From henk at ripe.net Fri Jan 1 01:01:01 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 1 13:31:47 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:31:47 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? References: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be><793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred> <4B3D2962.3050309@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <62EC069592DD49A8B97FF376799FDE86@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? <<< > Nevertheless, the WBFLC has chosen the worst of the three (at least) > options that were available, and it's hard to understand why they made > the choice they did. I too think it should be reconsidered, but there > seems little hope until the WBFLC membership changes. > _______________________________________________ > +=+ I think the ramparts are somewhat higher than you appreciate, Steve. Looking back over my archive I find no suggestion from any NBO, Zone, copyright holder, for anything other than we have in this regard.. Discussion centred mainly upon suggestions received concerning logical alternatives and the content of Law 16A.1-3. I did put before the drafting committee the possibility that when partner has misexplained a player's call the player should wait until his partner has next called and then offer his correction, dealing with the problem for the remainder of the board by excluding the use of UI. But this was not taken up because of the increased complexity created including inter alia the fact that when partners express differing opinions as to their system either may eventually be deemed right, or indeed they may be found eventually not to have an agreement. The point was also made that "the present (1997) system of rectifying partner's misexplanation gives partner no chance to claim he would always have done something after he finds out the correct explanation", and "protects against pairs being able to recover from system mistakes". Note in 20F5(b) the phrase "in his opinion". This discussion was not prompted by any submission from an NBO, Zone, or copyright holder. And there we are: the law is the law and any game is played according to its rules. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 1 15:09:30 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:09:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> Message-ID: <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> Hello Sven, can you not see the wrongness of your sentence below? Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> +=+ I agree with this. >>> It may also be the case, so far as we know, that partner has >>> simply foprgotten to alert and actually knows what he is doing. A >>> distorted opening bid is not wholly out of the question. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> No Grattan, that is not the case. Neither of them knows what they are > doing. >> Partner has not forgotten to alert. He thought was natural and passed. >> > > NO Herman. Particularly within an occasional partnership (like this was) the > player who sees his partner apparently forgetting to alert cannot know for > sure whether the partner has forgotten to alert or forgotten the agreements. > What agreement? There is no agreement! By alerting, one indicates that one thinks the 2D was transfer. By not alerting, one indicates (normally) that one thinks the 2D was natural. If one alerts and then bids 2H, I see no problem. If one does not alert and then passes, no problem either. But by alerting and passing, one indicates -to partner, most importantly- that one believes it was a transfer, but that one has more diamonds than expected. And that is using illegal methods of telling something to partner. IMO. Herman. > I should certainly wish we could avoid your continued crusade on a lost > mission with Law 20F5. > How can I consider this a lost mission. The WBFLC have issued an interpretation saying that black is white, and you all lie down and accept that. Even more, the WBF have said that black is white in one particular circumstance, but when Grattan then uses that interpretation is saying that black is also white in some totally unrelated circumstance, you also accept that one? And you think I am fighting a lost mission? You are deluded, all of you. I sincerely hope that there are people out there who see that I am not talking nonsense, and who would dare to speak out. Herman. > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 1 15:14:59 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:14:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <2368DEB7E2A148D79344DF21933341B1@Mildred> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred><4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <2368DEB7E2A148D79344DF21933341B1@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B3E0363.5070400@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "The births of all things are weak and tender, > and therefore we should have our eyes intent > upon beginnings. " [Montaigne] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:19 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > >> I should certainly wish we could avoid your continued crusade on a lost >> mission with Law 20F5. >> >> Sven >> > +=+ Pay no attention to it, Sven. Herman's wafflings on 20F5 are > unimportant and misconceived. unimportant? misconceived? > It is not the case that 20F5 breaches > the principle of primary duty to opponents rather than to partner: > 20F5(b) makes it clear that the performance of that duty, in the > circumstances of an alleged misexplanation by partner, is to be the > subject of prescribed rectification deferred to an appointed time. It > is not for the player to express a conflicting view until the prescribed > time at which it is to be discovered which member of the partnership, > if either, has the correct opinion. What is this waffle? Allow me to reduce the above paragraph to smaller parts: "L20F5b makes it clear that a misexplanation by partner is to be rectified at an appointed time." Indeed it does. It does even more than that: it says that such a rectification MUST not (in any manner) be given before this appointed time. Yet the WBF have now issued an interpretation throwing this law overboard, demanding a premature rectification, ahead of this time. I call that misconceived, but I'm apparently alone in this. "It is not for the player to express a conflicting view until the prescrived time". My point exactly. So? If this is the kind of language that Grattan wishes to send out to the world after calling my sayings "wafflings", then I don't really see any way forward. Herman. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 1 15:15:50 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:15:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred> References: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be> <793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B3E0396.9020008@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "The births of all things are weak and tender, > and therefore we should have our eyes intent > upon beginnings. " [Montaigne] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:17 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - > Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> And I urge the WBFLC to put this on the agenda >> for a special meeting and allow me to show them >> the error of their ways. >> >> That's my wish for 2010 ... >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ Self-conceited +=+ > Henk, do you think this still falls within the bounds of politeness? Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 1 15:24:08 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:24:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? In-Reply-To: <62EC069592DD49A8B97FF376799FDE86@Mildred> References: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be><793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred> <4B3D2962.3050309@nhcc.net> <62EC069592DD49A8B97FF376799FDE86@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B3E0588.8020702@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "The births of all things are weak and tender, > and therefore we should have our eyes intent > upon beginnings. " [Montaigne] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:44 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? > > <<< >> Nevertheless, the WBFLC has chosen the worst of the three (at least) >> options that were available, and it's hard to understand why they made >> the choice they did. I too think it should be reconsidered, but there >> seems little hope until the WBFLC membership changes. >> _______________________________________________ >> > +=+ I think the ramparts are somewhat higher than you appreciate, Steve. > Looking back over my archive I find no suggestion from any NBO, Zone, > copyright holder, for anything other than we have in this regard.. > Discussion centred mainly upon suggestions received concerning logical > alternatives and the content of Law 16A.1-3. > I did put before the drafting committee the possibility that > when partner has misexplained a player's call the player should wait > until his partner has next called and then offer his correction, dealing > with the problem for the remainder of the board by excluding the use > of UI. But this was not taken up because of the increased complexity > created including inter alia the fact that when partners express differing > opinions as to their system either may eventually be deemed right, or > indeed they may be found eventually not to have an agreement. The > point was also made that "the present (1997) system of rectifying > partner's misexplanation gives partner no chance to claim he would > always have done something after he finds out the correct explanation", > and "protects against pairs being able to recover from system mistakes". > Note in 20F5(b) the phrase "in his opinion". > This discussion was not prompted by any submission from an > NBO, Zone, or copyright holder. And there we are: the law is the law > and any game is played according to its rules. Grattan tells us that the WBF have indeed considered L20F5b, and have decided to change nothing in it. Have the WBFLC taken this into consideration when they issued the Beijing interpretation? Have the WBFLC seen that what they wrote in Beijing is in direct conflict with the (very strong) language of L20F5b? Have they expressed an opinion, on paper, that such a conflict is good for the game? That is it the best (of three, as Steve notes) possibilities? Have the WBFLC considered what the Director should do when a player infracts the Beijing interpretation? Have they issued instructions to the Directors? I would welcome Grattan's notes on this discussion in Beijing. I fear that there was no such long debate. The members of the WBFLC have no doubt followed the long standing misconception that correct information to opponents is the prime duty under the Law. While they had L20F5b under their eyes, which should have given them a clue that this is not the case. L20F5b clearly states that correct information of opponents is to be deferred to a later time, when other considerations are of greater importance. But of course Ton has just said that any such debate cannot happen in 2010, as it would show the world that Herman might not be so wrong after all, and that is apparently the prime purpose of Ton's and Grattan's writings on blml. I no longer seem to warrant longer answers than one sentence or even one derogatory word. Herman (self-conceited, of course). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jan 1 15:46:52 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:46:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B3E0ADC.9080808@aol.com> Do I understand Herman's closing comment correctly? Herman is the authority that decides what is "black" and what is "white". (And thus who confuses them.) He also decides who is deluded; in this case apparently almost everyone aside from Herman. Ciao, JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Hello Sven, > > can you not see the wrongness of your sentence below? > > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>> +=+ I agree with this. >>>> It may also be the case, so far as we know, that partner has >>>> simply foprgotten to alert and actually knows what he is doing. A >>>> distorted opening bid is not wholly out of the question. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> No Grattan, that is not the case. Neither of them knows what they are >> doing. >>> Partner has not forgotten to alert. He thought was natural and passed. >>> >> NO Herman. Particularly within an occasional partnership (like this was) the >> player who sees his partner apparently forgetting to alert cannot know for >> sure whether the partner has forgotten to alert or forgotten the agreements. >> > > What agreement? There is no agreement! > By alerting, one indicates that one thinks the 2D was transfer. > By not alerting, one indicates (normally) that one thinks the 2D was > natural. > If one alerts and then bids 2H, I see no problem. > If one does not alert and then passes, no problem either. > > But by alerting and passing, one indicates -to partner, most > importantly- that one believes it was a transfer, but that one has more > diamonds than expected. > And that is using illegal methods of telling something to partner. > IMO. > > Herman. > >> I should certainly wish we could avoid your continued crusade on a lost >> mission with Law 20F5. >> > > How can I consider this a lost mission. > The WBFLC have issued an interpretation saying that black is white, and > you all lie down and accept that. > Even more, the WBF have said that black is white in one particular > circumstance, but when Grattan then uses that interpretation is saying > that black is also white in some totally unrelated circumstance, you > also accept that one? > And you think I am fighting a lost mission? > You are deluded, all of you. > I sincerely hope that there are people out there who see that I am not > talking nonsense, and who would dare to speak out. > > Herman. > >> Sven >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 1 16:06:02 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:06:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B3E0ADC.9080808@aol.com> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <4B3E0ADC.9080808@aol.com> Message-ID: <4B3E0F5A.8040900@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > > Do I understand Herman's closing comment correctly? No, apparently you don't. > Herman is the > authority that decides what is "black" and what is "white". (And thus > who confuses them.) No, the WBFLC has done that. By saying in L20F5b that one must not -in any manner- reveal that a mistake has been made (black). And then by issueing the Beijing interpretation stating that one must reveal that a mistake has been made (white). You may exchange the two colours, but it is the WBFLC who have said that black is white (or the reverse). > He also decides who is deluded; Indeed, the WBFLC is deluded, and this is proven (above). > in this case > apparently almost everyone aside from Herman. Ciao, JE > Indeed everyone who fails to see that there is a huge inconsistency here, is deluded. I am not saying (here) that such an inconsistency may not be warranted, but at the very least the WBF ought then to explain why they made the inconsistency and why they believe it is the best solution. Especially since the only two people on the list (Steve and myself) who appear to notice the inconsistency, believe that the choice was not the best one (indeed the worst one of three possible solutions). But yes, please continue to call me deluded. And please continue to think that you are right. It does not make it so. Herman. > > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Hello Sven, >> >> can you not see the wrongness of your sentence below? >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>>> +=+ I agree with this. >>>>> It may also be the case, so far as we know, that partner has >>>>> simply foprgotten to alert and actually knows what he is doing. A >>>>> distorted opening bid is not wholly out of the question. >>>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>> No Grattan, that is not the case. Neither of them knows what they are >>> doing. >>>> Partner has not forgotten to alert. He thought was natural and passed. >>>> >>> NO Herman. Particularly within an occasional partnership (like this was) the >>> player who sees his partner apparently forgetting to alert cannot know for >>> sure whether the partner has forgotten to alert or forgotten the agreements. >>> >> What agreement? There is no agreement! >> By alerting, one indicates that one thinks the 2D was transfer. >> By not alerting, one indicates (normally) that one thinks the 2D was >> natural. >> If one alerts and then bids 2H, I see no problem. >> If one does not alert and then passes, no problem either. >> >> But by alerting and passing, one indicates -to partner, most >> importantly- that one believes it was a transfer, but that one has more >> diamonds than expected. >> And that is using illegal methods of telling something to partner. >> IMO. >> >> Herman. >> >>> I should certainly wish we could avoid your continued crusade on a lost >>> mission with Law 20F5. >>> >> How can I consider this a lost mission. >> The WBFLC have issued an interpretation saying that black is white, and >> you all lie down and accept that. >> Even more, the WBF have said that black is white in one particular >> circumstance, but when Grattan then uses that interpretation is saying >> that black is also white in some totally unrelated circumstance, you >> also accept that one? >> And you think I am fighting a lost mission? >> You are deluded, all of you. >> I sincerely hope that there are people out there who see that I am not >> talking nonsense, and who would dare to speak out. >> >> Herman. >> >>> Sven >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 1 16:09:09 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:09:09 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? In-Reply-To: <62EC069592DD49A8B97FF376799FDE86@Mildred> References: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be><793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred><4B3D2962.3050309@nhcc.net> <62EC069592DD49A8B97FF376799FDE86@Mildred> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 06:31 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "The births of all things are weak and tender, > and therefore we should have our eyes intent > upon beginnings. " [Montaigne] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:44 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? > > <<< >> Nevertheless, the WBFLC has chosen the worst of the three (at least) >> options that were available, and it's hard to understand why they made >> the choice they did. I too think it should be reconsidered, but there >> seems little hope until the WBFLC membership changes. >> _______________________________________________ Over the years I have noticed two of Steve's traits- level headedness and adaptiveness. Speaking to his adaptivenss is the evidence of his concern that the rules be decisive in providing an answer- distinct from the answer needing to be the correct one. So it has come to pass my first evidence that Steve feels it desirable that the rules should provide the right answer. regards roger pewick > +=+ I think the ramparts are somewhat higher than you appreciate, Steve. > Looking back over my archive I find no suggestion from any NBO, Zone, > copyright holder, for anything other than we have in this regard.. > Discussion centred mainly upon suggestions received concerning logical > alternatives and the content of Law 16A.1-3. > I did put before the drafting committee the possibility that > when partner has misexplained a player's call the player should wait > until his partner has next called and then offer his correction, dealing > with the problem for the remainder of the board by excluding the use > of UI. But this was not taken up because of the increased complexity > created including inter alia the fact that when partners express differing > opinions as to their system either may eventually be deemed right, or > indeed they may be found eventually not to have an agreement. The > point was also made that "the present (1997) system of rectifying > partner's misexplanation gives partner no chance to claim he would > always have done something after he finds out the correct explanation", > and "protects against pairs being able to recover from system mistakes". > Note in 20F5(b) the phrase "in his opinion". > This discussion was not prompted by any submission from an > NBO, Zone, or copyright holder. And there we are: the law is the law > and any game is played according to its rules. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 1 18:51:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:51:37 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > What agreement? There is no agreement! > By alerting, one indicates that one thinks the 2D was transfer. > By not alerting, one indicates (normally) that one thinks the 2D was > natural. > If one alerts and then bids 2H, I see no problem. > If one does not alert and then passes, no problem either. > > But by alerting and passing, one indicates -to partner, most > importantly- that one believes it was a transfer, but that one has more > diamonds than expected. > And that is using illegal methods of telling something to partner. > IMO. > +=+ North opens 2D (multi). South alerts. East passes. South passes. Am I to understand South has used an illegal method of telling North about his diamonds? Or is it perhaps the case in both examples that (Law 40A3) there is no undisclosed partnership agreement, North, West and East all having equal opportunity to read the meaning from the logic of the auction? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Jan 1 19:44:14 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:44:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B3D2962.3050309@nhcc.net> References: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be> <793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred> <4B3D2962.3050309@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4B3E427E.8020703@yahoo.co.uk> [Steve Willner] Nevertheless, the WBFLC has chosen the worst of the three (at least) options that were available, and it's hard to understand why they made the choice they did. I too think it should be reconsidered, but there seems little hope until the WBFLC membership changes. {Nigel] I don't understand, Steve. Please list the three principle options -- or provide an appropriate link). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 1 19:59:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:59:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be><4B3E0ADC.9080808@aol.com> <4B3E0F5A.8040900@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 3:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > >> Herman is the >> authority that decides what is "black" and what >> is "white". (And thus who confuses them.) > > No, the WBFLC has done that. > By saying in L20F5b that one must not -in any > manner- reveal that a mistake has been made (black). > And then by issueing the Beijing interpretation stating > that one must reveal that a mistake has been made (white). > You may exchange the two colours, but it is the WBFLC > who have said that black is white (or the reverse). > +=+ The WBFLC has merely reiterated its long-standing interpretation of the law, rejecting the interpretation put upon it by Herman. The latter persists in his self-conceit that he is better qualified to interpret the law than those who are appointed to do so. The Beijing minute provides a point of reference for any who are confused by Herman's pretensions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 2 10:37:03 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:37:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be><4B3E0ADC.9080808@aol.com> <4B3E0F5A.8040900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B3F13BF.8050602@skynet.be> No Grattan, in one sense you are wrong: Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott> You may exchange the two colours, but it is the WBFLC >> who have said that black is white (or the reverse). >> > +=+ The WBFLC has merely reiterated its long-standing > interpretation of the law, How can this be a long-standing interpretation? Have you any prior reference? Have I not been saying this for many years - did you not hear and read my comments? Has anything been said by the WBFLC prior to Beijing? No, I don't think so. So the WBFLC has not reiterated any long-standing interpretation. The WBF has written down what you Grattan, have long thought to be the solution to the DWS problem. I doubt if they took more than 5 minutes to agree with what you presented them with (not that that in itself is a problem, the majority of texts you provide are quite correct). Please correct me if I am wrong, and please tell me that the Committee at Beijing took out any time to consider the pros and cons of this interpretation; if anyone spoke out against it; if anyone realized that it was a direct contradiction with the words of L20F5b. I doubt that very much. You are doing the world at large a great disservice, Grattan, by presenting your own views as those of th WBFLC, and by presenting the views of the WBFLC in this matter as a "reiteration" of previously held views, when they are clearly none of the sort. > rejecting the interpretation put > upon it by Herman. The latter persists in his self-conceit > that he is better qualified to interpret the law than those > who are appointed to do so. I do not believe that. In fact, I believe that if you allow me to conduct a serious discussion on the matter, with people who are not stuck in their ways and refuse to hear to arguments, that I can make those people see that they may have acted too quickly in writing the Beijing interpretation. I have presented, in a recent post, a few questions on this interpretation. How does the WBFLC propose to instruct the directors if they come accross a player who haas acted contrary to that interpretation. Do they propose that those directors rule any differently than what they would have done prior to the issueing of this interpretation? If not, then the interpretation is dead letter, and I, as player, can continue to act as I did previously. If they have, then I'd like to see, as director, such an instruction. This interpretation is badly thought out. It needs to be put back on the agenda. But of course, such is only my wish. > The Beijing minute provides > a point of reference for any who are confused by Herman's > pretensions. It does. It shows that my pretensions are not those of the WBFLC. That may not mean a great deal. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 2 10:47:51 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:47:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> No Grattan, you have, once again, misunderstood. Grattan wrote: > >> > +=+ North opens 2D (multi). South alerts. East passes. South passes. > Am I to understand South has used an illegal method of telling > North about his diamonds? No Grattan, South has used an illegal method of telling North how he has understood the 2D bid. Don't argue with that, it is true. However, we have, in the past, always accepted that a correct explanation of partner's bidding is not to be considered UI. Although it clearly is and no interpretation has ever been written saying that it isn't. Your case is not the same as mine. In your case, you assume that 2D is Multi. You have not written so, but I assume that you assume that North and South both know that it is Multi, and that they know that their partner knows. Then, alerting 2D is not UI. In my case, there is a different assumption. Neither North nor South knows if 2D is transfer or natural. In that case, alerting 2D gives UI to partner, and the unwritten rule that such UI is to be disregarded does not (or should not) hold. So alerting 2D is UI to North. What does the pass show? In your case, it shows a willingness to play in diamonds, because North knows that South knows that his diamonds are not real. North has AI about that (along with disregarded UI). In my case, North does not know that his 2D is interpreted by South as showing hearts. Initially, he can interpret South's pass in two ways: as showing diamonds (unlikely in a 1NT opener) or as believing 2D to be natural (quite a bit more likely in a non-firm partnership). North has no AI about this. And now he gets a piece of UI (the alert) which informs him which of the two alternatives it is. I believe this is a deliberate passing of UI. > Or is it perhaps the case in both examples that (Law 40A3) there > is no undisclosed partnership agreement, North, West and East all > having equal opportunity to read the meaning from the logic of the > auction? You are mistaken, Grattan. We are not talking about the deduction that passing 2D shows diamonds. We are talking about North's knowledge of what South knows 2D to be. