted by the bridgemate. And guessing the lead it at least so erroneous as finding the queen of trumps. As a TD I chased those "wrong leads" - of course - and after 20 times in a single session asking the players and hearing "oh, it was a small one, and it doesn't matter", I switched the checkbox off. Players are not helpful in operating scoring devices - be it a bridgemate or a simple traveller. So, you give them all a PP ... This lead IMO to either A: close the tournament and fix the results with the expiration of the correction period and live with occasional wrong entries; or B: extend the correction period to a time where all early leaving players had a reasonable chance to check their scores at home, but then do not proclaim a winner before expiry of this extended period. And do not hand out any prices or masterpoints after the tournament. Guess what the players would choose - if you'd ask them. From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 19 23:42:54 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:42:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01cb9fce$138ba7b0$3aa2f710$@no> Once you use Bridgemate you obviously also use computers for calculating the results. Why not print out the complete results showing how each board has been scored at each table immediately as soon as scoring is completed, publish the printout on some publishing board and give the players say ten minutes to verify their results? I assume your events are some kind of Mitchell; we (in Scandinavia) have a simpler task as we normally run barometer schedules. Here we hand out printed result slips to each pair after each round, the slip shows (for each pair) what they did in the last round, their score on each board and their running total score as well as current ranking. My experience as director is that scoring errors have been reduced with a factor of at least ten since we used manual scoring with travelers, and the remaining errors are most often noticed by the players within five minutes after they receive their result slips. Suggestion: Investigate what you can do with your scoring program to make life easier for both players and the director. If the scoring program can make individual printouts for each pair then that would be fine. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: 19. desember 2010 21:40 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome > > Dear list, > > Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring errors > have steeply increased. > At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their top into a > bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. The error was only > discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading to some acrimony. > We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. > 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so players can > start their return journeys. > 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. > 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing differences is > quite a challenge, especially when some players leave immediately after the > session. > 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite some players > check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. > > There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: > - extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will have > taken their prizes home) > - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with the > Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will then be delayed > by about half an hour, making most players go home before that and annoying the > organizer) > - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if they have any) > with the frequency sheets (and living with having perhaps 5-10% > mis-scores) > > I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this problem, and any > constructive suggestions. > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 20 00:09:05 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:09:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1774182614.49514.1292477043379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><81D4323F463C4E9083325F3C4FBACBAB@Mildred><4D0DEB13.4080709@skynet.be><6B5A42E346EE4007988FC2C7E4D86FE3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Marvin French wrote: > I am top-posting this to say that Herman is right. A person who > psychs rarely may have a partner who is more aware of the > possibility than his opponents. Why? Because he knows the game of > bridge and the opponents do not. Let them learn that psychs are a > part of the game as part of their bridge education. > >> Grattan wrote: >>> The question has nothing to do with whether the psyche is >>> fielded but rests on the issue of whether the partner has more >>> reason to be aware of it than opponent even if he does not >>> field it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> I agree with Herman and Marvin. But it seems to me probable that Grattan agrees as well. Maybe we will find out. Grattan wrote "the issue of whether the partner has more reason to be aware of it than opponent." He talked about "has more reason to be aware" rather than "is more aware." If Grattan had written "is aware," then he would have been wrong: We do not give advantages to players who believe (or claim to believe) that psyches never happen over players who realize they sometimes do. Grattan's wording seems to me consistent with Herman's and Marvin's points. Jerry Fusselman < +=+ The key lies in the wording of Law 40C where it says "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." A psyche is a (gross) deviation - see definitions. Law 40C adds that "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system". In my opinion "repeated deviations lead to" is not language suggesting that one should consider it general for an implicit understanding to kick in after merely one repetition. I would say there needs to be some exceptional circumstance to have such an effect. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 20 10:10:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:10:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4D0F1DA1.6040608@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/12/2010 20:06, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > E. 2C "shows one of four possible hands: Either four hearts, or four > spades, or a long minor with no interest in game, or a majorless hand > worth a game invitation." > > > > Explanation E is the agreement I like to use when the double is > conventional and might be weak. Even though it is a four-way bid, it > has never yet been ruled illegal. I don't even alert it, for it just > my version of Stayman. Well, it is alertable in many countries (might hold no major), but that's not the problem here. The difference between C / D and E is tnat E will soon land you in a true suit, giving them the weapons to act. I use to play : "2C = any 2-suited hand except D/H", very esay to explain, but as polymorphic as your examples. In Belgium ,it is allowed, but will it elsewhere ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 20 10:13:45 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:13:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> <745DC439-F74D-4FFE-969A-62AF7C4F4FDE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D0F1E49.5000300@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/12/2010 20:57, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> Yes, but what does "not designed purely to destroy opponents' >> methods" mean? ("Designed"? "Purely"?) AFAICT there's no extant >> operational definition, which means that its application in practice >> is entirely arbitrary. >> > About 15 years ago, I called the ACBL office to ask what it means. > The answer they gave me was immediate: The call must say something > about your hand. For example, (1C artificial and forcing) - 1S is > disallowed if it says nothing about your hand. But if 1S shows a 4441 > hand pattern with the singleton anywhere (I think that was one of the > examples he gave me), then it is allowed. > AG : so if if means "less than opening values and no 7-card suit " it is allowed ? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 10:14:29 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:14:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <000f01cb9fce$138ba7b0$3aa2f710$@no> References: <000f01cb9fce$138ba7b0$3aa2f710$@no> Message-ID: I worked in the scoring department in Philadelphia, using Tomas Brenning's Magic Contest as scoring program. This program has a nice feature: Suspicious results. You can run this whenever you want, and get a printout of the scores with suspicious results marked. You'll find all results entered in the wrong direction this way, and will also be able to fix a lot of other scoring mistakes too. 2010/12/19 Sven Pran : > Once you use Bridgemate you obviously also use computers for calculating the > results. > > Why not print out the complete results showing how each board has been > scored at each table immediately as soon as scoring is completed, publish > the printout on some publishing board and give the players say ten minutes > to verify their results? > > I assume your events are some kind of Mitchell; we (in Scandinavia) have a > simpler task as we normally run barometer schedules. Here we hand out > printed result slips to each pair after each round, the slip shows (for each > pair) what they did in the last round, their score on each board and their > running total score as well as current ranking. > > My experience as director is that scoring errors have been reduced with a > factor of at least ten since we used manual scoring with travelers, and the > remaining errors are most often noticed by the players within five minutes > after they receive their result slips. > > Suggestion: Investigate what you can do with your scoring program to make > life easier for both players and the director. If the scoring program can > make individual printouts for each pair then that would be fine. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Petrus Schuster OSB >> Sent: 19. desember 2010 21:40 >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome >> >> Dear list, >> >> Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring > errors >> have steeply increased. >> At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their top > into a >> bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. The error was > only >> discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading to some acrimony. >> We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. >> 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so players > can >> start their return journeys. >> 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. >> 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing > differences is >> quite a challenge, especially when some players leave immediately after > the >> session. >> 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite some > players >> check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. >> >> There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: >> - extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will > have >> taken their prizes home) >> - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with the >> Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will then be > delayed >> by about half an hour, making most players go home before that and > annoying the >> organizer) >> - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if they > have any) >> with the frequency sheets (and living with having perhaps 5-10% >> mis-scores) >> >> I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this problem, > and any >> constructive suggestions. >> >> Regards, >> Petrus >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Dec 20 10:15:02 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:15:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <000f01cb9fce$138ba7b0$3aa2f710$@no> References: <000f01cb9fce$138ba7b0$3aa2f710$@no> Message-ID: <002201cba026$626e7a80$274b6f80$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hi, I join Sven. When we started to use the bridgemates in ebl and wbf pairs events we also provided the players with a print out of their results when they were playing their last round. This means that they receive their scores board by board with an overall percentage for the whole session minus the last (2) boards they are still playing. This is very much appreciated and I consider it one of the big improvements using the bridgemates. But this does not solve the scoring error made in the last boards played. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: zondag 19 december 2010 23:43 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome Once you use Bridgemate you obviously also use computers for calculating the results. Why not print out the complete results showing how each board has been scored at each table immediately as soon as scoring is completed, publish the printout on some publishing board and give the players say ten minutes to verify their results? I assume your events are some kind of Mitchell; we (in Scandinavia) have a simpler task as we normally run barometer schedules. Here we hand out printed result slips to each pair after each round, the slip shows (for each pair) what they did in the last round, their score on each board and their running total score as well as current ranking. My experience as director is that scoring errors have been reduced with a factor of at least ten since we used manual scoring with travelers, and the remaining errors are most often noticed by the players within five minutes after they receive their result slips. Suggestion: Investigate what you can do with your scoring program to make life easier for both players and the director. If the scoring program can make individual printouts for each pair then that would be fine. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: 19. desember 2010 21:40 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome > > Dear list, > > Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring errors > have steeply increased. > At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their top into a > bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. The error was only > discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading to some acrimony. > We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. > 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so players can > start their return journeys. > 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. > 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing differences is > quite a challenge, especially when some players leave immediately after the > session. > 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite some players > check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. > > There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: > - extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will have > taken their prizes home) > - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with the > Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will then be delayed > by about half an hour, making most players go home before that and annoying the > organizer) > - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if they have any) > with the frequency sheets (and living with having perhaps 5-10% > mis-scores) > > I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this problem, and any > constructive suggestions. > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > 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 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1170 / Virusdatabase: 1435/3324 - datum van uitgifte: 12/18/10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101220/ab22f692/attachment-0001.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Dec 20 10:22:31 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:22:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <1PURhe-0KeroG0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <620132.37145.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1PURhe-0KeroG0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4D0F2057.50107@meteo.fr> Peter Eidt a ?crit : >> [Petrus Schuster] >> Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring >> >> errors have steeply increased. >> At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their >> top into a bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. >> The error was only discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading >> to some acrimony. >> We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. >> 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so >> players can start their return journeys. >> 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. >> 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing >> differences is quite a challenge, especially when some players leave >> immediately after the session. >> 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite >> some players check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. >> >> There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: - >> extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will >> have taken their prizes home) >> - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with >> the Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will >> then be delayed by about half an hour, making most players go home >> before that and annoying the organizer) >> - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if >> they have any) with the frequency sheets (and living with having >> perhaps 5-10% mis-scores) >> >> I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this >> problem, and any constructive suggestions. >> >> [Nigel] >> I think Bridge-mates are an enormous improvement on travellers for >> convenience and efficiency, so I am sure players are happy to live >> with the occasional mistake. >> >> Some HBIs... >> >> As well as correcting the score, issue a PP to North if he enters an >> erroneous score to his benefit. >> Designate a specific player eg East to check the entry. As well as >> correcting the score, issue a PP to East if he ratifies an erroneous >> core to his benefit. >> Allow the Bridge-mate to see the hand-record and double-dummy >> analysis, so that its program can flag anomalies. >> Insist that players enter the opening lead as well as every thing >> else, for the program to check and flag if appropriate. > > [Peter] > > yes, this last one item is the one that might help most ... > ... unfortunately it does not help in practise :( > > The scoring program I use has this feature to alert me > when the opening lead does not match for the handrecords. > But, as a lot of entering players do not bother to enter > the correct lead in time (when it is face up on the table) > they try to guess it when prompted by the bridgemate. > And guessing the lead it at least so erroneous as > finding the queen of trumps. you could slightly adapt your scoring program so that the bridgemate would not accept the entry so long as the entering player has not registered an opening lead matching a card belonging to the opening leader. jpr > As a TD I chased those "wrong leads" - of course - > and after 20 times in a single session asking the players > and hearing "oh, it was a small one, and it doesn't matter", > I switched the checkbox off. > Players are not helpful in operating scoring devices - be > it a bridgemate or a simple traveller. So, you give them all > a PP ... > > This lead IMO to either > > A: close the tournament and fix the results with the expiration > of the correction period and live with occasional wrong entries; or > > B: extend the correction period to a time where all early leaving > players had a reasonable chance to check their scores at home, > but then do not proclaim a winner before expiry of this extended > period. And do not hand out any prices or masterpoints after > the tournament. > > Guess what the players would choose - if you'd ask them. > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 20 10:49:44 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:49:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <002201cba026$626e7a80$274b6f80$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <000f01cb9fce$138ba7b0$3aa2f710$@no> <002201cba026$626e7a80$274b6f80$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <001601cba02b$3b221b80$b1665280$@no> If I understand Ton correct I believe our routine is even (slightly) more player-friendly: We hand out slips to each pair for each round during the following round so the players get feedback on the boards they have just played. And the slips for the last round are handed out immediately after the last round is finished with a five (or maybe ten) minutes period for reporting (alleged) errors. Of course complete board records with all results shown are published at the same time slips are handed out. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: 20. desember 2010 10:15 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome Hi, I join Sven. When we started to use the bridgemates in ebl and wbf pairs events we also provided the players with a print out of their results when they were playing their last round. This means that they receive their scores board by board with an overall percentage for the whole session minus the last (2) boards they are still playing. This is very much appreciated and I consider it one of the big improvements using the bridgemates. But this does not solve the scoring error made in the last boards played. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: zondag 19 december 2010 23:43 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome Once you use Bridgemate you obviously also use computers for calculating the results. Why not print out the complete results showing how each board has been scored at each table immediately as soon as scoring is completed, publish the printout on some publishing board and give the players say ten minutes to verify their results? I assume your events are some kind of Mitchell; we (in Scandinavia) have a simpler task as we normally run barometer schedules. Here we hand out printed result slips to each pair after each round, the slip shows (for each pair) what they did in the last round, their score on each board and their running total score as well as current ranking. My experience as director is that scoring errors have been reduced with a factor of at least ten since we used manual scoring with travelers, and the remaining errors are most often noticed by the players within five minutes after they receive their result slips. Suggestion: Investigate what you can do with your scoring program to make life easier for both players and the director. If the scoring program can make individual printouts for each pair then that would be fine. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: 19. desember 2010 21:40 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome > > Dear list, > > Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring errors > have steeply increased. > At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their top into a > bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. The error was only > discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading to some acrimony. > We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. > 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so players can > start their return journeys. > 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. > 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing differences is > quite a challenge, especially when some players leave immediately after the > session. > 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite some players > check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. > > There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: > - extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will have > taken their prizes home) > - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with the > Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will then be delayed > by about half an hour, making most players go home before that and annoying the > organizer) > - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if they have any) > with the frequency sheets (and living with having perhaps 5-10% > mis-scores) > > I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this problem, and any > constructive suggestions. > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > 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 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1170 / Virusdatabase: 1435/3324 - datum van uitgifte: 12/18/10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101220/92c5043e/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 20 11:01:27 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:01:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <4D0F2057.50107@meteo.fr> References: <620132.37145.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1PURhe-0KeroG0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4D0F2057.50107@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4D0F2977.4040006@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > you could slightly adapt your scoring program so that the bridgemate > would not accept the entry so long as the entering player has not > registered an opening lead matching a card belonging to the opening leader. > > jpr > That was how it was first introduced. Then some clever declarer entered the Queen of diamonds as lead, saw the machine react, and finessed the correct way ... The check was quickly abandoned after that. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 20 11:02:03 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:02:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_79C2_regulation_-_suggestions_welcome?= In-Reply-To: <001601cba02b$3b221b80$b1665280$@no> References: <001601cba02b$3b221b80$b1665280$@no> Message-ID: <1PUcZ9-0fameW0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > If I understand Ton correct I believe our routine is even (slightly) > more player-friendly: We hand out slips to each pair for each round > during the following round so the players get feedback on the boards > they have just played. just out of sheer curiosity: How do you manage to hand out those slips with 120 pairs and 2 boards a round ?? Peter > And the slips for the last round are handed out immediately after the > last round is finished with a five (or maybe ten) minutes period for > reporting (alleged) errors. > > Of course complete board records with all results shown are published > at the same time slips are handed out. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 11:10:49 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:10:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <1PUcZ9-0fameW0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <001601cba02b$3b221b80$b1665280$@no> <1PUcZ9-0fameW0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: 2010/12/20 Peter Eidt : > From: "Sven Pran" >> If I understand Ton correct I believe our routine is even (slightly) >> more player-friendly: We hand out slips to each pair for each round >> during the following round so the players get feedback on the boards >> they have just played. > > just out of sheer curiosity: > > How do you manage to hand out those slips with > 120 pairs and 2 boards a round ?? That's no problem. With all results entered in the Bridgemates, the slips is printed within 3 minutes of the next round. And there's plenty of time to hand them out at all tables. We even did this before computer scoring.... > > Peter > > >> And the slips for the last round are handed out immediately after the >> last round is finished with a five (or maybe ten) minutes period for >> reporting (alleged) errors. >> >> Of course complete board records with all results shown are published >> at the same time slips are handed out. