From craigstamps at comcast.net Mon Feb 1 01:06:24 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:06:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> <4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Steve, it's not what he meany that is important. Directors were never intended to possess crystal balls. It is impossible to know what he intended unless he SAID what it was. I can get a hand right over 90% of the time when I can see all the hands...and of course can delude myself into believing that I would have done so always. Claim, no statement, claimer is entitled to the worst line of play he could have devised, careless or inferior as it may have been. I believe HE THINKS he would have repeated the finesse. But if he wants any favourable result from that line he MUST state it. Otherwise, if the finess works, he didn't take it! And if the jack is offside, he did take it, because both are rational lines of play, one is just unsuccessful in the instance. Don't be a mind reader. Politely give him the poorer result and I'll bet he states his line of play from now on. Otherwise the situation is tantamount to accepting his claim that he always would have doubled or bid on even if there had been no hesitation...he may THINK he would have but it doesn't matter. We must protect the non-offenders in any situation where there is an infraction, be it UI or an improper claim. That's a director's job. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling > gampas at aol.com wrote: >> It would be interesting if the best line were to be treated as >> irrational. > > I don't think the issue here is "normal versus irrational." Clearly > both lines are rational in an absolute sense. The question is what you > believe the claimer meant. If _in context_ you believe his statement > was tantamount to saying "I'm repeating the finesse against the jack," > then he gets all the tricks. If you believe otherwise, or can't tell, > then the defense gets a trick. > > It wouldn't hurt to advise declarer to state a line of play when claiming. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 1 02:56:27 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:56:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: I hope that Eric Landau and Co soon run out of straw for their psychic straw-men. Grattan and Richard simply quote the law. The law does not prevent you from psyching. If partner becomes aware of your "psyching" habits, however, then you aren't *psyching* at all -- you have an implicit agreement that should be disclosed. The rules bear no other interpretation... David Burn: ...Terminology has become sloppy, beginning with the "controlled psyche" that formed part of the "methods" of some top American players for many years. There is no such thing as, and there never was any such thing as, a "controlled psyche"; the term is and always was self- contradictory, like a "triangular circle"... Richard Hills: An interesting deal came up last Thursday night, in which I had an undisclosed understanding with one of my opponents, but not with my partner. That is, if my RHO had been my partner, the call I chose at the table would have been unLawful. Matchpoint pairs Board 15 Dlr: South Vul: North-South You use 11-14 1NT, 5-card majors, 4-card diamonds, 2-card clubs. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Sean Mullamphy Richard Hills Tony Jowett Klavs Kalejs --- --- --- Pass Pass ? You, North, hold: 73 AQ9 AKJT53 T7 What call do you make? What call did I make? The only logical alternative, using the bidding methods listed above, is to open the bidding with 1D. I, however, opened the bidding with a (psychic or not?) 1H. Since my partner was Klavs Kalejs, my 1H opening bid was a true psychic. But if my partner had been Sean Mullamphy, my 1H opening bid would have been an unLawful undisclosed implicit partnership understanding, because -> WBF Code of Practice, page 8: To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic. This will be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances is established: (a) similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or (b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that it cannot have faded from mind; or (c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or (d) the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic call. Richard Hills: Five years ago Sean Mullamphy bid 4H because he "knew" that his partner had a singleton spade, since the opponents had bid and raised spades and Sean held four small. The penalty was 800 when the defence cashed three rounds of spades, due to me overcalling 2S with a spade suit of merely KQx. After five years my psychic bid of a 3-card major would normally have "faded from mind". But at last month's Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge I gave Sean his old hand as a bidding problem, Sean again trusted the opponents' bidding, again elected to bid 4H, and again I (politely) gloated when revealing my 3-card 2S overcall to Sean. So my somewhat undisciplined 1H psychic opening was perhaps partially an infraction of the "chief object is to obtain a higher score" rule imposed by Law 72A, since while Majors outscore Minors at Matchpoints was part of my motive, the other part of my motive was to once more bid a 3-card major against Sean Mullamphy. The complete outcome -> Speedball matchpoint pairs Board 15 73 Dlr: South AQ9 Vul: North-South AKJT53 T7 KJT95 Q 632 T74 87 Q642 654 AKQ82 A8642 KJ85 9 J93 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Sean Mullamphy Richard Hills Tony Jowett Klavs Kalejs --- --- --- Pass Pass 1H 2C 4H Pass Pass Pass Tony Jowett cashed the ace and king of clubs on the first two tricks. But when Sean Mullamphy's count signal revealed that Sean held the outstanding club, Tony saw no point in continuing clubs. Instead Tony switched to a trump, which I won with dummy's jack. I now ran the nine of diamonds to Tony's queen. Tony continued with a second round of trumps, +620 and a top to the good guys. If Tony had been as aware as Sean of my occasional liking to psyche a 3-card major, it might have been easier for Tony to find the killing defence of a third round of clubs. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 1 03:21:35 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 02:21:35 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling > Steve, it's not what he meany that is important. > Directors were never intended to possess > crystal balls. +=+ Ah! Another dream shattered. +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 1 07:47:20 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:47:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> Marvin French wrote: >>> >>> >>>> ACBL General Conditions of Contest for pair games, August 2009: >>>> >>>> A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in >>>> probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to >>>> redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear >>>> understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed. >>>> >>>> Looks like something Bobby Wolff would write. Is this a reasonable >>>> "condition"? Easily enforced? >>>> >>>> >>> Looks unfair to me, because the wording seems >>> to exclude violations during natural bidding. >>> Say, a misunderstanding on how strong 1M - 2M is, >>> or whether is shows three card or four card support. >>> Or not being able to tell your opponents whether your >>> leads against NT contracts are 4th best. >>> >>> >> Would you bet with me on the proportion of pairs who agree when being >> asked their 1NT reopening ranges ? >> >> I think the reasoning behind this -right or not- is that it is quite >> possible NOT to have agreed explicitly on, say, a range for 1M-2M, and >> therefore not being able to answer the question. >> However, it needs agreement of some sort to use a convention. You have >> to disclose that agreement. >> > > 1M - 2M is a very frequent auction. > I see no reason whatsoever to treat this differently > that, say 2D (multi) pass 2S. > AG : I do see one. It is possible to seat facing a new partner, discuss several things and leave aside 1M-2M ; it's not one of the things I would try to set first ; but if we agreed to play Multi ... From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 1 07:58:20 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:58:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> Message-ID: John Ruskin (1819-1900) English art critic and social commentator: "The essence of lying is in deception, not in words." Steve Willner, test case: >Let's try a test case on a (perhaps!) non-controversial subject. Using >normal methods, opener bids 1NT, and responder has game-only values and >4333 shape with a 4-card major. Some people bid a direct 3NT here, >while others use Stayman. I suppose still others decide on a hand-by- >hand basis which to do. > >1. Must both members of a partnership adopt the same choice in this >matter? Richard Hills, two cents worth: Yes and no. A new partnership can do anything they like, an old partnership must abide by the rule that "the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made". In my opinion, if both partners agree to never use Stayman with game- going values and 4333 or 3433, it is a partnership understanding. In my opinion, if both partners agree to always use Stayman with game- going values and 4333 or 3433, it is a partnership understanding. In my opinion, if the partners agree to disagree -- one always using Stayman, one never using Stayman -- with game-going values and 4333 or 3433, it is an infraction of the Law 40B2(a) rule that "the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made". In my opinion, the Law 40B2(a) reference to "style and judgement" would in this test case be relevant to assessing Whether to force to game, but not relevant to mechanically choosing the same How to force to game. Steve Willner, test case: >2. Is opener required to know which choice his partner habitually >adopts? Richard Hills, two cents worth: "Required" is the wrong term. A new partner Does Not know, an old partner Does know. Steve Willner, test case: >3. If opener does know responder's usual choice (or method of >choosing), is he obliged to disclose it? If so, how, assuming the RA >has issued no specific regulation (as few if any do). Richard Hills, two cents worth: Yes, any pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is subject to disclosure. In these modern times almost all partnerships have so many understandings that only a minority are disclosed "before commencing play" pursuant to Law 40A1(b) regulations. So the majority of pre- existing mutual partnership understandings gain contemporaneous or "just-in-time" disclosure via Law 20 answers to questions and/or via Law 40B2(a) alerts/non-alerts. Steve Willner, test case: >4. If opener knows but fails to disclose (perhaps not having been >asked), is the 2C or 3NT bid illegal? Richard Hills, two cents worth: The Ruritanian Regulating Authority has defined Stayman as a special partnership understanding under Law 40B1(a), and prohibited its use under Law 40B1(b). So in Ruritania the 2C Stayman bid would be cancelled under Law 40B5. By Ruritanian regulation the non-offending side would automatically be awarded Ave+ and the offending side an equally automatic Ave- plus a 10% procedural penalty. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Mon Feb 1 11:22:54 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:22:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner > > > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >> > >>> Marvin French wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> ACBL General Conditions of Contest for pair games, August 2009: > >>>> > >>>> A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in > >>>> probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to > >>>> redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear > >>>> understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed. > >>>> > >>>> Looks like something Bobby Wolff would write. Is this a reasonable > >>>> "condition"? Easily enforced? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Looks unfair to me, because the wording seems > >>> to exclude violations during natural bidding. > >>> Say, a misunderstanding on how strong 1M - 2M is, > >>> or whether is shows three card or four card support. > >>> Or not being able to tell your opponents whether your > >>> leads against NT contracts are 4th best. > >>> > >>> > >> Would you bet with me on the proportion of pairs who agree when being > >> asked their 1NT reopening ranges ? > >> > >> I think the reasoning behind this -right or not- is that it is quite > >> possible NOT to have agreed explicitly on, say, a range for 1M-2M, and > >> therefore not being able to answer the question. > >> However, it needs agreement of some sort to use a convention. You have > >> to disclose that agreement. > >> > > > > 1M - 2M is a very frequent auction. > > I see no reason whatsoever to treat this differently > > that, say 2D (multi) pass 2S. > > > > AG : I do see one. It is possible to seat facing a new partner, discuss > several things and leave aside 1M-2M ; it's not one of the things I > would try to set first ; but if we agreed to play Multi ... And that is exactly what happens. Player A and B discuss several things, say, the agree to play 2/1. Which implies forcing NT. Which implies that there is a difference in meaning between 1M - 2M and 1M - 1NT - 2C/2D/2H - 2M. So they begin to play and do not know that they have different opinions which one is constructive, much less the range of the constructive raise. Because they discussed other topics. Why should such a pair be treated better than a pair that does not have an actual agreement whether 2D - 2S is just pass or correct, or requests that opener bids 4H with a maximum weak two in H? Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 1 11:40:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:40:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner >>> >>> >>>> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>>>> Marvin French wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ACBL General Conditions of Contest for pair games, August 2009: >>>>>> >>>>>> A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in >>>>>> probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to >>>>>> redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear >>>>>> understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like something Bobby Wolff would write. Is this a reasonable >>>>>> "condition"? Easily enforced? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Looks unfair to me, because the wording seems >>>>> to exclude violations during natural bidding. >>>>> Say, a misunderstanding on how strong 1M - 2M is, >>>>> or whether is shows three card or four card support. >>>>> Or not being able to tell your opponents whether your >>>>> leads against NT contracts are 4th best. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Would you bet with me on the proportion of pairs who agree when being >>>> asked their 1NT reopening ranges ? >>>> >>>> I think the reasoning behind this -right or not- is that it is quite >>>> possible NOT to have agreed explicitly on, say, a range for 1M-2M, and >>>> therefore not being able to answer the question. >>>> However, it needs agreement of some sort to use a convention. You have >>>> to disclose that agreement. >>>> >>>> >>> 1M - 2M is a very frequent auction. >>> I see no reason whatsoever to treat this differently >>> that, say 2D (multi) pass 2S. >>> >>> >> AG : I do see one. It is possible to seat facing a new partner, discuss >> several things and leave aside 1M-2M ; it's not one of the things I >> would try to set first ; but if we agreed to play Multi ... >> > > And that is exactly what happens. Player A and B discuss several things, > say, the agree to play 2/1. Which implies forcing NT. Not as it is written in BWS. There, 1NT may be passe dwith a balanced minimum - and that's sensible. > Which implies that there > is a difference in meaning between > 1M - 2M > and > 1M - 1NT - 2C/2D/2H - 2M. > > So they begin to play and do not know that they have different opinions > which one is constructive, much less the range of the constructive raise. > Not in some partnerships, where classically the preference seldom provides 3-card support. But I see your point : if we don't agree, why should others ? > Because they discussed other topics. > > Why should such a pair be treated better than a pair that does not > have an actual agreement whether > 2D - 2S > is just pass or correct, or requests that opener bids 4H with a maximum > weak two in H? > Perhaps because one can play bridge without Multi, but not without opening 1M. So, when a pair tells me "no, we didn't discuss the strength of 2M", I'll perhaps believe them AND allow it, but when they say "we didn't discuss the meaning of 2S over 2D", I'll perhaps belienve them, but tell them to stop playing conventions they don't understand. This is my duty to other players, who perhaps aren't aware of what Multi is, but who are aware of what a major raise is. And because this isn't the perfect example : the situation of profound disruption is much more frequent with artificial blds. Remember the threads about Ghestem ? I had to decide in such a case recently, and it was so intricated that I probably gave a judgment that was very harsh to the OS, for fear of doing the contrary. Best regards Alain From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Feb 1 13:09:03 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:09:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> [Craig] Steve, it's not what he meany that is important. Directors were never intended to possess crystal balls. [Grattan] +=+ Ah! Another dream shattered. +=+ [Nigel] IMO... Whether or not the director has crystal balls, he should disallow the claim, according to current law. If the claimer is an expert and the director judges that the claimer is on fishing expedition to find the knave, then the director should impose an additional penalty. Amazing that some who object to the adoption of simple *on-line law* as *face-to-face* law, would allow this claim. (On BBO, when defenders reject a claim, they play on double-dummy -- declarer carries on single-dummy). A common criticism of this proposal was that declarer might go on a fishing expedition, as above. (Although, in practice, this rarely causes a problem, because defenders are wise to the ploy). From henk at ripe.net Mon Feb 1 13:57:53 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 13:57:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201002011257.o11CvreP006733@dog.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for January 2010 Posts From ----- ---- 98 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 61 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 47 ehaa (at) starpower.net 44 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 44 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 40 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com 27 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 18 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 18 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 13 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 11 svenpran (at) online.no 8 swillner (at) nhcc.net 7 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 6 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 6 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 6 cibor (at) poczta.fm 6 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 6 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 5 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 5 dpb3 (at) fastmail.fm 4 bpark56 (at) comcast.net 4 blml (at) arcor.de 4 adam (at) tameware.com 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 3 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 3 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au 3 craigstamps (at) comcast.net 2 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 2 lali808 (at) gmail.com 2 jmmgc1 (at) hotmail.com 2 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 gampas (at) aol.com 2 defranchi.henri (at) wanadoo.fr 2 bridgenz2004 (at) gmail.com 1 tedying (at) yahoo.com 1 sater (at) xs4all.nl 1 rgtjbos (at) xs4all.nl 1 ranjubhattacharjee (at) hotmail.com 1 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 clubanddiamond (at) yahoo.co.uk 1 ccw.in.nc (at) gmail.com 1 brambledown (at) blueyonder.co.uk 1 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com 1 adam (at) irvine.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 1 14:37:33 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:37:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B66D91D.1020503@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Craig] > Steve, it's not what he meany that is important. Directors were never > intended to possess crystal balls. > AG : according to TFLB, they are. Not that I like it, you know. - It is disallowed to hide a second revoke but you're allowed not to mention it. How do you distinguish ? - Pauses for thought : who can determine what they were for ? - Several infractions are more severely penalized when they were intentional. How do you assess the intent ? etc. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 15:35:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:35:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches In-Reply-To: <4B63940D.9040300@virginmedia.com> References: <4B63940D.9040300@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <4CBE9F35-C9B3-4BED-BB66-CE875C9D02C9@starpower.net> On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > I very much doubt that Grattan and Richard are all the way into the > Don Oakie camp -- he was the president of the ACBL in the 1970s who > dedicated himself to the "psychs are cheating and have no place in > bridge" campaign. Perhaps they are comfortable, though, with the > compromise struck at the time in the ACBL between Mr. Oakie and the > authors of L40, which has since been characterized as the ACBL's "one > psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. > > [Nigel] > I hope that Eric Landau and Co soon run out of straw for their psychic > straw-men. Grattan and Richard simply quote the law. The law does not > prevent you from psyching. If partner becomes aware of your "psyching" > habits, however, then you aren't *psyching* at all -- you have an > implicit agreement that should be disclosed. The rules bear no other > interpretation. All true. The point I've been trying to make in this discussion is rather subtler than that. Disclosure isn't an issue. Opponents are entitled to know whatever you know about your partner's bidding that they don't, whether you call it an "implicit agreement" or not. The question on the table is whether the so-called "psych", by virtue of the fact that you have disclosable knowledge the opponents lack, becomes a "method" subject to the regulations determining which methods you're allowed to play. If partner becomes aware of your "psyching habits", then, as Nigel says, you aren't psyching at all -- you have an implicit agreement, subject to any extant regulations regarding methods. But "habits" are patterns, and a "psyching habit" is *not* the same thing as a "habit of psyching". If you know that your partner likes to open 1H on any balanced hand with 0-3 HCP, that is a "habit" (i.e. a pattern), and your knowledge of it makes it a "method", which may be banned or otherwise regulated. But if all you know it that your partner likes to psych in unpredictable ways in unpredictable situations, that is not a pattern, and your knowledge of it -- notwithstanding that it is unarguably disclosable -- does not make it a "method" which may be banned or controlled. Others may differ with my conclusions, but I don't think we can discuss the issue productively unless we recognize this difference. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 15:57:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:57:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <1264817466.4210.1357333803@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP><1264776363.32401.1357239551@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1264817466.4210.1357333803@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:11 PM, David Babcock wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:05 -0500, "Eric Landau" > wrote: > >> "Expected to know the laws when they sit down at the table"??! Hoo >> hah! Players in our clubs are expected to expect the directors to >> know the laws for them -- that's what they pay us for. > > By "expected", I wasn't talking about likelihood, but about > ignorance of > the Laws being no defense against a director's ruling of an > infraction. > I think it reasonable to see the CoC in the same way, *if* the CoC can > be reconciled with the Laws we have. I'm still uneasy about that, but > at the same time I'm having trouble picturing a pair that is in full > compliance with the Laws in terms of accurate explanations becoming > ensnared in the CoC (assuming that we are, in fact, talking about > "convention disruption" and not simple misbids, an important > distinction > made earlier). The key problem as I see it is precisely the inability to distinguish between "convention disruption" and simple misbids. Even if they are different in theory, the difference cannot be operationalized. It is "convention disruption" when you use a convention that you do not know how to use properly. It is a "simple misbid" when you use a convention improperly for whatever reason. There is indeed a subtle difference, but how do you regulate against "convention disruption" without accepting simple misbids as prima facie evidence of violation? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 16:12:36 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:12:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <1264776363.32401.1357239551@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1264817466.4210.1357333803@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e1002010712wea45ac3ob40455f04bf3637a@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Eric Landau wrote: Unclear whether or not the ACBL perceives this as a bug or a feature... This might be a less than charitable interpretation of what's going on; however, I often feel as if the ACBL likes to provide unusually delegate unhealthy amounts of discretionary authority... Simply put, if they like you, it's a misbid If they don't it's convention disruption... > The key problem as I see it is precisely the inability to distinguish > between "convention disruption" and simple misbids. Even if they are > different in theory, the difference cannot be operationalized. It is > "convention disruption" when you use a convention that you do not > know how to use properly. It is a "simple misbid" when you use a > convention improperly for whatever reason. There is indeed a subtle > difference, but how do you regulate against "convention disruption" > without accepting simple misbids as prima facie evidence of violation? > > -- > 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/20100201/3f1b4fda/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Mon Feb 1 16:13:53 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:13:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <003e01caa29d$8b245620$a16d0260$@com> References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl><8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> <003e01caa29d$8b245620$a16d0260$@com> Message-ID: <8CC71684CD80F3E-162C-5C68@webmail-m026.sysops.aol.com> [dburn] The word "irrational" means "contrary to reason", but this is capable of (at least) two interpretations in this context. [lamford] I would agree that the current claim laws need to be improved; certainly this claim split a wide range of people ... including yourself! From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 16:23:45 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:23:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> <8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Jan 31, 2010, at 8:07 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > This is the heart suit: > > A1082 > K4 J765 > Q93 > > Declarer is in 6NT. He needs three tricks from the suit. He has plenty > of entries to each hand. > > He leads the 2 to the 9, which loses to the king. Now he claims, > saying > "I have three heart tricks." > > How do you rule, and does it depend upon the ability of any of the > players? > > If it matters, this is the EBU. > > The above problem was posted by a strong player on the Laws section of > Bridgebase forum, under the heading "I have three hearts." > > How would you rule? And please indicate whether you allocate one more > trick to the defence or none, as those can be assumed to the only > options. Trick to the defense. 100%. Not legally relevant, but it does nicely illustrate the legal point to note that when declarer leads the 2 (from A1082 visible in dummy) to the 9 (in hand) and West holds KJ doubleton, winning the K is the only correct play. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Mon Feb 1 16:39:08 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:39:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl><8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1265038748.29042.1357660113@webmail.messagingengine.com> > he claims, > > saying > > "I have three heart tricks." > Trick to the defense. 100%. I do not see the basis for ignoring the claim statement. Three heart tricks are sure if and only if the (supposedly) marked finesse works. If there is any mind-reading going on in this thread, it is in the notion that the claimer has forgotten that a jack is outstanding when he clearly knew it at the start of the trick just completed. David From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Feb 1 16:50:02 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:50:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption References: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >but when they say "we >didn't discuss the meaning of 2S over 2D", I'll perhaps belienve them, >but tell them to stop playing conventions they don't understand. What if they don't discuss the meaning of 2S when 2D is doubled and end up having a mixup? Do you still tell them to stop playing conventions they don't understand? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kup wlasne mieszkanie za 72 tys. zl. Sprawdz najlepsze oferty >>> http://link.interia.pl/f25a8 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 17:10:23 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:10:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Jan 31, 2010, at 9:19 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [David Kent] I would award 0 tricks to the defence if declarer was > weak, but one trick if declarer was strong. > > [lamford] Is the ability of the player currently considered in a > claim? If one were to read the actual words of L70 and believe them, absolutely not. But there are those (including some in this forum) who nevertheless seem to think otherwise. > And will irrational be different for players of different abilities? Of course not. What do a person's "abilities", at bridge or anything else, have to do with that person's rationality? Since TFLB doesn't explicitly redefine either ability or rationality for us, we need only read a dictionary. Besides, rationality is at issue *only* when a claim depends on locating a specific card in a particular opponent's hand (the only remaining reference to the concept in TFLB being in L70E1) -- another assertion that is somehow controversial, despite what is printed in plain black and white in the lawbook. It seems, unfortunately, that the authors of the 2008 lawbook so badly botched their well-intentioned attempt to "clarify" the rules on adjudicating claims that some involved have felt compelled to insist that their words can must be interpreted to mean something other than what they quite plainly say. > One point on the last post. The false card (with A108x visible in > dummy) is obligatory with all of KJ, KJx and KJxx and theoretically > best play now is to cash the queen. > It would be interesting if the best line were to be treated as > irrational. In the spirit of "if 2+2=5 then I'm the Pope", anyone who would argue that the line between rationality and irrationality depends on one's ability at bridge might just as well argue that the line between rationality and irrationality depends on one's LHO's ability at bridge. Or that the demonstrably best percentage line of play could be an irrational one. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Mon Feb 1 17:16:21 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:16:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <1265038748.29042.1357660113@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl><8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> <1265038748.29042.1357660113@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1265040981.4767.1357668171@webmail.messagingengine.com> > I do not see the basis for ignoring the claim statement. Three heart > tricks are sure if and only if the (supposedly) marked finesse works. I should have said: the fact of the claim, not "the claim statement." The logic is the same even if declarer simply spread his cards. David From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 17:38:59 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:38:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <23888304-D000-4D68-ABD1-DB6024084600@starpower.net> On Jan 31, 2010, at 9:52 AM, David Kent wrote: > On Jan 31, 2010, at 9:19, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> [David Kent] I would award 0 tricks to the defence if declarer was >> weak, but one trick if declarer was strong. >> >> [lamford] Is the ability of the player currently considered in a >> claim? >> And will irrational be different for players of different abilities? > > "For the purpose of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would > be careless or inferior for the player involved." > > I suggest that it would be extremely unlikely for a weak declarer NOT > to repeat the finesse, but would be careless or inferior for a strong > player to not consider the possibility of a falsecard. It is a misreading of the law to consider that relevant. An inferior line of play is always an inferior line of play, regardless of whether the player taking it would, under some other circumstances, be capable of recognizing it as such. An inferior play, however, may be a normal choice for a weak declarer, but a patently unusual choice for a player who would normally be expected to recognize it as significantly inferior. When we look at "normal" lines of play, we would, obviously, include the inferior line for the weak declarer for whom it would be incontrovertable normal; we don't need any further clarification to tell us to do so. The footnote to L70-71, however, tells us that we must include it for the strong player as well, without regard to his potential appreciation of its inferiority, that "normal" for a player who is of sufficient "class" to be capable of understanding that a particular play may be careless or inferior by his usual standards is the same as for one who is not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Mon Feb 1 18:06:51 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:06:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <1265038748.29042.1357660113@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1265038748.29042.1357660113@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl><8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <19868574.1265044011041.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> David Babcock > > he claims, > > > saying > > > "I have three heart tricks." > > > Trick to the defense. 100%. > > I do not see the basis for ignoring the claim statement. Three heart > tricks are sure if and only if the (supposedly) marked finesse works. There is no "marked" finesse here, and that is the point. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 1 18:25:00 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:25:00 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <001801caa363$7c642c70$752c8550$@com> [EL] Since TFLB doesn't explicitly redefine either ability or rationality for us, we need only read a dictionary. [DALB] I have one here that defines "irrational" as: Contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly illogical, absurd. [Oxford English Dictionary] Of course, we now need a definition of "reason", but suppose for the moment that you use your own. It is still obviously the case that a man's actions can be to him perfectly "reasonable" or "in accordance with reason", yet to others they are "irrational" as defined above. As Chesterton put it: if you see a man going about the streets of London in the dead of winter clad only in a loin cloth and a pair of sandals, you may believe the man mad to choose such garb; but once you know that the man thinks he is Mahatma Gandhi, you may no longer call his apparel irrational. Suppose you see a man confronted with this suit: KJ10 A43 Requiring three tricks, he runs the jack (without first cashing the king). This is because every single time he is faced with this kind of position, he plays for the queen to be over the jack. In vain have his friends tried to convince him that this is mere superstition; the queen will (at duplicate, at least) be under the jack as often as over it, but our man is adamant that his play is correct. Like all monomaniacs, he obliterates from his memory those cases in which his theory fails, recalling only those on which it succeeds. One day he had this hand to play in 7NT by South. A43 AKQ AKQ AKQJ KJ10 432 5432 432 West led a heart on which East showed out. Declarer cashed four rounds of clubs, East following once and West four times, then the king of spades to which all followed. He led the jack of spades, and conceded one down when West failed to follow suit. Has this man played "rationally"? To us, no - West could not have more than one spade once he had shown up with seven hearts and five clubs by the end of trick three, so we would describe what our hero is doing as "contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly illogical, absurd". But to him, his play was perfectly rational - he does not go in for counting distributions, he just plays for the queen to be over the jack. Now, this man is the bridge equivalent of Chesterton's poor fellow in the loin cloth. You may call his entire line of play irrational, just as you may call a man mad for believing himself to be Gandhi, but you may not call his play within the spade suit irrational. Moreover, if you know that this man will always play this suit in this fashion because despite evidence to the contrary he is still convinced that the queen is always over the jack, then when he claims thirteen tricks on the hand above, you should allow the claim when West has the queen of spades or East has it singleton, and not otherwise. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 18:42:04 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:42:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com><4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com><0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net> <7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred> <4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net> On Jan 31, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> +++=+++ "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that >> where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be >> authorized, >> other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The >> Copmmittee ruled that this is not so ; the Scope of the Laws* states >> that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified >> in the >> laws is therefore 'extraneous'and it may be deemed an infraction >> of law >> if information deriving from it is used in the auction or play." >> [WBFLC minute, 24 >> August >> 1998] >> <* the relevant statement now appears in the Introduction to >> the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge> >> +++=+++ > > We've had that discussion before! Both Grattan and I are certain that > the statement as written endorses our own respective (and seemingly > conflicting) points of view. > > In any case, I can't see how a choice of call or play can possibly be > extraneous. > >> What the laws refers to is the requirement that >> *the meaning of a call or play* shall not alter by reference to >> the member >> of the partnership by whom it is made i.e. the disclosable meaning >> of the >> call as distinct from judgement or style in using it. +++=+++ > > Let's try a test case on a (perhaps!) non-controversial subject. > Using > normal methods, opener bids 1NT, and responder has game-only values > and > 4333 shape with a 4-card major. Some people bid a direct 3NT here, > while others use Stayman. I suppose still others decide on a > hand-by-hand basis which to do. > > 1. Must both members of a partnership adopt the same choice in this > matter? No. They are not playing different methods: regardless of who bids it, 2C asks about majors (with the same responses) and 3NT is to play, showing no interest in partner's majors. The circumstances under which one might choose one approach or the other is a matter of style or judgment. > 2. Is opener required to know which choice his partner habitually > adopts? No. > 3. If opener does know responder's usual choice (or method of > choosing), > is he obliged to disclose it? Yes. > If so, how, assuming the RA has issued no > specific regulation (as few if any do). In reply to any inquiry to which it might be relevant. Note that such an inquiry need not ask explicitly about this particular practice; it need only be information that might shed additional light on the reply to the particular question actually asked. (My view here coincides with ACBL guidelines on the matter, and may not be appropriate elsewhere.) > 4. If opener knows but fails to disclose (perhaps not having been > asked), is the 2C or 3NT bid illegal? Failure to disclose cannot make a particular bid illegal, which means that using it is an infraction regardless of what you disclose. Whether failure to disclose the meaning of a legal bid is a misinformation infraction depends on the specifics of your local regulations. Barring anything from the RA to the contrary, it is not an infraction to failure to proactively provide such information to your opponents absent any inquiry of any kind. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 18:59:16 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:59:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> <4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <044304E8-4934-4754-8E34-16B51F1A5002@starpower.net> On Jan 31, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> It would be interesting if the best line were to be treated as >> irrational. > > I don't think the issue here is "normal versus irrational." Clearly > both lines are rational in an absolute sense. The question is what > you > believe the claimer meant. If _in context_ you believe his statement > was tantamount to saying "I'm repeating the finesse against the jack," > then he gets all the tricks. If you believe otherwise, or can't tell, > then the defense gets a trick. To me, "The director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play..." means that he shall not accept any line that the claimer didn't state, not any line that the claimer didn't mean. What you believe can't change something that was "unstated" to something that was "stated". > It wouldn't hurt to advise declarer to state a line of play when > claiming. If what matters is what he means, not what he says, there would be no theoretical need for him to do so, notwithstanding that it would be wise to produce evidence of what he means lest his word by challenged. But that's not the case, else there would be no L68C. Declarer is required by that law to state a line of play when claiming, and should expect to be "hurt" if he doesn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 19:28:04 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 13:28:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> On Feb 1, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>> Alain Gottcheiner >>> >>>> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Marvin French wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ACBL General Conditions of Contest for pair games, August 2009: >>>>>> >>>>>> A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods >>>>>> apply in >>>>>> probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to >>>>>> redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear >>>>>> understanding of when and how to use a convention that was >>>>>> employed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like something Bobby Wolff would write. Is this a >>>>>> reasonable >>>>>> "condition"? Easily enforced? >>>>> >>>>> Looks unfair to me, because the wording seems >>>>> to exclude violations during natural bidding. >>>>> Say, a misunderstanding on how strong 1M - 2M is, >>>>> or whether is shows three card or four card support. >>>>> Or not being able to tell your opponents whether your >>>>> leads against NT contracts are 4th best. >>>> >>>> Would you bet with me on the proportion of pairs who agree when >>>> being >>>> asked their 1NT reopening ranges ? >>>> >>>> I think the reasoning behind this -right or not- is that it is >>>> quite >>>> possible NOT to have agreed explicitly on, say, a range for >>>> 1M-2M, and >>>> therefore not being able to answer the question. >>>> However, it needs agreement of some sort to use a convention. >>>> You have >>>> to disclose that agreement. >>> >>> 1M - 2M is a very frequent auction. >>> I see no reason whatsoever to treat this differently >>> that, say 2D (multi) pass 2S. >> >> AG : I do see one. It is possible to seat facing a new partner, >> discuss >> several things and leave aside 1M-2M ; it's not one of the things I >> would try to set first ; but if we agreed to play Multi ... > > And that is exactly what happens. Player A and B discuss several > things, > say, the agree to play 2/1. Which implies forcing NT. Which implies > that there > is a difference in meaning between > 1M - 2M > and > 1M - 1NT - 2C/2D/2H - 2M. > > So they begin to play and do not know that they have different > opinions > which one is constructive, much less the range of the constructive > raise. > Because they discussed other topics. > > Why should such a pair be treated better than a pair that does not > have an actual agreement whether > 2D - 2S > is just pass or correct, or requests that opener bids 4H with a > maximum > weak two in H? Why should either pair be "treated" at all? There is absolutely nothing either in the laws or inherent in the nature of the game of bridge that should prevent it from being played by folks who do not understand even basic bidding theory. If you accidentally squeeze your opponents out of a trick without the least clue what a squeeze is or what you have done, do they get the trick back? If you get to a superior contract by using a bidding method whose details you in fact misunderstand, how is that any different? What is the operational difference between "You must know what your methods mean" and "You must know what Bobby Wolff (or some other authority) thinks your methods mean"? Once upon a time, it might have mattered whether the partnership agreement in question was a "convention" or not, but TFLB no longer makes that distinction for regulatory purposes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 19:39:40 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:39:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <19868574.1265044011041.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> <8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> <1265038748.29042.1357660113@webmail.messagingengine.com> <19868574.1265044011041.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On 1 February 2010 18:06, Thomas Dehn wrote: > David Babcock >> > he claims, >> > > saying >> > > "I have three heart tricks." >> >> > Trick to the defense. ?100%. >> >> I do not see the basis for ignoring the claim statement. ?Three heart >> tricks are sure if and only if the (supposedly) marked finesse works. > > There is no "marked" finesse here, and that is the point. Having successfully finessed the jack in the previous trick, and then claiming three heart tricks, makes it pretty cleat that there IS a marked finesse for this declarer. It's pretty obvious from the OP that this declarer can't imagine the possibility of a false card by LHO. > > > Thomas > > Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! > Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 19:41:19 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:41:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net> References: <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com> <4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com> <0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net> <7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred> <4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net> Message-ID: On 1 February 2010 18:42, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 31, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >>> +++=+++ "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that >>> where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be >>> authorized, >>> other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The >>> Copmmittee ruled that this is not so ; the Scope of the Laws* states >>> that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified >>> in the >>> laws is therefore 'extraneous'and it may be deemed an infraction >>> of law >>> if information deriving from it is used in the auction or play." >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?[WBFLC minute, 24 >>> August >>> 1998] >>> <* the relevant statement now appears in the Introduction to >>> ? ? ?the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge> >>> +++=+++ >> >> We've had that discussion before! ?Both Grattan and I are certain that >> the statement as written endorses our own respective (and seemingly >> conflicting) points of view. >> >> In any case, I can't see how a choice of call or play can possibly be >> extraneous. >> >>> ? ?What the laws refers to is the requirement that >>> *the meaning of a call or play* shall not alter by reference to >>> the member >>> of the partnership by whom it is made i.e. the disclosable meaning >>> of the >>> call as distinct from judgement or style in using it. ? ? +++=+++ >> >> Let's try a test case on a (perhaps!) non-controversial subject. >> Using >> normal methods, opener bids 1NT, and responder has game-only values >> and >> 4333 shape with a 4-card major. ?Some people bid a direct 3NT here, >> while others use Stayman. ?I suppose still others decide on a >> hand-by-hand basis which to do. >> >> 1. Must both members of a partnership adopt the same choice in this >> matter? > > No. ?They are not playing different methods: regardless of who bids > it, 2C asks about majors (with the same responses) and 3NT is to > play, showing no interest in partner's majors. ?The circumstances > under which one might choose one approach or the other is a matter of > style or judgment. > >> 2. Is opener required to know which choice his partner habitually >> adopts? > > No. > >> 3. If opener does know responder's usual choice (or method of >> choosing), >> is he obliged to disclose it? > > Yes. > >> If so, how, assuming the RA has issued no >> specific regulation (as few if any do). > > In reply to any inquiry to which it might be relevant. ?Note that > such an inquiry need not ask explicitly about this particular > practice; it need only be information that might shed additional > light on the reply to the particular question actually asked. ?(My > view here coincides with ACBL guidelines on the matter, and may not > be appropriate elsewhere.) > >> 4. If opener knows but fails to disclose (perhaps not having been >> asked), is the 2C or 3NT bid illegal? > > Failure to disclose cannot make a particular bid illegal, which means > that using it is an infraction regardless of what you disclose. > Whether failure to disclose the meaning of a legal bid is a > misinformation infraction depends on the specifics of your local > regulations. ?Barring anything from the RA to the contrary, it is not > an infraction to failure to proactively provide such information to > your opponents absent any inquiry of any kind. Good post, Eric. Nice to see that sanity still remains with some posters. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From henk at ripe.net Mon Feb 1 21:17:38 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:17:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lead restrictions Message-ID: <4B6736E2.5080002@ripe.net> Hi all, I saw this one on another list and don't quite agree with the answer. So: South dealer, East opens out of turn with 2S, alerted as spades and an unknown minor. TD is called, south does not accept the 2S and the bidding returns to south. The auction now proceeds 1NT by south, pass, 3NT by north, all pass. South asks if there are any restrictions on what west can lead. What does the TD say? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 21:27:25 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:27:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lead restrictions In-Reply-To: <4B6736E2.5080002@ripe.net> References: <4B6736E2.5080002@ripe.net> Message-ID: On 1 February 2010 21:17, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Hi all, > > I saw this one on another list and don't quite agree with the answer. > So: > > South dealer, > > East opens out of turn with 2S, alerted as spades and an unknown minor. > > TD is called, south does not accept the 2S and the bidding returns to > south. ?The auction now proceeds 1NT by south, pass, 3NT by north, all > pass. > > South asks if there are any restrictions on what west can lead. ?What > does the TD say? When the withdrawn call relates to unspesified suit(s), as it did here (unknown minor), we're in L26B territory. Declarer thus can prohibit offender's partner from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead. > > Henk > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre ? ? ? ? ?http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku > P.O.Box 10096 ? ? ? ? ?Singel 258 ? ? ? ? Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam ? ? ?1016 AB Amsterdam ?Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands ? ? ? ?The Netherlands ? ?Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?H.L.Mencken > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Mon Feb 1 21:36:11 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:36:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Lead restrictions In-Reply-To: <4B6736E2.5080002@ripe.net> References: <4B6736E2.5080002@ripe.net> Message-ID: <7291237.1265056571877.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Hi all, > > I saw this one on another list and don't quite agree with the answer. > So: > > South dealer, > > East opens out of turn with 2S, alerted as spades and an unknown minor. > > TD is called, south does not accept the 2S and the bidding returns to > south. The auction now proceeds 1NT by south, pass, 3NT by north, all > pass. > > South asks if there are any restrictions on what west can lead. What > does the TD say? L26B kicks in via L31B. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 1 21:44:10 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:44:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CBE9F35-C9B3-4BED-BB66-CE875C9D02C9@starpower.net> Message-ID: President Muffley: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is The War Room!" Eric Landau: [snip] >If you know that your partner likes to open 1H on any balanced hand >with 0-3 HCP, that is a "habit" (i.e. a pattern), and your knowledge >of it makes it a "method", which may be banned or otherwise >regulated. > >But if all you know it that your partner likes to psych in >unpredictable ways in unpredictable situations, that is not a >pattern, and your knowledge of it -- notwithstanding that it is >unarguably disclosable -- does not make it a "method" which may be >banned or controlled. > >Others may differ with my conclusions, but I don't think we can >discuss the issue productively unless we recognize this difference. Richard Hills: I differ with "unarguably disclosable". Indeed, I argue against it. In my opinion, it is only pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understandings (i.e. partnership "methods") which are disclosable. Law 20F1, second sentence: "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are **matters of partnership understanding**." Law 40A1(b), first sentence: "Each partnership has a duty to **make available its partnership understandings** to opponents before commencing play against them." Law 40A3: "A player may make any call or play **without prior announcement** provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." Grattan Endicott, 18th January: >>+=+ A psyche is by definition not part of the partnership's chosen >>methods. It does not form part of the complex of methods adopted >>by the partnership. A psyche cannot be a matter of partnership >>understanding. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 22:18:24 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:18:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lead restrictions In-Reply-To: <4B6736E2.5080002@ripe.net> References: <4B6736E2.5080002@ripe.net> Message-ID: <3FBCDD73-D19C-4C9A-9F14-0FA683069DB9@starpower.net> On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > I saw this one on another list and don't quite agree with the answer. > So: > > South dealer, > > East opens out of turn with 2S, alerted as spades and an unknown > minor. > > TD is called, south does not accept the 2S and the bidding returns to > south. The auction now proceeds 1NT by south, pass, 3NT by north, all > pass. > > South asks if there are any restrictions on what west can lead. What > does the TD say? "Law 32B says, quote, 'When the offender has bid at his... LHO's turn to call... The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply.' Law 26A says, quote, 'If the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits...', unquote, OK, that's not the case here, so we go to Law 26B, which says, quote, 'For other withdrawn calls [...read to end]'. So you may prohibit West from leading any one suit you choose, and the prohibition continues until he loses the lead. Call me back if you have any questions." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Mon Feb 1 22:27:36 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:27:36 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 1, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > > >>> Alain Gottcheiner > >>> > >>>> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>>> > >>>>> Marvin French wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> ACBL General Conditions of Contest for pair games, August 2009: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods > >>>>>> apply in > >>>>>> probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to > >>>>>> redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear > >>>>>> understanding of when and how to use a convention that was > >>>>>> employed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Looks like something Bobby Wolff would write. Is this a > >>>>>> reasonable > >>>>>> "condition"? Easily enforced? > >>>>> > >>>>> Looks unfair to me, because the wording seems > >>>>> to exclude violations during natural bidding. > >>>>> Say, a misunderstanding on how strong 1M - 2M is, > >>>>> or whether is shows three card or four card support. > >>>>> Or not being able to tell your opponents whether your > >>>>> leads against NT contracts are 4th best. > >>>> > >>>> Would you bet with me on the proportion of pairs who agree when > >>>> being > >>>> asked their 1NT reopening ranges ? > >>>> > >>>> I think the reasoning behind this -right or not- is that it is > >>>> quite > >>>> possible NOT to have agreed explicitly on, say, a range for > >>>> 1M-2M, and > >>>> therefore not being able to answer the question. > >>>> However, it needs agreement of some sort to use a convention. > >>>> You have > >>>> to disclose that agreement. > >>> > >>> 1M - 2M is a very frequent auction. > >>> I see no reason whatsoever to treat this differently > >>> that, say 2D (multi) pass 2S. > >> > >> AG : I do see one. It is possible to seat facing a new partner, > >> discuss > >> several things and leave aside 1M-2M ; it's not one of the things I > >> would try to set first ; but if we agreed to play Multi ... > > > > And that is exactly what happens. Player A and B discuss several > > things, > > say, the agree to play 2/1. Which implies forcing NT. Which implies > > that there > > is a difference in meaning between > > 1M - 2M > > and > > 1M - 1NT - 2C/2D/2H - 2M. > > > > So they begin to play and do not know that they have different > > opinions > > which one is constructive, much less the range of the constructive > > raise. > > Because they discussed other topics. > > > > Why should such a pair be treated better than a pair that does not > > have an actual agreement whether > > 2D - 2S > > is just pass or correct, or requests that opener bids 4H with a > > maximum > > weak two in H? > > Why should either pair be "treated" at all? There is absolutely > nothing either in the laws or inherent in the nature of the game of > bridge that should prevent it from being played by folks who do not > understand even basic bidding theory. If you accidentally squeeze > your opponents out of a trick without the least clue what a squeeze > is or what you have done, do they get the trick back? If you get to > a superior contract by using a bidding method whose details you in > fact misunderstand, how is that any different? What is the > operational difference between "You must know what your methods mean" > and "You must know what Bobby Wolff (or some other authority) thinks > your methods mean"? I agree, Eric. Bidding misunderstandings on average harm your score rather than improve it. I think that is enough, no additional rectification is necessary. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 1 22:45:34 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:45:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65BC167D-97FB-454E-91F0-259415D77A1A@starpower.net> On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > President Muffley: > > "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is The War Room!" > > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >> If you know that your partner likes to open 1H on any balanced hand >> with 0-3 HCP, that is a "habit" (i.e. a pattern), and your knowledge >> of it makes it a "method", which may be banned or otherwise >> regulated. >> >> But if all you know it that your partner likes to psych in >> unpredictable ways in unpredictable situations, that is not a >> pattern, and your knowledge of it -- notwithstanding that it is >> unarguably disclosable -- does not make it a "method" which may be >> banned or controlled. >> >> Others may differ with my conclusions, but I don't think we can >> discuss the issue productively unless we recognize this difference. > > Richard Hills: > > I differ with "unarguably disclosable". Indeed, I argue against it. That puts Richard on the horns of an unfortunate dilemma. If you know that your partner likes to psych occasionally (but without any knowledge of any particular pattern or habit), Richard must argue either that partner may not psych any bid that wouldn't be permitted as an explicitly agreed method (validating the legality of the "one psych per partnership per lifetime rule"), or that you are fully entitled to keep that knowledge secret, even if asked it directly by your opponents. > In my opinion, it is only pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit > partnership understandings (i.e. partnership "methods") which are > disclosable. > > Law 20F1, second sentence: > > "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant > alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant > inferences from the choice of action where these are **matters of > partnership understanding**." > > Law 40A1(b), first sentence: > > "Each partnership has a duty to **make available its partnership > understandings** to opponents before commencing play against them." > > Law 40A3: > > "A player may make any call or play **without prior announcement** > provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed > partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." > > Grattan Endicott, 18th January: > >>> +=+ A psyche is by definition not part of the partnership's chosen >>> methods. It does not form part of the complex of methods adopted >>> by the partnership. A psyche cannot be a matter of partnership >>> understanding. Any partnership understanding regarding the meaning of particular call in a particular auction is, by definition, part of the partnership methods. But partnerships may have "understandings" in unrelated contexts which have nothing to do with partnership methods. An "understanding" that you will drive partner home after the game is a "partnership understanding", but it is not in the context of particular calls in particular auctions, and is thus not part of your methods. IMO, the "understanding" that "partner likes to psych" is, similarly, not in the context of particular calls in particular auctions, and is thus not part of your methods. As such, it cannot be regulated as a method, and so cannot be made into an illegal one, and more than your RA could forbid you from driving your partner home. That said, however, I also argue that any partnership understanding, of any kind, method or not, is disclosable if it might affect the meaning of a particular call. If I thought it possible that my agreement to drive partner home after the game might have any bearing whatsoever on how I might choose to interpret or respond to a call about which the opponents have inquired, I would be obligated to reveal it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 1 23:42:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:42:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <65BC167D-97FB-454E-91F0-259415D77A1A@starpower.net> Message-ID: Adolf Hitler, on the strategic importance of Czechoslovakia: "Czechoslovakia is a dagger pointed at the heart of Germany." Henry Kissinger, on the strategic importance of New Zealand: "New Zealand is a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica." Eric Landau >That puts Richard on the horns of an unfortunate dilemma. If you >know that your partner likes to psych occasionally (but without any >knowledge of any particular pattern or habit), Richard must argue >either that partner may not psych any bid that wouldn't be >permitted as an explicitly agreed method (validating the legality >of the "one psych per partnership per lifetime rule"), or that you >are fully entitled to keep that knowledge secret, even if asked it >directly by your opponents. [snip] Richard Hills: ... or that you are fully entitled to keep that knowledge secret, even if asked it directly by your _partner_. In the just-concluded Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge, I played 308 boards with my favourite partner, Hashmat Ali. On 307 of those boards I did not psyche. The psyche I did make was less than effective. Therefore Hashmat suggested that I not psyche in the next major event, the 294 board ACT Open Trials. I willingly agreed to Hashmat's no-psyche proposition, since if and when I changed my mind it would come as a complete surprise to all three opponents. Eric Landau: >An "understanding" that you will drive partner home after the game >is a "partnership understanding", but it is not in the context of >particular calls in particular auctions, and is thus not part of >your methods. [snip] Richard Hills: And also is thus not a "partnership understanding" as defined by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, which pertain only to calls and defensive cardplay. It is a pons asinorum to parse _all_ of the words in the Laws in accordance with their English dictionary definitions, when _some_ of the words and phrases differ from the dictionary. (The classic example is an illogical "logical alternative".) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 2 00:22:21 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:22:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Grattan? Message-ID: <4B67622D.1020109@aol.com> Directors with crystal balls? Grattan, where is your comment? From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Feb 2 00:54:08 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:54:08 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl><8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com><1265038748.29042.1357660113@webmail.messagingengine.com><19868574.1265044011041.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <002b01caa399$dbd0f9f0$2401a8c0@p41600> Very nice. Very humanitarian. So any time I have a small problem, I claim with no statement and the nice TD will give me the benefit of the doubt. Yes, you may be right. No, you may be wrong. That is why the law is as it is. Unlucky folks, sorry, I'm an idiot, can't be helped, explain properly next time. Lose a trick...back to the bar.. vlad > Having successfully finessed the jack in the previous trick, and then > claiming three heart tricks, makes it pretty cleat that there IS a > marked finesse for this declarer. It's pretty obvious from the OP that > this declarer can't imagine the possibility of a false card by LHO. > > > > > > > Thomas From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Tue Feb 2 01:31:28 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:31:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <044304E8-4934-4754-8E34-16B51F1A5002@starpower.net> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <044304E8-4934-4754-8E34-16B51F1A5002@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1265070688.10195.1357752957@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:59 -0500, "Eric Landau" wrote: > To me, "The director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line > of play..." means that he shall not accept any line that the claimer > didn't state, not any line that the claimer didn't mean. "The director's most difficult task, in dealing with claims, is to distinguish between a poor claim and a poorly stated claim". (ACBL, _Duplicate Decisions_, a book that ACBL specifically authorizes club directors to use at the table rather than TFLB.) The claim is easily reconciled with thinking the finesse is marked; it is not so easily reconciled with the jack possibly being fourth in either hand. This is, at worst, a *poorly stated* claim. Whether other jurisdictions have provided similar or different guidance (or none) to their directors, I would be interested to hear. David From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 2 01:31:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:31:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Grattan? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B67622D.1020109@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: Directors with crystal balls? Grattan, where is your comment? Grattan Endicott: +=+ Ah! Another dream shattered. +=+ William Blake's listing of best practice directorial equipment: Bring me my bow of burning gold: Bring me my arrows of desire: Bring me my spear: O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire. I will not cease from Mitchell moves, Nor shall my Laws sleep in my hand, Till we have built Bermuda Bowl, In England's green masterpoint land. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 2 01:50:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:50:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1265070688.10195.1357752957@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: ACBL Duplicate Decisions: "The director's most difficult task, in dealing with claims, is to distinguish between a poor claim and a poorly stated claim". Official Zone 7 (Australia and New Zealand) guidance on how to distinguish between poor claims and poorly stated claims: Law 70C A declarer who is unaware of a missing trump is "careless" rather than "irrational" in failing to draw that missing trump or stating how he will take care of it. Thus if a trick could be lost by playing other winners first then the director should award that trick to the non-claimers. Examples (a) Declarer claims all the tricks with a good trump (the D9), two spade winners and a heart winner. The defence can ruff the heart with their outstanding small trump. Despite declarer swearing on a stack of bibles that he knew there was a trump out, if he was too careless to mention it, then he may easily have forgotten it, and the defence is allocated a trick. (b) Declarer is in 7S with thirteen tricks so long as spades (trumps) are not 5-0. He cashes one round and says "All mine" when both players follow. He clearly has not forgotten the outstanding three trumps and the claim is good. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 2 02:08:05 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:08:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <1265070688.10195.1357752957@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <044304E8-4934-4754-8E34-16B51F1A5002@starpower.net> <1265070688.10195.1357752957@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: > > > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:59 -0500, "Eric Landau" > wrote: > >> To me, "The director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line >> of play..." means that he shall not accept any line that the claimer >> didn't state, not any line that the claimer didn't mean. > > "The director's most difficult task, in dealing with claims, is to > distinguish between a poor claim and a poorly stated claim". (ACBL, > _Duplicate Decisions_, a book that ACBL specifically authorizes club > directors to use at the table rather than TFLB.) The claim is easily > reconciled with thinking the finesse is marked; it is not so easily > reconciled with the jack possibly being fourth in either hand. > > This is, at worst, a *poorly stated* claim. I disagree. As you probably know. The claimer has not said the order in which suits are to be played. This is critical to the hand. If the winners in dummy are cashed before attacking hearts, then there is no entry to the ace of hearts if the suit is blocked. I think most people would rate this as poorly stated. If declarer had said "finessing for the jack of hearts", then there is an ambiguity. Finessing which way? I would have been content to call this poorly stated. But completely leaving out any mention of finessing for the jack of hearts? If that is not a poor claim, I am not sure what is. ------ Also, suppose the heart suit is the same, but there is some inference in the bidding or play that the hearts are 3-3. Declarer claims, thinking in his head that he will play the queen, the ace, and the 13th heart will be good. Do you allow this claim? (Suppose LHO has KJx of hearts.) You as director work out that it is obvious that hearts are 3-3. Given this, it would be irrational to take the heart finesse again. I would say that you are not supposed to be figuring out how to play the heart suit. > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 2 07:38:41 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 00:38:41 -0600 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <001801caa363$7c642c70$752c8550$@com> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> <001801caa363$7c642c70$752c8550$@com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "David Burn" Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:25 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling > [EL] > > Since TFLB doesn't explicitly redefine either ability or rationality for > us, > we need only read a dictionary. > > [DALB] > > I have one here that defines "irrational" as: > > Contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly > illogical, absurd. [Oxford English Dictionary] > > Of course, we now need a definition of "reason", but suppose for the > moment > that you use your own. It is still obviously the case that a man's actions > can be to him perfectly "reasonable" or "in accordance with reason", yet > to > others they are "irrational" as defined above. As Chesterton put it: if > you > see a man going about the streets of London in the dead of winter clad > only > in a loin cloth and a pair of sandals, you may believe the man mad to > choose > such garb; but once you know that the man thinks he is Mahatma Gandhi, you > may no longer call his apparel irrational. > > Suppose you see a man confronted with this suit: > > KJ10 > > A43 > > Requiring three tricks, he runs the jack (without first cashing the king). > This is because every single time he is faced with this kind of position, > he > plays for the queen to be over the jack. In vain have his friends tried to > convince him that this is mere superstition; the queen will (at duplicate, > at least) be under the jack as often as over it, but our man is adamant > that > his play is correct. Like all monomaniacs, he obliterates from his memory > those cases in which his theory fails, recalling only those on which it > succeeds. > > One day he had this hand to play in 7NT by South. > > A43 > AKQ > AKQ > AKQJ > > KJ10 > 432 > 5432 > 432 > > West led a heart on which East showed out. Declarer cashed four rounds of > clubs, East following once and West four times, then the king of spades to > which all followed. He led the jack of spades, and conceded one down when > West failed to follow suit. > > Has this man played "rationally"? To us, no - West could not have more > than > one spade once he had shown up with seven hearts and five clubs by the end > of trick three, so we would describe what our hero is doing as "contrary > to > or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly illogical, > absurd". > But to him, his play was perfectly rational - he does not go in for > counting > distributions, he just plays for the queen to be over the jack. > > Now, this man is the bridge equivalent of Chesterton's poor fellow in the > loin cloth. You may call his entire line of play irrational, just as you > may > call a man mad for believing himself to be Gandhi, but you may not call > his > play within the spade suit irrational. Moreover, if you know that this man > will always play this suit in this fashion because despite evidence to the > contrary he is still convinced that the queen is always over the jack, > then > when he claims thirteen tricks on the hand above, you should allow the > claim > when West has the queen of spades or East has it singleton, and not > otherwise. > > David Burn > London, England Given Burn's soliloquy over the nature of normal, irrational, and such there seems to be the need to illuminate matters a bit. Consider south as declarer on lead where the contract is in NT, and he claims the three remaining tricks quite succinctly using the words, 'The rest are mine.' finis. The opponents contest the claim and before revealing what they say is a legitimate line, it is time to poll experts and non experts alike of blml as to just what are the normal order[s] of the declaring side's last six cards, as well as what orders [as may be] are irrational to not take [from declarer's point of view]. Dummy HT96 Declarer S2 H3 D4 Take notice that declarer apparently felt information as to what had previously taken place is irrelevant as he chose to mention none of it. Likewise the 'problem' is presented to you as he presented it at the table. Hopefully the exercise should not prove too stressful- by my reckoning the possibilities are limited to at most 36 combinations. As it may prove useful, I suggest that reasoning be furnished to support any assertions. regards roger pewick From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 09:09:11 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:09:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> <001801caa363$7c642c70$752c8550$@com> Message-ID: On 2 February 2010 07:38, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "David Burn" > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:25 > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling > >> [EL] >> >> Since TFLB doesn't explicitly redefine either ability or rationality for >> us, >> we need only read a dictionary. >> >> [DALB] >> >> I have one here that defines "irrational" as: >> >> Contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly >> illogical, absurd. [Oxford English Dictionary] >> >> Of course, we now need a definition of "reason", but suppose for the >> moment >> that you use your own. It is still obviously the case that a man's actions >> can be to him perfectly "reasonable" or "in accordance with reason", yet >> to >> others they are "irrational" as defined above. As Chesterton put it: if >> you >> see a man going about the streets of London in the dead of winter clad >> only >> in a loin cloth and a pair of sandals, you may believe the man mad to >> choose >> such garb; but once you know that the man thinks he is Mahatma Gandhi, you >> may no longer call his apparel irrational. >> >> Suppose you see a man confronted with this suit: >> >> KJ10 >> >> A43 >> >> Requiring three tricks, he runs the jack (without first cashing the king). >> This is because every single time he is faced with this kind of position, >> he >> plays for the queen to be over the jack. In vain have his friends tried to >> convince him that this is mere superstition; the queen will (at duplicate, >> at least) be under the jack as often as over it, but our man is adamant >> that >> his play is correct. Like all monomaniacs, he obliterates from his memory >> those cases in which his theory fails, recalling only those on which it >> succeeds. >> >> One day he had this hand to play in 7NT by South. >> >> A43 >> AKQ >> AKQ >> AKQJ >> >> KJ10 >> 432 >> 5432 >> 432 >> >> West led a heart on which East showed out. Declarer cashed four rounds of >> clubs, East following once and West four times, then the king of spades to >> which all followed. He led the jack of spades, and conceded one down when >> West failed to follow suit. >> >> Has this man played "rationally"? To us, no - West could not have more >> than >> one spade once he had shown up with seven hearts and five clubs by the end >> of trick three, so we would describe what our hero is doing as "contrary >> to >> or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly illogical, >> absurd". >> But to him, his play was perfectly rational - he does not go in for >> counting >> distributions, he just plays for the queen to be over the jack. >> >> Now, this man is the bridge equivalent of Chesterton's poor fellow in the >> loin cloth. You may call his entire line of play irrational, just as you >> may >> call a man mad for believing himself to be Gandhi, but you may not call >> his >> play within the spade suit irrational. Moreover, if you know that this man >> will always play this suit in this fashion because despite evidence to the >> contrary he is still convinced that the queen is always over the jack, >> then >> when he claims thirteen tricks on the hand above, you should allow the >> claim >> when West has the queen of spades or East has it singleton, and not >> otherwise. >> >> David Burn >> London, England > > Given Burn's soliloquy over the nature of normal, irrational, and such there > seems to be the need to illuminate matters a bit. > > Consider south as declarer on lead where the contract is in NT, and he > claims the three remaining tricks quite succinctly using the words, 'The > rest are mine.' ?finis. The opponents contest the claim and before revealing > what they say is a legitimate line, it is time to poll experts and non > experts alike of blml as to just what are the normal order[s] of the > declaring side's last six ? cards, as well as what orders [as may be] are > irrational to not take [from declarer's point of view]. > > Dummy > HT96 > > Declarer > S2 > H3 > D4 > > Take notice that declarer apparently ?felt information as to what had > previously taken place is irrelevant as he chose to mention none of it. > Likewise ?the 'problem' is presented to you as he presented it at the table. At the table I'd check how the play had gone up to this point. Suppose declarer cashed the HJ in the previous trick, both opponents following suit, and two hearts (8 and 5 for example) is missing. Then it's clear that declarer now knows that the hearts are breaking, and dummy is high. Or declarer cashed the queen, dropping the jack, and less than three hearts are out. Yes, it's a sloppy claim. But it's still clear that declarer knows what he's doing. And he'll be awarded the rest of the tricks. You can't rule on a claim totally out of context, that is, not knowing the hand and the play leading up to the claim. And you can't rule on a claim on the basis of only two hands - you need the opponents cards too. > > Hopefully the exercise should not prove too stressful- by my reckoning the > possibilities are limited to at most 36 combinations. As it may prove > useful, I suggest that reasoning be furnished to support any assertions. > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 2 11:13:34 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:13:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B67FACE.10004@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > > I agree, Eric. > Bidding misunderstandings on average harm your score rather > than improve it. I think that is enough, no additional rectification > is necessary. > > Do you mean that you have to know every convention in the world, just in case RHO uses one and LHO can't explain it ? From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Feb 2 15:57:24 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:57:24 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> [Thomas Dehn] Bidding misunderstandings on average harm your score rather than improve it. I think that is enough, no additional rectification is necessary. [Nigel] Some bidding misunderstandings (eg of "Guessed-em", at favourable vulnerability, at pairs) often seem to favour the perpetrators, especially when the director is naive. Victims may even suspect that opponents' "misunderstanding" amounts to a concealed partnership understanding. A simple rule that guards against such shenanigans has been proposed. Impose a Wolff-like law -- that does not distinguish between misbids and misunderstandings -- with one special exception: - Define a standard system (global or local). - Allow leeway to players who adopt that standard system (complete or with deletions -- but without additions or modifications). - Otherwise insist that if you don't know the *systemic meaning* of partner's call then you must guess -- and if your guess is wrong then the director treats it is misinformation. Among the advantages of such a rule, are: - it is simpler and - it depends less on director's mind-reading skills but - it protects beginners and pick-up partnerships. From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Feb 2 16:06:43 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 16:06:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption References: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Disruption ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >but when they say "we >didn't discuss the meaning of 2S over 2D", I'll perhaps belienve them, >but tell them to stop playing conventions they don't understand. >What if they don't discuss the meaning of 2S when 2D is doubled >and end up having a mixup? Do you still tell them to stop playing >conventions they don't understand? I can see that Alain carefully sidestepped the problem by not answering my question. But if his answer were "yes" then it would mean that Alain wouldn't let about 90% of all bridge partnerships play Blackwood. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kup wlasne mieszkanie za 72 tys. zl. Sprawdz najlepsze oferty >>> http://link.interia.pl/f25a8 From blml at arcor.de Tue Feb 2 16:07:58 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 16:07:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B67FACE.10004@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B67FACE.10004@ulb.ac.be> <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <18250461.1265123278688.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > > > > > I agree, Eric. > > Bidding misunderstandings on average harm your score rather > > than improve it. I think that is enough, no additional rectification > > is necessary. > > > > > Do you mean that you have to know every convention in the world, just in > case RHO uses one and LHO can't explain it ? Of course not, but many of the so-called natural systems I don't know either, just in case RHO use one and LHO can't explain it. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 2 16:29:56 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:29:56 -0600 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><001801caa363$7c642c70$752c8550$@com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Harald Skj?ran" Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 02:09 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling > On 2 February 2010 07:38, Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "David Burn" >> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:25 >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling >> >>> [EL] >>> >>> Since TFLB doesn't explicitly redefine either ability or rationality for >>> us, >>> we need only read a dictionary. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> I have one here that defines "irrational" as: >>> >>> Contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly >>> illogical, absurd. [Oxford English Dictionary] >>> >>> Of course, we now need a definition of "reason", but suppose for the >>> moment >>> that you use your own. It is still obviously the case that a man's >>> actions >>> can be to him perfectly "reasonable" or "in accordance with reason", yet >>> to >>> others they are "irrational" as defined above. As Chesterton put it: if >>> you >>> see a man going about the streets of London in the dead of winter clad >>> only >>> in a loin cloth and a pair of sandals, you may believe the man mad to >>> choose >>> such garb; but once you know that the man thinks he is Mahatma Gandhi, >>> you >>> may no longer call his apparel irrational. >>> >>> Suppose you see a man confronted with this suit: >>> >>> KJ10 >>> >>> A43 >>> >>> Requiring three tricks, he runs the jack (without first cashing the >>> king). >>> This is because every single time he is faced with this kind of >>> position, >>> he >>> plays for the queen to be over the jack. In vain have his friends tried >>> to >>> convince him that this is mere superstition; the queen will (at >>> duplicate, >>> at least) be under the jack as often as over it, but our man is adamant >>> that >>> his play is correct. Like all monomaniacs, he obliterates from his >>> memory >>> those cases in which his theory fails, recalling only those on which it >>> succeeds. >>> >>> One day he had this hand to play in 7NT by South. >>> >>> A43 >>> AKQ >>> AKQ >>> AKQJ >>> >>> KJ10 >>> 432 >>> 5432 >>> 432 >>> >>> West led a heart on which East showed out. Declarer cashed four rounds >>> of >>> clubs, East following once and West four times, then the king of spades >>> to >>> which all followed. He led the jack of spades, and conceded one down >>> when >>> West failed to follow suit. >>> >>> Has this man played "rationally"? To us, no - West could not have more >>> than >>> one spade once he had shown up with seven hearts and five clubs by the >>> end >>> of trick three, so we would describe what our hero is doing as "contrary >>> to >>> or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly illogical, >>> absurd". >>> But to him, his play was perfectly rational - he does not go in for >>> counting >>> distributions, he just plays for the queen to be over the jack. >>> >>> Now, this man is the bridge equivalent of Chesterton's poor fellow in >>> the >>> loin cloth. You may call his entire line of play irrational, just as you >>> may >>> call a man mad for believing himself to be Gandhi, but you may not call >>> his >>> play within the spade suit irrational. Moreover, if you know that this >>> man >>> will always play this suit in this fashion because despite evidence to >>> the >>> contrary he is still convinced that the queen is always over the jack, >>> then >>> when he claims thirteen tricks on the hand above, you should allow the >>> claim >>> when West has the queen of spades or East has it singleton, and not >>> otherwise. >>> >>> David Burn >>> London, England >> >> Given Burn's soliloquy over the nature of normal, irrational, and such >> there >> seems to be the need to illuminate matters a bit. >> >> Consider south as declarer on lead where the contract is in NT, and he >> claims the three remaining tricks quite succinctly using the words, 'The >> rest are mine.' finis. The opponents contest the claim and before >> revealing >> what they say is a legitimate line, it is time to poll experts and non >> experts alike of blml as to just what are the normal order[s] of the >> declaring side's last six cards, as well as what orders [as may be] are >> irrational to not take [from declarer's point of view]. >> >> Dummy >> HT96 >> >> Declarer >> S2 >> H3 >> D4 >> >> Take notice that declarer apparently felt information as to what had >> previously taken place is irrelevant as he chose to mention none of it. >> Likewise the 'problem' is presented to you as he presented it at the >> table. > > At the table I'd check how the play had gone up to this point. You have homed in upon the target of the exercise. The premise of this examination is that you have been given all of the relevant information from claimer [that will you ever get]. The point of your request for more information is that you want to make assumptions as to what claimer knew and what he would do with the knowledge. Knowledge and the use of knowledge are totally different things. What is done with knowledge can depend upon a whole range of factors and it is erroneous, even preposterous, to presume that only rational things will be done with it, or, in spite of it. > Suppose declarer cashed the HJ in the previous trick, both opponents > following suit, and two hearts (8 and 5 for example) is missing. Then > it's clear that declarer now knows that the hearts are breaking, and > dummy is high. Or declarer cashed the queen, dropping the jack, and > less than three hearts are out. > > Yes, it's a sloppy claim. But it's still clear that declarer knows > what he's doing. And he'll be awarded the rest of the tricks. > > You can't rule on a claim totally out of context, that is, not knowing > the hand and the play leading up to the claim. > And you can't rule on a claim on the basis of only two hands - you > need the opponents cards too. Do not lose sight of the ball. Your task is to define what order of plays are normal given claimer?s clarification: L68C: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. regards roger pewick >> Hopefully the exercise should not prove too stressful- by my reckoning the >> possibilities are limited to at most 36 combinations. As it may prove >> useful, I suggest that reasoning be furnished to support any assertions. >> >> regards >> roger pewick > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 2 16:32:35 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:32:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > - Allow leeway to players who adopt that standard system (complete or > with deletions -- but without additions or modifications). > > - Otherwise insist that if you don't know the *systemic meaning* of > partner's call then you must guess -- and if your guess is wrong then > the director treats it is misinformation. > > Among the advantages of such a rule, are: > - it is simpler AG : surely, but it has a major drawback : it adds huge amounts of UI, and we all know that UI problems are among the most difficult to fix. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 2 16:38:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:38:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:50 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Disruption > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > >> but when they say "we >> didn't discuss the meaning of 2S over 2D", I'll perhaps belienve them, >> but tell them to stop playing conventions they don't understand. >> > > >> What if they don't discuss the meaning of 2S when 2D is doubled >> and end up having a mixup? Do you still tell them to stop playing >> conventions they don't understand? >> AG : yes, unless the double was of an unexpected kind. > > I can see that Alain carefully sidestepped the problem by > not answering my question. AG : sorry, didn't see it. I have an answer. And it is positive. > But if his answer were "yes" > then it would mean that Alain wouldn't let about 90% of > all bridge partnerships play Blackwood. > AG : perhaps you don't take the good example : I can't remember the last time my BW 4NT was doubled ; and your 90% seems overstated ; but in general, you're right in deducing that I would also demand that they be able to handle the most common interferences over their conventional bids, including standard ones. Meta-agreements would do. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 2 16:58:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:58:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B684BC1.5000101@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:50 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Disruption > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > >> but when they say "we >> didn't discuss the meaning of 2S over 2D", I'll perhaps belienve them, >> but tell them to stop playing conventions they don't understand. >> > > >> What if they don't discuss the meaning of 2S when 2D is doubled >> and end up having a mixup? Do you still tell them to stop playing >> conventions they don't understand? >> > > I can see that Alain carefully sidestepped the problem by > not answering my question. But if his answer were "yes" > then it would mean that Alain wouldn't let about 90% of > all bridge partnerships play Blackwood. > What about the following case ? How would you rule ? N E S 1NT (2H) 2NT 1NT : weak. 2H : majors. A bit unexpected to see some play DONT vs weak NTs. 2NT : W asks to South, and South says "I'm not sure : it could be minors, or it could be just clubs. We play 2NT as minors over an artificial 2C for majors, but we play 2NT as transfer over a natural 2H (or a Capelletti 2H)". Assume for the moment that all this is true. West passes, North bids 3C, of course, and now West has a problem. He has a hand worth reopening the bidding, but NS might be in the wrong contract, so he passes and misses a double partial swing. 2NT was intended for the minors, but N had 4-card club support, so 3C was serendipitously the right contract. Notice that South did nothing wrong (and did not ose any UI). Your opinions ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 2 19:13:18 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:13:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : perhaps you don't take the good example : I can't remember the > last > time my BW 4NT was doubled ; and your 90% seems overstated ; but in > general, you're right in deducing that I would also demand that > they be > able to handle the most common interferences over their conventional > bids, including standard ones. Meta-agreements would do. And when they ask you what "the most common interferences" over their conventional bids are, what do you mean by "handle" them, and what's a meta-agreement, then what do you do? Postpone the game for half an hour while you give them a bridge lesson? Or just tell them to go home, they can't play here? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Tue Feb 2 19:56:52 2010 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:56:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Grattan? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4B67622D.1020109@aol.com> Message-ID: <002201caa439$821d9b70$8658d250$@nl> Grattan is having a hard time in Italy, there is practically no internet connectivity here... -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: 02 February 2010 01:32 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Grattan? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Jeff Easterson: Directors with crystal balls? Grattan, where is your comment? Grattan Endicott: +=+ Ah! Another dream shattered. +=+ William Blake's listing of best practice directorial equipment: Bring me my bow of burning gold: Bring me my arrows of desire: Bring me my spear: O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire. I will not cease from Mitchell moves, Nor shall my Laws sleep in my hand, Till we have built Bermuda Bowl, In England's green masterpoint land. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 2 23:22:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:22:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B67FACE.10004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Arthur Schlesinger Jr (1917-2007), American historian: "A society in which the citizens cannot criticise the policy of the state is a society without the means of correcting its course." Thomas Dehn: >>Bidding misunderstandings on average harm your score rather than >>improve it. I think that is enough, no additional rectification >>is necessary. Alain Gottcheiner: >Do you mean that you have to know every convention in the world, >just in case RHO uses one and LHO can't explain it ? Richard Hills: You do not need to *immediately* correct the course of an opponent's explanation of a convention. If the opponents happen to have a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding to use a particular convention, and one opponent temporarily forgets how to explain that particular convention, then your rights are fully protected by Law 75B, and if you are damaged the Director will *non-immediately* award you an adjusted score. Alain Gottcheiner: >I would also demand that they be able to handle the most common >interferences over their conventional bids, including standard >ones. Meta-agreements would do. Richard Hills: Demand??? If, on the other hand, one opponent randomly employs a convention of which the opponent's partner has not yet been informed, then that opponent's right to take a unilateral action is fully protected by Law 75C and Law 40A3. Plus meta-agreements are *not* the greatest thing since sliced bread. Those blmlers who decide to subscribe to the ABDA Bulletin http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html will find in the latest issue a deal where one partner thought they used a meta-rule that a call not explicitly discussed was analogous in meaning to a call which was explicitly discussed, while the other partner thought they used a meta-rule that a call not explicitly discussed was natural in meaning. So what is needed are meta-meta-agreements??? :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 3 00:13:07 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:13:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Arthur Schlesinger Jr (1917-2007), "The Imperial Presidency" (1973): "The answer to the runaway Presidency is not the messenger-boy Presidency. The American democracy must discover a middle way between making the President a czar and making him a puppet." Nigel Guthrie: >Some bidding misunderstandings (eg of "Guessed-em" [Ghestem], at >favourable vulnerability, at pairs) often seem to favour the >perpetrators, especially when the director is naive. Richard Hills: The answer to the runaway Director is not the messenger-girl Director. The Laws of Duplicate Bridge have discovered a middle way between making the Director a czar and making her a puppet. Of course, as Robert Frick has often noted, some naive customers prefer a naive Director giving naively unLawful rulings. And of course, as Grattan Endicott noted a few years ago, if some customers are upset by a Director's unfair and unLawful rulings, then "these boots are made for walking" and those customers will migrate to a new club with a more competent Director. An extreme case occurred in the small Tasmanian town of Launceston in the previous millennium. A number of players were upset with the then Director of the Launceston Bridge Club. But there was not any other club to migrate to. So they went to the trouble and expense of creating a new East Launceston Bridge Club (now defunct, as the rationale for its existence no longer applies). Nigel Guthrie: >Victims may even suspect that opponents' "misunderstanding" amounts >to a concealed partnership understanding..... Richard Hills: If one's opponent has Lawfully misbid, then one is not a "victim". If one's opponent has unLawfully committed "the gravest possible offence", then one is still not a "victim", but rather "the non- offending side" who will be fully compensated by an adjusted score if damaged. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Feb 3 06:05:58 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:05:58 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] - Allow leeway to players who adopt that standard system (complete or with deletions -- but without additions or modifications). - Otherwise insist that if you don't know the *systemic meaning* of partner's call then you must guess -- and if your guess is wrong then the director treats it is misinformation. Among the advantages of such a rule, are: [SNIP] [Alain Gottcheiner] surely, but it has a major drawback : it adds huge amounts of UI, and we all know that UI problems are among the most difficult to fix. [Nige2] Under the proposed simpler rule, if an opponent asks the systemic meaning of your partner's call and you don't know, then you guess. If your guess is - - right then there is no more UI than with any correct explanation. - wrong then then UI is irrelevant because the director treats it as misinformation (or what Bobby Wolff calls convention disruption). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 3 06:39:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:39:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >.....Under the proposed simpler rule..... Richard Hills: A few centuries ago "simple" and "silly" were synonyms. If one removed the engine from an automobile it would be a simpler device, but there might be unintended travelling consequences. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100203/92aae144/attachment.html From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Feb 3 07:17:34 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:17:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6914FE.2060708@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] .....Under the proposed simpler rule..... [Richard] A few centuries ago "simple" and "silly" were synonyms. If one removed the engine from an automobile it would be a simpler device, but there might be unintended travelling consequences. :-) [Nige2] Hilarious :) but, unlike Richard, our grand-children may not judge that environmentally-friendly idea to be silly :) Richard himself endorsed another simple sensible way to reduce "convention disruption": if a player is unclear about the systemic meaning of his partner's call then the director suggests that the player leave the table so that the caller, himself, can supply that information. Apparently, this solution is legal; but for obscure reasons, in practice, directors rarely implement it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 3 10:29:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:29:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: References: <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B6941F7.3030401@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> AG : perhaps you don't take the good example : I can't remember the >> last >> time my BW 4NT was doubled ; and your 90% seems overstated ; but in >> general, you're right in deducing that I would also demand that >> they be >> able to handle the most common interferences over their conventional >> bids, including standard ones. Meta-agreements would do. >> > > And when they ask you what "the most common interferences" over their > conventional bids are, what do you mean by "handle" them, and what's > a meta-agreement, then what do you do? Postpone the game for half an > hour while you give them a bridge lesson? Or just tell them to go > home, they can't play here? > > Well, I don't understand this argument. Do you pretend that *any* article in TFLB needs less than 1/2 hour to explain fully ? Of course, that' isn't needed here. I just need to check whether they can explain how they handle interference in some nonstandard part of their system and, if they can't, I might disallow that part. When I say "meta agreements would do", it means that if they have some meta agreement which is supposed to apply here (and may be as sketchy as "ignore doubles"), I'll accept it. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 3 10:31:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:31:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B69426F.9020202@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nigel] > - Allow leeway to players who adopt that standard system (complete or > with deletions -- but without additions or modifications). > > - Otherwise insist that if you don't know the *systemic meaning* of > partner's call then you must guess -- and if your guess is wrong then > the director treats it is misinformation. > > Among the advantages of such a rule, are: [SNIP] > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > surely, but it has a major drawback : it adds huge amounts of UI, > and we all know that UI problems are among the most difficult to fix. > > [Nige2] > Under the proposed simpler rule, if an opponent asks the systemic > meaning of your partner's call and you don't know, then you guess. If > your guess is - > - right then there is no more UI than with any correct explanation. > - wrong then then UI is irrelevant because the director treats it as > misinformation (or what Bobby Wolff calls convention disruption). > AG : wrong. There are many cases when MI won't affect the bidding, but the added UI will. From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 3 10:37:44 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:37:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B6941F7.3030401@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B6941F7.3030401@ulb.ac.be> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20990422.1265189864822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > > >> AG : perhaps you don't take the good example : I can't remember the > >> last > >> time my BW 4NT was doubled ; and your 90% seems overstated ; but in > >> general, you're right in deducing that I would also demand that > >> they be > >> able to handle the most common interferences over their conventional > >> bids, including standard ones. Meta-agreements would do. > >> > > > > And when they ask you what "the most common interferences" over their > > conventional bids are, what do you mean by "handle" them, and what's > > a meta-agreement, then what do you do? Postpone the game for half an > > hour while you give them a bridge lesson? Or just tell them to go > > home, they can't play here? > > > > > Well, I don't understand this argument. Do you pretend that *any* > article in TFLB needs less than 1/2 hour to explain fully ? > Of course, that' isn't needed here. I just need to check whether they > can explain how they handle interference in some nonstandard part of > their system and, if they can't, I might disallow that part. Which law empowers you to do that? I also doubt that it is feasible. Removing some part of their system would just add more holes to their swiss cheese of a bidding system. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 3 12:19:40 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:19:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <20990422.1265189864822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6941F7.3030401@ulb.ac.be> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> <20990422.1265189864822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B695BCC.4050900@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> AG : perhaps you don't take the good example : I can't remember the >>>> last >>>> time my BW 4NT was doubled ; and your 90% seems overstated ; but in >>>> general, you're right in deducing that I would also demand that >>>> they be >>>> able to handle the most common interferences over their conventional >>>> bids, including standard ones. Meta-agreements would do. >>>> >>>> >>> And when they ask you what "the most common interferences" over their >>> conventional bids are, what do you mean by "handle" them, and what's >>> a meta-agreement, then what do you do? Postpone the game for half an >>> hour while you give them a bridge lesson? Or just tell them to go >>> home, they can't play here? >>> >>> >>> >> Well, I don't understand this argument. Do you pretend that *any* >> article in TFLB needs less than 1/2 hour to explain fully ? >> Of course, that' isn't needed here. I just need to check whether they >> can explain how they handle interference in some nonstandard part of >> their system and, if they can't, I might disallow that part. >> > > Which law empowers you to do that? > At very least L74. > I also doubt that it is feasible. Removing some part of their > system would just add more holes to their swiss cheese of a bidding system. > > Am I na?ve in supposing that players who are disallowed to play Ghestem (the most classical conventional disrupter) will have no specific hole in ther system if we disallow it ? (they'll still be allowed to play unusual 2NT, because it's considered a basic convention) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 3 15:28:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:28:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:05 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nigel] > - Allow leeway to players who adopt that standard system (complete or > with deletions -- but without additions or modifications). > > - Otherwise insist that if you don't know the *systemic meaning* of > partner's call then you must guess -- and if your guess is wrong then > the director treats it is misinformation. > > Among the advantages of such a rule, are: [SNIP] > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > surely, but it has a major drawback : it adds huge amounts of UI, > and we all know that UI problems are among the most difficult to fix. > > [Nige2] > Under the proposed simpler rule, if an opponent asks the systemic > meaning of your partner's call and you don't know, then you guess. If > your guess is - > - right then there is no more UI than with any correct explanation. > - wrong then then UI is irrelevant because the director treats it as > misinformation (or what Bobby Wolff calls convention disruption). We (most of us, anyhow) reject as unreasonable Mr. Wolff's notion that in order to play legally in a duplicate bridge event a partnership must understand how to properly apply its own methods. It would seem even less reasonable that in order to play legally in a duplicate bridge event a partnership must understand how to properly apply someone else's methods. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 3 15:43:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:43:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B698B7B.4000700@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:05 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >> [Nigel] >> - Allow leeway to players who adopt that standard system (complete or >> with deletions -- but without additions or modifications). >> >> - Otherwise insist that if you don't know the *systemic meaning* of >> partner's call then you must guess -- and if your guess is wrong then >> the director treats it is misinformation. >> >> Among the advantages of such a rule, are: [SNIP] >> >> [Alain Gottcheiner] >> surely, but it has a major drawback : it adds huge amounts of UI, >> and we all know that UI problems are among the most difficult to fix. >> >> [Nige2] >> Under the proposed simpler rule, if an opponent asks the systemic >> meaning of your partner's call and you don't know, then you guess. If >> your guess is - >> - right then there is no more UI than with any correct explanation. >> - wrong then then UI is irrelevant because the director treats it as >> misinformation (or what Bobby Wolff calls convention disruption). >> > > We (most of us, anyhow) reject as unreasonable Mr. Wolff's notion > that in order to play legally in a duplicate bridge event a > partnership must understand how to properly apply its own methods. > > AG : my view is less drastic. I only ask them to know their methods, which is one step less. (The same is true of valuation methods) But it seems sufficient to bar convention disruption. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 3 15:58:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:58:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <20990422.1265189864822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6941F7.3030401@ulb.ac.be> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> <20990422.1265189864822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Feb 3, 2010, at 4:37 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> And when they ask you what "the most common interferences" over >>> their >>> conventional bids are, what do you mean by "handle" them, and what's >>> a meta-agreement, then what do you do? Postpone the game for >>> half an >>> hour while you give them a bridge lesson? Or just tell them to go >>> home, they can't play here? >> >> Well, I don't understand this argument. Do you pretend that *any* >> article in TFLB needs less than 1/2 hour to explain fully ? >> Of course, that' isn't needed here. I just need to check whether they >> can explain how they handle interference in some nonstandard part of >> their system and, if they can't, I might disallow that part. > > Which law empowers you to do that? > > I also doubt that it is feasible. Removing some part of their > system would just add more holes to their swiss cheese of a bidding > system. That's why Alain and I failed to understand one another -- it never occurred to me that he proposed to disallow "some nonstandard part their system". Removing a piece of a coherent bidding system raises all sorts of issues: What do those calls mean now? What do we do with those hands now? Whatever we do instead, how will that change that call's response and rebid structures? Will that have second- order effects on that call's prior meaning? Are other bids affected? Perhaps by inference? These are far more complex and difficult than, say, knowing how one's own self-selected methods should work over interference. Forcing a pair, especially on the spot, to abandon some piece of the whole structure of their system just because they're unsure of the details will almost surely lead to more uncertainty, confusion and potential misinformation than just letting them sit down and play. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Feb 3 17:14:15 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:14:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B69426F.9020202@ulb.ac.be> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> <4B69426F.9020202@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B69A0D7.3060407@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] - Allow leeway to players who adopt that standard system (complete or with deletions -- but without additions or modifications). - Otherwise insist that if you don't know the *systemic meaning* of partner's call then you must guess -- and if your guess is wrong then the director treats it is misinformation. Among the advantages of such a rule, are: [SNIP] [Alain Gottcheiner] surely, but it has a major drawback : it adds huge amounts of UI, and we all know that UI problems are among the most difficult to fix. [Nige2] Under the proposed simpler rule, if an opponent asks the systemic meaning of your partner's call and you don't know, then you guess. If your guess is - - right then there is no more UI than with any correct explanation. - wrong then then UI is irrelevant because the director treats it as misinformation (or what Bobby Wolff calls convention disruption). [Alain2] wrong. There are many cases when MI won't affect the bidding, but the added UI will. [Nige3] An simple example, please, Alain? From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Feb 3 17:27:39 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:27:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B69A3FB.5000702@yahoo.co.uk> [Eric Landau] We (most of us, anyhow) reject as unreasonable Mr. Wolff's notion that in order to play legally in a duplicate bridge event a partnership must understand how to properly apply its own methods. It would seem even less reasonable that in order to play legally in a duplicate bridge event a partnership must understand how to properly apply someone else's methods. [Nigel] I'm afraid that Eric misread the first proposal (repeated below). It expects you to know your own methods *or* to adopt the standard system. In the latter case, the law would *not* penalise misexplanations. [Proposal 1] Impose a Wolff-like law -- that does not distinguish between misbids and misunderstandings -- with one special exception: - Define a standard system (global or local). - Allow leeway to players who adopt that standard system (complete or with deletions -- but without additions or modifications). - Otherwise insist that if you don't know the *systemic meaning* of partner's call then you must guess -- and if your guess is wrong then the director treats it is misinformation. [Proposal 2 - for completeness] Richard Hills endorsed another simple sensible way to reduce "convention disruption": if a player is unclear about the systemic meaning of his partner's call then the director suggests that the player leave the table so that the caller, himself, can supply that information Apparently, this solution is already legal; but for obscure reasons, the law book does not recommend it; and directors rarely implement it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 3 17:57:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:57:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B69A0D7.3060407@yahoo.co.uk> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> <4B69426F.9020202@ulb.ac.be> <4B69A0D7.3060407@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B69AADF.6070104@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Alain2] > wrong. There are many cases when MI won't affect the bidding, but > the added UI will. > > [Nige3] > An simple example, please, Alain? > Let's see ... 1H 2C 3C Playing rubensohl, this is a strong transfer to diamonds (2D available), usually played as GF. Contrast with 1H 2S 3C, which may be weaker (no 2D bid available) Stating that 1H 2C 3C is a (not necessarily strong) transfer to diamonds will of course create MI, but there is reasonable hope that it won't affect their bidding (doubles and raises don't have such a different meaning I guess). However, the effect on the meaning of rebids is strong ; for example, a 3S bid would be very strong facing a (not necessarily strong) 3C bid, but is perhaps consistent with a minimum if 3C is game-forcing. And in the other auction : 1H 2S 3C : if 3C is strong, 3S could be merely a stopper-ask, whereas it would be quite strong if 3C is NNS. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 3 18:01:24 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B69A3FB.5000702@yahoo.co.uk> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> <4B69A3FB.5000702@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B69ABE4.50400@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Proposal 2 - for completeness] > Richard Hills endorsed another simple sensible way to reduce > "convention disruption": if a player is unclear about the systemic > meaning of his partner's call then the director suggests that the player > leave the table so that the caller, himself, can supply that information > Apparently, this solution is already legal; but for obscure reasons, the > law book does not recommend it; and directors rarely implement it. > Right. The only drawback is time needed. Furthermore, opponents will both have information about the system and about the misunderstanding (from the other player's explanations, possibly under the same protocol), which is very difficult to ensure else and which is their right according to many of us. From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 3 19:42:21 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:42:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B695BCC.4050900@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B695BCC.4050900@ulb.ac.be> <4B6941F7.3030401@ulb.ac.be> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> <20990422.1265189864822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner > > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> > >>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> AG : perhaps you don't take the good example : I can't remember the > >>>> last > >>>> time my BW 4NT was doubled ; and your 90% seems overstated ; but in > >>>> general, you're right in deducing that I would also demand that > >>>> they be > >>>> able to handle the most common interferences over their conventional > >>>> bids, including standard ones. Meta-agreements would do. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> And when they ask you what "the most common interferences" over their > >>> conventional bids are, what do you mean by "handle" them, and what's > >>> a meta-agreement, then what do you do? Postpone the game for half an > >>> hour while you give them a bridge lesson? Or just tell them to go > >>> home, they can't play here? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Well, I don't understand this argument. Do you pretend that *any* > >> article in TFLB needs less than 1/2 hour to explain fully ? > >> Of course, that' isn't needed here. I just need to check whether they > >> can explain how they handle interference in some nonstandard part of > >> their system and, if they can't, I might disallow that part. > >> > > > > Which law empowers you to do that? > > > At very least L74. L74 does not specify "certain otherwise legal conventions can be disallowed" as a possible penalty or rectification for any offense. In fact L74 does not specify any penalty for any offense. > > I also doubt that it is feasible. Removing some part of their > > system would just add more holes to their swiss cheese of a bidding > > system. > > > > > Am I na?ve in supposing that players who are disallowed to play Ghestem > (the most classical conventional disrupter) will have no specific hole > in ther system if we disallow it ? Assume a pair plays 1S (3C) showing a minimum overcalls with 5-5 in the reds. With a good overcall and 5-5 in the reds, they overcall 2H. You forbid them to play Ghestem. Now they have no agreement on what to overcall with a minimum overcall and 5-5 in the reds. They obviously cannot double with that hand, and they cannot overcall 2H either because showing the diamonds later would imply a better hand. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Feb 3 20:16:15 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:16:15 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk><4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <868DEA1E3FAD4C90A1F04C40E74F038D@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > > We (most of us, anyhow) reject as unreasonable Mr. Wolff's notion > that in order to play legally in a duplicate bridge event a > partnership must understand how to properly apply its own methods. > It would seem even less reasonable that in order to play legally > in a > duplicate bridge event a partnership must understand how to > properly > apply someone else's methods. > Eric has it right, as usual. However, players should be told to be prepared for probable auctions in connection with a convention they choose to use. When they screw it up, the TD should give them a little lecture. In one sectional I played in, a pair messed up a convention twice in one session and the TD told them to cross it off their convention card for the remainder of that event. I liked that, but was it legal? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 3 22:43:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:43:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B69A3FB.5000702@yahoo.co.uk> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> <4B69A3FB.5000702@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <328749C9-1075-4B18-9403-747DDD2756CE@starpower.net> On Feb 3, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > We (most of us, anyhow) reject as unreasonable Mr. Wolff's notion > that in order to play legally in a duplicate bridge event a > partnership must understand how to properly apply its own methods. > It would seem even less reasonable that in order to play legally in a > duplicate bridge event a partnership must understand how to properly > apply someone else's methods. > > [Nigel] > I'm afraid that Eric misread the first proposal (repeated below). It > expects you to know your own methods *or* to adopt the standard > system. > In the latter case, the law would *not* penalise misexplanations. > > [Proposal 1] > Impose a Wolff-like law -- that does not distinguish between > misbids and > misunderstandings -- with one special exception: > - Define a standard system (global or local). > - Allow leeway to players who adopt that standard system (complete or > with deletions -- but without additions or modifications). > - Otherwise insist that if you don't know the *systemic meaning* of > partner's call then you must guess -- and if your guess is wrong then > the director treats it is misinformation. So if I have no idea of what I'm doing, and even less of what my partner might be doing, pulling calls more or less out of the air and hoping for the best, I will get "leeway" if I write "Standard System" at the top of my card, but will be repeatedly penalized (for the identical behavior) if I write something else. Few if any will fully comprehend this Standard System, but almost everyone will be claiming to play it, and it will become such a broad term as to cover all kinds of forms and variations -- sort of like "Standard American" in the 1970s. Nigel does say that one would be required to play it "without additions or modifications" in order to be protected from the consequences of not fully understanding it, but that's Catch-22: If you don't fully understand the system, how can you know that you are playing it without additions or modifications? If your only choices are "to know your own methods or to adopt the Standard System", then "I adopt the Standard System" becomes the requisite way of saying "I don't know my methods". But does anybody, all of them, in full detail, really? If I must fully understand anything I claim to play other than the Standard System to avoid potential "convention disruption" penalties, but can avoid them by claiming to play the Standard System whether I understand it or not, why would anyone ever choose the former? > [Proposal 2 - for completeness] > Richard Hills endorsed another simple sensible way to reduce > "convention disruption": if a player is unclear about the systemic > meaning of his partner's call then the director suggests that the > player > leave the table so that the caller, himself, can supply that > information > Apparently, this solution is already legal; but for obscure > reasons, the > law book does not recommend it; and directors rarely implement it. If this has anything to do with Nigel's "Standard System" proposal, the connection eludes me. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 4 00:26:06 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:26:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <868DEA1E3FAD4C90A1F04C40E74F038D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >In one sectional I played in, a pair messed up a convention twice in >one session and the TD told them to cross it off their convention >card for the remainder of that event. I liked that, but was it >legal? Law 40B2(a), first sentence: "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or **allow conditionally**, any special partnership understanding." Richard Hills: So the RA condition for an SPU could be, "use permitted, provided that the SPU is not mangled twice in one session". ABF Alert Regulation, clause 10.1: "Pairs who frequently forget their system or conventions have a damaging effect on the tournament. The Director is empowered by these Regulations to require such a pair to play a simpler system or convention. In extreme cases he may apply a procedural penalty under Law 90A." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100203/35d976a4/attachment.html From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Feb 4 03:06:35 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:06:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B69AADF.6070104@ulb.ac.be> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> <4B69426F.9020202@ulb.ac.be> <4B69A0D7.3060407@yahoo.co.uk> <4B69AADF.6070104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B6A2BAB.3020100@yahoo.co.uk> [Alain Gottcheiner] wrong. There are many cases when MI won't affect the bidding, but the added UI will. [Nige1] A simple example, please, Alain? [Alain] Let's see ... 1H 2C 3C Playing rubensohl, this is a strong transfer to diamonds (2D available), usually played as GF. Contrast with 1H 2S 3C, which may be weaker (no 2D bid available). Stating that 1H 2C 3C is a (not necessarily strong) transfer to diamonds will of course create MI, but there is reasonable hope that it won't affect their bidding (doubles and raises don't have such a different meaning I guess). However, the effect on the meaning of rebids is strong ; for example, a 3S bid would be very strong facing a (not necessarily strong) 3C bid, but is perhaps consistent with a minimum if 3C is game-forcing. And in the other auction : 1H 2S 3C : if 3C is strong, 3S could be merely a stopper-ask, whereas it would be quite strong if 3C is NNS. [Nige1] Under the "guess" rule, the director wouldn't change the way that the director judge the damage from a misexplanation. in Alain's example. Alain, you haven't yet shown how the proposed rule adds *UI*. Assume a pair aren't using the standard system then ... - A player will often guess the systemic agreement correctly, when forced to do so, so the rule would normally *increase AI*. - If a player guesses wrong, then the rule treats it as *MI* not UI. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 4 03:08:48 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:08:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B69A3FB.5000702@yahoo.co.uk> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> <4B69A3FB.5000702@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:27:39 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Proposal 2 - for completeness] > Richard Hills endorsed another simple sensible way to reduce > "convention disruption": if a player is unclear about the systemic > meaning of his partner's call then the director suggests that the player > leave the table so that the caller, himself, can supply that information > Apparently, this solution is already legal; but for obscure reasons, the > law book does not recommend it; and directors rarely implement it. I use this. It goes something like, first explaining that the pair has to explain only their agreements. BUT, then I say the burden of proof will be on them to show that it is their agreement. I might point out the difficulty of doing this, when appropriate. Then I ask if they would like it if their partner left the table and they explained their bid to the opponents. The answer has always been yes, and everyone has been happy with my visit. Bob From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Feb 4 04:50:31 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:50:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B69AADF.6070104@ulb.ac.be> References: <1DAE9E83-EBEC-4575-AA0D-66FED1B2DD70@starpower.net> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <24277529.1265059656921.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4B683D54.3020806@yahoo.co.uk> <4B684593.4070707@ulb.ac.be> <4B690436.8070902@yahoo.co.uk> <4B69426F.9020202@ulb.ac.be> <4B69A0D7.3060407@yahoo.co.uk> <4B69AADF.6070104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B6A4407.3090208@yahoo.co.uk> [Eric Landau] So if I have no idea of what I'm doing, and even less of what my partner might be doing, pulling calls more or less out of the air and hoping for the best, I will get "leeway" if I write "Standard System" at the top of my card, but will be repeatedly penalized (for the identical behavior) if I write something else. Few if any will fully comprehend this Standard System, but almost everyone will be claiming to play it, and it will become such a broad term as to cover all kinds of forms and variations -- sort of like "Standard American" in the 1970s. Nigel does say that one would be required to play it "without additions or modifications" in order to be protected from the consequences of not fully understanding it, but that's Catch-22: If you don't fully understand the system, how can you know that you are playing it without additions or modifications? If your only choices are "to know your own methods or to adopt the Standard System", then "I adopt the Standard System" becomes the requisite way of saying "I don't know my methods". But does anybody, all of them, in full detail, really? If I must fully understand anything I claim to play other than the Standard System to avoid potential "convention disruption" penalties, but can avoid them by claiming to play the Standard System whether I understand it or not, why would anyone ever choose the former? [Nigel] [A] The proposal doesn't allow a pair to claim that they are playing the standard system if they've adopted another system. [B] If you play the standard system, the proposal stipulated that you may drop bits you don't understand or can't remember but you mustn't add to it or modify it in any other way -- assuming that you want protection from "convention disruption" penalties. [C] I'm sure that the "Guess" rule wouldn't inhibit those (like me) who enjoy devising and playing weird systems. [D] If you can't remember or understand your own system, then you may do better with standard system basics. What's unfair about that? Is there any harm in being lenient to beginners and helping pick-up partnerships? [Eric] If this (Proposal 2) has anything to do with Nigel's "Standard System" proposal, the connection eludes me. [Nige1] Both proposals address the "convention disruption" issue (the topic of this thread). Proposal 2 may be legal but few directors implement it and it is not explained and recommended in the law book. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 4 07:48:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:48:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >Assume a pair plays 1S (3C) showing a minimum overcall with 5-5 in >the reds. Richard Hills: This is the Ghestem convention. But... A more relevant (and likely) assumption is that this is the notional explicit partnership understanding written on the system card. But they have frequently mangled the convention, creating an over-riding Law 40C1 implicit partnership understanding that 1S (3C) shows a minimum overcall with Either 5-5 in the reds Or long clubs. ...And this is the Guessed-Em convention (named but never used by Nigel Guthrie). Since Guessed-Em is a Brown Sticker convention, it is quite likely to be a prohibited Special Partnership Understanding in the current tournament. Thomas Dehn: >With a good overcall and 5-5 in the reds, they overcall 2H. > >You forbid them to play Ghestem. Now they have no agreement on what >to overcall with a minimum overcall and 5-5 in the reds. They >obviously cannot double with that hand, and they cannot overcall 2H >either because showing the diamonds later would imply a better hand. Richard Hills: A flawed argument; a similar logical flaw was used by Herman De Wael: a) It is poor practice for a Lawbook to use different words with the same meanings (synonyms). b) The words "agreement" and "understanding" are different words. c) Therefore they are not synonyms. Oh, yes they are. Beautiful logic ruined by the cold hard facts of Law 40B1(b), first sentence: "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding." Richard Hills: While a reductio ad absurdum of Thomas Dehn's "there's a hole in my system" argument would proceed as follows: x) It is poor practice to Pass as dealer with 5-9 hcp and a 6-card spade suit, as old-fashioned SAYC players would open 2S, and as modern Acol players would open a Multi 2D. y) In the Ali-Hills system we Pass as dealer with 5-9 hcp and a 6- card spade suit (because our 2S opening is 5-9 hcp with 5/5 in two suits of the same colour, and our 2D opening is 10-14 hcp with 6+ diamonds). z) Therefore there is a hole in the Ali-Hills system. Oh, no there is not. Beautiful logic ruined by the cold hard facts of the explicit Ali-Hills partnership understanding that the bidding sequence Pass-initially-2S-later-if-possible shows a hand that old- fashioned SAYCers would open 2S, or modern Acolytes would open 2D. Similarly, a pair prohibited from using Ghestem have several options to plug the hole in their bucket. For example, they could agree that a Pass of 1S would now be based on a wider range of distributions, or they could agree to adopt the easier-to-remember Michaels Cuebid. Best wishes Buddy Holey There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza, There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, a hole. Then fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, Then fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it. With what shall I fix it, dear Liza, dear Liza? With what shall I fix it, dear Liza, with what? With some straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, With some straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, some straw. The straw is too long, dear Liza, dear Liza, The straw is too long, dear Liza, too long, Then cut it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, Then cut it, dear Henry, dear Henry, cut it. With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, dear Liza? With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, with what? With an axe, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, With an axe, dear Henry, dear Henry, an axe. The axe is too dull, dear Liza, dear Liza, The axe is too dull, dear Liza, too dull. Then sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, Then sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, whet it. With what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, dear Liza? With what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, with what? With a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, With a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, a stone. The stone is too dry, dear Liza, dear Liza, The stone is too dry, dear Liza, too dry. Then moisten it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, Then moisten it, dear Henry, dear Henry, moisten it. With what shall I moisten, dear Liza, dear Liza? With what shall I moisten, dear Liza, with what? Try water, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, Try water, dear Henry, dear Henry, try water. >From where shall I get it, dear Liza, dear Liza? >From where shall I get it, dear Liza, from where? >From the well, dear Henry,dear Henry, dear Henry, >From the well, dear Henry, dear Henry, the well. In what shall I fetch it, dear Liza, dear Liza? In what shall I fetch it, dear Liza, in what? In a bucket dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, In a bucket dear Henry, dear Henry, in a bucket. There's a hole in my bucket..... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 4 09:18:48 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:18:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1375978.1265271528906.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: [...] > Similarly, a pair prohibited from using Ghestem have several options > to plug the hole in their bucket. For example, they could agree that > a Pass of 1S would now be based on a wider range of distributions, or > they could agree to adopt the easier-to-remember Michaels Cuebid. There exist several variations of the Michaels cuebid as well. I think I could come up with half a dozen. It is easier to remember than Ghestem because it does not conflict with weak jump overcalls, but I doubt that a pair that consistently fails to remember Ghestem can sort out Michaels in that one minute possibly available between two boards. Also the conditions of the contest resp. the regulations might make it illegal for them to add Michaels in the middle of a round. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 4 11:00:54 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:00:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <4B695BCC.4050900@ulb.ac.be> <4B6941F7.3030401@ulb.ac.be> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> <20990422.1265189864822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B6A9AD6.8040807@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner >>> >>> >>>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> AG : perhaps you don't take the good example : I can't remember the >>>>>> last >>>>>> time my BW 4NT was doubled ; and your 90% seems overstated ; but in >>>>>> general, you're right in deducing that I would also demand that >>>>>> they be >>>>>> able to handle the most common interferences over their conventional >>>>>> bids, including standard ones. Meta-agreements would do. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> And when they ask you what "the most common interferences" over their >>>>> conventional bids are, what do you mean by "handle" them, and what's >>>>> a meta-agreement, then what do you do? Postpone the game for half an >>>>> hour while you give them a bridge lesson? Or just tell them to go >>>>> home, they can't play here? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Well, I don't understand this argument. Do you pretend that *any* >>>> article in TFLB needs less than 1/2 hour to explain fully ? >>>> Of course, that' isn't needed here. I just need to check whether they >>>> can explain how they handle interference in some nonstandard part of >>>> their system and, if they can't, I might disallow that part. >>>> >>>> >>> Which law empowers you to do that? >>> >>> >> At very least L74. >> > > L74 does not specify "certain otherwise legal conventions can be disallowed" > as a possible penalty or rectification for any offense. > In fact L74 does not specify any penalty for any offense. > But it says that anything that could spoil the game pleasure or be unkind to opponents, as well as not paying due attention to the game, are infractions. > > Assume a pair plays 1S (3C) showing a minimum overcalls with 5-5 in the reds. > With a good overcall and 5-5 in the reds, they overcall 2H. > > You forbid them to play Ghestem. Now they have no > agreement on what to overcall with a minimum > overcall and 5-5 in the reds. They obviously cannot > double with that hand, and they cannot overcall 2H either because > showing the diamonds later would imply a better hand. > > And ... whose fault is it ? From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 4 11:11:01 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:11:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B6A9AD6.8040807@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B6A9AD6.8040807@ulb.ac.be> <4B695BCC.4050900@ulb.ac.be> <4B6941F7.3030401@ulb.ac.be> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> <20990422.1265189864822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <32347476.1265278261246.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >> > >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>> Well, I don't understand this argument. Do you pretend that *any* > >>>> article in TFLB needs less than 1/2 hour to explain fully ? > >>>> Of course, that' isn't needed here. I just need to check whether they > >>>> can explain how they handle interference in some nonstandard part of > >>>> their system and, if they can't, I might disallow that part. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Which law empowers you to do that? > >>> > >>> > >> At very least L74. > >> > > > > L74 does not specify "certain otherwise legal conventions can be disallowed" > > as a possible penalty or rectification for any offense. > > In fact L74 does not specify any penalty for any offense. > > > But it says that anything that could spoil the game pleasure or be > unkind to opponents, as well as not paying due attention to the game, > are infractions. Yes, not knowing their system can under various circumstances be considered an infraction. But that does not empower the TD to assign arbitrary penalties. For example, the law also does not allow you to fine them $100 for mishandling Ghestem. Or 50 leashes. Richard's point about the Australian regulations is valid; that can be interpreted as giving the TD the power to force pairs to not play certain conventions. But TFLB itself does not give the TD that power. > > Assume a pair plays 1S (3C) showing a minimum overcalls with 5-5 in the reds. > > With a good overcall and 5-5 in the reds, they overcall 2H. > > > > You forbid them to play Ghestem. Now they have no > > agreement on what to overcall with a minimum > > overcall and 5-5 in the reds. They obviously cannot > > double with that hand, and they cannot overcall 2H either because > > showing the diamonds later would imply a better hand. > > > And ... whose fault is it ? In this case yours, because you forced them to play that system. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 4 11:24:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:24:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <32347476.1265278261246.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6A9AD6.8040807@ulb.ac.be> <4B695BCC.4050900@ulb.ac.be> <4B6941F7.3030401@ulb.ac.be> <4B6678F8.4070409@ulb.ac.be> <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net><18267333.1265019774462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net><4B66AFAF.6070708@ulb.ac.be> <4FC549158FA3455C92605865AFF46E81@sfora4869e47f1> <8DA045C6F826455CA7594C2C2D787F62@sfora4869e47f1> <4B6846EE.9000708@ulb.ac.be> <20990422.1265189864822.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <32347476.1265278261246.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B6AA069.7090208@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Well, I don't understand this argument. Do you pretend that *any* >>>>>> article in TFLB needs less than 1/2 hour to explain fully ? >>>>>> Of course, that' isn't needed here. I just need to check whether they >>>>>> can explain how they handle interference in some nonstandard part of >>>>>> their system and, if they can't, I might disallow that part. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Which law empowers you to do that? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> At very least L74. >>>> >>>> >>> L74 does not specify "certain otherwise legal conventions can be disallowed" >>> as a possible penalty or rectification for any offense. >>> In fact L74 does not specify any penalty for any offense. >>> >>> >> But it says that anything that could spoil the game pleasure or be >> unkind to opponents, as well as not paying due attention to the game, >> are infractions. >> > > Yes, not knowing their system can under various circumstances > be considered an infraction. > > But that does not empower the TD to assign arbitrary penalties. > If you're right, that's a problem. If they shout and it disrupts the tournament's smoothness, I may penalize them and tell them no to do so. If they forget to change tables, and ... , I may ... If they fumble their conventions, and ..., I may do nothing ? In that case, Australian-like COCs should ve more widespread, ensuring that I may. Of course, "I'll fine you a full top if it happens again" would probably be as efficient. They'll probably decide to abandon the convention without being asked to. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 4 13:21:45 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:21:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption Message-ID: <20348011.1265286105263.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >> > >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Well, I don't understand this argument. Do you pretend that *any* > >>>>>> article in TFLB needs less than 1/2 hour to explain fully ? > >>>>>> Of course, that' isn't needed here. I just need to check whether they > > >>>>>> can explain how they handle interference in some nonstandard part of > > >>>>>> their system and, if they can't, I might disallow that part. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Which law empowers you to do that? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> At very least L74. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> L74 does not specify "certain otherwise legal conventions can be > disallowed" > >>> as a possible penalty or rectification for any offense. > >>> In fact L74 does not specify any penalty for any offense. > >>> > >>> > >> But it says that anything that could spoil the game pleasure or be > >> unkind to opponents, as well as not paying due attention to the game, > >> are infractions. > >> > > > > Yes, not knowing their system can under various circumstances > > be considered an infraction. > > > > But that does not empower the TD to assign arbitrary penalties. > > > If you're right, that's a problem. > > If they shout and it disrupts the tournament's smoothness, I may > penalize them and tell them no to do so. > If they forget to change tables, and ... , I may ... > If they fumble their conventions, and ..., I may do nothing ? You can do more than nothing. L75 might apply. You have L90. You have L12A1. And a few others. You can possible even suspend them according to L91 if they cause major disorder. You just cannot make up your own fancy penalties. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 20:36:06 2010 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:36:06 +1300 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> On 4 February 2010 19:48, wrote: > > > > Richard Hills: > > A flawed argument; a similar logical flaw was used by Herman De Wael: > > a) It is poor practice for a Lawbook to use different words with the > ? same meanings (synonyms). > > b) The words "agreement" and "understanding" are different words. > > c) Therefore they are not synonyms. > > Oh, yes they are. ?Beautiful logic ruined by the cold hard facts of > > Law 40B1(b), first sentence: > > "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a > partnership understanding." > This is not the same as saying that a 'partnership understanding is an agreement'. So oh, yes they are not or at least you have provided insufficient evidence to show that they are synonyms. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Feb 4 21:20:27 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:20:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> References: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> [Law 40B1(b), first sentence] Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding." [Wayne Burrows] This is not the same as saying that a 'partnership understanding is an agreement'. So oh, yes they are not or at least you have provided insufficient evidence to show that they are synonyms. [Nige1] Law 40B1(b) states that partnership *understandings* include all partnership *agreements* (implicit or explicit). i.e. the latter are a *subset* of the former. The possibility is open that, in Bridge Law, understandings may include things *other than agreements*, although the mind boggles as to what those might be. Perhaps telepathic communication? :) Of course, I'm reluctant to agree with Richard :) Manifestly, however, the terms are synonyms *for practical Bridge Law purposes*. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 4 23:56:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:56:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The Fallacy Files http://fallacyfiles.org/accident.html The Fallacy of Accident Alias: * A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid * Sweeping Generalisation Robert Burton (1577-1640), "The Anatomy of Melancholy": "No rule is so general, which admits not some exception." Form: Xs are normally Ys. A is an X. (Where A is abnormal.) Therefore, A is a Y. Example: Birds normally can fly. Tweety the Penguin is a bird. Therefore, Tweety can fly. Alain Gottcheiner: >If they shout and it disrupts the tournament's smoothness, I may >penalize them and tell them not to do so. > >If they forget to change tables, and ... , I may ... > >If they fumble their conventions, and ..., I may do nothing ? Richard Hills: A classic example of "a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid". Laws in the Lawbook are normally enforced by the Director. Law 40B2(a) permitting conditional use of SPUs is a Law in the Lawbook. Therefore, the Director can conditionally allow or prohibit an SPU. Not so. If Alain had bothered to Read The Fabulous Lawbook, then he would have avoided his decision "to assign arbitrary penalties" [Thomas Dehn]. Alain would have noticed that Law 40B2(a) is an abnormal Law, abnormally not fully within the Director's remit, but rather with its parameters abnormally set by the Regulating Authority. Of course, that does not mean that Aussie TDs are acting unLawfully. Law 80A3, first phrase: "The Regulating Authority may delegate its powers (retaining ultimate responsibility for their exercise)....." Richard Hills: But in answer to Marvin French's original question about whether his ACBL TD was acting unLawfully, that is a question of what the ACBL RA's regulations state. If the ACBL RA has not yet considered this issue, then the ACBL TD was exceeding her powers. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 5 11:28:12 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:28:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> References: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Law 40B1(b), first sentence] > Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a > partnership understanding." > > [Wayne Burrows] > This is not the same as saying that a 'partnership understanding is an > agreement'. So oh, yes they are not or at least you have provided > insufficient evidence to show that they are synonyms. > > [Nige1] > Law 40B1(b) states that partnership *understandings* include all > partnership *agreements* (implicit or explicit). i.e. the latter are a > *subset* of the former. > > The possibility is open that, in Bridge Law, understandings may include > things *other than agreements*, although the mind boggles as to what > those might be. If the partnership in confronted at the table with a new bidding sequence, but they both understand it, because they know how a common partner playsit, is that an agreement ? I'd say not ; but surely that's a common understanding. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 5 14:27:46 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:27:46 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <11606073.1265376466839.JavaMail.root@ps31> ----Original Message---- From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Date: 03/02/2010 23:26 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subj: Re: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Marvin French: [snip] >In one sectional I played in, a pair messed up a convention twice in >one session and the TD told them to cross it off their convention >card for the remainder of that event. I liked that, but was it >legal? Law 40B2(a), first sentence: "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or **allow conditionally**, any special partnership understanding." Richard Hills: So the RA condition for an SPU could be, "use permitted, provided that the SPU is not mangled twice in one session". ABF Alert Regulation, clause 10.1: "Pairs who frequently forget their system or conventions have a damaging effect on the tournament. The Director is empowered by these Regulations to require such a pair to play a simpler system or convention. In extreme cases he may apply a procedural penalty under Law 90A." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- +=+ I am out of the loop in Sanremo. I will have a look at what is going on when I am home on Sunday. Grattan +=+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100205/9ba0ff39/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 5 15:09:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:09:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <11606073.1265376466839.JavaMail.root@ps31> References: <11606073.1265376466839.JavaMail.root@ps31> Message-ID: <4B6C26A0.7090303@ulb.ac.be> grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > > > Law 40B2(a), first sentence: > > "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, > disallow, or **allow conditionally**, any special partnership > understanding." > > Richard Hills: > > So the RA condition for an SPU could be, "use permitted, provided > that the SPU is not mangled twice in one session". > AG : fine. (and /fine/) From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 5 15:31:37 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:31:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> References: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > >> [Law 40B1(b), first sentence] >> Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a >> partnership understanding." >> >> [Wayne Burrows] >> This is not the same as saying that a 'partnership understanding >> is an >> agreement'. So oh, yes they are not or at least you have provided >> insufficient evidence to show that they are synonyms. >> >> [Nige1] >> Law 40B1(b) states that partnership *understandings* include all >> partnership *agreements* (implicit or explicit). i.e. the latter >> are a >> *subset* of the former. >> >> The possibility is open that, in Bridge Law, understandings may >> include >> things *other than agreements*, although the mind boggles as to what >> those might be. > > If the partnership in confronted at the table with a new bidding > sequence, but they both understand it, because they know how a common > partner playsit, is that an agreement ? I'd say not ; but surely > that's > a common understanding. This discussion demonstrates that terminology matters. The more the words of the laws come to be defined as other than their common, everyday dictionary meanings, the harder the resulting laws are to understand and interpret. I submit that there would be far less confusion in this area today if, from day one, we had used the word "understanding" to designate what we now call an "agreement", and used the word "agreement" to designate what we now call an "explicit agreement". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Feb 5 15:39:00 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:39:00 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> References: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> [Alain Gottcheiner] If the partnership in confronted at the table with a new bidding sequence, but they both understand it, because they know how a common partner plays it, is that an agreement ? I'd say not ; but surely that's a common understanding. [Nige1] IMO ... I've already made it clear that I don't think that Bridge Law distinguishes between a partnership understanding and a partnership agreement. If you know that your current partner and you have read the same article about a convention *or* you have both discussed it with the same third person *or* you have both played it in another partnership *and* your current partner knows that too*, then you have an *implicit agreement*. More contentiously, even if partner is unaware of your shared experience but you suspect that he is using the convention from force of habit, then you still have an *implicit agreement*. The criterion is simple: if your mutual experience means that you are likely to know more about the meaning of partner's call than opponents know, then that information is an implict agreement and is disclosable -- *subject to local regulation* The last qualifier is necessary because of the crazy Tower of Babel that is local regulation. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 5 15:57:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:57:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> References: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B6C31EB.6060009@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > If you know that your current partner and you have read the same article > about a convention *or* you have both discussed it with the same third > person *or* you have both played it in another partnership *and* your > current partner knows that too*, then you have an *implicit agreement*. > > More contentiously, even if partner is unaware of your shared experience > but you suspect that he is using the convention from force of habit, > then you still have an *implicit agreement*. > AG : one interesting case is when both players have had the same teacher. Another case, and a recent experience I had, is when you suspect that partner plays convention/treament X, because he said (or you discovered at the table on a previous deal) that he plays convention/treatment Y, and the two usually go together ; variant : you discussed a treament in some cases, and you suspect it could apply to some other cases. Examples : - partner told you 1NT-2S was a weak transfer to some minor ; from this you infer that he plays strong responses of 3C/D, event if they aren't popular where you live (e.g. most play 3C as a transfer). - after having discussed fit-jumps by passed hand, I (correctly) guessed that partner played fit-jumps in answer to suit overcalls. Notice that the words "implicit agreement" should perhaps be replaced ; "implicit agreement" is not necessarily a subclass of "agreement". What about "shared inferences" ? Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Feb 5 17:35:43 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:35:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] > If the partnership in confronted at the table with a new bidding > sequence, but they both understand it, because they know how a common > partner plays it, is that an agreement ? I'd say not ; but surely that's > a common understanding. > > [Nige1] IMO ... > I've already made it clear that I don't think that Bridge Law > distinguishes between a partnership understanding and a partnership > agreement. > > If you know that your current partner and you have read the same article > about a convention *or* you have both discussed it with the same third > person *or* you have both played it in another partnership *and* your > current partner knows that too*, then you have an *implicit agreement*. > > More contentiously, even if partner is unaware of your shared experience > but you suspect that he is using the convention from force of habit, > then you still have an *implicit agreement*. > > The criterion is simple: if your mutual experience means that you are > likely to know more about the meaning of partner's call than opponents > know, then that information is an implict agreement and is disclosable > -- *subject to local regulation* I think it is more complicated than that. The fact that you know that partner has read a certain book, or played with a certain player, does not imply that he agrees with the teachings in that book, or with that player's methods. Or that he uses those methods when playing with you. Example. your partner has read Victor Mollo. Are you supposed to explain partner's systematically undefined bidding according to the Rueful Rabbit's bidding rules? I don't think so. Now, you could say "I know he has read Victor Mollo, and in the Hog's system this 3NT bid shows that he wants to play the hand, and it does not show anything about his hand". Does that help opponents? Can they rely on it? What happens or should happen if partner actually had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 5 18:21:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:21:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Example. your partner has read Victor Mollo. > Are you supposed to explain partner's systematically > undefined bidding according to the Rueful Rabbit's bidding > rules? I don't think so. > AG : if my partner had read Victor Mollo, as many of mine are, I would expect him not to trust points, and pushing it to the limit when he feels lucky (and reciprocally whe nhe doesn't). That is disclosable. > Now, you could say "I know he has read Victor Mollo, > and in the Hog's system this 3NT bid shows that he wants > to play the hand, and it does not show anything about > his hand". Does that help opponents? Can they rely on it? > What happens or should happen if partner actually > had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? > > AG : do you mean that, if you alert Stayman because partner could hold a limit hand without any major, and he turns up having one (or both), you've given MI ? Do you mean that I should restrain alerting partner's preempts as possibly zilchy, just in case he happens to have a perfectly classical preemt ? I hope not. Of course, any bid that can be broader than it's classical meaning should be disclosed as such. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Feb 5 18:50:51 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:50:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Example. your partner has read Victor Mollo. > > Are you supposed to explain partner's systematically > > undefined bidding according to the Rueful Rabbit's bidding > > rules? I don't think so. > > > AG : if my partner had read Victor Mollo, as many of mine are, I would > expect him not to trust points, and pushing it to the limit when he > feels lucky (and reciprocally whe nhe doesn't). That is disclosable. It would never occur to me to push when I feel lucky and reciprocally when I don't. If you "disclosed" that when playing with me, that would be MI. > > Now, you could say "I know he has read Victor Mollo, > > and in the Hog's system this 3NT bid shows that he wants > > to play the hand, and it does not show anything about > > his hand". Does that help opponents? Can they rely on it? > > What happens or should happen if partner actually > > had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? > > > > > AG : do you mean that, if you alert Stayman because partner could hold a > limit hand without any major, and he turns up having one (or both), > you've given MI ? I mean that if your agreement is Stayman, and you have no actual agreement on whether partner can hold a limit hand without any major, and you alert partner's 2C stating that he cannot have a limit hand without any major (because you know he read the book of expert X who claims that is the best way to play), and partner actually has a limit hand without any major, then I will rule MI. Or, in the other direction. Partner bis 2C, stayman. AG alerts, and informs opponents that partner can have a limit hand without any major, because AG knows that partner read the book of expert Y who claims that is the best way to play. Bidding proceeds, at the end of the hand, partner says "Alain, I cannot have a limit hand without any major. With than hand, I decide between passing and bidding 3NT. Didn't you read the book of expert Z?" Opponents then call the TD. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Feb 6 01:50:14 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:50:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B6CBCC6.4070706@yahoo.co.uk> [Thomas Dehn] I mean that if your agreement is Stayman, and you have no actual agreement on whether partner can hold a limit hand without any major, and you alert partner's 2C stating that he cannot have a limit hand without any major (because you know he read the book of expert X who claims that is the best way to play), and partner actually has a limit hand without any major, then I will rule MI. Or, in the other direction. Partner bis 2C, stayman. AG alerts, and informs opponents that partner can have a limit hand without any major, because AG knows that partner read the book of expert Y who claims that is the best way to play. Bidding proceeds, at the end of the hand, partner says "Alain, I cannot have a limit hand without any major. With than hand, I decide between passing and bidding 3NT. Didn't you read the book of expert Z?" Opponents then call the TD. [Nigel] Players must cope with Thomas's problem every time they play, in a variety of contexts. There may be players who know all their agreements but, to my knowledge, I haven't encountered them yet. If you are uncertain what partner means by a call, then, I think, under current law, you should say "I'm not sure but I'm willing to speculate". If opponents ask you to go on, then you supply your conclusions (and reasoning if any). Some BLMlers quibble that you you mustn't speculate about the *meaning* of a bid. You should just tell opponents what *inferences* are available from partnership experience. The flaw in that recommendation is that although you may have a fair idea of what the call means, typically, the inferences are complex and may even be unconscious. So hard to explain in real-time. Few of us are sure about agreements. When we're almost certain, however, most of us just state our belief as if it were sure. Technically, I suppose we are breaking current law. Notice that this problem disappears under the proposed law (if you don't know, you must still guess). From posundelin at yahoo.se Sat Feb 6 12:53:58 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:53:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Please rule In-Reply-To: <341381.20858.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> ?I was told this: ? 4 ? ? ? ? ? AQJ98 K 93 K9863 K6 AQ863 AT84 Q4 T74 T974 KQJ AT5 532 J52 7652 J72 West???????? North????? East????? South ? ? ?pass? ?1NT? ?21? ?32? ?pass? ?33? ?pass? ?4? ?pass? ?pass? ?pass? 1 Shows spades 2 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper? 3 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper? (yes, the same, no misclick) ?North led the spade ace, West made 11 tricks. Other leads may result in 11, 10 or 9 tricks. North calls TD, and complains; he wouldn?t have led the spade ace if he had known that West had the king that he had denied during the bidding. ? Please rule! Those of you who recognize the board DO NOT comment. "I?ll be back" (Terminator 1,2,3) ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? __________________________________________________ Anv?nder du Yahoo!? ?r du tr?tt p? spam? Yahoo! E-post har det b?sta spamskyddet som finns http://se.mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100206/dbcf2265/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Feb 6 17:17:35 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:17:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Please rule In-Reply-To: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What is the correct E-W agreement? If North was correctly informed and West either misbid or deliberately violated the agreement because of his fifth heart, there is no damage. If the agreement is that 3H shows nothing about stoppers, I do rule MI, it is very likely that West has the guarded SK unless he explicitly denies it, and even if North counts points, East could have been forced by system to stretch one point, or West might have opened 1NT with a stiff SK, so a safe diamond lead is likely. Assuming that there was damage, the next question is how to determine the likely result. I would normally assume that any play which did not depend on the MI would have still happened. That is, if declarer guessed trumps correctly with the MI, and the MI did not influence the trump guess, then I allow him to guess trumps correctly in awarding an adjusted score. How did declarer make eleven tricks? If he dropped the stiff HK, he would have still dropped it had there been no MI, and I rule ten tricks for both sides. If he lost a heart finesse to the HK and North led a club away from the king, that is more attractive if the D9 was the opeining lead (West might have Kxx AQJx ATxx QJ and decline the club finesse in order to pitch a spade on the diamonds), so it would also happen without the MI, and I allow declarer to guess the trumps the same way he did at the table, so I also rule ten tricks. (If someone can explain to me why West would lead a second diamond after winning the HK with correct information but not with MI, then I rule nine tricks.) ----- Original Message ----- From: PO Sundelin To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 6:53 AM Subject: [BLML] Please rule I was told this: 4 AQJ98 K 93 K9863 K6 AQ863 AT84 Q4 T74 T974 KQJ AT5 532 J52 7652 J72 West North East South pass 1NT 21 32 pass 33 pass 4 pass pass pass 1 Shows spades 2 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper 3 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper (yes, the same, no misclick) North led the spade ace, West made 11 tricks. Other leads may result in 11, 10 or 9 tricks. North calls TD, and complains; he wouldn?t have led the spade ace if he had known that West had the king that he had denied during the bidding. Please rule! Those of you who recognize the board DO NOT comment. "I?ll be back" (Terminator 1,2,3) __________________________________________________ Anv?nder du Yahoo!? ?r du tr?tt p? spam? Yahoo! E-post har det b?sta spamskyddet som finns http://se.mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100206/056addeb/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 6 19:57:10 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:57:10 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Please rule In-Reply-To: References: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: David Grabiner Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 10:17 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Please rule How did declarer make eleven tricks? HA, DK, H hook, HiH, DQ,DA, DT pitch S, SK to SA and N must surrender ruff-sluff or the C to the Q. regards roger pewick If he dropped the stiff HK, he would have still dropped it had there been no MI, and I rule ten tricks for both sides. If he lost a heart finesse to the HK and North led a club away from the king, that is more attractive if the D9 was the opeining lead (West might have Kxx AQJx ATxx QJ and decline the club finesse in order to pitch a spade on the diamonds), so it would also happen without the MI, and I allow declarer to guess the trumps the same way he did at the table, so I also rule ten tricks. (If someone can explain to me why West would lead a second diamond after winning the HK with correct information but not with MI, then I rule nine tricks.) ----- Original Message ----- From: PO Sundelin To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 6:53 AM Subject: [BLML] Please rule I was told this: 4 AQJ98 K 93 K9863 K6 AQ863 AT84 Q4 T74 T974 KQJ AT5 532 J52 7652 J72 West North East South pass 1NT 21 32 pass 33 pass 4 pass pass pass 1 Shows spades 2 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper 3 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper (yes, the same, no misclick) North led the spade ace, West made 11 tricks. Other leads may result in 11, 10 or 9 tricks. North calls TD, and complains; he wouldn?t have led the spade ace if he had known that West had the king that he had denied during the bidding. Please rule! Those of you who recognize the board DO NOT comment. "I?ll be back" (Terminator 1,2,3) __________________________________________________ Anv?nder du Yahoo!? ?r du tr?tt p? spam? Yahoo! E-post har det b?sta spamskyddet som finns http://se.mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100206/6dcb888c/attachment-0001.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 7 00:54:42 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 18:54:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Please rule In-Reply-To: References: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0743076C159B4098B4348AE2A5E15556@erdos> Ignore my previous comment. The only way to make eleven tricks on a spade lead is to drop the stiff HK, and I now realize that this line is more likely on a spade lead than on a diamond lead. Roger's line is a possible line for eleven tricks on a diamond lead; my original question was how declarer made eleven tricks at the table after a spade lead. If declarer dropped the stiff HK after the spade lead, I have to decide how likely it is that he would take Roger's line for eleven tricks. There are five ways to play the trumps: 1. Play HA, then run HT if no honor falls (no loser to K, two to KJx). 2. Play HQ, then finesse again if it loses to the king (no loser to J, xx or Jx, two to KJ or KJx). 3. Play HQ, then HA if it loses to the king (no loser to J, xx, or Jx, two to K or KJx) 4. Run HT on first heart, then finesse again if it loses to the jack (no loser to x or xx, two to KJ or KJx) 5. Run HT, then play HA if it loses to the jack (no loser to x or xx, two to J or KJx) After a spade lead, line 1 is best (assuming IMPs) because it minimizes the risk of two losers. After a diamond lead, lines 2-5 leave the possibility of Roger's endplay; even on lines 3 and 5, if the D9 lead is a doubleton, South won't be able to overruff and stop the endplay. The endplay works if North has AQJ of spades (or AQ and doesn't let South win the jack) and CK, or if North has CK without CJ no matter who wins the spades (declarer plays low on South's club lead). Line 1 does not allow the endplay if South has the HK and North does not have a stiff HJ, as leading a second heart to the queen is necessary to avoid two trump losers, and the diamonds cannot be eliminated before giving up the HK as North might ruff. Line 2 is the theoretically best line. Independent of any inferences, if North actually has a doubleton diamond, he will be endplayed when he wins the HJ, so declarer goes down only one if North has KJ of clubs and not AQJ of spades. In addition, stiff K with North is more likely than KJ, as if North and South each have six rounded cards, North might not overcall with 5=2=2=4 but would be more likely with 5=1=2=5, and if he has more than five spades or more than two diamonds, South has more rounded cards and is thus more likely to have the last heart. Given that screens were in use, I assume a high-level event, so declarer is presumed to be a better player than I am. I will allow a good declarer to avoid Line 3, because there are two reasons for it and he only needs to see one of them. If he envisions an endplay, Lines 2 and 4 give the best shot at the endplay in case North has more than two diamonds. If he doesn't envision the endplay but has a partial count on the hand, Lines 2 and 4 are less likely to lose two trump tricks. Therefore, I would say that the probability is less than 1/6 that declarer will play Line 3 (not at all probable) but at least 1/3 that he will not play Line 1 (likely and at all probable). If declarer is good enough to execute the endplay (rather than just leading to the SK, which is made less likely because North probably would have led a spade from QJxxxx), then he will execute it successfully. Therefore, I award declarer ten tricks, as he would probably play Line 2 or 4 and endplay North for the tenth trick. ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Please rule From: David Grabiner Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 10:17 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Please rule How did declarer make eleven tricks? HA, DK, H hook, HiH, DQ,DA, DT pitch S, SK to SA and N must surrender ruff-sluff or the C to the Q. regards roger pewick If he dropped the stiff HK, he would have still dropped it had there been no MI, and I rule ten tricks for both sides. If he lost a heart finesse to the HK and North led a club away from the king, that is more attractive if the D9 was the opeining lead (West might have Kxx AQJx ATxx QJ and decline the club finesse in order to pitch a spade on the diamonds), so it would also happen without the MI, and I allow declarer to guess the trumps the same way he did at the table, so I also rule ten tricks. (If someone can explain to me why West would lead a second diamond after winning the HK with correct information but not with MI, then I rule nine tricks.) ----- Original Message ----- From: PO Sundelin To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 6:53 AM Subject: [BLML] Please rule I was told this: 4 AQJ98 K 93 K9863 K6 AQ863 AT84 Q4 T74 T974 KQJ AT5 532 J52 7652 J72 West North East South pass 1NT 21 32 pass 33 pass 4 pass pass pass 1 Shows spades 2 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper 3 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper (yes, the same, no misclick) North led the spade ace, West made 11 tricks. Other leads may result in 11, 10 or 9 tricks. North calls TD, and complains; he wouldn?t have led the spade ace if he had known that West had the king that he had denied during the bidding. Please rule! Those of you who recognize the board DO NOT comment. "I?ll be back" (Terminator 1,2,3) __________________________________________________ Anv?nder du Yahoo!? ?r du tr?tt p? spam? Yahoo! E-post har det b?sta spamskyddet som finns http://se.mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100207/d4ca93b4/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Sun Feb 7 04:05:51 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 22:05:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41001242021ree7a071yd36f686062e2d14c@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001242021ree7a071yd36f686062e2d14c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd41002061905y1a8582ben246f5e80478cae01@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanDiego2009.html > > > > If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case > > number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or > > Non-NABC+ case. > > > > Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they > > have not yet been written! > > I've posted an early draft of my comments here: > > http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgndvpb2_204gcvd2zcc > My comments are almost ready to submit. I've incorporated a couple things I learned from the discussion of the cases here. BLMLers may be especially interested in my comments on case 17. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100207/c77f20e4/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Sun Feb 7 04:11:38 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 22:11:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41002061905y1a8582ben246f5e80478cae01@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001242021ree7a071yd36f686062e2d14c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41002061905y1a8582ben246f5e80478cae01@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd41002061911u63d6d931k6ee4b50d88eab1f@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanDiego2009.html > > > > If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case > > number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or > > Non-NABC+ case. > > > > Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they > > have not yet been written! > > I've posted an early draft of my comments here: > > http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgndvpb2_204gcvd2zcc My comments are almost ready to submit. I've incorporated a couple things I learned from the discussion of the cases here. BLMLers may be especially interested in my comments on case 17. The link remains as above: ??http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgndvpb2_204gcvd2zcc -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 08:46:29 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:46:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Please rule In-Reply-To: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <341381.20858.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 6 February 2010 12:53, PO Sundelin wrote: > I was told this: > > 4 > > > > > > > AQJ98 > K > 93 > K9863 K6 > AQ863 > AT84 > Q4 > T74 > T974 > KQJ > AT5 > 532 > J52 > 7652 > J72 > *West North East South* ** ** ** pass 1NT > 21 32 pass 33 pass 4 pass pass pass > 1 Shows spades 2 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a > spade stopper 3 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a > spade stopper (yes, the same, no misclick) > North led the spade ace, West made 11 tricks. Other leads may result in > 11, 10 or 9 tricks. > North calls TD, and complains; he wouldn?t have led the spade ace if he had > known that West had the king that he had denied during the bidding. > > Please rule! Those of you who recognize the board DO NOT comment. > "I?ll be back" (Terminator 1,2,3) > > I can't read the suit symcols, so I have no idea what bids where actually made. But I can infer that opener rebid 3H, since he became declarer in 4H. The 3H rebid was explained as hearts and no spade stopper by both players. This is a strong indication that this is the correct explanation of their methods. Unless their system file says something else, I'd rule no MI and result stands. > > -- > Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100207/7cc88876/attachment.html From tedying at yahoo.com Sun Feb 7 09:09:20 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 00:09:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Please rule In-Reply-To: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <869734.65661.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> For clarification, the auction without symbols: West North East South -- -- -- Pass 1NT 2H(1) 3C(2) Pass 3H(3) Pass 4H PP First, I agree with the comment that you really need to determine what the actual agreements were and what other options (besides 3H) were available to West. One would presume that there would be some option that would show hearts with a spade stopper. However, I do agree that with both West and East giving the same explanation on either side of screens suggests that this was the actual agreement and that West has chosen to violate agreement for some reason. My guess is that West was making a tactical call trying to protect the SK by right-siding the contract. The supposition here is that the bid to show hearts with a spade stopper would possibly or even definitely transfer the declarer to East and would expose the SK to the immediate finesse, so that West opted to protect the king by bidding hearts first regardless of the consequences of denying the stopper. You'd need to know the East-West agreements to be certain, but I would lean towards no MI and just a voluntary violation of partnership agreement. -Ted. ________________________________ From: PO Sundelin To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sat, February 6, 2010 6:53:58 AM Subject: [BLML] Please rule I was told this: 4 AQJ98 K 93 K9863 K6 AQ863 AT84 Q4 T74 T974 KQJ AT5 532 J52 7652 J72 West North East South pass 1NT 21 32 pass 33 pass 4 pass pass pass 1 Shows spades 2 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper 3 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper (yes, the same, no misclick) North led the spade ace, West made 11 tricks. Other leads may result in 11, 10 or 9 tricks. North calls TD, and complains; he wouldn?t have led the spade ace if he had known that West had the king that he had denied during the bidding. Please rule! Those of you who recognize the board DO NOT comment. "I?ll be back" (Terminator 1,2,3) __________________________________________________ Anv?nder du Yahoo!? ?r du tr?tt p? spam? Yahoo! E-post har det b?sta spamskyddet som finns http://se.mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100207/b6474f0e/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Feb 7 09:15:56 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 00:15:56 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) Message-ID: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> Here is an exchange between Adam Wildavsky and me, which he says I can quote: [Marv] > Question: The LC minutes said that Matt Smith was asked to give an > opinion > in Reno about the treatment of the non-offenders in Law 12C1(b). > Why not an > opinion concerning the offenders also, since ACBL policy for them > is not in > accord with that law? [Adam] As far as I know there is no one on the LC who interprets 12C1(b) as you do, so we'd have no reason to ask for such an opinion. In fact I don't know of anyone outside the LC who shares your interpretation, though I certainly could have missed a BLML post to that effect. [Marv] ACBL policy is that "serious error" in the play, unrelated to the infraction, is not removed from a score adjustment for the OS. I told the LC that L12C1(b) says otherwise: "The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." This bureaucratese has to be read in context to get its meaning. The first sentence of L12C1(b) says that the NOS keep any serious error in its score adjustment, while this second sentence says it should not be included in the score adjustment of the OS. The word "only" is the clue. Grattan, Richard, whoever, please back me up on this interpretation. No, " interpretation" is the wrong word, the law says what it says and there is no room for interpretation. "Understanding" is the right word. Just tell us if my understanding is correct. I don't want the ACBL LC to claim that an alternative interpretation is possible. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 7 08:43:13 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 07:43:13 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Lead restrictions References: <4B6736E2.5080002@ripe.net> Message-ID: <7B312F9BA1434101A4F6BEFCC583251B@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 8:17 PM Subject: [BLML] Lead restrictions > Hi all, > > I saw this one on another list and don't quite agree with the answer. > So: > > South dealer, > > East opens out of turn with 2S, alerted as spades and an unknown minor. > > TD is called, south does not accept the 2S and the bidding returns to > south. The auction now proceeds 1NT by south, pass, 3NT by north, all > pass. > > South asks if there are any restrictions on what west can lead. What > does the TD say? > > Henk > +=+ Without reading correspondence, I am confident someone will have pointed out that Law 26B applies. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 7 08:57:16 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 07:57:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches References: <65BC167D-97FB-454E-91F0-259415D77A1A@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches > On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> President Muffley: >> >> "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is The War Room!" >> >> Eric Landau: >> >> [snip] >> >>> If you know that your partner likes to open 1H on any balanced hand >>> with 0-3 HCP, that is a "habit" (i.e. a pattern), and your knowledge >>> of it makes it a "method", which may be banned or otherwise >>> regulated. >>> >>> But if all you know it that your partner likes to psych in >>> unpredictable ways in unpredictable situations, that is not a >>> pattern, and your knowledge of it -- notwithstanding that it is >>> unarguably disclosable -- does not make it a "method" which may be >>> banned or controlled. >>> >>> Others may differ with my conclusions, but I don't think we can >>> discuss the issue productively unless we recognize this difference. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I differ with "unarguably disclosable". Indeed, I argue against it. > > That puts Richard on the horns of an unfortunate dilemma. If you > know that your partner likes to psych occasionally (but without any > knowledge of any particular pattern or habit), Richard must argue > either that partner may not psych any bid that wouldn't be permitted > as an explicitly agreed method (validating the legality of the "one > psych per partnership per lifetime rule"), or that you are fully > entitled to keep that knowledge secret, even if asked it directly by > your opponents. > >> In my opinion, it is only pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit >> partnership understandings (i.e. partnership "methods") which are >> disclosable. >> >> Law 20F1, second sentence: >> >> "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant >> alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant >> inferences from the choice of action where these are **matters of >> partnership understanding**." >> >> Law 40A1(b), first sentence: >> >> "Each partnership has a duty to **make available its partnership >> understandings** to opponents before commencing play against them." >> >> Law 40A3: >> >> "A player may make any call or play **without prior announcement** >> provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed >> partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." >> >> Grattan Endicott, 18th January: >> >>>> +=+ A psyche is by definition not part of the partnership's chosen >>>> methods. It does not form part of the complex of methods adopted >>>> by the partnership. A psyche cannot be a matter of partnership >>>> understanding. > > Any partnership understanding regarding the meaning of particular > call in a particular auction is, by definition, part of the > partnership methods. But partnerships may have "understandings" in > unrelated contexts which have nothing to do with partnership > methods. An "understanding" that you will drive partner home after > the game is a "partnership understanding", but it is not in the > context of particular calls in particular auctions, and is thus not > part of your methods. IMO, the "understanding" that "partner likes > to psych" is, similarly, not in the context of particular calls in > particular auctions, and is thus not part of your methods. As such, > it cannot be regulated as a method, and so cannot be made into an > illegal one, and more than your RA could forbid you from driving your > partner home. > > That said, however, I also argue that any partnership understanding, > of any kind, method or not, is disclosable if it might affect the > meaning of a particular call. If I thought it possible that my > agreement to drive partner home after the game might have any bearing > whatsoever on how I might choose to interpret or respond to a call > about which the opponents have inquired, I would be obligated to > reveal it. > +=+ Development of a partnership understanding in respect of a psychic action turns it into a matter of partnership method. The understanding is discloseable and subject to regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 7 09:23:52 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:23:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches References: <4B63940D.9040300@virginmedia.com> <4CBE9F35-C9B3-4BED-BB66-CE875C9D02C9@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches > > If partner becomes aware of your "psyching habits", then, as Nigel > says, you aren't psyching at all -- you have an implicit agreement, > subject to any extant regulations regarding methods. But "habits" > are patterns, and a "psyching habit" is *not* the same thing as a > "habit of psyching". > +=+ In itself the distinction is right. However, RA's may require you to fill in details of your psyching tendencies on the System Card. This requirement is authorized by Law 40C1. It is worthy of note here that there is mention of 'undisclosed knowledge'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 7 09:28:03 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:28:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk><4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Alain Gottcheiner] > If the partnership in confronted at the table with a new bidding > sequence, but they both understand it, because they know how > a common partner plays it, is that an agreement ? I'd say not ; > but surely that's a common understanding. > +=+ It is a mutual awareness. See Law 40A1(a). ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 7 09:42:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:42:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com><4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com><0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net><7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred><4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn Let's try a test case on a (perhaps!) non-controversial subject. Using normal methods, opener bids 1NT, and responder has game-only values and 4333 shape with a 4-card major. Some people bid a direct 3NT here, while others use Stayman. I suppose still others decide on a hand-by-hand basis which to do. >> 1. Must both members of a partnership adopt the same choice in this matter? > No. They are not playing different methods: regardless of who bids it, 2C asks about majors (with the same responses) and 3NT is to play, showing no interest in partner's majors. The circumstances under which one might choose one approach or the other is a matter of style or judgment. +=+ Agreed +=+ > 2. Is opener required to know which choice his partner habitually adopts? > No. +=+ But he may do so and if he does it is knowledge he must disclose. +=+ > 3. If opener does know responder's usual choice (or method of choosing), is he obliged to disclose it? > Yes. +=+ Agreed +=+ > >> 4. If opener knows but fails to disclose (perhaps not having been asked), is the 2C or 3NT bid illegal? > > Failure to disclose cannot make a particular bid illegal, +=+ Not wholly true. If RA's regulations require prior disclosure and this is not done Law 40A3 kicks in. Use of the call is then illegal. +=+ ........................................................................................ From jjlbridge at free.fr Sun Feb 7 13:21:44 2010 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:21:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Please rule In-Reply-To: <869734.65661.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <869734.65661.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7e7228821002070421m513433adu780272597365ab6e@mail.gmail.com> 2010/2/7 Ted Ying > > For clarification, the auction without symbols: > West ? North ? East ? South > -- ? ? ? -- ? ? ? -- ? ? ? Pass > 1NT ? ?2H(1) ? 3C(2) ?Pass > 3H(3) ?Pass ? ?4H ? ? ?PP > First, I agree with the comment that you really need to determine what the actual > agreements were and what other options (besides 3H) were available to West. ?One > would presume that there would be some option that would show hearts with a > spade stopper. ?However, I do agree that with both West and East giving the same > explanation on either side of screens suggests that this was the actual agreement > and that West has chosen to violate agreement for some reason. ?My guess is that > West was making a tactical call trying to protect the SK by right-siding the contract. > The supposition here is that the bid to show hearts with a spade stopper would > possibly or even definitely transfer the declarer to East and would expose the SK to > the immediate finesse, so that West opted to protect the king by bidding hearts > first regardless of the consequences of denying the stopper. It seems *highly* unlikely that a system which seems carefully crafted would not let opener play in H when he shows Hs and a stopper. But having himself 5H, W does not consider playing in NT (whereas the point of the system seems to be that it allows E to choose between 3NT and 4H), hence the 3H bid. Now this implies that the real meaning of 3H might very well be "Hs, and I don't want to play in NT" rather than what was alerted, even if the players themselves are not aware of it. So I think it is idfficult to find out what the real agreement is (tendencies to open 1NT with a 5 card major might be relevant), although usually the same alert on both side is a very strong clue. So I won't decide on MI or not without further inquiry. If MI, then damage, but I let other BLMLers decide what the adjusted score should be... Jean-Jacques. -- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 7 13:55:10 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:55:10 -0000 Subject: [BLML] leading References: Message-ID: <6F5B72E070014A4BBEEF753D8C693BEA@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:26 AM Subject: [BLML] leading > This is, in a way, the same question I asked about Beijing. > > At Sao Paulo, the Beijing revision of L20F1 was discussed. It was decided > not to change anything. > > Did Grattan point out to the board members that this revision disentitled > players from asking about insufficient bids? > > And if not, why not? < +=+ I find this comment and question confusing. In exactly what situation does the player wish to ask about an insufficient bid? What would he then ask? The minute of 2008 does no more than emphasize the wording in the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sun Feb 7 13:56:38 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:56:38 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim In-Reply-To: <8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com><4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com><0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net><7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred><4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net> <8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of clubs. No one else has any more hearts. Declarer leads a low club from the dummy. RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the trick, as LHO discards a diamond. Declarer thereupon claims the last two tricks. LHO realizes he revoked and he failed to play the kings of clubs at trick 11. Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the rest, but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the occurred immediately before the claim? It is not entirely clear that the laws, as they now stand, explicitly cover this eventuality. (My best guess is that after the claim play stops, so the revoke can no longer be corrected.... But I'm far from 100% certainty that this is correct.) -Bob From craigstamps at comcast.net Sun Feb 7 15:40:02 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:40:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com><4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com><0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net><7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred><4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net><8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> Message-ID: <001201caa803$6f02e770$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Actually, you have a fouled board here with two kings of clubs. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim > Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of clubs. > No one else has any more hearts. Declarer leads a low club from the > dummy. RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the trick, as LHO > discards a diamond. Declarer thereupon claims the last two tricks. LHO > realizes he revoked and he failed to play the kings of clubs at trick 11. > > Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the rest, > but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the occurred > immediately before the claim? It is not entirely clear that the laws, > as they now stand, explicitly cover this eventuality. (My best guess is > that after the claim play stops, so the revoke can no longer be > corrected.... But I'm far from 100% certainty that this is correct.) > > -Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 7 15:56:18 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:56:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim In-Reply-To: <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com><4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com><0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net><7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred><4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net><8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> Message-ID: <3BB8CBB32181482C8EC12AE73F2457F5@erdos> Assuming that LHO has the ace of clubs rather than a second king, he must correct his revoke if he discovers it before it becomes established (Law 62A), and it becomes established if one of the defenders acquiesces to declarer's claim (Law 63A3). Declarer's claim at trick 12 does not establish the revoke by itself, so LHO can correct his revoke if he announces the revoke before RHO officially acquiesces to the claim by facing his cards or putting his hand back in the board. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim > Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of clubs. > No one else has any more hearts. Declarer leads a low club from the > dummy. RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the trick, as LHO > discards a diamond. Declarer thereupon claims the last two tricks. LHO > realizes he revoked and he failed to play the kings of clubs at trick 11. > > Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the rest, > but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the occurred > immediately before the claim? It is not entirely clear that the laws, > as they now stand, explicitly cover this eventuality. (My best guess is > that after the claim play stops, so the revoke can no longer be > corrected.... But I'm far from 100% certainty that this is correct.) > > -Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 7 16:11:55 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:11:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com> <4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com> Message-ID: <4B6ED83B.4020409@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [DALB] > > Well, suppose Herman and I play our long-awaited (though not necessarily by > me) first game together next week. There are two passes to Herman, who opens > 1H. I know that Herman has either some high cards and some hearts, or any > 0-3 points. My opponents do not know this. > > [HdW] > > Something which, at this moment, amounts to misinformation. > > [DALB] > > (1) What, at this point in the auction, are my duties under L40 (and any > other Laws that may occur to you)? > > [HdW] > > You might want to tell them this. And then again, you would not, accepting a > ruling of misinformation after the facts. > > [DALB] > > I don't propose to quote the whole of Law 40 here, but I fail to see how my > duties under it are in any way optional. Put simply: if my partner bids 1H > and I know for a fact that he has either a 1H opening or any 0-3 points, > because he will always (subject to position at the table and vulnerability) > open 1H with either hand type, then (however I have come to know this) I > must inform my opponents, because they also are entitled to know it. Indeed, > they were entitled to know it before my partner made his call; moreover, > they are also entitled to know that if my partner passes in a position where > 1H would be either natural or 0-3, my partner has at least 4 hcp. > > [HdW] > > He should rule that this is a legal method, as long as the psyche is > precisely that: a psyche. The question is whether it is a psyche or a > method. You have, so far, not given any indication it is a method, other > than your knowledge of my psyching tendencies. > > [DALB] > > There is some distinction here that I do not follow, but that is not > surprising because I do not think anyone follows it. Terminology has become > sloppy, beginning with the "controlled psyche" that formed part of the > "methods" of some top American players for many years. There is no such > thing as, and there never was any such thing as, a "controlled psyche"; the > term is and always was self-contradictory, like a "triangular circle". > > However, we now have some definition in the Laws of what a "psychic call" > is; it is: > > "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit > length". > > Now, if 1H always shows 10 or more points and four or more hearts, then to > open 1H with a balanced three count is a psyche. But for Herman, 1H always > (see above) shows either: 10 or more points and four or more hearts; or any > hand with 0-3 points. No David, your logic deserts you. For Herman, an opening of 1H means that he has either one or the other, but it "shows" 13 points in the sense that he tells David that that is what he has. > When he opens 1H with a 3=2=4=4 Yarborough, then, he > is not psyching; he is merely bidding according to his methods. If I know > his methods (as I do), then if I play with him, his methods are our methods > and are subject to the rules on disclosure both in advance and at the table, > and are also subject to local regulation as to their legality. > > I do not have to give any indication that the H1H is a "method" other than > my "knowledge of Herman's psyching tendencies"; it is precisely my knowledge > of Herman's tendency to open 1H on worthless hands that "indicates" that > such an opening is part of his (and therefore our) "methods". > > This, though, should be said: if Herman and I ever do play together, I shall > instruct him not to open 1H on 0-3. Of course, he is then entirely free to > do so. > Which is, of course, a very good indication why to ban someone from repeating any psyche is not a good idea. BTW, I just came back from Sanremo, where during a pairs tournament four out of 17 opponents asked my partner if I had opened 1He already... So I psyched on the last board in a totally different manner, raising my partner's 1Di to 2Di on 1 point and 1 diamond. his 3Di got doubled by a guy who held only AK10xxx of diamonds, but his partner was not able to stay in the contract. We finished fourth overall, a fact that my partner - our good friend David Stevenson - rates higher than the fact that he finished the week on top of all, and a new EBL TD. Congratulations, David, on both counts! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 7 16:32:14 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:32:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches In-Reply-To: <4CBE9F35-C9B3-4BED-BB66-CE875C9D02C9@starpower.net> References: <4B63940D.9040300@virginmedia.com> <4CBE9F35-C9B3-4BED-BB66-CE875C9D02C9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B6EDCFE.5000002@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Eric Landau] >> I very much doubt that Grattan and Richard are all the way into the >> Don Oakie camp -- he was the president of the ACBL in the 1970s who >> dedicated himself to the "psychs are cheating and have no place in >> bridge" campaign. Perhaps they are comfortable, though, with the >> compromise struck at the time in the ACBL between Mr. Oakie and the >> authors of L40, which has since been characterized as the ACBL's "one >> psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. >> >> [Nigel] >> I hope that Eric Landau and Co soon run out of straw for their psychic >> straw-men. Grattan and Richard simply quote the law. The law does not >> prevent you from psyching. If partner becomes aware of your "psyching" >> habits, however, then you aren't *psyching* at all -- you have an >> implicit agreement that should be disclosed. The rules bear no other >> interpretation. > > All true. The point I've been trying to make in this discussion is > rather subtler than that. > > Disclosure isn't an issue. Opponents are entitled to know whatever > you know about your partner's bidding that they don't, whether you > call it an "implicit agreement" or not. The question on the table is > whether the so-called "psych", by virtue of the fact that you have > disclosable knowledge the opponents lack, becomes a "method" subject > to the regulations determining which methods you're allowed to play. > > If partner becomes aware of your "psyching habits", then, as Nigel > says, you aren't psyching at all -- you have an implicit agreement, > subject to any extant regulations regarding methods. But "habits" > are patterns, and a "psyching habit" is *not* the same thing as a > "habit of psyching". > > If you know that your partner likes to open 1H on any balanced hand > with 0-3 HCP, that is a "habit" (i.e. a pattern), and your knowledge > of it makes it a "method", which may be banned or otherwise regulated. > > But if all you know it that your partner likes to psych in > unpredictable ways in unpredictable situations, that is not a > pattern, and your knowledge of it -- notwithstanding that it is > unarguably disclosable -- does not make it a "method" which may be > banned or controlled. > The problem with this distinction is that it cannot exist, as a distinction. Whether or not I perform other psyches does not alter the fact that the H1H is one of them, and that on a 1H opener, partner, and opponents are aware of the possibility of its specifics. If I also open 1D when holding 16-17 and a three-suiter, that is another psyche that they could know about. It still alters nothing about the H1H. Therefore, to make a distinction like the one Eric suggests does not help us. Indeed, suppose this happens at the table, and you wish, as director, to gather evidence. Even if psycher is not a liar, you will not get more than "yes, I did this before". Now what? It's easy enough to give that knowledge to opponents and rule if they have been damaged by their non-knowledge of it. But it's totally impossible to deduce from "I did it before" that this is a method rather than a psyche. Or let's rephrase that: if you rule my psyche a method, then you must do so for every single psyche. And that is the imfamous ACBL-one-psyche-per)lifetime rule. Herman. > Others may differ with my conclusions, but I don't think we can > discuss the issue productively unless we recognize this difference. > indeed, we must find a difference between a psyche with some disclosable knowledge and a non-psyche. But "I've done this before" is not it. Herman. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 7 16:38:51 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:38:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6EDE8B.9060701@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > President Muffley: > > "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is The War Room!" > > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >> If you know that your partner likes to open 1H on any balanced hand >> with 0-3 HCP, that is a "habit" (i.e. a pattern), and your knowledge >> of it makes it a "method", which may be banned or otherwise >> regulated. >> >> But if all you know it that your partner likes to psych in >> unpredictable ways in unpredictable situations, that is not a >> pattern, and your knowledge of it -- notwithstanding that it is >> unarguably disclosable -- does not make it a "method" which may be >> banned or controlled. >> >> Others may differ with my conclusions, but I don't think we can >> discuss the issue productively unless we recognize this difference. > > Richard Hills: > > I differ with "unarguably disclosable". Indeed, I argue against it. > > In my opinion, it is only pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit > partnership understandings (i.e. partnership "methods") which are > disclosable. > And now we know why Richard and I are having this discussion. Richard believes that only non-psyches are disclosable. I believe that knowledge about psyches are also disclosable. Rather than discuss that particular issue, Richard grabs on something else: Since I happen to disclose something which he finds non-disclosable, he deduces from that disclosure that it is disclosable, hence systemic, hence not a psyche. In there, there is a logical fallacy which Richard should recognize: a false negative. Disclosable things will be disclosed. I disclose my H1H. Therefore, my H1H is disclosable, and thus forbidden. But this is clearly a mistake. So Richard, can we drop the mistake and argue whether or not the fact that I have perpetrated a similar psyche 20 times in 10 years (this might be a good guess) makes this a method or not? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 7 16:52:37 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:52:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Craig] > Steve, it's not what he meany that is important. Directors were never > intended to possess crystal balls. > > [Grattan] > +=+ Ah! Another dream shattered. +=+ > > [Nigel] IMO... > Whether or not the director has crystal balls, he should disallow the > claim, according to current law. If the claimer is an expert and the > director judges that the claimer is on fishing expedition to find the > knave, then the director should impose an additional penalty. > How can this be a fishing expedition? I guess we will all rule a trick to the defence if LHO did indeed falsecard and has the jack. Therefore claiming without saying is exactly the same as claiming that he'll finesse again. This claimer did ONE thing wrong, and only one thing: he failed to recognize that taking a trick with the king does not mean one does not have the jack. So he should have said "I'll finesse again". I am 100% confident that he meant to finesse, and will rule three tricks to him. Herman. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 7 16:55:36 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:55:36 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim In-Reply-To: <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com><4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com><0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net><7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred><4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net><8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Geller" Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 06:56 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim > Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of clubs. > No one else has any more hearts. Declarer leads a low club from the > dummy. RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the trick, as LHO > discards a diamond. Declarer thereupon claims the last two tricks. LHO > realizes he revoked and he failed to play the kings of clubs at trick 11. > > Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the rest, > but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the occurred > immediately before the claim? It is not entirely clear that the laws, > as they now stand, explicitly cover this eventuality. (My best guess is > that after the claim play stops, so the revoke can no longer be > corrected.... But I'm far from 100% certainty that this is correct.) > > -Bob Confucius say, 'When declarer and LHO both play CK on the same trick someone Wong.' Should declarer's 11th card turn out to be a small club the Established Revoke Man might be summoned. regards roger pewick From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Feb 7 17:49:14 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:49:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B6EEF0A.3050101@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] IMO... Whether or not the director has crystal balls, he should disallow the claim, according to current law. If the claimer is an expert and the director judges that the claimer is on fishing expedition to find the knave, then the director should impose an additional penalty. [Herman De Wael] How can this be a fishing expedition? I guess we will all rule a trick to the defence if LHO did indeed falsecard and has the jack. Therefore claiming without saying is exactly the same as claiming that he'll finesse again. This claimer did ONE thing wrong, and only one thing: he failed to recognize that taking a trick with the king does not mean one does not have the jack. So he should have said "I'll finesse again". I am 100% confident that he meant to finesse, and will rule three tricks to him. [Nige1] Thank you for taking me up on the "Fishing Expedition" point, Herman, because it seems to have passed over the heads of other BLMLers :( Suppose declarer finesses the ten, LHO wins with the king, declarer claims, and LHO calls the director, who examines the hands. [A] Suppose that LHO has won, routinely, with the King from KJ or KJx. Declarer says to Herman "My unstated intention when I made my claim is irrelevant. Now, I cannot be allowed to take a non-proven finesse. Hence I'm forced to play for the drop and make the contract." [B] Suppose LHO's original holding was Kx or Kxx. Now Declarer says to Herman. "My claim when the ten forced the king, demonstrates that I thought the finesse was proven so my incontrovertible intention was to repeat it. Notice that, in case B, naive defenders may not even call the director. From craigstamps at comcast.net Sun Feb 7 17:56:26 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:56:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred><4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> But he did NOT SAY it. You are reading his mind or accepting a post facto intention. He was careless enough to fail to make a proper claim statement. Let us therefore assume that he would be careless enough to take the inferior line of play...whatever it may be. He gets the benefit of the doubt over what rational line he may have follwed ONLY if he states it. Otherwise he deserves the least favourable result that any normal line of play could have obtained. It is NOT irrational to play the 3-3 split...just not very good bridge. Of course if the finesse FAILS, then he might be assumed to have played it that way for it is surely a rational line as well. Give the defence a trick. Let the claimer state his intention or pay the price. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling > Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> [Craig] >> Steve, it's not what he meany that is important. Directors were never >> intended to possess crystal balls. >> >> [Grattan] >> +=+ Ah! Another dream shattered. +=+ >> >> [Nigel] IMO... >> Whether or not the director has crystal balls, he should disallow the >> claim, according to current law. If the claimer is an expert and the >> director judges that the claimer is on fishing expedition to find the >> knave, then the director should impose an additional penalty. >> > > How can this be a fishing expedition? > I guess we will all rule a trick to the defence if LHO did indeed > falsecard and has the jack. > Therefore claiming without saying is exactly the same as claiming that > he'll finesse again. > This claimer did ONE thing wrong, and only one thing: he failed to > recognize that taking a trick with the king does not mean one does not > have the jack. > So he should have said "I'll finesse again". I am 100% confident that he > meant to finesse, and will rule three tricks to him. > > Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 7 18:05:33 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:05:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <4B6EEF0A.3050101@yahoo.co.uk> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk><4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> <4B6EEF0A.3050101@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <7166D767C4064883844CA6147D3333E4@erdos> Nigel's Line A doesn't work. The claim laws do not specify a finesse, but rather a normal line of play which requires one defender rather than the other to hold a specific card. If declarer's unstated intention is not clear, he cannot win either the drop or the finesse, so if LHO has falsecarded, declarer loses the trick unless he states that he is playing for the drop; finessing is a normal line of play. I would rulefor the declarer in Line B, because the timing of declarer's claim indicates that he believed he had a winning finesse. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling > [Nigel] IMO... > Whether or not the director has crystal balls, he should disallow the > claim, according to current law. If the claimer is an expert and the > director judges that the claimer is on fishing expedition to find the > knave, then the director should impose an additional penalty. > > [Herman De Wael] > How can this be a fishing expedition? I guess we will all rule a trick > to the defence if LHO did indeed falsecard and has the jack. Therefore > claiming without saying is exactly the same as claiming that he'll > finesse again. This claimer did ONE thing wrong, and only one thing: he > failed to recognize that taking a trick with the king does not mean one > does not have the jack. So he should have said "I'll finesse again". I > am 100% confident that he meant to finesse, and will rule three tricks > to him. > > [Nige1] > Thank you for taking me up on the "Fishing Expedition" point, Herman, > because it seems to have passed over the heads of other BLMLers :( > > Suppose declarer finesses the ten, LHO wins with the king, declarer > claims, and LHO calls the director, who examines the hands. > > [A] Suppose that LHO has won, routinely, with the King from KJ or KJx. > Declarer says to Herman "My unstated intention when I made my claim is > irrelevant. Now, I cannot be allowed to take a non-proven finesse. Hence > I'm forced to play for the drop and make the contract." > > [B] Suppose LHO's original holding was Kx or Kxx. Now Declarer says to > Herman. "My claim when the ten forced the king, demonstrates that I > thought the finesse was proven so my incontrovertible intention was to > repeat it. > > Notice that, in case B, naive defenders may not even call the director. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 7 18:23:32 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:23:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred><4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> <000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <002001caa81a$462e83b0$d28b8b10$@com> [Craig] You are reading his mind or accepting a post facto intention. He was careless enough to fail to make a proper claim statement. Let us therefore assume that he would be careless enough to take the inferior line of play...whatever it may be. He gets the benefit of the doubt over what rational line he may have follwed ONLY if he states it. [DALB] Yes, but what is a "rational line"? I repeat here the OED's definition: "irrational (adj) Contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly illogical, absurd." But whose reason? If I am adjudicating a claim made by player X, I (who have known defenders to falsecard before) may consider that a line catering for a falsecard is rational. X (who has never known defenders to falsecard before) may think it unreasonable, utterly illogical and absurd to play a defender for the jack after that defender has won the nine with the king. The question left unresolved by the claim Laws, and one of the many flaws within those Laws, is the point of view from which rationality is to be judged - the claimer's or the judges'. If one says that it is "rational" for a player to entertain the possibility of a falsecard even though the player does not have the experience or the nous actually to entertain that possibility... well, one is not behaving entirely rationally. David Burn London, England From gampas at aol.com Sun Feb 7 18:45:01 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:45:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling Message-ID: <8CC7634681DF017-4700-18383@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> [DALB] Yes, but what is a "rational line"? I repeat here the OED's definition:"irrational (adj) Contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly illogical, absurd." But whose reason? If I am adjudicating a claim made by player X, I (who have known defenders to falsecard before) may consider that a line catering for a falsecard is rational. X (who has never known defenders to falsecard before) may think it unreasonable, utterly illogical and absurd to play a defender for the jack after that defender has won the nine with the king. The question left unresolved by the claim Laws, and one of the many flaws within those Laws, is the point of view from which rationality is to be judged - the claimer's or the judges'. If one says that it is "rational" for a player to entertain the possibility of a falsecard even though the player does not have the experience or the nous actually to entertain that possibility... well, one is not behaving entirely rationally. [lamford] I agree that the main issue (as with very many claims) is what is rational. It seems to me that playing the best line (not bad bridge as someone else stated) of cashing the queen (in the example of AT8x opposite Q9x after a low card towards the 9 has brought the king) cannot be classed as utterly illogical or absurd. Nor unreasonable, which implies much the same thing. It can, as David argues, indeed be "not in accordance with reason for this particular declarer". The problem with all Laws, and this is not restricted to Bridge Laws, is that common words permit more than one interpretation. My belief of the intention of the laws - which go out of their way to prevent an unstated finesse - is that the alternative lines would have to be absurd for the finesse to be permitted. In this case, the only absurd line is to lead the queen and play the ace from the other hand (and even that succeeds over 10% of the time). But, because the other three lines are in the fifties, there is only one line that can be classed as absurd. In another thread others discussed JTx opposite AQ9x (with no entry to the latter hand). Is declarer permitted to continue with a third round finesse because he would not consider the possibility of someone ducking with Kxx. And what if declarer now has 12 tricks in 6NT at IMPs. Would to try for 13 by repeating a known finesse be careless? No, irrational must be interpreted as absurd or utterly illogical. One the basis that any doubt is against the claimant, any doubt of the meaning of irrational must be so decided as well. Where DALB and I agree is that the claim Law can be improved. Starting with better definitions. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 7 19:26:48 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 18:26:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <8CC7634681DF017-4700-18383@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CC7634681DF017-4700-18383@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <002101caa823$1cab23a0$56016ae0$@com> [PL] It seems to me that playing the best line (not bad bridge as someone else stated) of cashing the queen (in the example of AT8x opposite Q9x after a low card towards the 9 has brought the king) cannot be classed as utterly illogical or absurd [DALB] Of course it can. It would be the right play against Zia, but it would be an utterly illogical and absurd play against Zizi (those who do not know her may be able to infer something about her standard from the foregoing). Circumstances alter cases, which is why these Laws are contrary to reason, utterly illogical and indeed absurd. [PL] No, irrational must be interpreted as absurd or utterly illogical. [DALB] Of course it must; since there is no definition in the Laws, the dictionary prevails in the absence of local regulation (but the task of making local regulations is shirked by most). Again, though, what A finds absurd B may find reasonable, and neither may be objectively wrong. [PL] On the basis that any doubt is against the claimant, any doubt of the meaning of irrational must be so decided as well. [DALB] I am not sure I agree with the notion that doubts as to the meaning of the Laws (of which there should be none, but no one seems to have told the WBFLC that) should be resolved by simply applying them in favour of one side or the other. Rather, one should determine what the Laws mean for everyone, and then apply them to particular cases. David Burn London, England From geller at nifty.com Sun Feb 7 19:47:49 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:47:49 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim In-Reply-To: References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com><4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com><0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net><7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred><4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net><8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> Message-ID: <4B6F0AD5.4030500@nifty.com> Sorry, LHO had the ACE of clubs which LHO failed to play on the king, revoking instead (by playing a diamond, following which declarer claimed. -bob Roger Pewick ????????: > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Robert Geller" > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 06:56 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim > >> Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of clubs. >> No one else has any more hearts. Declarer leads a low club from the >> dummy. RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the trick, as LHO >> discards a diamond. Declarer thereupon claims the last two tricks. LHO >> realizes he revoked and he failed to play the kings of clubs at trick 11. >> >> Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the rest, >> but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the occurred >> immediately before the claim? It is not entirely clear that the laws, >> as they now stand, explicitly cover this eventuality. (My best guess is >> that after the claim play stops, so the revoke can no longer be >> corrected.... But I'm far from 100% certainty that this is correct.) >> >> -Bob > > Confucius say, 'When declarer and LHO both play CK on the same trick someone > Wong.' > > Should declarer's 11th card turn out to be a small club the Established > Revoke Man might be summoned. > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 20:00:18 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:00:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim In-Reply-To: <4B6F0AD5.4030500@nifty.com> References: <0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net> <7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred> <4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net> <8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> <4B6F0AD5.4030500@nifty.com> Message-ID: On 7 February 2010 19:47, Robert Geller wrote: > Sorry, LHO had the ACE of clubs which LHO failed to play on the king, > revoking instead (by playing a diamond, following which declarer claimed. As others already pointed out: Unless someone agreed to the claim, the revoke is not established, and should be corrected. Giving LHO his CA trick. If someone agreed to the claim, the revoke is established, and declarer gets the last three tricks. > > -bob > > Roger Pewick ????????: >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Robert Geller" >> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 06:56 >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim >> >>> Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of clubs. >>> ?No one else has any more hearts. ?Declarer leads a low club from the >>> dummy. ?RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the trick, as LHO >>> discards a diamond. ?Declarer thereupon claims the last two tricks. ?LHO >>> realizes he revoked and he failed to play the kings of clubs at trick 11. >>> >>> Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the rest, >>> but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the occurred >>> immediately before the claim? ?It is not entirely clear that the laws, >>> as they now stand, explicitly cover this eventuality. ?(My best guess is >>> that after the claim play stops, so the revoke can no longer be >>> corrected.... ?But I'm far from 100% certainty that this is correct.) >>> >>> -Bob >> >> Confucius say, 'When declarer and LHO both play CK on the same trick someone >> Wong.' >> >> Should declarer's 11th card turn out to be a small club the Established >> Revoke Man might be summoned. >> >> regards >> roger pewick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- > Robert (Bob) Geller, ? Tokyo, Japan ? ? geller at nifty.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 7 21:06:10 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:06:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <4B6EEF0A.3050101@yahoo.co.uk> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> <4B6EEF0A.3050101@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B6F1D32.1020905@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nigel] IMO... > Whether or not the director has crystal balls, he should disallow the > claim, according to current law. If the claimer is an expert and the > director judges that the claimer is on fishing expedition to find the > knave, then the director should impose an additional penalty. > > [Herman De Wael] > How can this be a fishing expedition? I guess we will all rule a trick > to the defence if LHO did indeed falsecard and has the jack. Therefore > claiming without saying is exactly the same as claiming that he'll > finesse again. This claimer did ONE thing wrong, and only one thing: he > failed to recognize that taking a trick with the king does not mean one > does not have the jack. So he should have said "I'll finesse again". I > am 100% confident that he meant to finesse, and will rule three tricks > to him. > > [Nige1] > Thank you for taking me up on the "Fishing Expedition" point, Herman, > because it seems to have passed over the heads of other BLMLers :( > > Suppose declarer finesses the ten, LHO wins with the king, declarer > claims, and LHO calls the director, who examines the hands. > > [A] Suppose that LHO has won, routinely, with the King from KJ or KJx. > Declarer says to Herman "My unstated intention when I made my claim is > irrelevant. Now, I cannot be allowed to take a non-proven finesse. Hence > I'm forced to play for the drop and make the contract." > What kind of nonsense is that? The rule is not that a claimer cannot take a finesse - the rule is that if the finesse is right, he should play for the drop, and when it is wrong, he should play for it! So your potential player would be very wrong in saying this to any director who knows his laws, and who would simply answer "no sir, you are not allowed to take a line the chance of which depends on the non-known position of some card". You are not allowed to play for the drop here. > [B] Suppose LHO's original holding was Kx or Kxx. Now Declarer says to > Herman. "My claim when the ten forced the king, demonstrates that I > thought the finesse was proven so my incontrovertible intention was to > repeat it. > > Notice that, in case B, naive defenders may not even call the director. > Because this declarer has stated, in a round-about way, that he's going to finesse. It has become part of his claim statement and if defender false-carded, he's taking another trick. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 7 21:13:07 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:13:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred><4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> <000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <4B6F1ED3.8070003@skynet.be> craig wrote: > But he did NOT SAY it. You are reading his mind or accepting a post facto > intention. Yes, and what is so wrong with that? Are you not 100% certain that this declarer intends to finesse? If you are not, then OK, you can rule against him. I am 100% certain he's finessing, so I'll rule in his favour. Please rule on that basis, and not on the basis that "if you don't say it, you're wrong". The laws do not support such a draconic view. > He was careless enough to fail to make a proper claim statement. Yes, so? With arguments like that, you can rule against any claim. "You did not say you would not start AKQJT92 from the top, so I'll rule as if you've started with the two." If you think this example is stupid, it is just because you are 100% certain that he'll start from the top. I'm 100% certain the other claimer would finesse. Criticise that certainty if you please, but don't say ludicrous things like "he failed to make a proper claim statement". And don't use the "sloppy claim statement" as evidence for sloppy play. If you are in doubt as to how a claimer will play, then tell him: you have not taken away my doubts. But if you are not in doubt, don't rule against him. > Let us therefore assume that he would be careless enough to take the > inferior line of play...whatever it may be. No, that is not a correct assumption. Being careless in claim statements does not equal to being careless in playing. > He gets the benefit of the doubt > over what rational line he may have follwed ONLY if he states it. IMO, this claimer has stated his intention. I'm 100% certain of what that intention is. > Otherwise > he deserves the least favourable result that any normal line of play could > have obtained. It is NOT irrational to play the 3-3 split...just not very > good bridge. Of course if the finesse FAILS, then he might be assumed to > have played it that way for it is surely a rational line as well. Give the > defence a trick. Let the claimer state his intention or pay the price. > That sentence is right - if there is a price to be paid. Here, there is no price, so you cannot let him play it. > Craig > Herman. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 21:23:18 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:23:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <4B6F1ED3.8070003@skynet.be> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> <4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> <000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4B6F1ED3.8070003@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 7 February 2010 21:13, Herman De Wael wrote: > craig wrote: >> But he did NOT SAY it. You are reading his mind or accepting a post facto >> intention. > > Yes, and what is so wrong with that? Are you not 100% certain that this > declarer intends to finesse? If you are not, then OK, you can rule > against him. I am 100% certain he's finessing, so I'll rule in his > favour. Please rule on that basis, and not on the basis that "if you > don't say it, you're wrong". The laws do not support such a draconic view. > >> He was careless enough to fail to make a proper claim statement. > > Yes, so? > With arguments like that, you can rule against any claim. "You did not > say you would not start AKQJT92 from the top, so I'll rule as if you've > started with the two." > If you think this example is stupid, it is just because you are 100% > certain that he'll start from the top. I'm 100% certain the other > claimer would finesse. Criticise that certainty if you please, but don't > say ludicrous things like "he failed to make a proper claim statement". > > And don't use the "sloppy claim statement" as evidence for sloppy play. > If you are in doubt as to how a claimer will play, then tell him: you > have not taken away my doubts. But if you are not in doubt, don't rule > against him. > >> Let us therefore assume that he would be careless enough to take the >> inferior line of play...whatever it may be. > > No, that is not a correct assumption. Being careless in claim statements > does not equal to being careless in playing. > >> He gets the benefit of the doubt >> over what rational line he may have follwed ONLY if he states it. > > IMO, this claimer has stated his intention. I'm 100% certain of what > that intention is. > >> Otherwise >> he deserves the least favourable result that any normal line of play could >> have obtained. It is NOT irrational to play the 3-3 split...just not very >> good bridge. Of course if the finesse FAILS, then he might be assumed to >> have played it that way for it is surely a rational line as well. Give the >> defence a trick. Let the claimer state his intention or pay the price. >> > > That sentence is right - if there is a price to be paid. Here, there is > no price, so you cannot let him play it. > Agree 100% with Herman here. >> Craig >> > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Feb 7 21:30:40 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:30:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Revoke_not_established=3F_correctable=3F_a?= =?iso-8859-15?q?fter_claim?= In-Reply-To: References: <0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net> <7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred> <4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net> <8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> <4B6F0AD5.4030500@nifty.com> Message-ID: <1NeDmC-0Tqd960@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> I suggest to read the law(s). Law 63 A3: "A revoke becomes established: [...] 3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way." Law 69 A: "Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent?s claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. [...]" So, here 1 trick to defenders, 2 tricks to declarer. From: Harald Skj?ran > On 7 February 2010 19:47, Robert Geller wrote: > > Sorry, LHO had the ACE of clubs which LHO failed to play on the > > king, revoking instead (by playing a diamond, following which > > declarer claimed. > > > > As others already pointed out: Unless someone agreed to the claim, the > revoke is not established, and should be corrected. Giving LHO his CA > trick. If someone agreed to the claim, the revoke is established, and > declarer gets the last three tricks. > > > > -bob > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > From: "Robert Geller" > > > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 06:56 > > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > > Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim > > > > > > > > > > Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of > > > > clubs. > > > > ?No one else has any more hearts. ?Declarer leads a low club > > > > from the dummy. ?RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the > > > > trick, as LHO discards a diamond. ?Declarer thereupon claims the > > > > last two tricks. ?LHO realizes he revoked and he failed to play > > > > the ace of clubs at trick 11. > > > > > > > > Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the > > > > rest, but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the > > > > occurred immediately before the claim? ?It is not entirely clear > > > > that the laws, as they now stand, explicitly cover this > > > > eventuality. ?(My best guess is that after the claim play stops, > > > > so the revoke can no longer be corrected.... ?But I'm far from > > > > 100% certainty that this is correct.) > > > > -Bob From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 21:36:47 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:36:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim In-Reply-To: <1NeDmC-0Tqd960@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred> <4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net> <8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> <4B6F0AD5.4030500@nifty.com> <1NeDmC-0Tqd960@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On 7 February 2010 21:30, Peter Eidt wrote: > I suggest to read the law(s). > > Law 63 A3: > "A revoke becomes established: > [...] > 3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or > concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way." > > Law 69 A: > "Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent?s > claim > or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a > call > on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. > [...]" > > So, here 1 trick to defenders, 2 tricks to declarer. You're right. And after re-reading the OP, it seems clear that there in fact wasn't even an agreement to the claim. > > > From: Harald Skj?ran >> On 7 February 2010 19:47, Robert Geller wrote: >> > Sorry, LHO had the ACE of clubs which LHO failed to play on the >> > king, revoking instead (by playing a diamond, following which >> > declarer claimed. >> > >> >> As others already pointed out: Unless someone agreed to the claim, the >> revoke is not established, and should be corrected. Giving LHO his CA >> trick. If someone agreed to the claim, the revoke is established, and >> declarer gets the last three tricks. >> > >> > -bob >> > > -------------------------------------------------- >> > > From: "Robert Geller" >> > > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 06:56 >> > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> > > Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim >> > > >> > > >> > > > Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of >> > > > clubs. >> > > > ?No one else has any more hearts. ?Declarer leads a low club >> > > > from the dummy. ?RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the >> > > > trick, as LHO discards a diamond. ?Declarer thereupon claims the >> > > > last two tricks. ?LHO realizes he revoked and he failed to play >> > > > the ace of clubs at trick 11. >> > > > >> > > > Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the >> > > > rest, but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the >> > > > occurred immediately before the claim? ?It is not entirely clear >> > > > that the laws, as they now stand, explicitly cover this >> > > > eventuality. ?(My best guess is that after the claim play stops, >> > > > so the revoke can no longer be corrected.... ?But I'm far from >> > > > 100% certainty that this is correct.) >> > > > -Bob > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 7 22:00:42 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:00:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com><4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com><0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net><7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred><4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net><8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred><4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> <3BB8CBB32181482C8EC12AE73F2457F5@erdos> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim Assuming that LHO has the ace of clubs rather than a second king, he must correct his revoke if he discovers it before it becomes established (Law 62A), and it becomes established if one of the defenders acquiesces to declarer's claim (Law 63A3). Declarer's claim at trick 12 does not establish the revoke by itself, so LHO can correct his revoke if he announces the revoke before RHO officially acquiesces to the claim by facing his cards or putting his hand back in the board. <<< +=+ Regarding the minute from Bermuda 2000, concerning Law 63A3, someone remarked in San Remo that a reference to Law 68B2 clarifies that no concession occurs, hence no claim and no establishment of the revoke, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 7 22:37:10 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:37:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Mike Carlton, Sydney Morning Herald 6th February 2009, article on Lord Monckton: [big snip] Polar bear populations are increasing. Yes, but not because the planet is cooling, as Monckton and his barmy bloggers would have you believe. Bans and quotas on hunting have pushed numbers back up. But where the polar ice cap is melting, the bears are in big trouble. In Canada's Western Hudson Bay, for example, the population has dropped 22 per cent since the 1980s, and the animals are smaller and weaker. [big snip] Adam Wildavsky: "As far as I know there is no one on the LC who interprets 12C1(b) as you [Marvin French] do ..... " Richard Hills: As far as I know there is no one on the ACBL LC who bothers to do a little research to test their opinion. Perhaps Adam Wildavsky should be replaced on the ACBL LC by Lord Monckton, whose one-eyed views have the redeeming feature of being entertaining. :-) WBF Code of Practice, clarifying explanation (with example) of Law 12C1(b): If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke. See Law 12C1(b). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Feb 7 22:54:04 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:54:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <7166D767C4064883844CA6147D3333E4@erdos> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk><4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> <4B6EEF0A.3050101@yahoo.co.uk> <7166D767C4064883844CA6147D3333E4@erdos> Message-ID: <4B6F367C.9070708@yahoo.co.uk> [David Grabiner] Nigel's Line A doesn't work. The claim laws do not specify a finesse, but rather a normal line of play which requires one defender rather than the other to hold a specific card. If declarer's unstated intention is not clear, he cannot win either the drop or the finesse, so if LHO has falsecarded, declarer loses the trick unless he states that he is playing for the drop; finessing is a normal line of play. I would rule for the declarer in Line B, because the timing of declarer's claim indicates that he believed he had a winning finesse. [Nigel] I've already stated: in my opinion, according to current law *neither* of the "justifications" by the player of his claim should be accepted by the director. Furthermore, the director may impose an additional penalty if he suspects the claimer may have been on a *fishing expedition*. Both lines are rational, so if either line fails, then that is the one that the director should impose. What if the director were forced to rule what line to follow without knowing who holds the knave? Then Line A does seem more in keeping with the law. David's Line B depends for success on RHO holding a specific card when [a] From the play, there is no certainty that RHO holds it. [b] The claim statement made no mention of a finesse. I doubt that even law-makers know what the law means by "irrational" in this context but I hope that the claimer himself is not the arbiter of what is rational. The case is basic and the facts agreed. Once again, however, BLML is fairly evenly spit between contradictory interpretations of current law. Yet few seem to be clamouring for legal simplification :( [TFLB L70EE1] Unstated Line of Play. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 7 23:31:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:31:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The layout of the Lawbook has not changed since the 1975 ACBL reformat of the International Code. And much of the arcane language of the Lawbook has not changed since 1963. But the impenetrable nature of the Lawbook does not matter to newbies to the game; they do not learn Duplicate Bridge by reading the Lawbook, but rather by taking a set of lessons. On the other hand... In the past decade there has been an explosion of "German" or "Euro" or "family strategy" board games. Spouses and/or their children regularly try out new games. To effectively do so, the rules must be easy to understand. A consensus has evolved that one of the best way to present rules is to have the main rule on the leftmost two-thirds of the page, with an example of the main rule in practice on the rightmost one-third. So if the 2018 Lawbook finally abandoned the 1975 layout, we might see -> Law 12C1(b) II WBF CoP Example II If, subsequent to the irregularity, the II A revoke by the the non-offending side has contributed II innocent side to its own damage by a serious error II subsequent to the (unrelated to the infraction) or by II infraction will wild or gambling action it does not II affect its own receive relief in the adjustment for II score but again such part of the damage as is self- II the infractor's inflicted. The offending side should be II score is to be awarded the score that it would have II adjusted as before been allotted as the consequence of its II without regard to infraction only. II the revoke. -> and we might see obtuse authorities, for example members of the ACBL Laws Commission, correctly interpret the Lawbook. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 7 23:47:48 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:47:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred><4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be><000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <002001caa81a$462e83b0$d28b8b10$@com> Message-ID: <68EA187F3F0D45C7BE470F3BC30DF6E1@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling > The question left unresolved by the claim Laws, and one of the many flaws within those Laws, is the point of view from which rationality is to be judged - the claimer's or the judges'. If one says that it is "rational" for a player to entertain the possibility of a falsecard even though the player does not have the experience or the nous actually to entertain that possibility... ...well, one is not behaving entirely rationally. > +=+ My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, objectively examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the principles of reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the Director to make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's decision is questioned. Law 70E1 does not say "....would be irrational for the player concerned. " It concerns itself with irrationality in absolute terms. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 8 01:21:58 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:21:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Art of Being Lucky [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>AG : if my partner had read Victor Mollo, as many of mine are, I >>would expect him not to trust points, and pushing it to the >>limit when he feels lucky (and reciprocally when he doesn't). >>That is disclosable. Thomas Dehn: >It would never occur to me to push when I feel lucky and >reciprocally when I don't. If you "disclosed" that when playing >with me, that would be MI. Richard Hills: The famous book co-authored by Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo, "Card Play Technique", has as its sub-title "The Art of Being Lucky". But obviously Alain Gottcheiner has misunderstood Victor Mollo's definition of "luck". Luck is not Walter the Walrus trying to succeed via a 50% finesse. Luck, rather, is the Hideous Hog ignoring the finesse and instead taking the alternative 100% show- up squeeze for success (so thus H.H. drops the offside singleton king with 100% confidence). Oprah Winfrey (1954 - ), 21st February 1991: "Luck is preparation meeting opportunity." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 8 02:14:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:14:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >BLMLers may be especially interested in my comments on case 17. Richard Hills: And I am especially interested in noting that Adam Wildavsky was also the Appeals Committee Chair for case 17. English blmler Paul Lamford was prohibited by EBU regulation from publicly commenting on a case in which he was the Appeals Committee Chair. Such a regulation, while contrary to the ACBL tradition of support for the First Amendment, helps maintain an aura of impartiality for an Appeals Committee Chair. Appealing side, point 3 of their case: >>Had South been correctly informed, it would have meant that >>West would have also have known the E/W agreement and would >>have bid more cautiously. Appeals Committee, >>E/W's third point was dismissed as irrelevant as a matter of >>law. Richard Hills: West opened 1H and East responded 3S. West gave MI that East held a singleton spade, preventing South from making a lead-directing double (since South could only make lead-directing doubles of artificial calls which were not necessarily singletons) to show South's king of spades. The actual East-West understanding was that East held heart support and any of the three singletons. But West's error also caused West to misbid / overbid to 6H due to West thinking that most of his values were working. If West had given correct information (i.e. remembered the system) that East held any singleton, West would have also remembered to discover which singleton, and thus West would have found huge duplication of values when East's singleton diamond was opposite West's AKJ of diamonds. Ergo, I agree with Appeals Committee Chair Wildavsky that the table score of East-West 6H +1430 cannot stand. But I disagree with Appeals Committee Chair Wildavsky that the score adjustment should be to East-West 6H -100. Rather, the correction of the MI necessarily has as a consequence the correction of the misbid, so the correct adjusted score should have been East-West 4H +650. "Irrelevant as a matter of law" can only be correct if the Law assumes West to have given an accurate explanation, then also assumes West immediately forgets the accurate explanation. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 8 06:22:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:22:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Andre Maurois (1885 - 1967): "Growing old is no more than a bad habit which a busy man has no time to form." Eric Landau: >>If partner becomes aware of your "psyching habits", then, as >>Nigel says, you aren't psyching at all -- you have an implicit >>agreement, subject to any extant regulations regarding methods. >> >>But "habits" are patterns, and a "psyching habit" is *not* the >>same thing as a "habit of psyching". Grattan Endicott: >+=+ In itself the distinction is right. However, RA's may require >you to fill in details of your psyching tendencies on the System >Card. This requirement is authorized by Law 40C1. It is worthy >of note here that there is mention of 'undisclosed knowledge'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: My vote is for "in itself the distinction is wrong". WBF Code of Practice, one criterion testing pseudo-psyches: "(c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or..." Richard Hills: In my opinion, a "habit of pseudo-psyching" is the same thing (an implicit understanding pursuant to Law 40C1) as a "pseudo-psyching habit", since in both cases "partner is clearly aware of the tendency". And if partner was unaware of the tendency, then obviously partner would not have any undisclosed knowledge to disclose. Which is why, in my opinion, true psyches have to be much rarer than most psyche-happy blmlers would prefer. A true psyche need not be "once in a lifetime". But it does need to be rare enough that partner assumes that the 601 psyche-free boards you have played in the past three months mean that you are a reformed character. In that case partner disclosing your "psychic tendencies" to bunny opponents would be very confusing MI, as they would start taking strange actions by assuming that almost every call of yours may be a psyche, despite the fact that another 299 boards may pass before your next psyche. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Mon Feb 8 06:34:37 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 00:34:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <694eadd41002072134v432a80d7n6ebc0f3615a2cc4f@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:37 PM, wrote: > > Mike Carlton, Sydney Morning Herald 6th February 2009, article on Lord > Monckton: > > [big snip] > > Polar bear populations are increasing. Yes, but not because the planet is > cooling, as Monckton and his barmy bloggers would have you believe. I would be astonished if Lord?Monckton has claimed the globe is cooling. > Adam Wildavsky: > > "As far as I know there is no one on the LC who interprets 12C1(b) as you > [Marvin French] do ..... " > > Richard Hills: > > As far as I know there is no one on the ACBL LC who bothers to do a little > research to test their opinion. ?Perhaps Adam Wildavsky should be replaced > on the > ACBL LC by Lord Monckton, whose one-eyed views have the redeeming feature > of > being entertaining. ?:-) I agree,?Lord Monckton is an immensely entertaining speaker. I think you you find in due course that his views on climate change are dead on. BLML is not the place to discuss this, though. If anyone is interested I'll be happy to start a list for that purpose. > > WBF Code of Practice, clarifying explanation (with example) of Law 12C1(b): > > If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by wild or > gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part > of > the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be > awarded > the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its > infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will > affect > its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before > without > regard to the revoke. > See Law 12C1(b). The current COP makes no mention of this: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/appeals/codeofpractice.asp I think you must be referring to an obsolete version, but that version surely does not refer to 12C1(b), which came into existence only in 2007. That said, if Marv's interpretation has substantial support then I'll certainly put it on the ACBL LC's agenda, for New Orleans if not Reno. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Feb 8 06:40:23 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 00:40:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd41002072140i6029069eke7d198052f9eb168@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:31 PM, wrote: > So if the 2018 Lawbook finally abandoned the 1975 layout, we > might see -> > > Law 12C1(b) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? II WBF CoP Example I agree, examples would be immensely helpful. > we might see obtuse authorities, for example members of > the ACBL Laws Commission, correctly interpret the Lawbook. I don't think name calling will help your cause. Do you suppose the ACBL LC intentionally misinterprets the clear intent of the laws? -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 8 06:48:13 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:48:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL Appeals Committee: >E/W's third point was dismissed as irrelevant as a matter >of law. Law 93B - Appeals Committee Available If a committee is available, 1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law..... ..... 3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law..... Richard Hills: Did the ACBL Appeals Committee consult the Director in charge about E/W's third point? Or did the ACBL Appeals Committee instead reveal itself to be irrelevant in matters of Law 93B? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 8 07:03:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:03:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd41002072140i6029069eke7d198052f9eb168@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>we might see obtuse authorities, for example members of >>the ACBL Laws Commission, correctly interpret the Lawbook. Adam Wildavsky: >I don't think name calling will help your cause. Do you >suppose the ACBL LC intentionally misinterprets the clear >intent of the laws? Pocket Oxford Dictionary: obtuse, a. slow of perception Richard Hills: Nothing in that dictionary definition about _intentional_ misperceptions. Adam Wildavsky: >The current COP makes no mention of this: Richard Hills: The Code of Practice was revised in October 2008, and can be found on Anna Gudge's website at: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/laws_appeals/default.asp see the top of page six. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Mon Feb 8 07:07:16 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 01:07:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com> Richard raises three issues. First, I will not comment on whether I should comment on cases I chaired. Second, regarding Law?93B, the table TD ruled as the AC did, and the screening director did not change that ruling. Both must have interpreted that law as the AC did. The AC knew this, and so had no reason to consult the TD. Had we been in doubt we would have done so. That said, I believe that all ACs ought to report their decision and reasoning to the TD before they report it to the appellants, so as to be certain 93B is followed. I am looking into instituting this for ACBL ACs as a matter of policy. Third, I disagree when Richard writes: > "Irrelevant as a matter of law" can only be correct if the Law?assumes > West to have given an accurate explanation, then also?assumes West > immediately forgets the accurate explanation. ?:-) NS could be properly informed in a number of ways that would not involve West remembering his agreement. They might see the info on the EW convention card, or read it in their system notes, or simply through familiarity with EW or their methods know their system better than EW do themselves. This argument is sometimes known as "Kaplan's magic explainer", -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Feb 8 07:21:23 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 01:21:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd41002072140i6029069eke7d198052f9eb168@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd41002072221pf5207c5g3c1e59eb7b299e5b@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:03 AM, wrote: > > The Code of Practice was revised in October 2008, and can be > found on Anna Gudge's website at: > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/laws_appeals/default.asp > see the top of page six. Curious! I had looked at the WBF version, per the link I posted. It does not have the exact text you quoted, which can be found only in the version on Anna's site, but does have something with the same meaning. Since the WBF COP seems to support Marvin's interpretation I will suggest putting this on an upcoming ACBL LC agenda. When examples are given I prefer that they include actual scores and number of tricks. Ideally they would include deals and auctions too. Even with the COP clarification it is not 100% clear to me what the law's intent is in the situation where an illegally bid slam makes only because of a revoke. Perhaps I am obtuse. So be it -- the laws ought to be written in as clear a fashion as possible. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 08:49:10 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:49:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 8 February 2010 07:07, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Richard raises three issues. > > First, I will not comment on whether I should comment on cases I chaired. > > Second, regarding Law?93B, the table TD ruled as the AC did, and the > screening director did not change that ruling. Both must have > interpreted that law as the AC did. The AC knew this, and so had no > reason to consult the TD. Had we been in doubt we would have done so. > That said, I believe that all ACs ought to report their decision and > reasoning to the TD Hmm, is it common practice in ACBL that AC's report their decisions to the players? That's very strange. WBF and EBL AC's report their decisions to the TD, who's responsible for informing the players/captains. As far as I know, this practice is universal, except for the ACBL (I might easily be wrong here, since I haven't played in most countries. But that's the practice wherever I have played.) Apart from being practical, this ensures that the TD can make sure any decision from an AC is legal. > before they report it to the appellants, so as to > be certain 93B is followed. I am looking into instituting this for > ACBL ACs as a matter of policy. > > Third, I disagree when Richard writes: > >> "Irrelevant as a matter of law" can only be correct if the Law?assumes >> West to have given an accurate explanation, then also?assumes West >> immediately forgets the accurate explanation. ?:-) > > NS could be properly informed in a number of ways that would not > involve West remembering his agreement. They might see the info on the > EW convention card, or read it in their system notes, or simply > through familiarity with EW or their methods know their system better > than EW do themselves. This argument is sometimes known as "Kaplan's > magic explainer", > > -- > Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Feb 8 09:06:38 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:06:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2734BAB2-23C3-428D-B142-17E332A56A6F@btinternet.com> On 8 Feb 2010, at 01:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > the correction of the > MI necessarily has as a consequence the correction of the misbid, Unless I have misunderstood this, it is just wrong. We are entitled to the benefit of the correct information even when the opponents have forgotten it, but they do not get the same benefit. We adjust on the basis of the NOS having the correct information and the OS continuing with their misapprehensions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100208/c9dc8993/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 10:17:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:17:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B6FD6C6.1020008@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > e, that would be MI. > > > >>> Now, you could say "I know he has read Victor Mollo, >>> and in the Hog's system this 3NT bid shows that he wants >>> to play the hand, and it does not show anything about >>> his hand". Does that help opponents? Can they rely on it? >>> What happens or should happen if partner actually >>> had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? >>> >>> >>> >> AG : do you mean that, if you alert Stayman because partner could hold a >> limit hand without any major, and he turns up having one (or both), >> you've given MI ? >> > > I mean that if your agreement is Stayman, and you > have no actual agreement on whether partner > can hold a limit hand without any major, and you > alert partner's 2C stating that he cannot have > a limit hand without any major (because you > know he read the book of expert X who claims > that is the best way to play), and partner actually > has a limit hand without any major, then I will rule MI. > > Or, in the other direction. > > Partner bis 2C, stayman. AG alerts, and informs > opponents that partner can have a limit hand > without any major, because AG knows that > partner read the book of expert Y who claims > that is the best way to play. Bidding proceeds, at the end > of the hand, partner says "Alain, I cannot have a > limit hand without any major. With than hand, > I decide between passing and bidding 3NT. > Didn't you read the book of expert Z?" > Opponents then call the TD. > > But that's not the point. I mean that' in the Hog's case, partner should alert opponents on the possibility of an unexpected hand. Surely the Hog wouldn't gainsay that. So, to your question : What happens or should happen if partner actually had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? I answer "nothing". Because if there are several possibilities, one at least will NOT happen, so this is the normal course of things. Exactly as, in the case when partner had opened 2C (weak with diamonds or strong), and you explained it, and partner happens to have the strong hand indeed, nothing would happen. But if you don't explain it, and partner has the weak type, that's MI. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 8 10:13:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:13:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd41002072134v432a80d7n6ebc0f3615a2cc4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <310CB7091E5546F19247081F6C60359E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:37 PM, wrote: > > > WBF Code of Practice, clarifying explanation (with example) of Law > 12C1(b): > > If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by wild or > gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such > part > of > the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be > awarded > the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of > its > infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction > will > affect > its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before > without > regard to the revoke. > See Law 12C1(b). The current COP makes no mention of this: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/appeals/codeofpractice.asp I think you must be referring to an obsolete version, but that version surely does not refer to 12C1(b), which came into existence only in 2007. +=+ The relevant words in the 2008 CoP are in the paragraph headed 'Score adjustment' on pages 3-4. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml at arcor.de Mon Feb 8 10:29:11 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:29:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6FD6C6.1020008@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B6FD6C6.1020008@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <33123275.1265621351940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > e, that would be MI. > > > > > > > >>> Now, you could say "I know he has read Victor Mollo, > >>> and in the Hog's system this 3NT bid shows that he wants > >>> to play the hand, and it does not show anything about > >>> his hand". Does that help opponents? Can they rely on it? > >>> What happens or should happen if partner actually > >>> had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> AG : do you mean that, if you alert Stayman because partner could hold a > > >> limit hand without any major, and he turns up having one (or both), > >> you've given MI ? > >> > > > > I mean that if your agreement is Stayman, and you > > have no actual agreement on whether partner > > can hold a limit hand without any major, and you > > alert partner's 2C stating that he cannot have > > a limit hand without any major (because you > > know he read the book of expert X who claims > > that is the best way to play), and partner actually > > has a limit hand without any major, then I will rule MI. > > > > Or, in the other direction. > > > > Partner bis 2C, stayman. AG alerts, and informs > > opponents that partner can have a limit hand > > without any major, because AG knows that > > partner read the book of expert Y who claims > > that is the best way to play. Bidding proceeds, at the end > > of the hand, partner says "Alain, I cannot have a > > limit hand without any major. With than hand, > > I decide between passing and bidding 3NT. > > Didn't you read the book of expert Z?" > > Opponents then call the TD. > > > > > But that's not the point. I mean that' in the Hog's case, partner should > alert opponents on the possibility of an unexpected hand. > Surely the Hog wouldn't gainsay that. > > So, to your question : > > What happens or should happen if partner actually > had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? > > > I answer "nothing". Because if there are several possibilities, one at > least will NOT happen, so this is the normal course of things. > > Exactly as, in the case when partner had opened 2C (weak with diamonds > or strong), and you explained it, and partner happens to have the strong > hand indeed, nothing would happen. > But if you don't explain it, and partner has the weak type, that's MI. No, that is not the same. You don't know whether partner is hogging sometimes. You only know that he read Mollo's books. It is the same as if you would explain 2C as weak with diamonds or strong, but the only thing you actually know is that partner will open 2C with a strong hand. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 10:31:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:31:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Art of Being Lucky [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6FD9FD.7060004@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >>> AG : if my partner had read Victor Mollo, as many of mine are, I >>> would expect him not to trust points, and pushing it to the >>> limit when he feels lucky (and reciprocally when he doesn't). >>> That is disclosable. >>> > > Thomas Dehn: > > >> It would never occur to me to push when I feel lucky and >> reciprocally when I don't. If you "disclosed" that when playing >> with me, that would be MI. >> > > Richard Hills: > > The famous book co-authored by Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo, > "Card Play Technique", has as its sub-title "The Art of Being > Lucky". > > But obviously Alain Gottcheiner has misunderstood Victor Mollo's > definition of "luck". AG : in fact, I was speaking of Mollo's chapter "Lady Luck, the art of seduction", in "The finer arts of bridge". One of its ideas is to act in a way that would seem superstitious, but which is based on the fact that your current "luck" is an indicator of your current form and, as such, could be used to evaluate your chances of success in the next risky endeavours. This idea has also been expounded by Zia (I don't know the English name, but in French it is known as "la loi des trois ?tats de Zia").. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 10:37:16 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:37:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <33123275.1265621351940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6FD6C6.1020008@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <33123275.1265621351940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B6FDB4C.1060600@ulb.ac.be> Thom > No, that is not the same. > You don't know whether partner is hogging sometimes. > You only know that he read Mollo's books. > > It is the same as if you would explain 2C as weak with diamonds > or strong, but the only thing you actually know is that partner will > open 2C with a strong hand. > > AG: I see. There are too many characters in Mollo to know which one partner would try to emulate when he says to you "I've read Mollo and apply it". The question seemed to be "If partner has Hoggish tendencies, and you alert it, and he didn't hog, what would happen ?" BTW, I've read dozens of system books and most of them I don't apply. But if partner said to you that he read X's book and loved it, paetnership understanding is already ther. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 8 10:39:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:39:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6FDBB5.5010600@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Which is why, in my opinion, true psyches have to be much rarer > than most psyche-happy blmlers would prefer. A true psyche need > not be "once in a lifetime". But it does need to be rare enough > that partner assumes that the 601 psyche-free boards you have > played in the past three months mean that you are a reformed > character. I play, on average, 4 times a week, that's something like 600 boards per month. I psyche, on average, 2 times a year, that's something like 1 every 3600 boards. Is my psyching frequency rare or not? Yet, I don't believe that there is "nothing to declare". You should not criticize people for wanting to tell their opponents more than what you, Richard Hills, considers what they ought to be told. > In that case partner disclosing your "psychic > tendencies" to bunny opponents would be very confusing MI, as they > would start taking strange actions by assuming that almost every > call of yours may be a psyche, despite the fact that another 299 > boards may pass before your next psyche. > or even another 3599. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Herman. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Feb 8 11:29:07 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:29:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim In-Reply-To: <1NeDmC-0Tqd960@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net><7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred> <4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net><8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower. net><8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com><4 B6F0AD5.4030500@nifty.com> <1NeDmC-0Tqd960@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B6FE773.20502@meteo.fr> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Robert Geller" >>>> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 06:56 >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim >>>> >>>> >>>>> Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of >>>>> clubs. >>>>> No one else has any more hearts. Declarer leads a low club >>>>> from the dummy. RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the >>>>> trick, as LHO discards a diamond. Declarer thereupon claims the >>>>> last two tricks. LHO realizes he revoked and he failed to play >>>>> the ace of clubs at trick 11. what is lho's 3d card? CQ? a lower club? another diamond? a spade? jpr >>>>> >>>>> Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the >>>>> rest, but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the >>>>> occurred immediately before the claim? It is not entirely clear >>>>> that the laws, as they now stand, explicitly cover this >>>>> eventuality. (My best guess is that after the claim play stops, >>>>> so the revoke can no longer be corrected.... But I'm far from >>>>> 100% certainty that this is correct.) >>>>> -Bob > _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Feb 8 11:37:13 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:37:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6FE959.1010106@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Adam Wildavsky: > >> BLMLers may be especially interested in my comments on case 17. > > Richard Hills: > > And I am especially interested in noting that Adam Wildavsky was > also the Appeals Committee Chair for case 17. > > English blmler Paul Lamford was prohibited by EBU regulation from > publicly commenting on a case in which he was the Appeals > Committee Chair. Such a regulation, while contrary to the ACBL > tradition of support for the First Amendment, helps maintain an > aura of impartiality for an Appeals Committee Chair. > > Appealing side, point 3 of their case: > >>> Had South been correctly informed, it would have meant that >>> West would have also have known the E/W agreement and would >>> have bid more cautiously. > > Appeals Committee, > >>> E/W's third point was dismissed as irrelevant as a matter of >>> law. > > Richard Hills: > > West opened 1H and East responded 3S. > > West gave MI that East held a singleton spade, preventing South > from making a lead-directing double (since South could only make > lead-directing doubles of artificial calls which were not > necessarily singletons) to show South's king of spades. > > The actual East-West understanding was that East held heart > support and any of the three singletons. > > But West's error also caused West to misbid / overbid to 6H due > to West thinking that most of his values were working. If West > had given correct information (i.e. remembered the system) that > East held any singleton, West would have also remembered to > discover which singleton, and thus West would have found huge > duplication of values when East's singleton diamond was opposite > West's AKJ of diamonds. > > Ergo, I agree with Appeals Committee Chair Wildavsky that the > table score of East-West 6H +1430 cannot stand. But I disagree > with Appeals Committee Chair Wildavsky that the score adjustment > should be to East-West 6H -100. Rather, the correction of the > MI necessarily has as a consequence the correction of the misbid, > so the correct adjusted score should have been East-West 4H +650. > > "Irrelevant as a matter of law" can only be correct if the Law > assumes West to have given an accurate explanation, then also > assumes West immediately forgets the accurate explanation. :-) the assumption is that south gets an accurate explanation, not that west gives an accurate explanation. jpr > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -- _______________________________________________ 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 nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Feb 8 12:16:07 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:16:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> [Adam Wildavsky] ... I believe that all ACs ought to report their decision and reasoning to the TD before they report it to the appellants, so as to be certain 93B is followed. I am looking into instituting this for ACBL ACs as a matter of policy. [Nigel] Whenever I've served on an AC, we've done that. Adam's excellent suggestion should be enshrined as correct protocol in TFLB. IMO, TFLB should also define explicit guidelines for an AMWM. At least all the conditions below should be met ... [A] The AC makes exactly the same ruling as the TD and for the same reasons. [B] The ruling is unanimous and the decision to award an AMWM is unanimous. [C] The appellants refused an appeals advisor (or screening director or whatever) *or* on recorded facts, the advisor advised against the appeal. [D] The TD did not appeal his own decision. (In the light of BLML controversies, directors should often appeal their own decision in last-ditch attempts to resolve long-running controversies about interpreting the law-book. The WBF could approve key AC decisions and publish them as case-law paradigms). From posundelin at yahoo.se Mon Feb 8 13:16:19 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:16:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Please rule -- solution? In-Reply-To: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <960405.32623.qm@web23702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I?m back (Terminators) ? Both players alerted. They explained the same way.?Is that not proof enough? To me it is clearcut. Result stands. Check system notes when explanations differ and only very VERY rarely otherwise. ? How can there be differing answers to this question in such a distinguished flock (pack, school??) as the BLM? Are laws, codes of practise, instructions, regulations so unclear that rulings become flips of coins. ? However, this was not from real life unless exam cases at TD courses count. But sensibly it was?taken out of contest?(I?m told everybody got full points whatever they had answered) when it was discovered that the "right" answer was supposed to be some kind of score modification. ? ? As a matter of complete uninterest...IF the case hade been one for score modification; what weights should have been given? Some spade leads = presumably the 11 tricks taken, some club leads = 10 or 11 (or 9??). Some diamond leads = a few? 11, several 10, a few 9?? ? ? --- Den l?r 2010-02-06 skrev PO Sundelin : Fr?n: PO Sundelin ?mne: [BLML] Please rule Till: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Datum: l?rdag 6 februari 2010 12.53 ?I was told this: ? 4 ? ? ? ? ? AQJ98 K 93 K9863 K6 AQ863 AT84 Q4 T74 T974 KQJ AT5 532 J52 7652 J72 West???????? North????? East????? South ? ? ?pass? ?1NT? ?2H1? ?3C2? ?pass? ?3H3? ?pass? ?4H? ?pass? ?pass? ?pass? 1 Shows spades 2 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper? 3 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper? (yes, the same, no misclick) ?North led the spade ace, West made 11 tricks. Other leads may result in 11, 10 or 9 tricks. North calls TD, and complains; he wouldn?t have led the spade ace if he had known that West had the king that he had denied during the bidding. ? Please rule! Those of you who recognize the board DO NOT comment. "I?ll be back" (Terminator 1,2,3) ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? __________________________________________________ Anv?nder du Yahoo!? ?r du tr?tt p? spam? Yahoo! E-post har det b?sta spamskyddet som finns http://se.mail.yahoo.com -----Infogad bilaga f?ljer----- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________________________________________________ Anv?nder du Yahoo!? ?r du tr?tt p? spam? Yahoo! E-post har det b?sta spamskyddet som finns http://se.mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100208/0a5c6bcb/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 8 14:16:35 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:16:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Please rule -- solution? In-Reply-To: <960405.32623.qm@web23702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <960405.32623.qm@web23702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B700EB3.3050907@skynet.be> PO Sundelin wrote: > I?m back (Terminators) > > Both players alerted. They explained the same way. Is that not proof enough? > To me it is clearcut. Result stands. No it is not (proof enough). One also needs to ask why the player diverted from his system. If he responds something like "I had a spade among my clubs", and we believe him, then there is no problem. If he gives an answer like "I tactically decided not to show my stopper", we may rule MI based on the omission "except when he does not want to show it". But sometimes we shall find that he really has no method of showing the hearts with a spade stopper, or that he does not want to use that method in the particular circumstances shown. I have meanwhile been told that the complete system would be: 3Di showing hearts with the stopper, 3Sp showing neither, and 3NT showing just the stopper, so his normal bid should be 3Di. If, for whatever reason, he does not want to bid this, then that reason ought to be told to the opponents. This amounts to misinformation. So you see, it is not as simple as you suggest. > Check system notes when explanations differ and only very VERY rarely > otherwise. > This case came from the exam in Sanremo. That means this is an example of something very rare. Hence you should not criticize. > How can there be differing answers to this question in such a > distinguished flock (pack, school??) as the BLM? Are laws, codes of > practise, instructions, regulations so unclear that rulings become flips > of coins. > No PO, they don't. Most of the disagreement on blml comes from people readin different things into texts written by people with agendas. The writers leave out some things they find unmportant, the readers extrapolate, and they sometimes do so in different ways. When a committee hears just one version, the members usually agree (as you are quite aware) and when the case is then told outside the courtroom, the versions that are told don't resemble the situation as presented inside, and the ruling is ridiculed. OK? Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 14:22:17 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:22:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Please rule -- solution? In-Reply-To: <960405.32623.qm@web23702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <960405.32623.qm@web23702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B701009.6030201@ulb.ac.be> PO Sundelin a ?crit : > I?m back (Terminators) > > Both players alerted. They explained the same way. Is that not proof > enough? > To me it is clearcut. Result stands. > Check system notes when explanations differ and only very VERY rarely > otherwise. > > How can there be differing answers to this question in such a > distinguished flock (pack, school??) as the BLM? > Covey. Criticizing umpiring is like shooting on sitting birds. Most of the times (and I plead guilty too), when the case seems less obvious after running on BLML, that's because either a) somebody has a personal position and sticks to it - not very probable here b) somebody misread the wording. But surely, if you asked the question, that's because the answer wasn't that obvious ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 14:23:56 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:23:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Please rule -- solution? In-Reply-To: <4B700EB3.3050907@skynet.be> References: <960405.32623.qm@web23702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4B700EB3.3050907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B70106C.5050301@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > PO Sundelin wrote: > >> I?m back (Terminators) >> >> Both players alerted. They explained the same way. Is that not proof enough? >> To me it is clearcut. Result stands. >> > > No it is not (proof enough). > One also needs to ask why the player diverted from his system. > AG : I don't see this obligation written anywhere. BTW, if he answers "I felt it right", the case is closed, as long as the explanation was correct. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 14:27:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:27:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Please rule -- solution? In-Reply-To: <4B700EB3.3050907@skynet.be> References: <960405.32623.qm@web23702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4B700EB3.3050907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B70112B.2050409@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > PO Sundelin wrote: > >> I?m back (Terminators) >> >> Both players alerted. They explained the same way. Is that not proof enough? >> To me it is clearcut. Result stands. >> > > No it is not (proof enough). > One also needs to ask why the player diverted from his system. > If he responds something like "I had a spade among my clubs", and we > believe him, then there is no problem. > If he gives an answer like "I tactically decided not to show my > stopper", we may rule MI based on the omission "except when he does not > want to show it". > No, we may not. If it means "no stopper", that's what should have been said. The fact that sometimes one finds useful to deviate from one's system is 1) well-known 2) allowed From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 8 15:46:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:46:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <0E0DD22D-FB37-451A-B40A-21A683BB4EF4@starpower.net> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> Alain Gottcheiner Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> Example. your partner has read Victor Mollo. >>> Are you supposed to explain partner's systematically >>> undefined bidding according to the Rueful Rabbit's bidding >>> rules? I don't think so. >> >> AG : if my partner had read Victor Mollo, as many of mine are, I >> would >> expect him not to trust points, and pushing it to the limit when he >> feels lucky (and reciprocally whe nhe doesn't). That is disclosable. > > It would never occur to me to push when I feel lucky > and reciprocally when I don't. If you > "disclosed" that when playing with me, that would be MI. > >>> Now, you could say "I know he has read Victor Mollo, >>> and in the Hog's system this 3NT bid shows that he wants >>> to play the hand, and it does not show anything about >>> his hand". Does that help opponents? Can they rely on it? >>> What happens or should happen if partner actually >>> had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? >> >> AG : do you mean that, if you alert Stayman because partner could >> hold a >> limit hand without any major, and he turns up having one (or both), >> you've given MI ? > > I mean that if your agreement is Stayman, and you > have no actual agreement on whether partner > can hold a limit hand without any major, and you > alert partner's 2C stating that he cannot have > a limit hand without any major (because you > know he read the book of expert X who claims > that is the best way to play), and partner actually > has a limit hand without any major, then I will rule MI. > > Or, in the other direction. > > Partner bis 2C, stayman. AG alerts, and informs > opponents that partner can have a limit hand > without any major, because AG knows that > partner read the book of expert Y who claims > that is the best way to play. Bidding proceeds, at the end > of the hand, partner says "Alain, I cannot have a > limit hand without any major. With than hand, > I decide between passing and bidding 3NT. > Didn't you read the book of expert Z?" > Opponents then call the TD. I am confident that Alain would know better than to make an entirely inappropriate leap from what he knows his partner has read to what he assumes his partner could have. Disclosure is easy; you just tell what you know. "We have no agreement, but I do know that pard has read expert Y, who advocates bidding 2C on a limit hand with no major, so it's possible that he might have that hand." No MI there. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Mon Feb 8 15:47:03 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:47:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred><4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be><000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><002001caa81a$462e83b0$d28b8b10$@com> <68EA187F3F0D45C7BE470F3BC30DF6E1@Mildred> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred><4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be><000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><002001caa81a$462e83b0$d28b8b10$@com> <68EA187F3F0D45C7BE470F3BC30DF6E1@Mildred> Message-ID: Amen! Kojak > The question left unresolved by the claim Laws, and one of the many flaws within those Laws, is the point of view from which rationality is to be judged - the claimer's or the judges'. If one says that it is "rational" for a player to entertain the possibility of a falsecard even though the player does not have the experience or the nous actually to entertain that possibility... ...well, one is not behaving entirely rationally. > +=+ My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, objectively examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the principles of reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the Director to make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's decision is questioned. Law 70E1 does not say "....would be irrational for the player concerned. " It concerns itself with irrationality in absolute terms. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100208/5fd0b03a/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 8 15:59:45 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:59:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Please rule In-Reply-To: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <30846.24210.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7CD533D0-050D-43A9-8A86-B3277292D9A1@starpower.net> On Feb 6, 2010, at 6:53 AM, PO Sundelin wrote: > I was told this: > > 4 > > AQJ98 > K > 93 > K9863 > K6 > AQ863 > AT84 > Q4 > T74 > T974 > KQJ > AT5 > 532 > J52 > 7652 > J72 > > West North East South > pass > 1NT 21 32 pass > 33 pass 4 pass > pass pass > > 1 Shows spades > 2 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade stopper > 3 alerted on both sides, explained as hearts denying a spade > stopper (yes, the same, no misclick) > North led the spade ace, West made 11 tricks. Other leads may > result in 11, 10 or 9 tricks. > North calls TD, and complains; he wouldn?t have led the spade ace > if he had known that West had the king that he had denied during > the bidding. > > Please rule! Those of you who recognize the board DO NOT comment. > "I?ll be back" (Terminator 1,2,3) There's no rule against choosing to misdescribe one's hand. As long as it is true -- and nothing in P.O.'s writeup suggests otherwise -- that West denied holding the SK during the bidding, the fact that he actually held it is immaterial: no infraction, no adjustment, no problem. P.O. and everyone else, please... Plain ASCII text, no graphics, no special characters, no tabs. Thank you. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 16:25:02 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:25:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <0E0DD22D-FB37-451A-B40A-21A683BB4EF4@starpower.net> References: <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <0E0DD22D-FB37-451A-B40A-21A683BB4EF4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B702CCE.5080402@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > >>> Alain Gottcheiner Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> >>> >>>> Example. your partner has read Victor Mollo. >>>> Are you supposed to explain partner's systematically >>>> undefined bidding according to the Rueful Rabbit's bidding >>>> rules? I don't think so. >>>> >>> AG : if my partner had read Victor Mollo, as many of mine are, I >>> would >>> expect him not to trust points, and pushing it to the limit when he >>> feels lucky (and reciprocally whe nhe doesn't). That is disclosable. >>> >> It would never occur to me to push when I feel lucky >> and reciprocally when I don't. If you >> "disclosed" that when playing with me, that would be MI. >> >> >>>> Now, you could say "I know he has read Victor Mollo, >>>> and in the Hog's system this 3NT bid shows that he wants >>>> to play the hand, and it does not show anything about >>>> his hand". Does that help opponents? Can they rely on it? >>>> What happens or should happen if partner actually >>>> had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? >>>> >>> AG : do you mean that, if you alert Stayman because partner could >>> hold a >>> limit hand without any major, and he turns up having one (or both), >>> you've given MI ? >>> >> I mean that if your agreement is Stayman, and you >> have no actual agreement on whether partner >> can hold a limit hand without any major, and you >> alert partner's 2C stating that he cannot have >> a limit hand without any major (because you >> know he read the book of expert X who claims >> that is the best way to play), and partner actually >> has a limit hand without any major, then I will rule MI. >> >> Or, in the other direction. >> >> Partner bis 2C, stayman. AG alerts, and informs >> opponents that partner can have a limit hand >> without any major, because AG knows that >> partner read the book of expert Y who claims >> that is the best way to play. Bidding proceeds, at the end >> of the hand, partner says "Alain, I cannot have a >> limit hand without any major. With than hand, >> I decide between passing and bidding 3NT. >> Didn't you read the book of expert Z?" >> Opponents then call the TD. >> > > I am confident that Alain would know better than to make an entirely > inappropriate leap from what he knows his partner has read to what he > assumes his partner could have. Disclosure is easy; you just tell > what you know. "We have no agreement, but I do know that pard has > read expert Y, who advocates bidding 2C on a limit hand with no > major, so it's possible that he might have that hand." No MI there. > AG : if that was needed. Notice that if my inference about Mr. Y's works was wrong, there could indeed be MI. But that's not the main part of the problem. The main part is that, if I suspected partner's bid to show such-and-such, and didn't mention it, *that* would be MI. I had recently this interesting exchange. LHO is a former partner of mine. Fairly long bidding, using T-Walsh and relay. LHO, before leading : "did I understand the bidding ?" Me : "you did" He did. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Mon Feb 8 17:15:08 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:15:08 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B702CCE.5080402@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B702CCE.5080402@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <0E0DD22D-FB37-451A-B40A-21A683BB4EF4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <9799866.1265645708638.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > >>> Alain Gottcheiner Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>> > >>> > >>>> Example. your partner has read Victor Mollo. > >>>> Are you supposed to explain partner's systematically > >>>> undefined bidding according to the Rueful Rabbit's bidding > >>>> rules? I don't think so. > >>>> > >>> AG : if my partner had read Victor Mollo, as many of mine are, I > >>> would > >>> expect him not to trust points, and pushing it to the limit when he > >>> feels lucky (and reciprocally whe nhe doesn't). That is disclosable. > >>> > >> It would never occur to me to push when I feel lucky > >> and reciprocally when I don't. If you > >> "disclosed" that when playing with me, that would be MI. > >> > >> > >>>> Now, you could say "I know he has read Victor Mollo, > >>>> and in the Hog's system this 3NT bid shows that he wants > >>>> to play the hand, and it does not show anything about > >>>> his hand". Does that help opponents? Can they rely on it? > >>>> What happens or should happen if partner actually > >>>> had some perfectly normal hand, and wasn't hogging? > >>>> > >>> AG : do you mean that, if you alert Stayman because partner could > >>> hold a > >>> limit hand without any major, and he turns up having one (or both), > >>> you've given MI ? > >>> > >> I mean that if your agreement is Stayman, and you > >> have no actual agreement on whether partner > >> can hold a limit hand without any major, and you > >> alert partner's 2C stating that he cannot have > >> a limit hand without any major (because you > >> know he read the book of expert X who claims > >> that is the best way to play), and partner actually > >> has a limit hand without any major, then I will rule MI. > >> > >> Or, in the other direction. > >> > >> Partner bis 2C, stayman. AG alerts, and informs > >> opponents that partner can have a limit hand > >> without any major, because AG knows that > >> partner read the book of expert Y who claims > >> that is the best way to play. Bidding proceeds, at the end > >> of the hand, partner says "Alain, I cannot have a > >> limit hand without any major. With than hand, > >> I decide between passing and bidding 3NT. > >> Didn't you read the book of expert Z?" > >> Opponents then call the TD. > >> > > > > I am confident that Alain would know better than to make an entirely > > inappropriate leap from what he knows his partner has read to what he > > assumes his partner could have. Disclosure is easy; you just tell > > what you know. "We have no agreement, but I do know that pard has > > read expert Y, who advocates bidding 2C on a limit hand with no > > major, so it's possible that he might have that hand." No MI there. > > > AG : if that was needed. > Notice that if my inference about Mr. Y's works was wrong, there could > indeed be MI. Ah, finally. I'm willing to take it from here. > But that's not the main part of the problem. The main part is that, if I > suspected partner's bid to show such-and-such, and didn't mention it, > *that* would be MI. Yes, that, too. Notice the problem now? You just know that partner is aware of certain methods, you don't know whether partner actually uses those methods. If you don't mention it, and partner uses those methods, there could be MI. If you mention it, and partner does not use those methods, there could be MI. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 8 17:18:15 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:18:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appeal without merit Law In-Reply-To: <4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> References: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com> <4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <45DB367FB5B9464FA9E40D08083DEEB4@erdos> "Nigel Guthrie" writes: > IMO, TFLB should also define explicit guidelines for an AMWM. In theory, it would be better if the sponsoring organization determines the guidelines, but people don't read the sponsoring organization regulations, so I agree that it should be in the Laws. > At least all the conditions below should be met ... > > [A] The AC makes exactly the same ruling as the TD and for the same reasons. > [B] The ruling is unanimous and the decision to award an AMWM is unanimous. > [C] The appellants refused an appeals advisor (or screening director or > whatever) *or* on recorded facts, the advisor advised against the appeal. > [D] The TD did not appeal his own decision. (In the light of BLML > controversies, directors should often appeal their own decision in > last-ditch attempts to resolve long-running controversies about > interpreting the law-book. The WBF could approve key AC decisions and > publish them as case-law paradigms). Proposed Law 94, similar to Nigel's guidelines, and also covering other AC penalties: Law 94 - Penalties Imposed by Appeals Committee A. Appeal without Merit An Appeals Committee which determines an appeal to be without merit may impose either a procedural penalty under Law 90 or another sanction as determined by the Regulating Authority. An appeal under any of the following conditions shall be considered to have merit: 1. Any member of the Appeals Committee recommends a ruling which is potentially better for the appellants, or worse for the non-appellants, than the ruling which was appealed. (For example, if the Director's ruling was average-minus, and the Appeals Committee changes that ruling to -420, the ruling was potentially better for the appellants even if -420 scored lower than average-minus.) 2. Any member of the Appeals Committee rules in the appellants' favor on a principal issue under appeal, even if the score is not adjusted, as long as there was a reasonable basis for the score to be adjusted after that issue is resolved. (For example, if the Tournament Director rules that there was no misinformation, and the Appeals Committtee rules that there was misinformation but that the same contract would have been reached with correct information, the appeal should have merit.) 3. Any member of the Appeals Committee believes that the appellants might reasonably have believed they had a case, given their level of ability. 4. The appellants were advised by a neutral third party that they had a case, or withdrew their appeal upon being advised against it by a neutral third party. If a Tournament Director appeals his own ruling, or the appellants consult with a screening director or appeals advisor who does not advise against the appeal, the appeal has merit. B. Procedural Penalties An Appeals Committee has the same powers as the Tournament Director under Law 90 to impose, remove, or modify procedural penalties, including penalties for infractions which occur or are first discovered at the Appeals Committee. If the Tournament Director who imposed, or declined to impose, a procedural penalty was aware of the full facts, the Appeals Committee may only overrule the Tournament Director if it determines that the Tournament Director made an error. C. Penalties Independent from Adjustment The Appeals Committee should achieve equity with the score adjustments given, independent of any procedural penalties imposed. The Appeals Committee may not impose, remove, or modify a procedural penalty in order that the total score achieves equity. (For example, if the Tournament Director ruled no damage but imposed a 1/4 board penalty against the offenders for failure to properly disclose agreements, and the Appeals Committee rules an adjusted score which is a bottom board for the offenders, it may not cancel the 1/4 board penalty on the grounds that a bottom board is sufficient penalty for the infraction.) . From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 8 17:20:10 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:20:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches In-Reply-To: References: <65BC167D-97FB-454E-91F0-259415D77A1A@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> President Muffley: >>> >>> "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is The War Room!" >>> >>> Eric Landau: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> If you know that your partner likes to open 1H on any balanced hand >>>> with 0-3 HCP, that is a "habit" (i.e. a pattern), and your >>>> knowledge >>>> of it makes it a "method", which may be banned or otherwise >>>> regulated. >>>> >>>> But if all you know it that your partner likes to psych in >>>> unpredictable ways in unpredictable situations, that is not a >>>> pattern, and your knowledge of it -- notwithstanding that it is >>>> unarguably disclosable -- does not make it a "method" which may be >>>> banned or controlled. >>>> >>>> Others may differ with my conclusions, but I don't think we can >>>> discuss the issue productively unless we recognize this difference. >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> I differ with "unarguably disclosable". Indeed, I argue against it. >> >> That puts Richard on the horns of an unfortunate dilemma. If you >> know that your partner likes to psych occasionally (but without any >> knowledge of any particular pattern or habit), Richard must argue >> either that partner may not psych any bid that wouldn't be permitted >> as an explicitly agreed method (validating the legality of the "one >> psych per partnership per lifetime rule"), or that you are fully >> entitled to keep that knowledge secret, even if asked it directly by >> your opponents. >> >>> In my opinion, it is only pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit >>> partnership understandings (i.e. partnership "methods") which are >>> disclosable. >>> >>> Law 20F1, second sentence: >>> >>> "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant >>> alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant >>> inferences from the choice of action where these are **matters of >>> partnership understanding**." >>> >>> Law 40A1(b), first sentence: >>> >>> "Each partnership has a duty to **make available its partnership >>> understandings** to opponents before commencing play against them." >>> >>> Law 40A3: >>> >>> "A player may make any call or play **without prior announcement** >>> provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed >>> partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." >>> >>> Grattan Endicott, 18th January: >>> >>>>> +=+ A psyche is by definition not part of the partnership's chosen >>>>> methods. It does not form part of the complex of methods adopted >>>>> by the partnership. A psyche cannot be a matter of partnership >>>>> understanding. >> >> Any partnership understanding regarding the meaning of particular >> call in a particular auction is, by definition, part of the >> partnership methods. But partnerships may have "understandings" in >> unrelated contexts which have nothing to do with partnership >> methods. An "understanding" that you will drive partner home after >> the game is a "partnership understanding", but it is not in the >> context of particular calls in particular auctions, and is thus not >> part of your methods. IMO, the "understanding" that "partner likes >> to psych" is, similarly, not in the context of particular calls in >> particular auctions, and is thus not part of your methods. As such, >> it cannot be regulated as a method, and so cannot be made into an >> illegal one, and more than your RA could forbid you from driving your >> partner home. >> >> That said, however, I also argue that any partnership understanding, >> of any kind, method or not, is disclosable if it might affect the >> meaning of a particular call. If I thought it possible that my >> agreement to drive partner home after the game might have any bearing >> whatsoever on how I might choose to interpret or respond to a call >> about which the opponents have inquired, I would be obligated to >> reveal it. > > +=+ Development of a partnership understanding in respect of a psychic > action turns it into a matter of partnership method. The understanding > is discloseable and subject to regulation. The question on the table here is whether one's knowledge from experience that partner likes to psych, or psychs on rare occasion, or has never psyched, stipulating no knowledge or experience which would suggest the likelihood of a particular type of psych or a psych in a particular type of situation, is or is not "a partnership understanding in respect of a psychic action [which] turns it into a matter of partnership method". This matters, because, if it is, then a regulation -- such as the ACBL's -- forbidding any agreement of any kind whatsoever regarding psychic actions, becomes not merely a "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule, but a potential "one session per partnership per lifetime" rule. Which is to say, total nonsense. The sensible solution to such a dilemma requires us to recognize that there are partnership understandings in respect to methods, the development of which through partnership experience is equivalent to the explicit formation of those methods, and then there are partnership understandings that aren't about methods, that don't automatically "become" methods, they're just understandings. To the extent they may be relevant to one's selection of calls or plays, they are disclosable, like anything else that may be relevant to one's selection of calls or plays, but are not subject to regulations restricting methods. It seems obvious to me that, for example, "he generally bids agressively" or "he generally bids conservatively" are understandings from partnership experience subject to disclosure, but *not* methods subject to regulation. And equally obvious that "he likes to psych" or "he never psychs" are no different. The ACBL's apparent solution to this problem is schizophrenic nonsense: In their crazy world, the implicit understanding created by the knowledge that partner has psyched in the past counts as an undertanding in regard to psychic action, and violates the regulation, but even an explicit agreement sworn in blood that one will never ever psych under any circumstances does not, and is thus perfectly legal. (The Bridge World summarizes the ACBL regulation as, "It's all right to psych as long as you never do it" [ACBL OEOB].) Now I'm sure Grattan will defend (dubiously, IMO) the ACBL's right to perpetrate whatever nonsensical or self-contradictory regulations it chooses to, but I give him sufficient credit to very much doubt that he intends by his remark above to defend their logic or their wisdom. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 8 17:28:28 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:28:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption References: <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be><4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be><125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <0E0DD22D-FB37-451A-B40A-21A683BB4EF4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <890A8543DF584C88B9B286C579D6FB82@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Disruption << I am confident that Alain would know better than to make an entirely inappropriate leap from what he knows his partner has read to what he assumes his partner could have. Disclosure is easy; you just tell what you know. "We have no agreement, but I do know that pard has read expert Y, who advocates bidding 2C on a limit hand with no major, so it's possible that he might have that hand." No MI there. << +=+ I doubt that knowing partner has read a certain book gives me a good reason to *expect* him to use a device described in the book. Would knowledge that I had read "The Affair of the Poisons" be sufficient evidence to believe me a Satanist? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 17:42:40 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:42:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <9799866.1265645708638.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <4B702CCE.5080402@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be> <4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be> <125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <0E0DD22D-FB37-451A-B40A-21A683BB4EF4@starpower.net> <9799866.1265645708638.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B703F00.4050907@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Notice the problem now? > You just know that partner is aware of certain methods, you don't know > whether partner actually uses those methods. If you don't mention it, > and partner uses those methods, there could be MI. If you > mention it, and partner does not use those methods, there could be MI. > > Right, but WTP ? You're unsure about your methods, that's bad for you. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 8 18:22:19 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:22:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred><4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be><000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><002001caa81a$462e83b0$d28b8b10$@com> <68EA187F3F0D45C7BE470F3BC30DF6E1@Mildred> Message-ID: <001401caa8e3$458c0fd0$d0a42f70$@com> [DALB] The question left unresolved by the claim Laws, and one of the many flaws within those Laws, is the point of view from which rationality is to be judged - the claimer's or the judges'. If one says that it is "rational" for a player to entertain the possibility of a falsecard even though the player does not have the experience or the nous actually to entertain that possibility ...well, one is not behaving entirely rationally. [GE] My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, objectively examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the principles of reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the Director to make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's decision is questioned. Law 70E1 does not say "....would be irrational for the player concerned."?? It concerns itself with irrationality in absolute terms. [Kojak] Amen! [DALB] Not "amen" at all, for this means that "normality" or "carelessness" or "inferiority" is to be judged by reference to the standard of a player, while "irrationality" is not. Instead, it is to be judged by reference to some "absolute" notion of what is rational at bridge (as if there were such a thing). The difficulty with this is that at levels below the highest, no one has access to this "absolute" or "objective" set of criteria; if the position had arisen at a local club, it is highly unlikely that the possibility of a falsecard would be noticed by the Director, and vanishingly unlikely that there would be an appeal. Thus the "wrong" ruling would be given, and another utterly illogical and absurd inconsistency would have occurred. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 8 18:57:35 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:57:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches In-Reply-To: References: <4B63940D.9040300@virginmedia.com> <4CBE9F35-C9B3-4BED-BB66-CE875C9D02C9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <016D87DE-E140-4EC4-8BF9-34BFAF1682CB@starpower.net> On Feb 7, 2010, at 3:23 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> If partner becomes aware of your "psyching habits", then, as Nigel >> says, you aren't psyching at all -- you have an implicit agreement, >> subject to any extant regulations regarding methods. But "habits" >> are patterns, and a "psyching habit" is *not* the same thing as a >> "habit of psyching". > > +=+ In itself the distinction is right. However, RA's may require > you to fill in details of your psyching tendencies on the System > Card. This requirement is authorized by Law 40C1. It is worthy > of note here that there is mention of 'undisclosed knowledge'. It is hardly news that an RA may, if it wishes, put a line on its SC something like: "Psychs: [ ] Frequent [ ] Occasional [ ] Rare [ ] Never" Those are indeed "psyching tendencies", and, in my book, they are disclosable whether or not the RA chooses to put them on the SC, if only in reply to an inquiry. But are they really "methods", subject to regulation as "special partnership understandings"? Can they be outlawed? If the ACBL can legitimately ban "frequent", "occasional" and "rare", effectively requiring partnerships to play "never" without actually saying so, could another RA ban "occasional", "rare" and "never", effectively requiring partnerships to play "frequent"? If they indeed become "special partnership understandings" by virtue of experience, and if special partnerhip understandings regarding psychic bidding are prohibited across the board, aren't they all banned? What, exactly, does that mean? And finally, can our God- and TFLB-given right to psych really be subject to an RA-imposed condition that, as Mr. Kaplan explains the ACBL regulation, we retain it only for as long as we forebear from exercising it? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 8 19:13:41 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:13:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Revoke not established? correctable? after claim In-Reply-To: <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com><4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com><0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net><7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred><4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> <8B7030CE-F8F2-4111-915D-37ECADE8ECA6@starpower.net> <8CC58C552ED543378F1FA6797769639F@Mildred> <4B6EB886.4030901@nifty.com> Message-ID: <6463581B-7201-4244-AB0F-83F6A09C6A31@starpower.net> On Feb 7, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > Deaclarer has two good trumps (hearts) and the singleton king of > clubs. > No one else has any more hearts. Declarer leads a low club from the > dummy. RHO follows, and the king of clubs wins the trick, as LHO > discards a diamond. Declarer thereupon claims the last two > tricks. LHO > realizes he revoked and he failed to play the kings of clubs at > trick 11. > > Obviously there is no revoke rectification, as declarer has the rest, > but are the offenders allowed to correct the revoke the occurred > immediately before the claim? It is not entirely clear that the laws, > as they now stand, explicitly cover this eventuality. (My best > guess is > that after the claim play stops, so the revoke can no longer be > corrected.... But I'm far from 100% certainty that this is correct.) The revoke does not become established until a defender agrees to the claim (L63A3). You cannot establish an opponent's revoke by just by making a quick-enough claim; it requires some action by the revoking side, as logic and fairness would dictate. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Feb 8 19:45:20 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:45:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Appeal without merit Law References: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com><4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> <45DB367FB5B9464FA9E40D08083DEEB4@erdos> Message-ID: <73628136232C4A6F9942A78BEBB884AB@MARVLAPTOP> From: "David Grabiner" > > Proposed Law 94, similar to Nigel's guidelines, and also covering > other AC > penalties: > > B. Procedural Penalties > > An Appeals Committee has the same powers as the Tournament > Director under Law 90 > to impose, remove, or modify procedural penalties, including > penalties for > infractions which occur or are first discovered at the Appeals > Committee. If > the Tournament Director who imposed, or declined to impose, a > procedural penalty > was aware of the full facts, the Appeals Committee may only > overrule the > Tournament Director if it determines that the Tournament Director > made an error. > ACBL-employed TDs do not impose PP's, for two reasons: (1) Their criteria for doing so differs from the AC's criteria. PP's are for offenses that have to do with the procedures peculiar to duplicate bridge, not for ethical violations. (2) TDs don't want players getting angry with them, so procedural offenses (typified by L90B) hardly ever receive a PP. However, ACBL AC's ignore the TD ruling completely, starting from scratch. The TD should be present to prevent the AC from misapplying a law such as L90. His/her presence and active participation is required by the ACBL Handbook for Bridge Appeals: F. As the first witness, he or she presents a complete statement of the facts, issues, applicable laws and available sanctions. In the interest of efficiency, the Tournament Director testifes first. An Appeals Committee may not overrule a Tournament Director on a point of law. The Tournament Director should inform the committee when bridge judgmente is not relevant by showing a copy of the applicable law or regulation. The AC announces its decision without reference to the Tournament Director. Avoid such phrases as "We uphold the director's ruling or "We overrule the director." Hence, if a TD says a PP is not in order, the AC may not overrule that point of law. The ACBL AC ignores much of this, as the NABC casebooks plainly reveal. For instance, they apply Law 90 (PPs) without asking for TD approval, and the TD is rarely if ever present. Instead, they use factual information provided in writing by the TD. I believe it is universal elsewhere that the TD's ruling is assumed correct unless the AC overrules it solely for reasons of bridge judgment. For the PP story, look on my web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From tedying at yahoo.com Mon Feb 8 20:08:22 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:08:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Appeal without merit Law In-Reply-To: <73628136232C4A6F9942A78BEBB884AB@MARVLAPTOP> References: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com><4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> <45DB367FB5B9464FA9E40D08083DEEB4@erdos> <73628136232C4A6F9942A78BEBB884AB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <313255.57380.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Marv, I tend to disagree. On the East Coast and at the (very) few regionals/NABC's that I have been to in recent years, I have seen penalties for items 1, 2, 6 and 7 of Law 90.B imposed by directors. Although many ACBL-employed TD's may not impose PP's regularly, they are imposed in some cases, usually only the most extreme cases. -Ted Ying. ________________________________ From: Marvin French To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 1:45:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal without merit Law > ACBL-employed TDs do not impose PP's, for two reasons: (1) Their criteria for doing so differs from the AC's criteria. PP's are for offenses that have to do with the procedures peculiar to duplicate bridge, not for ethical violations. (2) TDs don't want players getting angry with them, so procedural offenses (typified by L90B) hardly ever receive a PP. [...] Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100208/2e23e352/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 8 20:53:02 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:53:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B6ED83B.4020409@skynet.be> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com> <4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com> <4B6ED83B.4020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <12BCE02E-D465-41F6-A15B-DC7721D26C26@starpower.net> On Feb 7, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > David Burn wrote: > >> [DALB] >> >> Well, suppose Herman and I play our long-awaited (though not >> necessarily by >> me) first game together next week. There are two passes to Herman, >> who opens >> 1H. I know that Herman has either some high cards and some hearts, >> or any >> 0-3 points. My opponents do not know this. >> >> [HdW] >> >> Something which, at this moment, amounts to misinformation. >> >> [DALB] >> >> (1) What, at this point in the auction, are my duties under L40 >> (and any >> other Laws that may occur to you)? >> >> [HdW] >> >> You might want to tell them this. And then again, you would not, >> accepting a >> ruling of misinformation after the facts. >> >> [DALB] >> >> I don't propose to quote the whole of Law 40 here, but I fail to >> see how my >> duties under it are in any way optional. Put simply: if my partner >> bids 1H >> and I know for a fact that he has either a 1H opening or any 0-3 >> points, >> because he will always (subject to position at the table and >> vulnerability) >> open 1H with either hand type, then (however I have come to know >> this) I >> must inform my opponents, because they also are entitled to know >> it. Indeed, >> they were entitled to know it before my partner made his call; >> moreover, >> they are also entitled to know that if my partner passes in a >> position where >> 1H would be either natural or 0-3, my partner has at least 4 hcp. >> >> [HdW] >> >> He should rule that this is a legal method, as long as the psyche is >> precisely that: a psyche. The question is whether it is a psyche or a >> method. You have, so far, not given any indication it is a method, >> other >> than your knowledge of my psyching tendencies. >> >> [DALB] >> >> There is some distinction here that I do not follow, but that is not >> surprising because I do not think anyone follows it. Terminology >> has become >> sloppy, beginning with the "controlled psyche" that formed part of >> the >> "methods" of some top American players for many years. There is no >> such >> thing as, and there never was any such thing as, a "controlled >> psyche"; the >> term is and always was self-contradictory, like a "triangular >> circle". >> >> However, we now have some definition in the Laws of what a >> "psychic call" >> is; it is: >> >> "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of >> suit >> length". >> >> Now, if 1H always shows 10 or more points and four or more hearts, >> then to >> open 1H with a balanced three count is a psyche. But for Herman, >> 1H always >> (see above) shows either: 10 or more points and four or more >> hearts; or any >> hand with 0-3 points. > > No David, your logic deserts you. > For Herman, an opening of 1H means that he has either one or the > other, > but it "shows" 13 points in the sense that he tells David that that is > what he has. > >> When he opens 1H with a 3=2=4=4 Yarborough, then, he >> is not psyching; he is merely bidding according to his methods. If >> I know >> his methods (as I do), then if I play with him, his methods are >> our methods >> and are subject to the rules on disclosure both in advance and at >> the table, >> and are also subject to local regulation as to their legality. >> >> I do not have to give any indication that the H1H is a "method" >> other than >> my "knowledge of Herman's psyching tendencies"; it is precisely my >> knowledge >> of Herman's tendency to open 1H on worthless hands that >> "indicates" that >> such an opening is part of his (and therefore our) "methods". >> >> This, though, should be said: if Herman and I ever do play >> together, I shall >> instruct him not to open 1H on 0-3. Of course, he is then entirely >> free to >> do so. > > Which is, of course, a very good indication why to ban someone from > repeating any psyche is not a good idea. Hmmm... L40C1 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." My RA, quite legally, prohibits what it calls "pseudo-psychs", which are any deviations from my side's announced understandings that do not strictly conform to the "no more reason to be aware" condition in the law. I do, however, as the law explicitly states, retain the unconditional right to make a psychic call that my partner has no reason to expect. So one day it goes 1H-X-, and I bid 1S holding S xx, equally surprising everyone at the table. The next day, it again goes 1H-X-, and I again hold S xx. Now, per RA regulation, I may not bid 1S, because yesterday's action has given my partner "more reason... than have the opponents" to expect that I might do so, contrary to my side's announced understandings, with this holding or something similar. Because my partner fails to meet the explicit condition specified in L40C1, my previous right to bid 1S with these cards may be abrogated by regulation, and, indeed, has been. So far, no problem. But what if, on the first occasion, my opponents had called the director, who determined that my psych was legitimate per the condition in L40C1, but then, in partner's hearing, informed me of the regulation and its implications, and told me that, in consequence, I was no longer allowed to perpetrate this kind of psych with this particular partner? If I ignored his instructions, and repeated the same psych the very next day, my partner, who would find it truly inconceivable that I would blatantly ignore the explicit instructions given me by a director just the previous day regardless of what I thought of them, would, without any doubt, be genuinely shocked by my behavior. He has knowledge, which the opponents don't, which leads him to expect that I would go out of my way to consciously *avoid* repeating yesterday's action; in other words, he has *far less* "reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents". So isn't the condition in L40C1 clearly fulfilled, my right to psych thereby restored, and the attempt by the director yesterday to abrogate that right in the future nullified -- by his own actions, no less? Will I be able to explain to him that, thanks to L40C1, by telling me not to bid 1S here he has precluded himself from finding that I have committed an infraction by bidding 1S here -- before my backside hits the pavement in front of the club? Poor Herman. He insists that his "Herman 1H" is a legitimate tactic which he will continue to use, and we say, "No, Herman, you are wrong, it is illegal; read Law 40C1." But if, tomorrow, Herman were to post that he has changed his mind, has come completely around to our way of thinking, has decided that the Herman 1H is patently illegal, and that he will never do it again, we would then say, "No, Herman, you are wrong, it is now legal and you are free to do it; read Law 40C1." Perhaps he's right to complain that no matter what he says he can't win. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 8 21:21:57 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:21:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appeal without merit Law In-Reply-To: <313255.57380.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com><4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk><45DB367FB5B9464FA9E40D08083DEEB4@erdos><73628136232C4A6F9942A78BEBB884AB@MARVLAPTOP> <313255.57380.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: And the problem is that an AC can award a PP when the TD did not consider it justified. There are sometimes cases in which there is an infraction, the TD rules no damage, the non-offenders appeal, and the AC upholds the ruling of no damage but imposes a PP against the offenders for the original infraction. In a KO event, the non-offenders gain from the appeal. I was in such a potential situation. In a KO match, the opponents bid 6H after hesitation Blackwood (hesitation agreed by all). I called the TD when 6H was bid, but when the slam went down, there was no damage and no need to request an adjusted score. If the slam had made, I would expect a TD ruling adjusting the contract to 5H making six and a PP against the offenders, and there would surely be such a penalty (in addition to an AWMW if their side appealed) in an AC ruling. Should I have called back the TD, or made an appeal, requesting a PP against the opposing team which would be to my team's advantage? ----- Original Message ----- From: Ted Ying To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal without merit Law Marv, I tend to disagree. On the East Coast and at the (very) few regionals/NABC's that I have been to in recent years, I have seen penalties for items 1, 2, 6 and 7 of Law 90.B imposed by directors. Although many ACBL-employed TD's may not impose PP's regularly, they are imposed in some cases, usually only the most extreme cases. -Ted Ying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Marvin French To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 1:45:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal without merit Law > ACBL-employed TDs do not impose PP's, for two reasons: (1) Their criteria for doing so differs from the AC's criteria. PP's are for offenses that have to do with the procedures peculiar to duplicate bridge, not for ethical violations. (2) TDs don't want players getting angry with them, so procedural offenses (typified by L90B) hardly ever receive a PP. [...] Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100208/32d4f3a1/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 8 22:43:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:43:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <7166D767C4064883844CA6147D3333E4@erdos> References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred> <4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk><4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be> <4B6EEF0A.3050101@yahoo.co.uk> <7166D767C4064883844CA6147D3333E4@erdos> Message-ID: On Feb 7, 2010, at 12:05 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Nigel's Line A doesn't work. The claim laws do not specify a > finesse, but > rather a normal line of play which requires one defender rather > than the other > to hold a specific card. If declarer's unstated intention is not > clear, he > cannot win either the drop or the finesse, so if LHO has > falsecarded, declarer > loses the trick unless he states that he is playing for the drop; > finessing is a > normal line of play. > > I would rulefor the declarer in Line B, because the timing of > declarer's claim > indicates that he believed he had a winning finesse. But what he believed doesn't matter. If he left his belief unstated, he may not be presumed to have acted upon it unless doing otherwise "would be irrational" [L70E1]. And when dozens of BLMLer's jump right in to point out to the OP that winning the king holding the jack would be not only a rational play but in many cases the only correct one, it can hardly be irrational to assume that one's opponent might have done so, nor, even, to play accordingly. Just because a finesse wins doesn't make it irrational to think that if you take it again it might lose. And just because a finesse wins doesn't preclude an intent to repeat it from being "unstated" even if you don't state it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 8 23:01:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:01:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <12BCE02E-D465-41F6-A15B-DC7721D26C26@starpower.net> Message-ID: Professor Ben Selinger, The Canberra Times, 8th February 2010: [big snip] One consequence was that I later included an experiment in the chemistry practical laboratory course that actually did not work as reported in the referenced literature and as expected from the notes accompanying the experiment. It was interesting to await the class response. Many assumed that they had fouled up somewhere along the way, too many cheated to fit the expected, one or two reported that they believed to have done the work correctly but their results did not match. Eric Landau: [big snip] >Poor Herman. He insists that his "Herman 1H" is a legitimate >tactic which he will continue to use, and we say, "No, >Herman, you are wrong, it is illegal; read Law 40C1." But >if, tomorrow, Herman were to post that he has changed his >mind, has come completely around to our way of thinking, has >decided that the Herman 1H is patently illegal, and that he >will never do it again, we would then say, "No, Herman, you >are wrong, it is now legal and you are free to do it; read >Law 40C1." Perhaps he's right to complain that no matter >what he says he can't win. Professor Ben Selinger, The Canberra Times, 8th February 2010: This exercise caused havoc with my student assessment rating and several years had to pass before the corporate memory had sufficiently faded to try the lark on again. The sad thing is, however, we teach to expect the "right" answer, we have a society that expects the same and we mock the defenders of the faith, the critics. May the power be with them. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Feb 8 23:20:52 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:20:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <12BCE02E-D465-41F6-A15B-DC7721D26C26@starpower.net> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com> <4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com> <4B6ED83B.4020409@skynet.be> <12BCE02E-D465-41F6-A15B-DC7721D26C26@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B708E44.4040504@comcast.net> On 2/8/10 2:53 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 7, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> David Burn wrote: >> >> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> Well, suppose Herman and I play our long-awaited (though not >>> necessarily by >>> me) first game together next week. There are two passes to Herman, >>> who opens >>> 1H. I know that Herman has either some high cards and some hearts, >>> or any >>> 0-3 points. My opponents do not know this. >>> >>> [HdW] >>> >>> Something which, at this moment, amounts to misinformation. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> (1) What, at this point in the auction, are my duties under L40 >>> (and any >>> other Laws that may occur to you)? >>> >>> [HdW] >>> >>> You might want to tell them this. And then again, you would not, >>> accepting a >>> ruling of misinformation after the facts. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> I don't propose to quote the whole of Law 40 here, but I fail to >>> see how my >>> duties under it are in any way optional. Put simply: if my partner >>> bids 1H >>> and I know for a fact that he has either a 1H opening or any 0-3 >>> points, >>> because he will always (subject to position at the table and >>> vulnerability) >>> open 1H with either hand type, then (however I have come to know >>> this) I >>> must inform my opponents, because they also are entitled to know >>> it. Indeed, >>> they were entitled to know it before my partner made his call; >>> moreover, >>> they are also entitled to know that if my partner passes in a >>> position where >>> 1H would be either natural or 0-3, my partner has at least 4 hcp. >>> >>> [HdW] >>> >>> He should rule that this is a legal method, as long as the psyche is >>> precisely that: a psyche. The question is whether it is a psyche or a >>> method. You have, so far, not given any indication it is a method, >>> other >>> than your knowledge of my psyching tendencies. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> There is some distinction here that I do not follow, but that is not >>> surprising because I do not think anyone follows it. Terminology >>> has become >>> sloppy, beginning with the "controlled psyche" that formed part of >>> the >>> "methods" of some top American players for many years. There is no >>> such >>> thing as, and there never was any such thing as, a "controlled >>> psyche"; the >>> term is and always was self-contradictory, like a "triangular >>> circle". >>> >>> However, we now have some definition in the Laws of what a >>> "psychic call" >>> is; it is: >>> >>> "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of >>> suit >>> length". >>> >>> Now, if 1H always shows 10 or more points and four or more hearts, >>> then to >>> open 1H with a balanced three count is a psyche. But for Herman, >>> 1H always >>> (see above) shows either: 10 or more points and four or more >>> hearts; or any >>> hand with 0-3 points. >>> >> No David, your logic deserts you. >> For Herman, an opening of 1H means that he has either one or the >> other, >> but it "shows" 13 points in the sense that he tells David that that is >> what he has. >> >> >>> When he opens 1H with a 3=2=4=4 Yarborough, then, he >>> is not psyching; he is merely bidding according to his methods. If >>> I know >>> his methods (as I do), then if I play with him, his methods are >>> our methods >>> and are subject to the rules on disclosure both in advance and at >>> the table, >>> and are also subject to local regulation as to their legality. >>> >>> I do not have to give any indication that the H1H is a "method" >>> other than >>> my "knowledge of Herman's psyching tendencies"; it is precisely my >>> knowledge >>> of Herman's tendency to open 1H on worthless hands that >>> "indicates" that >>> such an opening is part of his (and therefore our) "methods". >>> >>> This, though, should be said: if Herman and I ever do play >>> together, I shall >>> instruct him not to open 1H on 0-3. Of course, he is then entirely >>> free to >>> do so. >>> >> Which is, of course, a very good indication why to ban someone from >> repeating any psyche is not a good idea. >> > Hmmm... > > L40C1 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." My RA, quite > legally, prohibits what it calls "pseudo-psychs", which are any > deviations from my side's announced understandings that do not > strictly conform to the "no more reason to be aware" condition in the > law. I do, however, as the law explicitly states, retain the > unconditional right to make a psychic call that my partner has no > reason to expect. So one day it goes 1H-X-, and I bid 1S holding S > xx, equally surprising everyone at the table. > > The next day, it again goes 1H-X-, and I again hold S xx. Now, per > RA regulation, I may not bid 1S, because yesterday's action has given > my partner "more reason... than have the opponents" to expect that I > might do so, contrary to my side's announced understandings, with > this holding or something similar. Because my partner fails to meet > the explicit condition specified in L40C1, my previous right to bid > 1S with these cards may be abrogated by regulation, and, indeed, has > been. > > I don't think this one is a good example. If you and partner have agreed to do this, it is permitted by the ACBL (as I understand it) as a legitimate defense to an artificial call by opponents. --Bob Park From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 9 00:34:58 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:34:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6FE959.1010106@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: >>"Irrelevant as a matter of law" can only be correct if the Law >>assumes West to have given an accurate explanation, then also >>assumes West immediately forgets the accurate explanation. :-) Jean-Pierre Rocafort refuted: >the assumption is that south gets an accurate explanation, not >that west gives an accurate explanation. Professor Ben Selinger, The Canberra Times, 8th February 2010: [snip] Humans seek out evidence and support for what they want to believe, or want you to believe. Often the convenient untruth. [snip] We tend not to follow the "true" scientific approach, wherein a theory is tested by first assuming that it is wrong and then showing that any and all of the alternate hypotheses cannot be sustained. [snip] The "Climate Change Debate", like many a debate before, such as Darwin's Theory of Evolution, follows a familiar path. The proposers build up their evidentiary case (human caused build up of carbon dioxide). The critics propose alternative hypotheses (sun activity, earth tilting, methane from agriculture, cloud cover, false data, whatever). The proposers need to rebut each and every one of these thrusts. [snip] And that brings me to my own awakening that occurred during the Chamberlain (baby dingo) case that ran from December 1980 till October 2004. The law, the science, the evidence, the media (including this newspaper) all ignored the golden rule of science, first assume you are wrong. Over and over again. In opposing this juggernaut, I remember very clearly of developing a thick skin so as to ignore the jeers and sneers of my peers. [conclusion of Professor Selinger's article in parallel post] Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 9 00:54:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:54:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <890A8543DF584C88B9B286C579D6FB82@Mildred> Message-ID: .....Would knowledge that I had read "The Affair of the Poisons" be sufficient evidence to believe me a Satanist? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It would be sufficient prima facie evidence for Grattan to be questioned by a Disciplinary Committee of the Spanish Inquisition, when Grattan would be tortured by the Comfy Chair until he confessed. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 9 01:28:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:28:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Art of Being Lucky [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6FD9FD.7060004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >...your current "luck" is an indicator of your current form... Richard Hills: That definition of "luck" is relevant both to rubber bridge and to taxi driving. In "Why You Lose At Bridge", S.J. Simon noticed that most rubber bridge players were psychologically deceived into taking exactly the wrong strategy. When a player was well rested and attentive, thus a net gainer of money when playing against peers, that player would leave the bridge club early, forfeiting likely further gains. But when a player was tired and distracted, thus a net loser of money against peers, that player would stay on very late at the bridge in an attempt to recoup losses, but most likely get further into the hole. Similarly, taxi drivers tend to knock off early on profitable days, but keep on cruising on unprofitable days. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 9 02:01:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:01:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >[D] The TD did not appeal his own decision. (In the light of BLML >controversies, directors should often appeal their own decision Richard Hills: Directors should rarely appeal their own decisions. Law 83 "If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power **could well be** in order, he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee." Nigel Guthrie: >in last-ditch attempts to resolve long-running controversies about >interpreting the law-book. The WBF could approve key AC decisions >and publish them as case-law paradigms). Richard Hills: Note that Law 83 is useless for Law interpretation (referring only to "point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power"). Note also that Law 93B means that Appeals Committees have zero power to resolve long-running controversies about interpreting the Law Book. Instead, an EBU Director may use Law 81C7 to refer a legal controversy to the EBU Law and Ethics Committee, which is the only local body empowered to create English case-law paradigms. "Obtuse" frequent posters to blml, for example myself and Nigel Guthrie, sometimes have difficulty reading and understanding the not-so-plain English of the Lawbook. But merely because Herman De Wael and David Stevenson have arcane points of difference on the interpretation of the Laws does Not mean that there are general and significant controversies in the Real World. Indeed, the recent Real World partnership of De Wael - Stevenson merely saw gentle mocking of Herman's idiosyncratic views by some of their opponents. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 9 02:30:49 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 01:30:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches References: <65BC167D-97FB-454E-91F0-259415D77A1A@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches > The ACBL's apparent solution to this problem is schizophrenic > nonsense: In their crazy world, the implicit understanding created > by the knowledge that partner has psyched in the past counts as an > undertanding in regard to psychic action, and violates the > regulation, but even an explicit agreement sworn in blood that one > will never ever psych under any circumstances does not, and is thus > perfectly legal. (The Bridge World summarizes the ACBL regulation > as, "It's all right to psych as long as you never do it" [ACBL OEOB].) > > Now I'm sure Grattan will defend (dubiously, IMO) the ACBL's right to > perpetrate whatever nonsensical or self-contradictory regulations it > chooses to, but I give him sufficient credit to very much doubt that > he intends by his remark above to defend their logic or their wisdom. > +=+ I do not have any experience of the ACBL's approach to the subject. It would be inappropriate if I were to comment on that. . My position is to support the statements in the WBF Code of Practice. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 9 06:00:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:00:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001401caa8e3$458c0fd0$d0a42f70$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: >The question left unresolved by the claim Laws, and >one of the many flaws within those Laws, is the >point of view from which rationality is to be >judged - the claimer's or the judges'. If one says >that it is "rational" for a player to entertain the >possibility of Richard Hills: many illegal plays, because two revokes and one play in anti-clockwise rotation were embedded in that declarer's claim statement??? Roger Pewick, April 2001: >>>>In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be >>>>legal plays. David Stevenson, April 2001: >>>Why? Which Law says this? Grattan Endicott, May 2001: >>+=+ Wrong question, really. The question is what is >>the Director to do when there is an objection to a >>claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the >>statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no >>powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, >>and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be >>'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). >> It may be that it would have helped everyone >>if the answer had been given expressly in the law, >>but EK held the view that if there is doubt the >>legislators' intentions must be honoured in the >>interpretation, a view with which David is commonly >>in conflict. It is wearisome when David returns >>persistently to his mangonel, and a little sad that >>bored colleagues are now saying to me that his >>stones no longer have their attention. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 9 07:17:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:17:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Another claim ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills, May 2001: >>Last night, I played in a 4S contract, losing three early tricks. >> >>In the six card ending I claimed +620. Although the opponents >>held all the high red cards, I held the three outstanding trumps, >>plus three *good* clubs. >> >>RHO objected to my claim. I was astounded when he produced >>*another* Ace of clubs, since I had irrationally assumed that >>that card had been played earlier. So we mutually agreed to >>modify my claim to 4S -100. >> >>After we started play on the next board, I realised that my RHO's >>acquiescence in my revised claim might also have been irrational. >>So I therefore summoned the TD against my own interests, asking >>if he could further reduce my score to -300. >> >>I pointed out to the TD that since I irrationally thought that >>all my cards were high, I might randomly play all my trumps on >>tricks 8 to 10 before touching clubs, allowing RHO to win the Ace >>of clubs plus two red-suit tricks. >> >>The TD ruled that cashing all my trumps first would have been >>irrational, letting me retain a mere -100 on the board. >> >>Was the TD's ruling irrational? Eric Landau, May 2001: >It was incorrect, certainly, but it's not hard to see where the TD >went wrong. Had the opponent held not another CA, but rather >another S2, you would be required to lose a trick to it by L70C. >IOW, TFLB would require the "imaginary line of play" in which you >play trumps only after playing all your side cards. There is no >analogous law which specifically addresses the case of a missing >plain high card. An inexperienced TD could well conclude from >this, erroneously, that the law deems it "normal" to play side >cards before playing trumps. Herman De Wael, May 2001, inexperienced TD??? :-) >But it is (IMO, and certainly not settled) not normal to cash all >trumps and then play the other suits. > >It is just not what a beginner would do. Peter Gill, Australia, May 2001: >"for the class of player involved" (Footnote to Law 69B) ... > >Herman, Richard Hills, whom I realise you do not know personally, >is anything but a beginner. An expert card player, deep thinker >and exceedingly ethical player (in fact, the rare kind of player >whose bridge record might have been more glittering had he been >less ethical, sad but true to say), but no resemblance whatsoever >to a beginner. Richard Hills, May 2001: >>Would it have been irrational for me to have appealed against my >>own interest, seeking a reduction in my score from -100 to -300 >>from the Appeals Committee? Herman De Wael, May 2001: >Yes, I would have kept your money. Richard Hills, February 2010: Everyone quoted above erred in 2001. Because my opponents had started play on the next board, the relevant Law was not the 1997 Law 70, but rather the 1997 Law 69, which was draconianly harsh against non-claimers. Much friendlier and more equitable is the 2007 Law 69B2. Law 69B - Agreed Claim or Concession - Director's Decision Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: 1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. Richard Hills, February 2010: How would you rule upon my false claim under the 2007 Law 69B2? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bunji.ivan at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 08:23:40 2010 From: bunji.ivan at gmail.com (Ivan Bunji) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:23:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions Message-ID: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> *Claims and concessions (new approach?)* Bd: 4 ? K J 10 3 Dlr: W ? 6 5 Vul: Both ? A Q J 6 2 ? 6 5 ? 7 2 ? 8 6 4 ? J 10 8 7 4 2 ? K 9 ? - ? 10 9 8 7 5 4 3 ? Q J 9 4 3 ? 7 ? A Q 9 5 ? A Q 3 ? K ? A K 10 8 2 Contract: 7? by S Lead: ?2. After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything is high. Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was posted on the tray, and at that moment opponents contested the claim. TD was summoned at that time. TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? TD course) that there is a new approach to this matter, by which the declarer could have the right (with normal play in this particular case) to score 2210. After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are not all good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs could not be established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only chance for declarer to fulfill the contract is to find ?K on side (finessing the clubs). And that ?new approach? gives (??) declarer this right. Please, comments anyone who knows something about that. Ivan BUNJI Chief TD in Serbia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100209/01149e2c/attachment.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Feb 9 08:40:48 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:40:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Claims_and_concessions?= In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1NekiG-0NWEM40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> sorry, but can't read the deal ... - most players have 9 cards left; West 10 - only high cards have been played; the small ones are still there - the mentioned play in clubs I do not understand btw: there was no "new approach" given out in Sanremo. -----Original-Nachricht----- > Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions > Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:23:40 +0100 > From: Ivan Bunji > To: blml at rtflb.org, Herman De Wael > ? > > CLAIMS AND CONCESSIONS (NEW APPROACH?) > > ? > > ? > > ? > > Bd: 4??????????????????? J 10 3 > > Dlr: W????????????????? pan> 6 5 > > Vul: Both????????????? pan> A Q J 6 2 > > ???????????????????????????? 5 > > 2???????????????????????????????????????????????? 6 4 > > pan> J 10 8 7 4 2????????????????????????????????? pan> K 9 > > pan> -????????????????????????????????????????????????????? pan> 10 > 9 8 7 5 4 3 > > J 9 4 3???????????????????????????????????????/span> > > ???????????????????????????? Q 9 5 > > ???????????????????????????? pan> A Q 3 > > ???????????????????????????? pan> K > > ???????????????????????????? K 10 8 2 > > ? > > Contract: 7 S > > Lead: /span> > > ? > > After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything > is high. > > Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was > posted on the tray, and at that moment opponents contested the claim. > TD was summoned at that time. > > TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. > > ? > > Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? > TD course) that there is a new approach to this matter, by which the > declarer could have the right (with normal play in this particular > case) to score 2210. > > After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are > not all good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs could > not be established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only chance > for declarer to fulfill the contract is to find n side (finessing the > clubs). > > ? > > And that ?new approach? gives (??) declarer this right. > > ? > > Please, comments anyone who knows something about that. > > ? > > Ivan BUNJI > > Chief TD in Serbia > > ? > > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 09:12:15 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:12:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9 February 2010 08:23, Ivan Bunji wrote: > > > Claims and concessions (new approach?) > > Bd: 4??????????????????? ? K J 10 3 > Dlr: W????????????????? ? 6 5 > Vul: Both????????????? ? A Q J 6 2 > ??????????????????????????? ? 6 5 > ? 7 2???????????????????????????????????????????????? ? 8 6 4 > ? J 10 8 7 4 2????????????????????????????????? ? K 9 > ? -????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? 10 9 8 7 5 4 3 > ? Q J 9 4 3???????????????????????????????????????? 7 > ???????????????????????????? ? A Q 9 5 > ???????????????????????????? ? A Q 3 > ???????????????????????????? ? K > ???????????????????????????? ? A K 10 8 2 > > Contract: 7? by S > Lead: ?2. > > After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything is high. > > Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was posted on > the tray, and at that moment opponents contested the claim. TD was summoned > at that time. > > TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. > > Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? TD > course) that there is a new approach to this matter, by which the declarer > could have the right (with normal play in this particular case) to score > 2210. > > After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are not all > good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs could not be > established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only chance for declarer > to fulfill the contract is to find ?K on side (finessing the clubs). > The OP said declarer played two round of trumps and claimed. You won't let him play a third round of trumps after the claim when he's said nothing about an outstanding trump. Thus your plan would fall down early, as east would ruff the second round of trumps. Anyway, this is immaterial, as when declarer believes the rest is his in top tricks, it's utterly rational to cash the HA early. The only questionable part of the ruling is in fact whether you should rule down two, not down one. > > And that ?new approach? gives (??) declarer this right. > > > > Please, comments anyone who knows something about that. > > > > Ivan BUNJI > > Chief TD in Serbia > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From bunji.ivan at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 09:28:39 2010 From: bunji.ivan at gmail.com (Ivan Bunji) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:28:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <1NekiG-0NWEM40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <1NekiG-0NWEM40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> Thanks for reply. I'll try this way: Board: 4 North Dealer: W KJT3 Vul: Both 65 AQJ62 65 West East 72 864 JT8742 K9 - T987543 QJ943 7 South AQ95 AQ3 K AKT82 Contract: 7 spades Lead: 2 of spade Hope it is clear now. On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > sorry, but can't read the deal ... > > - most players have 9 cards left; West 10 > - only high cards have been played; the small ones are still there > - the mentioned play in clubs I do not understand > > btw: there was no "new approach" given out in Sanremo. > > > -----Original-Nachricht----- > > Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:23:40 +0100 > > From: Ivan Bunji > > To: blml at rtflb.org, Herman De Wael > > > > > > > CLAIMS AND CONCESSIONS (NEW APPROACH?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bd: 4 J 10 3 > > > > Dlr: W pan> 6 5 > > > > Vul: Both pan> A Q J 6 2 > > > > 5 > > > > 2 6 4 > > > > pan> J 10 8 7 4 2 pan> K 9 > > > > pan> - pan> 10 > > 9 8 7 5 4 3 > > > > J 9 4 3 /span> > > > > Q 9 5 > > > > pan> A Q 3 > > > > pan> K > > > > K 10 8 2 > > > > > > > > Contract: 7 S > > > > Lead: /span> > > > > > > > > After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything > > is high. > > > > Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was > > posted on the tray, and at that moment opponents contested the claim. > > TD was summoned at that time. > > > > TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? > > TD course) that there is a new approach to this matter, by which the > > declarer could have the right (with normal play in this particular > > case) to score 2210. > > > > After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are > > not all good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs could > > not be established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only chance > > for declarer to fulfill the contract is to find n side (finessing the > > clubs). > > > > > > > > And that ?new approach? gives (??) declarer this right. > > > > > > > > Please, comments anyone who knows something about that. > > > > > > > > Ivan BUNJI > > > > Chief TD in Serbia > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20100209/bfc5e542/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 9 09:36:54 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:36:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> Hello Ivan, I prefer to answer on blml - I'm sure you'll read the answer. Ivan Bunji wrote: > > > *Claims and concessions (new approach?)* > > > > > > > > Bd: 4 ? K J 10 3 > > Dlr: W ? 6 5 > > Vul: Both ? A Q J 6 2 > > ? 6 5 > > ? 7 2 ? 8 6 4 > > ? J 10 8 7 4 2 ? K 9 > > ? - ? 10 9 8 7 5 > 4 3 > > ? Q J 9 4 3 ? 7 > > ? A Q 9 5 > > ? A Q 3 > > ? K > > ? A K 10 8 2 > > > > Contract: 7? by S > > Lead: ?2. > > > > After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything > is high. > > Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was > posted on the tray, and at that moment opponents contested the claim. > TD was summoned at that time. > > TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. > > > > Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? > TD course) that there is a new approach to this matter, by which the > declarer could have the right (with normal play in this particular > case) to score 2210. > There is really no change to the claim laws. But they are just not as simple as you may imagine. > After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are > not all good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs could > not be established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only chance > for declarer to fulfill the contract is to find ?K on side (finessing > the clubs). > I believe you mean the King of hearts. > > > And that ?new approach? gives (??) declarer this right. > Indeed, the law states that a new line must be accepted if to not use it would be irrational. When playing seven (at teams?) it is irrational to simply give a way a trick as long as there is still a chance of making a thirteenth one. In this case, there are two lines that (after the discovery of the bad breaks) lead to a thirteenth trick: cashing the ace of hearts hoping for the king singleton, and finessing the hearts. Since it would be irrational to believe that the first line offers more chances than the second, that second line is allowed to be taken. However - there are some more considerations. You must remember that claimer needs to find out about the situation in every single of the normal lines that are embedded in his claim statement. So, let's see: What would happen in real play? It would not be normal for him to leave a trump out, so he does start with three trump tricks. Next, he'll unblock the diamond king. Now he knows there is no way to score more than 4 diamond tricks; he has two more trumps, which will each take a trick, which brings him to 5Sp + 4Di + 1He = 10 tricks, so he'll need 3 club tricks. Everything OK if clubs break 3-3. So he'll play 2 club tricks and notice the problem there as well. And now any declarer will notice that he'll need the heart finesse. But! Maybe in the meanwhile he'll have played the HA? This cannot have happened after the discovery of the diamond break, since by then he's "awake" again, but it might have happened before then. So: how likely do you consider it for this declarer that rather than play a diamond to the king, he'll have played a heart to the ace. I myself consider this very unlikely, and not normal. But I'm certain that others may disagree. What they should not disagree about, is that claimer has the right to start thinking again after he sees the diamond void. And that this right exyends to him finding the only possible normal line of checking the clubs and then finessing the HK. Herman. > > > Please, comments anyone who knows something about that. > > > > Ivan BUNJI > > Chief TD in Serbia > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 9 09:39:13 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:39:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B711F31.5050004@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> > The OP said declarer played two round of trumps and claimed. You won't > let him play a third round of trumps after the claim when he's said > nothing about an outstanding trump. Thus your plan would fall down > early, as east would ruff the second round of trumps. > Come on, Harald, it is perfectly logical to claim after discovering that trumps are 3-2, and perfectly habitual to not assume claimer did not know there was another trump out. > Anyway, this is immaterial, as when declarer believes the rest is his > in top tricks, it's utterly rational to cash the HA early. I don't believe this is normal, but that is a possible ruling. > The only questionable part of the ruling is in fact whether you should > rule down two, not down one. > Herman. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 09:55:38 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:55:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B711F31.5050004@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711F31.5050004@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 9 February 2010 09:39, Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >> The OP said declarer played two round of trumps and claimed. You won't >> let him play a third round of trumps after the claim when he's said >> nothing about an outstanding trump. Thus your plan would fall down >> early, as east would ruff the second round of trumps. >> > > Come on, Harald, it is perfectly logical to claim after discovering that > trumps are 3-2, and perfectly habitual to not assume claimer did not > know there was another trump out. It's perfectly normal to claim after playing two rounds of trumps and say that you'll draw the last trump before proceeding to cash the rest of your tricks. And I too know that it's pretty common not to mention the last trump. You'll have to be at the table to know what's going on. I'm used to playing against opponents claiming this way. And I'm almost always able to tell from the way they play and claim what's going on. So most of the time I agree to such claims, as it's clear that declarer was going to pull the last trump. And as a TD, I believe I'm able to sort this out too, most of the time. > >> Anyway, this is immaterial, as when declarer believes the rest is his >> in top tricks, it's utterly rational to cash the HA early. > > I don't believe this is normal, but that is a possible ruling. > >> The only questionable part of the ruling is in fact whether you should >> rule down two, not down one. >> > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Feb 9 09:56:34 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:56:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Claims_and_concessions?= In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Yes, now I can read and understand the question ;-) If I were the TD, I would also rule under Law 70E1; but my score would be +2210 Discovering the bad breaks in both minors, declarer has simply no other chance as to finesse in hearts - which was not part of his original claim (neither statement nor intention). This finesse is "protected" by the last sentence of Law 70E1: "..., or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational." From: Ivan Bunji > Thanks for reply. ? I'll try this way: ? ? > Board: 4???????????????? > North ?Dealer: W???KJT3 > ?Vul: Both??????????????? 65 > ????????????????????????????? AQJ62 > ? ???????????????????????????? 65 > West?????????????????????????????????????????? East > 72?????????????????????????????????????????????? 864 > JT8742??????????????????????????????????????? K9 > -?? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? T987543 > QJ943???????????????????????????????????????? 7 > ????????????????????????????? South > ????????????????????????????? AQ95 > ????????????????????????????? AQ3 ?????????????????????????????? > K > ????????????????????????????? AKT82 ? > > Contract: 7 spades Lead: 2 of > spade ? > Hope it is clear now. ? > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > sorry, but can't read the deal ... > > - most players have 9 cards left; West 10 > - only high cards have been played; the small ones are still there > - the mentioned play in clubs I do not understand > > btw: there was no "new approach" given out in Sanremo. > > -----Original-Nachricht----- > > Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:23:40 +0100 > > From: Ivan Bunji > > To: blml at rtflb.org [3], Herman De Wael > > > ? > > > > CLAIMS AND CONCESSIONS (NEW APPROACH?) > > > > ? > > > > ? > > > > ? > > > > Bd: 4??????????????????? J 10 3 > > > > Dlr: W????????????????? pan> 6 5 > > > > Vul: Both????????????? pan> A Q J 6 2 > > > > ???????????????????????????? 5 > > > > 2???????????????????????????????????????????????? 6 4 > > > > pan> J 10 8 7 4 2????????????????????????????????? pan> K 9 > > > > pan> -????????????????????????????????????????????????????? pan> 10 > > 9 8 7 5 4 3 > > > > J 9 4 3???????????????????????????????????????/span> > > > > ???????????????????????????? Q 9 5 > > > > ???????????????????????????? pan> A Q 3 > > > > ???????????????????????????? pan> K > > > > ???????????????????????????? K 10 8 2 > > > > ? > > > > Contract: 7 S > > > > Lead: /span> > > > > ? > > > > After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything > > is high. > > > > Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was > > posted on the tray, and at that moment opponents contested the > claim. > > TD was summoned at that time. > > > > TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. > > > > ? > > > > Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? > > TD course) that there is a new approach to this matter, by which > the > > declarer could have the right (with normal play in this particular > > case) to score 2210. > > > > After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are > > not all good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs > could > > not be established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only > chance > > for declarer to fulfill the contract is to find n side (finessing > the > > clubs). > > > > ? > > > > And that ?new approach? gives (??) declarer this right. > > > > ? > > > > Please, comments anyone who knows something about that. > > > > ? > > > > Ivan BUNJI > > > > Chief TD in Serbia > > > > ? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org [5] > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml [6] > > Links: > ------ > [1] mailto:PeterEidt at t-online.de > [2] mailto:bunji.ivan at gmail.com > [3] mailto:blml at rtflb.org > [4] mailto:HermanDW at skynet.be > [5] mailto:Blml at rtflb.org > [6] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From bunji.ivan at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 10:05:54 2010 From: bunji.ivan at gmail.com (Ivan Bunji) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:05:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6440c2ff1002090105n6c91ea45h9bad4ee0788793df@mail.gmail.com> Sorry, I really made a "slip of mind" and wrote clubs instead of Hearts. Thanks On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Hello Ivan, > > I prefer to answer on blml - I'm sure you'll read the answer. > > Ivan Bunji wrote: > > > > > > *Claims and concessions (new approach?)* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bd: 4 ? K J 10 3 > > > > Dlr: W ? 6 5 > > > > Vul: Both ? A Q J 6 2 > > > > ? 6 5 > > > > ? 7 2 ? 8 6 4 > > > > ? J 10 8 7 4 2 ? K 9 > > > > ? - ? 10 9 8 7 5 > > 4 3 > > > > ? Q J 9 4 3 ? 7 > > > > ? A Q 9 5 > > > > ? A Q 3 > > > > ? K > > > > ? A K 10 8 2 > > > > > > > > Contract: 7? by S > > > > Lead: ?2. > > > > > > > > After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything > > is high. > > > > Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was > > posted on the tray, and at that moment opponents contested the claim. > > TD was summoned at that time. > > > > TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? > > TD course) that there is a new approach to this matter, by which the > > declarer could have the right (with normal play in this particular > > case) to score 2210. > > > > There is really no change to the claim laws. But they are just not as > simple as you may imagine. > > > After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are > > not all good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs could > > not be established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only chance > > for declarer to fulfill the contract is to find ?K on side (finessing > > the clubs). > > > > I believe you mean the King of hearts. > > > > > > > And that ?new approach? gives (??) declarer this right. > > > > Indeed, the law states that a new line must be accepted if to not use it > would be irrational. When playing seven (at teams?) it is irrational to > simply give a way a trick as long as there is still a chance of making a > thirteenth one. In this case, there are two lines that (after the > discovery of the bad breaks) lead to a thirteenth trick: cashing the ace > of hearts hoping for the king singleton, and finessing the hearts. Since > it would be irrational to believe that the first line offers more > chances than the second, that second line is allowed to be taken. > > However - there are some more considerations. > > You must remember that claimer needs to find out about the situation in > every single of the normal lines that are embedded in his claim statement. > So, let's see: > What would happen in real play? > It would not be normal for him to leave a trump out, so he does start > with three trump tricks. > Next, he'll unblock the diamond king. Now he knows there is no way to > score more than 4 diamond tricks; he has two more trumps, which will > each take a trick, which brings him to 5Sp + 4Di + 1He = 10 tricks, so > he'll need 3 club tricks. Everything OK if clubs break 3-3. > So he'll play 2 club tricks and notice the problem there as well. > And now any declarer will notice that he'll need the heart finesse. > But! Maybe in the meanwhile he'll have played the HA? This cannot have > happened after the discovery of the diamond break, since by then he's > "awake" again, but it might have happened before then. > > So: how likely do you consider it for this declarer that rather than > play a diamond to the king, he'll have played a heart to the ace. > I myself consider this very unlikely, and not normal. But I'm certain > that others may disagree. > > What they should not disagree about, is that claimer has the right to > start thinking again after he sees the diamond void. And that this right > exyends to him finding the only possible normal line of checking the > clubs and then finessing the HK. > > Herman. > > > > > > > Please, comments anyone who knows something about that. > > > > > > > > Ivan BUNJI > > > > Chief TD in Serbia > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ 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/20100209/f00e085c/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 9 10:34:08 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:34:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B712C10.3050304@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > On 9 February 2010 08:23, Ivan Bunji wrote: > >> Claims and concessions (new approach?) >> >> Bd: 4 ? K J 10 3 >> Dlr: W ? 6 5 >> Vul: Both ? A Q J 6 2 >> ? 6 5 >> ? 7 2 ? 8 6 4 >> ? J 10 8 7 4 2 ? K 9 >> ? - ? 10 9 8 7 5 4 3 >> ? Q J 9 4 3 ? 7 >> ? A Q 9 5 >> ? A Q 3 >> ? K >> ? A K 10 8 2 >> >> Contract: 7? by S >> Lead: ?2. >> >> After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything is high. >> >> Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was posted on >> the tray, and at that moment opponents contested the claim. TD was summoned >> at that time. >> >> TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. >> >> Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? TD >> course) that there is a new approach to this matter, by which the declarer >> could have the right (with normal play in this particular case) to score >> 2210. >> >> After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are not all >> good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs could not be >> established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only chance for declarer >> to fulfill the contract is to find ?K on side (finessing the clubs). >> >> > The OP said declarer played two round of trumps and claimed. You won't > let him play a third round of trumps after the claim when he's said > nothing about an outstanding trump. Thus your plan would fall down > early, as east would ruff the second round of trumps. > > Not quite. It has been ruled before that a declarer who claims after discovering the good lie of trumps is deemed to pull the last one ; the most common case being 4-4-3-2 trumps. This is consistent with the approach that "a claim means the problems of the deal are solved". This doesn't mean that I agree with the apprach on what follows. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 9 10:37:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:37:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Yes, now I can read and understand the question ;-) > > If I were the TD, I would also rule under Law 70E1; > but my score would be +2210 > > Discovering the bad breaks in both minors, > declarer has simply no other chance as to > finesse in hearts - which was not part of his > original claim (neither statement nor intention). > This finesse is "protected" by the last sentence > of Law 70E1: "..., or unless failure to adopt > this line of play would be irrational." > > But what if declarer plays the third trump, then HA ? That would be inferior, to be sure, but I wouldn't call it irrational considering his belief that the hands are all top tricks. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 9 10:42:51 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:42:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711F31.5050004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B712E1B.70000@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 9 February 2010 09:39, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> The OP said declarer played two round of trumps and claimed. You won't >>> let him play a third round of trumps after the claim when he's said >>> nothing about an outstanding trump. Thus your plan would fall down >>> early, as east would ruff the second round of trumps. >>> >> Come on, Harald, it is perfectly logical to claim after discovering that >> trumps are 3-2, and perfectly habitual to not assume claimer did not >> know there was another trump out. > > It's perfectly normal to claim after playing two rounds of trumps and > say that you'll draw the last trump before proceeding to cash the rest > of your tricks. And I too know that it's pretty common not to mention > the last trump. You'll have to be at the table to know what's going > on. I'm used to playing against opponents claiming this way. And I'm > almost always able to tell from the way they play and claim what's > going on. So most of the time I agree to such claims, as it's clear > that declarer was going to pull the last trump. And as a TD, I believe > I'm able to sort this out too, most of the time. So why then are you reluctant to say so to Ivan here? Yes, I realize that there are cases where the ruling shall be different, but surely you cannot blame Ivan for not mentioning that the director agrees that claimer did not forget the last trump? I realize that some problems are put incompletely on blml, but some things are quite easily understood and I believe this is one of them. So let's forget about the forgotten trump here, shall we? And concentrate on whether claimer is allowed to finesse. And rule on whether it is normal to have cashed the HA before the DK. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 9 10:56:58 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:56:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Peter Eidt a ?crit : >> Yes, now I can read and understand the question ;-) >> >> If I were the TD, I would also rule under Law 70E1; >> but my score would be +2210 >> >> Discovering the bad breaks in both minors, >> declarer has simply no other chance as to >> finesse in hearts - which was not part of his >> original claim (neither statement nor intention). >> This finesse is "protected" by the last sentence >> of Law 70E1: "..., or unless failure to adopt >> this line of play would be irrational." >> >> > But what if declarer plays the third trump, then HA ? That would be > inferior, to be sure, but I wouldn't call it irrational considering his > belief that the hands are all top tricks. I am not sure that this is what he believes. He believes he can make all tricks, but not that they are all high - at the moment. It is difficult to see that he knows what tricks he's going to make, so we must assume that he claimed without having made a definite plan. Now it is my belief that when the director plays the hand out (in order to determine the number of tricks), he must include in his actions all those that claimer is likely to make. And among those actions, certainly, there is the action of making a plan. When claimer makes a plan, it will be clear to him that playing the HA early cannot be of any help. So I don't rule that a normal line. There is however one more normal line we have not yet considered: leave a trump in order to be able to ruff twice in one or the other hand. This might cater for clubs being 4-2, and that might be not irrational. How would play go then? Two spade tricks, now thinking - maybe I need two club ruffs. To hand with the DK or HA, club ace king, ruff, back to hand, club ruff, diamonds, overruffed when necessary, fifth club. Now that seems like a plan. When does this plan fail? Not on the diamond to the king, because west can't ruff. But it will fail after the club king, when east ruffs. So I would rule one down based on this possible normal line. Satisfied now? Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 9 11:28:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:28:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Peter Eidt a ?crit : >> >>> Yes, now I can read and understand the question ;-) >>> >>> If I were the TD, I would also rule under Law 70E1; >>> but my score would be +2210 >>> >>> Discovering the bad breaks in both minors, >>> declarer has simply no other chance as to >>> finesse in hearts - which was not part of his >>> original claim (neither statement nor intention). >>> This finesse is "protected" by the last sentence >>> of Law 70E1: "..., or unless failure to adopt >>> this line of play would be irrational." >>> >>> >>> >> But what if declarer plays the third trump, then HA ? That would be >> inferior, to be sure, but I wouldn't call it irrational considering his >> belief that the hands are all top tricks. >> > > I am not sure that this is what he believes. He believes he can make all > tricks, but not that they are all high - at the moment. It is difficult > to see that he knows what tricks he's going to make, so we must assume > that he claimed without having made a definite plan. Now it is my belief > that when the director plays the hand out (in order to determine the > number of tricks), he must include in his actions all those that claimer > is likely to make. And among those actions, certainly, there is the > action of making a plan. Do you really think that a declarer who has stated that no more plan was necessary will make one therafter, realizing the need to keep the finesse just in case ? The policy is that a declarer who didn't state any plan isn't allowed to act according to any fixed plan which would include anything that's not frightfully obvious. Preserving the chance of a finesse in case things turn out badly (which declarer apparently didn't imagine was possible) isn't obvious enough. Taking a marked finesse (due to an opponent having shown out or being due to show out) is obvious enough. As a matter of fact, it is fairly common, in case one has enough high tricks, to cash the tricks from the closed hand, so that opponents can realize dummy has the rest. Whence many declarers, if they believed they had enough tricks but didn't want to cliam, would indeed begin with C/AK and H/A in any order. > When claimer makes a plan, But he didn't. > it will be clear to > him that playing the HA early cannot be of any help. So I don't rule > that a normal line. > A line that can't be of any help, but whose absurdity doesn't spring to mind, is called "inferior" and has to be taken into acocunt. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 9 11:53:19 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:53:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> When claimer makes a plan, > But he didn't. > But he will. It is possible for a claimer to claim without formulating a plan of play, but it is not possible for him to play without formulating such a plan. For example - do you think he has already decided to play the king of diamonds before the ace; to play a small diamond to (or on) the king? Surely not, and yet we allow him to look at his diamonds and decide to play small to the king (or the king first and the diamonds later). Similarly, we will allow claimer to realize that after the diamond king he needs to get back to the table, to realize that he can only do so by ruffing a club, and to realize that he needs to play AK of clubs before the small ones (or he cannot ruff them). Is it too much to ask then, that he also is allowed to realize that after ruffing a club, he needs to get back to hand to use the remaining clubs? So that he'll need the Ace of hearts still there? Really Alain, you cannot ask a claimer to go blindly about playing suits and blocking them, just because he has stated nothing about the order in which he does so. Most of this is open to discussion - but the discussion should focus on what he will certainly discover and what is not 100% certain. The discussion should not start with "you stated nothing, so you will now play the Ace of Hearts, then the King of diamonds, overtaken by the ace. That is not a rational action, and not a normal line. >> it will be clear to >> him that playing the HA early cannot be of any help. So I don't rule >> that a normal line. >> > A line that can't be of any help, but whose absurdity doesn't spring to > mind, is called "inferior" and has to be taken into acocunt. > OK, that is a valid point of view. One I wrote in my first point. I consider it not normal, but I accept other views on the matter and a majority decision in a committee. I don't accept silly arguments like "you said nothing, so you'll play irrationally". > > > > Best regards > > Alain Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 9 12:10:33 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:10:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> When claimer makes a plan, >>> >> But he didn't. >> >> > > But he will. > It is possible for a claimer to claim without formulating a plan of > play, but it is not possible for him to play without formulating such a > plan. > For example - do you think he has already decided to play the king of > diamonds before the ace; to play a small diamond to (or on) the king? > No, I don't think so, but I'll let him do it because the contrary would be irrational. That's the difference. > Surely not, and yet we allow him to look at his diamonds and decide to > play small to the king (or the king first and the diamonds later). > Similarly, we will allow claimer to realize that after the diamond king > he needs to get back to the table, to realize that he can only do so by > ruffing a club, and to realize that he needs to play AK of clubs before > the small ones (or he cannot ruff them). Is it too much to ask then, > that he also is allowed to realize that after ruffing a club, he needs > to get back to hand to use the remaining clubs? So that he'll need the > Ace of hearts still there? > AG : as a matter of fact, I pretend that he won't see the need of playing on clubs, so the question is without object. > > Most of this is open to discussion - but the discussion should focus on > what he will certainly discover and what is not 100% certain. The > discussion should not start with "you stated nothing, so you will now > play the Ace of Hearts, then the King of diamonds, overtaken by the ace. > That is not a rational action, and not a normal line. > > Did I say anything about thr DK ? >>> it will be clear to >>> him that playing the HA early cannot be of any help. So I don't rule >>> that a normal line. >>> >>> >> A line that can't be of any help, but whose absurdity doesn't spring to >> mind, is called "inferior" and has to be taken into acocunt. >> >> > > OK, that is a valid point of view. One I wrote in my first point. I > consider it not normal, but I accept other views on the matter and a > majority decision in a committee. I don't accept silly arguments like > "you said nothing, so you'll play irrationally". > Indeed, but replace it by "carelessly". Don't take it badly if I don't answer any more ; I have a very important project that will keep me busy till late tomorrow. Best rgards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 9 12:28:33 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:28:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred><4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be><000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><002001caa81a$462e83b0$d28b8b10$@com> <68EA187F3F0D45C7BE470F3BC30DF6E1@Mildred> <001401caa8e3$458c0fd0$d0a42f70$@com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling [DALB] The question left unresolved by the claim Laws, and one of the many flaws within those Laws, is the point of view from which rationality is to be judged - the claimer's or the judges'. If one says that it is "rational" for a player to entertain the possibility of a falsecard even though the player does not have the experience or the nous actually to entertain that possibility ...well, one is not behaving entirely rationally. [GE] My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, objectively examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the principles of reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the Director to make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's decision is questioned. Law 70E1 does not say "....would be irrational for the player concerned." It concerns itself with irrationality in absolute terms. [Kojak] Amen! [DALB] Not "amen" at all, for this means that "normality" or "carelessness" or "inferiority" is to be judged by reference to the standard of a player, while "irrationality" is not. Instead, it is to be judged by reference to some "absolute" notion of what is rational at bridge (as if there were such a thing). The difficulty with this is that at levels below the highest, no one has access to this "absolute" or "objective" set of criteria; if the position had arisen at a local club, it is highly unlikely that the possibility of a falsecard would be noticed by the Director, and vanishingly unlikely that there would be an appeal. Thus the "wrong" ruling would be given, and another utterly illogical and absurd inconsistency would have occurred. +=+ The Drafting Committee removed the 'irrational' reference from the footnote to Laws 70-71 because Kaplan's precise placing of the comma (to exclude irrationality from the matters where the class of player was relevant) had been corrupted by some who failed to grasp the nicety of his grammar. In the current laws the only reference to irrationality is now in Law 70E1 and the word 'irrational' is limited in its application to matters with which 70E1 deals. The intention is that "carelessness" or "inferiority" is to be judged by reference to the standard of player. The intention is that questions of rationality and irrationality should not be an issue except as 70E1 requires. Such is the law. Each Director will understand it and apply it at his level of expertise. I doubt that David's envisaged 'inconsistency' will interfere with the enjoyment of the game in its lower reaches. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 12:41:22 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:41:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 9 February 2010 11:53, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> When claimer makes a plan, >> But he didn't. >> > > But he will. > It is possible for a claimer to claim without formulating a plan of > play, but it is not possible for him to play without formulating such a > plan. > For example - do you think he has already decided to play the king of > diamonds before the ace; to play a small diamond to (or on) the king? > Surely not, and yet we allow him to look at his diamonds and decide to > play small to the king (or the king first and the diamonds later). > Similarly, we will allow claimer to realize that after the diamond king > he needs to get back to the table, to realize that he can only do so by > ruffing a club, and to realize that he needs to play AK of clubs before > the small ones (or he cannot ruff them). Is it too much to ask then, > that he also is allowed to realize that after ruffing a club, he needs > to get back to hand to use the remaining clubs? So that he'll need the > Ace of hearts still there? But he won't, since he can reach his hand by ruffing a diamond. Btw, as he believes he's got enough tricks anyway, why would he need to get back to his hand at all? I agree with you Herman that you can't force really crazy plays on a claimer. But, when you think you have enough tricks in high cards, it's rational to take your winners in any order, maintaining communication to do this. > Really Alain, you cannot ask a claimer to go blindly about playing suits > and blocking them, just because he has stated nothing about the order in > which he does so. > > Most of this is open to discussion - but the discussion should focus on > what he will certainly discover and what is not 100% certain. The > discussion should not start with "you stated nothing, so you will now > play the Ace of Hearts, then the King of diamonds, overtaken by the ace. > That is not a rational action, and not a normal line. > >>> it will be clear to >>> him that playing the HA early cannot be of any help. So I don't rule >>> that a normal line. >>> >> A line that can't be of any help, but whose absurdity doesn't spring to >> mind, ?is called "inferior" and has to be taken into acocunt. >> > > OK, that is a valid point of view. One I wrote in my first point. I > consider it not normal, but I accept other views on the matter and a > majority decision in a committee. I don't accept silly arguments like > "you said nothing, so you'll play irrationally". > >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> ? Alain > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 9 13:36:58 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:36:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> For example - do you think he has already decided to play the king of >> diamonds before the ace; to play a small diamond to (or on) the king? >> > No, I don't think so, but I'll let him do it because the contrary would > be irrational. That's the difference. > But that is not my point. My point is that he has not yet decided to play the king, so you allow him to decide. And when he decides, we agree that it is irrational to play the ace. In the case of the hearts, I believe that he has not yet decided to play hearts first or not. So I allow him to decide now. And when he looks at the whole hand, it is irrational to play to the HA. So indeed, there is a difference, but only at the point where you find he is allowed to "wake up". I allow him to wake up before taking a look at the whole hand, you would do so only for a single suit. If a player has looked at the entire hand for some seconds, and he then claims, I no longer allow him to "look again". But when he has claimed without thinking (as I believe this claimer to have done) then I allow him to "look for the first time" before embarking on the play of the hand. This was the same principle in the "strange claim" that we finally settled upon. BTW, did you read my analysis that maybe we should call "normal" the line of leaving the third trump out and ruffing two clubs first - a line which fails because the CK will be ruffed. aha: you did: >> > AG : as a matter of fact, I pretend that he won't see the need of > playing on clubs, so the question is without object. > however, it is better to agree on one normal failing line than to disagree on another one. > >> Most of this is open to discussion - but the discussion should focus on >> what he will certainly discover and what is not 100% certain. The >> discussion should not start with "you stated nothing, so you will now >> play the Ace of Hearts, then the King of diamonds, overtaken by the ace. >> That is not a rational action, and not a normal line. >> >> > Did I say anything about thr DK ? > You did not, but certain others did. They rule against the claim on the silly reason of "badly worded claim = going down", a position which the laws do not support. >>>> it will be clear to >>>> him that playing the HA early cannot be of any help. So I don't rule >>>> that a normal line. >>>> >>>> >>> A line that can't be of any help, but whose absurdity doesn't spring to >>> mind, is called "inferior" and has to be taken into acocunt. >>> >>> >> OK, that is a valid point of view. One I wrote in my first point. I >> consider it not normal, but I accept other views on the matter and a >> majority decision in a committee. I don't accept silly arguments like >> "you said nothing, so you'll play irrationally". >> > Indeed, but replace it by "carelessly". > NONO, that is not a silly argument. That is a valid one. But some people use the silly argument. > Don't take it badly if I don't answer any more ; I have a very important > project that will keep me busy till late tomorrow. > > Best rgards > > Alain > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 9 15:15:16 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:15:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>> OK, that is a valid point of view. One I wrote in my first point. I >>> consider it not normal, but I accept other views on the matter and a >>> majority decision in a committee. I don't accept silly arguments like >>> "you said nothing, so you'll play irrationally". >>> >>> >> Indeed, but replace it by "carelessly". >> >> > > NONO, that is not a silly argument. That is a valid one. But some people > use the silly argument. > > I meant : it is indeed silly, but replace "irrationally" with "carelessly" and it isn't. So we agree at least on that. The truth is, we only disagree on whether it would be irrational to cash the HA first. That's a committee matter, so the problem isn't a good one in a course, as the answer might vary on judgment. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 9 15:16:16 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:16:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com><1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be><4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be><4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions >> Most of this is open to discussion - but the discussion should focus on what he will certainly discover and what is not 100% certain. The discussion should not start with "you stated nothing, so you will now play the Ace of Hearts, then the King of diamonds, overtaken by the ace. That is not a rational action, and not a normal line. >> +=+ Whether it is rational is not a consideration. The question is whether it is 'normal' - including, as it may be, what is careless or inferior. The question of irrationality only arises when the decision to be made is whether, to the exclusion of all other lines of play, it would be irrational to adopt a line other than the one proposed. If there are alternative lines of play that are 'normal' within the meaning of this term of the art, none of these lines can be excluded on the grounds that it is not rational to follow it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bunji.ivan at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 15:21:20 2010 From: bunji.ivan at gmail.com (Ivan Bunji) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:21:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6440c2ff1002090621r415452car4ebe62ec878da1f9@mail.gmail.com> As a matter of fact, all four players had a good look at a board, before calling for TD. I made a ruling based on first declarer's statement after he saw the trumps were 3-2: - "everything is high, i will discard hearts on diamonds, and ruff last heart from hand with last trump on dummy, of course, first playing trump on trick three. NS agree about the statement. But when EW asked to see the bord again, they all realized that the statement wasn't good. Of course, NS now found "the normal play" which allows South player to make heart finnese on trick 12. That I didn't allow. For me, only one thing is esential: was it in San Remo (last week at TD course) mentioned this possibility that, even if the claim statement was wrong, the declarer should be "protected" by "new approach". Ivan On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> For example - do you think he has already decided to play the king of > >> diamonds before the ace; to play a small diamond to (or on) the king? > >> > > No, I don't think so, but I'll let him do it because the contrary would > > be irrational. That's the difference. > > > > But that is not my point. My point is that he has not yet decided to > play the king, so you allow him to decide. And when he decides, we agree > that it is irrational to play the ace. > In the case of the hearts, I believe that he has not yet decided to play > hearts first or not. So I allow him to decide now. And when he looks at > the whole hand, it is irrational to play to the HA. > So indeed, there is a difference, but only at the point where you find > he is allowed to "wake up". I allow him to wake up before taking a look > at the whole hand, you would do so only for a single suit. > > If a player has looked at the entire hand for some seconds, and he then > claims, I no longer allow him to "look again". But when he has claimed > without thinking (as I believe this claimer to have done) then I allow > him to "look for the first time" before embarking on the play of the hand. > > This was the same principle in the "strange claim" that we finally > settled upon. > > BTW, did you read my analysis that maybe we should call "normal" the > line of leaving the third trump out and ruffing two clubs first - a line > which fails because the CK will be ruffed. > aha: you did: > > >> > > AG : as a matter of fact, I pretend that he won't see the need of > > playing on clubs, so the question is without object. > > > > however, it is better to agree on one normal failing line than to > disagree on another one. > > > > >> Most of this is open to discussion - but the discussion should focus on > >> what he will certainly discover and what is not 100% certain. The > >> discussion should not start with "you stated nothing, so you will now > >> play the Ace of Hearts, then the King of diamonds, overtaken by the ace. > >> That is not a rational action, and not a normal line. > >> > >> > > Did I say anything about thr DK ? > > > > You did not, but certain others did. They rule against the claim on the > silly reason of "badly worded claim = going down", a position which the > laws do not support. > > >>>> it will be clear to > >>>> him that playing the HA early cannot be of any help. So I don't rule > >>>> that a normal line. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> A line that can't be of any help, but whose absurdity doesn't spring to > >>> mind, is called "inferior" and has to be taken into acocunt. > >>> > >>> > >> OK, that is a valid point of view. One I wrote in my first point. I > >> consider it not normal, but I accept other views on the matter and a > >> majority decision in a committee. I don't accept silly arguments like > >> "you said nothing, so you'll play irrationally". > >> > > Indeed, but replace it by "carelessly". > > > > NONO, that is not a silly argument. That is a valid one. But some people > use the silly argument. > > > Don't take it badly if I don't answer any more ; I have a very important > > project that will keep me busy till late tomorrow. > > > > Best rgards > > > > Alain > > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20100209/19416472/attachment-0001.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Feb 9 15:41:33 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:41:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B71741D.5070304@comcast.net> On 2/9/10 9:15 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> OK, that is a valid point of view. One I wrote in my first point. I >>>> consider it not normal, but I accept other views on the matter and a >>>> majority decision in a committee. I don't accept silly arguments like >>>> "you said nothing, so you'll play irrationally". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Indeed, but replace it by "carelessly". >>> >>> >>> >> NONO, that is not a silly argument. That is a valid one. But some people >> use the silly argument. >> >> >> > I meant : it is indeed silly, but replace "irrationally" with > "carelessly" and it isn't. So we agree at least on that. > > The truth is, we only disagree on whether it would be irrational to cash > the HA first. That's a committee matter, so the problem isn't a good one > in a course, as the answer might vary on judgment. > Why should the correct ruling depend on who is on the committee? --Bob Park From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 9 15:43:25 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:43:25 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901caa996$3f59d1c0$be0d7540$@com> [AG] The truth is, we only disagree on whether it would be irrational to cash the HA first. That's a committee matter, so the problem isn't a good one in a course, as the answer might vary on judgment. [DALB] On the contrary. Students will only obtain credit if they answer that what is rational is not a matter of judgment, for we have it on the highest authority that rationality is to be assessed according to some absolute objective criteria. The only trouble is, of course, that no one knows what those absolute objective criteria are. David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 9 15:44:43 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:44:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be><4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <7DAADFFE7DC44ECBA3316CE05E3A2D11@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions The truth is, we only disagree on whether it would be irrational to cash the HA first. That's a committee matter, so the problem isn't a good one in a course, as the answer might vary on judgment. < +=+ This is careless language. The Director, and then if called upon the appeals committee, has only to judge whether cashing the HA first would be within the scope of what is normal play, which is defined to include careless or inferior play. Neither Director nor committee is to think 'rational'/'irrational'. As for "the answer might vary on judgment", committees (and Directors) are appointed to make judgemental decisions. That is the nature of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 9 15:44:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:44:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 In-Reply-To: <4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> References: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com> <4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4D0E6F87-66FB-40C1-993C-6ACB7D4603E8@starpower.net> On Feb 8, 2010, at 6:16 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > IMO, TFLB should also define explicit guidelines for an AMWM. I disagree; ISTM that appeals procedures are one of those things best left to regional authorities. But it would indeed behoove our RAs to establish guidelines in this area, and Nigel's sound pretty good. > At least > all the conditions below should be met ... > > [A] The AC makes exactly the same ruling as the TD and for the same > reasons. Yes. The appeal is against the TDs decision, so unless the AC finds no quarrel whatsoever with the TD's decision, whatever flaw they found is sufficient to presume merit for the appeal. > [B] The ruling is unanimous Yes. How can an appeal lack any merit if an AC member agrees with it? > and the decision to award an AMWM is unanimous. No. That's a separate question. In effect, we know we have an unwarranted appeal, so the question for the committee is whether the appellant "should have known" that he had no basis for his appeal. Because one might vote against am appeal-without-merit penalty (or warning) even though one believes the appeal to have had no merit, a lack of unanimity does not create a presumption of merit. > [C] The appellants refused an appeals advisor (or screening > director or > whatever) *or* on recorded facts, the advisor advised against the > appeal. Yes. > [D] The TD did not appeal his own decision. (In the light of BLML > controversies, directors should often appeal their own decision in > last-ditch attempts to resolve long-running controversies about > interpreting the law-book. The WBF could approve key AC decisions and > publish them as case-law paradigms). Of course. This is not an issue. Even the most egregiously inexperienced AC understands that the penalty for bringing an appeal without merit can only be given to the person who brought the appeal. To summarize, an AWM finding should be made only when the floor director, the screener if there is one, and all members of the AC agree that the appeal is without merit. If that happens, it is up to the AC to determine (in the usual manner, by majority vote) whether the AWM offense was sufficiently egregious, for this particular player, to warrant a formal warning or a penalty. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 9 15:53:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:53:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <000901caa996$3f59d1c0$be0d7540$@com> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be> <000901caa996$3f59d1c0$be0d7540$@com> Message-ID: <4B7176D5.4090603@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [AG] > > The truth is, we only disagree on whether it would be irrational to cash the > HA first. That's a committee matter, so the problem isn't a good one in a > course, as the answer might vary on judgment. > > [DALB] > > On the contrary. Students will only obtain credit if they answer that what > is rational is not a matter of judgment Sure, but they will have to use it, and if students come to different conclusions on a close case, we can't disallow them. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 9 16:00:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:00:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Please rule -- solution? In-Reply-To: <4B700EB3.3050907@skynet.be> References: <960405.32623.qm@web23702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4B700EB3.3050907@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > PO Sundelin wrote: > >> Both players alerted. They explained the same way. Is that not >> proof enough? >> To me it is clearcut. Result stands. > > No it is not (proof enough). > One also needs to ask why the player diverted from his system. > If he responds something like "I had a spade among my clubs", and we > believe him, then there is no problem. > If he gives an answer like "I tactically decided not to show my > stopper", we may rule MI based on the omission "except when he does > not > want to show it". > But sometimes we shall find that he really has no method of showing > the > hearts with a spade stopper, or that he does not want to use that > method > in the particular circumstances shown. I have meanwhile been told that > the complete system would be: 3Di showing hearts with the stopper, 3Sp > showing neither, and 3NT showing just the stopper, so his normal bid > should be 3Di. If, for whatever reason, he does not want to bid this, > then that reason ought to be told to the opponents. This amounts to > misinformation. Is this serious? It says that if I have a systemic call which will describe my hand, but, "for whatever reason", choose to so something else (place the contract, for example), the law presumes that my partner should somehow be able to (a) become aware of the fact that I have done this, (b) work out what my reason was, and (c) tell the opponents. It says that if I leap to 6NT when I could have systemically given a better description of my hand to my partner along the way, that "amounts to MI". Say what? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 9 16:19:36 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:19:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be><000901caa996$3f59d1c0$be0d7540$@com> <4B7176D5.4090603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <806AAD5918C1455AB11FE326471ACB93@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions David Burn a ?crit : > [AG] > > The truth is, we only disagree on whether it would be irrational to cash > the > HA first. That's a committee matter, so the problem isn't a good one in a > course, as the answer might vary on judgment. > > [DALB] > > On the contrary. Students will only obtain credit if they answer that what > is rational is not a matter of judgment Sure, but they will have to use it, and if students come to different conclusions on a close case, we can't disallow them. < +=+ To say it again: One may expand slightly on this: the construction and language of the law is such that 'normal' is again a term unrelated to the class of player, but added to that general standard is what is careless or inferior "for the class of player involved". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 9 16:29:18 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:29:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B71741D.5070304@comcast.net> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be> <4B71741D.5070304@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4B717F4D.1090008@skynet.be> Robert Park wrote: > > > Why should the correct ruling depend on who is on the committee? > > --Bob Park Because by nature, different people have different opinions. We try to get to the "right" solution by having multi-man committees, but this cannot guarantee that a different committee can arrive at a different "right" solution. Such is the natire of bridge, and we have lived with it for a long time. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 9 16:29:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:29:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 In-Reply-To: <4D0E6F87-66FB-40C1-993C-6ACB7D4603E8@starpower.net> References: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com> <4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> <4D0E6F87-66FB-40C1-993C-6ACB7D4603E8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B717F4A.1080705@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Yes. How can an appeal lack any merit if an AC member agrees with it? > > AG : I'd say this can't be excluded. It is quite possible that someone in the AC has completely misunderstood the subject (say he read the wrong part of TFLB) and stubbornly sticks to his version. Of ourse, that's why we strive to have at least 3 membrers in any AC. I'm so harsh about UI that I fully expect the other two members to disagree occasionally with me and possibly conclude AWM. From jrhind at therock.bm Tue Feb 9 17:25:59 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:25:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Bd: 4 ? J 10 Dlr: W ? 6 5 Vul: Both ? A Q J 6 2 ? 6 5 ? ? 8 ? J 10 8 7 4 2 ? K 9 ? - ? 10 9 8 7 5 4 3 ? Q J 9 4 3 ? 7 ? Q 9 ? A Q 3 ? K ? A K 10 8 2 Not being at the table to hear declarers exact wording of his/her claim makes this somewhat difficult. If indeed declarer said ?everything is high? I would tend to infer that he may have forgotten that there is a trump outstanding. The questions that arises here is do we, as TD?s make different inferences based on the class of the player? If we are dealing with players playing the in the Bermuda Bowl, perhaps we agree that declarer for sure knew that their was a trump outstanding and thought that he could ruff the third club in dummy after cashing the diamond K. In either case I would rule ?100 on the basis that it would not be irrational to cash the AK of clubs without drawing the last trump. Jack On 2/9/10 3:23 AM, "Ivan Bunji" wrote: > ? > Claims and concessions (new approach?) > ? > ? > ? > Bd: 4??????????????????? ? K J 10 3 > Dlr: W????????????????? ? 6 5 > Vul: Both????????????? ? A Q J 6 2 > ???????????????????????????? ? 6 5 > ? 7 2???????????????????????????????????????????????? ? 8 6 4 > ? J 10 8 7 4 2????????????????????????????????? ? K 9 > ? -????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? 10 9 8 7 5 4 3 > ? Q J 9 4 3???????????????????????????????????????? 7 > ???????????????????????????? ? A Q 9 5 > ???????????????????????????? ? A Q 3 > ???????????????????????????? ? K > ???????????????????????????? ? A K 10 8 2 > ? > Contract: 7? by S > Lead: ?2. > ? > After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything is high. > Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was posted on the > tray, and at that moment opponents contested the claim. TD was summoned at > that time. > TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. > ? > Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? TD course) > that there is a new approach to this matter, by which the declarer could have > the right (with normal play in this particular case) to score 2210. > After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are not all > good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs could not be > established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only chance for declarer to > fulfill the contract is to find ?K on side (finessing the clubs). > ? > And that ?new approach? gives (??) declarer this right. > ? > Please, comments anyone who knows something about that. > ? > Ivan BUNJI > Chief TD in Serbia > ? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20100209/45a8731c/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 9 18:56:06 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:56:06 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: Message-ID: <83C452E1E0F54E3D93E3B72651C54BF3@Mildred> Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions Grattan Endicott wrote: Claims and concessions (new approach?) From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 9 19:24:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:24:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <890A8543DF584C88B9B286C579D6FB82@Mildred> References: <4B6C53B6.1000307@ulb.ac.be><4B6C2D84.2080604@yahoo.co.uk> <32471888.1265222541317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a561002041136t52a6ba37i27b9c772e7bf4c32@mail.gmail.com> <4B6B2C0B.3000500@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6BF2BC.8080404@ulb.ac.be><125338.1265387743573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><22142838.1265392251931.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <0E0DD22D-FB37-451A-B40A-21A683BB4EF4@starpower.net> <890A8543DF584C88B9B286C579D6FB82@Mildred> Message-ID: <6332BF17-3BA6-4F5E-A19C-AA4A806D8DDE@starpower.net> On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > I am confident that Alain would know better than to make an entirely > inappropriate leap from what he knows his partner has read to what he > assumes his partner could have. Disclosure is easy; you just tell > what you know. "We have no agreement, but I do know that pard has > read expert Y, who advocates bidding 2C on a limit hand with no > major, so it's possible that he might have that hand." No MI there. > > +=+ I doubt that knowing partner has read a certain book gives > me a good reason to *expect* him to use a device described in > the book. Would knowledge that I had read "The Affair of the > Poisons" be sufficient evidence to believe me a Satanist? Well, if you were playing Partnership Duplicate Theology, and your LHO asked your partner for "full disclosure" of what he knows about your views on Satanism, I would think he ought to mention that, although you have no specific partnership understanding about Satanism, he does happen to know that you've read "The Affair of the Poisons". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 9 20:28:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:28:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711F31.5050004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <95E9D19E-63B3-4296-9FC5-C6E596CF56F9@starpower.net> On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 9 February 2010 09:39, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >>> The OP said declarer played two round of trumps and claimed. You >>> won't >>> let him play a third round of trumps after the claim when he's said >>> nothing about an outstanding trump. Thus your plan would fall down >>> early, as east would ruff the second round of trumps. >> >> Come on, Harald, it is perfectly logical to claim after >> discovering that >> trumps are 3-2, and perfectly habitual to not assume claimer did not >> know there was another trump out. > > It's perfectly normal to claim after playing two rounds of trumps and > say that you'll draw the last trump before proceeding to cash the rest > of your tricks. And I too know that it's pretty common not to mention > the last trump. You'll have to be at the table to know what's going > on. I'm used to playing against opponents claiming this way. And I'm > almost always able to tell from the way they play and claim what's > going on. So most of the time I agree to such claims, as it's clear > that declarer was going to pull the last trump. And as a TD, I believe > I'm able to sort this out too, most of the time. If nothing else, this thread might remind us just how much easier it is to figure out what's "rational" when you look at all four hands. Sure, it's pretty obvious that it can't hurt to draw the third round of trump and cash the DK before you test clubs. But is it really so obvious that missing it is irrational? If diamonds don't break, maybe the best chance for a 13th is in clubs, not hearts -- a finesse is only 50-50, after all, and clubs don't have to be 5-1. So abandon trumps after two rounds, planning to ruff two rounds of clubs (if necessary) high in dummy, using the DK and HA for reentries for the potential second ruff and to get back to draw that pesky last trump. No danger unless the hand with the long trump is singleton or void in clubs, surely less of a danger than diamonds not splitting and the heart finesse losing. Sounds pretty logical. Oops. C'mon now, if you were kibitzing a declarer who played that way, would you think he was totally off his rocker? The fact is you probably wouldn't even have noticed how badly he played if the club hadn't been ruffed and he'd made the contract routinely. Careless? Sure. Inferior? Sure. Irrational? Not even close. I'm not up to the task, but I'd bet someone could construct a very similar-looking hand in which drawing two rounds of trump, discovering the 3-2 break, then playing for several more tricks before drawing the final trump, notwithstanding the risk of a possible ruff, was the demonstrably best line of play. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 9 20:50:31 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:50:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B712E1B.70000@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711F31.5050004@skynet.be> <4B712E1B.70000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <74E35B27-687C-4F75-822D-9365720C43CF@starpower.net> On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > On 9 February 2010 09:39, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >>>> The OP said declarer played two round of trumps and claimed. You >>>> won't >>>> let him play a third round of trumps after the claim when he's said >>>> nothing about an outstanding trump. Thus your plan would fall down >>>> early, as east would ruff the second round of trumps. >>> >>> Come on, Harald, it is perfectly logical to claim after >>> discovering that >>> trumps are 3-2, and perfectly habitual to not assume claimer did not >>> know there was another trump out. >> >> It's perfectly normal to claim after playing two rounds of trumps and >> say that you'll draw the last trump before proceeding to cash the >> rest >> of your tricks. And I too know that it's pretty common not to mention >> the last trump. You'll have to be at the table to know what's going >> on. I'm used to playing against opponents claiming this way. And I'm >> almost always able to tell from the way they play and claim what's >> going on. So most of the time I agree to such claims, as it's clear >> that declarer was going to pull the last trump. And as a TD, I >> believe >> I'm able to sort this out too, most of the time. > > So why then are you reluctant to say so to Ivan here? > Yes, I realize that there are cases where the ruling shall be > different, > but surely you cannot blame Ivan for not mentioning that the director > agrees that claimer did not forget the last trump? > I realize that some problems are put incompletely on blml, but some > things are quite easily understood and I believe this is one of them. > So let's forget about the forgotten trump here, shall we? > And concentrate on whether claimer is allowed to finesse. > And rule on whether it is normal to have cashed the HA before the DK. In papering over the difference between a claimer who intends to draw the last trump and says so and one who intends to draw the last trump but doesn't say so, we are ignoring the rather more obvious difference between a claimer who intends to draw the last trump and says so and one who intends not to draw the last trump and says so. When a claimer with two suits remaining fails to specify in what order he will play them, we presume the losing choice. When a claimer needing a two-way finesse to fulfill his claim fails to specify which opponent he will take it through, we presume the losing choice. When a player has a choice of drawing the last trump or not drawing the last trump and fails to specify which line he will take, we... ?? Harold writes, "It's perfectly normal to claim after playing two rounds of trump and say that you'll draw the last trump before proceeding..." But it's only perfectly normal if you do want to draw the last trump. Why then is wanting to draw the last trump and not saying so any "more normal" than not wanting to draw the last trump and not saying so? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 9 21:04:39 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:04:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <612A0002-6EAE-4494-A4D6-4C6130D2B64D@starpower.net> On Feb 9, 2010, at 5:53 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> When claimer makes a plan, >> >> But he didn't. > > But he will. Not of this hand, which is over. L68D. > It is possible for a claimer to claim without formulating a plan of > play, Possible, but not legal. L68C. > but it is not possible for him to play without formulating such a > plan. So what? There is no more play. He lost his chance to plan when he violated L68C. If Herman is attempting to argue that it is "irrational" to make any play at all without first fully developing a comprehensive plan for the entire hand he will find very few rational beings at the bridge table. > For example - do you think he has already decided to play the king of > diamonds before the ace; to play a small diamond to (or on) the king? > Surely not, and yet we allow him to look at his diamonds and decide to > play small to the king (or the king first and the diamonds later). > Similarly, we will allow claimer to realize that after the diamond > king > he needs to get back to the table, to realize that he can only do > so by > ruffing a club, and to realize that he needs to play AK of clubs > before > the small ones (or he cannot ruff them). Is it too much to ask then, > that he also is allowed to realize that after ruffing a club, he needs > to get back to hand to use the remaining clubs? So that he'll need the > Ace of hearts still there? > Really Alain, you cannot ask a claimer to go blindly about playing > suits > and blocking them, just because he has stated nothing about the > order in > which he does so. > > Most of this is open to discussion - but the discussion should > focus on > what he will certainly discover and what is not 100% certain. The > discussion should not start with "you stated nothing, so you will now > play the Ace of Hearts, then the King of diamonds, overtaken by the > ace. > That is not a rational action, and not a normal line. > >>> it will be clear to >>> him that playing the HA early cannot be of any help. So I don't rule >>> that a normal line. >> >> A line that can't be of any help, but whose absurdity doesn't >> spring to >> mind, is called "inferior" and has to be taken into acocunt. > > OK, that is a valid point of view. One I wrote in my first point. I > consider it not normal, but I accept other views on the matter and a > majority decision in a committee. I don't accept silly arguments like > "you said nothing, so you'll play irrationally". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 9 22:42:39 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:42:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <83C452E1E0F54E3D93E3B72651C54BF3@Mildred> Message-ID: Rick Riordan, "Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters": Sneaking out after curfew was against the rules, too. If I got caught I'd either get in big trouble or be eaten by the harpies. Ivan Bunji, Chief TD in Serbia >>Claims and concessions (new approach?) Grattan Endicott, Chief Guru on Blml: >+=+ There is no 'new approach'. Why is Ivan Bunji >quoting 'new approach'? Where has the suggestion of a >new approach come from? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ivan Bunji: >>TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. Richard Hills: Why was the TD using Law 70E1? The declarer failed to mention the outstanding trump in her claim, so it is quite possible that declarer miscounted trumps, thus in my opinion the relevant Law is instead Law 70C: When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. Richard Hills: Note that the Law 70C2 "at all likely" criterion is much stronger than the Law 85A1 "balance of probabilities" criterion. And the Law 70C3 "normal play" criterion is easily satisfied on the originally posted deal, since a declarer who thinks everything is high may well attempt to cash her ace and king of clubs early on, only to find the second club honour ruffed. On the other hand, I am pedantically quibbling, since both Law 70E1 and Law 70C lead to the same adjusted score of -100 (since if East scores a ruff, North- South have one more trump available for cross-ruffing purposes). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 9 22:44:35 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:44:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: References: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com><4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> <000601caa2d2$6502e1c0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <140EAEAC1DF34B3CB2D4BA4048875C5F@Mildred><4B66C45F.1080007@yahoo.co.uk> <4B6EE1C5.6070700@skynet.be><000701caa816$7cbabc40$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><002001caa81a$462e83b0$d28b8b10$@com> <68EA187F3F0D45C7BE470F3BC30DF6E1@Mildred> <001401caa8e3$458c0fd0$d0a42f70$@com> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Grattan wrote: > [DALB] > > The question left unresolved by the claim Laws, and one of the many > flaws > within those Laws, is the point of view from which rationality is > to be > judged - the claimer's or the judges'. If one says that it is > "rational" for > a player to entertain the possibility of a falsecard even though > the player > does not have the experience or the nous actually to entertain that > possibility ...well, one is not behaving entirely rationally. > > [GE] > > My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, > objectively > examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the > principles of > reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the > Director to > make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's > decision is questioned. Law 70E1 does not say "....would be > irrational for > the player concerned." It concerns itself with irrationality in > absolute > terms. > > [Kojak] > > Amen! > > [DALB] > > Not "amen" at all, for this means that "normality" or > "carelessness" or > "inferiority" is to be judged by reference to the standard of a > player, > while "irrationality" is not. Instead, it is to be judged by > reference to > some "absolute" notion of what is rational at bridge (as if there > were such > a thing). > > The difficulty with this is that at levels below the highest, no > one has > access to this "absolute" or "objective" set of criteria; if the > position > had arisen at a local club, it is highly unlikely that the > possibility of a > falsecard would be noticed by the Director, and vanishingly > unlikely that > there would be an appeal. Thus the "wrong" ruling would be given, and > another utterly illogical and absurd inconsistency would have > occurred. > > +=+ The Drafting Committee removed the 'irrational' reference from > the footnote to Laws 70-71 because Kaplan's precise placing of the > comma (to exclude irrationality from the matters where the class of > player was relevant) had been corrupted by some who failed to grasp > the nicety of his grammar. In the current laws the only reference to > irrationality is now in Law 70E1 and the word 'irrational' is > limited in > its application to matters with which 70E1 deals. > The intention is that "carelessness" or "inferiority" is to > be judged > by reference to the standard of player. The intention is that > questions > of rationality and irrationality should not be an issue except as 70E1 > requires. > Such is the law. Each Director will understand it and apply > it at > his level of expertise. I doubt that David's envisaged > 'inconsistency' > will interfere with the enjoyment of the game in its lower reaches. The only reference to "careless or inferior" plays in TFLB is in the footnote to L70-71, which defines them as a subset of the set of "'normal'" plays. It doesn't explicitly say that "normal" plays include normal plays that are neither careless nor inferior, but it doesn't need to; "normal" plays, as defined, can be divided into those "normal" plays that are "careless or inferior for the class of player involved" and those "normal" plays that are not. The footnote gives no criteria for distinguishing careless or inferior plays that are "normal" from those that are not; it includes them all as a class, along with all plays that aren't careless or inferior. Whatever the lawmakers intention, there is nothing here that requires us to judge "carelessness" or "inferiority" at all -- if we find it, we include the play in "normal", and if we don't find it we include the play in "normal", so why bother looking -- so whether or not they intended us to judge it "by reference to the standard of player" (as they presumably did, since that's what they wrote) really doesn't matter at all to anyone. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 9 23:40:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:40:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd being interrogated live on television by 200 young Australians aged 16 to 25, February 8th http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2811552.htm?show=transcript BLAISE JOSEPH: Prime Minister, given the climate-gate email scandal, given the fact that the IPCC claims on Himalayan glaciers melting and Amazon rainforests disappearing both have been proven to be fabricated, and now given that the Dutch government is reviewing all claims of the IPCC, do you still have full confidence in the IPCC and is it still necessary to rush ahead with your ETS? KEVIN RUDD: The first thing I'd say is... AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indistinct) KEVIN RUDD: As you can see there is a bit of division on that in the room, like the chamber up the hill. The first thing I'd say is the IPCC - International Panel on Climate Change - scientists has 4000 essentially humourless scientists in white coats who go around and measure things and have been doing so for about 20 years. They reached a conclusion about, first of all, climate change happening and, second, the high likelihood, defined as 90 per cent plus, of it being caused by human activity sometime ago. I'm saying that's actually what the IPCC has concluded. The second thing is this: here in Australia the government has been in receipt of advice from the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Chief Scientist, that that's what's happening here. So as the Prime Minister of Australia you stand back and you say, "Well, the 4000 scientists in white coats are all wrong, the CSIRO is all wrong, the Australian Chief Scientist is all wrong and also the Bureau of Meteorology is all wrong." Well, I'm not prepared to take that risk. I'm not prepared to take that risk for your future in 20 years time, 40 years time, 60 years time. My view is this generation of political leaders has a responsibility to act - has a responsibility to act. And you can play the easy game of retail politics, which is to say this is all too hard, go round and use loose language, like, you know, the climate change science is incapable of being trusted and take a massive risk with the future. The government I lead will not do that. Alain Gottcheiner: >...Preserving the chance of a finesse in case things turn out >badly (which declarer apparently didn't imagine was possible) >isn't obvious enough. Law 70E1, first phrase: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card," Alain Gottcheiner: >Taking a marked finesse (due to an opponent having shown out >or being due to show out) is obvious enough... Law 70E1, middle phrases: "unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play," Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 10 00:22:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:22:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B712C10.3050304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >...It has been ruled before that a declarer who claims after >discovering the good lie of trumps is deemed to pull the >last one... Zone 7 Law 70C example: "Declarer is in 7S with thirteen tricks so long as spades (trumps) are not 5-0. He cashes one round and says 'All mine' when both players follow. He clearly has not forgotten the outstanding three trumps and the claim is good." Richard Hills: There is a significant difference between three unmentioned trumps, as in the above example, and only one unmentioned trump. Declarer "discovering the good lie of trumps" after drawing two rounds may normally (carelessly or inferiorly) believe in a really good lie of the opponents' trumps having broken 2-2, when in fact the trumps have the less good lie of broken 3-2. Adam Wildavsky: >>I agree,?Lord Monckton is an immensely entertaining >>speaker. I think you you find in due course that his views >>on climate change are dead on. BLML is not the place to >>discuss this, though. Richard Hills: I disagree with Adam's excessively narrow parameters for debate on Blml. One purpose of Blml is evidence-based discussion of the Laws. It is possible that Alain Gottcheiner's assertion above was based upon his memory of the Zone 7 Law 70C example. If indeed that was the basis for Alain's idea, his unintentional cherry-picking (based on Alain's faulty memory of the exact words of the example) was fallacious. Lord Monckton, however, is an example of intentional cherry- picking, one-eyed in his entertaining but fallacious presentations. So Lord Monckton therefore serves as a relevant Awful Warning to those blmlers who might be inclined to research only evidence in favour of their arguments, but completely ignore evidence against their arguments. For example, unlike Lord Monckton, I quickly retracted my initial position in the "San Diego NABC+ appeal 17" thread when given contrary evidence by Jean-Pierre Rocafort and others. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Feb 10 00:52:25 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:52:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <7DAADFFE7DC44ECBA3316CE05E3A2D11@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be><4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be> <7DAADFFE7DC44ECBA3316CE05E3A2D11@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B71F539.6000905@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] As for "the answer might vary on judgment", committees (and Directors) are appointed to make judgemental decisions. That is the nature of the game. [Nigel] Bridge law-makers have achieved their aim creating sophisticated rules that maximise reliance on director judgement, as attested by many hundreds of simple cases, in bLML and elswhere, that split directors into roughly equal groups, arguing for contradictory rulings, although facts are agreed :( The nature of a game is its rules. If players would like a game where rulings depend less on judgement then they should campaign for simpler rules. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 10 01:18:04 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:18:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B533AEB.1030105@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >The nature of a game is its rules. If players would like a game >where rulings depend less on judgement then they should campaign >for simpler rules. A game with zero judgement and simpler rules -> | O | X | ? ----------- | X | ? | X ----------- | ? | O | X Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Feb 10 01:52:46 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:52:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <95E9D19E-63B3-4296-9FC5-C6E596CF56F9@starpower.net> Message-ID: Well said Eric, I agree with you entirely. Jack On 2/9/10 3:28 PM, "Eric Landau" wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >> On 9 February 2010 09:39, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >>>> The OP said declarer played two round of trumps and claimed. You >>>> won't >>>> let him play a third round of trumps after the claim when he's said >>>> nothing about an outstanding trump. Thus your plan would fall down >>>> early, as east would ruff the second round of trumps. >>> >>> Come on, Harald, it is perfectly logical to claim after >>> discovering that >>> trumps are 3-2, and perfectly habitual to not assume claimer did not >>> know there was another trump out. >> >> It's perfectly normal to claim after playing two rounds of trumps and >> say that you'll draw the last trump before proceeding to cash the rest >> of your tricks. And I too know that it's pretty common not to mention >> the last trump. You'll have to be at the table to know what's going >> on. I'm used to playing against opponents claiming this way. And I'm >> almost always able to tell from the way they play and claim what's >> going on. So most of the time I agree to such claims, as it's clear >> that declarer was going to pull the last trump. And as a TD, I believe >> I'm able to sort this out too, most of the time. > > If nothing else, this thread might remind us just how much easier it > is to figure out what's "rational" when you look at all four hands. > > Sure, it's pretty obvious that it can't hurt to draw the third round > of trump and cash the DK before you test clubs. But is it really so > obvious that missing it is irrational? If diamonds don't break, > maybe the best chance for a 13th is in clubs, not hearts -- a finesse > is only 50-50, after all, and clubs don't have to be 5-1. So abandon > trumps after two rounds, planning to ruff two rounds of clubs (if > necessary) high in dummy, using the DK and HA for reentries for the > potential second ruff and to get back to draw that pesky last trump. > No danger unless the hand with the long trump is singleton or void in > clubs, surely less of a danger than diamonds not splitting and the > heart finesse losing. Sounds pretty logical. Oops. > > C'mon now, if you were kibitzing a declarer who played that way, > would you think he was totally off his rocker? The fact is you > probably wouldn't even have noticed how badly he played if the club > hadn't been ruffed and he'd made the contract routinely. Careless? > Sure. Inferior? Sure. Irrational? Not even close. > > I'm not up to the task, but I'd bet someone could construct a very > similar-looking hand in which drawing two rounds of trump, > discovering the 3-2 break, then playing for several more tricks > before drawing the final trump, notwithstanding the risk of a > possible ruff, was the demonstrably best line of play. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 10 07:26:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:26:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Lore & E-thinks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: E-posting of EBU Law & Ethics Committee draft minutes, January 21st 2010 http://www.ebu.co.uk/general/frontpage/minutes.htm EBU Lore: 5.5 The committee considered and approved a suggestion from Grattan Endicott that a regulation should be included in the Orange Book to go alongside Law 7B1. "When under Law 7B1 a player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position a member of each side, or the Director, should be present." EBU thinks: 5.8 Pairs receiving several "average plus / average minus" awards in a session The committee noted that Ton Kooijman had suggested that the intention of giving average plus / average minus awards was limited to a small number - perhaps two or three per session. Max indicated that we already did this in some cases, such as an 8-board Swiss Pairs match where a pair was not able to play a match through no fault of its own was given 4 x 60% and 4 x 50%. Max considered that if it were legal to have a limit then we should do so. He would consider it and report back. ACTION MB Richard Hills: The new regulation revealed in clause 5.5 was obviously prompted by blml debate on the topic last year, thus demonstrably suggesting that this mailing list is occasionally useful. And the clause 5.5 regulation is also obviously legal, being fully consistent with Law 80B2(f), final phrases: "...regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." Richard Hills: But the EBU thinks about a possible regulation modifying Law 12C2(a), final phrase: "...and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault." Richard Hills: is more problematic, since to a naive reader of the Laws a regulation reducing a non-offending contestant's 60% score to 50% is indeed "in conflict" with Law 12C2(a). For what it is worth, many years ago (when the 1997 Lawbook applied) in the round-robin final of the Australian Butler Pairs, two contestants were given a set of boards marked with the wrong vulnerabilities. 9 of the 16 boards in that match were played before the Directors realised their error, so the TDs believed that they were compelled by Law to award 9 Ave+ to both sides in that match. The result was that the combined Victory Points for both sides totalled to more than 30 (WBF VP scale). On the other hand... Very early in the drafting process the ACBL Laws Commission formally recorded in its minutes a desire that the new 2007 Lawbook should permit the number of Ave+ awarded in a single session to be limited. Perhaps the Ton Kooijman reference to "intention" is an admission that the Drafting Committee discussed the ACBL LC suggestion, but that it fell through the cracks. (Unlike some less forgiving blmlers, I am not electing to criticise the Drafting Committee for failing to be demi-god children of Poseidon, who should have washed away _every_ barnacle encrusting the 1997 Lawbook.) Grattan Endicott, May 2001: ".....EK held the view that if there is doubt the legislators' intentions must be honoured in the interpretation, a view with which David is commonly in conflict. It is wearisome when David returns persistently to his mangonel....." Richard Hills: At the risk of having a mangonel thrown at me, I hold the view that there is not any "doubt" as to what the words of Laws 80B2(f) and 12C2(a) actually say. So I hold the view that the purported intent of Ton Kooijman and perhaps other members of the Drafting Committee is irrelevant at the moment. If this multiple Ave+ issue is deemed to be of equivalent importance to the insufficient bid issue, then the solution is obvious. Just as the Drafting Committee reconvened to rewrite the inadequate 2007 Law 27 into a slightly more sensible 2008 Law 27, so the Drafting Committee could reconvene to create a 2010 Law 12C2(a). But, in my opinion, the flaw in the 2007 Law 12C2(a) is much more trivial than the flaws in the 2007 Law 27, so I pose this multiple-choice question -> Should minor flaws in the 2007 Lawbook be: (a) automatically rewritten by the local Regulating Authority (the ACBL solution, which has the strong disadvantage of creating several slightly different Lawbooks) or (b) very regularly corrected online by the WBF Drafting Committee (the Nigel Guthrie solution, which has the strong disadvantage of creating several slightly different Lawbooks, as grass-roots Directors struggle with their version control) or (c) deferred until the comprehensive rewrite of the Lawbook circa 2017 / 2018 (which has the weak disadvantage, in this particular Law 12C2(a) case, of giving the non-offending contestant(s) a "windfall"). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 10 09:25:02 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:25:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <612A0002-6EAE-4494-A4D6-4C6130D2B64D@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <612A0002-6EAE-4494-A4D6-4C6130D2B64D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B726D5E.3070709@skynet.be> Sorry Eric, you are not helping. Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 5:53 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>>> When claimer makes a plan, >>> But he didn't. >> But he will. > > Not of this hand, which is over. L68D. > Then how are we going to rule? He is also going to play a card, is he not? A fictitious card, as decided by the director, yes. The director needs to perform, in his mind, the actions that the claimer (and his opponents) are going to make at the table. Some of those actions are not cards played. Just as there are, in this fictitious playing out of the hand, things like "noticing the discard" and "drawing the conclusions of the discard" there can be actions like "stop to think and make a plan". That is what I meant, and it is just as helpful to write that play is over as it is as a remark to the sentence "he will play a diamond to his king", a sentence to which you did not react with the unhelpful "no, play is over". OK? >> It is possible for a claimer to claim without formulating a plan of >> play, > > Possible, but not legal. L68C. > Again, not helpful. And not right. There is nothing in the laws which says that a player needs to have a plan before claiming. NOt even in L68C. >> but it is not possible for him to play without formulating such a >> plan. > > So what? There is no more play. He lost his chance to plan when he > violated L68C. > No he did not. Just like he did not lose his chance to play the finesse, if we decide that to play otherwise would be irrational. > If Herman is attempting to argue that it is "irrational" to make any > play at all without first fully developing a comprehensive plan for > the entire hand he will find very few rational beings at the bridge > table. > Did I say "fully developing a comprehensive plan"? You need a plan to make your plays. If someone claims after the lead with: AKQJT9 A65432 - 2 opposite - 2 A65432 AKQJT9 in 7NT, do you think he needs to plan the play? Yes he does. Did he make that plan before claiming? No he did not. Do we make a plan for him? Yes we do. Do we rule that, since he did not state a line, or even make a plan, he shall be forced to throw all the clubs on the spades and go down 7? I don't think so. Before you start finding reasons why you wish to rule against a claim, you should check whether your arguments hold up in simpler cases that you would no doubt rule in favour of. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 10 10:22:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:22:37 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be><4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be><612A0002-6EAE-4494-A4D6-4C6130D2B64D@starpower.net> <4B726D5E.3070709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8E13029A0AC243FE9846AD843BCF93B2@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions >> It is possible for a claimer to claim without formulating a plan of >> play, > > Possible, but not legal. L68C. > Again, not helpful. And not right. There is nothing in the laws which says that a player needs to have a plan before claiming. NOt even in L68C. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > Herman. ><> +=+ I do not understand how claimer can comply with 68C without having an intention as to his proposed plays. That might be thought of as a plan. Are we angels dancing on the point of a needle? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 10 11:23:20 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:23:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B726D5E.3070709@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1 Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A .7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be><4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be ><612A0002-6EAE-4494-A4D6-4C6130D2B64D@starpower.net> <4B726D5E.3070709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B728918.3050908@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Sorry Eric, you are not helping. > > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Feb 9, 2010, at 5:53 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> When claimer makes a plan, >>>> But he didn't. >>> But he will. >> Not of this hand, which is over. L68D. >> > > Then how are we going to rule? He is also going to play a card, is he > not? A fictitious card, as decided by the director, yes. The director > needs to perform, in his mind, the actions that the claimer (and his > opponents) are going to make at the table. Some of those actions are not > cards played. Just as there are, in this fictitious playing out of the > hand, things like "noticing the discard" and "drawing the conclusions of > the discard" there can be actions like "stop to think and make a plan". > That is what I meant, and it is just as helpful to write that play is > over as it is as a remark to the sentence "he will play a diamond to his > king", a sentence to which you did not react with the unhelpful "no, > play is over". OK? > >>> It is possible for a claimer to claim without formulating a plan of >>> play, >> Possible, but not legal. L68C. >> > > Again, not helpful. And not right. There is nothing in the laws which > says that a player needs to have a plan before claiming. NOt even in L68C. a claimer needs to make a statement. unfortunately players are lazy, arrogant or whatever and fail to make complete statements, but i don't think to have ever seen a player who had not thought of a plan when claiming. law makers intention is not to be harsh with players slight violations, so the need to infer what they could have done had they not been negligent. fortunately, it's often easy to infer implicit statement from short wording. in this case, it seems obvious that the implicit statement is: as soon as it appears that trumps are 3-2, there are 13 tricks: 5 trumps, 5 diamonds, 2 clubs and 1 heart. of course, it is a defective claim as there are only 4 sure diamond tricks but it implies that declarer intents to play one more round of trumps and will not care to keep alive the possibility of a 3d club or 2nd heart trick. it's only from this implicit statement that we need to consider which lines are normal or rational and allow him or not to detect that is plan is ineffective at a time he can still recover. jpr > >>> but it is not possible for him to play without formulating such a >>> plan. >> So what? There is no more play. He lost his chance to plan when he >> violated L68C. >> > > No he did not. Just like he did not lose his chance to play the finesse, > if we decide that to play otherwise would be irrational. > >> If Herman is attempting to argue that it is "irrational" to make any >> play at all without first fully developing a comprehensive plan for >> the entire hand he will find very few rational beings at the bridge >> table. >> > > Did I say "fully developing a comprehensive plan"? > > You need a plan to make your plays. If someone claims after the lead with: > AKQJT9 > A65432 > - > 2 > opposite > - > 2 > A65432 > AKQJT9 > in 7NT, do you think he needs to plan the play? Yes he does. Did he make > that plan before claiming? No he did not. Do we make a plan for him? Yes > we do. Do we rule that, since he did not state a line, or even make a > plan, he shall be forced to throw all the clubs on the spades and go > down 7? I don't think so. > > Before you start finding reasons why you wish to rule against a claim, > you should check whether your arguments hold up in simpler cases that > you would no doubt rule in favour of. > >> >> Eric Landau >> 1107 Dale Drive >> Silver Spring MD 20910 >> ehaa at starpower.net >> >> > Herman. -- _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Feb 10 12:19:57 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:19:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B728918.3050908@meteo.fr> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1 Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A .7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be><4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be ><612A0002-6EAE-4494-A4D6-4C6130D2B64D@starpower.net> <4B726D5E.3070709@skynet.be> <4B728918.3050908@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4B72965D.9060406@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > a claimer needs to make a statement. unfortunately players are lazy, > arrogant or whatever and fail to make complete statements, but i don't > think to have ever seen a player who had not thought of a plan when > claiming. Then you have never played more than one session of bridge. It happens all the time. People think everything is high, and they claim. And then they are asked "how are you playing" and then they start thinking. Not that this will help them of course, as the TD will now look for an alternative line that will fail. But people do these things all the time. Anyway, even if, as you say, this never happens, it has happened in this example. > law makers intention is not to be harsh with players slight > violations, so the need to infer what they could have done had they not > been negligent. fortunately, it's often easy to infer implicit statement > from short wording. in this case, it seems obvious that the implicit > statement is: as soon as it appears that trumps are 3-2, there are 13 > tricks: 5 trumps, 5 diamonds, 2 clubs and 1 heart. of course, it is a > defective claim as there are only 4 sure diamond tricks but it implies > that declarer intents to play one more round of trumps and will not care > to keep alive the possibility of a 3d club or 2nd heart trick. Well, I think you are wrong there. It is impossible that this player does not at some time look at the diamond suit and realize that it is not certain to bring in the five tricks that he needs. As soon as he realizes this, his claim statement is no longer valid, and he must be allowed to switch to a normal line. Of course, he needs to switch to the least successful of all normal lines. That means that: A- if he realizes that diamonds aren't breaking after the third trump and the heart ace are played, he is down. B- if he realizes that diamonds aren't breaking before he has played a heart to the ace, he is allowed to keep open the possibility of finessing, as there is no reason for him not to realize that this combines with clubs 3-3. C-if he realizes that diamonds aren't breaking before he has played the third trump, he is allowed to realize that there are two possibly winning lines: finesse the hearts and ruff two clubs. IMO, A is not a normal line. I do not consider it "normal" to play a heart to the ace rather than a diamond to the king. It's just not normal. You may disagree on this, but it does not matter, in the end. It is clear that B leads to 13 tricks. But, and this is not just IMO, but probably completely true, We must also consider C. C is also a normal line. It is completely normal for a player to play 2 rounds of trumps, then wait, and then look for the next lines. If he sees (and he cannot fail to see it if he looks for it) that there might be a problem when diamonds are 5-2, he might leave the third trump, and play clubs to be 4-2 as well. You cannot prohibit a claimer from noticing the mistake in his claim statement earlier than he absolutely must, if the line he might choose afterwards is a losing one. > it's only > from this implicit statement that we need to consider which lines are > normal or rational and allow him or not to detect that is plan is > ineffective at a time he can still recover. > The point of this problem is that it will be bad for him to discover it sooner than absolutely necessary, and we must take that into account. > jpr Herman. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Feb 10 12:22:08 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:22:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 Feb 2010, at 22:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 70E1, middle phrases: > > "unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card > before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow > to that suit on any normal* line of play," > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills L70E1, final phrase: "or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational." From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 10 15:14:32 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:14:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com><1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be><4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be><4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <88CAFB99-A908-47B6-93B1-D4DC068BA460@starpower.net> On Feb 9, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > > Most of this is open to discussion - but the discussion > should focus on what he will certainly discover and what > is not 100% certain. The discussion should not start with > "you stated nothing, so you will now play the Ace of Hearts, > then the King of diamonds, overtaken by the ace. > That is not a rational action, and not a normal line. > > +=+ Whether it is rational is not a consideration. The > question is whether it is 'normal' - including, as it may > be, what is careless or inferior. I still don't see why "whether it is 'normal'" is a "question" we need to answer. A play is "normal" if it is any one of (a) consensually normal, (b) careless, (c) inferior. What's left? Can someone please give me a word or phrase (analogous to (a), (b) or (c) above) to describe some set of plays that is not "normal" by the criterion in the footnote? > The question of irrationality only arises when the > decision to be made is whether, to the exclusion of all > other lines of play, it would be irrational to adopt a line > other than the one proposed. If there are alternative > lines of play that are 'normal' within the meaning of this > term of the art, none of these lines can be excluded on > the grounds that it is not rational to follow it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 10 15:36:54 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:36:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <806AAD5918C1455AB11FE326471ACB93@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be><000901caa996$3f59d1c0$be0d7540$@com> <4B7176D5.4090603@ulb.ac.be> <806AAD5918C1455AB11FE326471ACB93@Mildred> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > David Burn a ?crit : > >> [AG] >> >> The truth is, we only disagree on whether it would be irrational >> to cash >> the >> HA first. That's a committee matter, so the problem isn't a good >> one in a >> course, as the answer might vary on judgment. >> >> [DALB] >> >> On the contrary. Students will only obtain credit if they answer >> that what >> is rational is not a matter of judgment > > Sure, but they will have to use it, and if students come to different > conclusions on a close case, we can't disallow them. > < > +=+ To say it again: appeals > committee, has only to judge whether cashing the HA first would be > within the scope of what is normal play, which is defined to include > careless or inferior play. Neither Director nor committee is to think > 'rational'/'irrational'> > One may expand slightly on this: the construction and language > of the law is such that 'normal' is again a term unrelated to the > class > of player, but added to that general standard is what is careless or > inferior "for the class of player involved". OK, I'll say it again too. Three declarers adopt line of play X. Line of play Y would have been technically superior. Mr. Beginner cannot conceive of lines as complicated as Y. For a player of his class, line X is perfectly normal. Ms. Intermediate knows enough to have worked out line Y with some thought, but didn't. For a player of her class, line X is demonstrably inferior. Dr. Expert can execute line Y in his sleep, but got distracted, and took line X. For a player of his class, line X is patently careless. For all three players, line X is "normal", per the footnote, "for the purposes of Laws 70 and 71". So what is it, exactly, that Grattan keeps calling on us to "judge"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 10 15:51:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:51:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ appeal 17 In-Reply-To: <4B717F4A.1080705@ulb.ac.be> References: <694eadd41002072207i626bcec0wa6bc06d18fa1b7be@mail.gmail.com> <4B6FF277.40605@yahoo.co.uk> <4D0E6F87-66FB-40C1-993C-6ACB7D4603E8@starpower.net> <4B717F4A.1080705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <596A22A0-10A0-40E2-B13D-9EE567429C09@starpower.net> On Feb 9, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Yes. How can an appeal lack any merit if an AC member agrees with >> it? > > AG : I'd say this can't be excluded. It is quite possible that someone > in the AC has completely misunderstood the subject (say he read the > wrong part of TFLB) and stubbornly sticks to his version. Of ourse, > that's why we strive to have at least 3 membrers in any AC. > > I'm so harsh about UI that I fully expect the other two members to > disagree occasionally with me and possibly conclude AWM. We require our players, if they bring an appeal, to be sufficiently conversant with the laws, rules and appeals procedures to avoid appealing frivolously, and we give them AWM penalties or warnings if they do not. A coherent set of rules for appeals, ISTM, would have to presume that members of an appeals committee could be trusted to at least meet the minimum standards we require of appellants. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 10 16:29:11 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:29:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:36:54 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Hello Ivan, > > I prefer to answer on blml - I'm sure you'll read the answer. > > Ivan Bunji wrote: >> >> >> *Claims and concessions (new approach?)* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bd: 4 ? K J 10 3 >> >> Dlr: W ? 6 5 >> >> Vul: Both ? A Q J 6 2 >> >> ? 6 5 >> >> ? 7 2 ? 8 6 4 >> >> ? J 10 8 7 4 2 ? K 9 >> >> ? - ? 10 9 8 7 5 >> 4 3 >> >> ? Q J 9 4 3 ? 7 >> >> ? A Q 9 5 >> >> ? A Q 3 >> >> ? K >> >> ? A K 10 8 2 >> >> >> >> Contract: 7? by S >> >> Lead: ?2. >> >> >> >> After two rounds of trump, declarer claims, telling that everything >> is high. >> >> Opponents agreed, score was written to score list, new board was >> posted on the tray, and at that moment opponents contested the claim. >> TD was summoned at that time. >> >> TD, according to Law 70E1, ruled down one, -100. >> >> >> >> Meanwhile, somehow came to me (one of the players was in San Remo ? >> TD course) that there is a new approach to this matter, by which the >> declarer could have the right (with normal play in this particular >> case) to score 2210. >> > > There is really no change to the claim laws. But they are just not as > simple as you may imagine. > >> After third round of trump, first diamond reveals that diamonds are >> not all good. After second round of clubs, it showed that clubs could >> not be established, so, after cashing high diamonds, the only chance >> for declarer to fulfill the contract is to find ?K on side (finessing >> the clubs). >> > > I believe you mean the King of hearts. > >> >> >> And that ?new approach? gives (??) declarer this right. >> > > Indeed, the law states that a new line must be accepted if to not use it > would be irrational. When playing seven (at teams?) it is irrational to > simply give a way a trick as long as there is still a chance of making a > thirteenth one. In this case, there are two lines that (after the > discovery of the bad breaks) lead to a thirteenth trick: cashing the ace > of hearts hoping for the king singleton, and finessing the hearts. Since > it would be irrational to believe that the first line offers more > chances than the second, that second line is allowed to be taken. > > However - there are some more considerations. > > You must remember that claimer needs to find out about the situation in > every single of the normal lines that are embedded in his claim > statement. > So, let's see: > What would happen in real play? > It would not be normal for him to leave a trump out, so he does start > with three trump tricks. > Next, he'll unblock the diamond king. Now he knows there is no way to > score more than 4 diamond tricks; he has two more trumps, which will > each take a trick, which brings him to 5Sp + 4Di + 1He = 10 tricks, so > he'll need 3 club tricks. Everything OK if clubs break 3-3. > So he'll play 2 club tricks and notice the problem there as well. > And now any declarer will notice that he'll need the heart finesse. > But! Maybe in the meanwhile he'll have played the HA? This cannot have > happened after the discovery of the diamond break, since by then he's > "awake" again, but it might have happened before then. > > So: how likely do you consider it for this declarer that rather than > play a diamond to the king, he'll have played a heart to the ace. > I myself consider this very unlikely, and not normal. But I'm certain > that others may disagree. > > What they should not disagree about, is that claimer has the right to > start thinking again after he sees the diamond void. And that this right > exyends to him finding the only possible normal line of checking the > clubs and then finessing the HK. > > Herman. > If I could paraphrase, you seem to be saying that it is irrational not to choose the optimal line of play. I guess I agree. What crazy person would choose an inferior line of play? It is also irrational to be careless. I am curious how many tricks you think declarer would take if he was careless and choose inferior lines of play. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 10 17:13:39 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:13:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions >> >> It would not be normal for him to leave a trump >> out, so he does start with three trump tricks. << +=+ Hang on. Declarer has made no statement about the outstanding trump. Law 70C. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 10 17:38:21 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:38:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > If I could paraphrase, you seem to be saying that it is irrational not to > choose the optimal line of play. > > I guess I agree. What crazy person would choose an inferior line of play? > > It is also irrational to be careless. > > I am curious how many tricks you think declarer would take if he was > careless and choose inferior lines of play. No need to take that tone. I give him the least of all normal lines. Not of abnormal ones. Inferior lines are normal ones. But playing to a king of hearts is not inferior, it is something no-one ever does. It's not just inferior, it's "not done". Not a single player will, when faced with these cards, play hearts to the ace when he has a singleton king next to it. Herman. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 10 17:38:41 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:38:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B72965D.9060406@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1 Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316 A .7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be><4B713E9F.8040302@skynet. be ><612A0002-6EAE-4494-A4D6-4C6130D2B64D@starpower.net> <4B726D5E.3070709@ skynet.be><4B728918.3050908@meteo.fr> <4B72965D.9060406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B72E111.2030600@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> a claimer needs to make a statement. unfortunately players are lazy, >> arrogant or whatever and fail to make complete statements, but i don't >> think to have ever seen a player who had not thought of a plan when >> claiming. > > Then you have never played more than one session of bridge. It happens > all the time. People think everything is high, and they claim. And then > they are asked "how are you playing" and then they start thinking. Not > that this will help them of course, as the TD will now look for an > alternative line that will fail. But people do these things all the time. > Anyway, even if, as you say, this never happens, it has happened in this > example. interesting to compare experiences. it must depend on locations. in my area, there are players who don't think much, play by reflex: they never claim. there are other players who plan the next tricks: when they claim, they have in mind (sometimes wrongly!) a sure mean to get the tricks they claim. > >> law makers intention is not to be harsh with players slight >> violations, so the need to infer what they could have done had they not >> been negligent. fortunately, it's often easy to infer implicit statement >> from short wording. in this case, it seems obvious that the implicit >> statement is: as soon as it appears that trumps are 3-2, there are 13 >> tricks: 5 trumps, 5 diamonds, 2 clubs and 1 heart. of course, it is a >> defective claim as there are only 4 sure diamond tricks but it implies >> that declarer intents to play one more round of trumps and will not care >> to keep alive the possibility of a 3d club or 2nd heart trick. > > Well, I think you are wrong there. > It is impossible that this player does not at some time look at the > diamond suit and realize that it is not certain to bring in the five > tricks that he needs. As soon as he realizes this, his claim statement > is no longer valid, and he must be allowed to switch to a normal line. > Of course, he needs to switch to the least successful of all normal > lines. That means that: > A- if he realizes that diamonds aren't breaking after the third trump > and the heart ace are played, he is down. > B- if he realizes that diamonds aren't breaking before he has played a > heart to the ace, he is allowed to keep open the possibility of > finessing, as there is no reason for him not to realize that this > combines with clubs 3-3. > C-if he realizes that diamonds aren't breaking before he has played the > third trump, he is allowed to realize that there are two possibly > winning lines: finesse the hearts and ruff two clubs. i think (again my limited experience) that players only claim when they are sure not to need anything to reconsider. the evidence i see is that they are very ashamed when they happen to be proved wrong. if they had played on, i think they would only reconsider when meeting an unexpected event which makes the intended line fail. > > IMO, A is not a normal line. I do not consider it "normal" to play a > heart to the ace rather than a diamond to the king. It's just not > normal. You may disagree on this, but it does not matter, in the end. > It is clear that B leads to 13 tricks. i agree it's a matter of judgement > But, and this is not just IMO, but probably completely true, We must > also consider C. C is also a normal line. It is completely normal for a > player to play 2 rounds of trumps, then wait, and then look for the next > lines. If he sees (and he cannot fail to see it if he looks for it) that > there might be a problem when diamonds are 5-2, he might leave the third > trump, and play clubs to be 4-2 as well. imo, he implicitly stated to play immediately a 3rd round of trumps. > > You cannot prohibit a claimer from noticing the mistake in his claim > statement earlier than he absolutely must, if the line he might choose > afterwards is a losing one. there is only one line in the mind of a player who claims, except with players you met and i don't know, who claim in absent-minded mood. if you can infer that line from his statement (best) or from his state of mind (better than anything) you follow it as long as possible. in some games, you may propose different answers until you find the correct one. at bridge, there is not somebody to tell you: try again, you can do better. > >> it's only >> from this implicit statement that we need to consider which lines are >> normal or rational and allow him or not to detect that is plan is >> ineffective at a time he can still recover. >> > > The point of this problem is that it will be bad for him to discover it > sooner than absolutely necessary, and we must take that into account. in this case, almost all approaches will lead to 12 tricks. jpr > >> jpr > > Herman. -- _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Feb 10 17:39:53 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:39:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B72E159.5080900@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > >>> It would not be normal for him to leave a trump >>> out, so he does start with three trump tricks. > << > +=+ Hang on. Declarer has made no statement > about the outstanding trump. Law 70C. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > As you well know Grattan, there are three conditions in L70C, one of them being that it is likely he has forgotten the trump. When someone plays two rounds of trumps, immediately afterwards, he still remembers the third one. This case comes up so often that it must be, by now, an established way of ruling. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 10 18:05:04 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:05:04 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions >> >> You must remember that claimer needs to find out about the situation in >> every single of the normal lines that are embedded in his claim >> statement. >> So, let's see: >> What would happen in real play? >> It would not be normal for him to leave a trump out, so he does start >> with three trump tricks. >> Next, he'll unblock the diamond king. Now he knows there is no way to >> score more than 4 diamond tricks; he has two more trumps, which will >> each take a trick, which brings him to 5Sp + 4Di + 1He = 10 tricks, so >> he'll need 3 club tricks. Everything OK if clubs break 3-3. >> So he'll play 2 club tricks and notice the problem there as well. >> And now any declarer will notice that he'll need the heart finesse. >> But! Maybe in the meanwhile he'll have played the HA? This cannot have >> happened after the discovery of the diamond break, since by then he's >> "awake" again, but it might have happened before then. >> >> So: how likely do you consider it for this declarer that rather than >> play a diamond to the king, he'll have played a heart to the ace. >> I myself consider this very unlikely, and not normal. But I'm certain >> that others may disagree. >> >> What they should not disagree about, is that claimer has the right to >> start thinking again after he sees the diamond void. And that this right >> exyends to him finding the only possible normal line of checking the >> clubs and then finessing the HK. >> >> Herman. >> > If I could paraphrase, you seem to be saying that it is irrational not to > choose the optimal line of play. > > I guess I agree. What crazy person would choose an inferior line of play? > > It is also irrational to be careless. > > I am curious how many tricks you think declarer would take if he was > careless and choose inferior lines of play. > _______________________________________________ +=+ In San Remo our exercises did include a claim case where the decision was that it would be irrational not to take a finesse, even though no mention had been made of it in the original claim [it was actually a case from Sao Paulo not appealed there since the decision was obviously sound on the particular facts.] It has an unusual aspect because it is rare that such things are allowed, but there is nothing ?new? about this principle; it was there in the 1997 Laws also. In Ivan's case defenders are asking for a Director's ruling under Law 69B2. My first question concerns allowing the third trump to be drawn. Law 70C applies and [Law 70A] defenders are entitled to the benefit of any doubt whether declarer knew there was a trump outstanding - with no mention made when claiming. Beyond this, to allow the claim the Director must explore every normal line of play, including the careless and the inferior for the class of player concerned. Giving declarer the benefit of all the pitfalls that may be encountered in this case does seem like a bridge too far. A colleague consulted and I think that an award of NS - 100 in this case is very defensible. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 10 18:06:37 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:06:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:38:21 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> If I could paraphrase, you seem to be saying that it is irrational not >> to >> choose the optimal line of play. >> >> I guess I agree. What crazy person would choose an inferior line of >> play? >> >> It is also irrational to be careless. >> >> I am curious how many tricks you think declarer would take if he was >> careless and choose inferior lines of play. > > No need to take that tone. I give him the least of all normal lines. > Not of abnormal ones. > Inferior lines are normal ones. > But playing to a king of hearts is not inferior, it is something no-one > ever does. It's not just inferior, it's "not done". > Not a single player will, when faced with these cards, play hearts to > the ace when he has a singleton king next to it. > > Herman. Hi Herman. I am not sure you are answering my question about what might happen if declarer was careless and chose inferior lines of play. Do you honestly think that it is careless play to play the king of diamonds first, note that LHO did not follow suit, calculate that the fifth diamond isn't good, calculate the the next best chance for making the contract is if clubs break 3-3, note that they do not, then cash the diamonds discarding three losers and then realize that the heart finesse is needed and take the heart finesse? I am imagining that inferior careless play might not go this way. This question is not about the laws, and I have already conceded that it is irrational to play carelessly or choose suboptimal lines of play. Bob From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 10 18:15:30 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:15:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E159.5080900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <32CFF3D224D7476A89E3F86069954008@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > Grattan wrote: >> >> >> >>>> It would not be normal for him to leave a trump >>>> out, so he does start with three trump tricks. >> << >> +=+ Hang on. Declarer has made no statement >> about the outstanding trump. Law 70C. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > As you well know Grattan, there are three conditions in L70C, one of > them being that it is likely he has forgotten the trump. When someone > plays two rounds of trumps, immediately afterwards, he still remembers > the third one. > This case comes up so often that it must be, by now, an established way > of ruling. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ +=+ It may not be taken for granted. The Director must be persuaded on each occasion. To expect it to be given here together with all else that declarer needs is stretching the Director's generosity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 10 18:37:05 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:37:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <32CFF3D224D7476A89E3F86069954008@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E159.5080900@skynet.be> <32CFF3D224D7476A89E3F86069954008@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B72EEC1.3000003@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >>> >> As you well know Grattan, there are three conditions in L70C, one of >> them being that it is likely he has forgotten the trump. When someone >> plays two rounds of trumps, immediately afterwards, he still remembers >> the third one. >> This case comes up so often that it must be, by now, an established way >> of ruling. >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ > +=+ It may not be taken for granted. The Director must be > persuaded on each occasion. To expect it to be given > here together with all else that declarer needs is stretching > the Director's generosity. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, we are not told anything more than what we read. Surely it is not too much of a stratch of the imagination that the director at the table in this case may be persuaded. And the case is only interesting in that case. So let's continue the interesting discussion without elaborating on rather uninteresting details. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 10 18:39:14 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:39:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > Hi Herman. I am not sure you are answering my question about what might > happen if declarer was careless and chose inferior lines of play. > > Do you honestly think that it is careless play to play the king of > diamonds first, note that LHO did not follow suit, calculate that the > fifth diamond isn't good, calculate the the next best chance for making > the contract is if clubs break 3-3, note that they do not, then cash the > diamonds discarding three losers and then realize that the heart finesse > is needed and take the heart finesse? > > I am imagining that inferior careless play might not go this way. > > This question is not about the laws, and I have already conceded that it > is irrational to play carelessly or choose suboptimal lines of play. > > Bob > So basicallly Bob, you were criticizing me while actually agreeing with me that playing the HA is not careless, but abnormal. And then they accuse me of posting too much! Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 10 18:43:28 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:43:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B72F040.5010102@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Beyond this, to allow the claim the Director must explore > every normal line of play, including the careless and the inferior > for the class of player concerned. Giving declarer the benefit of > all the pitfalls that may be encountered in this case does seem like > a bridge too far. A colleague consulted and I think that an award > of NS - 100 in this case is very defensible. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes Grattan, but on what basis? 1 - On having him not discover the recovery of the heart finesse? 2 - On having him play the heart ace before the diamond king? 3 - On having him discover another normal line, that of leaving the last trump out and trying to ruff a club? 4 - On having him forget the last trump and suffer a club ruff? I guess that by now there is no-one left who will give declarer 13 tricks, but I think there are still adherents of all four "normal" lines above. Me, I firmly believe that 1, 2 and 4 are not "normal", but 3 is. 12 tricks. Others? Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 10 19:05:35 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:05:35 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be><000901caa996$3f59d1c0$be0d7540$@com> <4B7176D5.4090603@ulb.ac.be> <806AAD5918C1455AB11FE326471ACB93@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901caaa7b$a4edfd00$eec9f700$@com> [EL] So what is it, exactly, that Grattan keeps calling on us to "judge"? [DALB] He is not asking us to judge a line of play actually taken at the table. He is asking us to judge whether, in adjudicating a claim unaccompanied by an adequate statement, there exist one or more "normal" lines of play that fail to make the tricks claimed; if so, the claim fails. [EL] Mr. Beginner cannot conceive of lines as complicated as Y. For a player of his class, line X is perfectly normal. [DALB] Indeed. In the case under discussion earlier, where declarer claimed three tricks in a suit of A108x Q9x after leading low to the nine and king, it was asserted that since one might "rationally" cash the queen next, this claim should fail because East had Jxxx. But to cash the queen next is not even "normal" for this declarer, let alone "rational". So of course we are still supposed to rule as though he would in fact have done it, since it would be "rational" in some "absolute" sense. In the case presently under discussion, I show only the North-South hands: KJ103 65 AQJ62 65 AQ95 AQ3 K AK1082 South, declarer in seven spades, wins the trump lead and cashes a second round of spades. When all follow, he claims, saying only words to the effect that "the rest are mine". East-West dispute the claim and the Director is called. A number of questions need to be addressed. First, is it likely that declarer was unaware of the presence of a spade in the defenders' hands? If the Director concludes that it is, the ruling is down one (at least). Also, if the Director concludes that leaving the last trump undrawn and playing off CAK is a "normal" line of play, the ruling is also down one (at least). Assuming that the Director concludes that declarer knew about the spade and intended to draw it at the next trick, he proceeds to hear the defenders' objection to the claim. East's objection is that he has seven diamonds and West has five clubs. If declarer adopts this "normal" line of play: third round of spades, DK, CAK, club ruff, diamonds intending to discard his heart and club losers, he will discover that dummy's fifth diamond is not a winner and nor are his low clubs. He now needs the heart finesse, which succeeds, but under L70E he cannot be presumed to take it unless failure to do so would be "irrational" (the finesse would not become marked, since declarer cannot cash his last trump to effect a show-up squeeze on East). A declarer who believes that he has the rest of the tricks in top cards may "normally" play them in any order. Although no declarer would actually cash the ace of hearts before crossing to the table with a club ruff, it is open to the Director to rule that this might constitute careless or inferior play, and thus be "normal". As Grattan correctly says, the question of whether or not it is "rational" no longer arises, and if the Director judges that releasing HA prematurely falls into the category of "normal" plays, the ruling is down one. Assuming, finally, that the Director concludes that declarer would not cash the ace of hearts early (or, what is the same thing, if declarer had claimed with the statement "drawing the trump, cashing DK, playing CAK and ruffing a club, then throwing my club and heart losers on the diamonds"), he would reach this three-card ending: None 65 6 None A AQ None None If the Director concludes that it would not be "normal" for declarer (perhaps carelessly) to presume that the six of diamonds is a winner, the question of whether or not it is irrational to fail to finesse in hearts now arises. Since West would never bare HK if he had it, and since an elementary count reveals that he began with six cards in the suit, playing the ace is "contrary to reason, utterly illogical, absurd" [OED definition of "irrational"]. So of course we are supposed to rule as if declarer would have done it. Pity the Laws on claims haven't been made into a film, really. They would sweep the awards for Best Comedy, and perhaps Best Tragedy also. David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 10 19:42:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:42:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:39:14 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> Hi Herman. I am not sure you are answering my question about what might >> happen if declarer was careless and chose inferior lines of play. >> >> Do you honestly think that it is careless play to play the king of >> diamonds first, note that LHO did not follow suit, calculate that the >> fifth diamond isn't good, calculate the the next best chance for making >> the contract is if clubs break 3-3, note that they do not, then cash the >> diamonds discarding three losers and then realize that the heart finesse >> is needed and take the heart finesse? >> >> I am imagining that inferior careless play might not go this way. >> >> This question is not about the laws, and I have already conceded that it >> is irrational to play carelessly or choose suboptimal lines of play. >> >> Bob >> > > So basicallly Bob, you were criticizing me while actually agreeing with > me that playing the HA is not careless, but abnormal. > And then they accuse me of posting too much! > > Herman. Basically, Herman, I did not criticize you. I just asked you the same question twice and you still didn't answer. Shall we go for three? What would play have been like if declarer had played carelessly and selected inferior lines of play? (Ignore the laws.) While we wait, I will make my point. It is irrational to intentionally play carelessly. It is irrational to intentionally select a suboptimal line of play. So, if you focus on forcing declarer to play carelessly or adopt inferior lines of play, you are (from this perspective) forcing declarer to be irrational. If you insist that declarer cannot be forced to play irrationally, you end up (like Herman) letting declarer take optimal lines of play. I think this is a problem. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 11 01:39:25 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:39:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of risotto. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: Nothing like a good glass of Ch?teau de Chasselas, eh, Josiah? THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: You're right there, Obadiah. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Ch?teau de Chasselas, eh? FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: A cup o' cold tea. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Without milk or sugar. THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Or tea. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: In a cracked cup, an' all. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Oh, we never had a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth. THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son". FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Aye, 'e was right. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Aye, 'e was. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling. THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor! FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Well, when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: We were evicted from our 'ole in the ground; we 'ad to go and live in a lake. THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Cardboard box? THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Aye. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky! THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you. ALL: They won't! Herman De Wael tells the young Grattan of today -> >As you well know Grattan, there are three conditions in L70C, one of >them being that it is likely he has forgotten the trump. When someone >plays two rounds of trumps, immediately afterwards, he still remembers >the third one. > >This case comes up so often that it must be, by now, an established >way of ruling..... Richard Hills: We won't believe Herman. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ It may not be taken for granted. The Director must be persuaded >on each occasion..... Herman De Wael: >.....So let's continue the interesting discussion without elaborating >on rather uninteresting details. Richard Hills: We won't believe Herman that Grattan's refutation of Herman's fallacious "established way of ruling" is merely Grattan "elaborating on rather uninteresting details". Herman De Wael: >.....And then they accuse me of posting too much! Richard Hills, Mr Posttoomuch: I think the honour of posting too much must belong to me. Only I have posted so many times that I get a response from the Vice-Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission stating: "I don't think name calling will help your cause." This has the disturbing implication that, despite Bobby Wolff's sacking from the ACBL Laws Commission, the ACBL LC's decisions are still partially based upon emotion rather than evidence-based reasoning. ACBL LC San Diego minutes, emotional (not evidence-based) Gary Blaiss: "Gary Blaiss agreed with Polisner. The ACBL Laws Commission is responsible for the set of Laws used by the ACBL. He also noted that in the past there was cooperation between essentially the ACBL and WBF to agree on a uniform set of Laws. This set of laws does not follow that paradigm, and Blaiss would like to see a return to the previous situation of cooperation between the ACBL and WBF to draft the Laws of Duplicate Bridge." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Feb 11 02:54:59 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:54:59 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <000901caaa7b$a4edfd00$eec9f700$@com> References: <6440c2ff1002090028r6cd00bb2y7cbdb7be9e3f31dc@mail.gmail.com> <1Nelta-1U8U080@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4B712CC6.2010408@ulb.ac.be> <4B71316A.7090905@skynet.be> <4B7138B7.3000907@ulb.ac.be> <4B713E9F.8040302@skynet.be> <4B7142A9.1030908@ulb.ac.be> <4B7156EA.9020605@skynet.be> <4B716DF4.8080603@ulb.ac.be><000901caa996$3f59d1c0$be0d7540$@com> <4B7176D5.4090603@ulb.ac.be> <806AAD5918C1455AB11FE326471ACB93@Mildred> <000901caaa7b$a4edfd00$eec9f700$@com> Message-ID: <4B736373.2020100@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] A colleague consulted and I think that an award of NS - 100 in this case is very defensible. {Nigel] I agree with Grattan and his colleague. {Herman] This case comes up so often that it must be, by now, an established way of ruling. {Grattan] It may not be taken for granted. The Director must be persuaded on each occasion. [Nigel] I think Herman is right: rulings in similar circumstances should be consistent, no matter who is the director. A ruling in a straightforward case with agreed facts should be fairly automatic. It should certainly not hinge on the players' powers of advocacy. [David Burn] Pity the Laws on claims haven't been made into a film, really. They would sweep the awards for Best Comedy, and perhaps Best Tragedy also. [Nigel] Yes, Ingmar Bergman would have been proud to have written the rules of Bridge. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 11 04:02:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:02:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>>+=+ It may not be taken for granted. The Director must be >>>>persuaded on each occasion..... Herman De Wael: >>>.....So let's continue the interesting discussion without >>>elaborating on rather uninteresting details. Richard Hills: >>We won't believe Herman that Grattan's refutation of Herman's >>fallacious "established way of ruling" is merely Grattan >>"elaborating on rather uninteresting details". Nigel Guthrie elaborates on rather interesting details: >I think Herman is right: rulings in similar circumstances >should be consistent, no matter who is the director..... English proverb: For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. Richard Hills: So if "similar" means "differing merely to the insignificant amount of a horseshoe nail", then indeed it may be appropriate for a Director to rule that the kingdom of +2210 is lost. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 11 04:54:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:54:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Monty Python's Flying Circus: Bounder of Adventure: Anyway, you're interested in one of our adventure holidays, eh? Mr Smoketoomuch: Yes. I saw your advert in the bolour supplement. Bounder of Adventure: The what? Mr Smoketoomuch: The bolour supplement. Bounder of Adventure: The colour supplement? Mr Smoketoomuch: Yes. I'm sorry I can't say the letter "B". Bounder of Adventure: "C"? Mr Smoketoomuch: Yes, that's right. It's all due to a trauma I suffered when I was a schoolboy. I was attacked by a bat. Bounder of Adventure: A cat? Mr Smoketoomuch: No, a bat. Bounder of Adventure: Can you say the letter "K"? Mr Smoketoomuch: Oh yes. Khaki, king, kettle, Kuwait, Keble Bollege Oxford. Bounder of Adventure: Why don't you say the letter "K" instead of the letter "C"? Mr Smoketoomuch: What do you mean.....spell bolour with a "K"? Bounder of Adventure: Yes. Mr Smoketoomuch: Kolour. Oh that's very good, I never thought of that. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ It may not be taken for granted. The Director must be >>persuaded on each occasion..... Nigel Guthrie: >.....It should certainly not hinge on the players' powers of >advocacy. Richard Hills: No doubt Grattan's use of the word "persuaded" was shorthand for "persuaded by the evidence" NOT "persuaded by the claimer". Law 70B1: "The Director requires claimer to **repeat** the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim." Richard Hills: "Repeat" is _not_ identical in meaning to "expand with powers of advocacy". On the other hand... Law 70B2, first part: "Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim" ...non-claimers may advocate. However, a non-claimer who lacks silver tongued oratory is not disadvantaged, because... Law 70B2, second part: "(but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections)." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 08:40:50 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:40:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 10 February 2010 17:38, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> If I could paraphrase, you seem to be saying that it is irrational not to >> choose the optimal line of play. >> >> I guess I agree. What crazy person would choose an inferior line of play? >> >> It is also irrational to be careless. >> >> I am curious how many tricks you think declarer would take if he was >> careless and choose inferior lines of play. > > No need to take that tone. I give him the least of all normal lines. > Not of abnormal ones. > Inferior lines are normal ones. > But playing to a king of hearts is not inferior, it is something no-one > ever does. It's not just inferior, it's "not done". > Not a single player will, when faced with these cards, play hearts to > the ace when he has a singleton king next to it. That's just not true, Herman. If he really believes that diamonds are solid, he's got more tricks than he need. And there's no reason to be careful and preserve (over)tricks and entries which are not needed. > > Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 08:47:39 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:47:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2010/2/11 Harald Skj?ran : > On 10 February 2010 17:38, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> If I could paraphrase, you seem to be saying that it is irrational not to >>> choose the optimal line of play. >>> >>> I guess I agree. What crazy person would choose an inferior line of play? >>> >>> It is also irrational to be careless. >>> >>> I am curious how many tricks you think declarer would take if he was >>> careless and choose inferior lines of play. >> >> No need to take that tone. I give him the least of all normal lines. >> Not of abnormal ones. >> Inferior lines are normal ones. >> But playing to a king of hearts is not inferior, it is something no-one >> ever does. It's not just inferior, it's "not done". >> Not a single player will, when faced with these cards, play hearts to >> the ace when he has a singleton king next to it. > > That's just not true, Herman. If he really believes that diamonds are > solid, he's got more tricks than he need. And there's no reason to be > careful and preserve (over)tricks and entries which are not needed. >> Discard this one - I had the hand wrong. I agree that caching the heart ace early here isn't normal. >> Herman. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 09:21:20 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:21:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <206ABC2809EE414DAB42236ECB2DE1DE@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > 2010/2/11 Harald Skj?ran : >> On 10 February 2010 17:38, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>> > > Discard this one - I had the hand wrong. I agree that caching the > heart ace early here isn't normal. > +=+ Do you mean isn't "normal"? Is it possibly inferior for the class of player if he assumes diamonds are solid? ~ G ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 11 09:22:36 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:22:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B73BE4C.9070800@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: >>> >> So basicallly Bob, you were criticizing me while actually agreeing with >> me that playing the HA is not careless, but abnormal. >> And then they accuse me of posting too much! >> >> Herman. > > Basically, Herman, I did not criticize you. I just asked you the same > question twice and you still didn't answer. Shall we go for three? What > would play have been like if declarer had played carelessly and selected > inferior lines of play? (Ignore the laws.) > I still don't understand the question. Since "careless and inferior" are parts of "normal", it does not matter which of the lines that we accept are careless or not. There are, in the lines that we accept in this case, no real careless ones. There do not have to be, have there? > While we wait, I will make my point. It is irrational to intentionally > play carelessly. It is irrational to intentionally select a suboptimal > line of play. No it is not. > So, if you focus on forcing declarer to play carelessly or > adopt inferior lines of play, you are (from this perspective) forcing > declarer to be irrational. If you insist that declarer cannot be forced to > play irrationally, you end up (like Herman) letting declarer take optimal > lines of play. > No I don't. What you are wrong upon, is that it is the task of the director to rule against every single claim. That is not his task. His task is to check if a claim is valid and award it if it is. Now sometimes, like here, a claim crops up that you "feel" should not be awarded, because claimer did a lot of things wrong. And then, most of the time, you do find a reason not to award the claim. And the claimer goes and sits in his corner and accepts that he has done wrong. But every so often, the director does not readily find a reason to rule against the claim. And then the claimer is lucky. And the claim gets published on blml. And some directors here are amateurs, in the sense that they don't do a lot of real directing. And the claims on blml are the only ones they see. And more importantly, those claims are the only ones they see Herman rule upon. And then they think Herman is overly lenient on claims, and they try to convince him that he's wrong. So please Bob, don't try and find careless lines where there are none. And don't impose on claimers who are lucky irrational lilnes simply because you don't want them to be lucky. Herman. > I think this is a problem. > I don't think there is any problem. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 11 09:26:24 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:26:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 10 February 2010 17:38, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> If I could paraphrase, you seem to be saying that it is irrational not to >>> choose the optimal line of play. >>> >>> I guess I agree. What crazy person would choose an inferior line of play? >>> >>> It is also irrational to be careless. >>> >>> I am curious how many tricks you think declarer would take if he was >>> careless and choose inferior lines of play. >> No need to take that tone. I give him the least of all normal lines. >> Not of abnormal ones. >> Inferior lines are normal ones. >> But playing to a king of hearts is not inferior, it is something no-one >> ever does. It's not just inferior, it's "not done". >> Not a single player will, when faced with these cards, play hearts to >> the ace when he has a singleton king next to it. > > That's just not true, Herman. If he really believes that diamonds are > solid, he's got more tricks than he need. And there's no reason to be > careful and preserve (over)tricks and entries which are not needed. Harald, can you seriously imagine that this declarer has counted his tricks already? And that he thought that 4 top cards are enough to produce five tricks from a six-card holding? My point is, that this player has not yet counted the tricks, or made a plan as to where to begin to play. That is permitted, as long as he then accepts that he'll be subject to the least successful of all normal lines. But in judging which lines are normal and which aren't, one has to allow claimer a minimum of common sense. And that includes counting his tricks. So then he sees he does not yet have 13 of them, and so keeping the QH till some later time becomes rational, and to throw the finess away, irrational, and not normal. >> Herman. >> Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 10:13:03 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:13:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions >>> > While we wait, I will make my point. It is irrational to intentionally play carelessly. It is irrational to intentionally select a suboptimal line of play. So, if you focus on forcing declarer to play carelessly or adopt inferior lines of play, you are (from this perspective) forcing declarer to be irrational. If you insist that declarer cannot be forced to play irrationally, you end up (like Herman) letting declarer take optimal lines of play. > +=+ The law does not rule out irrationality. It makes no mention of the question. Instead it applies only positive tests: - Is the line normal? - Is the line careless for the class of player? - Is the line inferior for the class of player? and if 'yes' to any of these it is a line of play to be taken into account by the Director. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 10:21:12 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:21:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > My point is, that this player has not yet counted the tricks, or made a > plan as to where to begin to play. > That is permitted, as long as he then accepts that he'll be subject to > the least successful of all normal lines. > But in judging which lines are normal and which aren't, one has to allow > claimer a minimum of common sense. And that includes counting his > tricks. So then he sees he does not yet have 13 of them, and so keeping > the QH till some later time becomes rational, and to throw the finess > away, irrational, and not normal. > +=+ The claim is a truly dreadful claim. The player is simply looking at the hand and seeing everything as solid. There is no reason to assume that the player will count his tricks before something goes wrong. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 11 11:11:10 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:11:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B73D7BE.1060000@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Ah, la belle chose que de savoir quelque-chose". > ~ J.B. Poquelin. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:26 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > >> My point is, that this player has not yet counted the tricks, or made a >> plan as to where to begin to play. >> That is permitted, as long as he then accepts that he'll be subject to >> the least successful of all normal lines. >> But in judging which lines are normal and which aren't, one has to allow >> claimer a minimum of common sense. And that includes counting his >> tricks. So then he sees he does not yet have 13 of them, and so keeping >> the QH till some later time becomes rational, and to throw the finess >> away, irrational, and not normal. >> > +=+ The claim is a truly dreadful claim. True > The player is simply > looking at the hand and seeing everything as solid. Not true - he "thinks" he sees everything as solid. I cannot believe that this player really counted his tricks and arrived at 13. He must have claimed without counting them. > There is > no reason to assume that the player will count his tricks before > something goes wrong. There is every reason to so assume. While it is possible for a player to claim without counting, it is not possible for a player to attack a suit without first considering what suit he should attack first. There are communication problems here. Would you rule it normal for him to first play AK of clubs, then ruff a club, then the DK, and then to find him locked in hand? No you would not. And yet, he has not stated that he would play them in some other order. Every poster here assumes he'll start with the DK (possibly preceded by the HA) and return to dummy by ruffing a club. Yet he has not stated so, and he has not thought this through before claiming. But still we assume it is normal to plan a little before playing on after the three rounds of hearts. Is it too much to ask that during this planning he'll also discover he does not really have a certain 5 diamond tricks, and not a certain 13 top ones? Remember that he has only 6 diamonds, not 8 or some such number which would make a 5-0 rather improbable. Here, even a moderately frequent 5-2 distribution will be enough to thwart his plan of top tricks. So really, I don't believe cashing the HA is in any way "normal". But don't forget, I'm still ruling him one down because when if he does his counting before cashing the third trump (and why should we not assume he counts earlier if that is negative for him?) the line of establishing the clubs becomes a "normal" one. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 11 11:26:44 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:26:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B73D7BE.1060000@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <4B73D7BE.1060000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B73DB64.2010201@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Grattan wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Ah, la belle chose que de savoir quelque-chose". >> ~ J.B. Poquelin. >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:26 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions >> >> >> >>> My point is, that this player has not yet counted the tricks, or made a >>> plan as to where to begin to play. >>> That is permitted, as long as he then accepts that he'll be subject to >>> the least successful of all normal lines. >>> But in judging which lines are normal and which aren't, one has to allow >>> claimer a minimum of common sense. And that includes counting his >>> tricks. So then he sees he does not yet have 13 of them, and so keeping >>> the QH till some later time becomes rational, and to throw the finess >>> away, irrational, and not normal. >>> >>> >> +=+ The claim is a truly dreadful claim. >> > > True > > >> The player is simply >> looking at the hand and seeing everything as solid. >> > > Not true - he "thinks" he sees everything as solid. > I cannot believe that this player really counted his tricks and arrived > at 13. He must have claimed without counting them. > > >> There is >> no reason to assume that the player will count his tricks before >> something goes wrong. >> > > There is every reason to so assume. > While it is possible for a player to claim without counting Aren't we just dealing with a very artificial case ? I don't agree with the last statement : a player who claims in a grand slam will seldom lack any idea of how he intends to make 13 tricks, even if this idea is flawed. Did this case really happen ? If it did, I see no reason why somebody who is so out of touch as to believe he has all 13 tricks whatever happens would have suddenly awakened if he had played the hand through. Based on my experience. Worse still, I don't want players who don't know how to time the hand to claim and expect us to time it right for them. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 11 11:59:51 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:59:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B73DB64.2010201@ulb.ac.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <4B73D7BE.1060000@skynet.be> <4B73DB64.2010201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B73E327.8010008@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Aren't we just dealing with a very artificial case ? I don't think so - it seems like a real case to me, and I can see the logic in claimer's actions, so... > I don't agree with > the last statement : a player who claims in a grand slam will seldom > lack any idea of how he intends to make 13 tricks, even if this idea is > flawed. > Well, if this case is real, then we have here a player who claims a grand slam in precisely that situation. Anyway, if this happens, then it's not up to the director to decide that this cannot happen, so he'll just leave the table. He will have to rule. Personally, I have many times already claimed without first thinking. I have been lucky most of the times (when diamonds were not 5-0), and unlucky some others (when they were, and there were two possible lines, one of which failed). I have never yet been lucky-unlucky, when diamonds broke 5-0 but all possible lines led to success. If that had ever happened, I would have expected the director to give me the same score as all declarers, who had all made their contracts. > Did this case really happen ? If it did, I see no reason why somebody > who is so out of touch as to believe he has all 13 tricks whatever > happens would have suddenly awakened if he had played the hand through. > Based on my experience. > What experience? of claiming without thinking, or of ruling on such claims - you have just stated that this cannot happen, so how can you have experience in the matter? > Worse still, I don't want players who don't know how to time the hand to > claim and expect us to time it right for them. > But that is a totally different question. I accept that we disagree on whether we should allow declarer to wake up and count his tricks. But where we cannot possibly disagree is that this declarer, if he wakes up, is able to correctly play it out for 13 tricks. Or if we disagree on that one, the case is not interesting. So he should not "expect us to time it right for him". We shall only time it right if we believe he cannot possibly time it wrongly himself. Again, you are confusing a sloppy claim with irrational play. Because the claim is sloppy, you want to rule against him. And you call irrational plays rational simply because of the sloppiness of the claim. That is silly, not supported by the laws and actually a point against people who believe that different levels of players receive different treatment. Why should this declarer not get the claim that an expert would get? > Best regards > > Alain Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 12:12:39 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:12:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=PRIVATE] Message-ID: <21A258AD3C29441AB6FBAF24AE77AE86@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <4B73D7BE.1060000@skynet.be><4B73DB64.2010201@ulb.ac.be> <4B73E327.8010008@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Aren't we just dealing with a very artificial case ? > > I don't think so - it seems like a real case to me, and I can see the > logic in claimer's actions, so... > >> I don't agree with >> the last statement : a player who claims in a grand slam will seldom >> lack any idea of how he intends to make 13 tricks, even if this idea is >> flawed. >> > > Well, if this case is real, then we have here a player who claims a > grand slam in precisely that situation. > Anyway, if this happens, then it's not up to the director to decide that > this cannot happen, so he'll just leave the table. He will have to rule. > Personally, I have many times already claimed without first thinking. I > have been lucky most of the times (when diamonds were not 5-0), and > unlucky some others (when they were, and there were two possible lines, > one of which failed). I have never yet been lucky-unlucky, when diamonds > broke 5-0 but all possible lines led to success. If that had ever > happened, I would have expected the director to give me the same score > as all declarers, who had all made their contracts. > >> Did this case really happen ? If it did, I see no reason why somebody >> who is so out of touch as to believe he has all 13 tricks whatever >> happens would have suddenly awakened if he had played the hand through. >> Based on my experience. >> > > What experience? of claiming without thinking, or of ruling on such > claims - you have just stated that this cannot happen, so how can you > have experience in the matter? > >> Worse still, I don't want players who don't know how to time the hand to >> claim and expect us to time it right for them. >> > > But that is a totally different question. I accept that we disagree on > whether we should allow declarer to wake up and count his tricks. But > where we cannot possibly disagree is that this declarer, if he wakes up, > is able to correctly play it out for 13 tricks. Or if we disagree on > that one, the case is not interesting. > So he should not "expect us to time it right for him". We shall only > time it right if we believe he cannot possibly time it wrongly himself. > > Again, you are confusing a sloppy claim with irrational play. Because > the claim is sloppy, you want to rule against him. And you call > irrational plays rational simply because of the sloppiness of the claim. > That is silly, not supported by the laws and actually a point against > people who believe that different levels of players receive different > treatment. Why should this declarer not get the claim that an expert > would get? > >> Best regards >> >> Alain > +=+ We are not required to believe declarer will wake up from the illusion he is under until he hits a rock. We are not required to believe declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. Ivan said the case is an actual one. He ruled one down. This ruling was questioned by someone coming fresh from the Sanremo seminar. The question was based on a misunderstanding of an example in the seminar. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 11 12:57:40 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:57:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <4B73D7BE.1060000@skynet.be><4B73DB64.2010201@ulb.ac.be> <4B73E327.8010008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B73F0B4.1020900@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > +=+ We are not required to believe declarer will wake up from the > illusion he is under until he hits a rock. We are not required to believe > declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. We are not required to do so, but we're allowed to! And I choose to believe this declarer knew there is one more. Criticize that if you want, but not the general principles involved. > Ivan said the case is an actual one. He ruled one down. This > ruling was questioned by someone coming fresh from the Sanremo > seminar. The question was based on a misunderstanding of an > example in the seminar. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 11 15:39:51 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> Message-ID: <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> On Feb 11, 2010, at 4:13 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ The law does not rule out irrationality. It makes no > mention of the question. Instead it applies only positive tests: > - Is the line normal? > - Is the line careless for the class of player? > - Is the line inferior for the class of player? > and if 'yes' to any of these it is a line of play to be taken into > account by the Director. Neither TFLB nor anyone in this forum has yet to provide any positive characterization of the set of lines of play for which the correct answer to all three of Grattan's questions would be No -- despite my repeated challenges for someone to attempt to do so. Our apparent collective inability to do this strongly suggests, to me at least, that the set is logically empty, which would make Grattan's three- part test above nonsense. My question for anyone, including Grattan, who claims to know what Grattan is saying here, is a simple one: A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of player involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) I continue to await an answer. Grattan? Anyone? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Feb 11 15:41:50 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:41:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B74172E.3070804@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] +=+ Do you mean isn't "normal"? Is it possibly inferior for the class of player if he assumes diamonds are solid? [Nigel] I agree. It is *normal* for ordinary players to miscount suits and cash winners in the wrong order. For experts it may be *careless* or *inferior* but they still do it. A similar misconception: a player can fail to realise that dummy is high and take an unnecessary finesse instead. [Grattan] +=+ The claim is a truly dreadful claim. The player is simply looking at the hand and seeing everything as solid. There is no reason to assume that the player will count his tricks before something goes wrong. [Nigel] I agree. The claimer may be hoping that - defenders won't notice that he can't be bothered to make a plan...or if defenders do notice that he has lost the place, then - a gullible director, proud of his declarer skills, will do the claimer's work for him. {Grattan] +=+ We are not required to believe declarer will wake up from the illusion he is under until he hits a rock. We are not required to believe declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. Ivan said the case is an actual one. He ruled one down. This ruling was questioned by someone coming fresh from the Sanremo seminar. The question was based on a misunderstanding of an example in the seminar. [Nigel] IMO, Ivan ruled correctly. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 11 15:48:30 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:48:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> [EL] A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of player involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) [DALB] Irrational. Why is this even a problem? David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 11 15:52:37 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:52:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:13:03 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Ah, la belle chose que de savoir quelque-chose". > ~ J.B. Poquelin. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:42 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > >>>> >> > While we wait, I will make my point. It is irrational to > intentionally play carelessly. It is irrational to intentionally > select a suboptimal line of play. So, if you focus on forcing > declarer to play carelessly or adopt inferior lines of play, > you are (from this perspective) forcing declarer to be > irrational. If you insist that declarer cannot be forced to > play irrationally, you end up (like Herman) letting declarer > take optimal lines of play. >> > +=+ The law does not rule out irrationality. It makes no > mention of the question. Instead it applies only positive tests: > - Is the line normal? > - Is the line careless for the class of player? > - Is the line inferior for the class of player? > and if 'yes' to any of these it is a line of play to be taken into > account by the Director. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I don't think this is an accurate description of L70D1. Are we there? L70D1 says that the answer to "Is the line normal?" has to be yes. The footnote says that normal *includes* plays that are careless or inferior, but "normal" cannot include *all* plays that are careless and inferior. That would be any play. Then there is the standard problem of what you mean by normal. From a psychological perspective, one meaning contrasts with unusual. The second meaning contrasts with crazy. In bridge/law terms that is probably irrational. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Feb 11 16:09:48 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:09:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B741DBC.8030703@yahoo.co.uk> [Eric Landau] A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of player involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) [Nigel] a Chimera :) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Feb 11 16:26:01 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:26:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> Message-ID: <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Excellent, superb, extra-ordinary, incredible, is there a word that doesn't fit? Why is this even a problem? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens David Burn Verzonden: donderdag 11 februari 2010 15:49 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions [EL] A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of player involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) [DALB] Irrational. Why is this even a problem? David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 11 16:35:27 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:35:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> Message-ID: <85AA6E2C-94E7-4665-ACEC-04C9782C60D3@starpower.net> On Feb 11, 2010, at 4:21 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> My point is, that this player has not yet counted the tricks, or >> made a >> plan as to where to begin to play. >> That is permitted, as long as he then accepts that he'll be >> subject to >> the least successful of all normal lines. >> But in judging which lines are normal and which aren't, one has to >> allow >> claimer a minimum of common sense. And that includes counting his >> tricks. So then he sees he does not yet have 13 of them, and so >> keeping >> the QH till some later time becomes rational, and to throw the finess >> away, irrational, and not normal. > > +=+ The claim is a truly dreadful claim. The player is simply > looking at the hand and seeing everything as solid. There is > no reason to assume that the player will count his tricks before > something goes wrong. It is generally accepted, and is official policy in the ACBL, that when adjudicating a claim a director need not hold the claimer to the precise literal words of his clarification (the "clear statement" which accompanies the claim, per L68C) if it is obvious that he merely misstated his otherwise apparent intention. Sometimes clarification statements just don't come out right, and if we know what the claimer meant we don't hold him to something we're convinced he didn't exactly mean, or simply forgot in the moment to include. But a key word in the first sentence is "misstated". You can't "misstate" if you don't "state". You cannot decide that someone said something that he didn't quite mean if he didn't say anything at all. You can't decide that the obvious intent of a player's clarification statement differs from the precise literal words of that statement if there was no clarification statement to begin with. If this means, in real life, that we offer some leniency in the form of finding unstated intent to the diffident player who gets a bit ahead of himself in clarifying his claim so that it comes out muddled and not quite what he intended to say that we do not offer to the arrogant expert who likes to wave his cards in the air, say "the rest are mine" and score it up forthwith -- if, in evaluating a claimer's success at fulfilling the requirements of L68C, we effectively "deduct points" for not even trying -- I'd say that's probably not such a bad thing. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 16:00:48 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:00:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <4B73D7BE.1060000@skynet.be><4B73DB64.2010201@ulb.ac.be> <4B73E327.8010008@skynet.be> <4B73F0B4.1020900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <786ABC32920B4B88BDF23F00CB6C30E3@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > Grattan wrote: >> +=+ We are not required to believe declarer will wake up from the >> illusion he is under until he hits a rock. We are not required to believe >> declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > > We are not required to do so, but we're allowed to! > And I choose to believe this declarer knew there is one more. > Criticize that if you want, but not the general principles involved. > +=+ I do not criticize that. You are allowed your own judgement. But it is a matter of judgement, hence not something to which you are obliged. If there is a question in my mind about it, the question would be whether you have given appropriate weight to the *requirement* to resolve any doubtful point against the claimer. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 16:56:39 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:56:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> Message-ID: <2C3C0FD6CD104D65AC2B0D5A3C8F19D2@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:42 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions >> >> While we wait, I will make my point. It is irrational to >> intentionally play carelessly. It is irrational to intentionally >> select a suboptimal line of play. So, if you focus on forcing >> declarer to play carelessly or adopt inferior lines of play, >> you are (from this perspective) forcing declarer to be >> irrational. If you insist that declarer cannot be forced to >> play irrationally, you end up (like Herman) letting declarer >> take optimal lines of play. >>> >> +=+ The law does not rule out irrationality. It makes no >> mention of the question. Instead it applies only positive tests: >> - Is the line normal? >> - Is the line careless for the class of player? >> - Is the line inferior for the class of player? >> and if 'yes' to any of these it is a line of play to be taken into >> account by the Director. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I don't think this is an accurate description of L70D1. Are we there? > L70D1 says that the answer to "Is the line normal?" has to be yes. The > footnote says that normal *includes* plays that are careless or inferior, > but "normal" cannot include *all* plays that are careless and inferior. << +=+ Yes and no, as it were. The difficulty with that approach is that the understanding of what is generally 'normal' could exclude the careless and the inferior since 'normal' has to do with accepted standards. The footnote adds the careless or inferior to those standards. My tripartite question aimed to be an aid to the Director's appreciation of the whole judgement to be made. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 11 17:04:57 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:04:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> Message-ID: <675FCDA9-C1B6-482D-AD06-098522D23EAB@starpower.net> On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:48 AM, David Burn wrote: > [EL] > > A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of > player > involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be > described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) > > [DALB] > > Irrational. Why is this even a problem? Because the words "but not irrational" have been removed from the footnote to L70-71. And because the words "not inferior" mean "just as good or better". So unless an "irrational" play is necessarily just as good or better than a normal play, we are dealing with a substantive change in the law. On Feb 11, 2010, at 4:13 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ The law does not rule out irrationality. It makes no > mention of the question. Instead it applies only positive tests: Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 16:59:58 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:59:58 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > Excellent, superb, extra-ordinary, incredible, is there a word that > doesn't > fit? Why is this even a problem? > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens David > Burn > Verzonden: donderdag 11 februari 2010 15:49 > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > [EL] > > A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of player > involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be > described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) > > [DALB] > > Irrational. Why is this even a problem? > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 17:11:44 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:11:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be><4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be><7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <85AA6E2C-94E7-4665-ACEC-04C9782C60D3@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 3:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions >> >> +=+ The claim is a truly dreadful claim. The player is simply >> looking at the hand and seeing everything as solid. There is >> no reason to assume that the player will count his tricks before >> something goes wrong. > > > It is generally accepted, and is official policy in the ACBL, that > when adjudicating a claim a director need not hold the claimer to the > precise literal words of his clarification (the "clear statement" > which accompanies the claim, per L68C) if it is obvious that he > merely misstated his otherwise apparent intention. Sometimes > clarification statements just don't come out right, and if we know > what the claimer meant we don't hold him to something we're convinced > he didn't exactly mean, or simply forgot in the moment to include. > But a key word in the first sentence is "misstated". > > You can't "misstate" if you don't "state". > > You cannot decide that someone said something that he didn't quite > mean if he didn't say anything at all. You can't decide that the > obvious intent of a player's clarification statement differs from the > precise literal words of that statement if there was no clarification > statement to begin with. > > If this means, in real life, that we offer some leniency in the form > of finding unstated intent to the diffident player who gets a bit > ahead of himself in clarifying his claim so that it comes out muddled > and not quite what he intended to say that we do not offer to the > arrogant expert who likes to wave his cards in the air, say "the rest > are mine" and score it up forthwith -- if, in evaluating a claimer's > success at fulfilling the requirements of L68C, we effectively > "deduct points" for not even trying -- I'd say that's probably not > such a bad thing. > > +=+ When I contemplate the claim I am inclined to ask myself, if the player is looking at these hands under the illusion that all is solid, could it be 'normal' for this declarer to play off HA with a mind to discarding the Q x and then ruffing his second heart? I am not saying it is nor that it is not, but it seems to be a question the Director should explore. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Feb 11 17:50:07 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:50:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <675FCDA9-C1B6-482D-AD06-098522D23EAB@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B7 11EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@sky net.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><911ACB8 4-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900 $@com> <675FCDA9-C1B6-482D-AD06-098522D23EAB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B74353F.3000705@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:48 AM, David Burn wrote: > >> [EL] >> >> A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of >> player >> involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be >> described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) >> >> [DALB] >> >> Irrational. Why is this even a problem? > > Because the words "but not irrational" have been removed from the > footnote to L70-71. > > And because the words "not inferior" mean "just as good or better". i see: there is a misunderstanding about "inferior". some understand it as "not optimal", others as "neither optimal, neither stupid". jpr > > So unless an "irrational" play is necessarily just as good or better > than a normal play, we are dealing with a substantive change in the law. > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 4:13 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The law does not rule out irrationality. It makes no >> mention of the question. Instead it applies only positive tests: > > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 11 17:58:00 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:58:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> Message-ID: <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:13:03 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> From: "Robert Frick" >> >> While we wait, I will make my point. It is irrational to >> intentionally play carelessly. It is irrational to intentionally >> select a suboptimal line of play. So, if you focus on forcing >> declarer to play carelessly or adopt inferior lines of play, >> you are (from this perspective) forcing declarer to be >> irrational. If you insist that declarer cannot be forced to >> play irrationally, you end up (like Herman) letting declarer >> take optimal lines of play. >> >> +=+ The law does not rule out irrationality. It makes no >> mention of the question. Instead it applies only positive tests: >> - Is the line normal? >> - Is the line careless for the class of player? >> - Is the line inferior for the class of player? >> and if 'yes' to any of these it is a line of play to be taken into >> account by the Director. > > I don't think this is an accurate description of L70D1. Are we there? > L70D1 says that the answer to "Is the line normal?" has to be yes. The > footnote says that normal *includes* plays that are careless or > inferior, > but "normal" cannot include *all* plays that are careless and > inferior. Why not? Read the damned footnote. Do you see any qualifiying adjectives? Does it say "some plays that would be careless or inferior, but not all of them"? > That would be any play. At last the light dawns! Someone has finally figured out what that footnote actually says, in perfectly plain English. > Then there is the standard problem of what you mean by normal. From a > psychological perspective, one meaning contrasts with unusual. This is what me mean. Notice that, by this meaning, "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved" would not be "normal" for that player (although it might be for others), which is why we need a footnote in the first place. > The second > meaning contrasts with crazy. The meaning of "normal" that contrasts with "crazy" denotes mental state, which would be a miscontextualization; it might apply to the player, but not to his lines of play. > In bridge/law terms that is probably > irrational. "Crazy" and "irrational" also work in the correct context, but are not antonyms of "normal" in that sense; "logical" or "reasonable" come a lot closer... On Feb 1, 2010, at 12:25 PM, David Burn wrote: > Since TFLB doesn't explicitly redefine either ability or > rationality for us, > we need only read a dictionary. > > [DALB] > > I have one here that defines "irrational" as: > > Contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly > illogical, absurd. [Oxford English Dictionary] Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 11 18:20:31 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:20:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> [EL] Why not? Read the damned footnote. Do you see any qualifiying adjectives? Does it say "some plays that would be careless or inferior, but not all of them"? [DALB] It does not. Do you therefore contend that a player with Ax facing Kx who claims two tricks without making a statement is deemed to make only one of them, because playing the ace and the king on the same trick is inferior to not doing so, and therefore normal? David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 18:26:30 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:26:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B7 11EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@sky net.