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 2 10:54:42 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:54:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B3E427E.8020703@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be> <793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred> <4B3D2962.3050309@nhcc.net> <4B3E427E.8020703@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B3F17E2.8020102@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Steve Willner] > Nevertheless, the WBFLC has chosen the worst of the three (at least) > options that were available, and it's hard to understand why they made > the choice they did. I too think it should be reconsidered, but there > seems little hope until the WBFLC membership changes. > > {Nigel] > I don't understand, Steve. Please list the three principle options -- or > provide an appropriate link). Allow me - I am quite confident I'm on the same track as Steve (and he'll correct me if I'm wrong) When faced with a problem of the DWS kind (how to explain partner's bid when he has just misexplained yours), a player has two possible courses of action: - explain correctly (the majority solution) - explain consistently (the DWS option) When face with telling the world what they should do, the WBF have three alternatives: 1) tell the world to act as the DWS would have them; 2) tell the world they can act as they chose; 3) tell the world they should act as the MS would heve them; In my opinion, option 2) was the pre-Beijing position of the WBF. I consider it no less correct than option 1) If players chose to take a path which leads them to a worse score, then that is OK with me. In Beijing, the WBF have chosen option 3). Steve and I believe this is the worst of the three possible courses the WBF could have taken. I might add that there is worse to come yet. The WBF have not yet replied to my suggestion that there is no penalty for not following MS action. The WBF might yet take this on board and write such a penalty into the laws. I am quite confident that such a penalty would not last many years, but I dread the meantime bridge that is going to be played. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 2 14:30:51 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 13:30:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Herman's Heresy (was Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?) References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be><4B3E0ADC.9080808@aol.com> <4B3E0F5A.8040900@skynet.be> <4B3F13BF.8050602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <01CF4B4C59224C8F8905CAA46AB1FB88@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > No Grattan, in one sense you are wrong: > > Grattan wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott>> You may exchange the two colours, but it is the WBFLC >>> who have said that black is white (or the reverse). >>> >> +=+ The WBFLC has merely reiterated its long-standing >> interpretation of the law, > > How can this be a long-standing interpretation? > Have you any prior reference? > Have I not been saying this for many years - did you not > hear and read my comments? Has anything been said by > the WBFLC prior to Beijing? > No, I don't think so. << +=+ It is right to say that no minute on this quite as explicit as the Beijing minute has been published previously. However, the subject has been discussed in the WBFLC. When the committee referred to 'strange opinions' in its minute item 6 of 24 August 1998 it was 'Herman's Heresy' that was the principal stimulus for the discussion. There was also an inference to be drawn from minute item 3 of the meeting of 30 August 1998. However, at that time the committee was dismissive of the need to give the subject the credence of a minute to reject the heresy. Instead the matter was covered in guidance given to TDs at seminars. In Beijing recognition that despite counter-statements issued by more than one of the committee from time to time Hermas continues to preach his revisionist sermons, led to a decision to put an end to the matter by recording a formal minute encapsulating the orthodox view of the subject. The minute was unanimously agreed, of course, by the committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Jan 3 00:40:44 2010 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:40:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> On 1/2/2010 4:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > No Grattan, you have, once again, misunderstood. > > Grattan wrote: > >> >>> >> +=+ North opens 2D (multi). South alerts. East passes. South passes. >> Am I to understand South has used an illegal method of telling >> North about his diamonds? >> > No Grattan, South has used an illegal method of telling North how he has > understood the 2D bid. Don't argue with that, it is true. > However, we have, in the past, always accepted that a correct > explanation of partner's bidding is not to be considered UI. Although it > clearly is and no interpretation has ever been written saying that it isn't. > Herman, Please explain how S has told N much of anything. S has PASSED. Unless the opponents intervene, the auction will end on the spot. N may know that something has gone wrong but that's likely to be irrelevant, as there's nothing N can do about it without help. If the opponents do let N back into the auction, N is not going to know anything that they don't. Once partner breaks system, all bets are off. Or is a pass (or any other call) now illegal in Herman's world if it happens to be a break from system? When is a break from system an illegal call, when would it be a psych, when would it be a tactical call, and when is it a simple mistake? How do you distinguish between these possibilities? Or do you consider all of these to be "cheating" and not care? Hirsch From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 3 02:36:50 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 01:36:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred><4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > On 1/2/2010 4:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> No Grattan, you have, once again, misunderstood. >> >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> >>>> >>> +=+ North opens 2D (multi). South alerts. East passes. South passes. >>> Am I to understand South has used an illegal method of telling >>> North about his diamonds? >>> >> No Grattan, South has used an illegal method of telling North how he has >> understood the 2D bid. Don't argue with that, it is true. >> However, we have, in the past, always accepted that a correct >> explanation of partner's bidding is not to be considered UI. Although it >> clearly is and no interpretation has ever been written saying that it >> isn't. >> > > Herman, > > Please explain how S has told N much of anything. S has PASSED. Unless > the opponents intervene, the auction will end on the spot. N may know > that something has gone wrong but that's likely to be irrelevant, as > there's nothing N can do about it without help. If the opponents do let > N back into the auction, N is not going to know anything that they > don't. Once partner breaks system, all bets are off. > > Or is a pass (or any other call) now illegal in Herman's world if it > happens to be a break from system? When is a break from system an > illegal call, when would it be a psych, when would it be a tactical > call, and when is it a simple mistake? How do you distinguish between > these possibilities? Or do you consider all of these to be "cheating" > and not care? > > Hirsch > +=+ Meanwhile we all expect South to have a string of useful diamonds for his pass. +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 3 14:57:47 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:57:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> Message-ID: <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > On 1/2/2010 4:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> No Grattan, you have, once again, misunderstood. >> >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> >>>> >>> +=+ North opens 2D (multi). South alerts. East passes. South passes. >>> Am I to understand South has used an illegal method of telling >>> North about his diamonds? >>> >> No Grattan, South has used an illegal method of telling North how he has >> understood the 2D bid. Don't argue with that, it is true. >> However, we have, in the past, always accepted that a correct >> explanation of partner's bidding is not to be considered UI. Although it >> clearly is and no interpretation has ever been written saying that it isn't. >> > > Herman, > > Please explain how S has told N much of anything. S has PASSED. Unless > the opponents intervene, the auction will end on the spot. N may know > that something has gone wrong but that's likely to be irrelevant, as > there's nothing N can do about it without help. If the opponents do let > N back into the auction, N is not going to know anything that they > don't. Once partner breaks system, all bets are off. > Sorry Hirsh, but that is totally beside the point. The fact that North cannot do anything with the UI, as the bidding is likely to be over in a few seconds, does not alter the fact that UI has been passed. And anyway, in the example that prompted this thread, W did not in fact pass, and N did get to use the potential UI. > Or is a pass (or any other call) now illegal in Herman's world if it > happens to be a break from system? When is a break from system an > illegal call, when would it be a psych, when would it be a tactical > call, and when is it a simple mistake? How do you distinguish between > these possibilities? Or do you consider all of these to be "cheating" > and not care? > Did you not read anything I wrote? It is not the pass, nor the alert in itself, which is UI. It is the triple fact of non-firm system, alert, and pass. Within a non-firm partnership, if S just passes, he gives the AI that he has probably thought it was natural. But if he alerts and passes, he gives the UI that although he thinks it is a transfer, he passes anyway. Without the alert, N knows that south has a few diamonds, with the alert, he knows he has a stack of them. > Hirsch > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 3 14:58:39 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:58:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred><4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> Message-ID: <4B40A28F.1020903@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "The births of all things are weak and tender, > and therefore we should have our eyes intent > upon beginnings. " [Montaigne] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hirsch Davis" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 11:40 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > >> On 1/2/2010 4:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> No Grattan, you have, once again, misunderstood. >>> >>> Grattan wrote: >>> >>>> +=+ North opens 2D (multi). South alerts. East passes. South passes. >>>> Am I to understand South has used an illegal method of telling >>>> North about his diamonds? >>>> >>> No Grattan, South has used an illegal method of telling North how he has >>> understood the 2D bid. Don't argue with that, it is true. >>> However, we have, in the past, always accepted that a correct >>> explanation of partner's bidding is not to be considered UI. Although it >>> clearly is and no interpretation has ever been written saying that it >>> isn't. >>> >> Herman, >> >> Please explain how S has told N much of anything. S has PASSED. Unless >> the opponents intervene, the auction will end on the spot. N may know >> that something has gone wrong but that's likely to be irrelevant, as >> there's nothing N can do about it without help. If the opponents do let >> N back into the auction, N is not going to know anything that they >> don't. Once partner breaks system, all bets are off. >> >> Or is a pass (or any other call) now illegal in Herman's world if it >> happens to be a break from system? When is a break from system an >> illegal call, when would it be a psych, when would it be a tactical >> call, and when is it a simple mistake? How do you distinguish between >> these possibilities? Or do you consider all of these to be "cheating" >> and not care? >> >> Hirsch >> > +=+ Meanwhile we all expect South to have a string of useful diamonds > for his pass. +=+ > I don't. I expect South to have thought 2D was natural. Please do not forget that North-South are not on firm ground. Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Jan 3 16:33:28 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:33:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> [Herman De Wael] Within a non-firm partnership, if S just passes, he gives the AI that he has probably thought it was natural. But if he alerts and passes, he gives the UI that although he thinks it is a transfer, he passes anyway. [Nigel] In *both* cases, you transmit unauthorised information to partner; but, Herman may be surprised to learn, in neither case are you a cheat. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Jan 3 17:03:17 2010 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:03:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B40BFC5.80402@verizon.net> On 1/3/2010 8:57 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> >>> Grattan wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> +=+ North opens 2D (multi). South alerts. East passes. South passes. >>>> Am I to understand South has used an illegal method of telling >>>> North about his diamonds? >>>> >>>> >>> No Grattan, South has used an illegal method of telling North how he has >>> understood the 2D bid. Don't argue with that, it is true. >>> However, we have, in the past, always accepted that a correct >>> explanation of partner's bidding is not to be considered UI. Although it >>> clearly is and no interpretation has ever been written saying that it isn't. >>> >>> >> Herman, >> >> Please explain how S has told N much of anything. S has PASSED. Unless >> the opponents intervene, the auction will end on the spot. N may know >> that something has gone wrong but that's likely to be irrelevant, as >> there's nothing N can do about it without help. If the opponents do let >> N back into the auction, N is not going to know anything that they >> don't. Once partner breaks system, all bets are off. >> >> > Sorry Hirsh, but that is totally beside the point. The fact that North > cannot do anything with the UI, as the bidding is likely to be over in a > few seconds, does not alter the fact that UI has been passed. > And anyway, in the example that prompted this thread, W did not in fact > pass, and N did get to use the potential UI. > > >> Or is a pass (or any other call) now illegal in Herman's world if it >> happens to be a break from system? When is a break from system an >> illegal call, when would it be a psych, when would it be a tactical >> call, and when is it a simple mistake? How do you distinguish between >> these possibilities? Or do you consider all of these to be "cheating" >> and not care? >> >> > Did you not read anything I wrote? > It is not the pass, nor the alert in itself, which is UI. It is the > triple fact of non-firm system, alert, and pass. Within a non-firm > partnership, if S just passes, he gives the AI that he has probably > thought it was natural. But if he alerts and passes, he gives the UI > that although he thinks it is a transfer, he passes anyway. > Without the alert, N knows that south has a few diamonds, with the > alert, he knows he has a stack of them. > > Nice non-answer. Yes, I've read everything you've written in this thread. No, none of it makes any sense, in either a logical manner or in bridge Law, which are admittedly not always identical. Note that in Grattan's example, the alert is correct and required by Law, regardless of the action that S subsequently takes. So, are you know proposing that in a non-firm partnership it is UI when a player takes a non-systemic action after a correct alert? That is, the correct alert would say "Partner, I remembered our system" and that is UI that is forbidden? Doesn't this ban just about every alert made in a casual partnership? Please address Grattan's original question again. This time, please cite relevant Laws that back your opinion. Hirsch > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 3 19:21:40 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:21:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:33:28 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > Within a non-firm partnership, if S just passes, he gives the AI that he > has probably thought it was natural. > But if he alerts and passes, he gives the UI that although he thinks it > is a transfer, he passes anyway. > > [Nigel] > In *both* cases, you transmit unauthorised information to partner; Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is constructed well enough to be usable.) From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Jan 3 21:24:26 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:24:26 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> [Robert Frick] Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is constructed well enough to be usable.) [Nigel] IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised to you. If you know your system, you already have that information and may take advantage of it; but if you don't, then you may not. BTW, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody demurred about Herman calling me a cheat for advancing my view on this matter, whether or not I'm right. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 3 22:12:24 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:12:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie .................... > IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised to you. If you > know your system, you already have that information and may take advantage of > it; but if you don't, then you may not. Precisely. When investigating if a particular piece of information is unauthorized you must first consult Laws 16A1 and 16A2 which give a list of all information that is authorized. (Laws 16B, 16C and 73C list only samples of unauthorized information and can therefore not be used uncritically.) If you do not find the information in question in this list then Law 16A3 very clearly states that the information is unauthorized. Information a player can derive from his partner's alert or non-alert is not in this list and therefore unauthorized to him. > > BTW, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody demurred about Herman > calling me a cheat for advancing my view on this matter, whether or not I'm right. Most contributors to this list have long ago ceased taking Herman seriously in many of his contributions; I suggest you join the club. Wishing you a happy New Year Regards Sven From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Sun Jan 3 23:16:35 2010 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:16:35 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> Message-ID: <8668067.436.1262556995697.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h28> Hello The player who bid 2D (in his mind transfert for H) must react as if the partner had alerted.As a bridge player,if my partner,after the 1NT opening,alert my 2D bid and passes,my deduction is that he have long suit in diamonds and a special opening.So,even if the opponent doubles,I must pass unless if I have 6 or more hearts and singleton or void in diamonds.Any other behaviour is the result of an UI. IMO it's clearly obvious and in accordance with law 16. Yours sincerely...And happy new year... > Message du 03/01/10 22:12 > De : "Sven Pran" > A : "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Copie ? : > Objet : Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > > On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > .................... > > IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised to > you. If you > > know your system, you already have that information and may take advantage > of > > it; but if you don't, then you may not. > > Precisely. > > When investigating if a particular piece of information is unauthorized you > must first consult Laws 16A1 and 16A2 which give a list of all information > that is authorized. (Laws 16B, 16C and 73C list only samples of unauthorized > information and can therefore not be used uncritically.) > > If you do not find the information in question in this list then Law 16A3 > very clearly states that the information is unauthorized. > > Information a player can derive from his partner's alert or non-alert is not > in this list and therefore unauthorized to him. > > > > > BTW, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody demurred about > Herman > > calling me a cheat for advancing my view on this matter, whether or not > I'm right. > > Most contributors to this list have long ago ceased taking Herman seriously > in many of his contributions; I suggest you join the club. > > Wishing you a happy New Year > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100103/c89d3b50/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 4 00:16:41 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:16:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> Message-ID: <36A4852E2664452998404437D0CB8CD3@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie .................... IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised to you. If you know your system, you already have that information and may take advantage of it; but if you don't, then you may not. > +=+ Now if we go back to the original example: (I quote) "I had an interesting situation in a tournament for pairs yesterday and would like some opinions: The auction began: 1NT - X - 2D - Pass Pass - X - 2H 2D was intended as transfer to hearts but was not alerted. Opener thought that the system was "off" after an intervening double, responder thought that the system was on" (unquote) the question that arises is about opener's assumption that partner did not have diamonds as the sequence indicated. This assumption is based upon the non-alert, that is to say upon unauthorized information. Law 16B applies. The fact that the partnership is some kind of 'pick-up' partnership does not affect the issue; they are playing by the same laws as all other participants. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 4 00:40:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:40:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Robert Frick: >Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But >an expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from >L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? Richard Hills: Wrong. Robert Frick: >(You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is >constructed well enough to be usable.) Law 16A1(c): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following)" Richard Hills: Laws 73C and 16B1(a) state that an unexpected Alert is UI, but that is not logically equivalent to stating that an expected Alert is always AI. For example, suppose that you have misbid a natural 2D when actually holding a heart suit. But partner has also forgotten the system, and so Alerts the non-Alertable 2D bid. The information that your pard has made a compensating mistake is UI to you if and when you later realise that you have misbid. If you have correctly called according to agreed system* and partner has correctly Alerted your call according to the RA Alert Regulation, then Herman De Wael defines the correct Alert as UI, but Law 16A1(c) defines the correct Alert as AI. * Or well remember your system, but choose to psyche your call. 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 Jan 4 01:19:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:19:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Courteous attitude [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 74A1: "A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times." Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >BTW, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody demurred about >Herman calling me a cheat for advancing my view on this matter, >whether or not I'm right. Richard Hills: In a recent post I made a general demurral about the "would not hesitate" use of the "C" word by Herman De Wael, especially since in the hypothetical case under discussion there were highly plausible reasons to believe that the hypothetical player was entirely innocent of any attempt to cheat. I note that Nigel Guthrie would have acted as the hypothetical player would have done and I note the Herman De Wael did not thereby retract the "C" word. I note also that part of the basis for Herman De Wael's "would not hesitate" ruling is Herman De Wael's refuted belief that creation of UI is necessarily an infraction. This is self-conceited. Herman De Wael is well aware that the WBF Laws Committee (charged with the authority to interpret the Laws) has ruled otherwise. I note also that Herman De Wael correctly believes that a courteous attitude should prevail on blml, and that Herman De Wael has thereby requested retraction of the word "self-conceit". I suggest that the first step towards this courteous attitude should be a comprehensive retraction of the word "cheat" in every one of Herman De Wael's recent posts. 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 Mon Jan 4 01:20:20 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:20:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:24:26 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an > expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from > L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? > (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is > constructed well enough to be usable.) > > [Nigel] > IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised > to you. Curious. I agree that the only sensible approach to deciding what is authorized or unauthorized is using your own opinion rather than following the lawbook. I too have the opinion that the expected alert should be unauthorized information. > If you know your system, you already have that information and > may take advantage of it; but if you don't, then you may not. The law seems to be based on expectation, not knowledge. So the point is if you think you know your system and you expect partner to alert 2 Di, then the alert is UI. If partner fails to alert and passes 2Di, the failure to alert is UI. But most players at my club, especially of lesser ability, will then conclude that a pass of 2Di shows that 2Di was misinterpreted. Enough that leaving in 2Di doubled is not a logical altnerative. Of course, if partner alerts the 2Di bid and passes, that's a different story and know the pass becomes reasonable. So that is why the expected alert should be UI. But that was a consideration outside the lawbook. > > BTW, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody demurred about > Herman calling me a cheat for advancing my view on this matter, whether > or not I'm right. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 4 01:23:50 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:23:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:12:24 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > .................... >> IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised to > you. If you >> know your system, you already have that information and may take >> advantage > of >> it; but if you don't, then you may not. > > Precisely. > > When investigating if a particular piece of information is unauthorized > you > must first consult Laws 16A1 and 16A2 which give a list of all > information > that is authorized. (Laws 16B, 16C and 73C list only samples of > unauthorized > information and can therefore not be used uncritically.) > > If you do not find the information in question in this list then Law 16A3 > very clearly states that the information is unauthorized. This procedure works much better in the Norwegian lawbook, which mistranslates "traits" in L16A2. To my memory. But in any case, the alert arises from the legal procedures authorized in the Laws and regulations. So it is AI (L16A1(c)). Of course, an unexpected alert is also authorized information according to this law, which is another reason for L16A not being useful for making rulings at the table. > > Information a player can derive from his partner's alert or non-alert is > not > in this list and therefore unauthorized to him. > >> >> BTW, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody demurred about > Herman >> calling me a cheat for advancing my view on this matter, whether or not > I'm right. > > Most contributors to this list have long ago ceased taking Herman > seriously > in many of his contributions; I suggest you join the club. > > Wishing you a happy New Year > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 4 01:35:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:35:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:40:48 -0500, wrote: > "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" > > Robert Frick: > >> Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But >> an expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from >> L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? > > Richard Hills: > > Wrong. If you say that people in Andorra must be 21 or older to vote, and you know for a fact that the legal voting age is 18, then you have made a true statement by any system of logic. However, you have violated a Gricean principle of communication. Avoid prolity? Or at least a basic principle of conversation. The idea you are proposing is that the authors of the laws knew that all alerts were UI, but instead of writing "an alert or failure to alert" they chose to write "an unexpected alert or failure to alert". They would not do this, and they would know it was misleading to write this. And of course there would have been no need for a footnote explaining the meaning of the word "unexpected". If I may give another example, citing unwonted speed as AI implies that normal "wonted" speed is not AI. > > Robert Frick: > >> (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is >> constructed well enough to be usable.) > > Law 16A1(c): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information specified in any law or regulation to be > authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal > procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 > following)" > > Richard Hills: > > Laws 73C and 16B1(a) state that an unexpected Alert is UI, but that > is not logically equivalent to stating that an expected Alert is > always AI. As noted above, right, they are not equivalent by the rules of logic, they are equivalent according to the rules of conversation. Or any reasonable assumption about the competence of the lawbook writers. I sincerely doubt you want to through out the basic rules of communication when reading the lawbook. (Even if you would like to throw them out for that one word.) > > For example, suppose that you have misbid a natural 2D when actually > holding a heart suit. But partner has also forgotten the system, and > so Alerts the non-Alertable 2D bid. The information that your pard > has made a compensating mistake is UI to you if and when you later > realise that you have misbid. > > If you have correctly called according to agreed system* and partner > has correctly Alerted your call according to the RA Alert Regulation, > then Herman De Wael defines the correct Alert as UI, but Law 16A1(c) > defines the correct Alert as AI. > > * Or well remember your system, but choose to psyche your call. > > > 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 Mon Jan 4 01:41:41 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:41:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree that according to the 1997 laws, the expected alert is UI. In the 1997 laws, the only sources of UI were calls and plays. Information from legal procedures were not listed as AI. And the examples did not contain "unexpected alerts". That was added for 2007. I am not saying that a director should actually rule that the expected alert is AI, or that anyone should change how they think just because the 2007 laws are different. I am just saying that if you actually read the 2007 laws, you would come to the conclusion that an expected alert was AI. > "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" > > Robert Frick: > >> Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But >> an expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from >> L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? > > Richard Hills: > > Wrong. > > Robert Frick: > >> (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is >> constructed well enough to be usable.) > > Law 16A1(c): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information specified in any law or regulation to be > authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal > procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 > following)" > > Richard Hills: > > Laws 73C and 16B1(a) state that an unexpected Alert is UI, but that > is not logically equivalent to stating that an expected Alert is > always AI. > > For example, suppose that you have misbid a natural 2D when actually > holding a heart suit. But partner has also forgotten the system, and > so Alerts the non-Alertable 2D bid. The information that your pard > has made a compensating mistake is UI to you if and when you later > realise that you have misbid. > > If you have correctly called according to agreed system* and partner > has correctly Alerted your call according to the RA Alert Regulation, > then Herman De Wael defines the correct Alert as UI, but Law 16A1(c) > defines the correct Alert as AI. > > * Or well remember your system, but choose to psyche your call. > > > 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 4 02:15:28 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 01:15:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be><000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk><2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC><43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be><618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be><4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be><4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:24:26 -0500, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > >> [Robert Frick] >> Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an >> expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from >> L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? >> (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is >> constructed well enough to be usable.) >> >> [Nigel] >> IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised >> to you. > > Curious. I agree that the only sensible approach to deciding what is > authorized or unauthorized is using your own opinion rather than following > the lawbook. I too have the opinion that the expected alert should be > unauthorized information. > +=+ Information derived only from partner's alert or non-alert is UI; the alert is for the purpose of disclosure to opponents. Our guinea-pig would not have known his partner had taken his meaning incorrectly were it not for the non-alert. Note also the effect of the footnote to 'unexpected' in Law 16B1(a) To cheat is unlawful in most situations. An accusation of cheating is then libellous unless proven or admitted, when if not maliciously intended it may not be. Self-conceit is not unlawful and to describe a person as self-conceited is not such an accusation. It is merely commonly descriptive of recognizable traits, as for example bold, shy, strong, mean, generous, timorous etc. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 4 02:55:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:55:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8668067.436.1262556995697.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h28> Message-ID: Henri DeFranchi: >Hello > >The player who bid 2D (in his mind transfer for H) must react as if >the partner had alerted. As a bridge player, if my partner, after >the 1NT opening, alert my 2D bid and passes, my deduction is that he >have long suit in diamonds and a special opening. So, even if the >opponent doubles, I must pass unless if I have 6 or more hearts and >singleton or void in diamonds. Any other behaviour is the result of >an UI. IMO it's clearly obvious and in accordance with law 16. > >Yours sincerely...And happy new year... Richard Hills: Correct. However, I note that a significant number of other blmlers do not find it obvious, and permitted removal of 2Dx to 2H in the original thread-starting problem. Perhaps this way of looking at UI may help those blmlers. One may imagine that there are two different kinds of UI: (a) A bog-standard hesitation from partner, demonstrably suggesting a logical alternative. One may get lucky if the demonstrably suggested logical alternative is the only logical alternative. (b) An explanation or alert/non-alert from partner, telling you that you and pard are on different pages. In the original thread- starting problem one may no longer get lucky if one gets earlier or later AI that partner might not have alerted, since one is required by Law to assume that pard did whack the Alert Card on the table. Or perhaps this way: (x) partner's previous and subsequent calls were those of a deranged water buffalo and partner alerted, or (y) partner bid sensibly throughout and partner did not alert. Those blmlers who misapply the (a) bog-standard option will rule that out of (x) and (y) it is then the (y) option that must be the only logical alternative. But... Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Richard Hills: If you saw with your own eyes pard whack the Alert Card on the table, then (y) is impossible, leaving only the improbable deranged water buffalo as a partner as the truth. And Law 75A creates a "...responsibility is to act as though..." you saw with your own eyes pard whack the Alert Card on the table, then (y) is impossible, leaving only the improbable deranged water buffalo as a partner as the truth. 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 Mon Jan 4 03:03:08 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:03:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:15:28 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "The births of all things are weak and tender, > and therefore we should have our eyes intent > upon beginnings. " [Montaigne] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 12:20 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:24:26 -0500, Nigel Guthrie >> wrote: >> >>> [Robert Frick] >>> Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an >>> expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from >>> L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? >>> (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is >>> constructed well enough to be usable.) >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised >>> to you. >> >> Curious. I agree that the only sensible approach to deciding what is >> authorized or unauthorized is using your own opinion rather than >> following >> the lawbook. I too have the opinion that the expected alert should be >> unauthorized information. >> > +=+ Information derived only from partner's alert or non-alert > is UI; the alert is for the purpose of disclosure to opponents. > Our guinea-pig would not have known his partner had taken > his meaning incorrectly were it not for the non-alert. Note also > the effect of the footnote to 'unexpected' in Law 16B1(a) Thanks. I hadn't seen that interpretation. I think when we talk about "his partner" and "his actions", we are talking about "a player", not "the partner". Or that would be the natural reading. > To cheat is unlawful in most situations. An accusation of > cheating is then libellous unless proven or admitted, when if > not maliciously intended it may not be. Self-conceit is not > unlawful and to describe a person as self-conceited is not > such an accusation. It is merely commonly descriptive of > recognizable traits, as for example bold, shy, strong, mean, > generous, timorous etc. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From craigstamps at comcast.net Mon Jan 4 03:17:36 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 21:17:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000801ca8ce4$157965b0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Why in the blazes would he have alerted a transfer? It is not alertable. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Henri DeFranchi: > >>Hello >> >>The player who bid 2D (in his mind transfer for H) must react as if >>the partner had alerted. As a bridge player, if my partner, after >>the 1NT opening, alert my 2D bid and passes, my deduction is that he >>have long suit in diamonds and a special opening. So, even if the >>opponent doubles, I must pass unless if I have 6 or more hearts and >>singleton or void in diamonds. Any other behaviour is the result of >>an UI. IMO it's clearly obvious and in accordance with law 16. >> >>Yours sincerely...And happy new year... > > Richard Hills: > > Correct. > > However, I note that a significant number of other blmlers do not > find it obvious, and permitted removal of 2Dx to 2H in the original > thread-starting problem. > > Perhaps this way of looking at UI may help those blmlers. One may > imagine that there are two different kinds of UI: > > (a) A bog-standard hesitation from partner, demonstrably suggesting > a logical alternative. One may get lucky if the demonstrably > suggested logical alternative is the only logical alternative. > > (b) An explanation or alert/non-alert from partner, telling you that > you and pard are on different pages. In the original thread- > starting problem one may no longer get lucky if one gets earlier > or later AI that partner might not have alerted, since one is > required by Law to assume that pard did whack the Alert Card on > the table. > > Or perhaps this way: > > (x) partner's previous and subsequent calls were those of a deranged > water buffalo and partner alerted, > > or > > (y) partner bid sensibly throughout and partner did not alert. > > Those blmlers who misapply the (a) bog-standard option will rule that > out of (x) and (y) it is then the (y) option that must be the only > logical alternative. But... > > Sherlock Holmes: > > "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however > improbable, must be the truth." > > Richard Hills: > > If you saw with your own eyes pard whack the Alert Card on the table, > then (y) is impossible, leaving only the improbable deranged water > buffalo as a partner as the truth. > > And Law 75A creates a "...responsibility is to act as though..." you > saw with your own eyes pard whack the Alert Card on the table, then > (y) is impossible, leaving only the improbable deranged water > buffalo as a partner as the truth. > > > 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 Mon Jan 4 04:14:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:14:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801ca8ce4$157965b0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig: >Why in the blazes would he have alerted a transfer? It is not >alertable. Richard: Not that I am accusing ACBL blmlers of parochialism :-) but Not alertable in the ACBL = It is not alertable ??? :-) Transfers are usually alertable in the ABF, and perhaps Sven Pran correctly stated :-) at the start of this long thread that transfers are also alertable in Norway, and that the original problem arose in Norway. 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 Mon Jan 4 05:05:19 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:05:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801ca8ce4$157965b0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <000801ca8ce4$157965b0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <4B4168FF.70204@yahoo.co.uk> [Sven] 1NT - X - 2D - Pass Pass - X - 2H [Craig] Why in the blazes would he have alerted a transfer? It is not alertable. [Nige1] The local regulations regulations mandated an alert in this context. From geller at nifty.com Mon Jan 4 06:29:41 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:29:41 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B417CC5.6040108@nifty.com> Transfers are also alertable in Japan. We considered (and rejected) the idea of "announcements" like those used in ACBL-land. -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Craig: > >> Why in the blazes would he have alerted a transfer? It is not >> alertable. > > Richard: > > Not that I am accusing ACBL blmlers of parochialism :-) but > > Not alertable in the ACBL = It is not alertable ??? :-) > > Transfers are usually alertable in the ABF, and perhaps Sven > Pran correctly stated :-) at the start of this long thread > that transfers are also alertable in Norway, and that the > original problem arose in Norway. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 4 08:10:25 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 08:10:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> Message-ID: <000301ca8d0c$fd0d6d40$f72847c0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:12:24 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: ............. > > When investigating if a particular piece of information is > > unauthorized you must first consult Laws 16A1 and 16A2 which give a > > list of all information that is authorized. (Laws 16B, 16C and 73C > > list only samples of unauthorized information and can therefore not be > > used uncritically.) > > > > If you do not find the information in question in this list then Law > > 16A3 very clearly states that the information is unauthorized. .............. > But in any case, the alert arises from the legal procedures authorized in the Laws > and regulations. So it is AI (L16A1(c)). A similar "problem": The use of STOP is also founded in legal procedures, but is information derived from the use or non-use of STOP also authorized for partner? When STOP was introduced in Norway the regulation included a clause that STOP should also be used with 1NT opening bids that by agreement could be weaker than 15 HCP. In some districts this pretty soon resulted in a new "convention" that "STOP 1NT" was 12-14 while 1NT without STOP was 15-17. And as the Norwegian Bridge Federation Secretary General exclaimed to me: "It was completely impossible to make those guys understand that this was illegal use of STOP!" So that clause was just removed from the STOP regulation. Note that if the use or non-use of STOP is AI and STOP is required by regulation for some but not other HCP ranges with a particular call then this would be an ingenious way of varying the understanding of that call. But can it be legal? Consequently the use or non-use of STOP (and by analogy ALERT) cannot be taken as "legal procedures" from which derived information is authorized to partner. STOP and ALERT are specific signals for communication to opponents only, not to partner. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 4 08:27:32 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 08:27:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801ca8ce4$157965b0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <000801ca8ce4$157965b0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <000401ca8d0f$61d14150$2573c3f0$@no> On Behalf Of craig > Why in the blazes would he have alerted a transfer? It is not alertable. > Craig It is in Norway. The main rule here is that all conventional calls shall be alerted. This includes transfer calls (because it shows interest in a denomination different from the named) and responses to these (because they are responses to a conventional call and not just a natural call) Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 09:23:16 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:23:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B41A574.1090502@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:33:28 -0500, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > >> [Herman De Wael] >> Within a non-firm partnership, if S just passes, he gives the AI that he >> has probably thought it was natural. >> But if he alerts and passes, he gives the UI that although he thinks it >> is a transfer, he passes anyway. >> >> [Nigel] >> In *both* cases, you transmit unauthorised information to partner; > > Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an > expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from L16B1(a) > list of examples. Right? > > (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is > constructed well enough to be usable.) > Yes, it is generally accepted that an expected alert is not to be considered UI. I don't see it in the laws anywhere, but it is accepted, yes. But this case revolves around an _un_expected alert. South knows that North does not know what his bid means - he just hopes his partner is on the same wavelength. Now, the alert is no longer expected and it thus remains UI - even when it is correct. Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 09:20:53 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:20:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B41A4E5.9010605@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > Within a non-firm partnership, if S just passes, he gives the AI that he > has probably thought it was natural. > But if he alerts and passes, he gives the UI that although he thinks it > is a transfer, he passes anyway. > > [Nigel] > In *both* cases, you transmit unauthorised information to partner; but, > Herman may be surprised to learn, in neither case are you a cheat. Indeed - but in the one case, you pass AI that says the same thing as the UI, and in the other, you pass AI that says something different. So in the one case, the UI is unavoidable but harmless, in the other, it is avoidable and harmful. If done deliberately, that is cheating. Consider the following scenario: South bid 2D. West asks what it means. North says "I don't know - either natural or transfer". West passes. North thinks, then alerts, and then passes (the alert indicates transfer in his region). I consider that action deliberate passing of UI. And that is, of course, the dreaded C-word. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 09:25:40 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:25:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B41A604.9040106@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an > expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from > L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? > (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is > constructed well enough to be usable.) > > [Nigel] > IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised > to you. If you know your system, you already have that information and > may take advantage of it; but if you don't, then you may not. > > BTW, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody demurred about > Herman calling me a cheat for advancing my view on this matter, whether > or not I'm right. > If Nigel believes I was calling _him_ a cheat, I apologise most sincerely. I had no such intention. I was calling a cheat the person who uses an alert to indicate to partner how he has taken his bid, when that partner cannot be certain how it is taken up. And this especially so if the bod one makes contradicts (apparently) this indication. But let's drop this - it's totally unimportant. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 09:32:11 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:32:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <8668067.436.1262556995697.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h28> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <8668067.436.1262556995697.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h28> Message-ID: <4B41A78B.1080408@skynet.be> Hello Henri, Henri DEFRANCHI wrote: > > > Hello > The player who bid 2D (in his mind transfert for H) must react as if the > partner had alerted. Indeed. Just take away the alert and decide what he would think and do. > As a bridge player,if my partner,after the 1NT > opening,alert my 2D bid and passes,my deduction is that he have long > suit in diamonds and a special opening. Indeed that is the deduction. Now take away the alert - what is your deduction then? Some people say that he may have forgotten to alert. But in the example, both players know that they have no firm agreement. So, in the example, when North does not alert and passes, South has AI that partner thinks it is natural. > So,even if the opponent doubles,I > must pass unless if I have 6 or more hearts and singleton or void in > diamonds. Well, the thing that started this thread has exactly the opposite view. When partner passes his transfer, South is allowed to deduce (from the pass and his AI that they ahve not discussed this) that partner may have thought that 2D was natural. That view was followed by many a person here on the list. if that view is right, then the opposite must also be true. Add the alert to this story and it becomes a suggestion that there are more diamonds. Now, passing becomes the suggested action by the UI. > Any other behaviour is the result of an UI. > IMO it's clearly obvious and in accordance with law 16. If it were obvious ... > Yours sincerely...And happy new year... > > > > > Message du 03/01/10 22:12 > > De : "Sven Pran" > > A : "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > > Copie ? : > > Objet : Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > > > > > On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > > .................... > > > IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is > unauthorised to > > you. If you > > > know your system, you already have that information and may > take advantage > > of > > > it; but if you don't, then you may not. > > > > Precisely. > > > > When investigating if a particular piece of information is > unauthorized you > > must first consult Laws 16A1 and 16A2 which give a list of all > information > > that is authorized. (Laws 16B, 16C and 73C list only samples of > unauthorized > > information and can therefore not be used uncritically.) > > > > If you do not find the information in question in this list then > Law 16A3 > > very clearly states that the information is unauthorized. > > > > Information a player can derive from his partner's alert or > non-alert is not > > in this list and therefore unauthorized to him. > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody demurred > about > > Herman > > > calling me a cheat for advancing my view on this matter, > whether or not > > I'm right. > > > > Most contributors to this list have long ago ceased taking Herman > seriously > > in many of his contributions; I suggest you join the club. > > > > Wishing you a happy New Year > > > > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 09:38:21 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:38:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B41A8FD.3020608@skynet.be> Richard uses apparent logic to arrive at the result he wishes. His logic is flawed however: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Or perhaps this way: > > (x) partner's previous and subsequent calls were those of a deranged > water buffalo and partner alerted, > > or > > (y) partner bid sensibly throughout and partner did not alert. > > Those blmlers who misapply the (a) bog-standard option will rule that > out of (x) and (y) it is then the (y) option that must be the only > logical alternative. But... > > Sherlock Holmes: > > "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however > improbable, must be the truth." > > Richard Hills: > > If you saw with your own eyes pard whack the Alert Card on the table, > then (y) is impossible, leaving only the improbable deranged water > buffalo as a partner as the truth. > > And Law 75A creates a "...responsibility is to act as though..." you > saw with your own eyes pard whack the Alert Card on the table, then > (y) is impossible, leaving only the improbable deranged water > buffalo as a partner as the truth. > Here, the logic falls down. You are not required to act as if partner alerted, you are required to act as if there are no alerts, ever. Like behind screens, or on-line. Thus you do not know whether he alerted or not, and (y) does not become impossible. And even Sherlock Holmes will agree that option (y) is more probable than option (x). On the other hand, when partner does alert, option (y) becomes impossible, and (x) must be the truth. Ergo, to deduce from the alert that partner is a Buffalo, is using UI. And, for the Buffalo to alert and show that he is a Buffalo, is deliberate creation of UI. I would wish, for once, that Richard agrees with me in seeing that he has misconstrued the logic in his post. Herman. > > 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 10:26:39 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:26:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> Message-ID: <4B41B44F.8000004@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > But in any case, the alert arises from the legal procedures authorized in > the Laws and regulations. So it is AI (L16A1(c)). > > Of course, an unexpected alert is also authorized information according to > this law, which is another reason for L16A not being useful for making > rulings at the table. > And this is the crux of this matter: is this alert "correct procedure" or "unexpected". The footnote at 16B says "unexpected in relation to the basis of his action". I don't pretend to understand what this means, but I expect that when I am not certain of the meaning of my own call, the basis for it is not some system, but rather a hope it is understood. Then , the alert is "unexpected" since it shows what partner is thinking the system is, something I did not know myself. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 10:30:06 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:30:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B41B51E.4040905@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > If you have correctly called according to agreed system* and partner > has correctly Alerted your call according to the RA Alert Regulation, > then Herman De Wael defines the correct Alert as UI, but Law 16A1(c) > defines the correct Alert as AI. > Please quote me on this or apologize. > * Or well remember your system, but choose to psyche your call. > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 10:32:03 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:32:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41A574.1090502@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B41A574.1090502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B41B593.2020708@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:33:28 -0500, Nigel Guthrie >> wrote: >> >>> [Herman De Wael] >>> Within a non-firm partnership, if S just passes, he gives the AI that he >>> has probably thought it was natural. >>> But if he alerts and passes, he gives the UI that although he thinks it >>> is a transfer, he passes anyway. >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> In *both* cases, you transmit unauthorised information to partner; >> Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an >> expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from L16B1(a) >> list of examples. Right? >> >> (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is >> constructed well enough to be usable.) >> > > Yes, it is generally accepted that an expected alert is not to be > considered UI. I don't see it in the laws anywhere, but it is accepted, yes. > But this case revolves around an _un_expected alert. I was working from memory - the 2007 laws actually do contain all these words. My point is of course still valid. > South knows that > North does not know what his bid means - he just hopes his partner is on > the same wavelength. Now, the alert is no longer expected and it thus > remains UI - even when it is correct. > > Herman. > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 10:38:51 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:38:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B40BFC5.80402@verizon.net> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be><000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40BFC5.80402@verizon.net> Message-ID: <4B41B72B.4070603@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > Nice non-answer. Yes, I've read everything you've written in this > thread. No, none of it makes any sense, in either a logical manner or > in bridge Law, which are admittedly not always identical. > > Note that in Grattan's example, the alert is correct and required by > Law, regardless of the action that S subsequently takes. So, are you > know proposing that in a non-firm partnership it is UI when a player > takes a non-systemic action after a correct alert? That is, the correct > alert would say "Partner, I remembered our system" and that is UI that > is forbidden? But this is impossible in the case we are talking of. The original Norwegians (and by extension everyone I've ever been writing about) did not know if system wan "on" or not. So the meaning of the alert (to partner) is not "I've remembered our system", but "I think 2D is a transfer" which is NOT the same thing. > Doesn't this ban just about every alert made in a casual > partnership? No, of course it does not. Since (in Norway) the alert means "2Di is a transfer" to opponents, that alert is necessary. But the extra information it carries to partner is UI, always. L16A1c and L16B1a make the "expected" alert AI, but an unexpected one is UI. I consider an alert on a non-discussed call as unexpected, and therefore UI. > Please address Grattan's original question again. This > time, please cite relevant Laws that back your opinion. > Have I done so above? If not, then please re-write Grattan's original question. And please stay within the confines of a non-firm partnership (or at least, a non-firm part of system). > Hirsch >> Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 4 10:53:34 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:53:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41A574.1090502@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B41A574.1090502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501ca8d23$c77f4920$567ddb60$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Yes, it is generally accepted that an expected alert is not to be > considered UI. I don't see it in the laws anywhere, but it is accepted, yes. > But this case revolves around an _un_expected alert. South knows that > North does not know what his bid means - he just hopes his partner is on > the same wavelength. Now, the alert is no longer expected and it thus > remains UI - even when it is correct. > > Herman. Well, to be precise: The information from an expected alert is as much unauthorized information as any other extraneous information. But the only information from an expected alert is that partner (probably) has not forgotten agreements, and although this is unauthorized it can hardly suggest any particular action over any other relevant action. So the simple, but incorrect statement is that the information from an expected alert is authorized. From henk at ripe.net Mon Jan 4 10:59:29 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:59:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201001040959.o049xTYO015206@dog.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for December 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 48 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 32 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 26 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 12 svenpran (at) online.no 12 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 11 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 10 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com 6 posundelin (at) yahoo.se 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 6 ehaa (at) starpower.net 5 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 5 jrhind (at) therock.bm 5 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 5 blml (at) arcor.de 4 swillner (at) nhcc.net 4 schoderb (at) msn.com 4 rgtjbos (at) xs4all.nl 4 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 4 cibor (at) poczta.fm 2 sater (at) xs4all.nl 2 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 geller (at) nifty.com 2 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 adam (at) irvine.com 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 the (at) Sunday 1 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 1 harsanyi (at) t-online.de 1 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 1 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 1 dpb3 (at) fastmail.fm 1 craigstamps (at) comcast.net 1 ciska.zuur (at) planet.nl 1 bridgeinindia (at) gmail.com 1 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 1 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com 1 adam (at) tameware.com 1 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 1 Martin.Sinot (at) tridentmicro.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 4 11:08:48 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:08:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41A78B.1080408@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <8668067.436.1262556995697.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h28> <4B41A78B.1080408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601ca8d25$e8953780$b9bfa680$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > Well, the thing that started this thread has exactly the opposite view. > When partner passes his transfer, South is allowed to deduce (from the pass and > his AI that they ahve not discussed this) that partner may have thought that 2D > was natural. As the originator of the OP i must correct this impression. I was never in doubt that the information South could derive from the missing alert was unauthorized to him. Whether he suspected that partner believed 2D was natural or he suspected that partner simply had forgotten to alert is completely immaterial. My real question was if South with his actual card holding was prohibited from bidding 2H on the ground that he would not have bid 2H without the knowledge that North had failed to alert the 2D bid before passing. Harald provided a very good example of possible cards held by North consistent with his calls where pass by South certainly would be a logical alternative if not even obvious. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 12:09:22 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:09:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000601ca8d25$e8953780$b9bfa680$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <8668067.436.1262556995697.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h28> <4B41A78B.1080408@skynet.be> <000601ca8d25$e8953780$b9bfa680$@no> Message-ID: <4B41CC62.6030403@skynet.be> Hello Sven, and best wishes for 2010! Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... >> Well, the thing that started this thread has exactly the opposite >> view. When partner passes his transfer, South is allowed to deduce >> (from the pass and his AI that they ahve not discussed this) that >> partner may have thought that 2D was natural. > > As the originator of the OP i must correct this impression. > I did not see any impression above. > I was never in doubt that the information South could derive from the > missing alert was unauthorized to him. Indeed it is. > Whether he suspected that > partner believed 2D was natural or he suspected that partner simply > had forgotten to alert is completely immaterial. > No it isn't. In a firm partnership, the missing alert is an indication partner has merely forgotten to alert. In a non-firm partnership, the missing alert is an indication that partner thinks it is natural. > My real question was if South with his actual card holding was > prohibited from bidding 2H on the ground that he would not have bid > 2H without the knowledge that North had failed to alert the 2D bid > before passing. > For that, we need to know what the call (AI) shows: And here it is the reverse: in a firm partnership, the pass in an indication that partner holds an off-shape 1NT with long diamonds; in a non-firm partnership (where off-shape 1NT openings may be less frequent) it is an indication that partner thought the 2D was natural. It is of course up to the Director to weigh all these probabilities, but I choose to weigh the likelihood of the pass indicating the misunderstanding as very high. And then we fall into the real question of this thread: if a player has UI and AI suggesting the same action, do the UI laws apply? IOW, if passing the double is a LA, do we apply L16 and say that through the UI, the LA must be chosen, or do we accept that when in possession of AI that is as strong as the UI, no restrictions apply. And that is still an interesting question! > Harald provided a very good example of possible cards held by North > consistent with his calls where pass by South certainly would be a > logical alternative if not even obvious. > Pass by South can never be a LA by the cards from North. What Sven wishes to say is that there can be cards for North where Pass by South leads to a better contract than bidding 2H. BUT: if a call wins in 1% of the cases and loses in 99% of the cases, is it really a call worth considering? I don't think so, and I believe therefore that Harald's reasoning is not valid. Herman. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 12:08:40 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:08:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41B72B.4070603@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40BFC5.80402@verizon.net> <4B41B72B.4070603@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2010/1/4 Herman De Wael : > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> >> Nice non-answer. Yes, I've read everything you've written in this >> thread. ?No, none of it makes any sense, in either a logical manner or >> in bridge Law, which are admittedly not always identical. >> >> Note that in Grattan's example, the alert is correct and required by >> Law, regardless of the action that S subsequently takes. ?So, are you >> know proposing that in a non-firm partnership it is UI when a player >> takes a non-systemic action after a correct alert? That is, the correct >> alert would say "Partner, I remembered our system" and that is UI that >> is forbidden? > > But this is impossible in the case we are talking of. The original > Norwegians (and by extension everyone I've ever been writing about) did > not know if system wan "on" or not. So the meaning of the alert (to > partner) is not "I've remembered our system", but "I think 2D is a > transfer" which is NOT the same thing. > >> Doesn't this ban just about every alert made in a casual >> partnership? > > No, of course it does not. Since (in Norway) the alert means "2Di is a > transfer" to opponents, Now you generalize, Herman - by accident. What the alert of 2D means i Norway is that 2D is not a completely natural bid. And there are severel possibilites what 2D might show in this position. Lots of tournament players (me included) play the Nilsland escape mechanism after 1NT doubled, where 2D shows the red suits. Which, of course, is alertable. Some probably play simple transfers (not many I know do), which also are alertable. (The completion of the transfer by opener is also alertable.) The most prevalent usage is still that 2D is natural after the double. And that isn't alertable. > that alert is necessary. But the extra > information it carries to partner is UI, always. > L16A1c and L16B1a make the "expected" alert AI, but an unexpected one is > UI. I consider an alert on a non-discussed call as unexpected, and > therefore UI. > >> Please address Grattan's original question again. This >> time, please cite relevant Laws that back your opinion. >> > > Have I done so above? If not, then please re-write Grattan's original > question. > And please stay within the confines of a non-firm partnership (or at > least, a non-firm part of system). > >> Hirsch >>> > > 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 Mon Jan 4 12:13:02 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:13:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000501ca8d23$c77f4920$567ddb60$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B41A574.1090502@skynet.be> <000501ca8d23$c77f4920$567ddb60$@no> Message-ID: <4B41CD3E.6010508@skynet.be> Allow me to be pedantic: Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Yes, it is generally accepted that an expected alert is not to be >> considered UI. I don't see it in the laws anywhere, but it is accepted, > yes. >> But this case revolves around an _un_expected alert. South knows that >> North does not know what his bid means - he just hopes his partner is on >> the same wavelength. Now, the alert is no longer expected and it thus >> remains UI - even when it is correct. >> >> Herman. > > Well, to be precise: The information from an expected alert is as much > unauthorized information as any other extraneous information. > > But the only information from an expected alert is that partner (probably) > has not forgotten agreements, and although this is unauthorized it can > hardly suggest any particular action over any other relevant action. > The fact that a piece of UI has no suggested LA does not change the UI into AI. But Sven is right: > So the simple, but incorrect statement is that the information from an > expected alert is authorized. > The statement is correct. An alert is an action arising from legal procedures, and is AI by L16a1c, except when falling under L16B1. L16B1 mentions unexpected alerts as UI, so expected alerts do not fall under this law, and they remain under L16A1c. The simple, and correct statement is that expected alerts are AI. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 4 13:28:43 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:28:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000301ca8d0c$fd0d6d40$f72847c0$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <000301ca8d0c$fd0d6d40$f72847c0$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:10:25 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:12:24 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: > ............. >> > When investigating if a particular piece of information is >> > unauthorized you must first consult Laws 16A1 and 16A2 which give a >> > list of all information that is authorized. (Laws 16B, 16C and 73C >> > list only samples of unauthorized information and can therefore not be >> > used uncritically.) >> > >> > If you do not find the information in question in this list then Law >> > 16A3 very clearly states that the information is unauthorized. > .............. >> But in any case, the alert arises from the legal procedures authorized >> in > the Laws >> and regulations. So it is AI (L16A1(c)). > > A similar "problem": > > The use of STOP is also founded in legal procedures, but is information > derived from the use or non-use of STOP also authorized for partner? > > When STOP was introduced in Norway the regulation included a clause that > STOP should also be used with 1NT opening bids that by agreement could be > weaker than 15 HCP. > > In some districts this pretty soon resulted in a new "convention" that > "STOP > 1NT" was 12-14 while 1NT without STOP was 15-17. > > And as the Norwegian Bridge Federation Secretary General exclaimed to me: > "It was completely impossible to make those guys understand that this was > illegal use of STOP!" So that clause was just removed from the STOP > regulation. > > Note that if the use or non-use of STOP is AI and STOP is required by > regulation for some but not other HCP ranges with a particular call then > this would be an ingenious way of varying the understanding of that call. > But can it be legal? > > Consequently the use or non-use of STOP (and by analogy ALERT) cannot be > taken as "legal procedures" from which derived information is authorized > to > partner. STOP and ALERT are specific signals for communication to > opponents > only, not to partner. > > Regards Sven So you have concluded that the use of alerts is not a legal procedure. I think, having reached an absurd conclusion, you are supposed to question your logic or assumptions. I of course would suggest questioning the adequacy of L16A. Or you could accept this conclusion and use it to interpret L16A. I for one do not think the laws should be this complicated to apply. And you would have to explain why the alert is AI to opponents. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 13:56:09 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:56:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40BFC5.80402@verizon.net> <4B41B72B.4070603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B41E569.9020901@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> No, of course it does not. Since (in Norway) the alert means "2Di is a >> transfer" to opponents, > > Now you generalize, Herman - by accident. Of course I do. But only because the original was told with just two possible meanings for 2D: natural and transfer. The whole (fictitious) story was made around a pair who did not know which one it was, but it could only be two possibilities. If there are more possibilities, or other ones, everything that I said has to change. But in this version, my statements stand. > What the alert of 2D means i Norway is that 2D is not a completely > natural bid. And there are severel possibilites what 2D might show in > this position. > > Lots of tournament players (me included) play the Nilsland escape > mechanism after 1NT doubled, where 2D shows the red suits. Which, of > course, is alertable. Some probably play simple transfers (not many I > know do), which also are alertable. (The completion of the transfer by > opener is also alertable.) The most prevalent usage is still that 2D > is natural after the double. And that isn't alertable. > And so alerting it, and then passing, remains a very bad thing to do. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 4 14:26:05 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:26:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <000301ca8d0c$fd0d6d40$f72847c0$@no> Message-ID: <001201ca8d41$78b292c0$6a17b840$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............... > So you have concluded that the use of alerts is not a legal procedure. I most definitely have NOT concluded that the use of alerts is not a legal procedure. But I have shown how uncritical use of the criterion "legal procedure" can lead to absurdities like using or not using STOP according to legal regulation so that a particular call can have two different meanings agreed upon: One that requires STOP and the other that does not. I don't know if there still exist STOP regulations where STOP for instance is required when a particular call can be weak below a certain limit but not when the same call promises higher strength? STOP is also certainly a "legal procedure", but will you accept a (properly disclosed) partnership agreement, something like: "8-11 HCP if made with STOP, 12-15 HCP if made without STOP." ????? IMO the last part of Law 16A1c is questionable and can easily lead to abuse in some situations. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 14:45:02 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:45:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41E569.9020901@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40BFC5.80402@verizon.net> <4B41B72B.4070603@skynet.be> <4B41E569.9020901@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2010/1/4 Herman De Wael : > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> No, of course it does not. Since (in Norway) the alert means "2Di is a >>> transfer" to opponents, >> >> Now you generalize, Herman - by accident. > > Of course I do. But only because the original was told with just two > possible meanings for 2D: natural and transfer. The whole (fictitious) > story was made around a pair who did not know which one it was, but it > could only be two possibilities. > If there are more possibilities, or other ones, everything that I said > has to change. But in this version, my statements stand. > >> What the alert of 2D means i Norway is that 2D is not a completely >> natural bid. And there are severel possibilites what 2D might show in >> this position. >> >> Lots of tournament players (me included) play the Nilsland escape >> mechanism after 1NT doubled, where 2D shows the red suits. Which, of >> course, is alertable. Some probably play simple transfers (not many I >> know do), which also are alertable. (The completion of the transfer by >> opener is also alertable.) The most prevalent usage is still that 2D >> is natural after the double. And that isn't alertable. >> > > And so alerting it, and then passing, remains a very bad thing to do. In a non-regular partnership - definitely - I agree. :-) > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Jan 4 15:11:43 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:11:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41B44F.8000004@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <4B41B44F.8000004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B41F71F.7010901@comcast.net> The impression I get from these discussions is that the law is at fault here. 16B1(a) seems to create exactly 2 kinds of alerts: unexpected and expected. By implication, the same holds for non-alerts. Yet where methods are undiscussed, there is no excluded middle. It then happens that alerts and non-alerts are neither expected not unexpected. This seems like a hole in the laws to me. So...what now? You pick up a partner at the last moment (or fill in for someone) and an undiscussed situation comes up. Should the laws require that all undiscussed bids be presumed natural? Should there be exceptions? Blackwood, anyone? Stayman? If Stayman, what about auctions such as 1NT-2C-2H that have different meanings for different pairs...some of which are alertable? I lean toward "If it hasn't been discussed, it's natural," but I have no idea how to handle or put bounds on the exceptions. --Bob Park Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: > >> But in any case, the alert arises from the legal procedures authorized in >> the Laws and regulations. So it is AI (L16A1(c)). >> >> Of course, an unexpected alert is also authorized information according to >> this law, which is another reason for L16A not being useful for making >> rulings at the table. >> >> > > And this is the crux of this matter: is this alert "correct procedure" > or "unexpected". The footnote at 16B says "unexpected in relation to the > basis of his action". > I don't pretend to understand what this means, but I expect that when I > am not certain of the meaning of my own call, the basis for it is not > some system, but rather a hope it is understood. Then , the alert is > "unexpected" since it shows what partner is thinking the system is, > something I did not know myself. > > 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/20100104/3e033215/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 15:39:08 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:39:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <001201ca8d41$78b292c0$6a17b840$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <000301ca8d0c$fd0d6d40$f72847c0$@no> <001201ca8d41$78b292c0$6a17b840$@no> Message-ID: <4B41FD8C.1030502@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............... >> So you have concluded that the use of alerts is not a legal procedure. > > I most definitely have NOT concluded that the use of alerts is not a legal > procedure. > > But I have shown how uncritical use of the criterion "legal procedure" can > lead to absurdities like using or not using STOP according to legal > regulation so that a particular call can have two different meanings agreed > upon: One that requires STOP and the other that does not. > > I don't know if there still exist STOP regulations where STOP for instance > is required when a particular call can be weak below a certain limit but not > when the same call promises higher strength? > > STOP is also certainly a "legal procedure", but will you accept a (properly > disclosed) partnership agreement, something like: "8-11 HCP if made with > STOP, 12-15 HCP if made without STOP." ????? > > IMO the last part of Law 16A1c is questionable and can easily lead to abuse > in some situations. > No, it is the "legal procedure" that the Norwegians introduced which leads to this absurdity. Which is of course why they abolished it afterwards. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 4 15:41:31 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:41:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40BFC5.80402@verizon.net> <4B41B72B.4070603@skynet.be> <4B41E569.9020901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B41FE1B.5050900@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >> And so alerting it, and then passing, remains a very bad thing to do. > > In a non-regular partnership - definitely - I agree. :-) > Harald agrees with me! And it's only the fourth of january! 2010 can not go badly any more. Just kidding! :-) And I wish everyone lots of insight in how the bridge laws work or should work. Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 4 16:00:27 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:00:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <14AA5351-065C-4823-A51D-C6301BC77485@starpower.net> On Jan 3, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:24:26 -0500, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > >> [Robert Frick] >> Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an >> expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from >> L16B1(a) list of examples. Right? >> (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is >> constructed well enough to be usable.) >> >> [Nigel] >> IMO, information from partner's alert (or non-alert) is unauthorised >> to you. > > Curious. I agree that the only sensible approach to deciding what is > authorized or unauthorized is using your own opinion rather than > following > the lawbook. I too have the opinion that the expected alert should be > unauthorized information. > >> If you know your system, you already have that information and >> may take advantage of it; but if you don't, then you may not. > > The law seems to be based on expectation, not knowledge. So the > point is > if you think you know your system and you expect partner to alert 2 > Di, > then the alert is UI. If partner fails to alert and passes 2Di, the > failure to alert is UI. But most players at my club, especially of > lesser > ability, will then conclude that a pass of 2Di shows that 2Di was > misinterpreted. Enough that leaving in 2Di doubled is not a logical > altnerative. > > Of course, if partner alerts the 2Di bid and passes, that's a > different > story and know the pass becomes reasonable. > > So that is why the expected alert should be UI. But that was a > consideration outside the lawbook. The underlying principle at work here should be that your opponents are entitled to the same knowledge about the potential meaning of partner's calls that you have. It sounds like the proper procedure (in the original context, where the partnership was unpracticed and their system in fact didn't address the particular call in question) would be to alert 2D, prepared to explain that you have no specific agreement, but in the context of the agreements you do have it might be either natural or a transfer. Then whatever you do, you leave everyone with the same knowledge you have, left to work out the probabilities from what they hold. This is consistent with ACBL guidance, which says that if partner makes a call about which you have no agreement but which in the context of the agreements you do have might be alertable, you should alert and explain it as such. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jan 4 16:01:45 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:01:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41F71F.7010901@comcast.net> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <4B41B44F.8000004@skynet.be> <4B41F71F.7010901@comcast.net> Message-ID: <003f01ca8d4e$d5757290$806057b0$@nl> There seems to be an impression that alerting is necessary if a call is by agreement not natural. This is correct. However, normally a call is only non-alertable if it is not agreed upon, or natural. This leaves the following vagueness: The call is not agreed upon, and probably not natural. In this case my normal procedure is the following: If the opps are of the same level(or higher) as me and my pd, I do not alert. If the opps are of lower level, and my educated guess is probably not natural, I alert, and if asked explain something like: " We have not discussed this, but probably ..." Until now, this has never led to a director call, and as far as I can tell also not to a situation where I or my pd has gained advantage from a (non)alert. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Park Sent: maandag 4 januari 2010 15:12 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? The impression I get from these discussions is that the law is at fault here. 16B1(a) seems to create exactly 2 kinds of alerts: unexpected and expected. By implication, the same holds for non-alerts. Yet where methods are undiscussed, there is no excluded middle. It then happens that alerts and non-alerts are neither expected not unexpected. This seems like a hole in the laws to me. So...what now? You pick up a partner at the last moment (or fill in for someone) and an undiscussed situation comes up. Should the laws require that all undiscussed bids be presumed natural? Should there be exceptions? Blackwood, anyone? Stayman? If Stayman, what about auctions such as 1NT-2C-2H that have different meanings for different pairs...some of which are alertable? I lean toward "If it hasn't been discussed, it's natural," but I have no idea how to handle or put bounds on the exceptions. --Bob Park Herman De Wael wrote: Robert Frick wrote: But in any case, the alert arises from the legal procedures authorized in the Laws and regulations. So it is AI (L16A1(c)). Of course, an unexpected alert is also authorized information according to this law, which is another reason for L16A not being useful for making rulings at the table. And this is the crux of this matter: is this alert "correct procedure" or "unexpected". The footnote at 16B says "unexpected in relation to the basis of his action". I don't pretend to understand what this means, but I expect that when I am not certain of the meaning of my own call, the basis for it is not some system, but rather a hope it is understood. Then , the alert is "unexpected" since it shows what partner is thinking the system is, something I did not know myself. 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/20100104/4c9eba86/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 4 16:17:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:17:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2010, at 7:35 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:40:48 -0500, wrote: > >> Robert Frick: >> >>> (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is >>> constructed well enough to be usable.) >> >> Law 16A1(c): >> >> "A player may use information in the auction or play if: >> it is information specified in any law or regulation to be >> authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal >> procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 >> following)" >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Laws 73C and 16B1(a) state that an unexpected Alert is UI, but that >> is not logically equivalent to stating that an expected Alert is >> always AI. > > As noted above, right, they are not equivalent by the rules of > logic, they > are equivalent according to the rules of conversation. Or any > reasonable > assumption about the competence of the lawbook writers. I sincerely > doubt > you want to through out the basic rules of communication when > reading the > lawbook. (Even if you would like to throw them out for that one word.) We don't need them to be "equivalent" by whatever deductive rules; an expected alert is AI because TFLB says so explicitly. "Information arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws" [L16A1(c)] is explicitly defined as AI, but is subject to the contraints imposed by the instruction to "see B1 below", which makes an explicit exception to the general case for "an unexpected alert or failure to alert". Expected alerts obviously "aris[e] from the legal procedures authorized...", and are nowhere excepted. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 4 16:35:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:35:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2010, at 10:14 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Craig: > >> Why in the blazes would he have alerted a transfer? It is not >> alertable. > > Richard: > > Not that I am accusing ACBL blmlers of parochialism :-) but > > Not alertable in the ACBL = It is not alertable ??? :-) > > Transfers are usually alertable in the ABF, and perhaps Sven > Pran correctly stated :-) at the start of this long thread > that transfers are also alertable in Norway, and that the > original problem arose in Norway. FTR, transfers are alertable in the ACBL, but the ACBL distinguishes between what it calls "alerts" (using the word "alert") and what it calls "announcements" (using some word that names or describes the treatment). Lowest-level transfers to a major (only, among transfers) are, in the ACBL's terminology, "announceable" rather than "alertable", as one alerts by saying "transfer" rather than "alert". But an ACBL "announcement" is quite clearly an "alert" as defined in TFLB (Definitions). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 4 18:26:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:26:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41A8FD.3020608@skynet.be> References: <4B41A8FD.3020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <888C82B0-2878-4340-92F9-CE6D7C1E20FA@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Or perhaps this way: >> >> (x) partner's previous and subsequent calls were those of a deranged >> water buffalo and partner alerted, >> >> or >> >> (y) partner bid sensibly throughout and partner did not alert. >> >> Those blmlers who misapply the (a) bog-standard option will rule that >> out of (x) and (y) it is then the (y) option that must be the only >> logical alternative. But... >> >> Sherlock Holmes: >> >> "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however >> improbable, must be the truth." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> If you saw with your own eyes pard whack the Alert Card on the table, >> then (y) is impossible, leaving only the improbable deranged water >> buffalo as a partner as the truth. >> >> And Law 75A creates a "...responsibility is to act as though..." you >> saw with your own eyes pard whack the Alert Card on the table, then >> (y) is impossible, leaving only the improbable deranged water >> buffalo as a partner as the truth. > > Here, the logic falls down. You are not required to act as if partner > alerted, you are required to act as if there are no alerts, ever. Like > behind screens, or on-line. Let's see what the Kaplan paradigm tells us, and whether it's consistent with the law. Both require you to act with presumptive knowledge of your agreements but in presumptive ignorance of what may have transpired between partner and opponents. So, *if* your agreement is in fact alertable (or not alertable) you must act as if partner alerted (or didn't); to do otherwise violates L16B1(a). This is the case Richard appears to address, and he is correct as far as it goes. Herman is correct too insofar as he rejects Richard's logic in the case where you do not have any specific agreement about the particular call in question, and where what agreements you do have leave its meaning ambiguous. > Thus you do not know whether he alerted or not, and (y) does not > become > impossible. That assumes that you know that your call was ambiguous but assume that partner does not, so that his alert or non-alert reveals his presumably unambiguously intended choice. But that's wrong; if you know that your call was ambiguous, you must assume that partner does too. Here the law is less than clear, as L16A1(c) would seem to permit you to assume that partner believes your call to be unambiguous and that therefore his alert or non-alert ("arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws") may be used to disambiguate his assumption as to your intention. This is where Herman can justify alluding to the C-word: it would seem to be cheating to *pretend* to be unaware of the ambiguity of partner's call in order to communicate the nature of your response to it by alerting or not alerting. > And even Sherlock Holmes will agree that option (y) is more probable > than option (x). Fortunately, the Kaplan paradigm shows us the way out of this dilemma. It tells you to act as if partner had alerted and explained your call as ambiguous, possibly legally alertable and possibly not (e.g., in the thread case, as either natural or a transfer). Under that presumption, you may legally choose for yourself between (y) and (x), and might still conclude that (y) is more probable, but you do so subject to potential L16B constraints. ACBL guidance suggests that partner should actually alert and explain your call as ambiguous at the table, which serves to significantly reduce the likelihood of L16B actually applying. > On the other hand, when partner does alert, option (y) becomes > impossible, and (x) must be the truth. Not in the ACBL/Kaplan approach, where partner must alert every time, and you must presume that he did so, which is indeed what you are expected to do "like behind screens, or on-line". That does *not* mean "act[ing] as if there are no alerts, ever", but rather as though you could never be aware of them, which implies acting as if they were whatever you would have expected them to be. > Ergo, to deduce from the alert that partner is a Buffalo, is using UI. Would be, yes, but... > And, for the Buffalo to alert and show that he is a Buffalo, is > deliberate creation of UI. ...if the Kaplan paradigm is properly followed, then the alert would not serve to imply the buffalosity. Ironically, the ACBL's generally helpful suggestion to alert ambiguous calls fails in the actual thread case, where one is instructed to say "transfer" for an unambiguous transfer, but "alert" for an ambiguous might-be-transfer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 4 19:21:25 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:21:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000501ca8d23$c77f4920$567ddb60$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B41A574.1090502@skynet.be> <000501ca8d23$c77f4920$567ddb60$@no> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2010, at 4:53 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Well, to be precise: The information from an expected alert is as much > unauthorized information as any other extraneous information. > > But the only information from an expected alert is that partner > (probably) > has not forgotten agreements, and although this is unauthorized it can > hardly suggest any particular action over any other relevant action. > > So the simple, but incorrect statement is that the information from an > expected alert is authorized. How is it incorrect? Is information from an expected alert not "information... arising from the legal procedures authorized in [the] Laws" [L16A1(c)]? Is there an explicit exception for an expected alert comparable to the explicit exception for an unexpected alert (in L16B1(a)) somewhere (else) in TFLB? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jan 4 19:31:08 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:31:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions Message-ID: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> Regarding L53, am I correct in saying that when declarer leads out of turn from dummy and next hand follows, "becomes a correct lead" means that the irregularity/infraction is erased and Law 23's "could have been aware" does not apply? Regarding L16B3: "When a player has substantial reason to believe...he should summon the Director when play ends. * * It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. Am I correct in saying that the footnote, attached as it is to that L16B3 sentence, means that a player should have "substantial reason to believe" in order to call the TD earlier? Since such evidence can come only at sight of dummy or from the play of the cards, "earlier" does not mean during the auction, right? Grattan? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jan 4 19:52:19 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:52:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_53_and_L16B3_questions?= In-Reply-To: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <1NRs2N-0B29gG0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Though I'm not Grattan ... From: "Marvin French" > Regarding L53, am I correct in saying that when declarer leads out > of turn from dummy and next hand follows, "becomes a correct lead" > means that the irregularity/infraction is erased and Law 23's "could > have been aware" does not apply? No. It's a common test item to present a scenario where declarer is cut off from dummy (with high cards) and tries to fool his RHO by thinking a long time and then calling a high card from dummy (though is is in hand) - hoping that RHO is aslept and will follow automatically. This case is solved via Law 23 (at least for declarer's side). > Regarding L16B3: "When a player has substantial reason to > believe...he should summon the Director when play ends. * > > * It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. > > Am I correct in saying that the footnote, attached as it is to that > L16B3 sentence, means that a player should have "substantial reason > to believe" in order to call the TD earlier? Since such evidence can > come only at sight of dummy or from the play of the cards, "earlier" > does not mean during the auction, right? No. The cited part of Law 16 B3 says (means) that the lawmakers would appreciate _every_ TD calling (concerning 16 B3 of course) at end of hand. But as they had not in mind to make an earlier or later calling an infraction they simply said so. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 4 20:22:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:22:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41E569.9020901@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40BFC5.80402@verizon.net> <4B41B72B.4070603@skynet.be> <4B41E569.9020901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <82D83075-1329-4FF6-B17C-6E36FB21B944@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >>> No, of course it does not. Since (in Norway) the alert means "2Di >>> is a >>> transfer" to opponents, >> >> Now you generalize, Herman - by accident. > > Of course I do. But only because the original was told with just two > possible meanings for 2D: natural and transfer. The whole (fictitious) > story was made around a pair who did not know which one it was, but it > could only be two possibilities. Allow me to define the "real" (systemic) meaning of 2D by yet again applying the Kaplan paradigm, according to which 2D "means" whatever could be hypothetically determined or deduced as to its meaning from a complete and correct written description of all of one's partnership agreements, both explicit and implicit. That allows for not two but three possible meanings for 2D: (a) natural, (b) transfer, or (c) ambiguous, possibly either natural or a transfer. In the thread case, the real meaning of 2D was (c), and (as Herman clearly assumes), the 2D bidder was well aware that the real meaning of 2D was (c). But Herman then seems to base his further analysis on the wildly unrealistic presumption that, despite this, the partner of the 2D bidder is somehow incapable of being similarly aware of meaning (c). Having assumed that partner can only base his alert or non-alert on either (incorrect) assumption (a) or (incorrect) assumption (b), he deduces that the 2D bidder can tell which (incorrect) assumption has been taken. But that would mean that the partner of the 2D bidder is either an idiot (who cannot conceptualize the possibility of ambiguity) or a cheater (who chooses to deliberately ignore it in order to send a disambiguating message to partner). This dilemma is avoided by requiring the opposite presumption: that partner, also, knows that the real meaning of 2D was (c). That doesn't eliminate the possibility of transmitting unintentional UI when someone is mistaken as to the real meaning, but may significantly reduce it, at least provided that there is a known rule mandating either an alert or a non-alert for (c). In short, if it's natural, explain it and treat it as natural; if it's a transfer, explain it and treat it a transfer; and if it's ambiguous, explain it and treat it ambiguous. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 4 20:43:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:43:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <001201ca8d41$78b292c0$6a17b840$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <000301ca8d0c$fd0d6d40$f72847c0$@no> <001201ca8d41$78b292c0$6a17b840$@no> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............... >> So you have concluded that the use of alerts is not a legal >> procedure. > > I most definitely have NOT concluded that the use of alerts is not > a legal > procedure. > > But I have shown how uncritical use of the criterion "legal > procedure" can > lead to absurdities like using or not using STOP according to legal > regulation so that a particular call can have two different > meanings agreed > upon: One that requires STOP and the other that does not. > > I don't know if there still exist STOP regulations where STOP for > instance > is required when a particular call can be weak below a certain > limit but not > when the same call promises higher strength? > > STOP is also certainly a "legal procedure", but will you accept a > (properly > disclosed) partnership agreement, something like: "8-11 HCP if made > with > STOP, 12-15 HCP if made without STOP." ????? > > IMO the last part of Law 16A1c is questionable and can easily lead > to abuse > in some situations. Are we perhaps getting a bit confused between, on the one hand, making the mechanics of using of the stop card or the alert procedure a function of the systemic meaning of a particular call (obviously legitimate), and, on the other, making the systemic meaning of a particular call a function of the mechanics of using the stop card or the alert procedure (obvioulsy highly illegal)? Do we not know the difference between a statement which reveals an existing property of an object and one which assigns that property to that object? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 4 21:29:00 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:29:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B41F71F.7010901@comcast.net> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8cb9$72bf0480$583d0d80$@no> <4B41B44F.8000004@skynet.be> <4B41F71F.7010901@comcast.net> Message-ID: <8264A7D4-2CFE-4184-A4D4-FFF509D40816@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Robert Park wrote: > The impression I get from these discussions is that the law is at > fault here. 16B1(a) seems to create exactly 2 kinds of alerts: > unexpected and expected. By implication, the same holds for non- > alerts. Yet where methods are undiscussed, there is no excluded > middle. It then happens that alerts and non-alerts are neither > expected not unexpected. This seems like a hole in the laws to me. No, it may be a hole in our discussion to date, but we can't blame TFLB, which "creates" "unexpected alerts" by virtue of its reference to them in L16B1(a), but nowhere mentions "expected alerts". Legally there are only alerts which are unexpected and alerts which are not unexpected. Whether "expected alerts" account for all or only some portion of the latter is a semantic irrelevance; one may recognize the existence of alerts which are neither expected or unexpected, but L16B1(a) would not apply to them in any case. > So...what now? You pick up a partner at the last moment (or fill in > for someone) and an undiscussed situation comes up. Should the laws > require that all undiscussed bids be presumed natural? Of course not; the laws should require that all undiscussed bids be treated as undiscussed. It would fundamentally damage the game to require that every undiscussed bid be presumed to be anything else; we don't want to mandate the abandonment of ordinary logic. > Should there be exceptions? Blackwood, anyone? Stayman? If Stayman, > what about auctions such as 1NT-2C-2H that have different meanings > for different pairs...some of which are alertable? If you treat undiscussed bids as undiscussed, there are no exceptions. There may, however, be categorical exclusions, i.e. bids which the rules require you to discuss, such as those mandated by a requirement to complete a system card. > I lean toward "If it hasn't been discussed, it's natural," but I > have no idea how to handle or put bounds on the exceptions. If you mean that as a private heuristic, it might be reasonable in most cases, but surely disaster-prone in some. If you mean it as an agreement, it is of course self-contradictory, since as soon as you discuss the agreements you haven't discussed, they no longer exist. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 4 21:57:28 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:57:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B41A8FD.3020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: Adam-Troy Castro, The Unauthorized Harry Potter, page 86: Voldemort cried, "Aaaaarrrrrggghhh! Flobberworms! My only weakness!" and dissolved into a puddle as everybody stared at a much- underestimated Hagrid. Richard Hills: [big snip] >>And Law 75A creates a "...responsibility is to act as though..." you >>saw with your own eyes pard whack the Alert Card on the table, then >>(y) is impossible, leaving only the improbable deranged water >>buffalo as a partner as the truth. Herman De Wael: >Here, the logic falls down. You are not required to act as if partner >alerted, you are required to act as if there are no alerts, ever. >Like behind screens, or on-line. [big snip] >I would wish, for once, that Richard agrees with me in seeing that he >has misconstrued the logic in his post. Richard Hills: I would wish, for once, that Herman agrees with me in seeing that he has misconstrued the logic of Law 75A. Law 75A - Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example: North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits. Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values. Richard Hills: So the correct interpretation of Law 75A is not Herman's misconstrued logic that North is deemed not to have given any explanation, but rather that North is deemed to have given an explanation consistent with South's original belief about the North-South system. See also Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." 