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Dec 20 11:26:11 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:26:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <4D0F2977.4040006@skynet.be> References: <620132.37145.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1PURhe-0KeroG0@fw d00.aul.t-online.de><4D0F2057.50107@meteo.fr> <4D0F2977.4040006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D0F2F43.8010707@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> you could slightly adapt your scoring program so that the bridgemate >> would not accept the entry so long as the entering player has not >> registered an opening lead matching a card belonging to the opening leader. >> >> jpr >> > > That was how it was first introduced. Then some clever declarer entered > the Queen of diamonds as lead, saw the machine react, and finessed the > correct way ... > The check was quickly abandoned after that. you only need to delay the check at the last moment, after end of play, when EW are asked to valid the result. 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 20 11:30:06 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:30:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <1PUcZ9-0fameW0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <001601cba02b$3b221b80$b1665280$@no> <1PUcZ9-0fameW0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <002a01cba030$df0285f0$9d0791d0$@no> The slips are printed on perforated paper, 10 slips/sheet (2 columns and 5 rows) and sorted so that the slips for the pairs sitting at table 1 are printed on row 1, slips for table 2 on row 2 and so on through the 12 pages needed for 120 pairs. We simply tear off the two slips for each table while walking through the room(s). It takes us just the time to walk (quickly) along all the tables which means that all pairs usually have their results from the last round before they have completed the first board in the next round. (My personal record is to have had 46 pairs receive their slips for the previous round even before making any call on the first board in the next round.) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Peter > Eidt > Sent: 20. desember 2010 11:02 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome > > From: "Sven Pran" > > If I understand Ton correct I believe our routine is even (slightly) > > more player-friendly: We hand out slips to each pair for each round > > during the following round so the players get feedback on the boards > > they have just played. > > just out of sheer curiosity: > > How do you manage to hand out those slips with 120 pairs and 2 boards a round > ?? > > Peter > > > > And the slips for the last round are handed out immediately after the > > last round is finished with a five (or maybe ten) minutes period for > > reporting (alleged) errors. > > > > Of course complete board records with all results shown are published > > at the same time slips are handed out. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Dec 20 11:47:39 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:47:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <001601cba02b$3b221b80$b1665280$@no> References: <000f01cb9fce$138ba7b0$3aa2f710$@no> <002201cba026$626e7a80$274b6f80$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <001601cba02b$3b221b80$b1665280$@no> Message-ID: <004001cba033$533d3e90$f9b7bbb0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Dear Sven, You are living in a real dream world where anything played is done in barometer style. Let us not distribute those slips round by round in howell/mitchell events. ton If I understand Ton correct I believe our routine is even (slightly) more player-friendly: We hand out slips to each pair for each round during the following round so the players get feedback on the boards they have just played. And the slips for the last round are handed out immediately after the last round is finished with a five (or maybe ten) minutes period for reporting (alleged) errors. Of course complete board records with all results shown are published at the same time slips are handed out. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: 20. desember 2010 10:15 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome Hi, I join Sven. When we started to use the bridgemates in ebl and wbf pairs events we also provided the players with a print out of their results when they were playing their last round. This means that they receive their scores board by board with an overall percentage for the whole session minus the last (2) boards they are still playing. This is very much appreciated and I consider it one of the big improvements using the bridgemates. But this does not solve the scoring error made in the last boards played. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: zondag 19 december 2010 23:43 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome Once you use Bridgemate you obviously also use computers for calculating the results. Why not print out the complete results showing how each board has been scored at each table immediately as soon as scoring is completed, publish the printout on some publishing board and give the players say ten minutes to verify their results? I assume your events are some kind of Mitchell; we (in Scandinavia) have a simpler task as we normally run barometer schedules. Here we hand out printed result slips to each pair after each round, the slip shows (for each pair) what they did in the last round, their score on each board and their running total score as well as current ranking. My experience as director is that scoring errors have been reduced with a factor of at least ten since we used manual scoring with travelers, and the remaining errors are most often noticed by the players within five minutes after they receive their result slips. Suggestion: Investigate what you can do with your scoring program to make life easier for both players and the director. If the scoring program can make individual printouts for each pair then that would be fine. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: 19. desember 2010 21:40 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome > > Dear list, > > Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring errors > have steeply increased. > At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their top into a > bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. The error was only > discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading to some acrimony. > We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. > 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so players can > start their return journeys. > 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. > 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing differences is > quite a challenge, especially when some players leave immediately after the > session. > 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite some players > check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. > > There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: > - extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will have > taken their prizes home) > - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with the > Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will then be delayed > by about half an hour, making most players go home before that and annoying the > organizer) > - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if they have any) > with the frequency sheets (and living with having perhaps 5-10% > mis-scores) > > I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this problem, and any > constructive suggestions. > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > 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 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1170 / Virusdatabase: 1435/3324 - datum van uitgifte: 12/18/10 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1170 / Virusdatabase: 1435/3326 - datum van uitgifte: 12/19/10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101220/97362607/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 20 12:08:31 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:08:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <4D0F2F43.8010707@meteo.fr> References: <620132.37145.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1PURhe-0KeroG0@fw d00.aul.t-online.de><4D0F2057.50107@meteo.fr> <4D0F2977.4040006@skynet.be> <4D0F2F43.8010707@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <245706.78752.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] you could slightly adapt your scoring program so that the bridgemate would not accept the entry so long as the entering player has not registered an opening lead matching a card belonging to the opening leader. [Herman De Wael] That was how it was first introduced. Then some clever declarer entered the Queen of diamonds as lead, saw the machine react, and finessed the correct way ... The check was quickly abandoned after that. [Jean-Pierre Rocafort2] You only need to delay the check at the last moment, after end of play, when EW are asked to valid the result. [Nigel] Wow, Herman! When deterrents are absent or inadequate, upstanding citizens do rationalise surprising actions: - Politicians and "expenses", - Diplomats instructed to steal cell phones, - Bridge-players here and in other contexts. Jean-Pierre seems to have the answer to the ingenious lead discovery play :) Handing out result-slips is a great idea. More HBIs: - You could economise with just two handouts (one before before and one after the final round). - The computer could look for anomalies (as previousy sugested) and high-light suspicious results *in red* in the print-outs, for players to check. From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 20 12:29:05 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:29:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: <004001cba033$533d3e90$f9b7bbb0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <000f01cb9fce$138ba7b0$3aa2f710$@no> <002201cba026$626e7a80$274b6f80$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <001601cba02b$3b221b80$b1665280$@no> <004001cba033$533d3e90$f9b7bbb0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <003101cba039$1c39a130$54ace390$@no> Sure Ton, For a moment I forgot that most countries (outside Scandinavia?) still live in the "stone age" with Howell or Mitchell. Regards (and merry Xmas) Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: 20. desember 2010 11:48 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome Dear Sven, You are living in a real dream world where anything played is done in barometer style. Let us not distribute those slips round by round in howell/mitchell events. ton If I understand Ton correct I believe our routine is even (slightly) more player-friendly: We hand out slips to each pair for each round during the following round so the players get feedback on the boards they have just played. And the slips for the last round are handed out immediately after the last round is finished with a five (or maybe ten) minutes period for reporting (alleged) errors. Of course complete board records with all results shown are published at the same time slips are handed out. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: 20. desember 2010 10:15 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome Hi, I join Sven. When we started to use the bridgemates in ebl and wbf pairs events we also provided the players with a print out of their results when they were playing their last round. This means that they receive their scores board by board with an overall percentage for the whole session minus the last (2) boards they are still playing. This is very much appreciated and I consider it one of the big improvements using the bridgemates. But this does not solve the scoring error made in the last boards played. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: zondag 19 december 2010 23:43 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome Once you use Bridgemate you obviously also use computers for calculating the results. Why not print out the complete results showing how each board has been scored at each table immediately as soon as scoring is completed, publish the printout on some publishing board and give the players say ten minutes to verify their results? I assume your events are some kind of Mitchell; we (in Scandinavia) have a simpler task as we normally run barometer schedules. Here we hand out printed result slips to each pair after each round, the slip shows (for each pair) what they did in the last round, their score on each board and their running total score as well as current ranking. My experience as director is that scoring errors have been reduced with a factor of at least ten since we used manual scoring with travelers, and the remaining errors are most often noticed by the players within five minutes after they receive their result slips. Suggestion: Investigate what you can do with your scoring program to make life easier for both players and the director. If the scoring program can make individual printouts for each pair then that would be fine. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: 19. desember 2010 21:40 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome > > Dear list, > > Since we have started to use Bridgemates in major tournaments, scoring errors > have steeply increased. > At a recent tournament, NS entered the wrong declarer turning their top into a > bottom, EW acknowledged the score and won the tournament. The error was only > discovered after the prize giving ceremony, leading to some acrimony. > We are now about to amend our regulations but see no easy solution. > 1. Organizers and players want an early prize giving ceremony so players can > start their return journeys. > 2. Only a handful of players care to check the frequency sheets. > 3. We use travellers in addition to the Bridgemates - but chasing differences is > quite a challenge, especially when some players leave immediately after the > session. > 4. As results and frequency sheets are posted on the internet, quite some players > check them next day, and phone to ask for corrections. > > There have been several suggestions in the committee, including: > - extending the correction period to next day noon (when everybody will have > taken their prizes home) > - making the TD/scorer responsible for comparing the travellers with the > Bridgemate results before the prize giving ceremony (which will then be delayed > by about half an hour, making most players go home before that and annoying the > organizer) > - making players responsible for checking their private scores (if they have any) > with the frequency sheets (and living with having perhaps 5-10% > mis-scores) > > I would welcome information how other jurisdictions handle this problem, and any > constructive suggestions. > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > 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 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1170 / Virusdatabase: 1435/3324 - datum van uitgifte: 12/18/10 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1170 / Virusdatabase: 1435/3326 - datum van uitgifte: 12/19/10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101220/829ce02f/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Dec 20 14:06:56 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:06:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79C2 regulation - suggestions welcome In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you all for your input. Harald has pointed me to the "change suspicious scores" option in MagicContest (even the federation's chief scorer didn't know about it) the use of which we will make mandatory. We will also discuss whether to distribute personal scores during the last round but one (the last round tends to be somewhat hectic), but as we play Mitchells the UI danger from these might not be worth the additional accuracy (there is a fair share of careless or unexperienced players). Regards, Petrus From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Mon Dec 20 15:31:16 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:31:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: richard willey > I've played strong club for a long time > > I've never heard of a conventional defense to a strong club opening being disallowed Curious whether anyone else has My experience is the same as Michael's. We were playing a 1S overcall as any hand that didn't fit any of the many toys we were playing. Not a 2 suiter, not a weak one suiter, not ... (I no longer recall all of the options) Wasn't permitted. As with Michael, this was long before any primarily destructive regs. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 20 16:22:30 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:22:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <389774.60966.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [richard willey] My experience is the same as Michael's. We were playing a 1S overcall as any hand that didn't fit any of the many toys we were playing. Not a 2 suiter, not a weak one suiter, not ... (I no longer recall all of the options) Wasn't permitted. As with Michael, this was long before any primarily destructive regs. [nigel] I believe that there should be no system-restrictions but I feel that such conventions should be permitted only if you can describe them adequately. Suppose my partner opens 2D, I alert, and you ask what it means. I think it would be ridiculous for a director to allow me to describe it as: a hand unsuitable for a pass, a 1C opener, a 1D opener, and so on... On the other hand, sometimes, in a more complicated auction, all that you can hope for is negative inferences. For example, yesterday, the following auction occurred: (3N) _P (4C) 4H (_X) 3N = long minor 4C = pass/correct 4H = Natural. I asked what opener's double meant. I was told "No agreement". I asked if there any inferences from partnership style, or experience in other contexts. The reply was "None". When the play was over, the doubler explained that his double was intended to show top-end strength without extra shape. "Well, I knew it wouldn't be penalty or show heart values" said his partner. We suffered no damage. I complained, however, that although this interpretation is sensible I would have been grateful for that information earlier. My partner defended opponents. He explained it was "general bridge knowledge". Again I was surprised what others regard as "general bridge knowledge". Especially as different groups of people sometimes have different and incompatible interpretations. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 20 22:56:06 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:56:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Knight Before Christmas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: On the topic of a blml knight nobly educating his peasants despite him not suffering any damage. Bah. Humbug! Richard Hills ACBL Appeals Casebook, Kansas City 2001, Case Five (celeritous Pass by South over East's 4H): The Appeal: ..... For the benefit of developing uniform guidelines and for the purpose of educating her opponents, East believed she was obligated to appeal this ruling. ..... The Committee Decision: The Committee quickly decided that pass by North was the only LA. Several members of the Committee believed that since the appellants were not of the opinion that they were necessarily entitled to a score adjustment, they should not be pursuing the matter before a Committee. They believed the Recorder system was available for this purpose. ..... The Committee decided to have East demonstrate how she had made her 4H bid. From the demonstration the Committee decided that she had placed the bid on the table in a proper manner. The Committee allowed the table result to stand and South was urged to make all calls in proper tempo. Casebook panellist Grattan Endicott: East has no duty toward "educating her opponents". This arrogant and offensive concept should be removed at once from her understanding of the game: Players at the table have no such duty or prerogative. The "Recorder" system and parallel arrangements around the world exist to attend to these matters. The Director is wrong to say that the premature pass is irrelevant. The Committee does better on this point. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Tue Dec 21 19:27:56 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:27:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Marvin French wrote: > > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' ?vulnerable 6H. The spade slam > makes only because of ?a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, > nothing to the play, and would have scored ?+1430. > > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, > > 1. What ?is ?the cost of the revoke, 30 points ?or 980+50=1030 > points? > > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? I would adjust the NOS score to +1430. I find this case analogous to Kaplan's Case 6 here: ??http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm Kaplan wrote: "... the N-S score should be adjusted ... even if their bid was the most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man. This time it is the N-S error that is as irrelevant as the battle of Waterloo, since the zero, their damage, was unrelated to that error. Rather, the damage was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction. In fact, it was the inevitable consequence, so how can there be any argument?" As you can tell from my answer, I read 12C1(b) differently than the posters so far. I could certainly be mistaken about the intent of the WBF LC here. I'd love to see an official example covering a case like this. I don't think the ACBL LC has considered it either -- I'll bring it up. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Dec 21 20:14:35 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:14:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Score_adjustment_problem=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: Adam Wildavsky > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Marvin French > wrote: > > > > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired > > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' ?vulnerable 6H. The spade slam > > makes only because of ?a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, > > nothing to the play, and would have scored ?+1430. > > > > > > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, > > > > 1. What ?is ?the cost of the revoke, 30 points ?or 980+50=1030 > > points? > > > > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? > > I would adjust the NOS score to +1430. I find this case analogous to > Kaplan's Case 6 here: > > ??http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm > > Kaplan wrote: > > "... the N-S score should be adjusted ... even if their bid was the > most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man. This time it is the > N-S error that is as irrelevant as the battle of Waterloo, since the > zero, their damage, was unrelated to that error. Rather, the damage > was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction. In fact, it > was the inevitable consequence, so how can there be any argument?" > > As you can tell from my answer, I read 12C1(b) differently than the > posters so far. I could certainly be mistaken about the intent of the > WBF LC here. I'd love to see an official example covering a case like > this. I don't think the ACBL LC has considered it either -- I'll bring > it up. Though his position "chairman of the WBF LC" is now erased from the file, Ton wrote in his Commentary to the 2007 Laws: "Law 12: Redress for damage An infraction may create damage for the non-offending side. Redress is given only for damage caused by that infraction, not for damage as a result of a subsequent serious error. This includes wild or gambling actions, and, for example, the loss of an extra trick as rectification after a revoke. The TD splits the damage caused by the infraction (consequent damage) from the subsequent damage and compensates the consequent damage. Examples: A) Teams; NS vulnerable NS (team A) play in 5? doubled after a competitive auction, where the opponents (team B) bid to 4? (NS having bid 4?) after a significant break in tempo. They make 9 tricks. The TD decides that bidding 4? was not allowed and that 5? was a gambling, not normal action. He further decides that the play in 4? (undoubled) would have resulted in 8 tricks and the play in 4? in 9 tricks. The result at the other table is 3? -1 for EW. ? With normal play, team A would have received, after the infraction, 2 IMPs (+100/-50). ? Without the infraction, it would have received -4 IMPs (-100/-50). ? The TD decides that team A is not damaged by the infraction, so he does not adjust its score. Therefore, team A receives -11 IMPs (-500/-50). ? Team B receives a score based on the expected result had the irregularity not occurred: +4 IMPs (+100/+50). B) The facts are comparable except that 4? would have been made (result at the other table is 3?