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><911ACB8 4-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900 $@com><675FCDA9-C1B6-482D-AD06-098522D23EAB@starpower.net> <4B74353F.3000705@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:48 AM, David Burn wrote: > >> [EL] >> >> A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of >> player >> involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be >> described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) >> >> [DALB] >> >> Irrational. Why is this even a problem? > > Because the words "but not irrational" have been removed from the > footnote to L70-71. > > And because the words "not inferior" mean "just as good or better". i see: there is a misunderstanding about "inferior". some understand it as "not optimal", others as "neither optimal, neither stupid". jpr > > So unless an "irrational" play is necessarily just as good or better > than a normal play, we are dealing with a substantive change in the law. > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 4:13 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The law does not rule out irrationality. It makes no >> mention of the question. Instead it applies only positive tests: > > +=+ "inferior" = lower in (quality or rank or status) than.... So, in bridge the inferior is of a lower quality than the norm. The word sets no limit on the degree to which an action is of a lower quality: if it is absurd it is of a lower quality than the norm, is inferior to the norm. Having taken away the concept of irrationality the drafting committee has left inferiority in its natural bottomless condition. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 11 18:36:43 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:36:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions << > It does not. Do you therefore contend that a player with Ax facing Kx who > claims two tricks without making a statement is deemed to make only one of > them, because playing the ace and the king on the same trick is inferior > to > not doing so, and therefore normal? > +=+ I would regard the play of the A and the K to different tricks as "embraced in the original clarification statement". Law 70D1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 11 19:25:48 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:25:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <32E62020-08F8-47EF-891D-737B22213E71@starpower.net> On Feb 11, 2010, at 10:26 AM, ton wrote: > Excellent, superb, extra-ordinary, incredible, is there a word that > doesn't > fit? Why is this even a problem? Because a correct answer will describe the set of plays to be excluded from consideration when adjudicating a disputed claim, and I didn't think anyone has or would argue that we consider all lines other than those that are excellent, superb, extraordinary or incredible (well, some would include incredible, but in a different sense). But I might have been wrong, and this may be the answer I'm looking for. Indeed, strongly suggesting that this may be so, it is the first interpretation anyone has offered in which the reference to "the class of player involved" is actually meaningful. Imagine a claim in which the clarification statement turns out to be consistent with two possible lines of play, one of which requires finding a suit 3-3, the other of which, offering a far better a priori chance to fulfill the claim, requires a triple backwash squeeze, but, as it happens, the 3-3 break is there and the triple backwash squeeze would fail. We might well favor an interpretation of law by which a player of sufficiently "superior class" to occasionally pull off a triple backwash squeeze would be deemed to take fewer than the claimed number of tricks, while a player of a "lesser class" for whom the term "triple backwash squeeze" would be total gibberish might be deemed to get them all. I could certainly live with that. It goes in the completely opposite direction from what has been suggested up to now, which have been variations on the extremely odd -- some might say totally ridiculous -- notion that if a line of play is sufficiently egregiously careless, or sufficiently egregiously inferior, it somehow becomes no longer "careless or inferior" at all. Thanks to Ton, I think we may be getting somewhere. > [EL] > > A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of > player > involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be > described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 11 19:35:01 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:35:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B74353F.3000705@meteo.fr> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B7 11EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@sky net.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><911ACB8 4-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900 $@com> <675FCDA9-C1B6-482D-AD06-098522D23EAB@starpower.net> <4B74353F.3000705@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Feb 11, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> And because the words "not inferior" mean "just as good or better". > > i see: there is a misunderstanding about "inferior". some > understand it > as "not optimal", others as "neither optimal, neither stupid". Those who understand it as the latter will have a very hard time finding any support for their understanding in any dictionary I've ever come across. I've made lots of stupid plays in my life, and every damned one of them was inferior. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 11 20:11:47 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:11:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:36:43 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Man's 'progress' is but a gradual discovery > that his questions have no meaning." > [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:20 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > << >> It does not. Do you therefore contend that a player with Ax facing Kx >> who >> claims two tricks without making a statement is deemed to make only one >> of >> them, because playing the ace and the king on the same trick is inferior >> to >> not doing so, and therefore normal? >> > +=+ I would regard the play of the A and the K to different > tricks as "embraced in the original clarification statement". > Law 70D1. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ What if the claim is for 4 tricks but if the A and K are played on different tricks declarer will actually make 5 tricks? AKQ Kx -- -- xxx Ax -- -- Now do you give declarer 4 tricks because playing the ace and king on the same trick is inferior and hence normal as defined in the laws? From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 11 20:18:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:18:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> Message-ID: <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> On Feb 11, 2010, at 12:20 PM, David Burn wrote: > [EL] > > Why not? Read the damned footnote. Do you see any qualifiying > adjectives? > Does it say "some plays that would be careless or inferior, but not > all of > them"? > > [DALB] > > It does not. Do you therefore contend that a player with Ax facing > Kx who > claims two tricks without making a statement is deemed to make only > one of > them, because playing the ace and the king on the same trick is > inferior to > not doing so, and therefore normal? Let's start by getting the question right. A player whose claim includes two tricks from Ax facing Kx has already made a statement that he will not crash his honors; his intention was manifestly expressed by his using the words "two tricks". No problem with that. At issue is the player who claims "all of them" without any indication of how many tricks he expects to take from which of his remaining suits, of the order he will play them in, or of any particular card he intends to play at any particular time, who then wants the director to count this holding for two tricks towards some adjudicated total. This is where we need to understand the footnote. That said,... First let me be clear: I do *not* contend that this player *should* be required to crash his honors. Nor do I contend that in real life, at a real bridge event, this player *will* be required to crash his honors. Certainly not by me. But I *do* contend that that *is* what the footnote says, and that its language couldn't be clearer or less ambiguous, and that someone damn well ought to change it before some fool takes it seriously. What's more, I contend further that this problem *did not* exist in the 1997 FLB, and that anyone who argues that the change in the wording of the footnote did not produce a substantive change in the law is deficient in their knowledge of the English language. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 11 21:16:11 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:16:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001201caab57$0e0edd00$2a2c9700$@com> [EL] What's more, I contend further that this problem *did not* exist in the 1997 FLB, and that anyone who argues that the change in the wording of the footnote did not produce a substantive change in the law is deficient in their knowledge of the English language. [DALB] Oh, I couldn't agree with you more. At bridge, some irrational plays are careless and all of them bar the Rueful Rabbit's are inferior. When "careless" and "inferior" were bounded above by "normal" and below by "irrational", there wasn't a problem (well, there were a great many problems, but this wasn't one of them). Now, of course, "normal" includes the irrational, because the irrational is inferior. You would not have thought it possible to make the claim Laws worse in 2007 than they were in 1997, but the WBFLC seems to have managed it. This is because they are trying to "do equity" and get "bridge results", and all sorts of other stupid things that will not work. David Burn London, England From schoderb at msn.com Thu Feb 11 23:18:07 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:18:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Because rationality is dependent on the QUALITY OF THE ACT ITSELF and does not depend on the quality of the player involved. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: ton To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions Excellent, superb, extra-ordinary, incredible, is there a word that doesn't fit? Why is this even a problem? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens David Burn Verzonden: donderdag 11 februari 2010 15:49 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions [EL] A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of player involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) [DALB] Irrational. Why is this even a problem? David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100211/2a007404/attachment.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 11 23:28:24 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:28:24 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> [Kojak] Because rationality is dependent on the QUALITY OF THE ACT ITSELF and does not?depend on the quality of the player involved. [DALB] Sorry, Kojak - it just ain't so. If Clark Gable threw himself out of a fortieth-storey window, that would be irrational. If Clark Kent did the same, it would not. David Burn London, England From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Feb 11 23:55:15 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:55:15 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=PRIVATE] References: <21A258AD3C29441AB6FBAF24AE77AE86@Mildred> Message-ID: <36A6D558D42F4009A50055958B9F9856@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > > Quoted by Richard Hills:- > " He also noted that in the past there was cooperation > between essentially the ACBL and WBF to agree on > a uniform set of Laws". > < > 1987 drafting committee: Karen Allison, Edgar Kaplan, > Amalya Kearse, Roger Stern. Resulting in agreement > > 1997 drafting committee: Edgar Kaplan, Karen Allison, > Ralph Cohen, Grattan Endicott, Chip Martel, Roger Stern. Resulting in agreement > > 2007 drafting committee: Max Bavin, Ralph Cohen, Joan > Gerard, Ton Kooijman, Jeffrey Polisner, William Schoder, > Cooperation, but no agreement on the part of the ACBLLC, for the first time ever. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 12 00:52:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:52:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <36A6D558D42F4009A50055958B9F9856@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>2007 drafting committee: Max Bavin, Ralph Cohen, Joan >>Gerard, Ton Kooijman, Jeffrey Polisner, William Schoder, >>Grattan Endicott, John Wignall. Marvin French: >Cooperation, but no agreement on the part of the ACBLLC, >for the first time ever. Richard Hills: It seems that Grattan has made a careless or inferior (but not irrational) error of intending to send a private email to me, but accidentally sending it to the entire list. I disagree with Marv that the 2007 Lawbook was "the first time ever"; I vote instead for the 1975 Lawbook being "the first time to the best of my knowledge so far". In 1975 the ACBL falsely claimed that it was merely re- formatting the Lawbook during its translation from English to American. But in actuality the ACBL deleted numerous Laws which were contrary to ACBL regulations, or could be contrary to future regulations that the ACBL might wish to make. It was the 1975 ACBL Lawbook rather than the 1975 WBF Lawbook which was the template for later revisions, which is why the 2007 Lawbook is divided into 93 Laws (including some blank placeholders - 2007 Laws 56, 88, 89) in accordance with the 1975 ACBL tradition, rather than being divided into more than 100 Laws in accordance with the 1975 WBF tradition. William Goldman, "The Princess Bride": "Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all." Richard Hills: So yes, it may be unfair that the ACBL LC is and always has been a 900-pound gorilla, obtusely throwing its weight around with scant regard for international cooperation since at least 1975. So what? Grass-roots ACBLer and Aussie bridge players have a lot of fun correctly cashing three rounds of trumps, and care not a whit for the fact that the ACBL and WBF Laws are slightly different. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Feb 12 01:43:36 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:43:36 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <0BBD18D1D7BF4178A094B7243A96E75A@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills: > Grattan Endicott: > >>>2007 drafting committee: Max Bavin, Ralph Cohen, Joan >>>Gerard, Ton Kooijman, Jeffrey Polisner, William Schoder, >>>Grattan Endicott, John Wignall. > > Marvin French: > >>Cooperation, but no agreement on the part of the ACBLLC, >>for the first time ever. > > Richard Hills: > > > I disagree with Marv that the 2007 Lawbook was "the first > time ever"; I vote instead for the 1975 Lawbook being "the > first time to the best of my knowledge so far". > > In 1975 the ACBL falsely claimed that it was merely re- > formatting the Lawbook during its translation from English > to American. But in actuality the ACBL deleted numerous > Laws which were contrary to ACBL regulations, or could be > contrary to future regulations that the ACBL might wish to > make. I don't have the English version to verify this, but I presume Richard is right. If he is, then I made the mistake of believing the 1975 Preface to the American edition, which said, "The new format has necessitated occasional minor changes in wording, but in no instance is there a change of substance." Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Perhaps Richard can give an example of a substantive law that was deleted. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From schoderb at msn.com Fri Feb 12 03:32:38 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:32:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> Message-ID: Sorry David, but I think you are misusing the true meaning of the word. Perhaps it would help taking a look at psychiatry which treats with rationality in which it deems actions to be irrational as opposed to rational. You, and others, are opposing irrational against excellent, good, fine, average, poor, stupid, etc. as applied to particular players when it stands by itself without such modifiers.. It was carefully and intentionally picked to separate those irrational actions which are free from those modifiers. You may not think that is a good idea, but I do believe that you are aware of what Edgar had intended and why he picked the word and carefully SEPARATED IT BY A COMMA.. Cheers, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions [Kojak] Because rationality is dependent on the QUALITY OF THE ACT ITSELF and does not depend on the quality of the player involved. [DALB] Sorry, Kojak - it just ain't so. If Clark Gable threw himself out of a fortieth-storey window, that would be irrational. If Clark Kent did the same, it would not. David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ 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/20100212/9ac00f9a/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 12 04:18:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:18:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:18:07 -0500, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Because rationality is dependent on the QUALITY OF THE ACT ITSELF and > does not depend on the quality of the player involved. You can't judge the rationality of an act without looking at what a person knows. Going to the local club to play bridge is irrational if you know there is an extremely high probability that it is closed. And experts know more than beginners. If you allow the expert to know more than the beginner following a claim, then which acts are rational for the expert differ from which acts are rational for the beginner. Put another way, deliberately choosing a suboptimal line of play is irrational. > > Kojak > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ton > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 10:26 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > > Excellent, superb, extra-ordinary, incredible, is there a word that > doesn't > fit? Why is this even a problem? > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens David > Burn > Verzonden: donderdag 11 februari 2010 15:49 > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > [EL] > > A line of play which is not normal, not careless for the class of > player > involved, and not inferior for the class of player involved, can be > described as __________. (Fill in the blank.) > > [DALB] > > Irrational. Why is this even a problem? > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 12 04:53:12 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:53:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> Message-ID: <001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> [Kojak] Sorry David, but I think you are misusing the true meaning?of the word. [DALB] Perhaps. But where is the "true meaning" of any word to be found? [Kojak] You, and others, are opposing irrational against excellent, good, fine, average, poor, stupid, etc. as applied to particular players when it stands? by itself without such modifiers. It was carefully and intentionally picked to separate those irrational actions which are free from those modifiers. [DALB] I am doing no such thing. While I was interested in Ton's reaction to Eric's question, I do not claim to have understood it in the least; perhaps when I do I will share Eric's sympathy with it, perhaps not. But if there is a "true meaning" of the word "irrational" in the context of human behaviour, it cannot be "free from [those] modifiers". Reason is as far as we know a function of the human mind, exercised by human beings. It is a procession from one step to another step by means of connections that will be obvious to all. To see this, consider that if Clark Gable believed he could fly, his belief was irrational but his action in defenestrating himself from the fortieth floor was not. "Reason" is "modified" by those human beings that exercise it. [Kojak] You may not think that is a good idea, but I do believe that you are aware of what Edgar had intended [DALB] Of course. He meant "dumb, but not dumb as all that". Unfortunately, he left precious little guidance as to how dumb "all that" was, wherefore we flounder. [Kojak] and why he picked the word [DALB] Well, he could hardly say "dumb". He was a prosodist, after and above all. [Kojak] and carefully SEPARATED IT BY A COMMA. [DALB] Most commas in American prose are decorative; most of the remainder are wrong; the rest are so misplaced as to be "not even wrong". There is a reason that those English speakers responsible for enacting the laws that govern our lives, not merely our games, strive to avoid any punctuation but the period. The 1997 footnote read: ..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational" This is a badly-written clause that makes on the face of it no sense at all, and therefore has no place in the Laws of a game since those should be strictly formal. If anyone had to guess at where the last three words should have been placed, one would have bet on this rearrangement: "... normal includes play that would be careless or inferior but not irrational for the class of player involved". But this CAREFUL SEPARATION BY A COMMA appears to preclude such an interpretation. This is an illusion, but Kaplan was a wizard with words. If the clause is supposed to mean (and I rearrange the words as best I can here) "...normal excludes play that would be irrational but includes play that would have been careless or inferior for the class of player involved", then it ought to have said so; this meaning is next to impossible for anyone unfamiliar with American punctuation to deduce, and even then it is difficult. Pity among others poor Rob Geller, who had to translate this gobbledygook into Japanese. Still, that was then and this is now. I don't argue these points for the sake of arguing, honest I don't. I argue them because I think that whereas the current Laws are ideally suited to a framework in which top Directors can consult with top players before giving a ruling acceptable to all and entirely in keeping with the ideals of "equity", "bridge results" and "free beer for the workers", these same Laws are incapable of both interpretation and implementation at any level below the highest. This worries me. Maybe it should not, but while it does I will continue to argue even with Kojak. David Burn London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 05:35:12 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:35:12 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> <001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b1002112035s5631184br7f25c2f8242f2629@mail.gmail.com> In English, "A includes B" has two possible meanings: One is "Every case of B is a case of A." The other is "Some of the cases of A are also cases of B." Robert, David, and Eric, who I respect above almost anyone else on BLML, do not yet know about the second meaning. Alright, I offer 762 examples. Do a Google search on "contributors include graduate students." In all 762 examples found in Google, the phrase means that "some contributors are graduate students." It never means "all graduate students are contributors." I have proven that in English, my second meaning of "includes" frequently occurs. Did I check all 762 citations to arrive at this conclusion? No. I merely interepreted the phrase in the only way that makes sense. (I could give similar examples in law too, if you like.) Similarly, in the 2007 bridge laws, the footnote is `For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.' The word "includes" must be understood in the second sense, for otherwise, all plays are normal. That is, the footnote means "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes *some* plays that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." I have inserted *some* into the footnote sentence to make it consistent with the second meaning of "includes" I mentioned. I think it is the only possible way that the footnote to law 20E1 makes sense. Should the lawmakers have included "some" in the footnote for better clarity? Yes. Are the claims laws too vague? I think so. But does the footnote mean that all plays are normal? No. Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 12 06:26:07 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:26:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b1002112035s5631184br7f25c2f8242f2629@mail.gmail.com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> <001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> <2b1e598b1002112035s5631184br7f25c2f8242f2629@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:35:12 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > In English, "A includes B" has two possible meanings: One is "Every > case of B is a case of A." The other is "Some of the cases of A are > also cases of B." > > Robert, David, and Eric, who I respect above almost anyone else on > BLML, do not yet know about the second meaning. Alright, I offer 762 > examples. Do a Google search on "contributors include graduate > students." In all 762 examples found in Google, the phrase means that > "some contributors are graduate students." It never means "all > graduate students are contributors." I have proven that in English, > my second meaning of "includes" frequently occurs. > > Did I check all 762 citations to arrive at this conclusion? No. I > merely interepreted the phrase in the only way that makes sense. (I > could give similar examples in law too, if you like.) > > Similarly, in the 2007 bridge laws, the footnote is `For the purposes > of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or > inferior for the class of player involved.' The word "includes" must > be understood in the second sense, for otherwise, all plays are > normal. That is, the footnote means "For the purposes of Laws 70 and > 71, ?normal? includes *some* plays that would be careless or inferior > for the class of player involved." > > I have inserted *some* into the footnote sentence to make it > consistent with the second meaning of "includes" I mentioned. I think > it is the only possible way that the footnote to law 20E1 makes sense. > > Should the lawmakers have included "some" in the footnote for better > clarity? Yes. Are the claims laws too vague? I think so. But does > the footnote mean that all plays are normal? No. > > Jerry Fusselman I agree. The laws have to be interpreted as saying that *some* normal plays are careless and inferior (but not *all* careless and inferior plays are normal). The problem is, most inferior and careless plays are not normal. Focusing on this leads to a view like Herman's, which seems to be relatively common -- declarer is not forced to play the hand in a careless or obviously inferior way. Instead, expert declarers can run strip endplays, etc. Or, normal is to be defined in such as way that it includes a lot of careless and inferior plays. But I don't know what that definition would be. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 12 09:28:47 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:28:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > At issue is the player who claims "all of them" without any > indication of how many tricks he expects to take from which of his > remaining suits, of the order he will play them in, or of any > particular card he intends to play at any particular time, who then > wants the director to count this holding for two tricks towards some > adjudicated total. This is where we need to understand the > footnote. That said,... > > First let me be clear: I do *not* contend that this player *should* > be required to crash his honors. > > Nor do I contend that in real life, at a real bridge event, this > player *will* be required to crash his honors. Certainly not by me. > > But I *do* contend that that *is* what the footnote says, and that > its language couldn't be clearer or less ambiguous, and that someone > damn well ought to change it before some fool takes it seriously. > Indeed, and there is only one conclusion: the word "inferior" in the footnote does not have the dictionary meaning of "less good than something else". That would make it a bottomless pit and all plays, even irrational ones (no longer excluded by the footnote) become normal and all claims will be adjusted to zero tricks (well, you may still get the ace of trumps). The meaning of "inferior" must be a qualitative one: less good than the best, but still within the scope of actually possibly being performed by the player at the table. I believe that the opposite of "normal, including careless and inferior" is "just not done". Herman. > What's more, I contend further that this problem *did not* exist in > the 1997 FLB, and that anyone who argues that the change in the > wording of the footnote did not produce a substantive change in the > law is deficient in their knowledge of the English language. > > > 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 12 09:31:52 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:31:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <786ABC32920B4B88BDF23F00CB6C30E3@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <4B73D7BE.1060000@skynet.be><4B73DB64.2010201@ulb.ac.be> <4B73E327.8010008@skynet.be> <4B73F0B4.1020900@skynet.be> <786ABC32920B4B88BDF23F00CB6C30E3@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B7511F8.4080109@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> We are not required to do so, but we're allowed to! >> And I choose to believe this declarer knew there is one more. >> Criticize that if you want, but not the general principles involved. >> > +=+ I do not criticize that. You are allowed your own judgement. > But it is a matter of judgement, hence not something to which you > are obliged. If there is a question in my mind about it, the question > would be whether you have given appropriate weight to the > *requirement* to resolve any doubtful point against the claimer. Grattan, I was not at the table, nor were you. Ivan, who told us about the problem, will certainly have made a judgement on this issue. He has not told us which judgment that is, but we can infer from him not mentioning that he ruled -1 because the trump was not mentioned, that he ruled that claimer did not forget about the outstanding trump. I consider that part of the facts of the case. Since the case is not interesting when we assume that he has forgotten the trump, let's concentrate on the case where we rule that he hasn't. OK? Herman. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 12 09:40:28 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:40:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be><4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be><7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <85AA6E2C-94E7-4665-ACEC-04C9782C60D3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B7513FC.70401@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Man's "progress" is but a gradual discovery > that his questions have no meaning." > [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 3:35 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > >>> +=+ The claim is a truly dreadful claim. The player is simply >>> looking at the hand and seeing everything as solid. There is >>> no reason to assume that the player will count his tricks before >>> something goes wrong. >> >> It is generally accepted, and is official policy in the ACBL, that >> when adjudicating a claim a director need not hold the claimer to the >> precise literal words of his clarification (the "clear statement" >> which accompanies the claim, per L68C) if it is obvious that he >> merely misstated his otherwise apparent intention. Sometimes >> clarification statements just don't come out right, and if we know >> what the claimer meant we don't hold him to something we're convinced >> he didn't exactly mean, or simply forgot in the moment to include. >> But a key word in the first sentence is "misstated". >> >> You can't "misstate" if you don't "state". >> >> You cannot decide that someone said something that he didn't quite >> mean if he didn't say anything at all. You can't decide that the >> obvious intent of a player's clarification statement differs from the >> precise literal words of that statement if there was no clarification >> statement to begin with. >> >> If this means, in real life, that we offer some leniency in the form >> of finding unstated intent to the diffident player who gets a bit >> ahead of himself in clarifying his claim so that it comes out muddled >> and not quite what he intended to say that we do not offer to the >> arrogant expert who likes to wave his cards in the air, say "the rest >> are mine" and score it up forthwith -- if, in evaluating a claimer's >> success at fulfilling the requirements of L68C, we effectively >> "deduct points" for not even trying -- I'd say that's probably not >> such a bad thing. >> >> > +=+ When I contemplate the claim I am inclined to ask myself, if the > player is looking at these hands under the illusion that all is solid, could > it be 'normal' for this declarer to play off HA with a mind to discarding > the Q x and then ruffing his second heart? I am not saying it is nor that > it is not, but it seems to be a question the Director should explore. Indeed it is something that might be explored. Do you see Grattan, that once you assume declarer did not miscount trumps, this case has many interesting facets. Let's see: Bd: 4 ? K J 10 3 > > Dlr: W ? 6 5 > > Vul: Both ? A Q J 6 2 > > ? 6 5 > > ? 7 2 ? 8 6 4 > > ? J 10 8 7 4 2 ? K 9 > > ? - ? 10 9 8 7 5 > 4 3 > > ? Q J 9 4 3 ? 7 > > ? A Q 9 5 > > ? A Q 3 > > ? K > > ? A K 10 8 2 > > three rounds of trumps, heart ace, diamond king, club AK, club ruff, diamond ace, queen, jack, discarding two hearts and a club, one diamond and one heart still on the table, one club and one trump still in hand. The line wins when diamonds are 4-3 (diamond is high) or when clubs are 4-2 (club is high). Perfectly normal line, which will, indeed, fail. If claimer decides to play the HA before the DK (which is inferior but possible) he cannot recover by the finesse when he learns that diamonds do not break. Well done, Grattan, you have found a failing normal line. Down one, but I was there already from another point. Herman. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 12 11:38:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:38:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> <001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions Still, that was then and this is now. I don't argue these points for the sake of arguing, honest I don't. I argue them because I think that whereas the current Laws are ideally suited to a framework in which top Directors can consult with top players before giving a ruling acceptable to all and entirely in keeping with the ideals of "equity", "bridge results" and "free beer for the workers", these same Laws are incapable of both interpretation and implementation at any level below the highest. This worries me. Maybe it should not, but while it does I will continue to argue even with Kojak. < +=+ Ah yes. However, to begin by throwing out of the window the whole of the accumulated study of logic and reason is surreal. Whether a complete rewrite of the laws would have succeeded in simplifying the presentation we are not to know. Having been forced into 'incremental' development of the laws, and meeting reluctance on many sides to abandoning the familiar language of the past, we had to look largely at changes of format for improvement where we had no intention to change the effect. So if our camel is seen as having three humps and three legs it should be acknowledged that it is a political animal. Those directors operating below the 'highest level' do enjoy the benefits of explanation and teaching. The Word spreads. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bunji.ivan at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 12:58:29 2010 From: bunji.ivan at gmail.com (Ivan Bunji) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:58:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B7513FC.70401@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <85AA6E2C-94E7-4665-ACEC-04C9782C60D3@starpower.net> <4B7513FC.70401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6440c2ff1002120358r575bcefhd42ceb3ad786db64@mail.gmail.com> I have to thank to all of You who took "my case" with much more seriosity than I ever could expected. Seems to me that "case" induced an avalanche. For me (and for NS pair involved) the real issue is: 1. was my ruling OK? (down one for -100). Y/N Of course I was certain that lady didn't forget thrid trump, but the claim was so "clumsy", and the time was more than enough for NS pair to find "the only possible normal" line of play and try to convict me to let them score 2210, which I didn't even take it into the consideration. 2. is it true that there is a "new approach" exercised in San Remo TD course, concerning this matter, alowing declarer to make his contract despite wrong (incomplete, unprecise..and eventually, after quite a period of time) claim? Y/N I am very gratefull to everyone, but my special thanks go to: Herman and Jeff (my collegues from PULA festival), and of course, Kojak, Grattan, Ton, for me, the most respectable people for bridge ruling. best regards to all Ivan BUNJI On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott > ******************************** > > "Man's "progress" is but a gradual discovery > > that his questions have no meaning." > > [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . > > > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Landau" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 3:35 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > > > > >>> +=+ The claim is a truly dreadful claim. The player is simply > >>> looking at the hand and seeing everything as solid. There is > >>> no reason to assume that the player will count his tricks before > >>> something goes wrong. > >> > >> It is generally accepted, and is official policy in the ACBL, that > >> when adjudicating a claim a director need not hold the claimer to the > >> precise literal words of his clarification (the "clear statement" > >> which accompanies the claim, per L68C) if it is obvious that he > >> merely misstated his otherwise apparent intention. Sometimes > >> clarification statements just don't come out right, and if we know > >> what the claimer meant we don't hold him to something we're convinced > >> he didn't exactly mean, or simply forgot in the moment to include. > >> But a key word in the first sentence is "misstated". > >> > >> You can't "misstate" if you don't "state". > >> > >> You cannot decide that someone said something that he didn't quite > >> mean if he didn't say anything at all. You can't decide that the > >> obvious intent of a player's clarification statement differs from the > >> precise literal words of that statement if there was no clarification > >> statement to begin with. > >> > >> If this means, in real life, that we offer some leniency in the form > >> of finding unstated intent to the diffident player who gets a bit > >> ahead of himself in clarifying his claim so that it comes out muddled > >> and not quite what he intended to say that we do not offer to the > >> arrogant expert who likes to wave his cards in the air, say "the rest > >> are mine" and score it up forthwith -- if, in evaluating a claimer's > >> success at fulfilling the requirements of L68C, we effectively > >> "deduct points" for not even trying -- I'd say that's probably not > >> such a bad thing. > >> > >> > > +=+ When I contemplate the claim I am inclined to ask myself, if the > > player is looking at these hands under the illusion that all is solid, > could > > it be 'normal' for this declarer to play off HA with a mind to discarding > > the Q x and then ruffing his second heart? I am not saying it is nor that > > it is not, but it seems to be a question the Director should explore. > > Indeed it is something that might be explored. > Do you see Grattan, that once you assume declarer did not miscount > trumps, this case has many interesting facets. > Let's see: > > Bd: 4 ? K J 10 3 > > > > Dlr: W ? 6 5 > > > > Vul: Both ? A Q J 6 2 > > > > ? 6 5 > > > > ? 7 2 ? 8 6 4 > > > > ? J 10 8 7 4 2 ? K 9 > > > > ? - ? 10 9 8 7 5 > > 4 3 > > > > ? Q J 9 4 3 ? 7 > > > > ? A Q 9 5 > > > > ? A Q 3 > > > > ? K > > > > ? A K 10 8 2 > > > > > > three rounds of trumps, heart ace, diamond king, club AK, club ruff, > diamond ace, queen, jack, discarding two hearts and a club, one diamond > and one heart still on the table, one club and one trump still in hand. > The line wins when diamonds are 4-3 (diamond is high) or when clubs are > 4-2 (club is high). > Perfectly normal line, which will, indeed, fail. > If claimer decides to play the HA before the DK (which is inferior but > possible) he cannot recover by the finesse when he learns that diamonds > do not break. > Well done, Grattan, you have found a failing normal line. > Down one, but I was there already from another point. > > Herman. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100212/dd28ff70/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 12 13:37:21 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:37:21 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com><001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 04:38 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Man's 'progress' is but a gradual discovery > that his questions have no meaning." > [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:53 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > > Still, that was then and this is now. I don't argue these > points for the sake of arguing, honest I don't. I argue > them because I think that whereas the current Laws > are ideally suited to a framework in which top Directors > can consult with top players before giving a ruling > acceptable to all and entirely in keeping with the ideals > of "equity", "bridge results" and "free beer for the > workers", these same Laws are incapable of both > interpretation and implementation at any level below > the highest. This worries me. Maybe it should not, but > while it does I will continue to argue even with Kojak. > < > +=+ Ah yes. However, to begin by throwing out of > the window the whole of the accumulated study of > logic and reason is surreal. > Whether a complete rewrite of the laws would > have succeeded in simplifying the presentation we > are not to know. Having been forced into 'incremental' > development of the laws, and meeting reluctance on > many sides to abandoning the familiar language of the > past, we had to look largely at changes of format for > improvement where we had no intention to change the > effect. So if our camel is seen as having three humps > and three legs it should be acknowledged that it is a > political animal. > Those directors operating below the 'highest level' > do enjoy the benefits of explanation and teaching. The > Word spreads. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ When the end objective of distillation is to purify against contagion it is necessary to provide a means for it to escape as well as a barrier against re-innoculation. As such, distillation can be simplified immensely when the starting components are free of contagion. I was present when the DSC's mission was delivered to the ACBL and in it there was no mention of purification; and of that which was in it made the outcome a foregone conclusion. While Burn is correct that the problem that he submits is insurmountable in the current form of TFLB, he neglects to mention just how meager its cure would affect good progress. To spur thought I suggest considering this situation: Contract: NT Dummy HQ96 Declarer S2 H3 D4 Declarer, has won the last trick and quitted it. On a slip of paper he scibbles 'the rest are mine' and promptly drops dead. Hamman is recruited to complete the hand, upon sitting down he is told to take it from here. He reads the scribbled note and.. Is it wrong to suggest that this be THE appropriate starting point when deciding contested claims? regards roger pewick From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 12 13:42:23 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:42:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002120358r575bcefhd42ceb3ad786db64@mail.gmail.com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B73BF30.2000907@skynet.be> <7A50594CC31F4F42A51536A81008B084@Mildred> <85AA6E2C-94E7-4665-ACEC-04C9782C60D3@starpower.net> <4B7513FC.70401@skynet.be> <6440c2ff1002120358r575bcefhd42ceb3ad786db64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B754CAF.8030006@skynet.be> Ivan Bunji wrote: > I have to thank to all of You who took "my case" with much more > seriosity than I ever could expected. > Seems to me that "case" induced an avalanche. > For me (and for NS pair involved) the real issue is: > > 1. was my ruling OK? (down one for -100). Y/N > In the end, it seems your ruling is correct, but not necessarily for the reason you gave to the table. In order to learn something, you should not be content with having the right table result, but also the right reason. However, this case is much more difficult that most I've seen recently, for various reasons. > Of course I was certain that lady didn't forget thrid trump, Thank you for that clarification. Some people have doubted this, and even when told that did not make for an interesting case anyway, they continued to defend their ruling. > but the > claim was so "clumsy", That is NOT a good reason to rule against the claimer. > and the time was more than enough for NS pair to > find "the only possible normal" line of play and try to convict me to > let them score 2210, which I didn't even take it into the consideration. > They did not find the winning line themselves? Then of course you don't need to give them the claimed result. > 2. is it true that there is a "new approach" exercised in San Remo TD > course, concerning this matter, alowing declarer to make his contract > despite wrong (incomplete, unprecise..and eventually, after quite a > period of time) claim? Y/N > No, there was nothing new in San Remo concerning this problem. There was hardly anything new in the 2007 laws either, on this matter. To rule that a claim is correct despite it being wrong at first glance is very common. If there is a small trump out, for example, and the only way that trump can make a trick is by ruffing something, when there is always - in any line - an overruff possible, means that the trump will not make any trick and the claim will count for the full number of asked tricks. > I am very gratefull to everyone, but my special thanks go to: > Herman and Jeff (my collegues from PULA festival), and of course, > Kojak, Grattan, Ton, for me, the most respectable people for bridge ruling. > > best regards > to all > Ivan BUNJI > You're welcome, Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 12 13:45:12 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:45:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com><001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> Message-ID: <4B754D58.5030702@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > > To spur thought I suggest considering this situation: > > Contract: NT > > Dummy > HQ96 > > Declarer > S2 > H3 > D4 > > Declarer, has won the last trick and quitted it. On a slip of paper he > scibbles 'the rest are mine' and promptly drops dead. Hamman is recruited > to complete the hand, upon sitting down he is told to take it from here. He > reads the scribbled note and.. > > Is it wrong to suggest that this be THE appropriate starting point when > deciding contested claims? > Yes that is wrong. Unless the player also adds: "I know that there is only one heart out, and that the S2 and D4 are not high". Or of course: "I know that the S2, D4 and HQ are high". Without finding out what claimer "knows" it is impossible to rule on a claim. > regards > roger pewick > Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 12 16:00:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:00:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> <001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> Message-ID: On Feb 11, 2010, at 10:53 PM, David Burn wrote: > [Kojak] > > Sorry David, but I think you are misusing the true meaning of the > word. > > [DALB] > > Perhaps. But where is the "true meaning" of any word to be found? > > [Kojak] > > You, and others, are opposing irrational against excellent, good, > fine, > average, poor, stupid, etc. as applied to particular players when > it stands > by itself without such modifiers. It was carefully and > intentionally picked > to separate those irrational actions which are free from those > modifiers. > > [DALB] > > I am doing no such thing. While I was interested in Ton's reaction > to Eric's > question, I do not claim to have understood it in the least; > perhaps when I > do I will share Eric's sympathy with it, perhaps not. > > But if there is a "true meaning" of the word "irrational" in the > context of > human behaviour, it cannot be "free from [those] modifiers". Reason > is as > far as we know a function of the human mind, exercised by human > beings. It > is a procession from one step to another step by means of > connections that > will be obvious to all. To see this, consider that if Clark Gable > believed > he could fly, his belief was irrational but his action in > defenestrating > himself from the fortieth floor was not. "Reason" is "modified" by > those > human beings that exercise it. > > [Kojak] > > You may not think that is a good idea, but I do believe that you > are aware > of what Edgar had intended > > [DALB] > > Of course. He meant "dumb, but not dumb as all that". > Unfortunately, he left > precious little guidance as to how dumb "all that" was, wherefore we > flounder. > > [Kojak] > > and why he picked the word > > [DALB] > > Well, he could hardly say "dumb". He was a prosodist, after and > above all. > > [Kojak] > > and carefully SEPARATED IT BY A COMMA. > > [DALB] > > Most commas in American prose are decorative; most of the remainder > are > wrong; the rest are so misplaced as to be "not even wrong". There is a > reason that those English speakers responsible for enacting the > laws that > govern our lives, not merely our games, strive to avoid any > punctuation but > the period. > > The 1997 footnote read: > > ..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for > the class > of player involved, but not irrational" > > This is a badly-written clause that makes on the face of it no > sense at all, > and therefore has no place in the Laws of a game since those should be > strictly formal. > > If anyone had to guess at where the last three words should have been > placed, one would have bet on this rearrangement: "... normal > includes play > that would be careless or inferior but not irrational for the class of > player involved". But this CAREFUL SEPARATION BY A COMMA appears to > preclude > such an interpretation. This is an illusion, but Kaplan was a > wizard with > words. > > If the clause is supposed to mean (and I rearrange the words as > best I can > here) "...normal excludes play that would be irrational but > includes play > that would have been careless or inferior for the class of player > involved", > then it ought to have said so; this meaning is next to impossible > for anyone > unfamiliar with American punctuation to deduce, and even then it is > difficult. Pity among others poor Rob Geller, who had to translate > this > gobbledygook into Japanese. > > Still, that was then and this is now. I don't argue these points > for the > sake of arguing, honest I don't. I argue them because I think that > whereas > the current Laws are ideally suited to a framework in which top > Directors > can consult with top players before giving a ruling acceptable to > all and > entirely in keeping with the ideals of "equity", "bridge results" > and "free > beer for the workers", these same Laws are incapable of both > interpretation > and implementation at any level below the highest. This worries me. > Maybe it > should not, but while it does I will continue to argue even with > Kojak. I don't understand the difficulty we seem to be having with this, and I certainly don't understand why we are imputing critical importance to that comma, which is irrelevant to parsing the sentence. The phrase "careless or inferior but not irrational for the class of player involved" necessarily implies that what is "irrational" varies with the class of player involved. The phrase "careless or inferior for the class of player involved but not irrational" necessarily implies that what is "irrational" does not vary with the class of player involved. Adding Mr. Kaplan's comma to the latter does not change its meaning one whit. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 12 17:04:17 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:04:17 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B754D58.5030702@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com><001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> <4B754D58.5030702@skynet.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 06:45 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> >> To spur thought I suggest considering this situation: >> >> Contract: NT >> >> Dummy >> HQ96 >> >> Declarer >> S2 >> H3 >> D4 >> >> Declarer, has won the last trick and quitted it. On a slip of paper he >> scibbles 'the rest are mine' and promptly drops dead. Hamman is >> recruited >> to complete the hand, upon sitting down he is told to take it from here. >> He >> reads the scribbled note and.. >> >> Is it wrong to suggest that this be THE appropriate starting point when >> deciding contested claims? > Yes that is wrong. Unless the player also adds: "I know that there is > only one heart out, and that the S2 and D4 are not high". Or of course: > "I know that the S2, D4 and HQ are high". > Without finding out what claimer "knows" it is impossible to rule on a > claim. > >> regards >> roger pewick > Herman. Herman, One of the points being driven to is to offer the opportunity to look at things in a different way from the accustomed way. Most notably, the point of view to which I refer is that claimer is attributed [and with regard to fairness to the opponents, erroneously] the presumption of knowing things that he does not assert he knows. The situation presented was that of a player who has no knowledge of what has happened prior to his arrival at T11 except what the dead person has scribbled. Leading to the hypothetical, 'what order of the remaining cards does Hamman contemplate actually taking' [as well as those which he considers as being totally hopeless if not taken- to use the thinking apparently prescribed in 2008]. In other words, the question that was put forward concerned the concept of treating the starting point of contested claims as analogous to the Hamman situation. As in to contemplate the consequences of using Hamman's situation as the situation to be dealt with when a claim is contested. Which is to say that you have been given the total of what claimer knows. And upon that is the basis for concluding what is 'normal' and what is 'irrational to not do'. The procedure being to answer first the question of, 'what is a fair order[s] of the remaining cards to consider', which afterwards is used to see the consequence of filling in the unknown cards to learn who gets which tricks. regards roger pewick From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 12 17:09:14 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:09:14 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com><001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> Message-ID: <8FAD6C4930794A73A5BB7F55F89FE130@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > The phrase "careless or inferior but not irrational for the class of > player involved" necessarily implies that what is "irrational" varies > with the class of player involved. The phrase "careless or inferior > for the class of player involved but not irrational" necessarily > implies that what is "irrational" does not vary with the class of > player involved. Adding Mr. Kaplan's comma to the latter does not > change its meaning one whit. WTP? > +=+ Right. Edgar preferred his comma, considering it to make even clearer that 'irrational' was not 'irrational for the class of player'. The problem arose at a later time when someone, seemingly ill-practised in the language, interpreted 'for the class of player' as applying to 'irrational' as well as to 'inferior' and 'careless'. Bill Schoder drove hard, with my unobtrusive support, to return to the original intention in the 2007 laws. On the drafting committee colleagues suggested that the reference to 'irrational' be removed from the footnote and this was accepted since it cleared up the main issue, albeit with some knock-on effects. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 12 19:22:18 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:22:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b1002112035s5631184br7f25c2f8242f2629@mail.gmail.com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> <001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> <2b1e598b1002112035s5631184br7f25c2f8242f2629@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <79D86206-E838-4B8E-B6E6-F3799F8F59CC@starpower.net> On Feb 11, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > In English, "A includes B" has two possible meanings: One is "Every > case of B is a case of A." The other is "Some of the cases of A are > also cases of B." > > Robert, David, and Eric, who I respect above almost anyone else on > BLML, do not yet know about the second meaning. Alright, I offer 762 > examples. Do a Google search on "contributors include graduate > students." In all 762 examples found in Google, the phrase means that > "some contributors are graduate students." It never means "all > graduate students are contributors." I have proven that in English, > my second meaning of "includes" frequently occurs. > > Did I check all 762 citations to arrive at this conclusion? No. I > merely interepreted the phrase in the only way that makes sense. (I > could give similar examples in law too, if you like.) > > Similarly, in the 2007 bridge laws, the footnote is `For the purposes > of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or > inferior for the class of player involved.' The word "includes" must > be understood in the second sense, for otherwise, all plays are > normal. That is, the footnote means "For the purposes of Laws 70 and > 71, ?normal? includes *some* plays that would be careless or inferior > for the class of player involved." > > I have inserted *some* into the footnote sentence to make it > consistent with the second meaning of "includes" I mentioned. I think > it is the only possible way that the footnote to law 20E1 makes sense. > > Should the lawmakers have included "some" in the footnote for better > clarity? Yes. Are the claims laws too vague? I think so. But does > the footnote mean that all plays are normal? No. This overlooks the linguistic distinction between a factual statement and a normative one. When neither "some" nor "all" are specified with respect to a collective subject ("graduate students"), a factual statement ("Graduate students contributed...") usually implies "some", because it implicitly defines the subject subset. (Which graduate students are we talking about? The ones who contributed.) A normative statement ("Graduate students are expected to contribute...") contains no such discrimator, and therefore implies "all". (Which graduate students are we talking about? All of them.) The dreaded footnote is a normative statement; there is no implied subset. Common sense tells us the same thing. It would be extremely odd to assume that the authors of TFLB wrote the footnote, intending "play that would be careless or inferior" to mean "some but not all play that would be careless or inferior" without writing a single word that might give anyone a ghost of a hint as to what was to be included in the subset and what was not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 12 19:34:32 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:34:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:28 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> At issue is the player who claims "all of them" without any >> indication of how many tricks he expects to take from which of his >> remaining suits, of the order he will play them in, or of any >> particular card he intends to play at any particular time, who then >> wants the director to count this holding for two tricks towards some >> adjudicated total. This is where we need to understand the >> footnote. That said,... >> >> First let me be clear: I do *not* contend that this player *should* >> be required to crash his honors. >> >> Nor do I contend that in real life, at a real bridge event, this >> player *will* be required to crash his honors. Certainly not by me. >> >> But I *do* contend that that *is* what the footnote says, and that >> its language couldn't be clearer or less ambiguous, and that someone >> damn well ought to change it before some fool takes it seriously. > > Indeed, and there is only one conclusion: the word "inferior" in the > footnote does not have the dictionary meaning of "less good than > something else". That would make it a bottomless pit and all plays, > even > irrational ones (no longer excluded by the footnote) become normal and > all claims will be adjusted to zero tricks (well, you may still get > the > ace of trumps). > The meaning of "inferior" must be a qualitative one: less good than > the > best, but still within the scope of actually possibly being > performed by > the player at the table. It certainly makes sense for "careless" and "inferior" to have "floors", else, as Herman says, we are confronted with the "bottomless pit [of] all plays". But the only "floor" that anyone has seriously defended is the one we know and love, "careless or inferior... but not irrational". In 2007 the drafting committee made a proactive decision to remove that "floor" from the lawbook. Nobody has as yet affirmed my speculation that they did so in an unintended fit of insanity, and wound up screwing the pooch, but I'm sticking to my story. > I believe that the opposite of "normal, including careless and > inferior" > is "just not done". "Irrational", which does not regard the class of player in the construction of the footnote, well describes things that are "just not done". >> What's more, I contend further that this problem *did not* exist in >> the 1997 FLB, and that anyone who argues that the change in the >> wording of the footnote did not produce a substantive change in the >> law is deficient in their knowledge of the English language. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Feb 13 10:27:44 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:27:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000b01caab2e$8579d580$906d8080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com><001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> <4B754D58.5030702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B767090.7010305@skynet.be> I am sorry Roger, but although it's a worthwhile effort, your assertion does not make any sense. Roger Pewick wrote: > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Herman De Wael" > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 06:45 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > >> Roger Pewick wrote: >>> >>> To spur thought I suggest considering this situation: >>> >>> Contract: NT >>> >>> Dummy >>> HQ96 >>> >>> Declarer >>> S2 >>> H3 >>> D4 >>> >>> Declarer, has won the last trick and quitted it. On a slip of paper he >>> scibbles 'the rest are mine' and promptly drops dead. Hamman is >>> recruited >>> to complete the hand, upon sitting down he is told to take it from here. >>> He >>> reads the scribbled note and.. >>> >>> Is it wrong to suggest that this be THE appropriate starting point when >>> deciding contested claims? > >> Yes that is wrong. Unless the player also adds: "I know that there is >> only one heart out, and that the S2 and D4 are not high". Or of course: >> "I know that the S2, D4 and HQ are high". >> Without finding out what claimer "knows" it is impossible to rule on a >> claim. >> >>> regards >>> roger pewick > >> Herman. > > Herman, > > One of the points being driven to is to offer the opportunity to look at > things in a different way from the accustomed way. Most notably, the point > of view to which I refer is that claimer is attributed [and with regard to > fairness to the opponents, erroneously] the presumption of knowing things > that he does not assert he knows. > Yes, and we must be careful with that. But we cannot go the other way and assume that he does NOT know anything about the hand, the way you ascribe to Hamman. > The situation presented was that of a player who has no knowledge of what > has happened prior to his arrival at T11 except what the dead person has > scribbled. Leading to the hypothetical, 'what order of the remaining cards > does Hamman contemplate actually taking' [as well as those which he > considers as being totally hopeless if not taken- to use the thinking > apparently prescribed in 2008]. > By using 2's and 4's, you have given the impression that we should not allow a player to force us to assume he knows that a 4 is high. Yet present the hand with Q's and J's and that impression disappears. You cannot expect a player who has just cashed the AK of a suit, noticed that opponents both follow suit, has correctly counted that his suit is high, and claims withou saying "I'll run this suit", to be told: we are not convinced you know this suit is high. Those claims are routinely accepted, and so must the claim of our dead player who has muttered his last words "they're all high". We must let the benefit of the doubt go against claimer, but that does not mean that we must doubt every single claimer in every single claim. Otherwise, we might just forbid claims and let the hands be played out. > In other words, the question that was put forward concerned the concept of > treating the starting point of contested claims as analogous to the Hamman > situation. As in to contemplate the consequences of using Hamman's > situation as the situation to be dealt with when a claim is contested. > Which is to say that you have been given the total of what claimer knows. > And upon that is the basis for concluding what is 'normal' and what is > 'irrational to not do'. The procedure being to answer first the question > of, 'what is a fair order[s] of the remaining cards to consider', which > afterwards is used to see the consequence of filling in the unknown cards to > learn who gets which tricks. > The problem with that approach is that we don't rule ordinary claims that way. The same leniency we give to perfectly normal claims must also be given to wrong ones. > regards > roger pewick > Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Feb 13 11:31:31 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:31:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> It certainly makes sense for "careless" and "inferior" to have "floors", else, as Herman says, we are confronted with the "bottomless pit [of] all plays". But the only "floor" that anyone has seriously defended is the one we know and love, "careless or inferior... but not irrational". In 2007 the drafting committee made a proactive decision to remove that "floor" from the lawbook. Nobody has as yet affirmed my speculation that they did so in an unintended fit of insanity, and wound up screwing the pooch, but I'm sticking to my story. >> What's more, I contend further that this problem *did not* exist in >> the 1997 FLB, and that anyone who argues that the change in the >> wording of the footnote did not produce a substantive change in the >> law is deficient in their knowledge of the English language. ton: This in my opinion is another highly academic discussion not serving any TD on the bridge floor. I am willing to agree that by removing 'irrational' we seem to have removed 'the floor'. So yes, this footnote can only be understood if we assume that 'careless' and 'inferior' itself contain that floor. The reason we removed 'irrational' had to do with the opinion of at least one member of the drafting committee that 'irrational' could not be used in this context. We certainly did not intent to change the meaning of the claim laws in this respect. In my country we didn't like the word 'irrational' in previous editions so we translated it in 'foolish', which in my opinion creates a reasonable floor. But foolishly enough we removed 'foolish' in 207 in an attempt to follow the laws as close as possible. Remains the only problem in these laws: to interpret where the floor is, which can't be done in my opinion by writing down some words and pointing to the dictionary. As long as we do not follow David Burn's approach to base the result in a poor stated claim on only winning tricks which can't be lost in any legal play the TD needs to use his judgment. ton From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 13 13:19:27 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:19:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > It certainly makes sense for "careless" and "inferior" to have > "floors", else, as Herman says, we are confronted with the > "bottomless pit [of] all plays". But the only "floor" that anyone > has seriously defended is the one we know and love, "careless or > inferior... but not irrational". In 2007 the drafting committee made > a proactive decision to remove that "floor" from the lawbook. Nobody > has as yet affirmed my speculation that they did so in an unintended > fit of insanity, and wound up screwing the pooch, but I'm sticking to > my story. > > >>> What's more, I contend further that this problem *did not* exist in >>> the 1997 FLB, and that anyone who argues that the change in the >>> wording of the footnote did not produce a substantive change in the >>> law is deficient in their knowledge of the English language. > > > > ton: > This in my opinion is another highly academic discussion not serving any > TD > on the bridge floor. > I am willing to agree that by removing 'irrational' we seem to have > removed > 'the floor'. > So yes, this footnote can only be understood if we assume that 'careless' > and 'inferior' itself contain that floor. > > The reason we removed 'irrational' had to do with the opinion of at least > one member of the drafting committee that 'irrational' could not be used > in > this context. We certainly did not intent to change the meaning of the > claim > laws in this respect. > > In my country we didn't like the word 'irrational' in previous editions so > we translated it in 'foolish', which in my opinion creates a reasonable > floor. But foolishly enough we removed 'foolish' in 207 in an attempt to > follow the laws as close as possible. > > Remains the only problem in these laws: to interpret where the floor is, > which can't be done in my opinion by writing down some words and pointing > to > the dictionary. > As long as we do not follow David Burn's approach to base the result in a > poor stated claim on only winning tricks which can't be lost in any legal > play the TD needs to use his judgment. > > ton > +=+ As I understood Kojak's desire in the drafting committee it was not to remove the reference to 'irrational' but to establish incontrovertibly that (as Kaplan intended) 'for the class of player' did not apply to it. That was what we were talking about when, I recall, someone said 'why don't we just end the footnote after "... inferior for the class of player involved." and delete "but not irrational". General agreement to this was pretty well instantaneous and there was no discussion of what members thought the effect might be. No doubt I was remiss in not saying "hang on a minute, are you sure this is what you want?" - but the full implications did not hit me on the instant and later I felt I could live with them. As it is, I do not see any grave disadvantage in the bottomless situation. We could achieve it more simply in less tortuous language and in my opinion reasons against the law being like that are nebulous. . Many of the subscribers here are grounded in the 1997 lawbook position and they refer constantly to irrationality when that is no longer a concept in the laws (except for the special situation in Law 70E1). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sat Feb 13 14:37:30 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:37:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > +=+ As I understood Kojak's desire in the drafting committee it was not > to remove the reference to 'irrational' but to establish incontrovertibly > that (as Kaplan intended) 'for the class of player' did not apply to it. > That was what we were talking about when, I recall, someone said 'why > don't we just end the footnote after "... inferior for the class of player > involved." and delete "but not irrational". > General agreement to this was pretty well instantaneous and there > was no discussion of what members thought the effect might be. No > doubt I was remiss in not saying "hang on a minute, are you sure this is > what you want?" - but the full implications did not hit me on the instant > and later I felt I could live with them. > As it is, I do not see any grave disadvantage in the bottomless > situation. We could achieve it more simply in less tortuous language > and in my opinion reasons against the law being like that are nebulous. . > Many of the subscribers here are grounded in the 1997 lawbook > position and they refer constantly to irrationality when that is no longer > a concept in the laws (except for the special situation in Law 70E1). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Oh Boy! Am I glad to see this! I have always been of the opinion (also before 2007) that even top players can do the most horrible things, particularly when they are exhausted after a very long and demanding session, so "irrational" should mean something that nobody, regardless of their class would ever do. Example: South plays towards a void in dummy with the intention to ruff. When West contributes the trump 8 it is irrational for any player to play the trump 6 from dummy when the trump 9 is available. >From the very beginning I understood the 2007 laws to confirm this understanding of (what was) "irrational". Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 13 15:13:55 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:13:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:31:31 -0500, ton wrote: > > It certainly makes sense for "careless" and "inferior" to have > "floors", else, as Herman says, we are confronted with the > "bottomless pit [of] all plays". But the only "floor" that anyone > has seriously defended is the one we know and love, "careless or > inferior... but not irrational". In 2007 the drafting committee made > a proactive decision to remove that "floor" from the lawbook. Nobody > has as yet affirmed my speculation that they did so in an unintended > fit of insanity, and wound up screwing the pooch, but I'm sticking to > my story. > > >>> What's more, I contend further that this problem *did not* exist in >>> the 1997 FLB, and that anyone who argues that the change in the >>> wording of the footnote did not produce a substantive change in the >>> law is deficient in their knowledge of the English language. > > > > ton: > This in my opinion is another highly academic discussion not serving any > TD > on the bridge floor. > I am willing to agree that by removing 'irrational' we seem to have > removed > 'the floor'. > So yes, this footnote can only be understood if we assume that 'careless' > and 'inferior' itself contain that floor. > > The reason we removed 'irrational' had to do with the opinion of at least > one member of the drafting committee that 'irrational' could not be used > in > this context. We certainly did not intent to change the meaning of the > claim > laws in this respect. > > In my country we didn't like the word 'irrational' in previous editions > so > we translated it in 'foolish', which in my opinion creates a reasonable > floor. But foolishly enough we removed 'foolish' in 207 in an attempt to > follow the laws as close as possible. > > Remains the only problem in these laws: to interpret where the floor is, > which can't be done in my opinion by writing down some words and > pointing to > the dictionary. > As long as we do not follow David Burn's approach to base the result in a > poor stated claim on only winning tricks which can't be lost in any legal > play the TD needs to use his judgment. This actually has helped me as TD. It is useful to know that the law cannot be followed as written. Is this summary correct? 1. The footnote could be understood as including all careless and inferior plays, but no one rules that way. 2. It could be understood as there being a floor to the careless and inferior plays. The lawbook deceptively does not mention the existence of this floor, and we really have no basis for deciding what it is except current practice. In other words, keep doing what we are doing (and ignore the laws). 3. The floor could be understood as being plays that are not irrational. This is a carryover from 1997, except when applying L70E1. But this part of the claiming law is easy to get to. I will add that "careless or inferior but not irrational" seems to be oxymoronic. Many people and committees, when applying the claim laws, seem to focus on the fact that declarer cannot be made to do something which seems irrational. In doing so, they eliminate careless and inferior plays. Herman's original ruling on this thread was a good example, but I would put Flader and several AC decisions in this category. That creates huge differences in the so called "judgments" that directors and TD's make. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 13 15:21:49 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:21:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: From Flader's Ruling the Game in the January ACBL Bulletin: Declarer claims stating "It's all here." Opp (generously?) asks how she is going to play. Declarer said she was drawing trumps. Opp (generously?) asks, "What will you do with your losing club?" Declarer answers that she will ruff it. The problem is that trump were 4-0 and after drawing four rounds of trumps, there would be no trumps in dummy to ruff a losing club. The correct line of play is to discover the bad trump break, ruff the club, and then return to hand and finish drawing trumps. Flader accepts this unstated line of play. My personal rule is that if declarer claims, it is not my job to play the hand for declarer. Anyway, I would hold her to her stated line of play, which is drawing all of the trumps. I can now see that this is a matter of judgment as to how the laws are to be filled in and I am more sympathetic to Flader's answer. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 13 20:48:28 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:48:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> Message-ID: <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > I have always been of the opinion (also before 2007) that even top players > can do the most horrible things, particularly when they are exhausted > after > a very long and demanding session, so "irrational" should mean something > that nobody, regardless of their class would ever do. > > Example: South plays towards a void in dummy with the intention to ruff. > When West contributes the trump 8 it is irrational for any player to play > the trump 6 from dummy when the trump 9 is available. > >>From the very beginning I understood the 2007 laws to confirm this > understanding of (what was) "irrational". > +=+ Well, we have played all the angles and we need to arrive somewhere. As I see it the position does need to be tidied up and, although he can speak clearly for himself. I can imagine Kojak intoning that claimer must be allowed to continue to "play bridge". To this end one could offer to the WBFLC in Philadelphia for adoption a statement such as the following: "Law 70D1 is interpreted so that the Director shall allow of an alternative line of play if it would be less successful than the play proposed by claimer and is not devoid of bridge logic." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 14 07:45:35 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:45:35 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <79D86206-E838-4B8E-B6E6-F3799F8F59CC@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net> <000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com> <000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com> <001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com> <2b1e598b1002112035s5631184br7f25c2f8242f2629@mail.gmail.com> <79D86206-E838-4B8E-B6E6-F3799F8F59CC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b1002132245m3ffd3f2g77eea7a92758d24d@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 11, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> In English, "A includes B" has two possible meanings: ?One is "Every >> case of B is a case of A." ?The other is "Some of the cases of A are >> also cases of B." >> >> Robert, David, and Eric, who I respect above almost anyone else on >> BLML, do not yet know about the second meaning. ?Alright, I offer 762 >> examples. ?Do a Google search on "contributors include graduate >> students." ?In all 762 examples found in Google, the phrase means that >> "some contributors are graduate students." ? It never means "all >> graduate students are contributors." ?I have proven that in English, >> my second meaning of "includes" frequently occurs. >> >> Did I check all 762 citations to arrive at this conclusion? ?No. ?I >> merely interepreted the phrase in the only way that makes sense. ?(I >> could give similar examples in law too, if you like.) >> >> Similarly, in the 2007 bridge laws, the footnote is `For the purposes >> of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or >> inferior for the class of player involved.' ?The word "includes" must >> be understood in the second sense, for otherwise, all plays are >> normal. ?That is, the footnote means "For the purposes of Laws 70 and >> 71, ?normal? includes *some* plays that would be careless or inferior >> for the class of player involved." >> >> I have inserted *some* into the footnote sentence to make it >> consistent with the second meaning of "includes" I mentioned. ?I think >> it is the only possible way that the footnote to law 20E1 makes sense. >> >> Should the lawmakers have included "some" in the footnote for better >> clarity? ?Yes. ?Are the claims laws too vague? ?I think so. ?But does >> the footnote mean that all plays are normal? ?No. > > This overlooks the linguistic distinction between a factual statement > and a normative one. ?When neither "some" nor "all" are specified > with respect to a collective subject ("graduate students"), a factual > statement ("Graduate students contributed...") usually implies > "some", because it implicitly defines the subject subset. ?(Which > graduate students are we talking about? ?The ones who contributed.) > A normative statement ("Graduate students are expected to > contribute...") contains no such discrimator, and therefore implies > "all". ?(Which graduate students are we talking about? ?All of > them.) ? The dreaded footnote is a normative statement; there is no > implied subset. > Thanks to Eric for continuing his habit of impressive clarity, but I think I can show by example that this idea that normative (I would rather call them definitional or declarative) sentences never use the second sense of "includes" is wrong. Whether or not a sentence is "normative" is just a red herring. Consider this paragraph from a US Census bureau website: "As currently required by law, the U.S. Census Bureau attempts to count all persons in the U.S. living in residential structures,including prisons, dormitories and similar "group quarters" in the official decennial census. Persons counted in the census include citizens, legal immigrants, non-citizen long-term visitors and illegal (or undocumented) aliens." This paragraph has two cases of "include." I think Eric would call both sentences normative, because they tell us how we are to interpret a term---in this case the US population as measured by the census. "Prisons" here does not include all prisons; it only includes the prisons in the US---i.e., the prisons that are relevant for counting the US census. Prisons in Canada don't count. By rigid grammatical analogy, TFLB's footnote does not refer to all inferior plays, just the ones that are normal. It would be wrong to assume that "prisons" refers to all prisons in the world. It would be equally wrong to assume that TFLB's "normal" refers to all inferior plays, including the diabolically awful. And the census takers who visit prisons will not count most foreign visitors either. The key point of the definition the census bureau gives is simply this: Don't exclude someone from the census just because he is in a prison. Similarly TFLB's footnote says this: Don't exclude a play from being classified as normal just because it is careless or inferior. So English usage of *includes*, even in "normative" cases like these, is often merely a way of saying "don't exclude." I therefore stand by what I originally wrote (above). To avoid complete and utter nonsense (i.e., what Herman describes as the missing floor), TFLB's footnote must mean "some" not "all," whether the footnote is characterized as normative, descriptive, or definitional. > Common sense tells us the same thing. ?It would be extremely odd to > assume that the authors of TFLB wrote the footnote, intending "play > that would be careless or inferior" to mean "some but not all play > that would be careless or inferior" without writing a single word > that might give anyone a ghost of a hint as to what was to be > included in the subset and what was not. > It is odd, but that's what they did, and it is consistent with common English usage. The principal of least astonishment might help here. What is less astonishing---that the sentence was not absolutely perfect for everyone and could have been improved by inserting the word "some," or that the authors of TFLB intentionally defined normal to include all plays? It can only be the former. Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 14 10:47:12 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:47:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><911ACB84-1B02-4D22-9BEE-8109779D67D1@starpower.net><000001caab29$47849300$d68db900$@com><000901caab69$86bd0210$94370630$@com><001201caab96$e68991e0$b39cb5a0$@com><2b1e598b1002112035s5631184br7f25c2f8242f2629@mail.gmail.com><79D86206-E838-4B8E-B6E6-F3799F8F59CC@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1002132245m3ffd3f2g77eea7a92758d24d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7A008BB99AA54ADB88D90EE6A73AA993@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 6:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > Thanks to Eric for continuing his habit of impressive clarity, but I think I can show by example that this idea that normative (I would rather call them definitional or declarative) sentences never use the second sense of "includes" is wrong. Whether or not a sentence is "normative" is just a red herring. Consider this paragraph from a US Census bureau website: "As currently required by law, the U.S. Census Bureau attempts to count all persons in the U.S. living in residential structures,including prisons, dormitories and similar "group quarters" in the official decennial census. Persons counted in the census include citizens, legal immigrants, non-citizen long-term visitors and illegal (or undocumented) aliens." This paragraph has two cases of "include." I think Eric would call both sentences normative, because they tell us how we are to interpret a term---in this case the US population as measured by the census. "Prisons" here does not include all prisons; it only includes the prisons in the US---i.e., the prisons that are relevant for counting the US census. Prisons in Canada don't count. By rigid grammatical analogy, TFLB's footnote does not refer to all inferior plays, just the ones that are normal. It would be wrong to assume that "prisons" refers to all prisons in the world. It would be equally wrong to assume that TFLB's "normal" refers to all inferior plays, including the diabolically awful. And the census takers who visit prisons will not count most foreign visitors either. The key point of the definition the census bureau gives is simply this: Don't exclude someone from the census just because he is in a prison. Similarly TFLB's footnote says this: Don't exclude a play from being classified as normal just because it is careless or inferior. So English usage of *includes*, even in "normative" cases like these, is often merely a way of saying "don't exclude." I therefore stand by what I originally wrote (above). To avoid complete and utter nonsense (i.e., what Herman describes as the missing floor), TFLB's footnote must mean "some" not "all," whether the footnote is characterized as normative, descriptive, or definitional. > Common sense tells us the same thing. It would be extremely odd to > assume that the authors of TFLB wrote the footnote, intending "play > that would be careless or inferior" to mean "some but not all play > that would be careless or inferior" without writing a single word > that might give anyone a ghost of a hint as to what was to be > included in the subset and what was not. > It is odd, but that's what they did, and it is consistent with common English usage. The principal of least astonishment might help here. What is less astonishing---that the sentence was not absolutely perfect for everyone and could have been improved by inserting the word "some," or that the authors of TFLB intentionally defined normal to include all plays? It can only be the former. +=+ Erudite. However the problem with the footnote to Laws 70/71 is that, even if the Director believes it cannot be open-ended, it no longer specifies the level at which a floor is to be placed under it. The Director has no guidance from the law as to which inferior plays he shall exclude from his consideration. In the same footnote one may perhaps consider 'careless' to apply to the execution of plays and 'inferior' to the intention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 15 00:27:49 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:27:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0BBD18D1D7BF4178A094B7243A96E75A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marvin French: >>I don't have the English version to verify this, but I presume >>Richard is right. If he is, then I made the mistake of >>believing the 1975 Preface to the American edition, which >>said, "The new format has necessitated occasional minor >>changes in wording, but in no instance is there a change of >>substance." Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. >> >>Perhaps Richard can give an example of a substantive law that >>was deleted. David Burn: >I don't argue these points for the sake of arguing, honest I >don't. Richard Hills: I do argue these points for the sake of arguing, honest I do. The fact that the now-repealed 1975 WBF Law 96 about fouled boards was substantively and substantially longer than the corresponding now-repealed 1975 ACBL Law about fouled boards does not matter a whit nowadays, since the 2007 WBF Law 87 about fouled boards and the 2008 ACBL Law 87 about fouled boards are identical in wording. William ("Kojak") Schoder, December 2006: >>>We need to be sure these are laws for the universal game, >>>its structure and its play, and not infringe on the rights >>>and duties of Regulating Authorities. It's too easy to cross >>>the line between Laws and Regulations. 1975 WBF Law 96 - Fouled Board A board is considered to be "fouled" if the Director determines that one or more cards were misplaced in the board,in such manner that contestants who should have had a direct score comparison did not play the board in identical form. In such cases the Director determines as closely as possible which scores were made on the board in its correct form, and which in the changed form. He divides the score on that basis into two groups, and rates each group separately as provided in the succeeding sections: (a) In pairs or individual events, he awards each player or pair the match-points allocated under Law 74, plus 1 match- point for each score in the other group. (b) In match-point team events using "Point-a-Board" scoring, he determines the cases in which the scores of the given teams were made with identical hands. Such scores stand as played. In all other cases reference is made to the pair match-points calculated as provided in Law 74 and: (i) If both pairs of a team are above average in pair match-points, or if one pair of a team is above and the other pair exactly average, that team is awarded two match-points. (ii) If one pair of a team is above and one pair is below average, or if both pairs of a team are exactly average, that team is awarded 1 match-point. (iii) If both pairs of a team are below average, or if one pair of a team is exactly average and the other below, that team is awarded zero match-point. (c) In total-point or International Match Point team play, the board is redealt and replayed by both pairs of each team; and the first results on it are void.* Fouled Board and Possible Immediate Rectification If the error is discovered immediately and only one table is prevented from playing the board it its original form then: (i) In pair or individual events the Director shall award to those players prevented from playing the board a score as laid down in (a) above; or their average score during the whole session, whichever is the greater. (ii) In team events where the scoring is on the point-a- board basis, or on International match-point scoring, the teams prevented from playing the board normally shall, if time permits, play a new board. Otherwise the Director will award an adjusted score. * Law 96(c) does not apply when the final result of the match is already known. In such a case the board is cancelled. (In the first half of the match and as long as the final result is not known, Law 96(c) will apply.) Richard Hills: There is a lesson to be learnt from the excessive detail of the 1975 WBF Law 96, when the 1975 WBF LC chose to "infringe on the rights and duties of Regulating Authorities". When Law 96 was written, computerised scoring was in its infancy. But the WBF's own World Pairs Championship at Biarritz in 1982 was scored by computer. In a subsequent virtual viewgraph article "Tripleton" in The Bridge World, written by Jeff Rubens, which analysed a key three-board round from the final of the World Pairs, he gave a detailed writeup of the bidding and play of "Meckwell's Last Stand". Rubens noted that the famed Meckstroth-Rodwell partnership would normally have gotten an outright zero, but because the board was fouled at another table Meckwell achieved the perhaps more humiliating score of 0.1 matchpoints. Yes, at Biarritz the WBF infracted its own inaccurate Law 96 (which demanded that Meckwell be given 1.0, not 0.1, match- points) by using more accurate computerised scoring. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 15 02:14:00 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:14:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002120358r575bcefhd42ceb3ad786db64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: John O'Grady, The Integrated Adjective, or Tumba Bloody Rumba "Howya bloody been, ya drongo, haven't seen ya fer a week, And yer mate was lookin' for ya when ya come in from the creek. 'E was lookin' up at Ryan's, and around at bloody Joe's, And even at the Royal, where 'e bloody NEVER goes". And the other bloke says "Seen 'im? Owed 'im half a bloody quid. Forgot to give it back to him, but now I bloody did - Could've used the thing me bloody self. Been off the bloody booze, Up at Tumba-bloody-rumba shootin' kanga-bloody-roos." Ivan Bunji, Chief Director of Serbia: >I have to thank to all of You who took "my case" with much more >seriosity than I ever could expected. >Seems to me that "case" induced an avalanche. >For me (and for NS pair involved) the real issue is: > >1. was my ruling OK? (down one for -100). Y/N Richard-bloody-Hills, Chief Director of Cloud-cuckoo-Land: Yes, 7S was -100 and Yes, 7S was -100. Two sets of facts were presented. The first set of facts was declarer merely saying "the rest are mine". On that set of facts Law 70C applies and declarer's RHO ruffs a club winner for -100. The second set of facts had declarer giving a more comprehensive claim statement, announcing that she would immediately cash the third round of trumps, unblock honours and cash winners. On that set of facts Law 70E applies and declarer is deemed to cash the ace of hearts before she realises that bad breaks mean that the heart finesse is required. Again, -100. Ivan Bunji: >Of course I was certain that lady didn't forget third trump, Richard-bloody-Hills: Certain on "the balance of probabilities", or certain "beyond reasonable doubt"? Law 70A mentions that "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer", while an even even stronger criterion is found in Law 70C2: "it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand" Ivan Bunji: >but the claim was so "clumsy",?and the time was more than enough >for NS pair to find "the only possible normal" line of play and >try to convict me to let them score 2210, which I didn't even >take it into the consideration. > >2. is it true that there is a "new approach" exercised in San >Remo TD course, concerning this matter, alowing?declarer to make >his contract despite wrong?(incomplete, unprecise..and >eventually, after quite a period of time) claim? Y/N Richard-bloody-Hills: No. I have not seen the example from the San Remo TD course, but according to Grattan Endicott it was a special case in which a finesse was the ONLY normal (includes careless or inferior for the class of player involved) line of play. I disagree with Herman De Wael's definition of the ONLY normal line which seems to be: "Declarer thinks (and claims) that she has the rest in top tricks, but just in case she will not cash the ace of hearts early, just in case her thoughts (and claim) are wrong and she needs a later finesse." Sure it is normal to keep as many options open as possible during the play of an unresolved deal, including keeping a finesse open as Plan B just in case the suit breaks of Plan A do not work. But if one has abnormally claimed oblivious to the possible need for Plan B, one is not permitted to time the play as carefully as those who were very well aware of the possible need for Plan B. Ivan Bunji: >I am very grateful to everyone, but my special thanks go to: >Herman and Jeff (my colleagues from PULA festival), and of course, >Kojak, Grattan, Ton, for me, the most respectable people for >bridge ruling. > >best regards >to all >Ivan BUNJI Richard-bloody-Hills: I am intentionally disrespectful to the Vice-Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission (when he erred in interpreting Law 12), and I am also intentionally disrespectful to the Secretary of the WBF Laws Committee (for his "way-out-there" personal interpretation that if one's opponent misexplains, then later correctly explains, the opponent's original misexplanation is UI to you - this personal view was later over-ridden by a collective decision of the WBF LC at its 2009 meeting in Sao Paulo). But my disrespect is merely to their occasional errors, not to the very hard-working gentlemen themselves. Even the frequent errors of the affable Herman De Wael serve the useful purpose of stimulating enlightening debate from other blmlers on this and other threads. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 15 06:21:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:21:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Princess Bride, 1987 film: Inigo Montoya: You are sure nobody's follow' us? Vizzini: As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable. No one in Guilder knows what we've done, and no one in Florin could have gotten here so fast. - Out of curiosity, why do you ask? Inigo Montoya: No reason. It's only... I just happened to look behind us and something is there. Vizzini: What? Probably some local fisherman, out for a pleasure cruise, at night... in... eel-infested waters... [snip] Vizzini: He didn't fall? Inconceivable! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Grattan Endicott (parallel "Claims and Concessions" thread: >+=+ Well, we have played all the angles and we need to arrive >somewhere. > As I see it the position does need to be tidied up and, >although he can speak clearly for himself. I can imagine Kojak >intoning that claimer must be allowed to continue to "play >bridge". To this end one could offer to the WBFLC in >Philadelphia for adoption a statement such as the following: > > "Law 70D1 is interpreted so that the Director shall allow > of an alternative line of play if it would be less > successful than the play proposed by claimer and is not > devoid of bridge logic." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: It is devoid of bridge logic to assume that one's trump suit contained 12 cards rather than 13. :-) I have checked the blml archives, and I note that there were zero complaints about the WBF 1975 claim laws by blmlers in either 1976 or 1977, so obviously they must be superior to the WBF 2007 claim laws, which have been frequently complained about by blmlers in both 2008 and also 2009. WBF 1975 claim footnote, carefully separated by a comma: "'Normal' includes the inferior or careless, but not the irrational." WBF 1975 Law 69, final phrase: ".....or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any conceivable line of play." Richard Hills: Even in 1975 the fabulous Lawbook was using words to mean what Inigo Montoya (and a dictionary) did not think they mean. Normal = conceivable = rational (includes inferior or careless) Abnormal = inconceivable = irrational (but neither inferior nor careless included) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Feb 15 06:33:33 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:33:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201002150533.o1F5Xafk018848@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> >snip >Richard Hills: > >It is devoid of bridge logic to assume that one's trump suit >contained 12 cards rather than 13. :-) > >I have checked the blml archives, and I note that there were >zero complaints about the WBF 1975 claim laws by blmlers in >either 1976 or 1977, so obviously they must be superior to the >WBF 2007 claim laws, which have been frequently complained about >by blmlers in both 2008 and also 2009. > >WBF 1975 claim footnote, carefully separated by a comma: > >"'Normal' includes the inferior or careless, but not the >irrational." > >WBF 1975 Law 69, final phrase: > >".....or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any >conceivable line of play." > >Richard Hills: > >Even in 1975 the fabulous Lawbook was using words to mean what >Inigo Montoya (and a dictionary) did not think they mean. > >Normal = conceivable = rational (includes inferior or careless) > >Abnormal = inconceivable = irrational (but neither inferior nor >careless included) I think I have discovered why I have never (that I can remember) had a problem with a disputed claim. I must still be using the 1975 laws. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 15 09:16:34 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:16:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7902E2.9000202@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > class of player involved) line of play. I disagree with Herman De > Wael's definition of the ONLY normal line which seems to be: > > "Declarer thinks (and claims) that she has the rest in top tricks, > but just in case she will not cash the ace of hearts early, just in > case her thoughts (and claim) are wrong and she needs a later > finesse." > > Sure it is normal to keep as many options open as possible during > the play of an unresolved deal, including keeping a finesse open as > Plan B just in case the suit breaks of Plan A do not work. But if > one has abnormally claimed oblivious to the possible need for Plan > B, one is not permitted to time the play as carefully as those who > were very well aware of the possible need for Plan B. > And where does it say that? I am convinced this player never made a plan A. If, rather than claiming, he will start making a plan A, he cannot fail to see that plan A is not 100%. So I do allow such a player to have a plan B. The object of claim resolve is to figure out what could have happened at the table if claimer did not claim, and then to award the least successful of all those happenings. When a claimer claims without formulating a plan, we must allow him, in the fictitious play, to make a plan before just playing. Just cashing some tricks before counting them and checking for blockages is not a normal play. IMO. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 15 10:09:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:09:37 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard-bloody-Hills, Chief Director of Cloud-cuckoo-Land: < +=+ Cloud-cuckoo Land is populated entirely by Chief Directors each with the responsibility of Director-in-Charge. Welcome to blml, sometimes designated The Other Place. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 15 10:22:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:22:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <6B85036406574A8CBC984278BBB0A12A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > The Princess Bride, 1987 film: > > Inigo Montoya: You are sure nobody's follow' us? > Vizzini: As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally, > and in all other ways inconceivable. No one in > Guilder knows what we've done, and no one in > Florin could have gotten here so fast. - Out of > curiosity, why do you ask? > Inigo Montoya: No reason. It's only... I just happened to look > behind us and something is there. > Vizzini: What? Probably some local fisherman, out for a > pleasure cruise, at night... in... eel-infested > waters... > > [snip] > > Vizzini: He didn't fall? Inconceivable! > Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it > means what you think it means. > > Grattan Endicott (parallel "Claims and Concessions" thread: > >>+=+ Well, we have played all the angles and we need to arrive >>somewhere. >> As I see it the position does need to be tidied up and, >>although he can speak clearly for himself. I can imagine Kojak >>intoning that claimer must be allowed to continue to "play >>bridge". To this end one could offer to the WBFLC in >>Philadelphia for adoption a statement such as the following: >> >> "Law 70D1 is interpreted so that the Director shall allow >> of an alternative line of play if it would be less >> successful than the play proposed by claimer and is not >> devoid of bridge logic." >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > It is devoid of bridge logic to assume that one's trump suit > contained 12 cards rather than 13. :-) > > I have checked the blml archives, and I note that there were > zero complaints about the WBF 1975 claim laws by blmlers in > either 1976 or 1977, so obviously they must be superior to the > WBF 2007 claim laws, which have been frequently complained about > by blmlers in both 2008 and also 2009. > > WBF 1975 claim footnote, carefully separated by a comma: > > "'Normal' includes the inferior or careless, but not the > irrational." > > WBF 1975 Law 69, final phrase: > > ".....or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any > conceivable line of play." > > Richard Hills: > > Even in 1975 the fabulous Lawbook was using words to mean what > Inigo Montoya (and a dictionary) did not think they mean. > > Normal = conceivable = rational (includes inferior or careless) > > Abnormal = inconceivable = irrational (but neither inferior nor > careless included) > > +=+ Might it be clearer if the following wording were adopted? "Law 70D1 is interpreted so that the Director shall allow of an alternative inferior line of play if it would be less successful than the play proposed by claimer but not if it is devoid of bridge logic." Concerning twelve card trump suits, the above relates to Law 70D1 only. It has no effect on other sections of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 15 10:26:16 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:26:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <201002150533.o1F5Xafk018848@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <235A81C1B3C247888E2DADE17251F24F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 5:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Worm's eye view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > I think I have discovered why I have never (that I can remember) > had a problem with a disputed claim. I must still be using > the 1975 laws. > +=+ And I have a thought that many blmlers may be still using the 1997 laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 15 10:29:45 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:29:45 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B7902E2.9000202@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Just cashing some tricks before counting them and checking for > blockages is not a normal play. IMO. > +=+ But could it be termed 'careless' ? ~ G ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 15 11:06:17 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:06:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4B7902E2.9000202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B791C99.1000403@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Man's 'progress' is but a gradual discovery > that his questions have no meaning." > [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:16 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> Just cashing some tricks before counting them and checking for >> blockages is not a normal play. IMO. >> > +=+ But could it be termed 'careless' ? ~ G ~ +=+ > As careless as not seeing which cards are played to the trick - yet within a claim we always assume that this is done. If we are going to use the word careless in a literal sense, without care, then we are again at a bottomless pit. I believe that when something is "not done", it is not normal. And not checking for a game plan, however superficial one is doing so, is just, "not done". I am not commenting as to whether or not the game plan of playing low to the HA would be an acceptable game plan or not. But just cashing the HA just because that is one of the 13 presumably high cards, is "not done". Counting the actual number of high card tricks is also one of those things that any declarer will do before playing, but not necessarily before claiming. My point is that this declarer did not perform the actions he would always do before playing, yet he claimed. I believe that we should allow him to do these actions, before embarking on a (fictitious) play. After all, this declarer did not miscount his tricks, he simply guessed at them, and he misguessed. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 15 11:35:05 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:35:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B7902E2.9000202@skynet.be> <4B791C99.1000403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <17CBA80FE1644B26A648F919726A274F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan wrote: >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Man's 'progress' is but a gradual discovery >> that his questions have no meaning." >> [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:16 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> >>> Just cashing some tricks before counting them and checking for >>> blockages is not a normal play. IMO. >>> >> +=+ But could it be termed 'careless' ? ~ G ~ +=+ >> > > As careless as not seeing which cards are played to the trick - yet > within a claim we always assume that this is done. > > If we are going to use the word careless in a literal sense, without > care, then we are again at a bottomless pit. I believe that when > something is "not done", it is not normal. And not checking for a game > plan, however superficial one is doing so, is just, "not done". > > I am not commenting as to whether or not the game plan of playing low to > the HA would be an acceptable game plan or not. But just cashing the HA > just because that is one of the 13 presumably high cards, is "not done". > > Counting the actual number of high card tricks is also one of those > things that any declarer will do before playing, but not necessarily > before claiming. > > My point is that this declarer did not perform the actions he would > always do before playing, yet he claimed. I believe that we should allow > him to do these actions, before embarking on a (fictitious) play. > > After all, this declarer did not miscount his tricks, he simply guessed > at them, and he misguessed. > +=+ I think, Herman, that you deviate from the meaning of the law. Failing to observe the need to unblock is deemed 'careless'. Failure to count tricks when assuming that all are high is, in my view, unthinking and thus also 'careless'. Since claimer has that illusion it is quite human and likely. Your statement of what 'any declarer' would do stretches belief. I suggest that 'careless' relates to the execution of the intention. It is clear enough that the word has its dictionary meaning. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Mon Feb 15 14:07:48 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:07:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> Message-ID: Yeah, Kojak would probably go for that or something in place of " COMMA irrational" if it'll keep the interpretation garbage at a minimum since I know, as most of 'you'all do' (Southern American idiom) despite your arguments, what is/was meant by the law footnote of 1975. But be careful about using the words "bridge logic" since that can open the door to a pandora's box of meanings. I continue to prefer the nothingness of 2008 to further attempts to cram 'irrational' into a continuum to be applied to the class of player involved. I have no problem in staying within the context of the use of a a word, and was not in agreement to do other than put the comma back in place for 2008 since it's removal by WBFLC. It was ithrown into the continuum including 'inferior' and 'careless' by those would or could not see the intended meaning was to surely separate it from there. (Again I was not in agreement to remove it but I think absent from that WBFLC meeting.) Have some fun. Going to the OED or other dictionaries gets you a lot of delightful trouble when you look up "cricket" for instance. I guess that's a little bug that gets the crap beat out of him with a "bat" which doesn't eat crickets, and hopefully gets "caught" by the fisherman who has been "dragging" a "line" because its too "heavy" to "pick up" in his "car" to take on a "date" and enjoy the taste of the fruit. But then, if we didn't bust our "chops" to go far afield of context we wouldn't have the opportunity to show our great erudition and command of a language that is constantly using and constructing words (You'all havet APPS in your version of English? - or the argot of computer technology?). I'm, also amused when I find that our highly common worldwide language is held to be the property of a handful of England's English speakers when there is Aussie, Barbadian, Jamaican, Indian, American, Canadian, 'english speakihg' islands of the Carribean, Scottish, UN translations, etc. And I (silly me) thought only the French fought to keep their language "pure" and as ancient as possible. To contend that the language of English as taught some 50 to 60 years ago in a course labeled "English" is the be-all and end-all of its vitality is also absurd to me. The one dialect that I think approaches universality is that of the BBC and CNN news announcers. Why not give them the meaning and intent and let them pick the words !Sems a lot better to me than what we've ended up with. - but then we would also have to acknowledge the fact that we always knew-new-gnu what was intended by the words that were used. -- perish the thought! Cheers, Kojak , ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions Grattan Endicott ******************************** "Man's 'progress' is but a gradual discovery that his questions have no meaning." [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > I have always been of the opinion (also before 2007) that even top players > can do the most horrible things, particularly when they are exhausted > after > a very long and demanding session, so "irrational" should mean something > that nobody, regardless of their class would ever do. > > Example: South plays towards a void in dummy with the intention to ruff. > When West contributes the trump 8 it is irrational for any player to play > the trump 6 from dummy when the trump 9 is available. > >>From the very beginning I understood the 2007 laws to confirm this > understanding of (what was) "irrational". > +=+ Well, we have played all the angles and we need to arrive somewhere. As I see it the position does need to be tidied up and, although he can speak clearly for himself. I can imagine Kojak intoning that claimer must be allowed to continue to "play bridge". To this end one could offer to the WBFLC in Philadelphia for adoption a statement such as the following: "Law 70D1 is interpreted so that the Director shall allow of an alternative line of play if it would be less successful than the play proposed by claimer and is not devoid of bridge logic." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100215/2d7e7c43/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 15 14:37:07 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:37:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <17CBA80FE1644B26A648F919726A274F@Mildred> References: <4B7902E2.9000202@skynet.be> <4B791C99.1000403@skynet.be> <17CBA80FE1644B26A648F919726A274F@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B794E03.2080401@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> >> After all, this declarer did not miscount his tricks, he simply guessed >> at them, and he misguessed. >> > +=+ I think, Herman, that you deviate from the meaning of the law. > Failing to observe the need to unblock is deemed 'careless'. Well, maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. I don't think it is. Do you consider a claimer who claims, among some others, 5 tricks from AQJTx opposite K, to have a normal line of failing to unblock? I don't. But of course the question here is more if he has stated that line or not, so ... Anyway, whether this is normal or not, that was not my point. My point was that, IMO, the claimer in Serbia had not made a plan before claiming. The question then becomes whether it is careless or irrational (using the old words for comfort) for him to also play without checking. I think that if we decide it is normal for him to check, that in this case we should also find it normal for him to find the particular lines. The problem here is, that most of you wish to impose on this claimer a number of mistakes which one would perhaps not caracterize as normal in any other claimer, simply because of the hasty claim. Let's try it another way. Suppose this claimer had stated: "If diamonds are 5-2 or better, or clubs are 4-3, I have 13 tricks". Now there is no hasty claim, although claimer did not state what he would do if either of the two conditions were not met. Would you still ask that claimer to play the HA early? > Failure to count tricks when assuming that all are high is, in > my view, unthinking and thus also 'careless'. In that we differ of opinion. I consider this irrational. > Since claimer > has that illusion it is quite human and likely. Yes, but he has not counted them! He has guessed at them, and guessed wrong. Nothing suggests that if he counts them, he'll get a wrong answer. And IMO it is not normal to start playing without first making a plan. > Your statement > of what 'any declarer' would do stretches belief. > I suggest that 'careless' relates to the execution of the > intention. It is clear enough that the word has its dictionary > meaning. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2688 - Release Date: 02/14/10 20:35:00 > From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 15 16:18:20 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:18:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:48:28 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Man's 'progress' is but a gradual discovery > that his questions have no meaning." > [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:37 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > >> >> I have always been of the opinion (also before 2007) that even top >> players >> can do the most horrible things, particularly when they are exhausted >> after >> a very long and demanding session, so "irrational" should mean something >> that nobody, regardless of their class would ever do. >> >> Example: South plays towards a void in dummy with the intention to ruff. >> When West contributes the trump 8 it is irrational for any player to >> play >> the trump 6 from dummy when the trump 9 is available. >> >>> From the very beginning I understood the 2007 laws to confirm this >> understanding of (what was) "irrational". >> > +=+ Well, we have played all the angles and we need to arrive somewhere. > As I see it the position does need to be tidied up and, although > he > can > speak clearly for himself. I can imagine Kojak intoning that claimer must > be allowed to continue to "play bridge". To this end one could offer to > the > WBFLC in Philadelphia for adoption a statement such as the following: > > "Law 70D1 is interpreted so that the Director shall allow of > an alternative line of play if it would be less successful than > the play proposed by claimer and is not devoid of bridge logic." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 1. I think there are different situations that probably have different practices. If a declarer specifies a line of play when claiming, but then the claim goes off the tracks (due to unforeseen circumstances the claiming statement cannot be follow), I am inclined to give declarer the worst of the "reasonable" lines of play. In the situation we are discussing (or the Flader judgment), declarer has made a careless claim. In this situation, I do not like giving declarer credit for careful play. Is this common? 2. There are two problems with Herman's leniency in judging claims. One is that it encourages careless claims. If you want to encourage careless claims, for example in the late boards of a long team match, then okay. But careless pose problems for the director, so I would rather that they were discouraged. The second problem is that they are potentially very difficult to judge. Herman originally gave the claimer making seven. I believe he has changed his mind, but in any case he alluded to a hidden problem in the claim. (Declarer has to decide which card to throw on the last good diamond, a club or the queen of hearts. To make this decision, has to have been somewhat carefully keeping track of clubs even though that was irrelevant to him at the time clubs were being played.) 3. The laws state that claims should be accompanied by clear statement. This doesn't happen, creating some of the problems. I would prefer that players not claim if there are any bridge problems left to be solved. They should not be having to notice that a suit is breaking badly and then change their intended line of play. They should not be realizing that they have miscounted their tricks and now need to finesse. Perhaps this could be stated? If such claims are to be discouraged? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 15 16:24:51 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:24:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:48:28 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Man's 'progress' is but a gradual discovery > that his questions have no meaning." > [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:37 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > >> >> I have always been of the opinion (also before 2007) that even top >> players >> can do the most horrible things, particularly when they are exhausted >> after >> a very long and demanding session, so "irrational" should mean something >> that nobody, regardless of their class would ever do. >> >> Example: South plays towards a void in dummy with the intention to ruff. >> When West contributes the trump 8 it is irrational for any player to >> play >> the trump 6 from dummy when the trump 9 is available. >> >>> From the very beginning I understood the 2007 laws to confirm this >> understanding of (what was) "irrational". >> > +=+ Well, we have played all the angles and we need to arrive somewhere. > As I see it the position does need to be tidied up and, although > he > can > speak clearly for himself. I can imagine Kojak intoning that claimer must > be allowed to continue to "play bridge". To this end one could offer to > the > WBFLC in Philadelphia for adoption a statement such as the following: > > "Law 70D1 is interpreted so that the Director shall allow of > an alternative line of play if it would be less successful than > the play proposed by claimer and is not devoid of bridge logic." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Does this work for a lower floor (for defective claims, not for claims that are off the track)? The lines of play that are irrational (or excessively careless and inferior) are the ones that the director, with no knowledge of the contract or previous play, can immediately see are wrong. So it is obvious to the director that a suit should be played from the top. It is obvious that Kx opposite Ax should be played for two tricks. It is obvious that when LHO unexpectedly ruffs a trick, that declare will overruff instead of underruffing. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 15 17:02:20 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:02:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no><50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> Message-ID: <75309980422A433688C398DC9475E87F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no><50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <75309980422A433688C398DC9475E87F@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott I've updated my ACBL NABC appeal figures and statistics. They now cover tournaments from the Summer of 2001 through the Fall of 2009: ??http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html ======== I found and corrected a substantial error. My original figures showed that we had about 15 times more appeals for NABC+ events compared to Non-NABC+ events, on a per table basis. The correct figure is about 4 times more. Some difference is to be expected, since NABC+ players tend to be more competitive.?The error I made was that, when I received figures for number of tables entered into NABC+ events, I treated them as number of tables in play. The ACBL counts tables in play on a per session basis. If a 2-day event has 100 tables entered, and 50% of the field qualifies for the final, then it will have a total of 300 tables in play. ======== For each case when an AC or Panel changed the TD's ruling I've noted whether I thought the change clearly improved or worsened the ruling, or whether the case was too close to call. In making that judgement I've tried to take into account the comments of the other casebook panelists. Please feel free to let me know where you disagree with my assessment, or if I've simply made a mistake as to whether or not the ruling was changed. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 15 22:57:43 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:57:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B79C357.7020705@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > 1. I think there are different situations that probably have different > practices. If a declarer specifies a line of play when claiming, but then > the claim goes off the tracks (due to unforeseen circumstances the > claiming statement cannot be follow), I am inclined to give declarer the > worst of the "reasonable" lines of play. > > In the situation we are discussing (or the Flader judgment), declarer has > made a careless claim. In this situation, I do not like giving declarer > credit for careful play. > > Is this common? > The feeling is common, quite human too, but not correct under the laws, IMO. > 2. There are two problems with Herman's leniency in judging claims. One is > that it encourages careless claims. Oh no it does not. In 99% of careless claims, there will be at least two normal lines, one of which will give a trick less than the other. In all those cases, the careless claim costs quite a lot. However, in 1% of the cases, the claimer is "lucky" in that there is only one possible line, and it wins. It is that 1% that reach blml, and if you consider only that as your univeerse, then of course you will make pronouncements like the one above. But it is wrong. > If you want to encourage careless > claims, for example in the late boards of a long team match, then okay. > But careless pose problems for the director, so I would rather that they > were discouraged. > They are. Quite sufficintly so for me to have stopped claiming before making a second check. > The second problem is that they are potentially very difficult to judge. Why should this be more difficult than anything else? > Herman originally gave the claimer making seven. I believe he has changed > his mind, but in any case he alluded to a hidden problem in the claim. > (Declarer has to decide which card to throw on the last good diamond, a > club or the queen of hearts. To make this decision, has to have been > somewhat carefully keeping track of clubs even though that was irrelevant > to him at the time clubs were being played.) > So? if your concern is easy claim rulings, then just write the laws that there is an automatic one trick penalty. You will have no more difficult rulings. In fact, you will have no claims. > 3. The laws state that claims should be accompanied by clear statement. > This doesn't happen, creating some of the problems. > And we are there to solve those problems. > I would prefer that players not claim if there are any bridge problems > left to be solved. Indeed they should not. Their partners and captains will tell them off. We, as directors, have to rule. > They should not be having to notice that a suit is > breaking badly and then change their intended line of play. They should > not be realizing that they have miscounted their tricks and now need to > finesse. Perhaps this could be stated? If such claims are to be > discouraged? > So you prefer to give just one player 12 tricks when the whole room has made 13, just because he failed to count his tricks? In your way of ruling, you will give 12 tricks to a claimer who has 15 top tricks but fails to say anything after claiming. Is that what you want? Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 11 22:30:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:30:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >...But in judging which lines are normal and which aren't, >one has to allow claimer a minimum of common sense. And that >includes counting his tricks... Law 70A, first sentence: "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any **doubtful** point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." Richard Hills: Quite often the play of the cards and the timing of the claim suggests that it is "doubtful" whether the claimer has correctly counted her tricks and/or it is "doubtful" whether the claimer has correctly counted to 13 in her trump suit. Canberra Mixed Pairs, First Qualifying Session, 11th February Richard Dorothy KQJ62 43 AQT98 K42 K A9875 K7 AQ3 1S 2D 2H 3NT 6H Pass Trick 1: CT - C3 - C2 - CK Trick 2: HA - H3 - H2 - H6 Trick 3: H8 - H5 - HK - H7 Playing the heart king at trick two would have guarded against RHO holding all five trumps. However, I assessed (perhaps incorrectly) that RHO holding jack-fourth trumps with either a doubleton club or a singleton diamond (and spades breaking 4-2 or worse) was more likely. As dealer, I had considered opening 1H, because my heart suit was so sexy that it looked like a six-card suit. So if, at the end of Trick 3 I had claimed, with my claim statement being merely "12 tricks", would you, as Director, rule under Law 70C that my thoughts in the bidding had affected my thoughts in the play, so it was "doubtful" whether I believed I had started with a six-card trump suit at the time of my claim, thus my LHO would eventually ruff the third round of spades with the trump jack. To avoid such Law 70C entanglements, my former policy was to usually draw trumps and only then claim. Trick 4: H4 - D4 - HT - HJ As Hugh Kelsey put it, I was distracted when "a cow flew by". -50 for a refrigerated bottom. So my new policy, if this deal should occur again, will be to say at the end of Trick 3: "Drawing the last trump, unblocking the king of diamonds, discarding two small spades on the minor winners, conceding the ace of spades." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 16 01:56:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:56:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B7902E2.9000202@skynet.be> Message-ID: Marshall Miles, The Bridge World February 2010, page 33: "Possibly, there are a few normal, well-adjusted people who play bridge for fun. But such paragons are seldom successful players, because they do not spend enough time and effort at the game. I knew a fellow who once missed a two-session event just to take his family to a picnic. Obviously a hopeless case!" Richard Hills: >>.....I disagree with Herman De Wael's definition of the ONLY normal >>line which seems to be: >> >>"Declarer thinks (and claims) that she has the rest in top tricks, >>but just in case she will not cash the ace of hearts early, just in >>case her thoughts (and claim) are wrong and she needs a later >>finesse." >> >>Sure it is normal to keep as many options open as possible during >>the play of an unresolved deal, including keeping a finesse open as >>Plan B just in case the suit breaks of Plan A do not work. But if >>one has abnormally claimed oblivious to the possible need for Plan >>B, one is not permitted to time the play as carefully as those who >>were very well aware of the possible need for Plan B. Herman De Wael: >And where does it say that? Law 70A, first sentence: "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any **doubtful point** as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." Herman De Wael: >I am convinced this player never made a plan A. Richard Hills: It is a common Guthriesque fallacy to assume that "my normal and well- adjusted preferred way of playing bridge" is "the majority's preferred way of playing bridge". Herman De Wael has frequently admitted that he personally makes claims very casually, often merely on the basis of rose-coloured spectacles and zero planning whatsoever. But it is a "doubtful point" that the actual declarer was such a well- adjusted Hermanesque paragon who does not spend enough time and effort at the game. Herman De Wael: >If, rather than claiming, he will start making a plan A, he cannot >fail to see that plan A is not 100%. Richard Hills: So by that fallacious logic, claimers cannot fail to see that there are 13 trumps in the deck, so Law 70C will never apply. If I was the Director, I would simply rule it is a "doubtful point" that, _because_ of the evidence of declarer prematurely claiming, declarer therefore had a "careless or inferior" _assumption_ the chance of diamonds breaking was 100%, instead of the actual 63%. Herman De Wael: >So I do allow such a player to have a plan B. Richard Hills: So I do not allow such a player to have a plan B. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 16 04:00:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:00:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B754CAF.8030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Wiseman, Quirkology, pages 32-33: Hollywood comedian Gracie Allen was so secretive about her age that even her husband, fellow performer George Burns, didn't know her actual date of birth. Various sources claim that Allen was born on 26 July in 1894, 1895, 1897, 1902 or 1906. Throughout her life, Allen claimed that her birth certificate was destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, despite the earthquake occurring a few months _before_ her alleged birthday. When asked about the discrepancy, Allen allegedly remarked, "Well, it was an awfully big earthquake." Herman De Wael: >To rule that a claim is correct despite it being wrong at first >glance is very common. If there is a small trump out, for >example, and the only way that trump can make a trick is by >ruffing something, when there is always - in any line - an >overruff possible, means that the trump will not make any trick >and the claim will count for the full number of asked tricks. Richard Hills: I agree 100% (not merely 63%) with Herman De Wael's accurate paraphrase of the essence of Law 70C3: "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. ...... and 2. ...... and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 16 06:47:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:47:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington, page 174: (f) There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, we haven't regulated flamethrowers heretofore, so it follows that the situation ain't broke, right? (g) To outlaw flamethrowers because they can be used in robberies or arson would be like outlawing little kittens because they can be used as projectiles. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ We are not required to believe declarer will wake up from the >>illusion he is under until he hits a rock. A general if-then principle of claims: IF declarer has claimed due to an illusion, THEN it is a "doubtful point" whether declarer will wake up unless and until declarer hits a rock. Law 70A. Grattan Endicott: >>We are not required to believe declarer is aware of the >>outstanding trump. A general gullibility principle of claims: IF declarer swears on a stack of bibles that she was aware of the last trump, THEN we do not have to believe her, UNLESS the objective evidence demonstrates that she was NOT "at all likely" at the time of the claim to be unaware of the last trump. Law 70C2. Herman De Wael: >We are not required to do so, but we're allowed to! >And I choose to believe this declarer knew there is one more. Richard Hills: Yes, we are allowed to rule, should there be very strong evidence ("choose to believe" lacks the strength required by Law), that when declarer claimed she was never under an illusion. No, we are NOT allowed to rule that if declarer was under an illusion, then she can arbitrarily recover before hitting a rock. Herman De Wael: >Criticize that if you want, but not the general principles >involved. Richard Hills: The general principle involved is Herman De Wael's assertion that a claimer can be PARTIALLY under an illusion, sorta claiming sorta all the tricks, but sorta awake to the error in her own claim, thus sorta intending to save the AQ of hearts for a sorta unnecessary practice finesse. Grattan Endicott: >> Ivan said the case is an actual one. He ruled one down. This >>ruling was questioned by someone coming fresh from the Sanremo >>seminar. The question was based on a misunderstanding of an >>example in the seminar. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 16 10:37:08 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:37:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7A6744.4020303@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > >> I am convinced this player never made a plan A. > > Richard Hills: > > It is a common Guthriesque fallacy to assume that "my normal and well- > adjusted preferred way of playing bridge" is "the majority's preferred > way of playing bridge". Herman De Wael has frequently admitted that > he personally makes claims very casually, often merely on the basis of > rose-coloured spectacles and zero planning whatsoever. > > But it is a "doubtful point" that the actual declarer was such a well- > adjusted Hermanesque paragon who does not spend enough time and effort > at the game. > How can you call something a "doubtful point" when I just tell you that I have absolutely no doubt on this issue? Please criticize my doubt, but don't criticiza my conclusion. Of course, this is something for the table director to decide, but surely you can understand the case from the description? This claimer never made a solid plan. He saw what he thought were 13 tricks and he claimed. He never counted them for certain, or he would not have claimed. Nowhere is it mentioned (as it would be if that were the case) that he counted 5 diamond tricks (like he could have if he mistook a heart for the D9), so to assume that this declarer counted 13 tricks is just ludicrous. So please don't call this a doubtful point. As to the doubtful point if he is now allowed to count his tricks before playing, I grant you that this may be doubtful - but I feel it to be in the same class as allowing a claimer to overruff, or to find a new line when it turns out he got something wrong. For example, a claimer has forgotten a trump, and we rule that an opponent will ruff a trick (no overruff possible). Now the claim statement has broken down considerably and opponents are on lead. Do you accept that in order to decide what are the normal lines after this, the claimer has the right to count his tricks, to unblock suits previously not in need for unblocking, to find sofisticated lines? I do, and I believe this claimer has the same right. As a consequence, I believe that, if this claimer had played a third spade trick before claiming, he would be subject to the following normal line: diamond to the king, club ace king ruff, noticing both bad breaks, and the heart finesse, contract made. I have meanwhile reconsidered Grattan's line and seen it does not work. In this case, the contract would be made. In the original however, claimer has played only 2 spade tricks. We should allow additionally the normal action of checking the rest of the lay after this. Claimer may well notice another line (quite possibly an even better one): leaving the last trump out and embark on two club ruffs (I believe there are no overruffs possible), winning whenever diamonds are 5-2 or clubs 4-2 or the king of hearts to the right. This line is better than the previous one (which only works with clubs 3-3 or the HK) but it also has a flipside when clubs are 5-1, as here. Since this line is no doubt normal, we should not allow claimer to wake up "later" than possible and the ruling should be -1. But for this reason, not for any of the others mentioned. >Herman. > Herman De Wael: > >> If, rather than claiming, he will start making a plan A, he cannot >> fail to see that plan A is not 100%. > > Richard Hills: > > So by that fallacious logic, claimers cannot fail to see that there > are 13 trumps in the deck, so Law 70C will never apply. > NOOOOOOO. Because L70C applies AFTER claimer has miscounted trumps. This claimer has made no mistake yet, so he's not supposed to make one afterwards. > If I was the Director, I would simply rule it is a "doubtful point" > that, _because_ of the evidence of declarer prematurely claiming, > declarer therefore had a "careless or inferior" _assumption_ the > chance of diamonds breaking was 100%, instead of the actual 63%. > That is not careless, that is irrational. And there is no evidence to the declarer prematurely claiming. That is evidence of him not counting, not of him miscounting. Well, IMO. You may challenge my feeling of the case, but not the logic of it. This claimer has not miscounted 5 diamond tricks, he has never counted 13 tricks in the first place. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 16 10:48:29 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:48:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7A69ED.7080202@skynet.be> Richard, you are trying to come up with cases in which there is doubt, in order to force me to admit that there is doubt in cases where there is no doubt. That simply won't work. "Resolve any doubtful point against claimer" does NOT mean "rule against claimer even when there is no doubt". I have no doubts in this case. Please criticize my doubt gene, but don't criticize my ruling that results from having no doubt. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> ...But in judging which lines are normal and which aren't, >> one has to allow claimer a minimum of common sense. And that >> includes counting his tricks... > > Law 70A, first sentence: > > "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director > adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible > to both sides, but any **doubtful** point as to a claim shall > be resolved against the claimer." > [example snipped as being unhelpful] Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 16 11:01:39 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:01:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7A6D03.7040406@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Grattan Endicott: > >>> +=+ We are not required to believe declarer will wake up from the >>> illusion he is under until he hits a rock. > > A general if-then principle of claims: > > IF declarer has claimed due to an illusion, THEN it is a "doubtful > point" whether declarer will wake up unless and until declarer hits > a rock. Law 70A. > I do not consider it a doubtful point to assume that a player will make some sort of plan before embarking on the first trick of a series. With series, I mean those tricks that will be played in the next few moments. A declarer need not think before his opponents have finished cashing their six trick to his 3NT contract, but after that, he is bound to do some thinking. I consider it irrational not to think before playing to the first (important) trick. I believe that it is possible however, for a player, to claim before considering what to actually play. This happens often, mostly when claimer is thinking about insulting partner for the bidding. I believe that in such cases, it is still irrational for the claimer to play to the first (important) trick without considering what to play. Especially if he needs to select a suit to start with, he must be allowed to look at the complete hand. I judge that in the Serbian claim, declarer was in the situation I described above. I have no doubts about that. I also judge that, when considering which suit to start with, claimer will: either work out a complete plan, or play to the king of diamonds and refer the planning stage to a later moment. I judge that it is not normal for him to play to the HA (from HA) without first checking that this is absolutely safe. I also judge that, when making a plan, claimer will see that playing to the A from AQ is ridiculous. I therefor rule that the line of playing the HA in trick 4 is not normal. I have tried to use different verbs above. My beliefs are firm, although you can of course criticize them. My judgments are what I learnt from reading the text. They should not be criticized. I think the judgments are obvious, and can be corrected only by Ivan who was at the table. Anyway, if they are not correct, the case is not interesting. My ruling is a logical consequence of my beliefs and judgments. Please don't criticize it - it is a correct implication of the claim laws. Have I made myself clear? > Grattan Endicott: > >>> We are not required to believe declarer is aware of the >>> outstanding trump. > I have answered that one. Ivan judged this one at the table. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Criticize that if you want, but not the general principles >> involved. > > Richard Hills: > > The general principle involved is Herman De Wael's assertion that a > claimer can be PARTIALLY under an illusion, sorta claiming sorta all > the tricks, but sorta awake to the error in her own claim, thus sorta > intending to save the AQ of hearts for a sorta unnecessary practice > finesse. > Explained above. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 16 14:31:36 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:31:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <4B79C357.7020705@skynet.be> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <4B79C357.7020705@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:57:43 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> They should not be having to notice that a suit is >> breaking badly and then change their intended line of play. They should >> not be realizing that they have miscounted their tricks and now need to >> finesse. Perhaps this could be stated? If such claims are to be >> discouraged? >> > > So you prefer to give just one player 12 tricks when the whole room has > made 13, just because he failed to count his tricks? In your way of > ruling, you will give 12 tricks to a claimer who has 15 top tricks but > fails to say anything after claiming. Is that what you want? In your hypothetical example, yes. The whole room has made 13 tricks. I am comfortable giving declarer 12 tricks, because in my mind he has played the hand worse than everyone in the room. Back atcha. 90% of the room has made 13 tricks and 10% has made 12 tricks because they didn't play the hand as well as you gave declarer. You are comfortable giving declarer 13 tricks? From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 16 14:42:34 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:42:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <4B79C357.7020705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B7AA0CA.6040304@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:57:43 -0500, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> >>> They should not be having to notice that a suit is >>> breaking badly and then change their intended line of play. They should >>> not be realizing that they have miscounted their tricks and now need to >>> finesse. Perhaps this could be stated? If such claims are to be >>> discouraged? >>> >> >> So you prefer to give just one player 12 tricks when the whole room has >> made 13, just because he failed to count his tricks? In your way of >> ruling, you will give 12 tricks to a claimer who has 15 top tricks but >> fails to say anything after claiming. Is that what you want? > > In your hypothetical example, yes. The whole room has made 13 tricks. I am > comfortable giving declarer 12 tricks, because in my mind he has played > the hand worse than everyone in the room. > read again - he claimed 13 tricks without saying anything - there are 15 tricks available, unless you crash a few and screw up communications. > Back atcha. 90% of the room has made 13 tricks and 10% has made 12 tricks > because they didn't play the hand as well as you gave declarer. You are > comfortable giving declarer 13 tricks? > Of course not. Now there is doubt. What I was talking about is when there is no doubt. You seem to want to rule on the basis of the badly phrased claim, even when there is no doubt as to whether he would make it! Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 16 15:16:38 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:16:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> Message-ID: <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> On Feb 15, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:48:28 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> "Law 70D1 is interpreted so that the Director shall allow of >> an alternative line of play if it would be less successful >> than >> the play proposed by claimer and is not devoid of bridge >> logic." > > Does this work for a lower floor (for defective claims, not for claims > that are off the track)? The lines of play that are irrational (or > excessively careless and inferior) are the ones that the director, > with no > knowledge of the contract or previous play, can immediately see are > wrong. > So it is obvious to the director that a suit should be played from the > top. It is obvious that Kx opposite Ax should be played for two > tricks. It > is obvious that when LHO unexpectedly ruffs a trick, that declare will > overruff instead of underruffing. I think Bob has put his finger on where we want to be. So how do we express it in lawbook-ese? I'm not sure that introducing the term "bridge logic" to the lawbook is such a good idea. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 16 15:37:49 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:37:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net><001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com><3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net><4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net><001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no><50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > I think Bob has put his finger on where we want to be. So how do we > express it in lawbook-ese? I'm not sure that introducing the term > "bridge logic" to the lawbook is such a good idea. > +=+ Eric will have noticed by now that Bill Schoder persuaded me that 'bridge logic' was too arguable. What I have in my notebook for Philadelphia is this: "In the footnote to Laws 70 and 71 'inferior' does not embrace the wholly illogical." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Feb 16 16:07:48 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:07:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net><001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com><3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net><4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net><001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no><50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001801caaf19$d116dc60$73449520$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> > +=+ Eric will have noticed by now that Bill Schoder persuaded me that 'bridge logic' was too arguable. What I have in my notebook for Philadelphia is this: "In the footnote to Laws 70 and 71 'inferior' does not embrace the wholly illogical." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: And do you really think that anybody not following this thread on blml has any idea what this means? I try to follow it, and I don't. ton From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 16 16:51:16 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:51:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <001801caaf19$d116dc60$73449520$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net><001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com><3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net><4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net><001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no><50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> <001801caaf19$d116dc60$73449520$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <000001caaf1f$e02ec950$a08c5bf0$@com> [GE] Eric will have noticed by now that Bill Schoder persuaded me that 'bridge logic' was too arguable. What I have in my notebook for Philadelphia is this: "In the footnote to Laws 70 and 71 'inferior' does not embrace the wholly illogical." [TK] And do you really think that anybody not following this thread on blml has any idea what this means? I try to follow it, and I don't. [DALB] It means, Ton, that you are no longer compelled to follow David Burn's approach to claims - which, though you do not know it, you are compelled to follow at present. If for example a player claims the rest of the tricks in this position, where only one suit remains in all four hands: AQ2 K43 then under the 2007 Laws you are obliged to give the defenders a trick if they ask for one, since it would be careless or inferior (or both), and therefore normal, to play the king on the same trick as the ace (or the queen). It would be irrational, of course, which is why you were not obliged to disallow the claim under the 1997 Laws, but that was then and this is now. It would also be wholly illogical, which is why Grattan wants you to be able to disallow the claim following the Philadelphia meeting. David Burn London, England From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Feb 16 16:05:10 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:05:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001401caaf19$72f12550$58d36ff0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> I think Bob has put his finger on where we want to be. So how do we express it in lawbook-ese? I'm not sure that introducing the term "bridge logic" to the lawbook is such a good idea. Eric Landau ton: What about: 'a choice of action which looks impossible to be made' This discussion might be useful but the real test is the behavior of the TD and AC. They both like to teach the non-offenders a bridge lesson. I used a day to find 12 cases all of which the TD and/or AC found the non-offenders responsible for at least a part of the damage (and I could find a multiple of it). During the analyses I immediately refused to accept 7 of those and changed my mind on 2 more working on the lecture I gave in the EBL TD course held in Sanremo some weeks ago. I add the 'paper' and am interested in your opinion. There are still 3 cases were I couldn't accept the bridge played by the non-offenders. ton -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: serious error.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 32366 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100216/ceeb3490/attachment-0001.bin From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 16 17:14:27 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:14:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net><001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com><3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net><4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net><001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no><50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> <001801caaf19$d116dc60$73449520$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caaf1f$e02ec950$a08c5bf0$@com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions << > It would also be wholly illogical, which is why Grattan wants > you to be able to disallow the claim following the Philadelphia > meeting. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ David, I've a feeling my wish may be to allow the claim rather than disallow it? Is this not so? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 16 17:18:41 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:18:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net><001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com><3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net><4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net><001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no><50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> <001801caaf19$d116dc60$73449520$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caaf1f$e02ec950$a08c5bf0$@com> Message-ID: <000d01caaf23$b4819db0$1d84d910$@com> [DALB] It would also be wholly illogical, which is why Grattan wants you to be able to disallow the claim following the Philadelphia meeting. [GE] David, I've a feeling my wish may be to allow the claim rather than disallow it? Is this not so? [DALB] It is indeed. Apologies for any confusion. David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 16 17:38:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:38:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> <001401caaf19$72f12550$58d36ff0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <6C9192EA6D214FC983F6BDB8AD74BDF9@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims and concessions > > I think Bob has put his finger on where we want to be. So how do we > express it in lawbook-ese? I'm not sure that introducing the term > "bridge logic" to the lawbook is such a good idea. > > > Eric Landau > > ton: > What about: 'a choice of action which looks impossible to be made' > > This discussion might be useful but the real test is the behavior of the > TD > and AC. > They both like to teach the non-offenders a bridge lesson. > > I used a day to find 12 cases all of which the TD and/or AC found the > non-offenders responsible for at least a part of the damage (and I could > find a multiple of it). > During the analyses I immediately refused to accept 7 of those and changed > my mind on 2 more working on the lecture I gave in the EBL TD course held > in > Sanremo some weeks ago. > I add the 'paper' and am interested in your opinion. There are still 3 > cases > were I couldn't accept the bridge played by the non-offenders. > > ton > +=+ I do have to say that, apart from its being a clumsy expression, I do think 'a choice of action which looks impossible to be made' leaves far more open to argument than the phrase that Kojak found wanting. I feel it could even end up operating as 'if I want to I will allow it, if I don't I will not'. My wish is to guard against that since in my opinion the law should resolve whether a claim is to be allowed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Feb 16 17:44:09 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:44:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <000d01caaf23$b4819db0$1d84d910$@com> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net><001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com><3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net><4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net><001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no><50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> <001801caaf19$d116dc60$73449520$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caaf1f$e02ec950$a08c5bf0$@com> <000d01 caaf23$b4819db0$1d84d9 10$@com> Message-ID: <002e01caaf27$43cc5390$cb64fab0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> [DALB] It would also be wholly illogical, which is why Grattan wants you to be able to disallow the claim following the Philadelphia meeting. [GE] David, I've a feeling my wish may be to allow the claim rather than disallow it? Is this not so? [DALB] It is indeed. Apologies for any confusion. David Burn London, England ton: confusion? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 16 23:44:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:44:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B7A6D03.7040406@skynet.be> Message-ID: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): ".....Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called _pacification_. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called _transfer of population_ or _rectification of frontiers_. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called _elimination of unreliable elements_. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them....." Robert Frick: [big snip] >Back atcha. 90% of the room has made 13 tricks and 10% has made >12 tricks because they didn't play the hand as well as you gave >declarer. You are comfortable giving declarer 13 tricks? Richard Hills: Back atcha. When directing, as a general rule, I never look at the results at other tables when assessing my ruling at a particular table (with the obvious exception of determining at exactly which point a board became fouled). Law 84D, Robert Frick version: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side (provided that non-offending sides at other tables were successful with their doubtful points). He seeks to restore equity (provided that equity was achieved at other tables). If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged (provided non-offending sides at other tables were damaged) by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (provided the score is adjusted at other tables)." Richard Hills: And for claim rulings results at other tables are extremely irrelevant, since the claim Laws footnote includes as a criterion "class of player involved". The Rule of Law, by Tom Bingham (former Lord Chief Justice), extract from book review, The Economist, 13th February 2010: ".....His greatest concern is the way in which the threat of terrorism has been used to justify the encroachment on civil liberties. Lord Bingham takes to task governments both in Britain and abroad who subvert the rule of law in the name of security, using Orwellian euphemisms such as control orders (house arrest without trial), extraordinary rendition (kidnapping) and enhanced interrogation techniques (torture). And he quotes Benjamin Franklin with approval: 'He who would put security before liberty deserves neither.'....." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 17 01:15:48 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:15:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:44:08 -0500, wrote: > George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): > > ".....Thus political language has to consist largely of > euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. > Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants > driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the > huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called > _pacification_. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms > and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can > carry: this is called _transfer of population_ or _rectification > of frontiers_. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or > shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic > lumber camps: this is called _elimination of unreliable > elements_. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name > things without calling up mental pictures of them....." > > Robert Frick: > > [big snip] > >> Back atcha. 90% of the room has made 13 tricks and 10% has made >> 12 tricks because they didn't play the hand as well as you gave >> declarer. You are comfortable giving declarer 13 tricks? > > Richard Hills: > > Back atcha. When directing, as a general rule, I never look at > the results at other tables when assessing my ruling at a > particular table (with the obvious exception of determining at > exactly which point a board became fouled). > > Law 84D, Robert Frick version: > > "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- > offending side (provided that non-offending sides at other > tables were successful with their doubtful points). He seeks to > restore equity (provided that equity was achieved at other > tables). If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending > side has been damaged (provided non-offending sides at other > tables were damaged) by an irregularity for which these laws > provide no rectification he adjusts the score (provided the > score is adjusted at other tables)." It isn't very productive to put words in other people's mouths. Especially when you are wrong. I advise blmlers to focus on the points they want to make. If you need to attack something, try to attack positions, not people. Herman asked how I would feel to give a bottom to the declarer when everyone else in the room made 13 tricks. I asked Herman how he would feel if some people in the room didn't play it as well as he gave declarer. End of story. > > Richard Hills: > > And for claim rulings results at other tables are extremely > irrelevant, since the claim Laws footnote includes as a > criterion "class of player involved". > > The Rule of Law, by Tom Bingham (former Lord Chief Justice), > extract from book review, The Economist, 13th February 2010: > > ".....His greatest concern is the way in which the threat of > terrorism has been used to justify the encroachment on civil > liberties. Lord Bingham takes to task governments both in > Britain and abroad who subvert the rule of law in the name of > security, using Orwellian euphemisms such as control orders > (house arrest without trial), extraordinary rendition > (kidnapping) and enhanced interrogation techniques (torture). > And he quotes Benjamin Franklin with approval: 'He who would put > security before liberty deserves neither.'....." > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 17 02:04:51 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:04:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B7A6D03.7040406@skynet.be> Message-ID: Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: "An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him.....She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women.....' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian.'" Grattan Endicott: >>>+=+ We are not required to believe declarer will wake up from the >>>illusion he is under until he hits a rock..... Richard Hills: >>A general if-then principle of claims: >> >>IF declarer has claimed due to an illusion, THEN it is a "doubtful >>point" whether declarer will wake up unless and until declarer hits >>a rock. Law 70A. Herman De Wael: >.....My beliefs are firm, although you can of course criticize them. >My judgments are what I learnt from reading the text. They should >not be criticized. I think the judgments are obvious.....My ruling >is a logical consequence of my beliefs and judgments. > >Please don't criticize it - it is a correct implication of the claim >laws. > >Have I made myself clear? Richard Hills: A general if-then principle of the De Wael School: IF Herman De Wael's firm beliefs are correct, THEN Herman De Wael's logically consequent ruling is obvious in judgement, and also beyond criticism. Law 94. Have I made myself clear? Best wishes Richardette Hills, not a real cowboy, so therefore not a lesbian -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Feb 17 02:26:09 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:26:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7B45B1.5060502@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] It is a common Guthriesque fallacy to assume that "my normal and well- adjusted preferred way of playing bridge" is "the majority's preferred way of playing bridge". [Nigel] Richard is confusing me with someone else :( I do wonder if rules that suit administrators and directors are ideal for ordinary players. Naturally enough, directors may prefer rules that are overly reliant on subjective judgement and that avoid hassle from rule-breakers. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Feb 17 02:50:44 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:50:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors In-Reply-To: <001401caaf19$72f12550$58d36ff0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> <001401caaf19$72f12550$58d36ff0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: "ton" : > I used a day to find 12 cases all of which the TD and/or AC found the > non-offenders responsible for at least a part of the damage (and I could > find a multiple of it). > During the analyses I immediately refused to accept 7 of those and changed > my mind on 2 more working on the lecture I gave in the EBL TD course held in > Sanremo some weeks ago. > I add the 'paper' and am interested in your opinion. There are still 3 cases > were I couldn't accept the bridge played by the non-offenders. I'm not sure I agree with your logic on Case 7. If North had the sample hand, Jxx AKJxxx AQx x, would he have cue-bid 4C or 4D? I would think 4D, unless they have an agreement to show the cheapest first-round or second-round control. West thinks North has cue-bid clubs, not diamonds, and sees only a DK in dummy, so he needs to either lead a diamond and hope to find partner with the DA, or else return a safe major-suit card and hope that the opponents misguess the minors. Other comments on the cases: Cases 4, 6, and 12: The recommended adjustment is one which I have advocated but rarely gets discussed. In Case 4, if South had been correctly informed, N/S would have been +200. If North had played proper bridge, N/S would have been +150; thus, N/S were damaged by the MI. Because North made an irrational play, N/S were -990. The correct adjustment for N/S is to give them the difference between +200 and +150 as an adjustment, but no adjustment for the self-inflicted damage. Case 5: This case is not a good illustration of "caught in an idea", as the TD's comment is improper, independent of the fact that it isn't a serious error to believe the opponents. It is common to lead low from three small in partner's suit. Case 11: Here, I'm not sure there is MI. Everyone leads the 8 from AQT84 (or announces "attitude leads" or "fifth best" if he doesn't), but whether the 8 can be led from 854 varies and is more likely to be of interest to declarer, so I would say that South failed to protect himself. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 17 04:32:07 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:32:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch - apology [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [big snip] >>>So you prefer to give just one player 12 tricks when the whole >>>room has made 13, just because he failed to count his tricks? >>>In your way of ruling, you will give 12 tricks to a claimer >>>who has 15 top tricks but fails to say anything after >>>claiming. Is that what you want? Richard Hills, revision of earlier posting: >>Back atcha. When directing, as a general rule, I never look at >>the results at other tables when assessing my ruling at a >>particular table (with the obvious exception of determining at >>exactly which point a board became fouled). >> >>Law 84D, Herman De Wael version: >> >>"The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >>offending side (provided that non-offending sides at other >>tables were successful with their doubtful points). He seeks to >>restore equity (provided that equity was achieved at other >>tables). If in his judgement it is probable that a non- >>offending side has been damaged (provided non-offending sides >>at other tables were damaged) by an irregularity for which >>these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score >>(provided the score is adjusted at other tables)." Robert Frick: >It isn't very productive to put words in other people's mouths. >Especially when you are wrong. I advise blmlers to focus on the >points they want to make. If you need to attack something, try >to attack positions, not people. > >Herman asked how I would feel to give a bottom to the declarer >when everyone else in the room made 13 tricks. I asked Herman >how he would feel if some people in the room didn't play it as >well as he gave declarer. End of story. Richard Hills: My sincere apologies to Robert for me very carelessly reading an earlier post, and thus misattributing to him an idiosyncratic view actually held by Herman De Wael, which Robert was correctly critiquing. I have consequently revised by previous post (above) by amending "Law 84D, Robert Frick version" to "Law 84D, Herman De Wael version". Jerry Fusselman: >>>>.....Robert, David, and Eric, who I respect above almost >>>>anyone else on BLML..... Richard Hills: I cannot honestly say that I agree with Jerry Fusselman's assessment of Robert. But what I can say is that the cogency of Robert's postings have improved dramatically since he started as a blml newbie a few years ago to Robert's current status as blml seasoned hand. Regrettably at least two other blmlers have been idiosyncratically but boringly consistent (zero dramatic improvement) for a much longer period of time. Robert Frick: >It isn't very productive to put words in other people's mouths. >..... >If you need to attack something, try to attack positions, not >people. The Eleventh Commandment of Blml: "Thou shalt not intentionally misquote another blmler." The Twelfth Commandment of Blml: "Thou shalt not call another blmler 'a cheat', but thou may describe a blmler's position as 'idiosyncratic' or 'obtuse'." Robert Frick: >I advise blmlers to focus on the points they want to make. Richard Hills: And using satire to assist in making a point? The varied Law 84D I created above was obviously satirical, not the Dreadful Sin of Intentionally Misquoting either Robert Frick or Herman De Wael. My satire was either a successful "reductio ad absurdum" argument (correctly portraying all of Herman's relevant views) or an unsuccessful "straw man" argument (incorrectly omitting some of Herman's relevant views). But in either case, I was attacking what I believed to be Herman's position; I was not attacking Herman personally because I "know" that Herman is always wrong. If, instead, I had attacked Herman's disability of liking the science-fiction novels of Isaac Asimov, then that would be a personal attack (and also hypocritical, since I like them too). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 17 06:03:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:03:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>>The nature of a game is its rules. If players would like a game >>>where rulings depend less on judgement then they should campaign >>>for simpler rules. Richard Hills: >>A game with zero judgement and simpler rules -> >> >> | O | X | ? >> ----------- >> | X | ? | X >> ----------- >> | ? | O | X >> >>It is a common Guthriesque fallacy to assume that "my normal and >>well-adjusted preferred way of playing bridge" is "the majority's >>preferred way of playing bridge". Nigel Guthrie: >Richard is confusing me with someone else :( I do wonder if rules >that suit administrators and directors are ideal for ordinary >players. Richard Hills: When I was an ordinary 5-year-old, I enjoyed playing nought-and- crosses (tic-tac-toe) because of its simple rules. Now that I am an ordinary 50-year-old, noughts-and-crosses is the ultimate in boring because of its simple rules, so I play Duplicate Bridge because of its complicated rules. Nigel Guthrie: >Naturally enough, directors may prefer rules that are overly >reliant on subjective judgement Richard Hills: _Because_ the game permits a player her subjective judgement of her cards and the auction so far when assessing whether to Pass pard's 3H invitation or bid on to 4H, _therefore_ Law 16 has to permit the TD and AC their subjective judgement about whether 4H is the only logical alternative. Nigel Guthrie: >and that avoid hassle from rule-breakers. Richard Hills: Was it Peter Eidt or Matthias Berghaus who complained that Nigel Guthrie's oft-repeated assertion, while no doubt well-intentioned, was irritating due to the inference that all Directors were self- serving and/or lazy? And who said: "Regrettably at least two other blmlers have been idiosyncratically but boringly consistent (zero dramatic improvement) for a much longer period of time." ??? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 09:18:56 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:18:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On 17 February 2010 02:50, David Grabiner wrote: > "ton" : > >> I used a day to find 12 cases all of which the TD and/or AC found the >> non-offenders responsible for at least a part of the damage (and I could >> find a multiple of it). >> During the analyses I immediately refused to accept 7 of those and changed >> my mind on 2 more working on the lecture I gave in the EBL TD course held in >> Sanremo some weeks ago. >> I add the 'paper' and am interested in your opinion. There are still 3 cases >> were I couldn't accept the bridge played by the non-offenders. > > I'm not sure I agree with your logic on Case 7. ?If North had the sample hand, > Jxx AKJxxx AQx x, would he have cue-bid 4C or 4D? ?I would think 4D, unless they > have an agreement to show the cheapest first-round or second-round control. I would think 4C, unless they had the very oldfashioned idea of cuebidding 1st round controls first. Remember, this is in Europe. > West thinks North has cue-bid clubs, not diamonds, and sees only a DK in dummy, > so he needs to either lead a diamond and hope to find partner with the DA, or > else return a safe major-suit card and hope that the opponents misguess the > minors. > > Other comments on the cases: > > Cases 4, 6, and 12: The recommended adjustment is one which I have advocated but > rarely gets discussed. ?In Case 4, if South had been correctly informed, N/S > would have been +200. ?If North had played proper bridge, N/S would have been > +150; thus, N/S were damaged by the MI. ?Because North made an irrational play, > N/S were -990. ?The correct adjustment for N/S is to give them the difference > between +200 and +150 as an adjustment, but no adjustment for the self-inflicted > damage. > > Case 5: ?This case is not a good illustration of "caught in an idea", as the > TD's comment is improper, independent of the fact that it isn't a serious error > to believe the opponents. ?It is common to lead low from three small in > partner's suit. > > Case 11: Here, I'm not sure there is MI. ?Everyone leads the 8 from AQT84 (or > announces "attitude leads" or "fifth best" if he doesn't), but whether the 8 can > be led from 854 varies and is more likely to be of interest to declarer, so I > would say that South failed to protect himself. > I agree with Ton on all cases, except number 3. IMO, not cashing the spade ace at trick two is a serious error. I've never seen anyone make a simple raise to 2S with 6-card support, and I strongly dount I ever will. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Feb 17 10:42:55 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:42:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7BBA1F.5060406@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] When I was an ordinary 5-year-old, I enjoyed playing nought-and- crosses (tic-tac-toe) because of its simple rules. Now that I am an ordinary 50-year-old, noughts-and-crosses is the ultimate in boring because of its simple rules, so I play Duplicate Bridge because of its complicated rules. [Nigel] Many games (eg Chess and Go) illustrate that you don't need complex rules to make a game interesting, challenging and fun. IMO, simpler and clearer Bridge rules would increase player's enjoyment, while retaining it's essential nature. Some rules (eg "Protect yourself" and "double-shot") add zero-value to the game for players. Simpler rules may diminish the challenge for directors. [Richard] Was it Peter Eidt or Matthias Berghaus who complained that Nigel Guthrie's oft-repeated assertion, while no doubt well-intentioned, was irritating due to the inference that all Directors were self- serving and/or lazy? [Nigel] We all have our hobby-horses. One of nine is simpler, clearer rules for the sake of players. The inferences about directors that you draw are your own. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 17 12:08:05 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:08:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B7BBA1F.5060406@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard Hills] > When I was an ordinary 5-year-old, I enjoyed playing nought-and- > crosses (tic-tac-toe) because of its simple rules. Now that I am an > ordinary 50-year-old, noughts-and-crosses is the ultimate in boring > because of its simple rules, so I play Duplicate Bridge because of its > complicated rules. > > [Nigel] > Many games (eg Chess and Go) illustrate that you don't need complex > rules to make a game interesting, challenging and fun. > > IMO, simpler and clearer Bridge rules would increase player's enjoyment, > while retaining it's essential nature. Some rules (eg "Protect yourself" > and "double-shot") add zero-value to the game for players. Simpler rules > may diminish the challenge for directors. > > [Richard] > Was it Peter Eidt or Matthias Berghaus who complained that Nigel > Guthrie's oft-repeated assertion, while no doubt well-intentioned, > was irritating due to the inference that all Directors were self- > serving and/or lazy? > > [Nigel] > We all have our hobby-horses. One of nine is simpler, clearer rules for > the sake of players. The inferences about directors that you draw are > your own. > +=+ Bridge is by its nature a game that has mechanical rules to govern the mechanics and judgemental rules to govern its judgemental nature. Inevitably the operation of judgemental rules requires judgemental decisions on the part of the Director. The Director is one person and this leaves his judgement suspect on occasion, in consequence of which there are arrangements for appeal to the judgement of a group. Nothing is assured but it is the expectation that the consensus of a number of knowledgeable lay individuals will produce an elevated standard of bridge judgement. Judgemental rulings are difficult since the rules can do no more than establish a floor* on which to base them. In this area the game has been devised as a game of complexity and like many players I would never have taken it up were it otherwise. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* it is the absence of a floor under the footnote to Law 70 that we have been discussing.] From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 15:01:28 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:01:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch - apology [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2da24b8e1002170601q26c84540ka11ffee53d6af78@mail.gmail.com> > > Regrettably at least two other blmlers have been > idiosyncratically but boringly consistent (zero dramatic > improvement) for a much longer period of time. > > Regrettably at least two other blmlers have been > idiosyncratically but boringly consistent (zero dramatic > improvement) for a much longer period of time. If you want to give sanctimonious lectures about netiquette, why not start with the reams worth of extraneous quotes that you a fix to your own postings. I don't need a five paragraphs of from some science fiction luminary to discover that you and your partner had a cock up playing symmmetric relay. > "Thou shalt not call another blmler 'a cheat', but thou may > describe a blmler's position as 'idiosyncratic' or 'obtuse'." I was always taught that it is right and proper to be open and honest about what you think rather than relying on innuendo. I don't throw around the expression "cheat" casually. I have only used the expression to refer to one individual on this list. Moreover, I think that it is pretty damn clear that Herman 1. Is deliberately violating system regulations 2. Has directly stated that he refuses to describe his behaviour to the regulatory authorities because he fears an adverse ruling. I would consider this type of behvaiour reprehensible on the part of a random player. The fact that A. This is being done a Tournament Director (the individuals charged with enforcing regulations) B. Other TDs are turning a blind eye because they prefer avoiding conflict to doing their jobs puts the entire system in a very bad light. > -- > 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/20100217/9e05e540/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 17 15:10:04 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:10:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch - apology [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e1002170601q26c84540ka11ffee53d6af78@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e1002170601q26c84540ka11ffee53d6af78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B7BF8BC.8020205@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > Moreover, I think that it is pretty damn clear that Herman > 1. Is deliberately violating system regulations If you think this is "pretty damn clear" than I must be stupid rather than a cheat because I think it is pretty damn unclear. > 2. Has directly stated that he refuses to describe his behaviour to the > regulatory authorities because he fears an adverse ruling. Not true - I have been refused to put it on my SC (BTW, this was several years agao) - not been refused to do it. Some people have verry strange thoughts about disclosure! > I would consider this type of behvaiour reprehensible on the part of a > random player. The fact that > A. This is being done a Tournament Director (the individuals charged > with enforcing regulations) You are right there, if this were an infraction to start with, which I deny it is. And it's not because two Richards say it is, that it must be an infraction, is it? > B. Other TDs are turning a blind eye because they prefer avoiding > conflict to doing their jobs What blind eye? What do you know about Belgian situations. Would you please stop criticizing things you have absolutely no knowledge of? > puts the entire system in a very bad light. > Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 17 15:24:28 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:24:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com><4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred><85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net><001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com><3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net><4B75113F.40109@skynet.be><0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net><001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no><50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Feb 16, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> I think Bob has put his finger on where we want to be. So how do we >> express it in lawbook-ese? I'm not sure that introducing the term >> "bridge logic" to the lawbook is such a good idea. > > +=+ Eric will have noticed by now that Bill Schoder persuaded me > that 'bridge logic' was too arguable. What I have in my notebook for > Philadelphia is this: > "In the footnote to Laws 70 and 71 'inferior' does not > embrace the wholly illogical." That does little more than substitute "wholly illogical" for "irrational", and invites the same differences of interpretation that we had previously. Whatever term the WBFLC might choose, it behooves them to state explicitly whether they intend the determination to be absolute or relative. It should either say "...does not embrace play which would be wholly illogical for any player" or "...does not embrace play which would be wholly illogical for the class of player involved". I think we've determined that the WBFLC wants the law to mean the former, but they need to say so clearly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 15:27:38 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:27:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch - apology [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B7BF8BC.8020205@skynet.be> References: <2da24b8e1002170601q26c84540ka11ffee53d6af78@mail.gmail.com> <4B7BF8BC.8020205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e1002170627q34f50397u5487be61076378b3@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Not true - I have been refused to put it on my SC (BTW, this was several > years agao) - not been refused to do it. Bullshit. A few years back, on this very mailing list, I directly challenged you to describe what you were doing to the appropriate regulatory authorities in Belgium and let them reach a judgement regarding whether or not your methods were legal. You replied that you refused to do so, because you thought that they would rule against you. (It was at this point in time that I start openly calling you a cheat) > > B. Other TDs are turning a blind eye because they prefer avoiding > > conflict to doing their jobs > > What blind eye? What do you know about Belgian situations. > Would you please stop criticizing things you have absolutely no > knowledge of? > I'm not talking about the Belgians here... Rather, I am referencing the fact that the WBF allows you to serve as a scribe at various events and tacitly endorses your idiotic attemtps at self agrandizement. > -- > 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/20100217/a5975372/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 17 15:30:14 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:30:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and concessions In-Reply-To: <001401caaf19$72f12550$58d36ff0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <6440c2ff1002082323l3526df01w903283b80535c87@mail.gmail.com> <4B711EA6.1090702@skynet.be> <4B72E0FD.80304@skynet.be> <4B72EF42.7050904@skynet.be> <9E9516D35CC64BF29D9879BC5286F8E9@Mildred> <85AA7115-4A2F-40D4-927E-CD613ADD16B9@starpower.net> <001101caab3e$83c3a6c0$8b4af440$@com> <3EDD777B-6F45-4A34-8839-E02D437C6559@starpower.net> <4B75113F.40109@skynet.be> <0D329880-5084-4404-B706-538388F21936@starpower.net> <001e01caac97$b69e3060$23da9120$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001caacb1$b1479dd0$13d6d970$@no> <50B23E6E564645F48D5C3B4F2B3EECDE@Mildred> <8B5BFBD1-0B03-4C41-900D-4D92B3513B4E@starpower.net> <001401caaf19$72f12550$58d36ff0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Ton: I was unable to read the attached file (perhaps because I do not have MS Word?). Is it on the web somewhere? On Feb 16, 2010, at 10:05 AM, ton wrote: > I used a day to find 12 cases all of which the TD and/or AC found the > non-offenders responsible for at least a part of the damage (and I > could > find a multiple of it). > During the analyses I immediately refused to accept 7 of those and > changed > my mind on 2 more working on the lecture I gave in the EBL TD > course held in > Sanremo some weeks ago. > I add the 'paper' and am interested in your opinion. There are > still 3 cases > were I couldn't accept the bridge played by the non-offenders. > > _______________________________________________ Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Wed Feb 17 16:06:21 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:06:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B7BBA1F.5060406@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B7BBA1F.5060406@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: I like what Grattan has said below and add an additional point. When judgment is required in the WBF we have gotten away from the "your (TD) judgment against mine" - Player versus TD - situation. I believe that prior consultation with players and other TDs makes for better rulings. The right of appeal remains, but it has greatly reduced the number and to me - OF GREATER IMPORTANCE - the quality of TD rulings and the quality of the 'review of the director's ruling' when the AC realizes that a "consensus of .....knowledgeable ...... individuals" was used in making the TD ruling. I've found that the AC chair's question to the appellant, after the facts are established , of 'Why do you think the Director's ruling should be changed?" has worked magic in resolving situations. I deplore the conceit and illegality of some organizations whose procedures are that the TD ruling no longer exists and "we will make our own ruling" as being against the specific requirement of Law 92A. And yes, I know that in clubs and smaller tournaments it is not always possible to consult, but any attempt is better than none. Kojak +=+ Bridge is by its nature a game that has mechanical rules to govern the mechanics and judgemental rules to govern its judgemental nature. Inevitably the operation of judgemental rules requires judgemental decisions on the part of the Director. The Director is one person and this leaves his judgement suspect on occasion, in consequence of which there are arrangements for appeal to the judgement of a group. Nothing is assured but it is the expectation that the consensus of a number of knowledgeable lay individuals will produce an elevated standard of bridge judgement. Judgemental rulings are difficult since the rules can do no more than establish a floor* on which to base them. In this area the game has been devised as a game of complexity and like many players I would never have taken it up were it otherwise. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100217/52423101/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Feb 17 19:08:37 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:08:37 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B7BBA1F.5060406@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <1E17E2056787480EA88EE7A3253507B1@MARVLAPTOP> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >And yes, I know that in clubs and smaller tournaments it is not >always possible to consult, but any attempt is better than none. Phone consultations are a good way to solve this problem. In this part of ACBL-land (Southwest USA), the regional supervisor of ACBL TDs, Bette Bratcher, is often consulted by TDs who need an opinion from a respected source. That pleases players who might have questioned a ruling given without consultation. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 17 23:20:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:20:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "The squaw on the hippopotamus equals the sons of the squaws on the other two hides." Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Eric will have noticed by now that Bill Schoder persuaded me >that 'bridge logic' was too arguable. What I have in my notebook >for Philadelphia is this: > "In the footnote to Laws 70 and 71 'inferior' does not >embrace the wholly illogical." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [big snip] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >[* it is the absence of a floor under the footnote to Law 70 >that we have been discussing.] Inigo Montoya: The Pythagorean Theorem either logically follows from the five Euclidean axioms, or it does not logically follow. The term "wholly illogical" is identical in meaning to "illogical" according to an English dictionary. If, however, for the purposes of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge the English language is again to be mangled, with the adjective "wholly" deemed to modify the noun "illogical", then we might as well go the whole hog and include the oxymoron "partially illogical" in a possible 2018 claim Laws footnote: "* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior (i.e. partially illogical, but not wholly illogical) for the class of player involved." Better still would be a conversion of the involuted wording of the 2007 Lawbook to easy-to-understand declarative statements in the 2018 Lawbook. An example of easy-to-understand declarative statements: Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 18 00:00:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:00:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SERIOUS ERROR We present 12 cases in which an offense occurs that might create damage for the opponents. In all cases the TD or/and AC decided that the damage was a result of a serious error and at least for part of it not caused by the infraction (see law 12C1(b). Generally spoken TD?s and AC?s are rather restrained in compensating a bad score after an irregularity not sufficiently protecting the innocent side. It seems necessary to find some guidelines. In all cases you are asked to decide for yourself whether the innocent side has made a serious error resulting in self-inflicted damage. 1) West hand : J109 975 J1096 K103 and has to lead against S N 1C 1D 1H 2S 2NT 3NT 2S is explained as natural but according to N/S agreements is 4th suit forcing West lead : DJ . 3NT = West says he would have led a spade : 3NT- 1 TD ruling : score stands ; even if 2S is natural, North has at least as many diamonds as spades. In both cases, a S - lead is better than a D - lead. Is not leading a spade a serious error? No serious error. It needs something idiotic to consider the first lead as a serious error. As leading a small card instead of A and K in another suit against 6NT or leading 9 from KQJ9 as fourth best (example from Kaplan) . 2) E/all 87 KJ42 82 AK743 AJ43 KQ1095 Q109 A A1053 KQJ64 Q6 J5 62 87653 97 10982 W E 1S 2D 4D 2?: suit, game forcing 4S* 4NT * long hesitation but denying H control 5H 6S H lead ; South calls complaining about East?s 4NT bid. TD: Score stands : it should be obvious that East has a heart control . So leading C is more attractive. No serious eror. The issue is not whether a choice is more attractive, but whether the wrong choice is stupid. It is within the range of being normal to try to deceive your opponents suggesting to have a control. And why could a heart lead not defeat the contract even if EW have a control? The opponents are expected to have at least a second control in any suit if they play a slam, isn?t it? 3) W/NS ?AQJT7 ?-- ?KT64 ?AKQJ ?K ?95 ?QJT85 ?AK9642 ?AQ7532 ?-- ?2 ?T8753 ?86432 ?73 ?J98 ?964 W N E S 1? 1? X 2? 3? 4? 5? pass pass 5? ?pass pass 6? X all pass East has hesitated, the 6?-bid is not obvious. Leads : ?A and K, contract made TD : North should have played ?A in trick 2, subsequent damage North could have realized that it is much more likely that West has a spade left (Would South bid only 2? with K 6th ?), but continuing clubs is not a stupid action. No serious error. 4) N /NS ?QJ87 ?Q9852 ?-- ?Q943 ?6 ?AK32 ?A4 ?63 ?KT854 ?QJ96 ?KT876 ?AJ2 ?T954 ?KJT7 ?A732 ?5 W N E S p 1NT p 2? p 3? p 4? p 4? p 4NT p 5? p 6? p 6NT p p p 2? explained as transfer for ? !!; the rest of the bidding is also a mess. South starts ?T for the A, a diamond by declarer for the A and another spade. East collects 4 ?-tricks on which North discards among others ?3, keeping Q94. East now plays ?J overtaken by ?K and ?T from dummy. North plays the ?9 !! South will tell that he would have led a heart with the right information (2? being a transfer for a minor according to West) . TD-decision : serious error No doubt, this is a serious error. With Q9 over the T and the J already played it is ?impossible? not to play the Q on the T. There is subsequent damage. If we accept the claim for a heart lead, the normal result would have been 4 off. The expected result (playing ?Q) is 3 off. The difference in score between those two results needs to be compensated. The difference between 3 off and making is self-inflicted. 5) W/all ?62 ?A8 ?AQ94 ?AQ872 ?JT9 ?KQ8 ?Q643 ?KJT92 ?52 ?K83 ?KT84 ?J5 ?A7543 ?75 ?JT76 ?93 W N E S p 1? 1? 1? p 2? p 2NT p 3? p 3? p 3NT p p X all pass 1? shows a least 5 spades 2NT requires North to bid 3? after which South wants to play 3?, but North doesn?t alert it. West leads ?3, East wins with the K and switches to ?K won with the A. ?J for K, EW collect two spade tricks and switch to hearts for the ace after which declarer makes his contract. TD decision: not continuing hearts in time is a serious error, what other meaning than having ?Q can the lead with ?3 have? This is an example which can be used to introduce the ?caught in an idea? . East listens to the auction with 2NT being ?natural? and showing ?Q. It does not occur to him that ?Q is with his partner. That can?t be considered to be a serious error. Apart from 2 heart tricks he sees 3 diamond tricks and enough (?) club tricks for declarer. A spade switch to keep declarer to 9 tricks should not be considered ridiculous. No serious error. 6) S/EW ?J96 ?K75 ?AQJ8 ?Q76 ?AQ74 ?K53 ?Q ?JT9643 ?963 ?72 ?J9432 ?A5 ?T82 ?A82 ?KT54 ?KT8 W N E S pass pass 1NT 2? X pass pass 2? X 3? X 3? X All pass 1NT shows 12 -14; 2? is not alerted The TD does not allow the 3?-bid. South starts with ?8 for Q and A, ?3 for Q and K; ?A: ?T; ? ruffed by East; ?J for Ace in South does not catch the ?K but plays ?4, after which declarer makes his contract. ?J96 ?7 ?Q ?76 ?AQ74 ?K53 ? ?T96 ? ? ?J43 ?5 ?T82 ?8 ?4 ?KT The TD decides that not playing ?K in this position is a serious error. North has shown 12 points, which places ?K in East. The only danger is a discard of a club in East on a possibly free spade in West. South does not have an alternative but to play ?K. Not playing itis a serious error. The normal result is 3?X minus 3, the expected result is 3?X ? 1: compensation for the difference; but no compensation for the difference between 3?X - 1 and 3?X made. 7) S/all screens ?J8 ?AKJ984 ?Q ?AT43 ?K7542 ?T93 ?T62 ?53 ?J53 ?A642 ?Q5 ?9872 ?AQ6 ?Q7 ?KT987 ?KJ6 S N E and W pass throughout. 1NT 2? 2? GF stayman 3? 3? 4? N to E: natural; S to W: cue 3NT 4? 4? 4NT first lead ?T, small in dummy won in West who returns a club; contract 5? 6? made. EW feel damaged, with the N to E info West will return a diamond, he tells. NS cannot proof which agreement they have. The appeal committee decides that not returning a diamond in trick 2 is a serious error. Here follows another consideration. If the player having a choice can show why he made his action, this being a real possibility it can not be a serious error. Why can?t North have: J83 AKJ984 AQ4 4 ? given his explanation to West? This is by far not a serious error. So the AC made a serious error, without consequent nor subsequent damage for itself. 8) W/-- teams ?A7 ?J9 ?AKQT52 ?943 ?K52 ?QJ643 ?KQT64 ?7532 ?76 ?4 ?AT6 ?KQ5 ?T98 ?A8 ?J983 ?J872 W N E S 1? 2? 3? 5? X all pass 5?x goes for ? 500. West explained 3? as strong with heart support. South calls the TD telling that the East hand is not his idea of being strong. He would not have bid 5? knowing this to be a possible holding. East will tell that 3? shows trump support and is an invite for game. Is bidding 5? by South a serious error (wild, gambling, whatever)? The TD decided for the answer ?yes?. Well, 5? looks like gambling, but some calls are. Confronted with ? 420/450 taking the risk to go for ? 500 is not a big issue. With North having Ax xx AKxxxx Q9x there is a play for -300. And with East being strong it might be a good strategy to cut the bidding space. Though no bow for 5? it is not a serious error. Had NS been vulnerable the description ?wild? for 5? comes close and could be applied. 9) N/-- ?KJT53 ?K3 ?AQT5 ?A2 ?A4 ?8762 ?QJ94 ?A765 ?KJ43 ?97 ?854 ?T96 ?Q9 ?T82 ?862 ?KQJ73 N S (E and W pass throughout) 1? 1NT 3? 3? 3? 3NT All pass West leads ?8 (with honors fourth best), won in dummy. Small spade to Q and ?A. West continues with ?Q, K and ace and East returns a club: 3NT + 1. After the play EW ask about the meaning of 3?. North assumed it to be natural (he did not alert) and South meant it as conventional (asking for a stop). Is not returning a heart by East in trick 4 a serious error? The TD and appeal committee decided for ?yes?, a serious error. Another example of conflicting information. South shows hearts and West seems to have QJx? But even with QJ9 the contract is not down yet. Can?t West have Ax QJx xxxxx KJ8? In that case the only way to beat 3NT might be to return a club. Returning a heart gives declarer This contract with T98x in hearts. This is in no way a serious error, not by the East player it is. 10 N/all screens ?J6 ?Q3 ?KQJ9 ?QT754 ?AT ?KQ42 ?A8752 ?KT94 ?AT8432 ?76 ? ?983 ?98763 ?J6 ?5 ?AKJ82 W N E S 1NT pass 2? X pass pass 3? 3? X 3? pass pass 4? all pass 1NT 11 ? 14; X after 2? promised opening values with hearts; North? first pass denied 3 card spade support. 3? was explained as forcing by North and as non-forcing by South. EW called the TD after play telling that they might have reached 4? with the explanation to East that 3? was non-forcing. The TD established that the meaning of 3? was not clear in the NS-partnership, so he decided that East had received wrong information. Is not bidding 4? by East a serious error? TD and later the AC decided that East should have bid 4? anyway (the AC told East that he shoud have bid 4? in his second, third and fourth turn to call), not bidding it had nothing to do with the wrong information and was considered to be a serious error. In the given situation this East will not be the only one not bidding 4?. Why not believing North and giving West somewhat less? With x AJxxxx AQxx xx in West 4? will not make. This is not a serious error. 11 N/NS ?AJ73 ?K5 ?KT96 ?K75 ?Q64 ?KT85 ?AQT84 ?J32 ?J2 ?Q743 ?T64 ?93 ?92 ?976 ?A85 ?AQJ82 W N E S 1? pass 1NT pass 2? pass 2? pass 3NT all pass 1? Precision; 1NT 10+ balanced, 2? stayman. West leads ?8 and South asks about the agreements in the first lead. Answer: ?top of nothing?. South ducks playing the 5 and loses the first 5 tricks. West explains that he led fourth best. Assuming wrong information is not playing the ?K a serious error? The TD decided that not playing ?K in the first trick was a serious error. This is an interesting question. With all top honors in hearts in East the play of ?K is useless. But one step further, not playing the ?K is senseless anyway. The only chance to make the contract is not loosing the first 5 tricks (at least). One could even say that asking about the meaning of the ?8 as the first lead does not make sense, declarer has no option. May we say that this argument should have been dominant for declarer? My answer is ?yes?. This is a serious error. We also could ask what the expected result is after the lead of the ?8? 9 Or to make it more realistic: look at this board in the rama room and imagine what happens at the moment declarer calls for a small heart from dummy. United screams of unbelief I assume? 12 W/-- teams ?J6 ?JT ?AKQ84 ?KJ74 ?AT73 ?K2 ?A653 ?KQ972 ?32 ?JT7 ?963 ?AQ8 ?Q9854 ?84 ?965 ?T62 W N E S pass 1NT 2? 2? 3? 3? ?pass pass 4? X all pass 4? X makes. East hesitated before his first pass; the TD does not allow the 4? bid. Is the double by North a serious error (wild, gambling) ? The TD did not decide so (3? -3 for both sides) , but later when EW dared to appeal this decision the AC uphold the decision for EW but considered the double by North a serious error. (When appealing EW did not want to double 3? but wanted 4? to be allowed). . Another case which raises some interesting questions. Would you allow West to double 3? after the hesitation, or: is ?pass? a logical alternative (a TD who allows the double will decide that NS is not damaged by the UI- 4? bid) ? Is partner promising 2 defensive tricks? Probably not (give him xx KQxxxx xx Axx), so ?yes? pass is a logical alternative. What about the double by North? Does South promise anything but 5+ spades? No, and listening to the auction he doesn?t have anything but 5+ in spades. If we consider the double as acceptable it becomes a free shot, removed by the TD in the likely case that he does not allow the 4? bid. It is gambling without a relation to the irregularity, on the contrary, East sounds stronger than without his hesitation. Decide to call the double a serious error. Normal result 3? -3, expected result 4? made and compensation for the difference. The actual result is 4?X made and there is no compensation for the difference with 4? made. Conclusion: TD?s and AC tend to have a severe judgment when looking at actions by the non-offending side. They do not succeed in imagining the problem the innocent is confronted with. The approach in the laws is such that it allows the non offending side to make errors ? even big ones- without effecting the adjusted score to be given. A choice should be considered to create a serious error if it is not considered to be an option by even a few players of comparable strength of whom nobody would choose it. Such choice if not successful creates damage that will not be compensated in an adjusted score (subsequent damage: the difference between the expected result after the infraction and the actual result) . We might adopt another principle, especially for the non-offenders in defense: if it is possible to compose a realistic opponent or partner hand, using the information available at that moment, with which the actual play can be justified it should not be considered to be a serious error. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 18 01:19:07 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:19:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch - apology [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e1002170601q26c84540ka11ffee53d6af78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Willey: >If you want to give sanctimonious lectures about >netiquette, why not start with the reams worth of >extraneous quotes that you affix to your own postings. > >I don't need five paragraphs from some science fiction >luminary to discover that you and your partner had a >cock up playing symmetric relay. Tony Musgrove, 17th April 2009: >>A recent Hills posting contained 20 blank lines (the >>first I have understood without recourse to >>dictionary). Similar postings would remove a lot of >>blml disagreement, >> >>Cheers, >> >>Tony (Sydney) Best wishes Richard (Canberra) I extraneously note that waiting by a bus stop in Canberra has the advantage of sometimes observing a hot air balloon float by. The hot air balloon I observed drifting by this morning was ironically sponsored by the RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 18 14:41:46 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:41:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7D439A.2030407@aol.com> Thanks to Richard for reprinting Ton's 12 cases. I also was unable to open the attachment to Ton's posting. JE richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > SERIOUS ERROR > > We present 12 cases in which an offense occurs that might create damage for > the opponents. In all cases the TD or/and AC decided that the damage was a > result of a serious error and at least for part of it not caused by the > infraction (see law 12C1(b). Generally spoken TD?s and AC?s are rather > restrained in compensating a bad score after an irregularity not > sufficiently protecting the innocent side. It seems necessary to find some > guidelines. > In all cases you are asked to decide for yourself whether the innocent side > has made a serious error resulting in self-inflicted damage. > > 1) > > West hand : > J109 > 975 > J1096 > K103 > > and has to lead against > S N > 1C 1D > 1H 2S > 2NT 3NT > > 2S is explained as natural but according to N/S agreements is 4th suit > forcing > West lead : DJ . 3NT = > West says he would have led a spade : 3NT- 1 > > > TD ruling : score stands ; even if 2S is natural, North has at least as > many diamonds as spades. In both cases, a S - lead is better than a D - > lead. > > > Is not leading a spade a serious error? > > > > > > > No serious error. > It needs something idiotic to consider the first lead as a serious error. > As leading a small card instead of A and K in another suit against 6NT or > leading 9 from KQJ9 as fourth best (example from Kaplan) . > > > > > > > > 2) > E/all 87 > KJ42 > 82 > AK743 > > AJ43 KQ1095 > Q109 A > A1053 KQJ64 > Q6 J5 > > 62 > 87653 > 97 > 10982 > > W E > 1S > 2D 4D 2?: suit, game forcing > 4S* 4NT * long hesitation but denying H control > 5H 6S > > > H lead ; South calls complaining about East?s 4NT bid. > > TD: > Score stands : it should be obvious that East has a heart control . So > leading C is more > attractive. > > > > > > > > > > No serious eror. > The issue is not whether a choice is more attractive, but whether the wrong > choice is stupid. > It is within the range of being normal to try to deceive your opponents > suggesting to have a control. And why could a heart lead not defeat the > contract even if EW have a control? The opponents are expected to have at > least a second control in any suit if they play a slam, isn?t it? > > > 3) > W/NS > ?AQJT7 > ?-- > ?KT64 > ?AKQJ > ?K ?95 > ?QJT85 ?AK9642 > ?AQ7532 ?-- > ?2 ?T8753 > ?86432 > ?73 > ?J98 > ?964 > > W N E S > 1? 1? X 2? > 3? 4? 5? pass > pass 5? ?pass pass > 6? X all pass > > East has hesitated, the 6?-bid is not obvious. > Leads : ?A and K, contract made > > > > > TD : North should have played ?A in trick 2, subsequent damage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > North could have realized that it is much more likely that West has a spade > left (Would South bid only 2? with K 6th ?), but continuing clubs is not a > stupid action. No serious error. > > > > > > > > > > 4) > N /NS > ?QJ87 > ?Q9852 > ?-- > ?Q943 > ?6 ?AK32 > ?A4 ?63 > ?KT854 ?QJ96 > ?KT876 ?AJ2 > ?T954 > ?KJT7 > ?A732 > ?5 > > W N E S > p 1NT p > 2? p 3? p > 4? p 4? p > 4NT p 5? p > 6? p 6NT p > p p > > 2? explained as transfer for ? !!; the rest of the bidding is also a mess. > South starts ?T for the A, a diamond by declarer for the A and another > spade. East collects 4 ?-tricks on which North discards among others ?3, > keeping Q94. > East now plays ?J overtaken by ?K and ?T from dummy. North plays the ?9 !! > > South will tell that he would have led a heart with the right information > (2? being a transfer for a minor according to West) . > > > TD-decision : serious error > > > > > > > > > > No doubt, this is a serious error. With Q9 over the T and the J already > played it is ?impossible? not to play the Q on the T. > There is subsequent damage. If we accept the claim for a heart lead, the > normal result would have been 4 off. > The expected result (playing ?Q) is 3 off. The difference in score between > those two results needs to be compensated. > The difference between 3 off and making is self-inflicted. > 5) > > > W/all > ?62 > ?A8 > ?AQ94 > ?AQ872 > ?JT9 ?KQ8 > ?Q643 ?KJT92 > ?52 ?K83 > ?KT84 ?J5 > ?A7543 > ?75 > ?JT76 > ?93 > > W N E S > p 1? 1? 1? > p 2? p 2NT > p 3? p 3? > p 3NT p p > X all pass > > 1? shows a least 5 spades > > 2NT requires North to bid 3? after which South wants to play 3?, but North > doesn?t alert it. > West leads ?3, East wins with the K and switches to ?K won with the A. ?J > for K, EW collect two spade tricks and switch to hearts for the ace after > which declarer makes his contract. > > > > TD decision: not continuing hearts in time is a serious error, what other > meaning than having ?Q can the lead with ?3 have? > > > > > > > > > > This is an example which can be used to introduce the ?caught in an idea? . > East listens to the auction with 2NT being ?natural? and showing ?Q. It > does not occur to him that ?Q is with his partner. That can?t be considered > to be a serious error. Apart from 2 heart tricks he sees 3 diamond tricks > and enough (?) club tricks for declarer. A spade switch to keep declarer to > 9 tricks should not be considered ridiculous. No serious error. > > > > > > > > > > 6) > S/EW > ?J96 > ?K75 > ?AQJ8 > ?Q76 > ?AQ74 ?K53 > ?Q ?JT9643 > ?963 ?72 > ?J9432 ?A5 > ?T82 > ?A82 > ?KT54 > ?KT8 > > W N E S > pass > pass 1NT 2? X > pass pass 2? X > 3? X 3? X > All pass > > 1NT shows 12 -14; 2? is not alerted The TD does not allow the 3?-bid. > South starts with ?8 for Q and A, ?3 for Q and K; ?A: ?T; ? ruffed by > East; ?J for Ace in South does not catch the ?K but plays ?4, after which > declarer makes his contract. > > ?J96 > ?7 > ?Q > ?76 > ?AQ74 ?K53 > ? ?T96 > ? ? > ?J43 ?5 > ?T82 > ?8 > ?4 > ?KT > > The TD decides that not playing ?K in this position is a serious error. > > > North has shown 12 points, which places ?K in East. The only danger is a > discard of a club in East on a possibly free spade in West. South does not > have an alternative but to play ?K. > Not playing itis a serious error. > The normal result is 3?X minus 3, the expected result is 3?X ? 1: > compensation for the difference; but no compensation for the difference > between 3?X - 1 and 3?X made. > > > > 7) > S/all screens > ?J8 > ?AKJ984 > ?Q > ?AT43 > ?K7542 ?T93 > ?T62 ?53 > ?J53 ?A642 > ?Q5 ?9872 > ?AQ6 > ?Q7 > ?KT987 > ?KJ6 > > S N E and W pass throughout. > 1NT 2? 2? GF stayman > 3? 3? 4? N to E: natural; S to W: cue > 3NT 4? > 4? 4NT first lead ?T, small in dummy won in West who returns a > club; contract > 5? 6? made. > > EW feel damaged, with the N to E info West will return a diamond, he tells. > NS cannot proof which agreement they have. > > > > > The appeal committee decides that not returning a diamond in trick 2 is a > serious error. > > > > > Here follows another consideration. If the player having a choice can show > why he made his action, this being a real possibility it can not be a > serious error. > Why can?t North have: J83 AKJ984 AQ4 4 ? given his explanation to > West? > This is by far not a serious error. So the AC made a serious error, without > consequent nor subsequent damage for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8) W/-- teams > ?A7 > ?J9 > ?AKQT52 > ?943 > ?K52 ?QJ643 > ?KQT64 ?7532 > ?76 ?4 > ?AT6 ?KQ5 > ?T98 > ?A8 > ?J983 > ?J872 > > W N E S > 1? 2? 3? 5? > X all pass > > 5?x goes for ? 500. West explained 3? as strong with heart support. South > calls the TD telling that the East hand is not his idea of being strong. He > would not have bid 5? knowing this to be a possible holding. East will > tell that 3? shows trump support and is an invite for game. > > > > Is bidding 5? by South a serious error (wild, gambling, whatever)? > > The TD decided for the answer ?yes?. > > > > > Well, 5? looks like gambling, but some calls are. Confronted with ? 420/450 > taking the risk to go for ? 500 is not a big issue. With North having Ax > xx AKxxxx Q9x there is a play for > -300. And with East being strong it might be a good strategy to cut the > bidding space. Though no bow for 5? it is not a serious error. Had NS been > vulnerable the description ?wild? for 5? comes close and could be applied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9) N/-- > ?KJT53 > ?K3 > ?AQT5 > ?A2 > ?A4 ?8762 > ?QJ94 ?A765 > ?KJ43 ?97 > ?854 ?T96 > ?Q9 > ?T82 > ?862 > ?KQJ73 > > N S (E and W pass throughout) > 1? 1NT > 3? 3? > 3? 3NT > All pass > > > West leads ?8 (with honors fourth best), won in dummy. Small spade to Q > and ?A. West continues with ?Q, K and ace and East returns a club: 3NT + > 1. > > > > After the play EW ask about the meaning of 3?. North assumed it to be > natural (he did not alert) and South meant it as conventional (asking for a > stop). > > Is not returning a heart by East in trick 4 a serious error? > > The TD and appeal committee decided for ?yes?, a serious error. > > > > > > > > > > Another example of conflicting information. South shows hearts and West > seems to have QJx? But even with QJ9 the contract is not down yet. Can?t > West have Ax QJx xxxxx KJ8? In that case the only way to beat 3NT might be > to return a club. Returning a heart gives declarer This contract with T98x > in hearts. > > > This is in no way a serious error, not by the East player it is. > > > > > > 10 N/all screens > ?J6 > ?Q3 > ?KQJ9 > ?QT754 > ?AT ?KQ42 > ?A8752 ?KT94 > ?AT8432 ?76 > ? ?983 > ?98763 > ?J6 > ?5 > ?AKJ82 > > W N E S > 1NT pass 2? > X pass pass 3? > 3? X 3? pass > pass 4? all pass > > 1NT 11 ? 14; X after 2? promised opening values with hearts; North? > first pass denied 3 card spade support. > 3? was explained as forcing by North and as non-forcing by South. > > EW called the TD after play telling that they might have reached 4? with > the explanation to East that 3? was non-forcing. The TD established that > the meaning of 3? was not clear in the NS-partnership, so he decided that > East had received wrong information. > > Is not bidding 4? by East a serious error? > > TD and later the AC decided that East should have bid 4? anyway (the AC > told East that he shoud have bid 4? in his second, third and fourth turn to > call), not bidding it had nothing to do with the wrong information and was > considered to be a serious error. > > > > > > > > > In the given situation this East will not be the only one not bidding 4?. > Why not believing North and giving West somewhat less? With x AJxxxx AQxx > xx in West 4? will not make. > This is not a serious error. > > > > > > > 11 N/NS > ?AJ73 > ?K5 > ?KT96 > ?K75 > ?Q64 ?KT85 > ?AQT84 ?J32 > ?J2 ?Q743 > ?T64 ?93 > ?92 > ?976 > ?A85 > ?AQJ82 > > W N E S > 1? pass 1NT > pass 2? pass 2? > pass 3NT all pass > > 1? Precision; 1NT 10+ balanced, 2? stayman. > > West leads ?8 and South asks about the agreements in the first lead. > Answer: ?top of nothing?. South ducks playing the 5 and loses the first 5 > tricks. > West explains that he led fourth best. > Assuming wrong information is not playing the ?K a serious error? > > > > The TD decided that not playing ?K in the first trick was a serious error. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting question. With all top honors in hearts in East the > play of ?K is useless. But one step further, not playing the ?K is > senseless anyway. The only chance to make the contract is not loosing the > first 5 tricks (at least). One could even say that asking about the meaning > of the ?8 as the first lead does not make sense, declarer has no option. > May we say that this argument should have been dominant for declarer? My > answer is ?yes?. This is a serious error. We also could ask what the > expected result is after the lead of the ?8? 9 Or to make it more > realistic: look at this board in the rama room and imagine what happens at > the moment declarer calls for a small heart from dummy. United screams of > unbelief I assume? > > > 12 W/-- teams > > > ?J6 > ?JT > ?AKQ84 > ?KJ74 > ?AT73 ?K2 > ?A653 ?KQ972 > ?32 ?JT7 > ?963 ?AQ8 > ?Q9854 > ?84 > ?965 > ?T62 > > W N E S > pass 1NT 2? 2? > 3? 3? ?pass pass > 4? X all pass > > 4? X makes. > > East hesitated before his first pass; the TD does not allow the 4? bid. > Is the double by North a serious error (wild, gambling) ? > > > The TD did not decide so (3? -3 for both sides) , but later when EW dared > to appeal this decision the AC uphold the decision for EW but considered > the double by North a serious error. (When appealing EW did not want to > double 3? but wanted 4? to be allowed). . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another case which raises some interesting questions. Would you allow West > to double 3? after the hesitation, or: is ?pass? a logical alternative (a > TD who allows the double will decide that NS is not damaged by the UI- 4? > bid) ? Is partner promising 2 defensive tricks? Probably not (give him xx > KQxxxx xx Axx), so ?yes? pass is a logical alternative. > > > What about the double by North? Does South promise anything but 5+ spades? > No, and listening to the auction he doesn?t have anything but 5+ in spades. > If we consider the double as acceptable it becomes a free shot, removed by > the TD in the likely case that he does not allow the 4? bid. It is gambling > without a relation to the irregularity, on the contrary, East sounds > stronger than without his hesitation. Decide to call the double a serious > error. Normal result 3? -3, expected result 4? made and compensation for > the difference. The actual result is 4?X made and there is no compensation > for the difference with 4? made. > > > Conclusion: > > > > TD?s and AC tend to have a severe judgment when looking at actions by the > non-offending side. They do not succeed in imagining the problem the > innocent is confronted with. > > The approach in the laws is such that it allows the non offending side to > make errors ? even big ones- without effecting the adjusted score to be > given. > > A choice should be considered to create a serious error if it is not > considered to be an option by even a few players of comparable strength of > whom nobody would choose it. > Such choice if not successful creates damage that will not be compensated > in an adjusted score (subsequent damage: the difference between the > expected result after the infraction and the actual result) . > > We might adopt another principle, especially for the non-offenders in > defense: if it is possible to compose a realistic opponent or partner > hand, using the information available at that moment, with which the actual > play can be justified it should not be considered to be a serious error. > > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 18 17:31:30 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:31:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and Concessions In-Reply-To: <4B7D439A.2030407@aol.com> References: <4B7D439A.2030407@aol.com> Message-ID: wherein I argue for "immediately obvious" as a criterion. Consider this claim A AK 6 -- This is the dummy at no trump. Declarer claims, stating that he has two heart tricks. I think we give him the ace of spades. It is irrational after cashing two hearts to play a diamond rather than the ace of spades. Change the dummy to 6 AK 6 -- The claim is the same, stating two heart tricks. In this case, three rounds of spades have been played with everyone following, making the 6 of spades good. In this case, I am guessing that we do not give declarer the 6 of spades. It is irrational to play the six of diamonds if declarer knows the 6 of spades is good. But with careless player, declarer might not know the 6 of spades is good. Then playing either 6 is rational. It is worthwhile to redo these two examples assuming declarer showed his cards and made no claiming statement. In the second case, the question is whether declarer is to be given knowledge that could have been gleaned from the play but was not displayed in the claim or claiming statement. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 18 22:17:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:17:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and Concessions In-Reply-To: References: <4B7D439A.2030407@aol.com> Message-ID: On Feb 18, 2010, at 11:31 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > wherein I argue for "immediately obvious" as a criterion. > > Consider this claim > > A > AK > 6 > -- > > This is the dummy at no trump. Declarer claims, stating that he has > two > heart tricks. > > I think we give him the ace of spades. It is irrational after > cashing two > hearts to play a diamond rather than the ace of spades. > > Change the dummy to > > 6 > AK > 6 > -- > > The claim is the same, stating two heart tricks. In this case, three > rounds of spades have been played with everyone following, making > the 6 of > spades good. > > In this case, I am guessing that we do not give declarer the 6 of > spades. > It is irrational to play the six of diamonds if declarer knows the > 6 of > spades is good. But with careless player, declarer might not know > the 6 of > spades is good. Then playing either 6 is rational. Well, yes, it does feel right to just say that it would be irrational to play the D6 instead of the good SA and lose two tricks, but not irrational to play the D6 instead of the good S6 and lose two tricks. The problem with that is that it begs us to address seven more questions -- substituting the S7, S8, S9, S10, SJ, SQ and SK -- and at some point our feeling of rightness -- in either direction -- will surely desert us. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 18 23:13:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:13:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 3) W/NS AQJT7 --- KT64 AKQJ K 95 QJT85 AK9642 AQ7532 --- 2 T8753 86432 73 J98 964 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D 1S X 2S 3H 4S 5H Pass Pass 5S ...Pass Pass 6H X Pass Pass Pass East has hesitated, the 6H-bid is not obvious. Leads : CA and CK, contract made TD : North should have played SA in trick 2, subsequent damage Ton Kooijman: >>North could have realized that it is much more likely that >>West has a spade left (would South bid only 2S with K 6th?), >>but continuing clubs is not a stupid action. >> >>No serious error. Harald Skj?ran: >I agree with Ton on all cases, except number 3. IMO, not >cashing the spade ace at trick two is a serious error. > >I've never seen anyone make a simple raise to 2S with 6-card >support, and I strongly doubt I ever will. Richard Hills: Obviously Harald has never played bridge against a novice. I have never seen a non-novice make a simple raise to 2S with 5-card support. Nor have I seen a non-novice fail to give a count signal in clubs at trick one when defending a similar contract. Ergo, if South is a novice who might hold six spades and might leave North in the dark as to the club distribution, North's defence was not a serious error. However, it may be a serious error for the expert North to allow himself to be sponsored by the novice South; no amount of money can compensate for the aggravation caused by having a complete guess on each deal. For example, Australia's most successful player of 2009 (both in masterpoints gained and major events won) is notoriously unflappable in temperament with a cool and dry sense of humour. But last night in a qualifying session of the Canberra Mixed Pairs he became slightly warm with a wet sense of humour as his sponsor dragged him to a 37% score. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 18 23:33:16 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:33:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] 3) W/NS AQJT7 --- KT64 AKQJ K 95 QJT85 AK9642 AQ7532 --- 2 T8753 86432 73 J98 964 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D 1S X 2S 3H 4S 5H Pass Pass 5S ...Pass Pass 6H X Pass Pass Pass East has hesitated, the 6H-bid is not obvious. Leads : CA and CK, contract made TD : North should have played SA in trick 2, subsequent damage Ton Kooijman: >>North could have realized that it is much more likely that >>West has a spade left (would South bid only 2S with K 6th?), >>but continuing clubs is not a stupid action. >> >>No serious error. < +=+ South should show length on the first trick. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 19 01:35:37 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:35:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims and Concessions In-Reply-To: References: <4B7D439A.2030407@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:17:26 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 18, 2010, at 11:31 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > >> wherein I argue for "immediately obvious" as a criterion. >> >> Consider this claim >> >> A >> AK >> 6 >> -- >> >> This is the dummy at no trump. Declarer claims, stating that he has >> two >> heart tricks. >> >> I think we give him the ace of spades. It is irrational after >> cashing two >> hearts to play a diamond rather than the ace of spades. >> >> Change the dummy to >> >> 6 >> AK >> 6 >> -- >> >> The claim is the same, stating two heart tricks. In this case, three >> rounds of spades have been played with everyone following, making >> the 6 of >> spades good. >> >> In this case, I am guessing that we do not give declarer the 6 of >> spades. >> It is irrational to play the six of diamonds if declarer knows the >> 6 of >> spades is good. But with careless player, declarer might not know >> the 6 of >> spades is good. Then playing either 6 is rational. > > Well, yes, it does feel right to just say that it would be irrational > to play the D6 instead of the good SA and lose two tricks, but not > irrational to play the D6 instead of the good S6 and lose two > tricks. The problem with that is that it begs us to address seven > more questions -- substituting the S7, S8, S9, S10, SJ, SQ and SK -- > and at some point our feeling of rightness -- in either direction -- > will surely desert us. I think this points right to the heart of the problem with my argument. But..... If the line is somewhere in the middle, no laws can ever capture where the line should be. I am not sure what the solution is. We look at the quality of player and decide whether he/she knew the Q was high and just forgot to mention it? The only definable line I can see is between the ace and the king. It is irrational not to play the ace. If the player doesn't realize the king is high, because of inatentiveness or forgetfulness, it is not irrational to not play the king. Also, just for completeness, I can change the problem so that the inattentiveness occurs after the claim. Declarer claims, saying he will play the three spade winners from his hand and then the two heart winners from the board. xxxx AK K -- AKQ xx xx Spades are breaking 3-3 and the ace of diamonds is still out. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 19 01:39:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:39:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: H.L. Mencken (1880-1956): "Has the invention of printing been good or bad? I haven't the slightest idea and neither has anyone else. As well ask whether it was a good or bad plan to give over so much of the world's space to oceans." Grattan Endicott: +=+ South should show length on the first trick. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Declarer has played the deuce of clubs, leaving the outstanding club pips of 9, 6 and 4. It is possible that the North-South carding agreement at Trick One might be: (a) When holding 964 tripleton, play the 6. (b) When holding 96 doubleton, play the 6. (c) When holding 6 singleton, play the 6. While this means that the play of the 6 at Trick One gives no useful information to partner, there are compensating negative inferences that the play of the 4 at Trick One promises no more than a doubleton, and the play of the 9 at Trick One guarantees a singleton. For what it is worth, I prefer the extremely old- fashioned count method of low from a tripleton, high from a doubleton, and middle from a singleton. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 19 03:00:07 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:00:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <232D43BDBF474E1EA672D3E478C769CC@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > H.L. Mencken (1880-1956): > > "Has the invention of printing been good or bad? I > haven't the slightest idea and neither has anyone > else. As well ask whether it was a good or bad plan > to give over so much of the world's space to oceans." > > Grattan Endicott: > > +=+ South should show length on the first trick. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Declarer has played the deuce of clubs, leaving the > outstanding club pips of 9, 6 and 4. > > It is possible that the North-South carding agreement > at Trick One might be: > > (a) When holding 964 tripleton, play the 6. > (b) When holding 96 doubleton, play the 6. > (c) When holding 6 singleton, play the 6. > > While this means that the play of the 6 at Trick One > gives no useful information to partner, there are > compensating negative inferences that the play of the > 4 at Trick One promises no more than a doubleton, and > the play of the 9 at Trick One guarantees a singleton. > > For what it is worth, I prefer the extremely old- > fashioned count method of low from a tripleton, high > from a doubleton, and middle from a singleton. > +=+ We are agreed, I think, their method is something the Director might enquire about before ruling ..... .... mind you, in my partnerships it was expected that partner, following to the trick, would do the useful thing. ..... and I doubt any of us is believing declarer has three small in the suit...... in which case the hope is that the defence's signalling arrangements do not call for the same card from a doubleton as from three. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 19 03:59:34 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:59:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <232D43BDBF474E1EA672D3E478C769CC@Mildred> References: <232D43BDBF474E1EA672D3E478C769CC@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001cab10f$9108a890$b319f9b0$@com> [GE] ...in which case the hope is that the defence's signalling arrangements do not call for the same card from a doubleton as from three. [DALB] If I understand Ton's position, failure to observe and draw the correct conclusions from partner's putative signal would almost never constitute a "serious error [unrelated to the infraction]". One may, for example, be "caught in an idea" to such an extent that defending a doubled contract like a complete idiot in order to prevent it from making an overtrick is not considered a "serious error". As with the Laws relating to claims, the difficulty lies in trying to establish some dividing line between the stupid and the very stupid; moreover, one has to find words ("legalese") that make this distinction clear. In a number of Ton's cases, the plays in question would certainly constitute serious errors - if those plays were made in situations where no irregularity had occurred, there would be no other way to describe them, which is why the TD or the AC ruled as they did. But the plays do not constitute "serious errors" within the (apparent) intent of the Law: that is, one may make a serious error without making a "serious error". I have a great deal more sympathy with the Lawmakers in the matter of "serious errors" than in the matter of claims (it would, of course, be impossible for me to have less). While I personally think it repugnant to the nature of the game that you can stop trying to play bridge just because one of your opponents did something that was based on UI or told you some lies about his partnership's methods, I recognise that use of UI or misexplanation of system frequently create unnatural pressures to which you should not be subjected. In the good old days, I just used to give everyone a bottom - one of my first rulings as chair of an AC in a national event involved awarding both pairs minus 670, since North-South had cheated by removing a slow double of 2S (which would have made) to 3C doubled (which ought to have gone down three, but was permitted to make by a defence not very much better than some of the performances in Ton's paper). Now, of course, I would subtract the damage done through irregularity from the damage done through irrationality, divide by two (or three, if I felt so inclined because no one would notice anyway) and get to the pub half an hour later than everybody else as usual. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 19 04:37:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:37:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Lore & E-thinks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Underground, overground, Wombling free. The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we. E-posting of EBU Law & Ethics Committee draft minutes, January 21st 2010 http://www.ebu.co.uk/general/frontpage/minutes.htm 4 Disciplinary Cases [snip] 4.4 Enquiry from another NBO The secretary of the L&E was approached by phone and letter from a resident in another NBO asking the L&E to comment on an issue which had arisen. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the L&E confirmed that it would be inappropriate to offer an opinion in such a situation and referred the person to the Laws and Ethics Committee of the NBO to deal with the case. The EBU L&E Committee would only become involved if asked to do so by the NBO. Should a similar request be received from a member of any other NBO the person would be referred to that country's NBO. [snip] In both cases 4.5 and 4.6 it was agreed to write to the Chairman of the Club involved advising him of the outcomes and advising him that the club's constitution was the chief cause of both enquiries coming to the EBU in the first place. ACTION: JP and JD [snip] 4.9 Ban enforced by another NBO The secretary reported a phone call from another country regarding the status of a player banned in England. The secretary said that under the terms of our membership of the EBL the EBU was required to notify the EBL of any ban which had been done. The EBL in turn sent details to all other NBOs in Europe who were expected to uphold the ban and this has recently happened. As a common problem is unclear disciplinary procedures, Frances offered a copy of the recently developed Wimbledon Bridge Club disciplinary procedure for consideration as more general guidance. Martin Pool and the Secretary requested a copy. * * * Wimbledon Bridge Club http://www.wimbledonbridgeclub.co.uk/ Best Behaviour at Bridge Bridge is an extremely enjoyable game. Courteous behaviour is an exceptionally important part of that enjoyment. This guide serves as a brief reminder of how to behave at the bridge table. We are sure that all players naturally follow this code of conduct but there are times when concentration and pressure can take their toll and it is for these situations that we issue this as a reminder. Greet others in a friendly manner prior to start of play on each round. Be a good "host" or "guest" at the table. Fill in your convention card completely and make it readily available to your opponents. Make bridge enjoyable for yourself, partner and opponents. Give credit when opponents make a good bid or play. Take care of your personal grooming. Ensure that your mobile phone is turned off. Enjoy the company as well as the game. Remember that it is rude to criticise your partner or opponents in public, to be less than polite at the table, to gloat over good results or object to a call for the tournament director or to dispute or argue about a director's ruling. Please call the director if you think you may have been affected by bad behaviour. You will be helping others as well as yourselve As in all games that are governed by rules and regulations, bad behaviour will be penalised ..... If a player at the table behaves in an unacceptable manner, the director should be called immediately. Annoying behaviour, embarrassing remarks, or any other conduct which might interfere with the enjoyment of the game is specifically prohibited by Law 74A. Law 91A gives the director the authority to assess disciplinary penalties. This can include immediate disciplinary board penalties, and if a future violation is incurred at the same event, disqualification from future competition in that event. The guilty party or parties will be deemed not to have played in that event. No masterpoints will be awarded and no refunds received. Any further violations may result in a disciplinary hearing where the player(s) future participation in tournaments will be considered. A Best Behaviour Report Form shall be available for players to report incidents which occur away from the table; and for directors to document complaints and action taken. ..... enjoy your game! With thanks to the ACBL for the work they have done in this area. * * * Wimbledon Bridge Club http://www.wimbledonbridgeclub.co.uk/ Behaviour Procedures THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES RELATE TO BEHAVIOURAL INCIDENTS TAKING PLACE IN WIMBLEDON BRIDGE CLUB 1. Players to call the Director at the time of the incident. If the Director is not called at the time no further action can be taken. 2. Director to follow the Best Behaviour at Bridge guidelines. 3. Only potential behavioural issues should be recorded in a "behavioural incident book", to be kept locked in the directors' drawer. The entry should record details including the date of the incident, the names of the four players at the table and the positions in which they were playing. Every incident should be recorded separately, each starting on a new page. The member(s) involved in the complaint should be advised that the incident and their names have been recorded and of their right to read the entry, and they may write a comment if desired. The Manager should also be advised of the entry in the book. 4. All appeals to be heard at the end of the session if at all possible or as soon afterwards as may be conveniently arranged. 5. Written complaints should be sent to the Manager or committee. The director who made the entry of the complaint in the "behavioural incident book" will be consulted as soon as the written complaint is received. 6. The complaint will be acknowledged by the Manager or committee within one week of receipt, and the complainant will be kept up to date as appropriate. 7. The complaint will then be considered by the manager and the committee who will put forward suggestions for dealing with the complaint. The committee will decide the way forward. No one person can make the decision. If three players make a complaint about the same incident there must be a hearing. 8. If appropriate at this stage, the complainant will be notified that the complaint is being considered and advised of the procedure that will be followed. Notification will take place on a timely basis which shall not exceed three weeks from the receipt of the complaint. 9. Should it become necessary to have a disciplinary hearing at least three members of the committee will be appointed to the disciplinary panel and 14 days notice will be given to all parties involved. The hearing date can be brought forward if all parties are in agreement. A choice of times and dates should be given for the hearing. The hearing will usually take place at the Club but could be held elsewhere by mutual agreement. It should be made clear that if an individual fails to attend the hearing, it may proceed and a decision taken in their absence. 10. There should always be three members of the Committee available for a disciplinary hearing and to hear any subsequent Appeal if required. There should be an odd number on both committees and if necessary a trustee or retired club official should be co-opted to the disciplinary or appeal panel. The panel will elect a chairman. That chairman will ensure that procedure is followed; that all parties are advised of their rights and responsibilities; and he and the panel will verify and examine all the facts, including witness statements and any other information considered by the panel to be relevant. 11. At the hearing, the member, who may be accompanied by a friend, must be allowed to offer an explanation of his or her conduct either orally or in writing. No other person shall attend unless specifically invited by the panel to do so. 12. If the complaint is made by or against a member of the committee, that member shall take no part in the Committee's deliberations. Furthermore, if the complaint is made by or against a member of the committee, the panel must include at least two non-committee members to ensure impartiality. 13. The disciplinary panel may take such action on the complaint as it considers appropriate, including but without limiting its powers:- (a) Suspension of the member from membership for a period of not more than six months starting on such date as it decides within one month of the date of its decision, (b) On a vote of two thirds of the panel, the expulsion of the member, in which case the member will immediately cease to be a member of the Club. 14. All parties will receive a letter notifying them of the outcome of the hearing. 15. A notice will be posted in the Club advising members of the outcome of the hearing if appropriate. 16. The management and committee members must be notified immediately of the decision of the hearing. The actual details of the hearing must be kept confidential so as not to prejudice the ability of the other committee members to serve on a possible appeal committee. Appeals An Appeal must be lodged in writing, and delivered to the Management or Committee within one week of the notification to the member of the decision of the Disciplinary Hearing. An appeal panel will be appointed by the Committee. If necessary, a trustee or retired club official should be co- opted to the disciplinary panel. All members of the committee, management, and parties involved must be notified. The Appeal should be heard within three weeks of the appeal being lodged. A notice should be posted in the Club advising of the Appeal if deemed appropriate. The Appeal should be heard in accordance with the guidelines for disciplinary hearings. December 2009 Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 19 05:55:04 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:55:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cab10f$9108a890$b319f9b0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: >.....North-South had cheated by removing a slow double of >2S (which would have made)..... Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "Cheat, v.t. & i. Trick, deceive, deal fraudulently" Richard Hills: When a player removes their partner's slooow double, no-one is tricked or deceived as to the likely motive. One can only deal fraudulently if the victim is unaware as to what is going on. Different Laws apply to these different scenarios - ranked downwards, in order of seriousness, from the "gravest possible" (a) to the "irrelevant" (e1 & e2) to the "trivial" (f) and the "legal" (g): (a) Pre-arranged intentional infractions carried out secretly - Law 73B2. (b) Spur-of-the-moment intentional infractions carried out secretly - Law 72B1. (c) Spur-of-the-moment unintentional infractions carried out secretly, then later intentionally and illegally kept secret - Law 72B3. (d) Spur-of-the-moment intentional infractions carried out openly - Law 72B1.* (e1) Spur-of-the-moment intentional misjudgement of legal logical alternatives carried out openly - Laws 73C and 16.* (e2) Spur-of-the-moment unintentional misjudgement of legal logical alternatives carried out openly - Laws 73C and 16.* (f) Pre-arranged unintentional infractions carried out openly (e.g. the fabled Little Old Ladies who carefully wrote on their System Cards "We lead singletons with our left hands", or the fabled Herman De Wael who carefully announces to all and sundry that he plays what he considers is not a Highly Unusual Method) - Law 72A. (g) Spur-of-the-moment unintentional infractions carried out secretly, then later intentionally and legally kept secret - Law 72B2. * It is irrelevant to Laws 73C and 16 rulings whether or not the infractions were intentional. But the Director may award a Law 90 PP if she is satisfied Law 72B1 applies. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Feb 19 10:09:52 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:09:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 18 February 2010 23:13, wrote: > 3) > W/NS > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AQJT7 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? KT64 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AKQJ > K ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?95 > QJT85 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AK9642 > AQ7532 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?T8753 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 86432 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 73 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? J98 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 964 > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > 1D ? ? ? ?1S ? ? ? ?X ? ? ? ? 2S > 3H ? ? ? ?4S ? ? ? ?5H ? ? ? ?Pass > Pass ? ? ?5S ? ? ? ?...Pass ? Pass > 6H ? ? ? ?X ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?Pass > Pass > > East has hesitated, the 6H-bid is not obvious. > Leads : ?CA and CK, ?contract made > > TD : North should have played SA in trick 2, subsequent damage > > Ton Kooijman: > >>>North could have realized that it is much more likely that >>>West has a spade left (would South bid only 2S with K 6th?), >>>but continuing clubs is not a stupid action. >>> >>>No serious error. > > Harald Skj?ran: > >>I agree with Ton on all cases, except number 3. IMO, not >>cashing the spade ace at trick two is a serious error. >> >>I've never seen anyone make a simple raise to 2S with 6-card >>support, and I strongly doubt I ever will. > > Richard Hills: > > Obviously Harald has never played bridge against a novice. Balderdash. Of course I have. But I strongly doubt Ton gives us exampes with novice players. :-) > > I have never seen a non-novice make a simple raise to 2S with > 5-card support. I have. I even have made a simple raise to 2S with 5-card support a couple of times myself. When my hand and the vulnerability calls for it. It's very rare, though. >?Nor have I seen a non-novice fail to give a > count signal in clubs at trick one when defending a similar > contract. Actually, this is not a position where most top players in Norway give count. It's normal to signal attitude. And I'd play the highest club from a 3-card holding here. North would read my card as eihter the highest from three small or a singleton. >?Ergo, if South is a novice who might hold six spades > and might leave North in the dark as to the club distribution, > North's defence was not a serious error. > > However, it may be a serious error for the expert North to > allow himself to be sponsored by the novice South; no amount of > money can compensate for the aggravation caused by having a > complete guess on each deal. > > For example, Australia's most successful player of 2009 (both > in masterpoints gained and major events won) is notoriously > unflappable in temperament with a cool and dry sense of humour. > But last night in a qualifying session of the Canberra Mixed > Pairs he became slightly warm with a wet sense of humour as his > sponsor dragged him to a 37% score. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 19 11:22:13 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:22:13 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <232D43BDBF474E1EA672D3E478C769CC@Mildred> <000001cab10f$9108a890$b319f9b0$@com> Message-ID: <3B9745E48BB8401DA4FEE1F8F73964D6@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [GE] > > ...in which case the hope is that the defence's signalling arrangements do > not call for the same card from a doubleton as from three. > > [DALB] > > If I understand Ton's position, failure to observe and draw the correct > conclusions from partner's putative signal would almost never constitute a > "serious error [unrelated to the infraction]". One may, for example, be > "caught in an idea" to such an extent that defending a doubled contract > like > a complete idiot in order to prevent it from making an overtrick is not > considered a "serious error". > > As with the Laws relating to claims, the difficulty lies in trying to > establish some dividing line between the stupid and the very stupid; > moreover, one has to find words ("legalese") that make this distinction > clear. In a number of Ton's cases, the plays in question would certainly > constitute serious errors - if those plays were made in situations where > no > irregularity had occurred, there would be no other way to describe them, > which is why the TD or the AC ruled as they did. But the plays do not > constitute "serious errors" within the (apparent) intent of the Law: that > is, one may make a serious error without making a "serious error". > > I have a great deal more sympathy with the Lawmakers in the matter of > "serious errors" than in the matter of claims (it would, of course, be > impossible for me to have less). While I personally think it repugnant to > the nature of the game that you can stop trying to play bridge just > because > one of your opponents did something that was based on UI or told you some > lies about his partnership's methods, I recognise that use of UI or > misexplanation of system frequently create unnatural pressures to which > you > should not be subjected. > > In the good old days, I just used to give everyone a bottom - one of my > first rulings as chair of an AC in a national event involved awarding both > pairs minus 670, since North-South had cheated by removing a slow double > of > 2S (which would have made) to 3C doubled (which ought to have gone down > three, but was permitted to make by a defence not very much better than > some > of the performances in Ton's paper). Now, of course, I would subtract the > damage done through irregularity from the damage done through > irrationality, > divide by two (or three, if I felt so inclined because no one would notice > anyway) and get to the pub half an hour later than everybody else as > usual. > +=+ South, however, having shown an odd rather than an even number of cards in the suit, will regard North's play of a second club as supremely stupid and will consider North wholly responsible for the bad result. Of course, in a crude, inexperienced and unsophisticated partnership such an issue may well not arise. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 19 15:46:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:46:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6FA92545-50E1-4860-8A7D-92EA1E4EAF78@starpower.net> On Feb 18, 2010, at 5:33 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: > > 3) > W/NS > AQJT7 > --- > KT64 > AKQJ > K 95 > QJT85 AK9642 > AQ7532 --- > 2 T8753 > 86432 > 73 > J98 > 964 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D 1S X 2S > 3H 4S 5H Pass > Pass 5S ...Pass Pass > 6H X Pass Pass > Pass > > East has hesitated, the 6H-bid is not obvious. > Leads : CA and CK, contract made > > TD : North should have played SA in trick 2, subsequent damage > > Ton Kooijman: > >>> North could have realized that it is much more likely that >>> West has a spade left (would South bid only 2S with K 6th?), >>> but continuing clubs is not a stupid action. >>> >>> No serious error. > > +=+ South should show length on the first trick. That's a lot clearer in hindsight. North has not shown club length, and South must decide whether to play (presumably) low to show an odd number or high to discourage a shift. North must then decide whether South's card was encouraging or a length signal. No problem when you see all four hands. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 21 23:37:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:37:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the Introduction to his classic book "Killing Defence at Bridge", Hugh Kelsey wrote that he had considered publishing it under the pseudonym of Osbert Sitting, so that the book could be referred to as Sitting on Defence. Harald Skj?ran: >>Actually, this is not a position where most top players in Norway >>give count. It's normal to signal attitude. And I'd play the >>highest club from a 3-card holding here. >> >>North would read my card as either the highest from three small >>or a singleton. Richard Hills: Technical quibble. What Norwegians call "count" and "attitude", Aussies call "reverse count" and "reverse attitude". And if Harald _always_ plays high from three small and _always_ plays low from a doubleton in this situation, then Harald is giving a (reverse) count signal, _not_ a (reverse) attitude signal. Eric Landau: >...South must decide whether to play (presumably) low to show an >odd number or high to discourage a shift. North must then decide >whether South's card was encouraging or a length signal. No >problem when you see all four hands. Richard Hills: A popular agreement is, "I will either give a count signal, or I will give an attitude signal, whichever I feel is more useful to you; you will then have to decipher which I intended". This popular agreement is Not My Cup Of Tea. Firstly, I have a personal bias against thinking at the bridge table, so I prefer unambiguous signals from pard. Secondly, I have a personal bias against my logical alternatives being limited by pard qckly giving a count signal or slooowly giving an attitude signal. The most successful Australian bridge player of 2009 (and winner of Australia's most prestigious teams event in 2010), Arjuna De Livera, always gives count signals at all times and in all circumstances. So any ambiguities in De Livera - Robinson defences are caused exclusively by declarer's false cards, not by the partnership's defensive methods themselves. For what it is worth, in Hugh Kelsey's sequel "More Killing Defence at Bridge", every second chapter is about count. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Feb 22 11:29:15 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:29:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 Feb 2010, at 22:37, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Technical quibble. What Norwegians call "count" and "attitude", > Aussies call "reverse count" and "reverse attitude". I thought it was quite common for them to play standard count and reverse attitude. > > And if Harald _always_ plays high from three small and _always_ > plays low from a doubleton in this situation, then Harald is > giving a (reverse) count signal, _not_ a (reverse) attitude signal. More significant is what he plays from four small. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100222/22d583d6/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Feb 22 11:30:24 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:30:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 February 2010 23:37, wrote: > In the Introduction to his classic book "Killing Defence at > Bridge", Hugh Kelsey wrote that he had considered publishing it > under the pseudonym of Osbert Sitting, so that the book could be > referred to as Sitting on Defence. > > Harald Skj?ran: > >>>Actually, this is not a position where most top players in Norway >>>give count. It's normal to signal attitude. And I'd play the >>>highest club from a 3-card holding here. >>> >>>North would read my card as either the highest from three small >>>or a singleton. > > Richard Hills: > > Technical quibble. ?What Norwegians call "count" and "attitude", > Aussies call "reverse count" and "reverse attitude". > > And if Harald _always_ plays high from three small and _always_ > plays low from a doubleton in this situation, then Harald is > giving a (reverse) count signal, _not_ a (reverse) attitude signal. Not true, since I also play high from four small, whereas one would play low giving reverse count. I also play low from queen third, normally. And I might play low from three small if I wanted partner to continue the suit. > > Eric Landau: > >>...South must decide whether to play (presumably) low to show an >>odd number or high to discourage a shift. ?North must then decide >>whether South's card was encouraging or a length signal. ?No >>problem when you see all four hands. > > Richard Hills: > > A popular agreement is, "I will either give a count signal, or I > will give an attitude signal, whichever I feel is more useful to > you; you will then have to decipher which I intended". > > This popular agreement is Not My Cup Of Tea. ?Firstly, I have a > personal bias against thinking at the bridge table, so I prefer > unambiguous signals from pard. ?Secondly, I have a personal bias > against my logical alternatives being limited by pard qckly giving > a count signal or slooowly giving an attitude signal. > > The most successful Australian bridge player of 2009 (and winner of > Australia's most prestigious teams event in 2010), Arjuna De > Livera, always gives count signals at all times and in all > circumstances. I know a few Norwegians doing the same. I prefer attitude signals in some situations (normally on partners opening lead and first discard). I also play the Smith signal (reverse) in NT, and lavinthal in obvious situations. Except from those situations, I give count (or not). > So any ambiguities in De Livera - Robinson defences > are caused exclusively by declarer's false cards, not by the > partnership's defensive methods themselves. > > For what it is worth, in Hugh Kelsey's sequel "More Killing Defence > at Bridge", every second chapter is about count. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Feb 22 16:51:53 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:51:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22 February 2010 11:29, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 21 Feb 2010, at 22:37, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Technical quibble.? What Norwegians call "count" and "attitude", > Aussies call "reverse count" and "reverse attitude". > > I thought it was quite common for them to play standard count and reverse > attitude. Yes, that's Norwegian expert standard. > > And if Harald _always_ plays high from three small and _always_ > plays low from a doubleton in this situation, then Harald is > giving a (reverse) count signal, _not_ a (reverse) attitude signal. > > More significant is what he plays from four small. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 22 17:47:04 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:47:04 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <232D43BDBF474E1EA672D3E478C769CC@Mildred> <000001cab10f$9108a890$b319f9b0$@com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [GE] > > ...in which case the hope is that the defence's signalling arrangements do > not call for the same card from a doubleton as from three. > > [DALB] > > If I understand Ton's position, failure to observe and draw the correct > conclusions from partner's putative signal would almost never constitute a > "serious error [unrelated to the infraction]". One may, for example, be > "caught in an idea" to such an extent that defending a doubled contract > like > a complete idiot in order to prevent it from making an overtrick is not > considered a "serious error". > +=+ I would expect any practised partnership to know that when cashing out against a slam what partner needs to know almost invariably is the distribution of suits. I would believe it standard in such partnerships to show length (and if he cashes an Ace in a suit where we have King, the encouraging signal needs to be of stand- out magnitude). In my view it is serious error in a partnership that has developed experience of methods to try to cash the uncashable when length has been communicated. You think I am too harsh? John Hill, Peter Morley, Russell Kennedy, Colin Morley, Ken Barbour would not forgive me if I did it to them (and have no sympathy if the Director ruled my error 'serious'). ~Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 22 22:26:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:26:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009, item 6: "What is commonly termed a 'double shot' is a gambling action within the meaning of Law 12C1(b) - as previously affirmed in the minutes of 30th August 1998. In reference to this same law, the standard for judging a 'serious error' must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant. These considerations arise after an adjusted score has been awarded when the Director is thinking of a split score, taking away the adjustment (wholly or in part) from the non-offending side." Grattan Endicott, standard and well-judged serious post: +=+ I would expect any practised partnership to know that when cashing out against a slam what partner needs to know almost invariably is the distribution of suits. I would believe it standard in such partnerships to show length Richard Hills, wild or gambling post: >>And if Harald _always_ plays high from three small and _always_ >>plays low from a doubleton in this situation, then Harald is >>giving a (reverse) count signal, _not_ a (reverse) attitude signal. Harald Skj?ran, non-standard but calibrated post: >Not true, since I also play high from four small, whereas one would >play low giving reverse count. Grattan Endicott, standard and well-judged serious post: [snip] In my view it is serious error in a partnership that has developed experience of methods to try to cash the uncashable when length has been communicated. You think I am too harsh? John Hill, Peter Morley, Russell Kennedy, Colin Morley, Ken Barbour would not forgive me if I did it to them (and have no sympathy if the Director ruled my error 'serious'). ~Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 23 01:20:52 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:20:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <2541063A2F544902B69D69EB2E5C5F57@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009, item 6: "What is commonly termed a 'double shot' is a gambling action within the meaning of Law 12C1(b) - as previously affirmed in the minutes of 30th August 1998. In reference to this same law, the standard for judging a 'serious error' must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant. These considerations arise after an adjusted score has been awarded when the Director is thinking of a split score, taking away the adjustment (wholly or in part) from the non-offending side." Grattan Endicott, standard and well-judged serious post: +=+ I would expect any practised partnership to know that when cashing out against a slam what partner needs to know almost invariably is the distribution of suits. I would believe it standard in such partnerships to show length Richard Hills, wild or gambling post: >>And if Harald _always_ plays high from three small and _always_ >>plays low from a doubleton in this situation, then Harald is >>giving a (reverse) count signal, _not_ a (reverse) attitude signal. Harald Skj?ran, non-standard but calibrated post: >Not true, since I also play high from four small, whereas one would >play low giving reverse count. Grattan Endicott, standard and well-judged serious post: [snip] In my view it is serious error in a partnership that has developed experience of methods to try to cash the uncashable when length has been communicated. You think I am too harsh? John Hill, Peter Morley, Russell Kennedy, Colin Morley, Ken Barbour would not forgive me if I did it to them (and have no sympathy if the Director ruled my error 'serious'). ~Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard Hills, +=+ In the example that this thread attached to I think that upon completion of the first trick leader will know that partner had four..... ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 23 23:52:49 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:52:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ogden Nash (1902-1971): I give you now Professor Twist, A conscientious scientist. Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!" And sent him off to distant jungles. Camped on a tropic riverside, One day he missed his loving bride. She had, the guide informed him later, Been eaten by an alligator. Professor Twist could not but smile. "You mean," he said, "a crocodile." Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H X 1S Pass 2D Pass 2H ? You, West, hold: J9743 K96 9 T942 What call do you make? What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jrmayne at mindspring.com Wed Feb 24 00:01:42 2010 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:01:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <14661638.1266966102695.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1H X 1S >Pass 2D Pass 2H >? > >You, West, hold: > >J9743 >K96 >9 >T942 > >What call do you make? 2S. This is natural and weakish. >What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? Partner tanked over 2D. --JRM From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 24 01:06:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:06:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <14661638.1266966102695.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2C758171BBC7445E912104B321421C2B@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > -----Original Message----- >>From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >> >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: North >>Vul: East-West >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1H X 1S >>Pass 2D Pass 2H >>? >> >>You, West, hold: >> >>J9743 >>K96 >>9 >>T942 >> >>What call do you make? > > 2S. This is natural and weakish. > >>What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? > > Partner tanked over 2D. > > --JRM > +=+ 2S has to be tankless ~ G ~ +=+ From adam at tameware.com Wed Feb 24 01:14:25 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:14:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Fall 2005 NABC casebook online Message-ID: <694eadd41002231614j7068de43na6138d78e8c7d94c@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to Jeff Easterson I've been able to place a scanned copy of the Fall 2005 Casebook from Denver online. It should be posted on the ACBL web site?shortly. If you notice any missing pages or other issues please drop me a line. Likewise please let me know if you prepare a searchable version using OCR. ??http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 24 01:59:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:59:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ogden Nash (1902-1971): I give you now Professor Twist, A conscientious scientist. Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!" And sent him off to distant jungles. Camped on a tropic riverside, One day he missed his loving bride. She had, the guide informed him later, Been eaten by an alligator. Professor Twist could not but smile. "You mean," he said, "a crocodile." John (MadDog) Probst, June 2004: >>>Gordon, please don't tell me that you think this >>>is remotely close to a takeout double. As I >>>said (depending on the dramatis personnae) I'm >>>willing to gamble on the psyche. I've had >>>bottoms before when opponents have their calls >>>and I thought they hadn't, and it'll happen >>>again. It's matchpoints and I don't play for >>>averages :) But as I said, Pass is way better >>>than 2S - If you *have* to bid make the LOTT >>>call and await developments. >>> >>>On t'other side of the coin, on one occasion the >>>TD got called because I DID have the 1S response >>>:) cheers John Richard Hills, February 2010: Yes, MadDog actually holding spades in the classic baby psyche position of 1H - X - 1S must in and of itself be a psyche, since spade length is a "gross misstatement" of the spade shortness that all three opponents expect. What call do you make? John R. Mayne, February 2010: >>2S. This is natural and weakish. Richard Hills, February 2010: What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? John R. Mayne, February 2010: >>Partner tanked over 2D. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ 2S has to be tankless ~ G ~ +=+ Reno NABC+ cases Appeal Number Eighteen Subject: Tempo NABC Open Pairs II, 2nd Qualifying Board: 25 Dealer: North Vul: EW Jo Morse 62 AQJ73 AT854 3 Erez Hendelman Shirley Matthews J9743 K5 K96 842 9 KQJ63 T942 AKQ Haig Tchamitch AQT8 T5 72 J8765 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Dbl 1S Pass 2D Pass(1) 2H 2S 3D Dbl 3H Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT The Facts: The final contract was 3H down one for -50 and the opening lead was the King of spades. There was an out of tempo pause after the 2D bid of approximately (according to NS) eight seconds. West said his partner is new to National events and was playing more slowly than normal. NS said the first and second doubles were easily made actions. North said she was competing over 2S but would pass if West passed. The director was called after the double of 3D. Other Information discovered: East was playing in her first NABC and was very nervous. Her tempo varied considerably and did not reliably indicate anything. West is a very experienced player from Israel. He has tried to stress the importance of having support for the unbid suits (especially majors) when making a takeout double (and shortness in the suit doubled), but East occasionally lapsed and made inappropriate doubles. The break in tempo at East's second turn to call was agreed by all. It took East about eight seconds to pass. All other calls in the auction were normal tempo. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 24 04:46:17 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:46:17 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001cab503$ec118160$c4348420$@com> [RJH] Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H X 1S Pass 2D Pass 2H ? You, West, hold: J9743 K96 9 T942 What call do you make? [DALB] No idea. Would have doubled 1S, which shows that I would have bid an unashamed 1S if South had passed. But presumably this was not part of the methods, so maybe I can bid 2S now without partner thinking I have a hand that ought to have doubled 1S the round before. [RJH] What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? [DALB] Don't know, and don't especially care. No doubt North has psyched 1H, East has psyched his double and South has foxed everyone by bidding spades when he actually has spades, since it is normal in this kind of auction to bid spades only when you don't have them. Or perhaps everyone was playing the Canberra Recursive Asymmetric Pass (a method distinguished only by having its acronym barred from use even on Australian convention cards), in which case no one would have known what was happening anyway. But well it was said by a bard less renowned than Ogden Nash, but no less capable: In his sleeves, which were long, He had twenty-four jacks, Which was coming it strong, Yet I state but the facts; And we found in his nails, which were taper, What is frequent in tapers - that's wax. Bret Harte, Plain Language from Truthful James David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 24 05:10:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:10:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cab503$ec118160$c4348420$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >Or perhaps everyone was playing the Canberra Recursive >Asymmetric Pass (a method distinguished only by having its >acronym barred from use even on Australian convention cards) [snip] Richard Hills: Way back when in the Jurassic Age, Steve Hurley and myself won five Aussie National Youth Championships. Before he acquired me as a youth partner, Steve Hurley chose to partner an even weirder youth player - whose weirdness did not stop him from subsequently becoming extremely wealthy via scientific computerised betting on horse races - Dean Scully. Because the cornerstone of their methods was light transfer openings at the one level, they named their system Scully- Hurley Intermediate Transfers. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 08:47:03 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:47:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23 February 2010 23:52, wrote: > > Ogden Nash (1902-1971): > > I give you now Professor Twist, > A conscientious scientist. > Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!" > And sent him off to distant jungles. > Camped on a tropic riverside, > One day he missed his loving bride. > She had, the guide informed him later, > Been eaten by an alligator. > Professor Twist could not but smile. > "You mean," he said, "a crocodile." > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? 1H ? ? ? ?X ? ? ? ? 1S > Pass ? ? ?2D ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?2H > ? > > You, West, hold: > > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > > What call do you make? Hard to tell, not being able to be confronted with this problem in actual play. I'd either have doubled 1S or bid 2S (just a slight overbid) the previous round. I've never discussed this position, but it's difficult to imagine 2S now being anything but natural. So that's what I'd bid at the table. > What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 24 10:32:22 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:32:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <14840826.1267003942317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H X 1S > Pass 2D Pass 2H > ? > > You, West, hold: > > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > > What call do you make? Too late, you should have doubled 1S. This is probably the most frequent psyche, you have to protect your side against the possibility that S's 1S was a psyche. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 24 12:17:20 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:17:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <14840826.1267003942317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H X 1S > Pass 2D Pass 2H > ? > > You, West, hold: > > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > > What call do you make? Too late, you should have doubled 1S. +=+ The Idiosyncratic Defender In Our Theme possibly has only a take-out double available in this position! ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 24 14:40:53 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:40:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <913C7166-DAA5-4971-9409-2945E6394BB0@starpower.net> On Feb 23, 2010, at 5:52 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H X 1S > Pass 2D Pass 2H > ? > > You, West, hold: > > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > > What call do you make? Pass. > What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? He wants to know if I will call the cops upon discovering that South has been known to psych 1S with some frequency in this position, but I was not so informed at the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Feb 24 14:36:05 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:36:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <14840826.1267003942317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <14840826.1267003942317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B852B45.2020202@comcast.net> On 2/24/10 4:32 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1H X 1S >> Pass 2D Pass 2H >> ? >> >> You, West, hold: >> >> J9743 >> K96 >> 9 >> T942 >> >> What call do you make? >> > Too late, you should have doubled 1S. > This is probably the most frequent psyche, > you have to protect your side against the possibility > that S's 1S was a psyche. > It's not a psych in ACBL-land. It's an authorized defense to an artificial action by East. > > Thomas > > > Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! > Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 24 14:50:09 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:50:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72E44688-5689-40F0-AFD2-2596E5EF0CF9@starpower.net> On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:59 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Reno NABC+ cases > Appeal Number Eighteen > > Subject: Tempo > NABC Open Pairs II, 2nd Qualifying > > Board: 25 > Dealer: North > Vul: EW > Jo Morse > 62 > AQJ73 > AT854 > 3 > Erez Hendelman Shirley Matthews > J9743 K5 > K96 842 > 9 KQJ63 > T942 AKQ > Haig Tchamitch > AQT8 > T5 > 72 > J8765 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H Dbl 1S > Pass 2D Pass(1) 2H > 2S 3D Dbl 3H > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) BIT > > The Facts: The final contract was 3H down one > for -50 and the opening lead was the King of > spades. There was an out of tempo pause after > the 2D bid of approximately (according to NS) > eight seconds. West said his partner is new to > National events and was playing more slowly > than normal. NS said the first and second > doubles were easily made actions. North said > she was competing over 2S but would pass if > West passed. The director was called after the > double of 3D. > > Other Information discovered: East was playing > in her first NABC and was very nervous. Her > tempo varied considerably and did not reliably > indicate anything. West is a very experienced > player from Israel. He has tried to stress the > importance of having support for the unbid suits > (especially majors) when making a takeout double > (and shortness in the suit doubled), but East > occasionally lapsed and made inappropriate > doubles. The break in tempo at East's second > turn to call was agreed by all. It took East > about eight seconds to pass. All other calls in > the auction were normal tempo. > > How would you rule? This is why we have committees. The case turns on a question of fact: "Her tempo varied considerably and did not reliably indicate anything." In the committee, we talk to the players and either accept or reject that finding (benefit of the doubt to N-S of course, but that doesn't mean an automatic presumption). We decide whether eight seconds is or isn't a significant break in tempo for this particular player. In a forum like this one, we are stabbing blindly, and can't answer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 24 15:00:44 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:00:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist In-Reply-To: <4B852B45.2020202@comcast.net> References: <14840826.1267003942317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <4B852B45.2020202@comcast.net> Message-ID: <132BA616-E325-476C-AF9C-872181143D54@starpower.net> On Feb 24, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Robert Park wrote: > On 2/24/10 4:32 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Matchpoint pairs >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: East-West >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- 1H X 1S >>> Pass 2D Pass 2H >>> ? >>> >>> You, West, hold: >>> >>> J9743 >>> K96 >>> 9 >>> T942 >>> >>> What call do you make? >> >> Too late, you should have doubled 1S. >> This is probably the most frequent psyche, >> you have to protect your side against the possibility >> that S's 1S was a psyche. > > It's not a psych in ACBL-land. It's an authorized defense to an > artificial action by East. If N-S are using this defense, we have a failure to alert infraction by North, a whole 'nother problem. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 24 15:01:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:01:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist In-Reply-To: <913C7166-DAA5-4971-9409-2945E6394BB0@starpower.net> References: <913C7166-DAA5-4971-9409-2945E6394BB0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B853121.5010909@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 23, 2010, at 5:52 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1H X 1S >> Pass 2D Pass 2H >> ? >> >> You, West, hold: >> >> J9743 >> K96 >> 9 >> T942 >> >> What call do you make? >> > > Pass. > > >> What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? >> > > He wants to know if I will call the cops upon discovering that South > has been known to psych 1S with some frequency in this position, but > I was not so informed at the table. > AG : up to now, there is no reason at all to suppose South has psyched. AFAIK the three hands might well be : x KQx A10xx AQJxx xx 10xx AQxx KJxxx xxx xxx AQx KJx and I don't want to be murdered. BTW I'm not sure I want to play 2S facing 4 cards either. Last week they found a 5-4 fit at level 2 with opponents 4-0 in that suit, and it cost them 800. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 24 15:02:56 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:02:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B852B45.2020202@comcast.net> References: <14840826.1267003942317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <4B852B45.2020202@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4B853190.5000401@ulb.ac.be> Robert Park a ?crit : > On 2/24/10 4:32 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> >>> Matchpoint pairs >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: East-West >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- 1H X 1S >>> Pass 2D Pass 2H >>> ? >>> >>> You, West, hold: >>> >>> J9743 >>> K96 >>> 9 >>> T942 >>> >>> What call do you make? >>> >>> >> Too late, you should have doubled 1S. >> This is probably the most frequent psyche, >> you have to protect your side against the possibility >> that S's 1S was a psyche. >> >> > > It's not a psych in ACBL-land. It's an authorized defense to an > artificial action by East. > But surely artificial defenses to artificial actions should be alertable ? From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Feb 24 15:40:12 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:40:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B853190.5000401@ulb.ac.be> References: <14840826.1267003942317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <4B852B45.2020202@comcast.net> <4B853190.5000401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B853A4C.20305@comcast.net> On 2/24/10 9:02 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Park a ?crit : > >> On 2/24/10 4:32 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>> Dlr: North >>>> Vul: East-West >>>> >>>> The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> --- 1H X 1S >>>> Pass 2D Pass 2H >>>> ? >>>> >>>> You, West, hold: >>>> >>>> J9743 >>>> K96 >>>> 9 >>>> T942 >>>> >>>> What call do you make? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Too late, you should have doubled 1S. >>> This is probably the most frequent psyche, >>> you have to protect your side against the possibility >>> that S's 1S was a psyche. >>> >>> >>> >> It's not a psych in ACBL-land. It's an authorized defense to an >> artificial action by East. >> >> > But surely artificial defenses to artificial actions should be alertable ? > Right. I should have added that. I was commenting on the statement above, not on the auction. --bp > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 24 16:00:21 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:00:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist In-Reply-To: <4B853121.5010909@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B853121.5010909@ulb.ac.be> <913C7166-DAA5-4971-9409-2945E6394BB0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4929083.1267023621871.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Feb 23, 2010, at 5:52 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > >> Matchpoint pairs > >> Dlr: North > >> Vul: East-West > >> > >> The bidding has gone: > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> --- 1H X 1S > >> Pass 2D Pass 2H > >> ? > >> > >> You, West, hold: > >> > >> J9743 > >> K96 > >> 9 > >> T942 > >> > >> What call do you make? > >> > > > > Pass. > > > > > >> What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? > >> > > > > He wants to know if I will call the cops upon discovering that South > > has been known to psych 1S with some frequency in this position, but > > I was not so informed at the table. > > > AG : up to now, there is no reason at all to suppose South has psyched. > > AFAIK the three hands might well be : > > x KQx A10xx > AQJxx xx 10xx > AQxx KJxxx xxx > xxx AQx KJx > > and I don't want to be murdered. And that's why you should double 1S in the previous round. Thomas Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns f?r Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter! Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 24 16:22:04 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist In-Reply-To: <4929083.1267023621871.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <4B853121.5010909@ulb.ac.be> <913C7166-DAA5-4971-9409-2945E6394BB0@starpower.net> <4929083.1267023621871.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B85441C.306@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >> AFAIK the three hands might well be : >> >> x KQx A10xx >> AQJxx xx 10xx >> AQxx KJxxx xxx >> xxx AQx KJx >> >> and I don't want to be murdered. >> > > And that's why you should double 1S in the previous round. > > AG : I might be wrong, but I thought this kind of double showed some values. I have precisely 1 useful HCP, and as I said before, I don't want to be in 2S facing a standard T/O, 4 spades and with the adverse suit 4-0. BTW, having seen the board, my ruling would be that the 3D bid on an obvious misfit was an egregious error which cut the link between the (possible) infraction of using UI and the damage done to NS. Just how much do EW go down in 2S ? I guess 800. But perhaps North has seen partner psyche 1S before ? Deserves them right. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 24 17:46:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:46:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] nearly bust, was Professor Twist References: <913C7166-DAA5-4971-9409-2945E6394BB0@starpower.net> <4B853121.5010909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5F2CFA2082BA4873A0998E5216F19317@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Professor Twist BTW I'm not sure I want to play 2S facing 4 cards either. Last week they found a 5-4 fit at level 2 with opponents 4-0 in that suit, and it cost them 800. +=+ Anecdotally I might reflect that in a Gold Cup Quarter Final I was once upon a time in a 5 Clubs sacrifice with J 7 x.x. in hand and Q 8 x x about to go down on the table. On my left Harrison Gray quietly took out his knife and Swinnerton-Dyer on my right, having a void in Clubs, removed to 5D. Some, not absolutely all, were much amused when Gray's dummy was laid gently on the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bridgenz2004 at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 18:27:36 2010 From: bridgenz2004 at gmail.com (BridgeNZ) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:27:36 +1300 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist In-Reply-To: <132BA616-E325-476C-AF9C-872181143D54@starpower.net> References: <14840826.1267003942317.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <4B852B45.2020202@comcast.net> <132BA616-E325-476C-AF9C-872181143D54@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B856188.8040009@bridgenz.co.nz> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100224/6ac86885/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 24 23:11:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:11:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B856188.8040009@bridgenz.co.nz> Message-ID: Media Watch versus Doctor Who http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2825134.htm The readers' comments on this Media Watch vs Doctor Who article are almost as funny as the article itself. * * * BridgeNZ: >Interesting - I thought - well at least in Zone 7 - that you >don't alert bids of suits bid or shown by the opposition's call. > >If the X shows Spades, then the 1S is not alertable? Richard Hills: Yes, in Australia and New Zealand cuebids are "self-alerting". No, in Australia and New Zealand and the ACBL and Israel a double does not guarantee four spades; it could show (as in the stem case) a balanced hand too strong to overcall 1NT. In the stem case East might have fudged by pretending her 18 hcp was actually a 15-17 1NT overcall, were it not for the fact that that would require the further fudge of pretending that 842 in hearts was a heart stopper. For what it is worth, the Ali-Hills partnership have an explicit understanding that stoppers are required only for our 2NT and 3NT overcalls. Our 1NT overcalls merely promise balanced shape and 15-18 hcp, neither promising nor denying stopper(s) in the opponents' suit(s). Our experience is that it pays in the long run for the player with 15-18 hcp balanced to transfer captaincy of a contested auction to partner as quickly as possible. * * * The Ruling: The director ruled that there was a break in tempo and (Law 16A) pass over 2H was an alternative action. A contract of 2S by West was assigned (Law 12C2) down two for -100 for EW. [Noted by the committee: EW were vulnerable so down two would be -200 for them.] Richard Hills, note to Marvin French: A ruling of 2S -200 to East-West is a classic example of the 1997 Law 12C2 "for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". However, it seems that the ruling was partially illegal, since it seems that the Director awarded the reciprocal score to North-South, and the 1997 Law 12C2 also stated: "for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely **had the irregularity not occurred**". The Appeal: West thought that it was normal to bid 2S over 2H. He had already passed over 1S, thus limiting his hand. The opponents rated to have an eight or nine card heart fit, while his side had at least eight and quite possibly nine spades. He thought that there was a good chance that his RHO had psyched 1S. West also stated that it was impossible to make any reliable inferences from his partner's hesitations. NS thought that it would be reasonable for West to pass 2H. The little that he had featured a doubtful King of hearts in front of the heart opener. Had West passed, there was a good chance that NS would have played in 2H, making two. North only bid 3D over 2S as a competitive bid and she would have passed had West not bid 2S. The Decision: Although eight seconds is not a long time to take to bid, it was long enough so that it was clear to the table that East had a problem over 2D. Thus, the committee ruled that there had been a break in tempo. What did it suggest? East probably had more than minimum values for her double, but did not know how (or whether) to express them. Perhaps she had good diamonds and did not know whether double would be takeout or penalty. If that were the case, then a 2S bid was not likely to be successful. If East had made an off- shape double that she occasionally could not resist, then a 2S bid would work out very badly. Further, if East had a normal takeout double pattern with extra values, North would likely pass the preference to 2H, and East could then double for takeout. The committee decided that East's hesitation was as likely to be based on good diamonds as it was on a hand with close to 4-4-4-1 distribution and extra values. Therefore, it did not demonstrably suggest West's 2S bid, and the table result could not be adjusted. The appeal was deemed with merit. Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus, Gail Greenberg, Jeff Goldsmith, and Mark Bartusek. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 24 23:59:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:59:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: All Reno NABC+ cases were written up in an unofficial casebook, which can be downloaded from: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/appeals.htm For this particular Reno NABC+ case, I agree 100% with the comments made by this unofficial casebook panellist -> >Hilda Lirsch: If I had been sitting West, these would have been >my thoughts -> > >"While pard's break-in-tempo might be based on good diamonds >(thinking about doubling for penalties), it is more likely that >pard's break-in-tempo is based on a close to 4-4-4-1 shape with >extra values. Given that pard is a known bunny, there is no >guarantee that pard will reopen with a second takeout double if >I pass the auction back to pard. > >"Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, pard's ambiguous >hesitation demonstrably suggests that - in the long run - a 2S >bid would gain a greater percentage of the matchpoints than a >Pass would gain." > >So, if I had been sitting West, this would have been my >consistent-with-Law-73C call -> > >"Pass." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Thu Feb 25 00:20:05 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:20:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <694eadd41002241520y7f69fe57q731715021d02099b@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:37 PM, wrote: > > WBF Code of Practice, clarifying explanation (with example) of Law 12C1(b): > > If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by wild or > gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part > of?the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be > awarded?the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its > infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will > affect?its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before > without?regard to the revoke. > See Law 12C1(b). I see no example -- I wish there were one! I've been thinking about this. How should it be applied in the example we've discussed, where N/S illegally bid 6S with UI available, then make it due to a defensive revoke? What is "the normal consequence of its?infraction"??Had the N/S taken 11 tricks we would not have adjusted anyone's score. It seems to me that the consequence of the infraction is that we adjust the contract to 5S. What were the likely and at all probable results there? We shouldn't have to guess, since we know how many tricks were taken. Why force a TD and/or AC to estimate probabilities when it's not necessary? -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 25 01:11:15 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:11:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd41002241520y7f69fe57q731715021d02099b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: If North-South are in 4H cold for +650, and East-West blatantly use UI to take an obviously illegal save in 5D (which would only go -300 if doubled), and North-South "play bridge" by continuing on to 5H, but the irritated declarer commits a one-trick revoke, then: (a) the non-offending side have their score adjusted to 4H +620 and (b) the offending side have their score adjusted to 4H -650. Adam Wildavsky: >.....How should it be applied in the example we've discussed, >where N/S illegally bid 6S with UI available, then make it due >to a defensive revoke? > >What is "the normal consequence of its?infraction"??Had the >N/S taken 11 tricks we would not have adjusted anyone's score. >It seems to me that the consequence of the infraction is that >we adjust the contract to 5S. What were the likely and at all >probable results there? We shouldn't have to guess, since we >know how many tricks were taken. Why force a TD and/or AC to >estimate probabilities when it's not necessary? Richard Hills: Nitpick. Declarer's percentage play in 6S may be different to declarer's percentage play in 5S. But if we assume that the level of the contract does not affect the percentage play, and we assume Hesitation Blackwood by the offending side, and we assume a one-trick revoke by the non- offending side, then: (y) the non-offending side have their score adjusted to 5S -680 and (z) the offending side have their score adjusted to 6S -100. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 25 03:48:01 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:48:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist In-Reply-To: <4B855248.7040907@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4B855248.7040907@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4B85E4E1.6030305@nhcc.net> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- 1H X 1S [South may not have spades] > From: Robert Park > It's not a psych in ACBL-land. It's an authorized defense to an > artificial action by East. What is "it?" Using 1S as artificial and ambiguous about spade length is legal in the ACBL. Bidding according to partnership understanding is, of course, not a psych. 1S would, of course, be alertable if the agreement is as stated. For most people, 1S is supposed to show spade length. If a player with that understanding deliberately bids 1S but in fact doesn't have spades, then it's a psych in the ACBL or anywhere else. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 25 05:40:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:40:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd41002241520y7f69fe57q731715021d02099b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Henry "Red" Sanders, American football coach, 26th December 1955: "Sure, winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." Law 12C1(b), final sentence: "The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction **only**." Adam Wildavsky asked: >What is "the normal consequence of its?infraction"? Richard Hills answers: It is usual for the infraction of Hesitation Blackwood to benefit the offending side, permitting them to score +1430, when a non- suggested logical alternative would instead score +680. In those usual Hesitation Blackwood cases "the normal consequence of its infraction" means that the offending side's score is adjusted back to +680. But occasionally the infraction of Hesitation Blackwood causes the offending side to shoot themselves in the foot. If the partner of the hesitator had avoided any infraction by passing, her virtue would have been rewarded with +650. But "the normal consequence of the Hesitation Blackwood infraction" in this occasional circumstance is the poetic justice of -100, with the Hesitation Blackwood punished by the cards, not by adjustment. [This is one of many reasons that Nigel Guthrie is incorrect in implying that "non-offending side" = "victims".] However, the word ONLY in Law 12C1(b) means that in the shot- foot occasional cases, the offending side is deemed to be -100 whether or not the other side later makes a serious error and/or later chooses a wild or gambling action. In such a wild or gambling case there must be a split score, for example: OS -100 NOS -710 (not -1460, since the NOS get ONLY self-inflicted damage imposed upon them in the score adjustment) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 25 10:49:53 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:49:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8647C1.20702@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > The Ruling: The director ruled that there was a break in tempo > and (Law 16A) pass over 2H was an alternative action. A contract > of 2S by West was assigned (Law 12C2) down two for -100 for EW. > [Noted by the committee: EW were vulnerable so down two would be > -200 for them.] > > This is contradictory. ; if an adjusted score is awarded one has to consider what would have happened absent the infraction (of using UI and bidding 2S). Woithout the 2S bid, EW will never end in 2S, IOW 2S minus whatever is not among the possible contracts. Also, please notice that 2S could go three off on a club lead. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 25 15:30:01 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:30:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist In-Reply-To: <4B853121.5010909@ulb.ac.be> References: <913C7166-DAA5-4971-9409-2945E6394BB0@starpower.net> <4B853121.5010909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <85516C0E-8957-4E2B-AFB1-05D057BA8374@starpower.net> On Feb 24, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On Feb 23, 2010, at 5:52 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> What plot Twist does the Original Poster have up his sleeve? >> >> He wants to know if I will call the cops upon discovering that South >> has been known to psych 1S with some frequency in this position, but >> I was not so informed at the table. > > AG : up to now, there is no reason at all to suppose South has > psyched. Of course not; I was merely guessing (incorrectly) that that would turn out to be Richard's "plot twist". But I was guilty of a context error; I momentarily overlooked the fact that Richard does not play his bridge in the ACBL. As the other replies to Richard's post have reminded me, it is only in the ACBL that one might even consider calling the cops for what is, elsewhere, a routine "baby psych". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 25 23:25:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:25:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B8647C1.20702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >.....Without the 2S bid, EW will never end in 2S, IOW 2S minus >whatever is not among the possible contracts. Richard Hills: Never Say Never Again. If West chose the legal call of Pass (and West chose to pass in tempo), and North chose her post-shadowed call of Pass, then East is unrestricted in any call she might make. Given East's known bunny status, East might try another Double, permitting West to legally bid 2S (since while defending 2H undoubled is a logical alternative for West, defending 2Hx after East has doubled twice for takeout is not a logical alternative). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 26 05:03:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:03:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] nearly bust, was Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5F2CFA2082BA4873A0998E5216F19317@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ Anecdotally I might reflect that in a Gold Cup Quarter Final I was once upon a time in a 5 Clubs sacrifice with J 7 x.x. in hand and Q 8 x x about to go down on the table. On my left Harrison Gray quietly took out his knife and Swinnerton-Dyer on my right, having a void in Clubs, removed to 5D. Some, not absolutely all, were much amused when Gray's dummy was laid gently on the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ One of the best bridge books I have ever read is The Country Life Book of Bridge, a collection of the bridge columns that Maurice Harrison Gray wrote for Country Life magazine. Unlike the over- terse nature* of many bridge columns, in which only a couple of points about a single deal are written up, Country Life gave Harrison Gray plenty of space for him to lucidly write up bridge concepts. On one particularly amusing deal, Harrison Gray found an unusual way to gain three imps. In the days before Keycard Blackwood, an energetic contested auction saw Harrison Gray's opponents confidently bid to 6D. Alas, Harrison Gray held AK of diamonds, so he even more confidently doubled for +200. In the other room Harrison Gray's team-mates also confidently bid to 6D, but the opponent in Harrison Gray's seat was unable to double, so the number was only +100. Why was that so? The opposing pair in the other room had a pre-existing explicit mutual partnership understanding to play the esoteric Negative Slam Doubles, whereby an immediate double of a slam shows zero defensive tricks and invites partner to sacrifice. The road to hell is paved with good conventions. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets * When a youthful Jeff Rubens was paid a small fee by B.J. Becker to act as a hand spotter for Mister Becker's bridge column, he came across a particularly fine specimen. Mister Becker agreed that it was an interesting deal, but could not be used since West bid diamonds. One of the newspapers which used Mister Becker's bridge column was so short of space that West was never allowed to bid any number of diamonds. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Feb 26 05:37:47 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:37:47 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <9AC92540B9B7424394FA341CEC661BB9@MARVLAPTOP> Adam Wildavsky: >.....How should it be applied in the example we've discussed, >where N/S illegally bid 6S with UI available, then make it due >to a defensive revoke? > >What is "the normal consequence of its infraction"? Had the >N/S taken 11 tricks we would not have adjusted anyone's score. >It seems to me that the consequence of the infraction is that >we adjust the contract to 5S. What were the likely and at all >probable results there? We shouldn't have to guess, since we >know how many tricks were taken. Why force a TD and/or AC to >estimate probabilities when it's not necessary? Richard Hills: Nitpick. Declarer's percentage play in 6S may be different to declarer's percentage play in 5S. But if we assume that the level of the contract does not affect the percentage play, and we assume Hesitation Blackwood by the offending side, and we assume a one-trick revoke by the non- offending side, then: (y) the non-offending side have their score adjusted to 5S -680 Not in ACBL-land, where result stands -1430 (currently, anyway) and (z) the offending side have their score adjusted to 6S -100. Not in ACBL-land, where "had the irregularity not occurred" applies to the offending side. Hence, +650? No, because the ACBL doesn't understand that the OS doesn't get the revoke in a score adjustment, so +680 (currently, anyway) I say "currently" because the ACBL LC plans to discuss this law at their Reno NABC meeting in March. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Feb 26 08:04:58 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:04:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9AC92540B9B7424394FA341CEC661BB9@MARVLAPTOP> References: <9AC92540B9B7424394FA341CEC661BB9@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <06185A3FC60C449588D3C8CFD0987072@erdos> "Marvin French" writes: > > Adam Wildavsky: > >>.....How should it be applied in the example we've discussed, >>where N/S illegally bid 6S with UI available, then make it due >>to a defensive revoke? >> >>What is "the normal consequence of its infraction"? Had the >>N/S taken 11 tricks we would not have adjusted anyone's score. >>It seems to me that the consequence of the infraction is that >>we adjust the contract to 5S. What were the likely and at all >>probable results there? We shouldn't have to guess, since we >>know how many tricks were taken. Why force a TD and/or AC to >>estimate probabilities when it's not necessary? > > Richard Hills: > > Nitpick. Declarer's percentage play in 6S may be different to > declarer's percentage play in 5S. > > But if we assume that the level of the contract does not affect > the percentage play, and we assume Hesitation Blackwood by the > offending side, and we assume a one-trick revoke by the non- > offending side, then: > > (y) the non-offending side have their score adjusted to 5S -680 > > Not in ACBL-land, where result stands -1430 (currently, anyway) And this adjustment makes sense. The ACBL considers the non-offenders not to have been damaged; the infraction put them in a position to score +100 rather than -650. Their -1430 table result was caused by their own poor play. This is even more important in the case of double shots (as opposed to bad plays). If the non-offenders take a double shot, they lose their right to an adjusted score based on the infraction. > and > > (z) the offending side have their score adjusted to 6S -100. > > Not in ACBL-land, where "had the irregularity not occurred" applies > to the offending side. Hence, +650? No, because the ACBL doesn't > understand that the OS doesn't get the revoke in a score adjustment, > so +680 (currently, anyway) I would prefer +680. But -100 is unreasonable here; the only score which should be considered at all probable in the table result is what happened at the table. Consider the following alternative situation. The offenders reached 6S after hesitation Blackwood. Opening leader has three small in both minors, and guesses the wrong one to lead, allowing the slam to make. I believe the adjustment should be -650/+650 or -680/+680, based on the play in 5S, and I prefer -680/+680 if the lead inferences would be the same. That is, I do not consider it "at all probable" that a player who actually led a club against 6S would lead a diamond against 5S, and certainly not "at all probable" that a player who actually led a club against 6S would lead a diamond against 6S (which would justify -100 to the offenders). From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 26 10:28:45 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:28:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] nearly bust, was Professor Twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B87944D.4080304@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > On one particularly amusing deal, Harrison Gray found an unusual > way to gain three imps. In the days before Keycard Blackwood, an > energetic contested auction saw Harrison Gray's opponents > confidently bid to 6D. Alas, Harrison Gray held AK of diamonds, > so he even more confidently doubled for +200. In the other room > Harrison Gray's team-mates also confidently bid to 6D, but the > opponent in Harrison Gray's seat was unable to double, so the > number was only +100. > > Why was that so? > > The opposing pair in the other room had a pre-existing explicit > mutual partnership understanding to play the esoteric Negative > Slam Doubles, whereby an immediate double of a slam shows zero > defensive tricks and invites partner to sacrifice. > > There is a little contradiction here. Opponents "bid confidently" to 6D, but Negative Slam Doubles only apply (and applied) when there is a competitive auction that makes opponents' bidding unsteady and a save likely to work if needed. Whence I conclude that (as usual) the players, not the system, were responsible. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 26 15:08:42 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:08:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <9AC92540B9B7424394FA341CEC661BB9@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <8A5A8DAF44904E65B34AEFCA3428439C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Richard Hills: > > Nitpick. Declarer's percentage play in 6S may be different to > declarer's percentage play in 5S. > +=+ There is also the question whether it is right to follow the percentage line or whether to question the likelihoood that the player concerned will necessarily follow (or even recognize) the percentage line. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Feb 26 21:33:36 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:33:36 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <9AC92540B9B7424394FA341CEC661BB9@MARVLAPTOP> <06185A3FC60C449588D3C8CFD0987072@erdos> Message-ID: <1EA72FB76C094C05BA239C367D8D8266@MARVLAPTOP> From: "David Grabiner" >> But if we assume that the level of the contract does not affect >> the percentage play, and we assume Hesitation Blackwood by the >> offending side, and we assume a one-trick revoke by the non- >> offending side, then: >> >> (y) the non-offending side have their score adjusted to 5S -680 >> >> Not in ACBL-land, where result stands -1430 (currently, anyway) > > And this adjustment makes sense. The ACBL considers the > non-offenders not to > have been damaged; the infraction put them in a position to score > +100 rather > than -650. Their -1430 table result was caused by their own poor > play. A policy I always espoused over the years, but RTFLB: L12B1 (new) Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. But see C1(b) below: > This is even more important in the case of double shots (as > opposed to bad > plays). If the non-offenders take a double shot, they lose their > right to an > adjusted score based on the infraction. L12C1(b) If subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The interpretation of this, if I understand it correctly, is that the score is adjusted for the NOS but they keep any applicable serious error. If the self-damaging action was wild or gambling, result stands. "Double shot" is undefined, better to use "wild or gambling." > Consider the following alternative situation. The offenders > reached 6S after > hesitation Blackwood. Opening leader has three small in both > minors, and > guesses the wrong one to lead, allowing the slam to make. I > believe the > adjustment should be -650/+650 or -680/+680, based on the play in > 5S, and I > prefer -680/+680 if the lead inferences would be the same. That > is, I do not > consider it "at all probable" that a player who actually led a > club against 6S > would lead a diamond against 5S, and certainly not "at all > probable" that a > player who actually led a club against 6S would lead a diamond > against 6S (which > would justify -100 to the offenders). > Agreed. If there was no serious error the actual play governs unless the level of contract or the infraction had an possible effect on the play. It does not become "at all probable" that the play would be different. even if L12C1(c) is applicable. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Feb 27 01:29:42 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:29:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> Rules like this open an unnecessary Pandora's box of "egregious error", "double-shot", and "wild and gambling" judgement decisions. Irresolvable cases, like this one, present a stream of fascinating challenges for directors. But why should there be rules that make the director penalize the victim of an infraction? Such rules favour law-breaking experts and target ordinary players without conferring any benefit whatsoever. Ordinary players are more prone than experts to egregious errors (and the like), are unlikely to understand the subtleties of relevant rules, and are less successful at rationalising their decisions to directors. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 08:35:11 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:35:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On 27 February 2010 01:29, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Rules like this open an unnecessary Pandora's box of "egregious error", > "double-shot", and "wild and gambling" judgement decisions. > > Irresolvable cases, like this one, present a stream of fascinating > challenges for directors. > > But why should there be rules that make the director penalize the victim > of an infraction? There's not, this is twisting reality. What the rules say is that a victim of an infraction onle gets redress for damage resulting from the infraction. But has the responsibility for self-inflected damage which isn't related to the infraction. Which obviously (IMO) is the correct approach. Of course, this might be challenging for TDs (and ACs). But that's inherent in a game such as bridge. But any doubt in these cases should be ruled in favor of the NOS. And one should be pretty lenient here, IMO. > Such rules favour law-breaking experts and target > ordinary players without conferring any benefit whatsoever. Ordinary > players are more prone than experts to egregious errors (and the like), > are unlikely to understand the subtleties of relevant rules, and are > less successful at rationalising their decisions to directors. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Feb 28 00:17:51 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:17:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> [Harald Skj?ran] There's not, this is twisting reality. What the rules say is that a victim of an infraction onle gets redress for damage resulting from the infraction. But has the responsibility for self-inflected damage which isn't related to the infraction. Which obviously (IMO) is the correct approach. Of course, this might be challenging for TDs (and ACs). But that's inherent in a game such as bridge. But any doubt in these cases should be ruled in favor of the NOS. And one should be pretty lenient here, IMO. [Nigel] After their opponent's suspected infraction, the innocent side is forced into an artificial, complex, and disconcerting predicament. Without these rules, the victims could concentrate on playing what they consider to be ordinary bridge but these rules force the victims to submit to a cruel charade. The victims already rattled by the suspected infraction, are further inhibited by the prospect that the director may categorise what they judge to be normal actions as "egregious", "wild and gambling", or "double-shots". They fear the director may add insult to injury. This deters victims from calling the director and further benefits law-breakers. Even if the director approves of the victim's actions, he may decide, after all, that opponents did *not* break the law. In which case their conservatism will go for nothing and they will have to live with any bad effects from their attempts at conformity. If, in spite of all this, like Harald, you feel that the current rules are the correct approach, there is still the problem of legal interpretation, which Harald concedes. Why keep unnecessary rules that few directors and even fewer players understand, that favour experts over ordinary players, and that lead to contentious and inconsistent rulings? IMO these unnecessary rules cause problems but confer no benefits. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 28 01:31:20 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:31:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> [Harald Skj?ran] There's not, this is twisting reality. What the rules say is that a victim of an infraction only gets redress for damage resulting from the infraction. But has the responsibility for self-inflected damage which isn't related to the infraction. Which obviously (IMO) is the correct approach. [DALB] Yes, but what is "damage resulting from the infraction?" Richard Hills has attempted an answer to Adam Wildawsky's question that seems to me at variance with the words of the Law: [Law 12B1] Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b). [Law 12C1b] If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. East is deemed to have used UI to reach 6NT, doubled by South who has two aces. "Already rattled by the suspected infraction", submitting to a "cruel charade", fearing that insult may be added to injury, or perhaps merely because he is a clumsy fellow by nature, South leads the low card next to one of those aces rather than the ace itself, and declarer makes the contract. Well, East-West will get 660 or 690 - I am not concerned about which; I am content that they cannot profit from their irregularity to the extent of receiving 1680. But what will North-South get? If your opponents bid to 6NT doubled and you, on lead, have two aces, would it occur to you that you had been damaged? I venture to suggest that most people would answer that question in the negative. For whatever reason, though, you underlead one of those aces, and now you have been damaged - but by what? By the infraction? - no, for that handed you plus 200 and plus 13 IMPs. By your own clumsiness? - yes, I would say so. I would adjust the score thus (assuming 690 at the other table): East-West's team score 0 IMPs; North-South's team lose 14 IMPs; net result 7 IMPs to East-West's team. That minus 1680 at the table where the infraction occurred was purely self-inflicted damage by South due to a serious error. I can fully understand this objection to my argument: the contract at this table was only 6NT because of the infraction; if the infraction had not occurred, the contract would not have been 6NT, so any damage from letting 6NT make must be damage "because of the infraction". But if you let 6NT make when you have two aces, the proximate cause of damage was your own ineptitude, not the nefariousness of the opponents - Kaplan's remarks on the Battle of Waterloo are appropriate here. The 6NT bid in itself did not "cause" your side any damage whatsoever; your defence did, but your defence was not "related to the infraction". In passing, it has just occurred to me that L12B may be the only passage in the 2007 Laws where "infraction" has not been replaced by "irregularity". Were the weasels on vacation? David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 28 04:50:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:50:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> Message-ID: <24C3634D1E2741ADBF935DE936F75167@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) In passing, it has just occurred to me that L12B may be the only passage in the 2007 Laws where "infraction" has not been replaced by "irregularity". Were the weasels on vacation? > +=+ Not weaselly understood. Does David suggest that 'infraction' in such Laws as 73D, 72B, 55C, 39, 38D, 27D, 16B3, is in some way of a different texture from the word 'infraction' as used in Law 12C1(b)? The definitions clarify that 'irregularity' has a meaning drawn more widely than the meaning of 'infraction'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From craigstamps at comcast.net Sun Feb 28 15:56:25 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> Message-ID: <001401cab886$339ce850$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> I have learned at my peril to be wary of diagreement with the razor sharp intellect of DALB. But I must ask where the flaw is in my logic. Absent the infraction, there would BE no 6 no trump contract. Therefore, making 12 tricks (or 13) instead of 11 should not provide the points for a slam that COULD NOT LEGALLY have been bid. The results of the proximate and egregious error should cost the NOS 680 or 710 because they are responsible for giving the additional tricks...but not for allowing the ILLEGAL bidding of a slam. The offenders, or course, cannot score a slam made...but ARE spared having one go down by the defensive error, which is not resultant from the infraction. They get a plus of the game and overtricks and should be thinking their lucky stars their overbidding was not punished, just their infraction/ In other words the infraction in this case rolls back the contract to what would have been bid absent the infraction; the results of the play UNRELATED to the infraction should stand. Isn't that what the law now says? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > [Harald Skj?ran] > > There's not, this is twisting reality. What the rules say is that a victim > of an infraction only gets redress for damage resulting from the > infraction. But has the responsibility for self-inflected damage which > isn't related to the infraction. Which obviously (IMO) is the correct > approach. > > [DALB] > > Yes, but what is "damage resulting from the infraction?" Richard Hills has > attempted an answer to Adam Wildawsky's question that seems to me at > variance with the words of the Law: > > [Law 12B1] > > Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a > table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the > infraction not occurred - but see C1(b). > > [Law 12C1b] > > If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed > to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by > wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for > such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. > > East is deemed to have used UI to reach 6NT, doubled by South who has two > aces. "Already rattled by the suspected infraction", submitting to a > "cruel charade", fearing that insult may be added to injury, or perhaps > merely because he is a clumsy fellow by nature, South leads the low card > next to one of those aces rather than the ace itself, and declarer makes > the contract. > > Well, East-West will get 660 or 690 - I am not concerned about which; I am > content that they cannot profit from their irregularity to the extent of > receiving 1680. But what will North-South get? > > If your opponents bid to 6NT doubled and you, on lead, have two aces, > would it occur to you that you had been damaged? I venture to suggest that > most people would answer that question in the negative. For whatever > reason, though, you underlead one of those aces, and now you have been > damaged - but by what? By the infraction? - no, for that handed you plus > 200 and plus 13 IMPs. By your own clumsiness? - yes, I would say so. > > I would adjust the score thus (assuming 690 at the other table): > East-West's team score 0 IMPs; North-South's team lose 14 IMPs; net result > 7 IMPs to East-West's team. That minus 1680 at the table where the > infraction occurred was purely self-inflicted damage by South due to a > serious error. > > I can fully understand this objection to my argument: the contract at this > table was only 6NT because of the infraction; if the infraction had not > occurred, the contract would not have been 6NT, so any damage from letting > 6NT make must be damage "because of the infraction". But if you let 6NT > make when you have two aces, the proximate cause of damage was your own > ineptitude, not the nefariousness of the opponents - Kaplan's remarks on > the Battle of Waterloo are appropriate here. The 6NT bid in itself did not > "cause" your side any damage whatsoever; your defence did, but your > defence was not "related to the infraction". > > In passing, it has just occurred to me that L12B may be the only passage > in the 2007 Laws where "infraction" has not been replaced by > "irregularity". Were the weasels on vacation? > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Feb 28 19:46:24 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:46:24 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> Message-ID: From: "David Burn" > [Harald Skj?ran] > > There's not, this is twisting reality. What the rules say is that > a victim of an infraction only gets redress for damage resulting > from the infraction. But has the responsibility for self-inflected > damage which isn't related to the infraction. Which obviously > (IMO) is the correct approach. > > [DALB] > > Yes, but what is "damage resulting from the infraction?" Richard > Hills has attempted an answer to Adam Wildawsky's question that > seems to me at variance with the words of the Law: Isn't it sad that this law is not clear enough to eliminate any disagreement between two very intelligent people? > > [Law 12B1] > > Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side > obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the > expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b). > > [Law 12C1b] > > If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has > contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the > infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive > relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is > self-inflicted. > > East is deemed to have used UI to reach 6NT, doubled by South who > has two aces. "Already rattled by the suspected infraction", > submitting to a "cruel charade", fearing that insult may be added > to injury, or perhaps merely because he is a clumsy fellow by > nature, South leads the low card next to one of those aces rather > than the ace itself, and declarer makes the contract. > > Well, East-West will get 660 or 690 - I am not concerned about > which; I am content that they cannot profit from their > irregularity to the extent of receiving 1680. But what will > North-South get? > > If your opponents bid to 6NT doubled and you, on lead, have two > aces, would it occur to you that you had been damaged? I venture > to suggest that most people would answer that question in the > negative. For whatever reason, though, you underlead one of those > aces, and now you have been damaged - but by what? By the > infraction? - no, for that handed you plus 200 and plus 13 IMPs. > By your own clumsiness? - yes, I would say so. Not damaged in the normal use of the word, but damaged according to L12B1, which defines "damage" as it is used in the Laws. > > I would adjust the score thus (assuming 690 at the other table): > East-West's team score 0 IMPs; North-South's team lose 14 IMPs; > net result 7 IMPs to East-West's team. That minus 1680 at the > table where the infraction occurred was purely self-inflicted > damage by South due to a serious error. > > I can fully understand this objection to my argument: the contract > at this table was only 6NT because of the infraction; if the > infraction had not occurred, the contract would not have been 6NT, > so any damage from letting 6NT make must be damage "because of the > infraction". But if you let 6NT make when you have two aces, the > proximate cause of damage was your own ineptitude, not the > nefariousness of the opponents - Kaplan's remarks on the Battle of > Waterloo are appropriate here. The 6NT bid in itself did not > "cause" your side any damage whatsoever; your defence did, but > your defence was not "related to the infraction". But the level of contract was related to the infraction, so redress for that part of the damage is in order. > > In passing, it has just occurred to me that L12B may be the only > passage in the 2007 Laws where "infraction" has not been replaced > by "irregularity". Were the weasels on vacation? The weasels failed to use "infraction" for things that are not merely an irregularity. L12C1(b) calls an action an irregularity, while L12B1 says the same action is an infraction. Failure to do something that one "should" do is an infraction, according to the Introduction, and yet the footnote to L12B3 says failing to so something that should be done is not an infraction. Grattan says it is an irregularity, thereby providing possibly-improved definitions: An irregularity is a failure to follow correct procedure, not usually penalized, while an infraction is an irregularity so serious (e.g., causing damage) that a rectification is in order. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 28 22:29:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:29:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> Message-ID: (London) Sunday Times, 16 August 1981: "After his death at the age of 42, Elvis Presley became a living legend." David Burn hypothesis: [snip] >In passing, it has just occurred to me that L12B may be the >only passage in the 2007 Laws where "infraction" has not been >replaced by "irregularity". Were the weasels on vacation? Richard Hills analysis: Excluding the Index (which is not an official part of the Laws), the word "infraction" appears in The Fabulous Law Book 27 times. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------