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 Mon Jan 4 23:45:19 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:45:19 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> <1NRs2N-0B29gG0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <3447E492B1A94BA488BE9ABAA2EB0929@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Peter Eidt" > Though I'm not Grattan ... > > From: "Marvin French" >> Regarding L53, am I correct in saying that when declarer leads >> out >> of turn from dummy and next hand follows, "becomes a correct >> lead" >> means that the irregularity/infraction is erased and Law 23's >> "could >> have been aware" does not apply? > > No. > It's a common test item to present a scenario > where declarer is cut off from dummy (with high > cards) and tries to fool his RHO by thinking a > long time and then calling a high card from > dummy (though is is in hand) - hoping that RHO > is aslept and will follow automatically. > This case is solved via Law 23 (at least for > declarer's side). Law 53 doesn't reference Law 23, nor should it. If a lead becomes a correct lead, how can it be termed an infraction? Have you ever heard of an opening lead out of turn, accepted by declarer, being subjected to Law 23? Law 53 makes no distinction between the two, they are treated equally.. > >> Regarding L16B3: "When a player has substantial reason to >> believe...he should summon the Director when play ends. * >> >> * It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. >> >> Am I correct in saying that the footnote, attached as it is to >> that >> L16B3 sentence, means that a player should have "substantial >> reason >> to believe" in order to call the TD earlier? Since such evidence >> can >> come only at sight of dummy or from the play of the cards, >> "earlier" >> does not mean during the auction, right? > > No. > The cited part of Law 16 B3 says (means) that the lawmakers > would appreciate _every_ TD calling (concerning 16 B3 of course) > at end of hand. But as they had not in mind to make an earlier or > later calling an infraction they simply said so. But there has been no infraction for which to call the TD, as UI does not constitute one. Can we really call the TD every time a defender plays or calls too fast or too slow when we judge that damage could result? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 5 00:24:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:24:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: [big snip] >But an ACBL "announcement" is quite clearly an "alert" as defined >in TFLB (Definitions). Richard Hills: Not so clear. Law 20F5(a), second sentence: "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. Law 40B2(a), third sentence: The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods. Richard Hills: So it seems to me that an announcement is a method other than an alert, albeit for the same purpose of assisting the opponents by disclosing. 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 Jan 5 01:21:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:21:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: idiosyncrasy, n. Mental (also physical) constitution, view, feeling, peculiar to a person Richard Hills: >>If you have correctly called according to agreed system* and partner >>has correctly Alerted your call according to the RA Alert Regulation, >>then Herman De Wael defines the correct Alert as UI, but Law 16A1(c) >>defines the correct Alert as AI. >> >>* Or well remember your system, but choose to psyche your call. Herman De Wael: >Please quote me on this or apologize. >Herman. Richard Hills: Not only am I delighted to apologise, but I will shout Herman a virtual beer now that I know that for at least one aspect of the UI Laws Herman eschews idiosyncrasy. And once more with feeling on our differing interpretations of Law 75A. Note the key final sentence: For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four- card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values. Under Herman's "no explanation" interpretation of Law 75A, South would be free to deduce that North's unexpected unusual 2NT signifies a bidding stuff-up. But the strong words "responsibility is to act as though" means that South must assume that a bidding stuff-up has not occurred; that is that South "knows" that North has explained South's call in accordance with what South originally "knew" South's call "actually" meant. 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 Jan 5 04:03:06 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:03:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003f01ca8d4e$d5757290$806057b0$@nl> Message-ID: George Canning, British Foreign Secretary, 31st January 1826: In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch Is offering too little and asking too much. The French are with equal advantage content, So we clap on Dutch bottoms just twenty per cent. Hans van Staveren: >There seems to be an impression that alerting is necessary if a call >is by agreement not natural. This is correct. Richard Hills: Correct in The Netherlands; not necessarily correct in Australia, where some non-natural calls are self-alerting. Hans van Staveren: >However, normally a call is only non-alertable if it is not agreed >upon, or natural. Richard Hills: An unusual natural call (e.g. a negative free bid) is alertable in Australia. However, Australia and The Netherlands are united in the prohibition of any alerting of so-called "undiscussed" calls. Hans van Staveren: >This leaves the following vagueness: >The call is not agreed upon, and probably not natural. > >In this case my normal procedure is the following: >If the opps are of the same level(or higher) as me and my pd, I do not >alert. >If the opps are of lower level, and my educated guess is probably not >natural, I alert, and if asked explain something like: "We have not >discussed this, but probably...". > >Until now, this has never led to a director call, and as far as I can >tell also not to a situation where I or my pd has gained advantage from >a (non)alert. > >Hans Richard Hills: Probably Hans' normal procedure was Lawful under the 1997 Lawbook, but probably Hans is now unintentionally infracting the new 2007 Law 40A1: 1. (a) Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion ***or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness*** of the players. (b) Each partnership ***has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents*** before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done. 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 Tue Jan 5 04:31:56 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:31:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Please list the three principle options In decreasing order of (my opinion of) merit: Rubens school, De Wael School, Majority (or perhaps now "Official" or "Beijing") school. I think most people know the last two, though some opponents of dWS mis-state what it actually is. Rubens School is that all _correct_ alerts and answers to opponents' questions are AI to partner. That sounds nutty at first -- at least it did to me when I first saw it -- but it solves a whole lot of problems and (in my view) improves the game compared to either of the other alternatives. The current Laws are one word and a footnote away from the Rubens school, but that's a world of difference. Grattan wrote: > I think the ramparts are somewhat higher than you appreciate, Steve. > Looking back over my archive I find no suggestion from any NBO, Zone, > copyright holder, for anything other than we have in this regard.. I appreciate the temperate response to my comment, which in hindsight I see could be read as more provocative than I intended. I also perhaps partially understand Grattan's feelings after his having tried to initiate the major rewrite the Laws need (in the view of many) and been (searching for the right metaphor here) kicked in the teeth by a certain Zone for his trouble. Nevertheless, I maintain my view of the wisdom of the Beijing minute. Of course as an outsider, my view of what was possible is uninformed, but it seems to me the LC could have avoided addressing the issue even if issuing a different opinion would have been politically impossible. And I am not convinced that the issue is so high-profile that politics really did rule out a different opinion. I agree with Grattan's later comment that one virtue of the Beijing minute is its simplicity. However, I'm not convinced the Rubens suggestion is more complicated; in fact, it seems simpler to me. I'll offer the following questions for people to ponder: 1. Suppose a pair have done nothing whatsoever wrong. They have alerted and explained according to their actual system and RA rules, and there is not a hint of an out-of-tempo action, untoward gesture, or tone of voice discrepancy. Is it acceptable that such a pair could nevertheless be subject to UI constraints, as they may be in current interpretations? 2. Is it a desirable part of the game for a player (who has no immediate use for the information) to put opponents under UI constraints by asking questions? (Remember that failing to ask such questions, when doing so is to your advantage, is "dumping" and therefore illegal.) Eric Landau wrote: > This is consistent with ACBL guidance, which says that if partner > makes a call about which you have no agreement but which in the > context of the agreements you do have might be alertable, you should > alert and explain it as such. As usual, Eric has the principle right. When there is no agreement, but the bid might be a transfer, the ACBL says to alert. Such an alert is expected and therefore AI. I believe some other jurisdictions (possibly Belgium?) say not to alert unless there is an agreement. In those jurisdictions, the lack of alert would be AI. I don't know what the rules are in Norway, but the correct ruling in the original case seems to depend on that. > transfers are alertable in the ACBL, but the ACBL distinguishes > between what it calls "alerts" (using the word "alert") and what it > calls "announcements" (using some word that names or describes the > treatment). Lowest-level transfers to a major (only, among > transfers) are, in the ACBL's terminology, "announceable" rather than > "alertable", as one alerts by saying "transfer" rather than "alert". The transfer doesn't have to be lowest level to be announceable. For example, 1NT-P-4H(showing spades) requires "transfer," not "alert." > But an ACBL "announcement" is quite clearly an "alert" as defined in > TFLB (Definitions). Despite that, there is still, as far as I know, a question whether an announcement is an alert _as defined by the ACBL_. The reason it matters is that certain alerts are "delayed:" given at the end of the auction rather than immediately. For example, in the unopposed Standard American auction 2C(strong)-2D(artificial)-2NT(natural)-4D(showing hearts), I don't think there's a clear rule whether to say "transfer" immediately or do nothing until the auction is over. (Saying "alert" immediately is wrong, though, unless 4D has some very unusual meaning besides showing hearts.) > Herman De Wael wrote: > if a player has > UI and AI suggesting the same action, do the UI laws apply? I thought this was settled: the AI determines the LA's. If there is only one, no problem. If more than one, UI may restrict choice. Is this really in doubt? Sven Pran wrote: > But I have shown how uncritical use of the criterion "legal procedure" can > lead to absurdities like using or not using STOP according to legal > regulation so that a particular call can have two different meanings agreed > upon: One that requires STOP and the other that does not. This seems a fault of the regulations. As of 2007, the use or non-use of the stop card -- provided such use conforms to RA regulations -- is AI. The Laws might have been written otherwise, but I don't see any room for doubt about what they actually say about this. Robert Frick wrote: > Curious. I agree that the only sensible approach to deciding what is > authorized or unauthorized is using your own opinion rather than following > the lawbook. That's a curious opinion, but I don't think it agrees with anything Nigel or anyone else has written. > I too have the opinion that the expected alert should be > unauthorized information. Fortunately, as others have written, the Laws say otherwise. I don't see how the game would be playable if Robert's opinion prevailed. > The law seems to be based on expectation, not knowledge. In other words, mind reading. So it does. My opinion of that will not be hard to guess. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 5 06:24:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:24:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Texas sharpshooter fallacy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Wikipedia, April 2005: >>The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy >>where a cluster of statistically non-significant data >>is taken from its context, and therefore thought to >>have a common cause. >> >>The name comes from a story about a Texan who fires >>his gun randomly at the side of a barn, then paints a >>target centred on the largest cluster of hits. >> >>The fallacy is closely related to the clustering >>illusion, which refers to the tendency in human >>cognition to interpret patterns in randomness where >>none actually exist. Nigel Guthrie, April 2005: >Great quote Richard -- I like all your quotes. IMO, >however, a director may rule on the basis of one "lucky >coincidence." [snip] >The Jury (and tournament director)(unconsciously) apply >Bayes's theorem about the probability of causes. [snip] Richard Hills, April 2005: A single data point cannot have probabilistic analysis applied to it. (1) A Nigelish TD flips a coin once. It comes up heads. The Nigelish TD rules that the coin is loaded and will always come up heads. (2) A Svenish TD flips the coin three times. It comes up heads three times. Without examining the coin, the Svenish TD asks the coin to volunteer evidence to disprove that it is loaded and will always come up heads. (3) A Richardian TD flips the coin three thousand times. It comes up heads three thousand times. The Richardian TD applies Bayes's theorem about the probability of causes and finally rules that the coin is loaded and will always come up heads. (4) A sensible TD immediately examines the coin and notices that it is a double-headed coin. :-) 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 Tue Jan 5 07:14:40 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:14:40 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> [Steve Willner] I'll offer the following questions for people to ponder: 1. Suppose a pair have done nothing whatsoever wrong. They have alerted and explained according to their actual system and RA rules, and there is not a hint of an out-of-tempo action, untoward gesture, or tone of voice discrepancy. Is it acceptable that such a pair could nevertheless be subject to UI constraints, as they may be in current interpretations? 2. Is it a desirable part of the game for a player (who has no immediate use for the information) to put opponents under UI constraints by asking questions? (Remember that failing to ask such questions, when doing so is to your advantage, is "dumping" and therefore illegal.) As usual, Eric has the principle right. When there is no agreement, but the bid might be a transfer, the ACBL says to alert. Such an alert is expected and therefore AI. I believe some other jurisdictions (possibly Belgium?) say not to alert unless there is an agreement. In those jurisdictions, the lack of alert would be AI. I don't know what the rules are in Norway, but the correct ruling in the original case seems to depend on that. [Nigel] Wow! An eye-opener. Thank you Steve! I hope Steve gets satisfactory answers to his worrying questions (above). The last paragraph above, also came as a surprise to me. If you're certain that there is no agreement, even an implicit agreement, then perhaps regulators should be allowed to choose what to do. That must be a rare situation. What about the far more common case, where you think you do have an agreement, but you're not sure what it is? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 08:53:13 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:53:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions In-Reply-To: <3447E492B1A94BA488BE9ABAA2EB0929@MARVLAPTOP> References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> <1NRs2N-0B29gG0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3447E492B1A94BA488BE9ABAA2EB0929@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2010/1/4 Marvin French : > > From: "Peter Eidt" > > >> Though I'm not Grattan ... >> >> From: "Marvin French" >>> Regarding L53, am I correct in saying that when declarer leads >>> out >>> of turn from dummy and next hand follows, "becomes a correct >>> lead" >>> means that the irregularity/infraction is erased and Law 23's >>> "could >>> have been aware" does not apply? >> >> No. >> It's a common test item to present a scenario >> where declarer is cut off from dummy (with high >> cards) and tries to fool his RHO by thinking a >> long time and then calling a high card from >> dummy (though is is in hand) - hoping that RHO >> is aslept and will follow automatically. >> This case is solved via Law 23 (at least for >> declarer's side). > > Law 53 doesn't reference Law 23, nor should it. If a lead becomes a > correct lead, how can it be termed an infraction? Have you ever > heard of an opening lead out of turn, accepted by declarer, being > subjected to Law 23? ?Law 53 makes no distinction between the two, > they are treated equally.. Law 23 doesn't need to be referenced, it a "stand alone" law. Peter's got it right above. His example is a classical example on how to use Law 23. >> >>> Regarding L16B3: "When a player has substantial reason to >>> believe...he should summon the Director when play ends. * >>> >>> * It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. >>> >>> Am I correct in saying that the footnote, attached as it is to >>> that >>> L16B3 sentence, means that a player should have "substantial >>> reason >>> to believe" in order to call the TD earlier? Since such evidence >>> can >>> come only at sight of dummy or from the play of the cards, >>> "earlier" >>> does not mean during the auction, right? >> >> No. >> The cited part of Law 16 B3 says (means) that the lawmakers >> would appreciate _every_ TD calling (concerning 16 B3 of course) >> at end of hand. But as they had not in mind to make an earlier or >> later calling an infraction they simply said so. > > But there has been no infraction for which to call the TD, as UI > does not constitute one. Can we really call the TD every time a > defender plays or calls too fast or too slow when we judge that > damage could result? Yes, we can. But we don't have to. The practice in Norway is to call the TD after the hand (or after dummy has been put down) if both sides agrees to the possible transmission of UI. Or right away, if there's no agreement about a hesitation. I agree with you that calling earlier generally is a waste of time for TD and players. But it is useful for the TD to be called early when there is disagreement, to be able to determine if any UI has been transmitted. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 5 09:36:12 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:36:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B42F9FC.4080001@skynet.be> Only one quibble here: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > So the correct interpretation of Law 75A is not Herman's misconstrued > logic that North is deemed not to have given any explanation, but rather > that North is deemed to have given an explanation consistent with South's > original belief about the North-South system. South's (and North's) belief of the North-South system is that there isn't any! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 5 10:08:55 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:08:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B4301A7.2060800@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Steve Willner] > I'll offer the following questions for people to ponder: > 1. Suppose a pair have done nothing whatsoever wrong. They have alerted > and explained according to their actual system and RA rules, and there > is not a hint of an out-of-tempo action, untoward gesture, or tone of > voice discrepancy. Is it acceptable that such a pair could nevertheless > be subject to UI constraints, as they may be in current interpretations? > I don't see any such interpretations any more. If you follow the normal logic of L16A and L16B, an expected alert is AI. > 2. Is it a desirable part of the game for a player (who has no immediate > use for the information) to put opponents under UI constraints by asking > questions? (Remember that failing to ask such questions, when doing so > is to your advantage, is "dumping" and therefore illegal.) > No, that is certainly not desirable. A player must be allowed to ask any question he deems necessary, but the opponent must be allowed to answer it in such a way as to not give UI to partner. If this cannot be done without giving MI to the asker, then so be it. The director can deal with any MI later on. The director cannot deal with UI, once given. He cannot put the cat back into the bag. > As usual, Eric has the principle right. When there is no agreement, but > the bid might be a transfer, the ACBL says to alert. Such an alert is > expected and therefore AI. I believe some other jurisdictions (possibly > Belgium?) say not to alert unless there is an agreement. In those > jurisdictions, the lack of alert would be AI. I don't know what the > rules are in Norway, but the correct ruling in the original case seems > to depend on that. > I believe that alerts are nothing else than short explanations. Before deciding whether to alert or not, a player needs to decide what he will explain the call as. When that explanation makes the call alertable, he should alert; when it doesn't, he shouldn't. There should be no rules like "when in doubt, alert" or "if you know it's alertable but can't remember what, then alert". The first is simply wrong, as you may be in doubt between an alertable and a non-alertable meaning, and by alerting you tell your opponent (who does not need to ask further) that it's the alertable meaning. The second is self-evident. > [Nigel] > Wow! An eye-opener. Thank you Steve! I hope Steve gets satisfactory > answers to his worrying questions (above). > > The last paragraph above, also came as a surprise to me. If you're > certain that there is no agreement, even an implicit agreement, then > perhaps regulators should be allowed to choose what to do. That must be > a rare situation. What about the far more common case, where you think > you do have an agreement, but you're not sure what it is? If you really have no agreement, then that is what you must tell your opponents. However, the TD may not believe you. If you have an agreement, but can't remember what it is, then that agreement is what your opponents are entitled to. If you don't tell then that, then they are misinformed. Of course your not remembering is no excuse. Therefore, it is better to guess, and tell them your guess (without saying it's a guess). If you've guessed right, opponents are correctly informed. If you've guessed wrong, you're screwed anyway, as you'll probably also bid wrongly now. That same principle applies to the "no agreement" case. There too, you'll have to guess. If you guess wrong, it doesn't really matter; but if you've guessed right, you have just given the TD one more reason not to believe that you had no agreement in the first place. So again it's better to just tell them your guess and get on with the game. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 5 10:14:52 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:14:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <82D83075-1329-4FF6-B17C-6E36FB21B944@starpower.net> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40BFC5.80402@verizon.net> <4B41B72B.4070603@skynet.be> <4B41E569.9020901@skynet.be> <82D83075-1329-4FF6-B17C-6E36FB21B944@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B43030C.5000902@skynet.be> Eric's analysis is correct, and I agree with him that both players in this case know the meaning to be (c). Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 4, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >>>> No, of course it does not. Since (in Norway) the alert means "2Di >>>> is a >>>> transfer" to opponents, >>> Now you generalize, Herman - by accident. >> Of course I do. But only because the original was told with just two >> possible meanings for 2D: natural and transfer. The whole (fictitious) >> story was made around a pair who did not know which one it was, but it >> could only be two possibilities. > > Allow me to define the "real" (systemic) meaning of 2D by yet again > applying the Kaplan paradigm, according to which 2D "means" whatever > could be hypothetically determined or deduced as to its meaning from > a complete and correct written description of all of one's > partnership agreements, both explicit and implicit. > > That allows for not two but three possible meanings for 2D: (a) > natural, (b) transfer, or (c) ambiguous, possibly either natural or a > transfer. > > In the thread case, the real meaning of 2D was (c), and (as Herman > clearly assumes), the 2D bidder was well aware that the real meaning > of 2D was (c). But Herman then seems to base his further analysis on > the wildly unrealistic presumption that, despite this, the partner of > the 2D bidder is somehow incapable of being similarly aware of > meaning (c). Having assumed that partner can only base his alert or > non-alert on either (incorrect) assumption (a) or (incorrect) > assumption (b), he deduces that the 2D bidder can tell which > (incorrect) assumption has been taken. But that would mean that the > partner of the 2D bidder is either an idiot (who cannot conceptualize > the possibility of ambiguity) or a cheater (who chooses to > deliberately ignore it in order to send a disambiguating message to > partner). This dilemma is avoided by requiring the opposite > presumption: that partner, also, knows that the real meaning of 2D > was (c). As I said, completely agreed. However, there is room in the alert procedure for only (a) and (b). And in Norway, both are clearly codified. I don't know how to act under such a procedure, but I do know that to alert means "I'm guessing he has hearts". Combining that with passing is a severe piece of UI transmitting. > That doesn't eliminate the possibility of transmitting > unintentional UI when someone is mistaken as to the real meaning, but > may significantly reduce it, at least provided that there is a known > rule mandating either an alert or a non-alert for (c). > > In short, if it's natural, explain it and treat it as natural; if > it's a transfer, explain it and treat it a transfer; and if it's > ambiguous, explain it and treat it ambiguous. WTP? > Nothing, except that in the original, the player did not explain it as ambiguous. He did manifestly not alert, and he passed. That indicates (a), not (c), and it is therefore a misexplanation. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 5 12:55:25 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:55:25 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 6:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > [Steve Willner] > I'll offer the following questions for people to ponder: > 1. Suppose a pair have done nothing whatsoever wrong. They have alerted > and explained according to their actual system and RA rules, and there > is not a hint of an out-of-tempo action, untoward gesture, or tone of > voice discrepancy. Is it acceptable that such a pair could nevertheless > be subject to UI constraints, as they may be in current interpretations? > > 2. Is it a desirable part of the game for a player (who has no immediate > use for the information) to put opponents under UI constraints by asking > questions? (Remember that failing to ask such questions, when doing so > is to your advantage, is "dumping" and therefore illegal.) > > As usual, Eric has the principle right. When there is no agreement, but > the bid might be a transfer, the ACBL says to alert. Such an alert is > expected and therefore AI. I believe some other jurisdictions (possibly > Belgium?) say not to alert unless there is an agreement. In those > jurisdictions, the lack of alert would be AI. I don't know what the > rules are in Norway, but the correct ruling in the original case seems > to depend on that. > > [Nigel] > Wow! An eye-opener. Thank you Steve! I hope Steve gets satisfactory > answers to his worrying questions (above). > > The last paragraph above, also came as a surprise to me. If you're > certain that there is no agreement, even an implicit agreement, then > perhaps regulators should be allowed to choose what to do. That must be > a rare situation. What about the far more common case, where you think > you do have an agreement, but you're not sure what it is? > _______________________________________________ > +=+ It is necessary to refer to the alerting regulations that apply. For example, the current WBF Alerting Regulation is as follows (pending a forthcoming update any reference to 'conventional' should be understood as 'artificial' and for 'sponsoring organisation' read 'Regulating Authority/Tournament Organizer'.): WORLD BRIDGE FEDERATION Published by the Systems Committee of the World Bridge Federation Distributed by: Anna Gudge, The Old Railway Station Long Melford, Sudbury, Suffolk, England C010 9HN ** email: anna at ecats.co.uk WBF Systems Policy - Appendix 3 WBF Alerting Policy (Adopted July 1997, revised August 2002) Preamble 1. The objective is to have a uniform WBF policy which is applied to all WBF events. 