+1). Then the calculation becomes: ? With normal play, team A would have received, after the infraction, -6 IMPs (-420/+170). ? Without the infraction, it would have received +2 IMPs (-100/+170). ? The TD decides that the damage caused by the infraction is 8 IMPs, so the score for team A is increased by 8 IMPs, resulting in - 8 (-500/+170) +8 = 0 IMPs. ? Team B receives -2 IMPs (+100/-170)." From adam at tameware.com Tue Dec 21 21:01:37 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:01:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Adam Wildavsky > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Marvin French > > wrote: > > > > > > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired > > > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam > > > makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, > > > nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. > > > > > > > > > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, > > > > > > 1. What is the cost of the revoke, 30 points or 980+50=1030 > > > points? > > > > > > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? > > > > I would adjust the NOS score to +1430. I find this case analogous to > > Kaplan's Case 6 here: > > > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm > > > > Kaplan wrote: > > > > "... the N-S score should be adjusted ... even if their bid was the > > most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man. This time it is the > > N-S error that is as irrelevant as the battle of Waterloo, since the > > zero, their damage, was unrelated to that error. Rather, the damage > > was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction. In fact, it > > was the inevitable consequence, so how can there be any argument?" > > > > As you can tell from my answer, I read 12C1(b) differently than the > > posters so far. I could certainly be mistaken about the intent of the > > WBF LC here. I'd love to see an official example covering a case like > > this. I don't think the ACBL LC has considered it either -- I'll bring > > it up. > > Though his position "chairman of the WBF LC" is now erased from > the file, Ton wrote in his Commentary to the 2007 Laws: > > "Law 12: Redress for damage > An infraction may create damage for the non-offending side. > Redress is given only for damage caused by that infraction, > not for damage as a result of a subsequent serious error. > This includes wild or gambling actions, and, for example, > the loss of an extra trick as rectification after a revoke. > The TD splits the damage caused by the infraction > (consequent damage) from the subsequent damage and > compensates the consequent damage. > > Examples: > A) Teams; NS vulnerable > NS (team A) play in 5? doubled after a competitive auction, > where the opponents (team B) bid to 4? (NS having bid 4?) > after a significant break in tempo. They make 9 tricks. The TD > decides that bidding 4? was not allowed and that 5? was > a gambling, not normal action. He further decides that the > play in 4? (undoubled) would have resulted in 8 tricks and > the play in 4? in 9 tricks. The result at the other table is 3? -1 > for EW. > ? With normal play, team A would have received, after the > infraction, 2 IMPs (+100/-50). > ? Without the infraction, it would have received -4 IMPs (-100/-50). > ? The TD decides that team A is not damaged by the infraction, > so he does not adjust its score. Therefore, team A receives > -11 IMPs (-500/-50). > ? Team B receives a score based on the expected result > had the irregularity not occurred: +4 IMPs (+100/+50). > > B) The facts are comparable except that 4? would have been > made (result at the other table is 3?+1). Then the calculation > becomes: > ? With normal play, team A would have received, after the > infraction, -6 IMPs (-420/+170). > ? Without the infraction, it would have received +2 IMPs (-100/+170). > ? The TD decides that the damage caused by the infraction > is 8 IMPs, so the score for team A is increased by 8 IMPs, > resulting in - 8 (-500/+170) +8 = 0 IMPs. > ? Team B receives -2 IMPs (+100/-170)." Thanks Peter! That case does seem analogous, and it argues against my interpretation. It's a shame that Ton's document is not official. I can understand why it is not, but I always wish for more examples to help resolve cases where some find the wording of the laws ambiguous. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101221/628e1cbe/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Dec 21 21:04:59 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:04:59 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <675AD4E6F234458387775A5F9ADE5BE2@changeme1> All the world's mad 'cept thee'n I an Im not too sure 'bout thee. Lets' get rid of the Rhinemaidens weaving and the Scottish witches stirring. 1430 both ways. off to the bar. > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam > makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, > nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. > > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, > > 1. What is the cost of the revoke, 30 points or 980+50=1030 > points? > > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? I would adjust the NOS score to +1430. I find this case analogous to Kaplan's Case 6 here: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm Kaplan wrote: "... the N-S score should be adjusted ... even if their bid was the most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man. This time it is the N-S error that is as irrelevant as the battle of Waterloo, since the zero, their damage, was unrelated to that error. Rather, the damage was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction. In fact, it was the inevitable consequence, so how can there be any argument?" As you can tell from my answer, I read 12C1(b) differently than the posters so far. I could certainly be mistaken about the intent of the WBF LC here. I'd love to see an official example covering a case like this. I don't think the ACBL LC has considered it either -- I'll bring it up. From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Dec 21 21:30:59 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:30:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4D110E83.2040805@comcast.net> On 12/18/10 2:06 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Robert Park wrote: >> Maybe so (as I said before), but the ACBL does allow 1NT-(X)-2m, for >> example, as "Presumably natural, but possibly short and >> 2-suited...planning a conventional run-out if doubled." >> > Interesting. I must have missed what you said before. > > Was it your agreement that was banned? I'll assume it was. Would you > be willing to list the steps you went through to establish that the > ACBL does not allow 2D to have this meaning? Was it just one hurried > director at one event? Did you discuss it with him afterwards? > Directors are human, and might sometimes make a mistake. A few years ago, my partner & I were playing in an eastern US regional (Cherry Hill I think, though it might have been Lancaster). We were using a weak/mini 1NT, and the auction (with us not vulnerable) began 1NT-(X)-2m. We alerted this as "ostensibly natural, but could be short and 2-suited, planning to run if doubled." I don't recall the outcome, other than that it was favorable for us. Our opponents called the director, who consulted with the other directors, and they ruled in favor of our opponents. I discussed this with the tournament's chief director (Doug Grove) after the event and asked if he would mind if I referred the question to the ACBL. He suggested I do so. So I sent an email to the ACBL that explained our methods, the alert, and the directors' ruling...and called attention to the wording in the GCC regarding permitted actions when responding to 1NT openings. About 2 weeks later I received a nice note, via email, from Doug Grove. He apologized for the ruling and said that after further discussions they had concluded that our methods were in fact GCC legitimate. He also complimented us on our handling of the incident. We continue to use a limited variation of this treatment, and we have yet to receive a second objection...either from opponents or from directors. --Bob Park From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 21 21:40:29 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:40:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Adam Wildavsky] Thanks Peter! That case does seem analogous, and it argues against my interpretation. It's a shame that Ton's document is not official. I can understand why it is not, but I always wish for more examples to help resolve cases where some find the wording of the laws ambiguous. [Nigel] The brightest and best directors disagree fundamentally on the meaning of laws, so it is no surprise that the rest of us can't understand them. If the "serious error" and "wild and gambling" rules were expurgated, the affected laws would be simpler and fairer. More to the point -- some club directors and ordinary players would be able to understand them :) From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 21 22:12:42 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:12:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <6E308ED3-1671-48F3-808B-65C8C826FF24@starpower.net> <4D0A2DA4.7010308@ulb.ac.be> <4D0A3CE8.5000606@nhcc.net> <83B29790-D420-4425-9210-B9884B943104@starpower.net> <4D0A711E.5050706@nhcc.net> <397AF731-CFAF-4B22-A7AA-1D94AC590117@starpower.net> Message-ID: <05396AE6-4115-4FDB-8465-500DA249F423@starpower.net> On Dec 18, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> Am I now free of that decades-old obligation; may I now "do it >>>> again", whatever it was? >>> >>> Yes, I believe so, though for a reason having nothing nothing to do >>> with the new laws. >>> >>> Personally, I would have assumed I was free of the obligation the >>> instant they refused to elaborate on what I was not allowed to "do >>> again." If they cannot articulate and clarity what you cannot >>> do, why >>> imagine that their statement means anything whatsoever? >> >> I never have. But I don't really fault the committee; they were >> trying their best to apply a regulation that didn't really mean >> anything whatsoever. > > Interesting. It sounds like you are saying that you have felt still > under some obligation all this time. Since then, what have you *not* > been doing to fulfill the obligation you felt? I haven't had to worry about in over 25 years -- since the nationally- known expert who was my partner at the time gave up the game. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 21 22:22:27 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:22:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: <05766BFA-DAAE-4A0B-AB0D-657D4620722A@starpower.net> On Dec 18, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> I would guess that most directors would allow 1S after 1H-X- to >>> possibly not show spades, if that was disclosed with adequate >>> precision. Do you think I am wrong? >> >> I do. I think if you offered it as a two-way conventional method, 1S >> forcing, either natural with spades or weak with heart support and >> spade shortness, you would not be allowed to play it. Perhaps "some" >> directors would allow it, but "most" is almost certainlty a serious >> overbid. > > We are talking here about conventional calls where the GCC allows > conventional calls except for the ones > "whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods." We are > only talking about cases where the GCC allows conventional calls with > no other restriction. > > It sounds to me like your reasoning process here is to focus on > whether the conventional call is one-way or two-way: If it is one-way > (such as 1H - (X takeout) - 1S showing 5 or more clubs), allow it; if > it is two-way (or more than two) and conventional, disallow it. > > I don't think that the ACBL enforcement of the GCC employs such a > simplistic heuristic. > > For example, these conventional calls are two-way, yet they are > explicitly allowed by the GCC: > > (1H) - 2H Spades plus a minor, but don't know which minor > > (1H) - 1NT Diamonds plus a black suit. > > (1H) - 4NT Two suits with any two suits other than hearts. > > Even more telling against your (if I understand you correctly) > if-it-is-two-way-it-must-be-illegal heuristic are the following > two-way conventional bids that are commonly employed in the ACBL yet > are never outlawed: > > Stayman > takeout doubles (which can have any shape if strong enough) > SOS redoubles (with unknown suits) > Lebensohl (with one of several weak or strong hands) > The DONT double of a 1NT opening > CRASH (On the Internet, there are scores of references to its GCC > legality against a strong, artificial club) > (1S) - P - (2S) - (P) - P - 2NT (Two suiter with any two suits) > Italian cue bids that show either an ace or a void (but we don't > know which) > 2H - (X) - XX (Transfer to spades, either to play, or about to raise > hearts asking for a spade lead) > the Fishbein convention > the Good-bad 2NT > 1NT - P - 2NT (Either both minors, or long diamonds) > > Being two-way is clearly neither necessary nor sufficient for a call > to be deemed primarily destructive. > > Besides, as far as "destroying the opponents methods" in the original > case (i.e., 1H - (X takeout) - 1S), the opponents would have to be > pretty stupid or inexperienced players if their methods were destroyed > by the 1S bid. You have more options than you would have had had they > passed! If you wanted to bid 1S over the takeout double, it does not > take a genius to substitute double for 1S. My analysis had nothing to do with two-way bids as such. I think that the operational definition of "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents methods" is something close to "smells like a psych" (which is, if course, just as completely arbitrary). I would expect a two-way method to be treated as meeting the criteria of one of it's "ways" smells like a psych. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 21 22:38:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:38:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2010, at 7:02 PM, richard willey wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: > > True, but we are exploring what essentially means. > _______________________________________________ > > I've played strong club for a long time > > I've never heard of a conventional defense to a strong club opening > being disallowed > Curious whether anyone else has Yes, but it was rather odd, and I don't remember the exact details. As I recall, overcalls of 1D, 1H or 1NT were not (systemically) permitted, overcalls of 2C or higher were specifically defined, but had sufficient requirements in terms of suit length or quality and/or strength to make them relatively rare, and passing was not (systemically) allowed, so *all other hands* (i.e. the vast majority) were required to bid 1S. There were systemic followups after the catch-all 1S. The pair who wanted to play it was told that 1S constituted an illegal "agreement to psych" and the followups to 1S were illegal "psychic controls". [Disclaimer: I have no first-hand knowledge here; it was a third- or fourth- or fifth-hand story, and may have been somewhat muddled in multiple recountings. Perhaps someone else knows more than I do.?] Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 22 00:21:08 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:21:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> <675AD4E6F234458387775A5F9ADE5BE2@changeme1> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. > All the world's mad 'cept thee'n I an Im not too sure 'bout thee. > Lets' get rid of the Rhinemaidens weaving and the Scottish witches > stirring. > > 1430 both ways. off to the bar. > > >> In total point team play the OS bids an illegal >> hesitation-inspired >> non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam >> makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, >> nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. >> >> The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, >> >> 1. What is the cost of the revoke, 30 points or 980+50=1030 >> points? >> >> 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? > > I would adjust the NOS score to +1430. I find this case analogous > to > Kaplan's Case 6 here: > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm > > Kaplan wrote: > > "... the N-S score should be adjusted ... even if their bid was > the > most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man. This time it is > the > N-S error that is as irrelevant as the battle of Waterloo, since > the > zero, their damage, was unrelated to that error. Rather, the > damage > was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction. In fact, > it > was the inevitable consequence, so how can there be any argument?" > > As you can tell from my answer, I read 12C1(b) differently than > the > posters so far. I could certainly be mistaken about the intent of > the > WBF LC here. I'd love to see an official example covering a case > like > this. I don't think the ACBL LC has considered it either -- I'll > bring > it up. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 5722 (20101221) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5722 (20101221) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 22 00:34:40 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:34:40 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <0FCA3908360E4EDEB8D7F3CA1B24AE8E@MARVLAPTOP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. > From: Adam Wildavsky >> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Marvin French >> >> wrote: > >> >> > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal >> > hesitation-inspired >> > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam >> > makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, >> > nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. >> > >> > >> > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, >> > >> > 1. What is the cost of the revoke, 30 points or 980+50=1030 >> > points? >> > >> > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? >> >> I would adjust the NOS score to +1430. I find this case analogous >> to >> Kaplan's Case 6 here: >> >> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm >> >> Kaplan wrote: >> >> "... the N-S score should be adjusted ... even if their bid was >> the >> most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man. This time it is >> the >> N-S error that is as irrelevant as the battle of Waterloo, since >> the >> zero, their damage, was unrelated to that error. Rather, the >> damage >> was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction. In >> fact, it >> was the inevitable consequence, so how can there be any >> argument?" >> >> As you can tell from my answer, I read 12C1(b) differently than >> the >> posters so far. I could certainly be mistaken about the intent of >> the >> WBF LC here. I'd love to see an official example covering a case >> like >> this. I don't think the ACBL LC has considered it either -- I'll >> bring >> it up. > > Though his position "chairman of the WBF LC" is now erased from > the file, Ton wrote in his Commentary to the 2007 Laws: > > "Law 12: Redress for damage > An infraction may create damage for the non-offending side. > Redress is given only for damage caused by that infraction, > not for damage as a result of a subsequent serious error. > This includes wild or gambling actions, and, for example, > the loss of an extra trick as rectification after a revoke. > The TD splits the damage caused by the infraction > (consequent damage) from the subsequent damage and > compensates the consequent damage. > > Examples: > A) Teams; NS vulnerable > NS (team A) play in 5? doubled after a competitive auction, > where the opponents (team B) bid to 4? (NS having bid 4?) > after a significant break in tempo. They make 9 tricks. The TD > decides that bidding 4? was not allowed and that 5? was > a gambling, not normal action. He further decides that the > play in 4? (undoubled) would have resulted in 8 tricks and > the play in 4? in 9 tricks. The result at the other table is 3? -1 > for EW. > ? With normal play, team A would have received, after the > infraction, 2 IMPs (+100/-50). > ? Without the infraction, it would have received -4 IMPs > (-100/-50). > ? The TD decides that team A is not damaged by the infraction, > so he does not adjust its score. Therefore, team A receives > -11 IMPs (-500/-50). > ? Team B receives a score based on the expected result > had the irregularity not occurred: +4 IMPs (+100/+50). > > B) The facts are comparable except that 4? would have been > made (result at the other table is 3?+1). Then the calculation > becomes: > ? With normal play, team A would have received, after the > infraction, -6 IMPs (-420/+170). > ? Without the infraction, it would have received +2 IMPs > (-100/+170). > ? The TD decides that the damage caused by the infraction > is 8 IMPs, so the score for team A is increased by 8 IMPs, > resulting in - 8 (-500/+170) +8 = 0 IMPs. > ? Team B receives -2 IMPs (+100/-170)." Can't you people read?? This is not an imp or matchpoint problem contest, it is toal point team of four (or Chicago rubber bridge score by duplicate scoring, if you prefer. Also, has no one read the part of L12C1(b) that says the NOS can get partial redress, as in this case?? Cost of the revoke 980+50=1030 points. Subtract that from 1430 and you get 400 points as an adjusted score for the NOS. For those who do not have a copy of the Laws, L12C1(b) says "it [NOS] does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted." That means it *does* get relief for such part of the damage as is not self-inflicted. If the self-inflicted damage equals or exceeds the consequent damage, only in that case do they keep the table result. And for the OS -1430 of course. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5722 (20101221) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 22 00:38:16 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:38:16 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: > From: Adam Wildavsky Marv wrote: <>> > >> > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, >> > >> > 1. What is the cost of the revoke, 30 points or 980+50=1030 >> > points? >> > >> > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? >> >> I would adjust the NOS score to +1430. I find this case analogous >> to >> Kaplan's Case 6 here: >> No partial redress, despite L12C1(b). Why not have your LC change that law if denial of any redress is what you want? I won't even look at Kaplan's case 6, which is irrelevant. The Laws have changed since his time. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5722 (20101221) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 22 02:29:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 01:29:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap References: <389774.60966.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap > [nigel] I believe that there should be no system-restrictions but I feel that such conventions should be permitted only if you can describe them adequately. < +=+ I am wondering if you perhaps mean "only if your description of them can be understood by the opponent" ? ;-) ~ G ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 22 02:39:00 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 01:39:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <389774.60966.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <681186.64566.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [nigel] I believe that there should be no system-restrictions but I feel that such conventions should be permitted only if you can describe them adequately. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I am wondering if you perhaps mean "only if your description of them can be understood by the opponent" ? ;-) [Nige2] Yes by most opponents. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 08:58:07 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:58:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/21 Nigel Guthrie : > [Adam Wildavsky] > Thanks Peter! That case does seem analogous, and it argues against my > interpretation. It's a shame that Ton's document is not official. I can > understand why it is not, but I always wish for more examples to help resolve > cases where some find the wording of the laws ambiguous. > > [Nigel] > The brightest and best directors disagree fundamentally on the meaning of laws, > so it is no surprise that the rest of us can't understand them. If the "serious > error" and "wild and gambling" rules were expurgated, the affected laws would be > simpler Sure > and fairer. Not at all. > More to the point -- some club directors and ordinary > players would be able to understand them :) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Dec 22 11:14:41 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:14:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: Kaplan is my hero concerning the bridge laws and my history lessons made me aware of the battle of Waterloo. I have been there (on the battle field, but after the battle)! We do not want a pair to throw in their hands once they are sure that the opponents have illegally reached 6S with the argument that any card they are going to play is related to Waterloo, do we? The world wide experience is that TD?s and appeal committees want the non offenders to keep playing bridge and that not all damage can be related to the infraction committed by the offenders. So yes a revoke is Waterloo, being very subsequent and therefore not compensated. To be honest I don?t understand this to create questions, or do I not understand the question? Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Harald Skj?ran Verzonden: woensdag 22 december 2010 8:58 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. 2010/12/21 Nigel Guthrie : > [Adam Wildavsky] > Thanks Peter! That case does seem analogous, and it argues against my > interpretation. It's a shame that Ton's document is not official. I can > understand why it is not, but I always wish for more examples to help resolve > cases where some find the wording of the laws ambiguous. > > [Nigel] > The brightest and best directors disagree fundamentally on the meaning of laws, > so it is no surprise that the rest of us can't understand them. If the "serious > error" and "wild and gambling" rules were expurgated, the affected laws would be > simpler Sure > and fairer. Not at all. > More to the point -- some club directors and ordinary > players would be able to understand them :) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skjran _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1170 / Virusdatabase: 1435/3329 - datum van uitgifte: 12/21/10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101222/ff928418/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 22 15:07:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:07:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0D4FBF.2050507@nyc.rr.com> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0D4FBF.2050507@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: <2BBD1A21-D58D-4DB1-AD26-C40767A8C57B@starpower.net> On Dec 18, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Michael Kopera wrote: > At one point we played a 1S overcall to handle any hand we felt like > coming in on that didn't fit any other overcall. That pretty much > meant > a balanced hand with less than opening values. That was disallowed. > Calling it the "nuisance spade" might have contributed to that > (this was > also before the "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? > methods.") TPTB at the ACBL categorize such bids as (illegal) "systemic psychs", notwithstanding that TFLB makes it quite clear that there can be no such thing by definition, which suggests that bridge in North America is run by oxymorons. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 22 15:24:38 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:24:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Waterloo for sophisticated laws? In-Reply-To: <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <739090.4941.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Nigel] The brightest and best directors disagree fundamentally on the meaning of laws, so it is no surprise that the rest of us can't understand them. If the "serious error" and "wild and gambling" rules were expurgated, the affected laws would be simpler and fairer. More to the point -- some club directors and ordinary players would be able to understand them :) [ton] Kaplan is my hero concerning the bridge laws and my history lessons made me aware of the battle of Waterloo. I have been there (on the battle field, but after the battle)! We do not want a pair to throw in their hands once they are sure that the opponents have illegally reached 6S with the argument that any card they are going to play is related to Waterloo, do we? The world wide experience is that TD?s and appeal committees want the non-offenders to keep playing bridge and that not all damage can be related to the infraction committed by the offenders. So yes a revoke is Waterloo, being very subsequent and therefore not compensated. To be honest I don?t understand this to create questions, or do I not understand the question? [Nigel] IMO, Bridge-rules should be oriented to the interests of the ordinary player and less influenced by the preferences of directors and administrators. A player may lose the place a bit, when he feels an opponent is at it but no player "stops playing bridge" on mere suspicion. Take Ton's example. A player can never be sure that: - "opponents have illegally reached 6S" AND - the director and committee will agree with that assessment. SEWOG legislation ("serious error" / "wild or gambling" rules) benefit experts over ordinary players. Experts naturally resent the idea that their infraction should forfeit them their right to a good score from their rabbit opponents. The effect of SEWOG is to increase the long-term profit for law-breakers; and to inhibit victims from reporting suspected infractions. Victims don't relish the prospect of the director analysing their subsequent actions to reduce their redress -- adding insult to injury. IMO SEWOG legislation increases complexity but adds no value whatsoever. You may disagree with the all the above arguments; but you must accept that current laws are too sophisticated for players and most directors to understand. On some higher metaphysical plane, Bridge-laws may be the pinnacle of justice. On the Bridge-floor, however, players regard the inevitable inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings as unfair. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Dec 22 16:19:28 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:19:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: < 1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4D121700.4050003@meteo.fr> ton a ?crit : > ton: > > Kaplan is my hero concerning the bridge laws and my history lessons > made me aware of the battle of Waterloo. I have been there (on the > battle field, but after the battle)! We do not want a pair to throw > in their hands once they are sure that the opponents have illegally > reached 6S with the argument that any card they are going to play is > related to Waterloo, do we? > > The world wide experience is that TD?s and appeal committees want the > non offenders to keep playing bridge and that not all damage can be > related to the infraction committed by the offenders. So yes a revoke > is Waterloo, being very subsequent and therefore not compensated. > > To be honest I don?t understand this to create questions, or do I not > understand the question? > you are certainly right but i can understand this to create questions, as long as the "advantage rule" is used in a different way in almost all other disciplines (i carefuly avoid to use the word "sports"!). in rugby, for instance, when the director signals a foul by one team, it's quite common that a player from the opposite team commits a wild and gambling drop-goal to force the director to come back to a penalty for his team; and sometimes he may even commit a still wilder volontary foul to get the same result. only the chronology of events has then to be taken into account. maybe the advantage rule is fairer in bridge, maybe the conditions in which the director can interfere are not exactly the same, but one can understand that some people would prefer it to be different. jpr > > > > > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens > Harald Skj?ran Verzonden: woensdag 22 december 2010 8:58 Aan: Bridge > Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. > > > > 2010/12/21 Nigel Guthrie : >> [Adam Wildavsky] Thanks Peter! That case does seem analogous, and >> it argues against my interpretation. It's a shame that Ton's >> document is not official. I can understand why it is not, but I >> always wish for more examples to help resolve cases where some find >> the wording of the laws ambiguous. >> >> [Nigel] The brightest and best directors disagree fundamentally on >> the meaning of laws, so it is no surprise that the rest of us can't >> understand them. If the "serious error" and "wild and gambling" >> rules were expurgated, the affected laws would be simpler > > Sure > >> and fairer. > > Not at all. > >> More to the point -- some club directors and ordinary players would >> be able to understand them :) >> > -- Kind regards, Harald Skjran -- _______________________________________________ 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 jeff.ford at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 17:59:14 2010 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:59:14 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Waterloo for sophisticated laws? In-Reply-To: <739090.4941.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <739090.4941.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > [ton] > Kaplan is my hero concerning the bridge laws and my history lessons made me > aware of the battle of Waterloo. I have been there (on the battle field, but > after the battle)! We do not want a pair to throw in their ?hands once they are > sure that the opponents have illegally reached 6S with the argument that any > card they are going to play is related to Waterloo, do we? I recognize this is meant as rhetorical, but I don't think it has an obvious answer.? It is normal in other sports to ignore all play from the point of an infraction unless the innocent side ends up better off.? In American football, if the defense is offsides at the snap, the offense has a "free play".? As long as they don't also foul, they always have the chance to throw out the play and take the penalty on the opponents. A revoke makes this more interesting than merely bad play.? I do think it's reasonable to say that a violation of the rules should take away your free play, but I don't think legal, but poor, bridge should matter.? (To be clear, this is a statement about what I think the rules *should* be, not what they currently are.)? And, as in football, if you are mistaken that the opponents have fouled, then you are making a big mistake not to play your hardest anyway, so I think failing to play bridge after an infraction would be rare. Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 22 18:45:06 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:45:06 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <86308B79891B4A0CA97683B7A2512619@MARVLAPTOP> From: "ton" >The world wide experience is that TD?s and appeal committees want >the non offenders to keep playing bridge and that not all damage >can be related to the infraction committed by the offenders. So yes >a revoke is Waterloo, being very subsequent and therefore not >compensated. >To be honest I don?t understand this to create questions, or do I >not understand the question? Many in the ACBL want to apply "had the irregularity not occurred" to instances of serious error by the NOS, citing L12C1(e)(i). The principle that a specific law trumps a general law when there is conflict applies here. l2C1(b) dominates L12C(c) and (e), because it deals with a specific situation (serious error) while those laws deal with score adjustments in general. Your understanding of L12C1(b) in regard to the NOS is agreed to by nearly everyone, including those who wrote the law. Even Adam Wildavsky agrees with that, although he seemingly doesn't believe in partial redress when the cost of a serious error is less than the redress due as a consequence of the infraction. If he agrees with you, then he must surely agree that L12C1(b) also trumps the "had the irregularity not occurred" that the ACBLLC added to L12C(1)(e)(ii). That means the OS can be assigned a score based merely on the "consequence of its infraction," thereby excluding any benefit from self-inflicted damage by the other side and including OS actions *subsequent* to the infraction. Even in ACBL-land. I will write a "final solution" in a separate post and then promise not to post anything further on the subject. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5725 (20101222) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Dec 22 19:59:46 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:59:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Waterloo for sophisticated laws? In-Reply-To: <739090.4941.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <739090.4941.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > [Nigel] > IMO, Bridge-rules should be oriented to the interests of the ordinary > player > and less influenced by the preferences of directors and administrators. > > A player may lose the place a bit, when he feels an opponent is at it > but no > player "stops playing bridge" on mere suspicion. Take Ton's example. A > player > can never be sure that: > > - "opponents have illegally reached 6S" AND > - the director and committee will agree with that assessment. > > SEWOG legislation ("serious error" / "wild or gambling" rules) benefit > experts > over ordinary players. Experts naturally resent the idea that their > infraction > should forfeit them their right to a good score from their rabbit > opponents. > Nigel, I think you missed the point: the OS always lose any advantage they may have had from their infraction. Only the redress for the NOS is reduced by the effects of a Serious Error. Regards, Petrus From adam at irvine.com Wed Dec 22 21:58:15 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:58:15 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Still out of order Message-ID: <201012222036.MAA08847@mailhub.irvine.com> We had a debate recently on rec.games.bridge regarding a situation that was brought up last August on BLML, but I haven't been able to follow every thread on BLML and wasn't aware of it until I looked it up. The situation: South, declarer, is on lead. He leads a suit in which dummy has a singleton. Before West plays, North puts the singleton in the played position, without instruction from declarer. East then plays before West. The question: Is the play out of turn subject to rectification? On rec.games.bridge, the arguments were: "Yes" (the play is subject to rectification): (1) Although the first sentence of L57C1 says the defender is *not* subject to rectification "... if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played", the second sentence cancels this because it says that a singleton is not considered played if declarer hasn't so instructed, and the organization of the wording makes it clear that this second sentence of L57C1 is supposed to apply to the first sentence. (2) The fact that the wording changed from 1997, and the way that the wording was changed, seems to make it clear that the Lawmakers wanted a change in how this exact situation was dealt with. The 1997 Law simply said, "A singleton in dummy ... is not considered to be automatically played". There would have been no point to changing this to a Law that includes the phrase "until declarer has instructed", unless it was intended that the Law should apply differently when declarer did *not* make an instructions. "No" (the play is not subject to rectification): (3) The purpose of Law 57C1 is to avoid penalizing a defender when dummy plays out of turn, and making an exception in this case would, in this situation, defeat the purpose of the Law. Therefore, the interpretation favored by the "Yes" supporters cannot be right. (4) The first sentence of L57C1 includes the phrase "nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played"; and while the second sentence may mean that we have to treat it as if dummy has not played the card, by placing the card in the played position he has still "illegally suggested" that it be played, and thus the first sentence still applies. The counterargument to #4 is: (5) Law 45F makes it clear that dummy's touching or indicating a card without instruction from director is *not* necessarily a "suggestion" to declarer---the director has to decide that. The purpose of L45F is to prevent dummy from trying to help declarer (it contains the phrase "dummy suggested a play to declarer"); and playing a singleton, without instruction from the declarer, cannot help declarer in any way and therefore is not an "illegal suggestion". * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * When this was posted on BLML in August, there wasn't any debate about this situation; almost everyone seemed to assume the answer was "no" without discussion, and point #4 was mentioned once. I'm not interested in a debate on what the Laws say just from looking at the Laws; I've already been through that on rec.games.bridge, and I think both sides have a case. But I'm interested in any external information that might shed light on what the lawmakers intended, such as: -- Any information about why it was felt necessary to change the law for 2007, either from recorded minutes or inside knowledge; -- Anything written by the WBFLC or other authorities that describes "officially" how this situation is supposed to be handled, under the 2007 Laws; -- Something "official" from an authority that describes the changes to the Laws, that says either that this law changed (in effect) or that it did not change. Can anyone shed some light on this? -- thanks, Adam P.S. I may not be reading e-mail to this address regularly between tomorrow and January 3. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 22 22:40:38 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:40:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Waterloo for sophisticated laws? In-Reply-To: References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <739090.4941.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <503042.30662.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Petrus Schuster OSB] Nigel, I think you missed the point: the OS always lose any advantage they may have had from their infraction. Only the redress for the NOS is reduced by the effects of a Serious Error. [Nigel] Directors often say that is it really true? A few critical scenarios: 1. Match-pointed pairs. Current opponents are leading. We are lying second. 2. Head to head team match. Opponents are ahead by a few imps. 3. Multiple teams. Current opponents are leading. We are lying second. As I understand it, opponents don't lose all of the bonus that they obtained by breaking the law. They keep the part of our redress that was confiscated from us for a subsequent error, according to SEWOG law. Thus, they may still retain sufficient of their ill-gotten gains to beat us. In any case, their long-term profit from law-breaking is increased. If I've really got this wrong I'd be grateful for an explanation. Anyway, if we have taken some subsequent action that the director may consider to be wild and gambling we night not even call the director. We don't want to be criticised for our stupidity as well as being deprived of redress. Not all players are complete masochists. From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 23 01:05:10 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:05:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Still out of order In-Reply-To: <201012222036.MAA08847@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201012222036.MAA08847@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000a01cba235$10f61440$32e23cc0$@no> On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan .................... > -- Any information about why it was felt necessary to change the law > for 2007, either from recorded minutes or inside knowledge; The only relevant change in 2007 as far as I can see was the replacement of: 1997: . . . . . is not considered to be automatically played. With 2007: . . . . . is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated*) the play. This was just a technicality without altering the reality of the law: Some action is required by declarer and/or dummy to make the card considered played for the purpose of waving Law 57A. The fact that no real choice exists in selecting the card to be played from dummy is in itself not sufficient. > -- Anything written by the WBFLC or other authorities that describes > "officially" how this situation is supposed to be handled, under > the 2007 Laws; I cannot remember receiving any material with the new law 57 (when we worked on the new laws) other than the detailed markup of the changes. These changes were apparently made in order to elaborate on the precise conditions for law 57C1 to kick in. > > -- Something "official" from an authority that describes the changes > to the Laws, that says either that this law changed (in effect) or > that it did not change. The intention of Law 57 is unchanged: A premature lead or play by a defender may result in rectification under Law 57A unless declarer or dummy takes any action as specified in Law 57C1. Law 45B is not relevant in this connection because dummy does not have to _play_ a card (according to Law 45) for his action to be considered a _suggestion_ (according to Law 57C). But the last clause in Law 57C1 (both before and after 2007) makes it clear that no card is considered played from dummy just because it is the only card that can be played unless some action by declarer or dummy indicates the play of such card. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Dec 23 02:35:44 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:35:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <1C4BFE007ADF4FF092FF26F2E5FD72F7@erdos> The difference is that Kaplan was referring to a match-pointed event. In Kaplan's example, N-S bid 4H vulnerable, E-W committed an infraction by sacrificing in 5C after a hesitation, and N-S made a serious error by bidding 5H down one rather than doubling 5C. All other tables were +620 in 4H making. After E-W bid 5C, N-S were going to get a zero no matter what they did; doubling 5C would have given +500 for the same bottom as bidding on to 5H for -100, so none of the damage was self-inflicted. The original problem specified an event with total-point scoring. The difference between +500 and -100 in a total-point event is no longer zero, so it is reasonable to argue that N-S lost 120 points by the 5C bid, and 600 points by bidding 5H rather than doubling 5C. With that adjustment, N-S could be assigned -100+120=20 total points on the board. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Marvin French wrote: > > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents' vulnerable 6H. The spade slam > makes only because of a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold, > nothing to the play, and would have scored +1430. > > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now, > > 1. What is the cost of the revoke, 30 points or 980+50=1030 > points? > > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS? I would adjust the NOS score to +1430. I find this case analogous to Kaplan's Case 6 here: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm Kaplan wrote: "... the N-S score should be adjusted ... even if their bid was the most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man. This time it is the N-S error that is as irrelevant as the battle of Waterloo, since the zero, their damage, was unrelated to that error. Rather, the damage was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction. In fact, it was the inevitable consequence, so how can there be any argument?" As you can tell from my answer, I read 12C1(b) differently than the posters so far. I could certainly be mistaken about the intent of the WBF LC here. I'd love to see an official example covering a case like this. I don't think the ACBL LC has considered it either -- I'll bring it up. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 23 11:11:27 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:11:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Waterloo for sophisticated laws? In-Reply-To: <503042.30662.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <503042.30662.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <739090.4941.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1076106692.157701.1293099087081.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Petrus Schuster OSB] > > Nigel, I think you missed the point: the OS always lose any advantage they > may > have had from their infraction. Only the redress for the NOS is reduced by > the > effects of a Serious Error. > > [Nigel] > Directors often say that is it really true? A few critical scenarios: > > 1. Match-pointed pairs. Current opponents are leading. We are lying second. > 2. Head to head team match. Opponents are ahead by a few imps. > 3. Multiple teams. Current opponents are leading. We are lying second. > > As I understand it, opponents don't lose all of the bonus that they obtained > by > breaking the law. They keep the part of our redress that was confiscated > from us > for a subsequent error, according to SEWOG law. > > > Thus, they may still retain sufficient of their ill-gotten gains to beat us. > In > any case, their long-term profit from law-breaking is increased. > > If I've really got this wrong I'd be grateful for an explanation. > > Anyway, if we have taken some subsequent action that the director may > consider > to be wild and gambling we night not even call the director. We don't want > to be > criticised for our stupidity as well as being deprived of redress. Not all > players are complete masochists. I think it isn't so much a stupid play, like a revoke. If they make 6H because you revoked, you know you brought it onto yourself. Opponents infraction handed you a nice gift, and you wasted that. No, it is the ordinary suboptimal play which some directors and ACs will call a "serious error" or "wild and gambling". Or at least the OS will claim the ordinary suboptimal play was a "serious error" or "wild and gambling". Thomas From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 23 14:05:57 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:05:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Waterloo for sophisticated laws? In-Reply-To: <1076106692.157701.1293099087081.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <503042.30662.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000001cba1c1$0c6ea910$254bfb30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <739090.4941.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1076106692.157701.1293099087081.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <163494.32901.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Thomas Dehn] I think it isn't so much a stupid play, like a revoke. If they make 6H because you revoked, you know you brought it onto yourself. Opponents infraction handed you a nice gift, and you wasted that. No, it is the ordinary suboptimal play which some directors and ACs will call a "serious error" or "wild and gambling". Or at least the OS will claim the ordinary suboptimal play was a "serious error" or "wild and gambling". [Nigel] Thomas highlights a concern of many players. If we must keep the current mad law, then the following kind of BLML case should be elucidated in the law-book appendix: Defending opponents' doubled non-vulnerable partscore, you quickly realise that you could, instead, be declaring a vulnerable grand-slam, making on a finesse. Hence, whatever you now do, you expect a terrible score. Due to stupidity, desperation, or despair, you misdefend egregiously to defeat the doubled partscore by one trick instead of three. On reflection, you suspect that were misinformed about the auction. Opponents don't think so. Luckily, however, the director decides you were damaged. Now different directors in different jurisdictions compute redress in different ways. No two agree: As I remember the BLML discussion, for the offenders, directors imposed different weighted scores between game and small-slam. (Presumably they judged you to be too stupid to bid and make a grand). Your serious error, however, reduced (or eliminated) your redress in different ways, depending on the director. [Poor Boy - Folk/Traditional] "Oh do you bring me silver, poor boy, or do you bring me gold ?" "I bring you neither." said the man, "I bring you a hangman's fold." "'Oh, do you bring me pardon, poor boy, To turn me a-loose?" "I bring you nothing," said the man, "Except a hangman's noose." And yet they call this justice, poor boy. Then justice let it be! .... From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 23 15:43:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:43:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Waterloo for sophisticated laws? In-Reply-To: References: <1PV7fQ-2IiNk00@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <540264.71955.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <739090.4941.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <19ECC3CD-221E-47C8-A6CF-4AE1B1AD8174@starpower.net> On Dec 22, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Jeff Ford wrote: >> [ton] >> Kaplan is my hero concerning the bridge laws and my history >> lessons made me >> aware of the battle of Waterloo. I have been there (on the battle >> field, but >> after the battle)! We do not want a pair to throw in their hands >> once they are >> sure that the opponents have illegally reached 6S with the >> argument that any >> card they are going to play is related to Waterloo, do we? > > I recognize this is meant as rhetorical, but I don't think it has an > obvious answer. It is normal in other sports to ignore all play from > the point of an infraction unless the innocent side ends up better > off. In American football, if the defense is offsides at the snap, > the offense has a "free play". As long as they don't also foul, they > always have the chance to throw out the play and take the penalty on > the opponents. > > A revoke makes this more interesting than merely bad play. I do think > it's reasonable to say that a violation of the rules should take away > your free play, but I don't think legal, but poor, bridge should > matter. (To be clear, this is a statement about what I think the > rules *should* be, not what they currently are.) And, as in football, > if you are mistaken that the opponents have fouled, then you are > making a big mistake not to play your hardest anyway, so I think > failing to play bridge after an infraction would be rare. In football, it is a normal tactic to "go for the big play" when you've caught your opponent offside, but in bridge, this is deprecated by TPTB as an undesirable "double shot", not to be permitted. The problem we have is that, since the 1970s, TFLB has, of necessity, been purged of any rules that go to intention (hence all those problematic "might have"s and "could have"s) in order to protect the enforcers from litigation, but intention is the only difference between a double shot and an inferior decision (that intercepted throw into triple coverage would have been really stupid if the defense hadn't been offside). Therefore in order to deny redress for double shots, we wind up denying redress for what are merely stupid errors. The problem is massively compounded by the fact that one person's stupid error is someone else's not-so-stupid error, and yet someone else's routine bad play. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 23 19:17:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:17:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Still out of order In-Reply-To: <000a01cba235$10f61440$32e23cc0$@no> References: <201012222036.MAA08847@mailhub.irvine.com> <000a01cba235$10f61440$32e23cc0$@no> Message-ID: <90FB3F4F-D78C-495C-85A3-0D48FF17DE36@starpower.net> On Dec 22, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > .................... >> -- Any information about why it was felt necessary to change the law >> for 2007, either from recorded minutes or inside knowledge; > > The only relevant change in 2007 as far as I can see was the > replacement of: > 1997: . . . . . is not considered to be automatically played. > > With > 2007: . . . . . is not considered to be played until declarer has > instructed > (or indicated*) the play. > > This was just a technicality without altering the reality of the > law: Some > action is required by declarer and/or dummy to make the card > considered > played for the purpose of waving Law 57A. The fact that no real choice > exists in selecting the card to be played from dummy is in itself not > sufficient. > >> -- Anything written by the WBFLC or other authorities that describes >> "officially" how this situation is supposed to be handled, under >> the 2007 Laws; > > I cannot remember receiving any material with the new law 57 (when > we worked > on the new laws) other than the detailed markup of the changes. These > changes were apparently made in order to elaborate on the precise > conditions > for law 57C1 to kick in. > >> >> -- Something "official" from an authority that describes the changes >> to the Laws, that says either that this law changed (in effect) or >> that it did not change. > > The intention of Law 57 is unchanged: A premature lead or play by a > defender > may result in rectification under Law 57A unless declarer or dummy > takes any > action as specified in Law 57C1. Law 45B is not relevant in this > connection > because dummy does not have to _play_ a card (according to Law 45) > for his > action to be considered a _suggestion_ (according to Law 57C). > > But the last clause in Law 57C1 (both before and after 2007) makes > it clear > that no card is considered played from dummy just because it is the > only > card that can be played unless some action by declarer or dummy > indicates > the play of such card. Practicality pretty much demands this interpretation, as the alternative would require directors to resolve intractable and contentious arguments as to whether dummy's placing the card in the played position was entirely dummy's own doing or subsequent to some action by declarer that constituted (or might have been mistaken for) "a gesture or nod". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 23 19:32:22 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:32:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: <1C4BFE007ADF4FF092FF26F2E5FD72F7@erdos> References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> <1C4BFE007ADF4FF092FF26F2E5FD72F7@erdos> Message-ID: On Dec 22, 2010, at 8:35 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > The difference is that Kaplan was referring to a match-pointed > event. In > Kaplan's example, N-S bid 4H vulnerable, E-W committed an > infraction by > sacrificing in 5C after a hesitation, and N-S made a serious error > by bidding 5H > down one rather than doubling 5C. All other tables were +620 in 4H > making. > After E-W bid 5C, N-S were going to get a zero no matter what they > did; doubling > 5C would have given +500 for the same bottom as bidding on to 5H > for -100, so > none of the damage was self-inflicted. > > The original problem specified an event with total-point scoring. The > difference between +500 and -100 in a total-point event is no > longer zero, so it > is reasonable to argue that N-S lost 120 points by the 5C bid, and > 600 points by > bidding 5H rather than doubling 5C. With that adjustment, N-S > could be > assigned -100+120=20 total points on the board. While David makes his point, I find his example obscene for reasons having nothing to do with the thread discussion. I cannot begin to imagine a scenario in which a pair that has valid reason to think (and is correct, no less!) that 4H will make and that 5CX will not go down enough to compensate for the lost game could possibly be deemed to have committed "a serious error... or... a wild or gambling action" by trying 5H. It is a huge problem that there are so many people in the bridge world who are prepared to credit examples like this; we should be careful not to give them any encouragement, even incidentally when discussing other topics. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 23 23:34:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:34:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <389774.60966.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Don Cupitt (1934- ), British theologian: "Christmas is the Disneyfication of Christianity." Nigel Guthrie: >I believe that there should be no system-restrictions but I >feel that such conventions should be permitted only if you >can describe them adequately. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes and no. This overcall by North -> WEST NORTH 1C (1) 1S (2) (1) Any 15+ hcp, guaranteed not to be a psyche by ABF fiat (2) Any 13 cards not suitable for another call is prohibited by the ABF _because_ it is impossible for East- West to be as well-informed as North-South about the positive and negative inferences of 1S (unless South explains their partnership methods for half-an-hour, which is impractical). Similarly, the new ABF prohibition on psyching of a strong artificial bid (Law 40B2(d)) is contrary to Nigel's purist principle of no system-restrictions, but practically resolved a problem in times past of ABF Directors trying to assess the difference between a very rare true psyche of a Strong Club and a very frequent pseudo-psychic Concealed Partnership Understanding. Merry Christmas Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Dec 24 00:55:09 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:55:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustment problem. In-Reply-To: References: <395CEC0D0B3A442A9A994ED87B26C94B@MARVLAPTOP> <1C4BFE007ADF4FF092FF26F2E5FD72F7@erdos> Message-ID: "Eric Landau" wrote: > On Dec 22, 2010, at 8:35 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > >> The difference is that Kaplan was referring to a match-pointed >> event. In >> Kaplan's example, N-S bid 4H vulnerable, E-W committed an >> infraction by >> sacrificing in 5C after a hesitation, and N-S made a serious error >> by bidding 5H >> down one rather than doubling 5C. All other tables were +620 in 4H >> making. >> After E-W bid 5C, N-S were going to get a zero no matter what they >> did; doubling >> 5C would have given +500 for the same bottom as bidding on to 5H >> for -100, so >> none of the damage was self-inflicted. >> >> The original problem specified an event with total-point scoring. The >> difference between +500 and -100 in a total-point event is no >> longer zero, so it >> is reasonable to argue that N-S lost 120 points by the 5C bid, and >> 600 points by >> bidding 5H rather than doubling 5C. With that adjustment, N-S >> could be >> assigned -100+120=20 total points on the board. > > While David makes his point, I find his example obscene for reasons > having nothing to do with the thread discussion. > > I cannot begin to imagine a scenario in which a pair that has valid > reason to think (and is correct, no less!) that 4H will make and that > 5CX will not go down enough to compensate for the lost game could > possibly be deemed to have committed "a serious error... or... a wild > or gambling action" by trying 5H. It is a huge problem that there > are so many people in the bridge world who are prepared to credit > examples like this; we should be careful not to give them any > encouragement, even incidentally when discussing other topics. And I agree; Kaplan made the same comment in one of the other cases in the original article. (In that case, both sides were vulnerable, so the NOS could have doubled 5C for +800 and a top, and instead bid 5H.) While the ruling is correct given the facts, it is extremely unlikely that the facts as stated would actually occur. However, I can think of one scenario: 1NT P 4C X XX ..P 4H 5C P P 5H Responder, who had one ace, miscounted the aces after the ROPI sequence on which opener showed none. Bidding 5H with three aces known to be missing is a serious error; it's better to double 5C and get a good score if either 5C goes down too much or the opponents have a ruff as well as their three aces to beat 4H. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Dec 24 12:36:09 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:36:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] irrelevant; doesnt concern bridge Message-ID: <4D1485A9.3050201@aol.com> A few days ago there was a quotation in a posting, approximately ...except thee and I". Although I am a confirmed querulant and nit-picker I couldn't react immediately because my internet connection was down. It was stormy here with very strong winds (130 km/h). Does anyone out there know if that can affect the internet connection? Anyway, the quotation was familiar although I think I know it in a slightly altered form. But shouldn't it be (at least grammatically) "...and me"? Ciao, JE From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Dec 24 14:06:35 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:06:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?irrelevant=3B_doesnt_concern_bridge?= In-Reply-To: <4D1485A9.3050201@aol.com> References: <4D1485A9.3050201@aol.com> Message-ID: <1PW7Lv-0g68EC0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> -----Original-Nachricht----- > Subject: [BLML] irrelevant; doesnt concern bridge > Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:36:09 +0100 > From: Jeff Easterson > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > A few days ago there was a quotation in a posting, approximately > ...except thee and I". Although I am a confirmed querulant and > nit-picker I couldn't react immediately because my internet connection > was down. It was stormy here with very strong winds (130 km/h). Does > anyone out there know if that can affect the internet connection? > Anyway, the quotation was familiar although I think I know it in a > slightly altered form. But shouldn't it be (at least grammatically) > "...and me"? Ciao, JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 25 00:06:50 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 18:06:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Still out of order Message-ID: <4D15278A.1020608@nhcc.net> From: "Sven Pran" > The only relevant change in 2007 as far as I can see was the replacement of: > 1997: . . . . . is not considered to be automatically played. > > With > 2007: . . . . . is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed > (or indicated*) the play. There's a huge difference between those two, and I'm astonished no one else has commented on it. Indeed, as Sven wrote: > Some > action is required by declarer and/or dummy to make the card considered > played That's true in the 1997 version, but in the 2007 version, some action _by declarer_ is required. As Eric noted, this may create practical difficulties in ruling, but I don't see that how anything dummy does on his own can affect things according to the new text. However... if dummy, without instruction, moves a card to the played position, that seems to be an irregularity. If it damages opponents, maybe it should lead to an adjusted score. This would put us back to the 1997 position, though in a much more complex way. I think Adam's question of what should happen is not so easy to answer. From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 25 01:24:14 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 01:24:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Still out of order In-Reply-To: <4D15278A.1020608@nhcc.net> References: <4D15278A.1020608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000301cba3ca$0f6723d0$2e356b70$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > From: "Sven Pran" > > The only relevant change in 2007 as far as I can see was the replacement of: > > 1997: . . . . . is not considered to be automatically played. > > > > With > > 2007: . . . . . is not considered to be played until declarer has > > instructed (or indicated*) the play. > > There's a huge difference between those two, and I'm astonished no one else has > commented on it. Indeed, as Sven wrote: > > Some > > action is required by declarer and/or dummy to make the card > > considered played > > That's true in the 1997 version, but in the 2007 version, some action _by > declarer_ is required. As Eric noted, this may create practical difficulties in ruling, > but I don't see that how anything dummy does on his own can affect things > according to the new text. > > However... if dummy, without instruction, moves a card to the played position, that > seems to be an irregularity. If it damages opponents, maybe it should lead to an > adjusted score. This would put us back to the 1997 position, though in a much > more complex way. > > I think Adam's question of what should happen is not so easy to answer. Come on - do I really have to repeat from Law 57C1: ... [if dummy] "has illegally suggested that it be played" ? For the application of Law 57 it is completely irrelevant whether dummy has actually _played_ a card or just illegally _suggested_ that it be played. And if dummy pointing to a card, moving a card to a played position or taking any other action specifically addressing a particular card shall not be considered an illegal suggestion that this card be played then I do not know what shall constitute such suggestion. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Sat Dec 25 04:47:38 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 22:47:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Still out of order In-Reply-To: <201012222036.MAA08847@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201012222036.MAA08847@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4D15695A.9080509@gmail.com> This actually seems to me to be much simpler than it appears. The wording change from 1997 to 2007 simply creates consistency between the wording of L45 and that of L57. That appears to be about it, at least from my reading. I don't see any changes in the actual ruling. The second sentence of 57C1 indicates that a singleton in Dummy is not considered to be played if Dummy moves the card. However, it still remains an illegal suggestion that the card be played, so defender would not be subject to rectification. There is a need for the second sentence to clarify that in the specific case of the singleton in Dummy where Dummy's play is mandatory, the card is still not played until Declarer says so. That is, even if Dummy's play is mandatory, there is no play until Declarer gives the instruction. If this clarification was not present, there might be an ambiguous situation where it could be argued that the mandatory play still constituted a played card. Not really, due to L45, but a little redundancy isn't a bad thing. The counterargument to your point 4 is a blind alley. The first sentence of 45F flatly states that Dummy may not touch a card without instruction from Declarer. Dummy doing so remains an infraction, even if a TD decides that it does not constitute a suggestion to Declarer. In the case where the play does not constitute a suggestion to Declarer, it's still an infraction. If it causes damage, the adjustment is made under 12.A.1 instead of 45F. Defender is not subject to rectification, and if Dummy's act causes damage an adjustment is in order. Seems simple. What did I miss? Hirsch On 12/22/2010 3:58 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > We had a debate recently on rec.games.bridge regarding a situation > that was brought up last August on BLML, but I haven't been able to > follow every thread on BLML and wasn't aware of it until I looked it > up. > > The situation: South, declarer, is on lead. He leads a suit in which > dummy has a singleton. Before West plays, North puts the singleton in > the played position, without instruction from declarer. East then > plays before West. The question: Is the play out of turn subject to > rectification? > > On rec.games.bridge, the arguments were: > > "Yes" (the play is subject to rectification): > > (1) Although the first sentence of L57C1 says the defender is *not* > subject to rectification "... if dummy has played a card or has > illegally suggested that it be played", the second sentence cancels > this because it says that a singleton is not considered played if > declarer hasn't so instructed, and the organization of the wording > makes it clear that this second sentence of L57C1 is supposed to apply > to the first sentence. > > (2) The fact that the wording changed from 1997, and the way that the > wording was changed, seems to make it clear that the Lawmakers wanted > a change in how this exact situation was dealt with. The 1997 Law > simply said, "A singleton in dummy ... is not considered to be > automatically played". There would have been no point to changing > this to a Law that includes the phrase "until declarer has > instructed", unless it was intended that the Law should apply > differently when declarer did *not* make an instructions. > > "No" (the play is not subject to rectification): > > (3) The purpose of Law 57C1 is to avoid penalizing a defender when > dummy plays out of turn, and making an exception in this case would, > in this situation, defeat the purpose of the Law. Therefore, the > interpretation favored by the "Yes" supporters cannot be right. > > (4) The first sentence of L57C1 includes the phrase "nor if dummy has > played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played"; and while > the second sentence may mean that we have to treat it as if dummy has > not played the card, by placing the card in the played position he has > still "illegally suggested" that it be played, and thus the first > sentence still applies. > > The counterargument to #4 is: > > (5) Law 45F makes it clear that dummy's touching or indicating a card > without instruction from director is *not* necessarily a "suggestion" > to declarer---the director has to decide that. The purpose of L45F is > to prevent dummy from trying to help declarer (it contains the phrase > "dummy suggested a play to declarer"); and playing a singleton, > without instruction from the declarer, cannot help declarer in any way > and therefore is not an "illegal suggestion". > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > When this was posted on BLML in August, there wasn't any debate about > this situation; almost everyone seemed to assume the answer was "no" > without discussion, and point #4 was mentioned once. > > I'm not interested in a debate on what the Laws say just from looking > at the Laws; I've already been through that on rec.games.bridge, and I > think both sides have a case. But I'm interested in any external > information that might shed light on what the lawmakers intended, such > as: > > -- Any information about why it was felt necessary to change the law > for 2007, either from recorded minutes or inside knowledge; > > -- Anything written by the WBFLC or other authorities that describes > "officially" how this situation is supposed to be handled, under > the 2007 Laws; > > -- Something "official" from an authority that describes the changes > to the Laws, that says either that this law changed (in effect) or > that it did not change. > > Can anyone shed some light on this? > > -- thanks, Adam > > P.S. I may not be reading e-mail to this address regularly between > tomorrow and January 3. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 25 10:32:38 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:32:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Still out of order References: <201012222036.MAA08847@mailhub.irvine.com> <4D15695A.9080509@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B27E00E623D47D2A2BAE4C21B48C409@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 3:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Still out of order > This actually seems to me to be much simpler than it appears. The > wording change from 1997 to 2007 simply creates consistency between the > wording of L45 and that of L57. That appears to be about it, at least > from my reading. I don't see any changes in the actual ruling. > > The second sentence of 57C1 indicates that a singleton in Dummy is not > considered to be played if Dummy moves the card. However, it still > remains an illegal suggestion that the card be played, so defender would > not be subject to rectification. There is a need for the second sentence > to clarify that in the specific case of the singleton in Dummy where > Dummy's play is mandatory, the card is still not played until Declarer > says so. That is, even if Dummy's play is mandatory, there is no play > until Declarer gives the instruction. If this clarification was not > present, there might be an ambiguous situation where it could be argued > that the mandatory play still constituted a played card. Not really, > due to L45, but a little redundancy isn't a bad thing. > > The counterargument to your point 4 is a blind alley. The first > sentence of 45F flatly states that Dummy may not touch a card without > instruction from Declarer. Dummy doing so remains an infraction, even if > a TD decides that it does not constitute a suggestion to Declarer. In > the case where the play does not constitute a suggestion to Declarer, > it's still an infraction. If it causes damage, the adjustment is made > under 12.A.1 instead of 45F. > > Defender is not subject to rectification, and if Dummy's act causes > damage an adjustment is in order. > > Seems simple. What did I miss? > > Hirsch > > > On 12/22/2010 3:58 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> We had a debate recently on rec.games.bridge regarding a situation >> that was brought up last August on BLML, but I haven't been able to >> follow every thread on BLML and wasn't aware of it until I looked it >> up. >> >> The situation: South, declarer, is on lead. He leads a suit in which >> dummy has a singleton. Before West plays, North puts the singleton in >> the played position, without instruction from declarer. East then >> plays before West. The question: Is the play out of turn subject to >> rectification? >> >> On rec.games.bridge, the arguments were: >> >> "Yes" (the play is subject to rectification): >> >> (1) Although the first sentence of L57C1 says the defender is *not* >> subject to rectification "... if dummy has played a card or has >> illegally suggested that it be played", the second sentence cancels >> this because it says that a singleton is not considered played if >> declarer hasn't so instructed, and the organization of the wording >> makes it clear that this second sentence of L57C1 is supposed to apply >> to the first sentence. >> >> (2) The fact that the wording changed from 1997, and the way that the >> wording was changed, seems to make it clear that the Lawmakers wanted >> a change in how this exact situation was dealt with. The 1997 Law >> simply said, "A singleton in dummy ... is not considered to be >> automatically played". There would have been no point to changing >> this to a Law that includes the phrase "until declarer has >> instructed", unless it was intended that the Law should apply >> differently when declarer did *not* make an instructions. >> >> "No" (the play is not subject to rectification): >> >> (3) The purpose of Law 57C1 is to avoid penalizing a defender when >> dummy plays out of turn, and making an exception in this case would, >> in this situation, defeat the purpose of the Law. Therefore, the >> interpretation favored by the "Yes" supporters cannot be right. >> >> (4) The first sentence of L57C1 includes the phrase "nor if dummy has >> played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played"; and while >> the second sentence may mean that we have to treat it as if dummy has >> not played the card, by placing the card in the played position he has >> still "illegally suggested" that it be played, and thus the first >> sentence still applies. >> >> The counterargument to #4 is: >> >> (5) Law 45F makes it clear that dummy's touching or indicating a card >> without instruction from director is *not* necessarily a "suggestion" >> to declarer---the director has to decide that. The purpose of L45F is >> to prevent dummy from trying to help declarer (it contains the phrase >> "dummy suggested a play to declarer"); and playing a singleton, >> without instruction from the declarer, cannot help declarer in any way >> and therefore is not an "illegal suggestion". >> >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> >> When this was posted on BLML in August, there wasn't any debate about >> this situation; almost everyone seemed to assume the answer was "no" >> without discussion, and point #4 was mentioned once. >> >> I'm not interested in a debate on what the Laws say just from looking >> at the Laws; I've already been through that on rec.games.bridge, and I >> think both sides have a case. But I'm interested in any external >> information that might shed light on what the lawmakers intended, such >> as: >> >> -- Any information about why it was felt necessary to change the law >> for 2007, either from recorded minutes or inside knowledge; >> >> -- Anything written by the WBFLC or other authorities that describes >> "officially" how this situation is supposed to be handled, under >> the 2007 Laws; >> >> -- Something "official" from an authority that describes the changes >> to the Laws, that says either that this law changed (in effect) or >> that it did not change. >> >> Can anyone shed some light on this? >> >> -- thanks, Adam >> >> P.S. I may not be reading e-mail to this address regularly between >> tomorrow and January 3. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 craigstamps at comcast.net Sat Dec 25 16:28:18 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craigstamps at comcast.net) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:28:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [BLML] irrelevant; doesnt concern bridge In-Reply-To: <1PW7Lv-0g68EC0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <641568948.350410.1293290898971.JavaMail.root@sz0074a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Thou wouldst appear correct. Merry Christmas to all. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 8:06:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] irrelevant; doesnt concern bridge -----Original-Nachricht----- > Subject: [BLML] irrelevant; doesnt concern bridge > Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:36:09 +0100 > From: Jeff Easterson > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > A few days ago there was a quotation in a posting, approximately > ...except thee and I". ?Although I am a confirmed querulant and > nit-picker I couldn't react immediately because my internet connection > was down. ?It was stormy here with very strong winds (130 km/h). ?Does > anyone out there know if that can affect the internet connection? > Anyway, the quotation was familiar although I think I know it in a > slightly altered form. ?But shouldn't it be (at least grammatically) > "...and me"? ?Ciao, ?JE > _______________________________________________ > 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/20101225/50ecac23/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Dec 25 19:40:58 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:40:58 -0800 Subject: [BLML] The Final Answer for Serious Error Adjustments. Message-ID: <9D976340B10D433F9557900928AABF8F@MARVLAPTOP> I'll try to fit the entire effects of L12C1(b) into one situation with several variants: In a game scored only in points, not matchpoints, not IMPs: The OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired 6S with (1) no adverse bidding involved or (2) over an opposing 6H bid that was ice cold. The NOS revokes to let the contract make when it had no chance. (1) None vulnerable. The NOS keeps the table result of -980, no redress because the self-inflicted damage (980+50=1030 points) exceeds the consequent damage of 500 points (-980 instead of -480). The OS gets -50 (assume in their score adjustment that the revoke did not happen). (2)(a) None vulnerable. The table result is +980 for the OS and the cost of the revoke was 1030 points. Normal compensation for the NOS is 980+980=1860 points. This is reduced by the cost of the revoke, 1030 points, yielding 830 points of compensation, thereby improving the NOS table result by 830 points. -980+830= -150 points, the proper adjusted score for the NOS. The OS gets -980, a worse score than the -50 of variant (1). (2)(b) NOS vulnerable, OS not vulnerable. The normal compensation would be 980+1430=2410 points. Deducting the revoke cost of 1030 reduces that to 1380 points of redress. -980+1380=400 points, the proper adjusted score for the NOS. The OS gets -1430. I think that covers all bases. For those who find ambiguity in L12C1(b), here is a dumbed-down summary of its meaning: The cost of self-inflicted damage (not attributable to the infraction) by the NOS is deducted from their normal redress. If the former equals or exceeds the latter, no redress. The adjusted score for the OS may not include any benefit from self-inflicted damage by the NOS. Since this is a law dealing with a specific situation (self-infllicted damage), it dominates the general laws following it in L12C. E.g., the words "had the irregularity not occurred" do not apply.in the case of a conflict with L12C1(b). Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5731 (20101225) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From lumenco at ono.com Sat Dec 25 19:55:36 2010 From: lumenco at ono.com (Lucas Mendoza) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 18:55:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <641568948.350410.1293290898971.JavaMail.root@sz0074a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> References: <1PW7Lv-0g68EC0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <641568948.350410.1293290898971.JavaMail.root@sz0074a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <001201cba465$516951e0$f43bf5a0$@com> Me too. Merry Christmas to all, guys, from Tenerife (Canary Islands-SPAIN). Lucas Mendoza From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of craigstamps at comcast.net Sent: s?bado, 25 de diciembre de 2010 15:28 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] irrelevant; doesnt concern bridge Thou would appear correct. Merry Christmas to all. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 8:06:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101225/e18acb9b/attachment.html From jrhind at therock.bm Sat Dec 25 20:42:26 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:42:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <001201cba465$516951e0$f43bf5a0$@com> Message-ID: Merry Christmas to one and all from Jack & Lisa Rhind in Bermuda. From: Lucas Mendoza Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 18:55:36 -0000 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Merry Christmas Me too. Merry Christmas to all, guys, from Tenerife (Canary Islands-SPAIN). Lucas Mendoza From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of craigstamps at comcast.net Sent: s?bado, 25 de diciembre de 2010 15:28 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] irrelevant; doesnt concern bridge Thou would appear correct. Merry Christmas to all. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 8:06:35 AM Subject: Re: [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/20101225/d44b25b2/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 02:21:36 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:21:36 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0F1DA1.6040608@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> <4D0F1DA1.6040608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [Alain Gottcheiner] Le 18/12/2010 20:06, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > E. ?2C "shows one of four possible hands: ?Either four hearts, or four > spades, or a long minor with no interest in game, or a majorless hand > worth a game invitation." > > > > Explanation E is the agreement I like to use when the double is > conventional and might be weak. ?Even though it is a four-way bid, it > has never yet been ruled illegal. ?I don't even alert it, for it just > my version of Stayman. Well, it is alertable in many countries (might hold no major), but that's not the problem here. The difference between C / D and E is tnat E will soon land you in a true suit, giving them the weapons to act. I use to play : "2C = any 2-suited hand except D/H", very esay to explain, but as polymorphic as your examples. In Belgium ,it is allowed, but will it elsewhere ? [Jerry Fusselman] Agreed, the alertability of E is not of much an issue here: By the way, the ACBL alert chart is plain that Stayman is not alertable if it asks for a four-card major in the usual way, regardless of what 2C might show, so I am safe there. But your statement that my agreement "E will land you in a true suit, giving them the weapons to act" seems false. Consider the auction 1NT - P - 2C - P - 2D - P. The player who passed 2D sometimes gets no second chance to act, since the Stayman bidder will often pass 2D due to being either pleased or accepting to play in 2D. With agreement E, similar surprising passes are possible after Opener's major-suit responses to Stayman, and an immediate pass over that by a defender may well make it difficult for one of the defenders to act after more is revealed by passing. You see what I mean? There is nothing about agreement E that makes it any more certain of declaring your true suit to the opponents at a useful time than with agreement D or with ordinary Lebensohl. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 02:22:42 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:22:42 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4D0F1E49.5000300@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0B8066.6090201@comcast.net> <745DC439-F74D-4FFE-969A-62AF7C4F4FDE@starpower.net> <4D0F1E49.5000300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 18/12/2010 20:57, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> >> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> Yes, but what does "not designed purely to destroy opponents' >>> methods" mean? ?("Designed"? ?"Purely"?) ?AFAICT there's no extant >>> operational definition, which means that its application in practice >>> is entirely arbitrary. >>> >> About 15 years ago, I called the ACBL office to ask what it means. >> The answer they gave me was immediate: ?The call must say something >> about your hand. ?For example, (1C artificial and forcing) - 1S is >> disallowed if it says nothing about your hand. ?But if 1S shows a 4441 >> hand pattern with the singleton anywhere (I think that was one of the >> examples he gave me), then it is allowed. >> > AG : so if if means "less than opening values and no 7-card suit " it is > allowed ? > Good question. I think the answer is yes, but my 15-year old memory is perhaps too old to rely on, so I contacted Butch Campbell of the ACBL, who said something like this to explain DISALLOWED #1 of the GCC: "to be allowed, the call must show something of value about the hand, such as suits or high-card strength." Seeking particular examples, this is what I asked by email on behalf of BLML: Directly over an artificial 1C, can a completely artificial defensive bid of 1S (i.e., saying nothing about spades) show any of the following?: a. Less than opening values and no 7-card suit; b. Less than 3 points and no 8-card suit; c. Less than opening values; d. Less than 16 points; e. More than 16 points; f. 3 or 4 spades and a balanced hand (at most one doubleton). Hopefully, Mr. Campbell will clarify these questions for us soon, and we will come to understand the GCC better. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 02:23:18 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:23:18 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <05766BFA-DAAE-4A0B-AB0D-657D4620722A@starpower.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <05766BFA-DAAE-4A0B-AB0D-657D4620722A@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Eric Landau] My analysis had nothing to do with two-way bids as such. I think that the operational definition of "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents methods" is something close to "smells like a psych" (which is, if course, just as completely arbitrary). I would expect a two-way method to be treated as meeting the criteria of one of it's "ways" smells like a psych. [Jerry Fusselman] Perhaps this characterizes the ACBL of 1994 more than today. I suggest it does. I think that the "smells like a psych" operational definition is now defunct, at least at the top levels of ACBL directing. (I hope to be more definitive in the coming weeks when the ACBL gets back to me.) For example, I am now convinced that 1H - (X conventional) - 1S can show "either natural and worth 6+, or a limit raise in hearts," and it can show "either diamonds and worth 6+, or a limit raise in hearts." Both meanings are equally legal in the ACBL, even though one smells like a psych for mentioning spades and the other does not because it said nothing about spades. The question, surprising to me, is whether the direct-seat takeout double is deemed conventional by the ACBL. I am waiting for an answer to that question. So far I have been told that if the double shows "either a three-suited hand with short hearts or any hand worth 18+", then it is certainly conventional, but if the double shows "any opening hand without regard to distribution, requesting partner to bid", then it *probably* is not conventional in this context, though this will be checked. My prediction is that I will soon be told that all takeout doubles are conventional in this context, though we shall soon see. But I can say that I was told by Butch Campbell (the head of the ACBL tournament department to whom I explained that this issue came up on BLML) that if the double shows a three-suit takeout with short hearts or an hand worth 18+ points, then the double is certainly conventional, which allows artificial responses, so 1S can GCC-legally be two-way, such as "Either the standard reply with 4+ spades or a limit raise in hearts with short spades." I really think that the "smells like a psych" test has been dead for about 15 years for agreements that are well explained and allowed by the GCC to be conventional. If there is something I have overlooked or don't understand, I would appreciate being enlightened. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 02:23:36 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:23:36 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <2BBD1A21-D58D-4DB1-AD26-C40767A8C57B@starpower.net> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0D4FBF.2050507@nyc.rr.com> <2BBD1A21-D58D-4DB1-AD26-C40767A8C57B@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Michael Kopera] At one point we played a 1S overcall to handle any hand we felt like coming in on that didn't fit any other overcall. That pretty much meant a balanced hand with less than opening values. That was disallowed. Calling it the "nuisance spade" might have contributed to that (this was also before the "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? methods.") [Eric Landau] TPTB at the ACBL categorize such bids as (illegal) "systemic psychs", notwithstanding that TFLB makes it quite clear that there can be no such thing by definition, which suggests that bridge in North America is run by oxymorons. [Jerry Fusselman] It seems likely from Google that the ACBL was calling such bids "systemic psychs" up to around 1995, but I cannot find anything like this after that. It currently seems likely to me that the doctrine died in 1995 or so. What can you tell us about the current situation, Eric? As for Michael's "nuisance spade," it's defect may well be inadequate explanation. The name makes it sound GCC-illegal, and that the artificial 1S overcall handles "any hand we felt like coming in on that didn't fit any other overcall" makes me think that he earned the ban. The quote is not a decent explanation of a call, for how can the opponents know your methods or have a feeling as to when you feel like coming in? The problem of inadequate disclosure makes legality moot. Today, Michael might be okay in the ACBL under GCC with this method if he can avoid any impolitic name for it and have a complete, positive explanation of the bid that can give the opponents a clear understanding of it in about 10 seconds or less. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101226/598179c7/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 26 14:48:19 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:48:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0D4FBF.2050507@nyc.rr.com> <2BBD1A21-D58D-4DB1 -AD26-C40767A8C57B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <171884.92190.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Jerry is obviously right that an agreement that 1H (1S) X shows, say, spades *or* (occasionally) a weak hand with heart support is OK provided that.... - It permitted by the local system regulations. - it is alerted if necessary and properly disclosed on the system-card. - both players in the partnership play the same system. If such conditions are fulfilled there should be little problem. The problem arises when a partnership regard such an implicit agreement as a legitimate psych and "general bridge knowledge" so don't disclose it. A popular but spurious rationalisation for this is that the partnership will refrain from blatant fielding attempts. Unfortunately, there are a lot of other contexts where players indulge in so-called "tactical bids". For example in another partnership, a player might have spades in this context, but, in a different context, would sometimes overcall 1N on a weak hand with a long suit. Different players have different "psyching" patterns. Opponents unfamiliar with such "psyching" idiosyncrasies are at a disadvantage. System regulation contributes to this mess. It is understandable that so many players attempt to subvert system over-regulation by means of "psychs"; and that sympathetic directors invariably let them get away with it. Players should campaign to have the rules of Bridge made simpler and fairer; but in the meantime, they should abide by the rules, however daft they deem them to be. Otherwise, the minority of masochists who comply with such rules suffer a considerable disadvantage. Merry Christmas! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101226/56a92d90/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 26 21:45:45 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:45:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <171884.92190.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4D060ACD.1030102@ulb.ac.be> <4D05F5F9.9050202@ulb.ac.be> <201012130509.oBD592Jf026667@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <338727750.170582.1292239534815.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <331051866.178996.1292257332801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <934CE996-3277-442F-8E2E-E8E63D62323D@starpower.net> <67AD2678-9B6D-416C-B517-430CF01F6A39@starpower.net> <4D0D4FBF.2050507@nyc.rr.com> <2BBD1A21-D58D-4DB1 -AD26-C40767A8C57B@starpower.net> <171884.92190.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <468167.47370.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Correction: I meant an agreement that 1H (_X) 1S shows.. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101226/6c4e4b7a/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 27 15:26:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:26:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] irrelevant; doesnt concern bridge In-Reply-To: <4D1485A9.3050201@aol.com> References: <4D1485A9.3050201@aol.com> Message-ID: On Dec 24, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > A few days ago there was a quotation in a posting, approximately > ...except thee and I". Although I am a confirmed querulant and > nit-picker I couldn't react immediately because my internet connection > was down. It was stormy here with very strong winds (130 km/h). Does > anyone out there know if that can affect the internet connection? Sure it can, if your connection uses anything that is exposed to the weather, such as an above-ground phone line or cable or a pole- or tree- mounted hot spot. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 27 17:23:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:23:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case Message-ID: <4D18BD6E.2020106@ulb.ac.be> Hi all, Here is what happened yesterday in one of the few Belgian torunaments that count, directed by a Mr. hDW. You're North, 3rd-in-hand, and hold : xxx KJx AKJxxx J South opens 1C. You answer 1S (T-Walsh - usually diamonds but might be a balanced club raise). Partner does NOT alert and bids 2S. Wat do you do ? I did nothing. I mean, 2S is alertable (it is a reverse, similar to 1C-1NT-2S), yet I didn't alert. AI - the room is rather noisy and partner has Charlie-the-Chimp inclinations UI - he didn't alert, so a) he probably forgot the system, although b) it's just possible that he forgot to alert, but for this South (who scrupulously alerts everything, even when not needed), interpretation a) is much more likely Probably UI - partner bid 2S pretty quickly, which reinforces interpretation a) Consciously or not, I decided that I shouldn't alert. This is in fact a very pure dWS case. It is unlikely that RHO will want to overcall now (he is not in balancing seat), so the MI will probably not be harmful at this moment ; to the contrary, alerting will probably awaken partner to his error. Now things change : before West -a slow player- has called, partner says "I should have alerted". West not having bid, the cat is walked back to East, who asks, gets the right explanation, and declines to bid. Partner is stuck with his 2S bid. UI - perhaps he hasn't got reversing values. Or perhaps he has, because b) has become more probable. Notice that partner - a TD himself - has carefully avoided saying why he didn't alert. Now, I alert ! If he indeed has forgotten his system, he now realized, so there is no risk of UI. dWS means alerting according to partner's perception of the bidding's meaning, and this has changed. One problem remains : I must absolutely bid as if partner had a full reverse. This is an easy 3D bid (6 cards and game force, playing mitigating notrumps) ; over 3NT or a 3H grope, I'll bid a natural 4NT, and too bad if we're too high. Partner now ... passes ! Nothing in TFLB disallows him to pass a forcing bid. It's too bad that I've got more than a minimum force ... or isn't it ? Notice how the application of dWS principles saved what could be saved of the normal course of the board after the infraction of not alerting. That's what it was thought for, right ? First funny fact : although the problem was exposed before the lead when I explained 2S and added "by the way, my 3D bid was forcing", East, a top level Belgian player (or at least she plays at this level) still believed partner had a full reverse, and her lead helped me a bit. Just made. Partner's hand : AJxx - 108xx - void - AQ109x. Second funny fact : we scored above average. For unknown resaons, 3NT went down quite often, which shouldn't have been the case. Best regards, happy New Year Alain From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 27 18:42:36 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:42:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case In-Reply-To: <4D18BD6E.2020106@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D18BD6E.2020106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <574858.6894.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] Here is what happened yesterday in one of the few Belgian torunaments that count, directed by a Mr. hDW. You're North, 3rd-in-hand, and hold : xxx KJx AKJxxx J South opens 1C. You answer 1S (T-Walsh - usually diamonds but might be a balanced club raise). Partner does NOT alert and bids 2S. Wat do you do ? I did nothing. I mean, 2S is alertable (it is a reverse, similar to 1C-1NT-2S), yet I didn't alert. [SNIP] Consciously or not, I decided that I shouldn't alert. This is in fact a very pure dWS case. [SNIP] Now things change : before West -a slow player- has called, partner says "I should have alerted". West not having bid, the cat is walked back to East, who asks, gets the right explanation, and declines to bid. Partner is stuck with his 2S bid. {SNIP] Now, I alert ! I must absolutely bid as if partner had a full reverse. This is an easy 3D bid (6 cards and game force, playing mitigating notrumps) ; over 3NT or a 3H grope, I'll bid a natural 4NT, and too bad if we're too high. Partner now ... passes ! Nothing in TFLB disallows him to pass a forcing bid. It's too bad that I've got more than a minimum force ... or isn't it ? Notice how the application of dWS principles saved what could be saved of the normal course of the board after the infraction of not alerting. That's what it was thought for, right ? First funny fact : although the problem was exposed before the lead when I explained 2S and added "by the way, my 3D bid was forcing", East, a top level Belgian player (or at least she plays at this level) still believed partner had a full reverse, and her lead helped me a bit. Just made. Partner's hand : AJxx - 108xx - void - AQ109x. Second funny fact : we scored above average. For unknown resaons, 3NT went down quite often, which shouldn't have been the case. Best regards, happy New Year [Nigel] Happy New Year! IMO, Alain is lucky that he is playing in a competition governed by DWS Fairy Bridge Rules. In a normal jurisdiction, if he admitted to a deliberate infraction, he would deserve a PP. On BLML, directors sometimes tell us that, as players, they deliberately break the rules. IMO this is a bad example for us ordinary players, so there should be some official guidance or sanction. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 27 19:23:48 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:23:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case In-Reply-To: <574858.6894.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4D18BD6E.2020106@ulb.ac.be> <574858.6894.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D18D9B4.4000600@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/12/2010 18:42, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > IMO, Alain is lucky that he is playing in a competition governed by DWS Fairy > Bridge Rules. In a normal jurisdiction, if he admitted to a deliberate > infraction, he would deserve a PP. AG : perhaps, but only if the opponents had smmoned the TD, and as a matter of fact they agreed (as usual when it happens) that the chosen course of action was the best, so no fairy rules needed, just plain horse sense. Let me give you another example : doubles shan't be alerted in Belgium, but there is a consensus in Brussels to alert extraordinary doubles (i.e. not just merely penalty, takeout, optional or values, but related to a specific suit or suits) when playing in a well-oiled partnership. The aim, of course, is to avoid all troubles that would come from opponents' dilemma : to ask or not tot ask ? And, would you believe it, nobody has ever been sanctioned for doing this, unless of course they explained the meaning wrongly. > On BLML, directors sometimes tell us that, as > players, they deliberately break the rules. IMO this is a bad example for us > ordinary players, so there should be some official guidance or sanction. Of course there should be, if you're placing Law above logic. I am not. Up to now, I never encountered any opponent who felt unsatisfied after dWS principles were used. If that doesn't count for you, perhaps you're living in an unreal world. Spectators of French-speaking police serials will be familiar with Article 17 : no member of the police forces shall be prosecuted for having failed to obey an order if one considered it to be against one's ethics. (exact wording to be consulted) You see, exponents of dWS only want to show how easier bridge life is using its principles in some specific situations and how artificial it would be to do otherwise (i.e. to throw UI into the game when you could avoid it). They see the official rule as fairy, or at least absurd. Best regards Alain From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 27 19:51:33 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:51:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case In-Reply-To: <4D18D9B4.4000600@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D18BD6E.2020106@ulb.ac.be> <574858.6894.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D18D9B4.4000600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <334010.59838.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Alain] Let me give you another example : doubles shan't be alerted in Belgium, but there is a consensus in Brussels to alert extraordinary doubles (i.e. not just merely penalty, takeout, optional or values, but related to a specific suit or suits) when playing in a well-oiled partnership. The aim, of course, is to avoid all troubles that would come from opponents' dilemma : to ask or not tot ask ? And, would you believe it, nobody has ever been sanctioned for doing this, unless of course they explained the meaning wrongly. [Nigel] Different partnerships have different understandings about the meaning of doubles, even common-place negative doubles. And some alert-regulations about doubles encourage even stranger agreements. I agree that disclosure rules are a horrible mess, especially those about doubles. Even the EBU rules (which aren't too bad) are capable of radical simplification and improvement. Bitter experience shows that when others break Bridge-rules that they don't like, then those rules may be changed to suit them. But if a player abides by the rules, under protest, and advances constructive suggestions as to how they can be simplified and improved, then nothing happens. Nevertheless, we masochists believe that the latter course of action is the right one :) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 27 20:03:56 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:03:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?interesting_dWS_case?= In-Reply-To: <334010.59838.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <334010.59838.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1PXIMO-0GqNkW0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> [Nigel] > Bitter experience shows that when others break Bridge-rules that they > don't like, then those rules may be changed to suit them. But if a > player abides by the rules, under protest, and advances constructive > suggestions as to how they can be simplified and improved, then > nothing happens. Nevertheless, we masochists believe that the latter > course of action is the right one :) [Peter] I'm coming out to be a masochist. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 27 21:08:56 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:08:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Having none, partner? Message-ID: <157397.54758.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> A recurring theme: but is this just a lot of fuss about putting the cat out? [TFLB, L61B3, Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke] Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information). [Nigel] When your partner shows out in a suit. looking at your own holding in that suit, there are two main possibilities... (1) There are outstanding cards in the suit. Unless declarer has them all, partner is revoking. (2) There are no cards left outstanding in the suit, so partner is *not* revoking. It is sensible to ask in case 1; but it is human nature not to ask in case 2. Thus, for example, when you don't ask there is an inference that you hold the outstanding cards. The law itself admits to creating this potential source of unauthorised information. It seem to put an unnecessary strain on partner's ethics. Some cynics believe it explains the diminishing popularity of count-signals. In some RAs, defenders rely on being asked about possible revokes. But does any RA elect to prohibit this? I feel strongly that the *default* should be prohibition. And the law-book should then specify a sanction for asking. From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Mon Dec 27 21:12:22 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:12:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 13B and 13C Message-ID: <000001cba602$5fb5da90$1f218fb0$@com> Hi all, When the Director, according to Laws 13B or 13C (Incorrect Number of Cards), cancels a board and awards adjusted scores (before it is played), does he must award artificial scores or does he may assign hypothetical real more probable scores ? Is this under local Regulating Authority ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 27 21:15:04 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:15:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Having_none=2C_partner=3F?= In-Reply-To: <157397.54758.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <157397.54758.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1PXJTF-0QLOVc0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> From: Nigel Guthrie > A recurring theme: but is this just a lot of fuss about putting the > cat out? > [TFLB, L61B3, Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke] > Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating > Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized > information). > > [Nigel] > When your partner shows out in a suit. looking at your own holding in > that suit, > there are two main possibilities... > > (1) There are outstanding cards in the suit. Unless declarer has them > all, partner is revoking. > > (2) There are no cards left outstanding in the suit, so partner is > *not* revoking. > > It is sensible to ask in case 1; but it is human nature not to ask in > case 2. > Thus, for example, when you don't ask there is an inference that you > hold the outstanding cards. > > The law itself admits to creating this potential source of > unauthorised information. It seem to put an unnecessary strain on > partner's ethics. > Some cynics believe it explains the diminishing popularity of > count-signals. > > In some RAs, defenders rely on being asked about possible revokes. But > does any RA elect to prohibit this? The RA in Germany elected to prohibit defenders asking themselves about possible revokes. > I feel strongly that the > *default* should be prohibition. And the law-book should then specify > a sanction for asking. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 27 21:31:46 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:31:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_13B_and_13C?= Message-ID: <1PXJjO-0y8D5M0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> From: "laval dubreuil" > When the Director, according to Laws 13B or 13C (Incorrect Number of > Cards), cancels a board and awards adjusted scores (before it is > played), does he must award artificial scores or does he may assign > hypothetical real more probable scores ? > Is this under local Regulating Authority ? In both cases the TD may award an assigned adjusted score. In B it directly says "award an adjusted score" and adjusted scores are both - assigned and artificial scores. The lawmaker want us TDs to _assign_ score whenever possible and legal. In C it looks a bit more towards artificial score as it reads "the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded", but here the following paranthesis "Law 86D my apply" also shows the intend of the lawmakers, as Law 86 D deals with assigned adjusted scores instead of artificial adjusted scores. The different approach in Law 13 C and 15 C is IMO that Law 15 C says "the board must be cancelled" whereupon Law 13 C says "the result must be cancelled". From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 28 08:25:42 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:25:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case In-Reply-To: <1PXIMO-0GqNkW0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <334010.59838.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1PXIMO-0GqNkW0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4D1990F6.8090608@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > [Nigel] >> Bitter experience shows that when others break Bridge-rules that they >> don't like, then those rules may be changed to suit them. But if a >> player abides by the rules, under protest, and advances constructive >> suggestions as to how they can be simplified and improved, then >> nothing happens. Nevertheless, we masochists believe that the latter >> course of action is the right one :) > > [Peter] > I'm coming out to be a masochist. > And what is so good about that? Or why should anybody follow your suit in such painful manners. Best Wishes! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 28 10:18:30 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:18:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 13B and 13C In-Reply-To: <1PXJjO-0y8D5M0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <1PXJjO-0y8D5M0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000501cba670$31c23430$95469c90$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > From: "laval dubreuil" > > When the Director, according to Laws 13B or 13C (Incorrect Number of > > Cards), cancels a board and awards adjusted scores (before it is > > played), does he must award artificial scores or does he may assign > > hypothetical real more probable scores ? > > Is this under local Regulating Authority ? > > In both cases the TD may award an assigned adjusted score. > > In B it directly says "award an adjusted score" and adjusted scores are both - > assigned and artificial scores. The lawmaker want us TDs to _assign_ score > whenever possible and legal. > > In C it looks a bit more towards artificial score as it reads "the result must be > cancelled and an adjusted score awarded", but here the following paranthesis > "Law 86D my apply" also shows the intend of the lawmakers, as Law 86 D deals > with assigned adjusted scores instead of artificial adjusted scores. > > The different approach in Law 13 C and 15 C is IMO that Law 15 C says "the > board must be cancelled" whereupon Law 13 C says "the result must be > cancelled". Sorry to disagree, but the question is answered in Law 12, more explicitly in Law 12A2 which says: "The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board". The Director may not award an assigned adjusted score if the board has been cancelled without play. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 28 10:47:06 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:47:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case In-Reply-To: <574858.6894.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4D18BD6E.2020106@ulb.ac.be> <574858.6894.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D19B21A.9000005@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] > Here is what happened yesterday in one of the few Belgian torunaments > > > [Nigel] > Happy New Year! > > IMO, Alain is lucky that he is playing in a competition governed by DWS Fairy > Bridge Rules. In a normal jurisdiction, if he admitted to a deliberate > infraction, he would deserve a PP. On BLML, directors sometimes tell us that, as > players, they deliberately break the rules. IMO this is a bad example for us > ordinary players, so there should be some official guidance or sanction. IMO, Alain is lucky that he is playing in such a competition. At the very least, it allows him to act in this way AND admit it. I am quite certain that many player would act in the very same way Alain did, and not admit to it, out of fear of being treated as harshly as Nigel apparently wants to do. Please inform us, Nigel, what terrible act Alain has done. He has not informed, in due time, that 2S showed, according to system, womething that Patrick did not in fact have. Nevertheless, Alain submits to rectification for any damage that such an omission might have caused. Please tell us Nigel, why you believe that the act that Alain has done would be regarded as so much worse than the infraction that Patrick has comitted, in not alerting the 1S bid and explaining it as showing diamonds? Now there's an infraction if ever I saw one. Please also see that Alain has omitted to commit another hanious crime, that of pointing out to Patrick that he had in fact misinterpreted 1S. And yes, Nigel, I do know that you will say that giving UI is not a crime, but as I have often told you: if it is not a crime, why then does it carry such an enormous penalty. Surely you will gather from the example that if Alain had alerted 2S, the result for the pair would have been much worse, as Patrick would not have been able to show that he has found out about his mistake on his own! I would certainly not have allowed Patrick to pass 3Di if Alain had alerted 2Sp. The fact that the opponents did not call me (and I must reprimand Alain for not calling me himself!) is a clear indication that to the players, Alain's actions were considered honorable. That is far more important to me than what you continue to misbelieve is the intention of the laws. Surely you will agree that Alain did one thing correctly: he did not point out the missing alert on 1Sp. That is L20F5. Alerting 2Sp has exactly the same consequence as correcting the non-alert on 1Sp. Why ever would one have totally different duties five seconds apart? But yes, I agree, not even Ton and Grattan have yet understood that they have written such a huge contradiction in their laws and regulations. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 28 16:06:41 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:06:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case In-Reply-To: <4D19B21A.9000005@skynet.be> References: <4D18BD6E.2020106@ulb.ac.be> <574858.6894.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D19B21A.9000005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <116755.85439.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> {Herman de Wael] [SNIP] Please inform us, Nigel, what terrible act Alain has done. He has not informed, in due time, that 2S showed, according to system, womething that Patrick did not in fact have. Nevertheless, Alain submits to rectification for any damage that such an omission might have caused. Please tell us Nigel, why you believe that the act that Alain has done would be regarded as so much worse than the infraction that Patrick has comitted, in not alerting the 1S bid and explaining it as showing diamonds? Now there's an infraction if ever I saw one. {SNIP] [Nigel] I agree with Herman that current disclosure rules are improvable. On BLML I, too, have suggested radical simplification. Nevertheless, until the rules are changed, I think we should comply with them. I accept that Alain's infraction is mild, well-motivated and publicly admitted. The problem is that, at the Bridge table, as in real-life, people regularly rationalize far worse crimes. They already wallow in self-justification and self-congratulation, without extra encouragement and support from senior directors and Bridge officials. Although it is over the top in the context of BLML, even when we are sure we are right, we should remind ourselves of Cromwell's entreaty ... [Oliver Cromwell, Letter to Church of Scotland general Assembly, August 3, 1650] I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 06:14:14 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (me) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:14:14 -0600 Subject: [BLML] (no subject) Message-ID: Sent from my iPad From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 29 13:40:14 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 12:40:14 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 13B and 13C References: <1PXJjO-0y8D5M0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <000501cba670$31c23430$95469c90$@no> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 13B and 13C > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt From: "laval dubreuil" > When the Director, according to Laws 13B or 13C (Incorrect .umber of Cards), cancels a board and awards adjusted scores (before it is played), does he must award artificial scores or does he may assign > hypothetical real more probable scores ? Is this under local Regulating Authority ? >> > In both cases the TD may award an assigned adjusted score. > > In B it directly says "award an adjusted score" and adjusted scores are both - assigned and artificial scores. The lawmakers want us TDs to _assign_ score whenever possible and legal. > > In C it looks a bit more towards artificial score as it reads "the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded", but here the following parenthesis "Law 86D my apply" also shows the intend of the lawmakers, as Law 86 D deals with assigned adjusted scores instead of artificial adjusted scores. > > The different approach in Law 13 C and 15 C is IMO that Law 15 C says "the board must be cancelled" whereupon Law 13 C says "the result must be cancelled". > (Sven) Sorry to disagree, but the question is answered in Law 12, more explicitly in Law 12A2 which says: "The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board". > > The Director may not award an assigned adjusted score if the board has been cancelled without play. > ............................................................................... +=+ Sven is on the right track. 12C2 establishes that an artificial AS must be awarded when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained. 12C2 says "can be", not "has been". It appears to me that an essential for it to be possible for a result to be obtained is that the auction must have been completed. If an irregularity prevents completion of the auction then an artificial score must be awarded. 12C1 tells us to award an assigned AS whenever we can - that is to say whenever 12C2 does not require an award of an artificial score. However, there is a small fly in the ointment. 12C1(a) adds "Such a score replaces the score obtained in play" and it may be argued this implies that we award an assigned score 'only when' a score has been obtained, although it may be argued equally well that it is saying 'if' a score has been obtained we are to replace it with the assigned score. I have no record of any mention of the question in the drafting committee. I am inclined to the opinion that the dominant words are in 12C1(a) - "and is able to award an assigned adjusted score", giving the Director the basis to assign a score in situations where he judges he is not bound by Law 12C2. One other mention: if the applicable law specifies what kind of adjusted score is to be awarded this is a specific requirement and it overrides the generality of Law 12. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Wed Dec 29 16:05:09 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:05:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 13B and 13C In-Reply-To: References: <1PXJjO-0y8D5M0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <000501cba670$31c23430$95469c90$@no> Message-ID: <000001cba769$c984f650$5c8ee2f0$@com> Sven writes: > The Director may not award an assigned adjusted score if the board has been cancelled without play. > ............................................................................ ... Grattan writes: +=+ Sven is on the right track. 12C2 establishes that an artificial AS must be awarded when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained. 12C2 says "can be", not "has been". ________________________________________________________________________ Thx both. That is also my humble opinion...and the way my flow charts are made... What about IMPS events, when there was a real score for the same board at the other table ? Any difference ? Laval Du Breuil From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 30 07:05:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:05:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <116755.85439.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >>I did nothing. >>I mean, 2S is alertable (it is a reverse, similar to 1C-1NT-2S), >>yet I didn't alert. [snip] >>partner has Charlie-the-Chimp inclinations [snip] >>Consciously or not, I decided that I shouldn't alert. >>This is in fact a very pure dWS case. [snip] Richard Hills: Those who have read Victor Mollo's stories about Bridge in the Menagerie know that Charlie the Chimp is a character with grey ethics. Is Alain asserting that Alain was so-called "forced" to intentionally infract the final sentence of Law 20B1(a): "Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation." in order for Alain's partner not to be tempted into intentionally infracting the second sentence of Law 75A: "This knowledge is 'unauthorized information' (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C)." a la Charlie the Chimp??? If so, the simple solution is for Alain to eschew any further partnership with Charlie the Chimp. The more complex solution would be for Alain to summon the Director himself whenever there is a Law 73C infraction by Alain's partner. (Note that Law 9 does NOT limit summoning of the Director to the non-offending side, but instead permits any player to do so.) Nigel Guthrie: >I agree with Herman that current disclosure rules are >improvable. On BLML I, too, have suggested radical >simplification. Nevertheless, until the rules are changed, I >think we should comply with them. > >I accept that Alain's infraction is mild, well-motivated Richard Hills: Since Alain used the words "consciously or not", Alain's MI infraction was EITHER mild OR well-motivated. A careless and unintentional failure to alert would be only a mild infraction of Law 20B1(a). But a well-motivated intentional infraction of Law 20B1(a) is also a SEVERE infraction of Law 72B1: "A player MUST NOT infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Antepenultimate and penultimate sentences of the Introduction: "Again, 'MUST NOT' is the STRONGEST prohibition, 'shall not' is strong but 'may not' is stronger ? just short of 'must not'. For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws." Nigel Guthrie: >and publicly admitted. > >The problem is that, at the Bridge table, as in real-life, >people regularly rationalize far worse crimes. They already >wallow in self-justification and self-congratulation, without >extra encouragement and support from senior directors and >Bridge officials. Richard Hills: or even extra encouragement and support from a relatively(1) junior Director such as Herman De Wael. Attributed to Robert Owen (1771-1858), Welsh philanthropist: "All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer." Happy New Year to Alain, Herman and Nigel, Richard Hills (1) I am looking forward to meeting the very senior Director Maurizio Di Sacco at January's Aussie Summer Festival. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 30 09:05:30 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:05:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 13B and 13C In-Reply-To: <000001cba769$c984f650$5c8ee2f0$@com> References: <1PXJjO-0y8D5M0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <000501cba670$31c23430$95469c90$@no> <000001cba769$c984f650$5c8ee2f0$@com> Message-ID: <000301cba7f8$54c425e0$fe4c71a0$@no> On Behalf Of laval dubreuil > Sven writes: > > The Director may not award an assigned adjusted score if the > board has been cancelled without play. > > > ............................................................................ > ... > Grattan writes: > > +=+ Sven is on the right track. 12C2 establishes that an artificial > AS must be awarded when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained. > 12C2 says "can be", not "has been". > ________________________________________________________________ > ________ > Thx both. That is also my humble opinion...and the way my flow charts are made... > > What about IMPS events, when there was a real score for the same board at the > other table ? Any difference ? IMP results are calculated from the score differences between two tables. With what table will you compare the result obtained at the other table? IMO the answer is that there is no such table result, so the result at the other table will not count if an artificial adjusted score is awarded at one table. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 30 09:18:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:18:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >>> I did nothing. >>> I mean, 2S is alertable (it is a reverse, similar to 1C-1NT-2S), >>> yet I didn't alert. > > [snip] > >>> partner has Charlie-the-Chimp inclinations > > [snip] > >>> Consciously or not, I decided that I shouldn't alert. >>> This is in fact a very pure dWS case. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Those who have read Victor Mollo's stories about Bridge in the > Menagerie know that Charlie the Chimp is a character with grey > ethics. Is Alain asserting that Alain was so-called "forced" to > intentionally infract the final sentence of Law 20B1(a): > > "Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the > Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation." > Yes, and no-one is questioning that. What we are questioning is the assertion that Richard et al apparently deduce from the above sentence, and which says "giving misinformation is a haneous crime". Alain and I realize that we are giving misinformation, but we believe that we are correct in doing so (while admitting to it later and accepting rectification for any damage caused), because of greater concerns. So there is no need, Richard, to again repeat that we are giving misinformation. We know it, and we accept it. And your repeating it does not make it the haneous crime you think it is. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 30 09:20:33 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:20:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D1C40D1.6090807@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > "A player MUST NOT infringe a law intentionally, even if > there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." > What about L20F5? By alerting, Alain intentionally infringes that law. And again, we have said this now for the 10,000th time. Repeating it once again brings no solution to this problem. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 30 10:01:16 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:01:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> References: <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > [snip] > > > >>> I did nothing. > >>> I mean, 2S is alertable (it is a reverse, similar to 1C-1NT-2S), > >>> yet I didn't alert. > > > > [snip] > > > >>> partner has Charlie-the-Chimp inclinations > > > > [snip] > > > >>> Consciously or not, I decided that I shouldn't alert. > >>> This is in fact a very pure dWS case. > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Those who have read Victor Mollo's stories about Bridge in the > > Menagerie know that Charlie the Chimp is a character with grey > > ethics. Is Alain asserting that Alain was so-called "forced" to > > intentionally infract the final sentence of Law 20B1(a): > > > > "Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the > > Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation." > > > > Yes, and no-one is questioning that. What we are questioning is the > assertion that Richard et al apparently deduce from the above sentence, > and which says "giving misinformation is a haneous crime". Alain and I > realize that we are giving misinformation, but we believe that we are > correct in doing so (while admitting to it later and accepting > rectification for any damage caused), because of greater concerns. I really don't want to discuss the dWS again, because inevitable this won't lead anywhere. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I still think that the dWS is wrong. Not because of what TFLB says, but in practical terms. 1.) Alert rules are so confusing these days that it is much more likely that partner forgot to alert than that he forgot the system. 2.) If partner got a few bad boards because he first forgot system, then failed to alert because he had forgotten system, and then was limited by UI from your correct alert, you'll lose a few MPs or IMPs in those rounds. But a) you likely got a bad board anyways because a wheel has already come off and b) you'll save many MPs or IMPs later on when partner puts a bit more effort into remembering the system. Or remembers the system because he remembers the bad boards. I consider it desirable to get a dead bottom if partner forgets system in an everyday auction. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 30 10:05:41 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:05:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D1C40D1.6090807@skynet.be> References: <4D1C40D1.6090807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401cba800$bc27c360$34774a20$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > > > "A player MUST NOT infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a > > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." > > > > What about L20F5? By alerting, Alain intentionally infringes that law. There has been a clarification from WBFLC that the duty to give correct explanation of partnership understandings takes precedence over the prohibition (L20F5) against indicating that partner has given a mistaken explanation. More specific: Giving a correct explanation of partnership understandings is no violation of Law 20F5 even if such explanation should indicate that partner (previously) has given a mistaken explanation. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 30 11:05:21 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:05:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D1C5961.9060300@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > > I really don't want to discuss the dWS again, because inevitable > this won't lead anywhere. We'll just have to agree to disagree. > Fine by me. > I still think that the dWS is wrong. Not because of what TFLB says, > but in practical terms. > Here's an interesting idea. > 1.) Alert rules are so confusing these days that it is much > more likely that partner forgot to alert than that he forgot the system. > Indeed possible, but not all the times. In the case last sunday, Alain was quite certain Patrick had forgotten. There is nothing difficult about alerting spades when they don't show spades. And of course, there are the many cases in which partner explains (incorrectly) and then there is not doubt. So this argument is not really very worthwhile. > 2.) If partner got a few bad boards because he first forgot > system, then failed to alert because he had forgotten system, and > then was limited by UI from your correct alert, you'll lose > a few MPs or IMPs in those rounds. But > a) you likely got a bad board anyways because a wheel has already come off > and > b) you'll save many MPs or IMPs later on when partner puts a bit more effort into > remembering the system. Or remembers the system > because he remembers the bad boards. > > I consider it desirable to get a dead bottom if partner forgets system > in an everyday auction. > This is the masochism argument, but with a twist. Thomas believes partner will learn more from a dead bottom than from a discussion afterwards. I don't think that is true. In Alain's case, Patrick remembered the system by himself, without Alain telling him in some UI manner. I think that is even more helpful for later remembeering of the system than any bottom would have been. > > Thomas > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 30 11:35:56 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:35:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D1C5961.9060300@skynet.be> References: <4D1C5961.9060300@skynet.be> <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1831612560.98472.1293705356892.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael > > 2.) If partner got a few bad boards because he first forgot > > system, then failed to alert because he had forgotten system, and > > then was limited by UI from your correct alert, you'll lose > > a few MPs or IMPs in those rounds. But > > a) you likely got a bad board anyways because a wheel has already come off > > and > > b) you'll save many MPs or IMPs later on when partner puts a bit more effort into > > remembering the system. Or remembers the system > > because he remembers the bad boards. > > > > I consider it desirable to get a dead bottom if partner forgets system > > in an everyday auction. > > > > This is the masochism argument, but with a twist. > Thomas believes partner will learn more from a dead bottom than from a > discussion afterwards. I don't think that is true. In Alain's case, > Patrick remembered the system by himself, without Alain telling him in > some UI manner. I think that is even more helpful for later remembeering > of the system than any bottom would have been. In my experience, if him failing to remember the system caused a disaster or two, partner is much more likely to invest a couple of extra hours into learning the system (including different parts of the system) than if him failing to remember the system resulted in an average board or a good board. I'm not merely talking about discussing the hand. I am talking about the general amount of preparation a non-pro partner considers necessary. Thomas From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 30 12:00:17 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:00:17 -0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <184B4C9981744CF4BC3A20BF59F0D334@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > > I still think that the dWS is wrong. Not because of > what TFLB says, but in practical terms. > +=+ I am in doubt as to what dWS is or its implications. However, from what (little) I have read of this topic the reference to TFLB is misplaced since wherever this episode occurred it was not in a competition played under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 30 13:06:22 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:06:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <184B4C9981744CF4BC3A20BF59F0D334@Mildred> References: <184B4C9981744CF4BC3A20BF59F0D334@Mildred> <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <98830332.101890.1293710782116.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thomas Dehn" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 9:01 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> > > > I still think that the dWS is wrong. Not because of > > what TFLB says, but in practical terms. > > > +=+ I am in doubt as to what dWS is or its implications. > However, from what (little) I have read of this topic > the reference to TFLB is misplaced since wherever this > episode occurred it was not in a competition played > under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. There exist two philosophies on how to deal with defects in a law. 1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless I will follow it literally" 2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, and do something sensible instead". Thomas From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Dec 30 15:28:13 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:28:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case In-Reply-To: <4D18BD6E.2020106@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D18BD6E.2020106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D1C96FD.3060802@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Hi all, > > Here is what happened yesterday in one of the few Belgian torunaments > that count, directed by a Mr. hDW. > > You're North, 3rd-in-hand, and hold : > > xxx > KJx > AKJxxx > J > > South opens 1C. You answer 1S (T-Walsh - usually diamonds but might be a > balanced club raise). > Partner does NOT alert and bids 2S. What do you do ? > > I did nothing. > I mean, 2S is alertable (it is a reverse, similar to 1C-1NT-2S), yet I > didn't alert. i tend to sympathise with your attitude and, after rethinking, it's because i don't understand why 2S should be alertable. it's obviously a reverse, what need to alert that a reverse is a reverse? if partner had alerted 1S, opponent had asked and partner explained, would you have alerted 2S? why should you be influenced by extraneous information? you dont have to compensate for such partner's infraction, not at that moment at least. jpr > > AI - the room is rather noisy and partner has Charlie-the-Chimp inclinations > UI - he didn't alert, so > a) he probably forgot the system, although > b) it's just possible that he forgot to alert, but for this South > (who scrupulously alerts everything, even when not needed), > interpretation a) is much more likely > Probably UI - partner bid 2S pretty quickly, which reinforces > interpretation a) > > Consciously or not, I decided that I shouldn't alert. > This is in fact a very pure dWS case. > It is unlikely that RHO will want to overcall now (he is not in > balancing seat), so the MI will probably not be harmful at this moment ; > to the contrary, alerting will probably awaken partner to his error. > > Now things change : before West -a slow player- has called, partner says > "I should have alerted". > West not having bid, the cat is walked back to East, who asks, gets the > right explanation, and declines to bid. > Partner is stuck with his 2S bid. > UI - perhaps he hasn't got reversing values. Or perhaps he has, because > b) has become more probable. > Notice that partner - a TD himself - has carefully avoided saying why he > didn't alert. > > Now, I alert ! If he indeed has forgotten his system, he now realized, > so there is no risk of UI. > dWS means alerting according to partner's perception of the bidding's > meaning, and this has changed. > One problem remains : I must absolutely bid as if partner had a full > reverse. This is an easy 3D bid (6 cards and game force, playing > mitigating notrumps) ; over 3NT or a 3H grope, I'll bid a natural 4NT, > and too bad if we're too high. > Partner now ... passes ! Nothing in TFLB disallows him to pass a forcing > bid. It's too bad that I've got more than a minimum force ... or isn't it ? > > Notice how the application of dWS principles saved what could be saved > of the normal course of the board after the infraction of not alerting. > That's what it was thought for, right ? > > > First funny fact : although the problem was exposed before the lead when > I explained 2S and added "by the way, my 3D bid was forcing", East, a > top level Belgian player (or at least she plays at this level) still > believed partner had a full reverse, and her lead helped me a bit. Just > made. > Partner's hand : AJxx - 108xx - void - AQ109x. > > Second funny fact : we scored above average. For unknown resaons, 3NT > went down quite often, which shouldn't have been the case. > > > > > > Best regards, happy New Year > > 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 hirsch9000 at gmail.com Thu Dec 30 16:05:26 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:05:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <98830332.101890.1293710782116.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <184B4C9981744CF4BC3A20BF59F0D334@Mildred> <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <98830332.101890.1293710782116.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D1C9FB6.9000808@gmail.com> On 12/30/2010 7:06 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Grattan wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> **************************************************** >> Skype directory: grattan.endicott >> **************************************************** >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Thomas Dehn" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 9:01 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> I still think that the dWS is wrong. Not because of >>> what TFLB says, but in practical terms. >>> >> +=+ I am in doubt as to what dWS is or its implications. >> However, from what (little) I have read of this topic >> the reference to TFLB is misplaced since wherever this >> episode occurred it was not in a competition played >> under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > There exist two philosophies on how to deal with defects > in a law. > > 1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless I will follow it literally" HD: Since the game is defined by its Laws, this is the only viable option in play, whatever your philosophical leanings. > 2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, and do something sensible instead". HD: Viable as philosophy, but not viable at the table. As Grattan has pointed out, the moment that this occurs in actual play, the game is no longer bridge. You're entitled to think that the Laws should be different, and to advocate for their change. However, until such change occurs, the game is bound by the Laws as written, whether we believe them to be good or bad. A competent TD would enforce 72.B.1 and should apply severe sanctions even if the TD agreed that the infraction might indeed represent a better approach to the game. Neither the player nor the TD may define what is "sensible". That's up to the WBFLC and the various regulating organizations. We've been here before. In a real bridge game, the PP Alain received for his intentional infraction would wipe out his above average on the hand. Repeated intentional infractions would result in ejection and a Conduct and Ethics hearing. My comments do not apply, of course, if the game in question is not bridge as defined by the Laws as written and interpreted by the WBFLC. However, it is my belief that such social games are not on topic for a bridge laws mailing list, since said laws are not applicable to the game in question. Hirsch From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Dec 31 05:14:33 2010 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 04:14:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D1C40D1.6090807@skynet.be> References: <4D1C40D1.6090807@skynet.be> Message-ID: Am I alone in thinking the title of this thread is self-contradictory Mike -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 8:20 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > "A player MUST NOT infringe a law intentionally, even if > there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." > What about L20F5? By alerting, Alain intentionally infringes that law. And again, we have said this now for the 10,000th time. Repeating it once again brings no solution to this problem. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Dec 31 05:59:40 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:59:40 +0800 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4D1C40D1.6090807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <90A434DC0AE14D1BB9879E507F56EB16@acer> No, you are not alone. bill kemp ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Amos" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Am I alone in thinking the title of this thread is self-contradictory > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 8:20 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >> >> "A player MUST NOT infringe a law intentionally, even if >> there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." >> > > What about L20F5? By alerting, Alain intentionally infringes that law. > > And again, we have said this now for the 10,000th time. Repeating it > once again brings no solution to this problem. > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 31 06:12:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:12:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] uninteresting dWikiS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401cba800$bc27c360$34774a20$@no> Message-ID: Law 72B1: "A player MUST NOT infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Herman De Wael: >>>What about L20F5? By alerting, Alain intentionally >>>infringes that law. Sven Pran: >>There has been a clarification from WBFLC that the duty to >>give correct explanation of partnership understandings takes >>precedence over the prohibition (L20F5) against indicating >>that partner has given a mistaken explanation. >> >>More specific: Giving a correct explanation of partnership >>understandings is no violation of Law 20F5 even if such >>explanation should indicate that partner (previously) has >>given a mistaken explanation. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I am in doubt as to what dWS is or its implications. > However, from what (little) I have read of this topic >the reference to TFLB is misplaced since wherever this >episode occurred it was not in a competition played under the >Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sunir Shah, quoted on page 59 of The Wikipedia Revolution: "As readership/contributors went up, quality went down. Meta- wiki discussions about the nature of Wiki itself consumed the community. I did what I thought was natural: with the help of Clifford Adams, I precipitated the formation of a separate wiki, MeatballWiki, precisely to talk about meta issues of online community...." Richard Hills: As has been noted by Sven and Grattan, Herman has made a Director's error in applying Law 20F5 to the stem case of the original thread, due to the scope of Law 20F5 being limited by a 2008 WBF LC interpretation (created because otherwise the 2007 Lawbook would be paradoxically inconsistent). And that 2008 WBF LC interpretation was ratified by the supreme authority in Duplicate Bridge, not Herman De Wael, but rather the WBF Executive. These previous paragraphs by myself, Grattan and Sven discuss what ARE the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Herman has merely chosen to raise the uninteresting meta-issue of HOW the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are poorly phrased, and therefore HOW the Lawbook might be misinterpreted. For example, the original international 2007 Law 55A (second sentence) is poorly phrased: "If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail." But its translation into American for the ACBL 2008 Law 55A (second sentence) has improved phrasing without altering the intended meaning: "If the defenders choose differently, the option expressed by the defender next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of turn shall prevail." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Fri Dec 31 14:56:32 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:56:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D1C9FB6.9000808@gmail.com> References: <184B4C9981744CF4BC3A20BF59F0D334@Mildred> <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <98830332.101890.1293710782116.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <4D1C9FB6.9000808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D1DE110.9000607@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > A competent TD would enforce 72.B.1 and should apply severe sanctions > even if the TD agreed that the infraction might indeed represent a > better approach to the game. Neither the player nor the TD may define > what is "sensible". That's up to the WBFLC and the various regulating > organizations. > So, what would the ruling be? There was no damage because of any of the misinformations, Alain did not act upon the UI he received from Patrick, and Patrick did not receive any UI from Alain. > We've been here before. In a real bridge game, the PP Alain received > for his intentional infraction would wipe out his above average on the > hand. Repeated intentional infractions would result in ejection and a > Conduct and Ethics hearing. > Indeed, there you go: a PP because a player infracted something his opponents were not damaged by. A PP because the player knew what he should be doing. So now we move to the next table, and the same happens. Are you going to give the same PP at that table? When the player in question simplu tells you "I thought my partner was right when he did not alert - I have misbid". > My comments do not apply, of course, if the game in question is not > bridge as defined by the Laws as written and interpreted by the WBFLC. > However, it is my belief that such social games are not on topic for a > bridge laws mailing list, since said laws are not applicable to the game > in question. > I resent this. > Hirsch > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Fri Dec 31 17:47:47 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:47:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] uninteresting dWikiS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1955550077.152466.1293814067338.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 72B1: > > "A player MUST NOT infringe a law intentionally, even if there > is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." L81C: "The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: [...] 5. to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." Thomas From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 31 17:50:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:50:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <184B4C9981744CF4BC3A20BF59F0D334@Mildred><4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be><1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <98830332.101890.1293710782116.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <7668BDFA18EA4FDEBC69F49D601DEF1E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Thomas Dehn" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 9:01 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> >> > >> > I still think that the dWS is wrong. Not because of >> > what TFLB says, but in practical terms. >> > >> +=+ I am in doubt as to what dWS is or its implications. >> However, from what (little) I have read of this topic >> the reference to TFLB is misplaced since wherever this >> episode occurred it was not in a competition played >> under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > .......................................................................... > There exist two philosophies on how to deal with defects > in a law. > > 1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless I will follow it literally" > > 2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, and do something sensible > instead". > +=+ If a tournament is specified to be played under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge there is a contract between the entrant and the tournament organizer that the specified laws will be applied. As to your item (2.) you are surely not suggesting that there are Directors so arrogant and bumptious as to replace the appointed law with a substitute of their own devising? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 31 18:11:07 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 18:11:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7668BDFA18EA4FDEBC69F49D601DEF1E@Mildred> References: <184B4C9981744CF4BC3A20BF59F0D334@Mildred><4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be><1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <98830332.101890.1293710782116.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <7668BDFA18EA4FDEBC69F49D601DEF1E@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901cba90d$b7e665f0$27b331d0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > .......................................................................... > > There exist two philosophies on how to deal with ALLEGED defects > > in a law. (Enhanced word inserted by me) .................................. > > 2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, and do something sensible > > instead". > > > +=+ If a tournament is specified to be played under the Laws > of Duplicate Bridge there is a contract between the entrant > and the tournament organizer that the specified laws will > be applied. > As to your item (2.) you are surely not suggesting that > there are Directors so arrogant and bumptious as to replace > the appointed law with a substitute of their own devising? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ That is PRECISELY the impression I have had from the long lasting discussion around dWS !!! Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 31 18:46:00 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:46:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7668BDFA18EA4FDEBC69F49D601DEF1E@Mildred> References: <184B4C9981744CF4BC3A20BF59F0D334@Mildred> <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <98830332.101890.1293710782116.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <7668BDFA18EA4FDEBC69F49D601DEF1E@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:50:23 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > Happy and prosperous New Year to all, > saints and stirrers alike. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thomas Dehn" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:06 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Thomas Dehn" >>> To: >>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 9:01 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>> >> > >>> > I still think that the dWS is wrong. Not because of >>> > what TFLB says, but in practical terms. >>> > >>> +=+ I am in doubt as to what dWS is or its implications. >>> However, from what (little) I have read of this topic >>> the reference to TFLB is misplaced since wherever this >>> episode occurred it was not in a competition played >>> under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. >> > .......................................................................... >> There exist two philosophies on how to deal with defects >> in a law. >> >> 1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless I will follow it literally" >> >> 2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, and do something sensible >> instead". >> > +=+ If a tournament is specified to be played under the Laws > of Duplicate Bridge there is a contract between the entrant > and the tournament organizer that the specified laws will > be applied. > As to your item (2.) you are surely not suggesting that > there are Directors so arrogant and bumptious as to replace > the appointed law with a substitute of their own devising? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I know maybe you are just tongue-in-cheek here. But in case you are not -- as far as I know, the claim laws and UI laws are too incompetently written to be actually followed. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 21:31:49 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:31:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D1DE110.9000607@skynet.be> References: <184B4C9981744CF4BC3A20BF59F0D334@Mildred> <4D1C4068.9070905@skynet.be> <1957070655.97086.1293699676312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <98830332.101890.1293710782116.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <4D1C9FB6.9000808@gmail.com> <4D1DE110.9000607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D1E3DB5.6060709@gmail.com> On 12/31/2010 8:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> A competent TD would enforce 72.B.1 and should apply severe sanctions >> even if the TD agreed that the infraction might indeed represent a >> better approach to the game. Neither the player nor the TD may define >> what is "sensible". That's up to the WBFLC and the various regulating >> organizations. >> > So, what would the ruling be? There was no damage because of any of the > misinformations, Alain did not act upon the UI he received from Patrick, > and Patrick did not receive any UI from Alain. I am not rectifying the failure to alert if there was no damage, nor did I ever say that I would. >> We've been here before. In a real bridge game, the PP Alain received >> for his intentional infraction would wipe out his above average on the >> hand. Repeated intentional infractions would result in ejection and a >> Conduct and Ethics hearing. >> > Indeed, there you go: a PP because a player infracted something his > opponents were not damaged by. A PP because the player knew what he > should be doing. NO! The PP is because the player knew what he should be doing and did something else. > So now we move to the next table, and the same happens. Are you going to > give the same PP at that table? When the player in question simplu tells > you "I thought my partner was right when he did not alert - I have misbid". > If I believe that there was no intent to infract a Law, 72.B.1 does not apply. >> My comments do not apply, of course, if the game in question is not >> bridge as defined by the Laws as written and interpreted by the WBFLC. >> However, it is my belief that such social games are not on topic for a >> bridge laws mailing list, since said laws are not applicable to the game >> in question. >> > I resent this. > Herman, You have my deepest apologies. I had believed that you were directing games sponsored by the Belgian Bridge Federation/European Bridge League. If in fact you simply direct social games with no WBF affiliations, then of course you can impose dWS on your game, even if it is not duplicate bridge as defined by the Laws, and I can see how you would feel resentment at my suggestion of your social game being off-topic. However, please bear in mind that any comments that you make suggesting that the Laws not be followed as written apply to your game only and do not apply to any games where the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge is the governing document. Hirsch