2. It is not intended that this should over-ride Alerting Policies developed by the Zone or NBOs. 3. Full disclosure is vital. However, players who participate in WBF events are expected to protect themselves to a large extent. They are also expected to observe the spirit of the Laws as well as the letter. 4. The Policy has been made as simple as possible. Players are, however, expected to alert whenever there is doubt. (N.B. Where screens are in use, an alert on one side but not on the other does not necessarily imply an infraction.) Policy The following classes of calls should be alerted: 1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. 2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization). See Law 40(b). 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and nonforcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: 1. All doubles. 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. 3. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction. Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter. [end] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 5 15:03:06 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:03:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions In-Reply-To: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Regarding L53, am I correct in saying that when declarer leads out > of turn from dummy and next hand follows, "becomes a correct lead" > means that the irregularity/infraction is erased and Law 23's "could > have been aware" does not apply? Why wouldn't it? Declarer committed an irregularity, notwithstanding that the wrongly played card subsequently "be[came] a correct lead", and he "could have been aware" of its effect at the time he committed it. > Regarding L16B3: "When a player has substantial reason to > believe...he should summon the Director when play ends. * > > * It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. > > Am I correct in saying that the footnote, attached as it is to that > L16B3 sentence, means that a player should have "substantial reason > to believe" in order to call the TD earlier? Since such evidence can > come only at sight of dummy or from the play of the cards, "earlier" > does not mean during the auction, right? One can easily construct an auction in which a player with known UI bids in what would normally be a "drop dead" auction, and that might well reach the standard of "substantial reason". Marv is correct, IMO, that calling the director before the end of play requires "substantial reason to believe" that there has been an actual infraction; it does not authorize calling the director just because there has been transmission of UI. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 5 15:30:39 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:30:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions In-Reply-To: <3447E492B1A94BA488BE9ABAA2EB0929@MARVLAPTOP> References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> <1NRs2N-0B29gG0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3447E492B1A94BA488BE9ABAA2EB0929@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <6075D550-B9B3-4FB6-BB64-9206D809D306@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Law 53 doesn't reference Law 23, nor should it. If a lead becomes a > correct lead, how can it be termed an infraction? How about "ex-infraction"? There was an infraction, after all; the director was called, and made a ruling to restore equity. That it "became" a "correct lead" in the course of the infraction being rectified (by being "treated as a correct lead" [L53A title], which doesn't make it one) doesn't mean it didn't happen. > Have you ever > heard of an opening lead out of turn, accepted by declarer, being > subjected to Law 23? No. But in almost 50 years playing bridge I've never encountered a situation where it might be relevant. It's vastly more likely that a player (defender or declarer) would be able to anticipate a potential gain from a play irregularity when he can see the dummy, and such situations do arise from time to time. I'm confident we could construct an (admittedly far-fecthed) scenario in which a player might be able to anticipate a potential gain from an opening lead out of turn. > Law 53 makes no distinction between the two, > they are treated equally.. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 5 15:37:50 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:37:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5938884D-3A7F-4EEC-8EFD-683B423AD08A@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2010, at 6:24 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [big snip] > >> But an ACBL "announcement" is quite clearly an "alert" as defined >> in TFLB (Definitions). > > Richard Hills: > > Not so clear. > > Law 20F5(a), second sentence: > > "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce > as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that > regulations do not require. > > Law 40B2(a), third sentence: > > The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or > other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods. > > Richard Hills: > > So it seems to me that an announcement is a method other than an > alert, albeit for the same purpose of assisting the opponents by > disclosing. I'd call that a semantic quibble that has no substantive effect on any interpretation of the law. Whether you choose to call an announcement an "alert" or not, it is quite clearly "a notification, whose form [has been] specified by the RA, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation", which is TFLB's definition of an "alert". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 5 16:30:45 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:30:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B4301A7.2060800@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4301A7.2060800@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 5, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> The last paragraph above, also came as a surprise to me. If you're >> certain that there is no agreement, even an implicit agreement, then >> perhaps regulators should be allowed to choose what to do. That >> must be >> a rare situation. What about the far more common case, where you >> think >> you do have an agreement, but you're not sure what it is? > > If you really have no agreement, then that is what you must tell your > opponents. However, the TD may not believe you. > > If you have an agreement, but can't remember what it is, then that > agreement is what your opponents are entitled to. If you don't tell > then > that, then they are misinformed. Of course your not remembering is no > excuse. Therefore, it is better to guess, and tell them your guess > (without saying it's a guess). If you've guessed right, opponents are > correctly informed. If you've guessed wrong, you're screwed anyway, as > you'll probably also bid wrongly now. > > That same principle applies to the "no agreement" case. There too, > you'll have to guess. This is the flawed premise of Herman's entire approach to disclosure. You do not "have to guess". When you have no agreement, and you know you have no agreement, why would you assume that partner would be bidding on the assumption that you have some firm agreement? Good players don't guess here; they evaluate the possible resolutions of the ambiguity in light of their extant agreements, assign probabilities, and take the action that maximizes their chance of success -- even if that action would not be the optimal one opposite any of the specific possibilities. In general, you have an obligation to bid as though partner has the same understanding of your previous calls as you do. So if you know that you your call was ambiguous, you should assume that partner knows your call was ambiguous, and bid accordingly. The examples Herman has put forth to justify the "DWS" approach to disclosure are based on the opposite assumption. It assumes that: (1) You have made a call which is ambiguous from partner's perspective (either because it is in fact systemically ambiguous, or because you are aware that he may have forgotten or become confused about some systemic agreement); (2) You are aware of the ambiguity; (3) Partner is unaware of the ambiguity, and will assume your call to have some specific, unambiguous meaning; and (4) You know what that specific, unambiguous (but incorrect) meaning is. Now if you were to have reason to presume that you were in such a situation, the dictates of the DWS would have merit in that particular case (in the sense that, as Herman asserts, you will score better in the long run). But following them would violate the obligation to bid as though partner has the same understanding of your previous calls as you do, which is why following the DWS, even in the situations in which it "works", is not permitted. > If you guess wrong, it doesn't really matter; but > if you've guessed right, you have just given the TD one more reason > not > to believe that you had no agreement in the first place. So again it's > better to just tell them your guess and get on with the game. What guess? Who says I have to guess at anything at all? On what basis am I not allowed to recognize an ambiguous call when I see one? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 5 18:51:40 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:51:40 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> One might add to Steve Willner's concerns the following. If I and, say, Steve Willner sit down to play for the first time, we may agree on strong no trump and transfers. We may forget to agree what happens if 1NT is doubled. Sure enough, Steve opens 1NT which is doubled, and I have: xxx J109xx xxx xx Now, I will reason thus: I do not know if Steve expects transfers to apply here; so my safest course is to bid 2D and if that is doubled remove to 2H; and my least safe course is to bid 2H, because Steve might bid 2S over that whether 2H is doubled or not; moreover if no one doubles 2D, but this costs more undoubled than 2H would have done doubled, that will teach us to discuss our system. When the auction proceeds 2D (unalerted) - double - pass - pass, I of course remove to 2H because that was my intention all along; doing otherwise was never an alternative for me (logical or otherwise). If I understand correctly what is being said by some here, the notion is that because partner did not alert 2D (in a jurisdiction where an alert of a transfer is required) I must proceed as though he is passing in the certain knowledge that I have hearts, and is strongly suggesting that diamonds will play better than hearts. If I knew that this was our actual agreement, I would of course pass, since I have three small diamonds. But since I do not know what our actual agreement is (or rather, I know that we do not have any actual agreement), why am I constrained to assume that (a) we have one and (b) I know what it is? David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 5 19:07:58 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:07:58 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP><1NRs2N-0B29gG0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de><3447E492B1A94BA488BE9ABAA2EB0929@MARVLAPTOP> <6075D550-B9B3-4FB6-BB64-9206D809D306@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8C7FED41274E4220A22221086897B1AD@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions > On Jan 4, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Marvin French wrote: > >> Law 53 doesn't reference Law 23, nor should it. If a lead becomes a >> correct lead, how can it be termed an infraction? > > How about "ex-infraction"? There was an infraction, after all; the > director was called, and made a ruling to restore equity. That it > "became" a "correct lead" in the course of the infraction being > rectified (by being "treated as a correct lead" [L53A title], which > doesn't make it one) doesn't mean it didn't happen. > >> Have you ever >> heard of an opening lead out of turn, accepted by declarer, being >> subjected to Law 23? > > No. But in almost 50 years playing bridge I've never encountered a > situation where it might be relevant. It's vastly more likely that a > player (defender or declarer) would be able to anticipate a potential > gain from a play irregularity when he can see the dummy, and such > situations do arise from time to time. I'm confident we could > construct an (admittedly far-fecthed) scenario in which a player > might be able to anticipate a potential gain from an opening lead out > of turn. > >> Law 53 makes no distinction between the two, >> they are treated equally.. > +=+ As I read Laws 53 and 54 the opening lead out of turn becomes a correct lead from the instant when declarer decides to treat it as a correct lead (or Law 54A applies). >From the time it is made until then it is an infraction, Note that the appilication of Law 23 is specific to the instant in which he commits his infraction. In the latter Law see the words "at the time of his infraction". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 5 20:00:51 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:00:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> Message-ID: <30551AEB8BD8459EA09FADC1BF26CF1E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > When the auction proceeds 2D (unalerted) - double - pass - pass, > I of course remove to 2H because that was my intention all along; > doing otherwise was never an alternative for me (logical or otherwise). > If I understand correctly what is being said by some here, the notion > is that because partner did not alert 2D (in a jurisdiction where an > alert of a transfer is required) I must proceed as though he is passing > in the certain knowledge that I have hearts, and is strongly suggesting > that diamonds will play better than hearts. If I knew that this was our > actual agreement, I would of course pass, since I have three small > diamonds. But since I do not know what our actual agreement is (or > rather, I know* that we do not have any actual agreement), why am > I constrained to assume that (a) we have one and (b) I know what > it is? > +=+ I suggest that to justify the removal to 2H one needs to say something about the information conveyed to responder by the "failure to alert" [Law 16B1(a)] an alertable call and whether it suggests removal to 2H. If so then we must refer not to responder's understanding and intention but to the judgement of logical alternatives in the minds of peer players adopting the same partnership agreements Does the failure to alert tell responder that partner does not believe we have an agreement that the bid is artificial? And does this not assist him to remove the contract to 2H? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jan 5 20:02:17 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:02:17 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <86298ECAF713415FB67C3901D6DD7E2B@MARVLAPTOP> Eric Landau wrote: > One can easily construct an auction in which a player with known > UI > bids in what would normally be a "drop dead" auction, and that > might > well reach the standard of "substantial reason". Yes, I recall now that Kaplan made that point once many years ago. My opinion is based on the footnote to L16A2 in the 1997 Laws: When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent who had a logical alternative that could have been suggested, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction (sic) and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. * When play ends or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed. How to explain this inconsistency? I think the footnote was added late to say that mere suspicion, even strong suspicion, is not enough for the Director call, you must see the evidence. As is common with with footnoters, they forgot to check the pertinent law carefully and left the word "auction" in it. The 2007 Laws fixed that by dropping "when dummy is exposed," obviously because calling the TD then is a waste of everyone's time. But they kept "when play ends." Then another footnoter jumped in with "It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later." Since the TD can do nothing except "stand by," which they seldom do, an earlier call is stupid, accomplishing nothing. It was evidently added to prevent TDs from awarding a PP for this common practice. However, I don't believe the Laws intended that a TD call is justified or excusable during the auction. TDs are busy enough (at an NABC, anyway) without being summoned for no good reason. In an important match Bill Root opened a weak 2S with a 6-6 black-suit hand and very good spades. When the opponents went to 4H he committed a no-no by bidding 4S, as anyone who opened 2S with his hand would do. Had his partner hesitated over 4H, would the 4S bid have been cause for calling the TD? No, strong suspicion does not suffice. > Marv is correct, > IMO, that calling the director before the end of play requires > "substantial reason to believe" that there has been an actual > infraction; it does not authorize calling the director just > because > there has been transmission of UI. And I believe that "substantial reason" can only come from solid evidence, not strong suspicion, as the1997 footnote made clear. Why can't the lawmakers leave well enough alone instead of sticking in unnecessary footnotes? See L20F3 for another footnote-like addition. They give a proper procedure, then say it's probably okay not to follow it. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jan 5 20:16:53 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:16:53 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> Message-ID: <99992330553447CBA0767CD7B16027AE@MARVLAPTOP> From: "David Burn " < > One might add to Steve Willner's concerns the following. > > If I and, say, Steve Willner sit down to play for the first time, > we may > agree on strong no trump and transfers. We may forget to agree > what happens > if 1NT is doubled. Sure enough, Steve opens 1NT which is doubled, > and I > have: > > xxx J109xx xxx xx > > Now, I will reason thus: > > I do not know if Steve expects transfers to apply here; so > my safest course is to bid 2D and if that is doubled remove to 2H; > and > my least safe course is to bid 2H, because Steve might bid 2S over > that > whether 2H is doubled or not; moreover > if no one doubles 2D, but this costs more undoubled than 2H would > have done > doubled, that will teach us to discuss our system. > > When the auction proceeds 2D (unalerted) - double - pass - pass, I > of course > remove to 2H because that was my intention all along; doing > otherwise was > never an alternative for me (logical or otherwise). If I > understand > correctly what is being said by some here, the notion is that > because > partner did not alert 2D (in a jurisdiction where an alert of a > transfer is > required) I must proceed as though he is passing in the certain > knowledge > that I have hearts, and is strongly suggesting that diamonds will > play > better than hearts. If I knew that this was our actual agreement, > I would of > course pass, since I have three small diamonds. But since I do not > know what > our actual agreement is (or rather, I know that we do not have any > actual > agreement), why am I constrained to assume that (a) we have one > and (b) I > know what it is? David's logic should end debate on this subject. Enough, already! Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 5 20:19:21 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:19:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> Message-ID: On Jan 5, 2010, at 12:51 PM, David Burn wrote: > One might add to Steve Willner's concerns the following. > > If I and, say, Steve Willner sit down to play for the first time, > we may > agree on strong no trump and transfers. We may forget to agree what > happens > if 1NT is doubled. Sure enough, Steve opens 1NT which is doubled, > and I > have: > > xxx J109xx xxx xx > > Now, I will reason thus: > > I do not know if Steve expects transfers to apply here; so > my safest course is to bid 2D and if that is doubled remove to 2H; and > my least safe course is to bid 2H, because Steve might bid 2S over > that > whether 2H is doubled or not; moreover > if no one doubles 2D, but this costs more undoubled than 2H would > have done > doubled, that will teach us to discuss our system. > > When the auction proceeds 2D (unalerted) - double - pass - pass, I > of course > remove to 2H because that was my intention all along; doing > otherwise was > never an alternative for me (logical or otherwise). If I understand > correctly what is being said by some here, the notion is that because > partner did not alert 2D (in a jurisdiction where an alert of a > transfer is > required) I must proceed as though he is passing in the certain > knowledge > that I have hearts, and is strongly suggesting that diamonds will play > better than hearts. If I knew that this was our actual agreement, I > would of > course pass, since I have three small diamonds. But since I do not > know what > our actual agreement is (or rather, I know that we do not have any > actual > agreement), why am I constrained to assume that (a) we have one and > (b) I > know what it is? David's argument on this example is both correct and compelling. Quoting from an earlier post, "2D 'means' whatever could be hypothetically determined or deduced as to its meaning from a complete and correct written description of all of one's partnership agreements, both explicit and implicit." In the Willner-Burns partnership, this means that 2D is systemically ambiguous and might be either natural or a transfer. Any future action by the 2D bidder should conform to the hypothetical scenario in which the opponents have enquired as to the meaning of David's 2D bid (whether it was alerted or not is irrelevant, given the enquiry), and Steve has informed them that David's call is systemically ambiguous and might be either natural or a transfer. David is therefore correct to argue that he would have no logical alternative to his 2H bid under the (required) presumption that his partner has interpreted his call as he has (in this case as ambiguous), and therefore would have found it obvious to pass with any holding. WTP? That was easy, but then perhaps that's because David altered the thread case slightly, giving us 1NT-X-2D-X-P-P-? instead of the rather more problematic 1NT-X-2D-P-P-X-? I'll let others thrash out the similarities and differences and their consequences. It's the principle that counts. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 5 22:07:57 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 21:07:57 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> <86298ECAF713415FB67C3901D6DD7E2B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <0D7D5E69F22445118E79100B80CBE62F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions > The 2007 Laws fixed that by dropping "when dummy is exposed," > obviously because calling the TD then is a waste of everyone's time. > But they kept "when play ends." > > Then another footnoter jumped in with "It is not an infraction to > call the Director earlier or later." Since the TD can do nothing > except "stand by," which they seldom do, an earlier call is stupid, > accomplishing nothing. It was evidently added to prevent TDs > from awarding a PP for this common practice. However, I don't > believe the Laws intended that a TD call is justified or excusable > during the auction. TDs are busy enough (at an NABC, anyway) > without being summoned for no good reason. > +=+ Although the footnote bars the Director from treating the call as an infraction it does not remove the effect of 'should call' that other timing remains an irregularity if not an infraction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 5 22:47:23 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:47:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6075D550-B9B3-4FB6-BB64-9206D809D306@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >I'm confident we could construct an (admittedly far- >fetched) scenario in which a player might be able to >anticipate a potential gain from an opening lead out >of turn. Richard Hills: The opponents confidently bid to 7D. Partner is considering a sacrifice in 7S. You lead the ace of diamonds out of turn. :-( 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 bridgenz2004 at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 23:41:02 2010 From: bridgenz2004 at gmail.com (BridgeNZ) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:41:02 +1300 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B43BFFE.1030209@bridgenz.co.nz> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100105/ccf2c406/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 6 00:38:00 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:38:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wikipedia, Shifting the Goalposts: "In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion." Eric Landau: >David's argument on this example is both correct and compelling. Richard Hills: No. Marvin French: >David's logic should end debate on this subject. Enough, already! Richard Hills: No. Herman De Wael: >Only one quibble here: > >South's (and North's) belief of the North-South system is that >there isn't any! Richard Hills: No. Since we are discussing a hypothetical scenario David Burn and Herman De Wael can shift the goalposts to suit themselves by changing the original hypothetical facts. Sure Herman is correct in believing that intentionally Alerting a call which one knows for certain is non-Alertable is "a serious matter indeed", a "must not" infraction of Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Richard Hills: But Herman's scenario is highly irrelevant to the crux of this issue. Devid Burn's scenario is more relevant, but David does not go far enough. Now it is my turn to shift the goalposts. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: East-West WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1NT (1) X (2) 2D (3) Pass Pass X (2) ? (1) 15-17 (2) Penalty double (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts You, West, hold: xxx J109xx xxx xx David Burn's original intention was "to bid 2D and if that is doubled remove to 2H", but is David (or a peer of David) now permitted to change his mind since authorised information from the Expected Alert and Expected Explanation, plus authorised information from the Unexpected Pass suggests that partner holds diamond length? Grattan Endicott: +=+ I suggest that to justify the removal to 2H one needs to say something about the information conveyed to responder by the "failure to alert" [Law 16B1(a)] an alertable call and whether it suggests removal to 2H. If so then we must refer not to responder's understanding and intention but to the judgement of logical alternatives in the minds of peer players adopting the same partnership agreements Does the failure to alert tell responder that partner does not believe we have an agreement that the bid is artificial? And does this not assist him to remove the contract to 2H? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Note that in the Law 16B1(b) definition of Logical Alternative, the criterion "using the methods of the partnership" should be expanded to "using what one is authorised to believe are the methods of the partnership", due to Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." 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 Jan 6 01:20:19 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:20:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ca8e66$07cca160$1765e420$@com> [RH] David Burn's scenario is more relevant, but David does not go far enough. Now it is my turn to shift the goalposts. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: East-West WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1NT (1) X (2) 2D (3) Pass Pass X (2) ? (1) 15-17 (2) Penalty double (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts You, West, hold: xxx J109xx xxx xx David Burn's original intention was "to bid 2D and if that is doubled remove to 2H", but is David (or a peer of David) now permitted to change his mind since authorised information from the Expected Alert and Expected Explanation, plus authorised information from the Unexpected Pass suggests that partner holds diamond length? [DALB] As I remarked before, if I were playing with a first-time partner and knew that we had not discussed whether transfers applied after a penalty double, I would plan to bid 2D and then 2H if I had a chance to do so. If partner were to explain my 2D bid as hearts and pass 2D then, whether I had been doubled by my LHO or my RHO, any deviation by me from this plan would in my view be actual cheating: I would know that partner wanted to play in diamonds whether or not I had hearts, and I would also know that I was not allowed to know this. [RH] Note that in the Law 16B1(b) definition of Logical Alternative, the criterion "using the methods of the partnership" should be expanded to "using what one is authorised to believe are the methods of the partnership", due to Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." [DALB] I don't know why Richard keeps quoting this; it seems to be to be completely irrelevant. I have no memory of having played with this partner before, nor does his alerting or not alerting assist my (prior) calculation that if I bid 2H and he bids 2S, we will do worse than if I bid 2D whatever happens thereafter. As to "technique", nobody knows what this means including the people who wrote that Law in the first place. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 6 01:25:57 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:25:57 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B41A8FD.3020608@skynet.be> References: <4B41A8FD.3020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101ca8e66$d16cd760$74468620$@com> [HdW] Here, the logic falls down. You are not required to act as if partner alerted, you are required to act as if there are no alerts, ever. [DALB] I have read this several times now, and I am as sure as I can be that Herman actually said it. Then why in blazes, when I bid 4NT for minors and partner alerts and explains it as Blackwood, am I supposed to explain his 5D response as "one ace"? David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 6 02:29:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:29:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca8e66$07cca160$1765e420$@com> Message-ID: Adam-Troy Castro, The Unauthorized Harry Potter, page 153: What do you call somebody who speaks three languages? Trilingual. What do you call somebody who speaks two languages? Bilingual. And somebody who speaks only one language? American. David Burn: >.....If partner were to explain my 2D bid as hearts and pass >2D then, whether I had been doubled by my LHO or my RHO, any >deviation by me from this plan would in my view be actual >cheating: I would know that partner wanted to play in diamonds >whether or not I had hearts, and I would also know that I was >not allowed to know this..... Richard Hills: Let's do the timewarp again. Yet another goalpost shifting. DALB NORTH RJBH SOUTH --- Pass 1NT (1) X (2) 2D (3) Pass Pass X (2) ? (1) 15-17 (2) Penalty double (3) Expecting neither an Alert nor a non-Alert, since the new partner is Richard Hills (whose mind works in mysterious ways in assessing implicit partnership understandings) Scenario A RJBH unexpectedly Alerts and unexpectedly explains 2D as a transfer to hearts, giving DALB UI that RJBH holds diamonds, thus DALB's only legal logical alternative is to run to 2H. Scenario B RJBH unexpectedly non-Alerts and unexpectedly explains 2D as a natural bid, giving DALB UI that RJBH does not hold diamonds, thus DALB's only legal logical alternative is to pass. Scenario C Schrodinger's cat expectedly simultaneously Alerts and non- Alerts, giving DALB no UI whatsoever. Purrs and head-butts from Lionel, master of Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 6 03:38:16 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:38:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001ca8e66$07cca160$1765e420$@com> Message-ID: <000201ca8e79$4d03eb90$e70bc2b0$@com> I can connect Nothing with nothing. The broken fingernails of dirty hands. My people, humble people who expect Nothing. T S Eliot, The Waste Land [RJBH] Let's do the timewarp again. Yet another goalpost shifting. DALB NORTH RJBH SOUTH --- Pass 1NT (1) X (2) 2D (3) Pass Pass X (2) ? (1) 15-17 (2) Penalty double (3) Expecting neither an Alert nor a non-Alert, since the new partner is Richard Hills (whose mind works in mysterious ways in assessing implicit partnership understandings) Scenario A RJBH unexpectedly Alerts and unexpectedly explains 2D as a transfer to hearts, giving DALB UI that RJBH holds diamonds, thus DALB's only legal logical alternative is to run to 2H. [DALB] This business of whether an alert is "expected" or otherwise seems to me to be a red herring, but since it has been introduced explicitly into the 2007 Laws, I suppose I should deal with it here. In the scenario I gave, I know that we have not discussed the meaning of 2D after 1NT is doubled. I therefore neither expect nor do not expect an alert; whether partner (whoever he may be) alerts or not is a matter of supreme indifference to me. If he alerts, it would not especially surprise me; if he does not alert, that would not especially surprise me either. The Law defines an "unexpected alert" as an alert "unexpected in relation to the basis of his action", a phrase that conveys nothing to me at all (though doubtless it was intended to convey something). Of course, if I were playing in a jurisdiction where partner is supposed to alert an undiscussed call because it might not be natural, I would be more inclined to expect an alert than otherwise (partner also knows that we have not discussed the position, and that 2D might be based on length in either red suit). But as Steve Willner and Eric Landau have pointed out in their different ways, it should not be the case that local regulation in respect of what is alertable can influence the transfer of information between partners. Nor is it the case: as Herman de Wael correctly says, a player is not (in effect) permitted to be aware of his partner's alerts, non-alerts, explanations, or non-explanations whether expected or not - instead, he should truthfully explain the partnership methods. (The dWS is based on a disbelief that this is so, but I cannot help that; as no less an authority than Raymond Smullyan has pointed out, it is logically consistent for a man to believe something, yet not believe that he believes it.) [RJBH] Scenario B RJBH unexpectedly non-Alerts and unexpectedly explains 2D as a natural bid, giving DALB UI that RJBH does not hold diamonds, thus DALB's only legal logical alternative is to pass. [DALB] Again, nothing RJBH might do in this position is "expected" nor "unexpected". He can move the goalposts where he will; I will act as I intended to act regardless. I am glad that should I ever play with RJBH, I will not be able to deduce from his alert or otherwise whether or not he has diamonds, but given some of the methods with which RJBH has regaled us over the years, I am fairly sure that I will not in any case be able to deduce from any of his actions anything whatsoever about his hand. [RJBH] Scenario C Schrodinger's cat expectedly simultaneously Alerts and non-Alerts, giving DALB no UI whatsoever. [DALB] Higgledy piggledy Herr Doktor Schrodinger Looked at his cat, and thus Killed it stone dead. "Well", he concluded with Insensitivity, "I guess that leaves it with Eight lives instead." David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 6 03:44:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:44:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B41A8FD.3020608@skynet.be> <000101ca8e66$d16cd760$74468620$@com> Message-ID: <0CA5CECB9F294205B2CB12D365BE9946@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [HdW] > > Here, the logic falls down. You are not required to act as if partner > alerted, you are required to act as if there are no alerts, ever. > > [DALB] > > I have read this several times now, and I am as sure as I can be > that Herman actually said it. Then why in blazes, when I bid 4NT > for minors and partner alerts and explains it as Blackwood, am I > supposed to explain his 5D response as "one ace"? > +=+ ... and continue the auction on the basis that it showed diamonds preference. Meanwhile, the Director is considering the claim that our player had every intention of converting the 2D to Hearts if partner failed to convert the contract to Hearts and he (our player) had the opportunity. . He compares the possibility that the player has only just thought of this argument when he believes that partner has taken him for a natural takeout. And he polls peer players to establish whether he should regard Pass as a logical alternative to 2H. ~ G ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jan 6 03:50:20 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 21:50:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions In-Reply-To: References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <7811669C261D4524A1B225CD021EB181@erdos> "Eric Landau" writes: > On Jan 4, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> Am I correct in saying that the footnote, attached as it is to that >> L16B3 sentence, means that a player should have "substantial reason >> to believe" in order to call the TD earlier? Since such evidence can >> come only at sight of dummy or from the play of the cards, "earlier" >> does not mean during the auction, right? > > One can easily construct an auction in which a player with known UI > bids in what would normally be a "drop dead" auction, and that might > well reach the standard of "substantial reason". Marv is correct, > IMO, that calling the director before the end of play requires > "substantial reason to believe" that there has been an actual > infraction; it does not authorize calling the director just because > there has been transmission of UI. "Substantial reason" need not be convincing evidence of a violation (such as hesitation Blackwood), just evidence of a probable violation. When a player pulls a slow penalty double, or competes after a slow pass, calling the TD at that time is probably appropriate; there will be less question about the length of the hesitation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 6 05:53:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:53:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201ca8e79$4d03eb90$e70bc2b0$@com> Message-ID: The Boss, Bruce Springsteen: "Born down in a dead man's town; The first kick I took was when I hit the ground. You end up like a dog that's been beat too much 'Til you spend half your life just covering up." Higgledy piggledy Stone pushing Sisyphus Twice cheated Death, but he Learned who was boss; Sentenced to Hades for Pretereternity Rolled a stone uphill, just Gathering dross! Pretereternal David Burn: >>.....Then why in blazes, when I bid 4NT for minors and partner >>alerts and explains it as Blackwood, am I supposed to explain his >>5D response as "one ace"? The Boss, Grattan Endicott: >+=+ ... and continue the auction on the basis that it >showed diamonds preference..... Pretereternal David Burn: >>.....The Law defines an "unexpected alert" as an alert "unexpected >>in relation to the basis of his action", a phrase that conveys >>nothing to me at all (though doubtless it was intended to convey >>something)..... Richard Hills: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 4H 4NT(1) Pass(2) 5D Pass(3) 6D (4) X (5) (1) North-South have a firm (albeit stupid) partnership agreement that in this auction 4NT is always Old-Fashioned Blackwood. North has firmly forgotten the firm North-South agreement, so bid 4NT with a minor two-suiter. (2) On East's enquiry, South correctly explains 4NT as Old-Fashioned Blackwood. This is "unexpected in relation to the basis of North's action", since North's firm memory lapse caused North to incorrectly believe that North-South had the sensible minor two-suiter agreement. (3) West enquires about the firmly agreed partnership meaning of 5D, and either (a) because UI awakened North, North is required to incorrectly describe 5D as minor preference or (b) North instead correctly describes 5D as promising one ace. The valid choice is (b), since Law 72B1 prohibits intentional creation of MI. (4) By firm North-South partnership agreement 5NT over the one-ace 5D would be a request to pick a minor. Sure enough, South's preference for clubs would see North-South score +1370 in 6C. But, as The Boss noted, despite North correctly describing South's 5D as one ace, North's "responsibility is to act as though" South has already shown preference for diamonds. (5) Lightner double for a club lead, North-South -500 in 6Dx. Best wishes Percy Jackson -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jan 6 11:09:26 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:09:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101ca8e66$d16cd760$74468620$@com> References: <4B41A8FD.3020608@skynet.be> <000101ca8e66$d16cd760$74468620$@com> Message-ID: <4B446156.2090000@skynet.be> Because David, the word "act" has two different meanings: David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Here, the logic falls down. You are not required to act as if partner > alerted, you are required to act as if there are no alerts, ever. > Here, I have used the word "act", and I apologize for this, as a shortcut for "bid and play". > [DALB] > > I have read this several times now, and I am as sure as I can be that Herman > actually said it. Then why in blazes, when I bid 4NT for minors and partner > alerts and explains it as Blackwood, am I supposed to explain his 5D > response as "one ace"? > Here, you are talking about other acts, such as explanations. While "bids and plays" are restricted by UI, all other "acts" are not so restricted, and, in fact, some of them (such as correcting during the correction period) are specifically ordered to be done on the basis of received information that is UI. Do you understand the difference, David? Can you understand my point? I'm not asking you to agree with my conclusions, but please see that there is no logical inconsistency between the two instructions I give (and in fact everybody gives). > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 6 11:19:43 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:19:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4301A7.2060800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4463BF.9050301@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 5, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >>> The last paragraph above, also came as a surprise to me. If you're >>> certain that there is no agreement, even an implicit agreement, then >>> perhaps regulators should be allowed to choose what to do. That >>> must be >>> a rare situation. What about the far more common case, where you >>> think >>> you do have an agreement, but you're not sure what it is? >> If you really have no agreement, then that is what you must tell your >> opponents. However, the TD may not believe you. >> >> If you have an agreement, but can't remember what it is, then that >> agreement is what your opponents are entitled to. If you don't tell >> then >> that, then they are misinformed. Of course your not remembering is no >> excuse. Therefore, it is better to guess, and tell them your guess >> (without saying it's a guess). If you've guessed right, opponents are >> correctly informed. If you've guessed wrong, you're screwed anyway, as >> you'll probably also bid wrongly now. >> >> That same principle applies to the "no agreement" case. There too, >> you'll have to guess. > > This is the flawed premise of Herman's entire approach to > disclosure. You do not "have to guess". > Well, since that is the conclusion of my argumentation, it is not helpful if you just say that it isn't so. > When you have no agreement, and you know you have no agreement, why > would you assume that partner would be bidding on the assumption that > you have some firm agreement? Good players don't guess here; No? > they > evaluate the possible resolutions of the ambiguity in light of their > extant agreements, assign probabilities, and take the action that > maximizes their chance of success -- even if that action would not be > the optimal one opposite any of the specific possibilities. > In other words, they "guess". > In general, you have an obligation to bid as though partner has the > same understanding of your previous calls as you do. No, you don't. You have no such obligation. You are allowed to bid what you want, as long as you don't use UI. The case here is a simple one - how to explain partner's bid when you are unsure. > So if you know > that you your call was ambiguous, you should assume that partner > knows your call was ambiguous, and bid accordingly. Indeed you should. And, as I said above, you are allowed to answer "ambiguous". But, let's see what happens then. Let's say you "guess" (or deduce, or whatever) correctly, and you make a call which brings you into a correct contract. Meanwhile, you have left your opponents guessing, and, of course, they guess wrongly. The director arrives and it is up to him to investigate. He asks you on what basis you guessed, and, since "good players don't guess", you give an explanation as to why you arrived at the logical conclusion. The director considers and rules that you have an implicit agreement which your opponents were not told of. He rules against you. Much better, IMHO, to explain the "guess" to your opponents. But, as I said, this is not an obligation, just an advice to players. > The examples > Herman has put forth to justify the "DWS" approach to disclosure are > based on the opposite assumption. It assumes that: (1) You have made > a call which is ambiguous from partner's perspective (either because > it is in fact systemically ambiguous, or because you are aware that > he may have forgotten or become confused about some systemic > agreement); (2) You are aware of the ambiguity; (3) Partner is > unaware of the ambiguity, and will assume your call to have some > specific, unambiguous meaning; and (4) You know what that specific, > unambiguous (but incorrect) meaning is. Now if you were to have > reason to presume that you were in such a situation, the dictates of > the DWS would have merit in that particular case (in the sense that, > as Herman asserts, you will score better in the long run). But > following them would violate the obligation to bid as though partner > has the same understanding of your previous calls as you do, which is > why following the DWS, even in the situations in which it "works", is > not permitted. > I am absolutely uncertain as to what this all means. It does not make sense to me. Eric ascribes to me four presumptions which are untrue, and he draws a conclusion which has nothing to do with the situation we are talking about. >> If you guess wrong, it doesn't really matter; but >> if you've guessed right, you have just given the TD one more reason >> not >> to believe that you had no agreement in the first place. So again it's >> better to just tell them your guess and get on with the game. > > What guess? Who says I have to guess at anything at all? On what > basis am I not allowed to recognize an ambiguous call when I see one? > You are allowed to recognize an ambiguous call - I never said that you were not allowed to do so - I only said that it is better to guess and explain your guess than to leave your opponents guessing. Your guess is undoubtedly better than theirs, and when you guess correctly and they don't, you could be ruled guilty of misinformation. 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 Wed Jan 6 11:22:54 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:22:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> Message-ID: <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > One might add to Steve Willner's concerns the following. > > If I and, say, Steve Willner sit down to play for the first time, we may > agree on strong no trump and transfers. We may forget to agree what happens > if 1NT is doubled. Sure enough, Steve opens 1NT which is doubled, and I > have: > > xxx J109xx xxx xx > > Now, I will reason thus: > > I do not know if Steve expects transfers to apply here; so > my safest course is to bid 2D and if that is doubled remove to 2H; and > my least safe course is to bid 2H, because Steve might bid 2S over that > whether 2H is doubled or not; moreover > if no one doubles 2D, but this costs more undoubled than 2H would have done > doubled, that will teach us to discuss our system. > > When the auction proceeds 2D (unalerted) - double - pass - pass, I of course > remove to 2H because that was my intention all along; doing otherwise was > never an alternative for me (logical or otherwise). If I understand > correctly what is being said by some here, the notion is that because > partner did not alert 2D (in a jurisdiction where an alert of a transfer is > required) I must proceed as though he is passing in the certain knowledge > that I have hearts, and is strongly suggesting that diamonds will play > better than hearts. If I knew that this was our actual agreement, I would of > course pass, since I have three small diamonds. But since I do not know what > our actual agreement is (or rather, I know that we do not have any actual > agreement), why am I constrained to assume that (a) we have one and (b) I > know what it is? > > David Burn > London, England > David is absolutely right in this post. Absolutely and completely. It just needed to be said. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 6 11:31:50 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:31:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B446696.4090404@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > But Herman's scenario is highly irrelevant to the crux of this > issue. Devid Burn's scenario is more relevant, but David does > not go far enough. Now it is my turn to shift the goalposts. (notice that Richard shifts the goalposts to where I had posted them in the first place) > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1NT (1) X (2) > 2D (3) Pass Pass X (2) > ? > > (1) 15-17 > (2) Penalty double > (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts > I presume the David story still holds, with West realizing he has no firm agreement? > You, West, hold: > > xxx J109xx xxx xx > > David Burn's original intention was "to bid 2D and if that is > doubled remove to 2H", but is David (or a peer of David) now > permitted to change his mind since authorised information from > the Expected Alert and Expected Explanation, plus authorised > information from the Unexpected Pass suggests that partner > holds diamond length? > Of course he isn't. David would remove to 2He if his 2Di were explained as "ambiguous". Since it is in stead explained as "transfer", David has UI which suggests leaving it in. Of course he cannot now leave it in. Which was my point all along. By explaining 2D as it was meant rather than as ambiguous, one gives UI. Deliberately so. Which is a very strong infraction. I apologize if I have used the C-word before. I still feel this infraction is very strong. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 6 11:42:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:42:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <72012C070EAC4E22862FBB7520EBA6AF@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > David Burn wrote: >> One might add to Steve Willner's concerns the following. >> >> If I and, say, Steve Willner sit down to play for the first time, we may >> agree on strong no trump and transfers. We may forget to agree what >> happens >> if 1NT is doubled. Sure enough, Steve opens 1NT which is doubled, and I >> have: >> >> xxx J109xx xxx xx >> >> Now, I will reason thus: >> >> I do not know if Steve expects transfers to apply here; so >> my safest course is to bid 2D and if that is doubled remove to 2H; and >> my least safe course is to bid 2H, because Steve might bid 2S over that >> whether 2H is doubled or not; moreover >> if no one doubles 2D, but this costs more undoubled than 2H would have >> done >> doubled, that will teach us to discuss our system. >> >> When the auction proceeds 2D (unalerted) - double - pass - pass, I of >> course >> remove to 2H because that was my intention all along; doing otherwise was >> never an alternative for me (logical or otherwise). If I understand >> correctly what is being said by some here, the notion is that because >> partner did not alert 2D (in a jurisdiction where an alert of a transfer >> is >> required) I must proceed as though he is passing in the certain knowledge >> that I have hearts, and is strongly suggesting that diamonds will play >> better than hearts. If I knew that this was our actual agreement, I would >> of >> course pass, since I have three small diamonds. But since I do not know >> what >> our actual agreement is (or rather, I know that we do not have any actual >> agreement), why am I constrained to assume that (a) we have one and (b) I >> know what it is? >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> > (Herman) > David is absolutely right in this post. Absolutely and completely. > It just needed to be said. > +=+ Except, of course, that the Director must determine whether UI from partner suggested removal to 2H and whether he may have been assisted in his choice of action by the UI. If he thinks it possible the question of whether 'Pass' is a logical alternative will arise and the Director will consult peer players. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 6 12:04:33 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:04:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <72012C070EAC4E22862FBB7520EBA6AF@Mildred> References: <72012C070EAC4E22862FBB7520EBA6AF@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B446E41.6000404@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > David Burn: > > .....The Law defines an "unexpected alert" as an alert "unexpected > in relation to the basis of his action", a phrase that conveys > nothing to me at all (though doubtless it was intended to convey > something)..... > > +=+ The meaning he ascribes to the call before he receives > UI from partner is the basis of his call. > Respond to 1NT with 2D on a hand whose only feature > is a string of hearts and the world (including the Director) can > see that you intended 2D as a transfer to hearts. Protest as you > may, you may be held to that. > ~ G ~ +=+ No Grattan, some may not. As in David's case, it is quite possible for a player to bid 2D without a firm agreement. If then partner alerts and explains as transfer, that alert is still unexpected. Of course, the director may not believe you when you say that you have no firm agreement. But in the case which I presented, that is precisely what you don't want to have known. It would, indeed, be very easy for the pair in my situation to alert and pass, and for 2D bidder to simply maintain that they have a firm agreement. Under Grattan's directorship, such blatant cheating would go unnoticed, since Grattan does not look further than "if you 2D with hearts, you have an agreement that 2D was transfer". Directors must show more incentive to investigate. I must interject one piece here, before people begin accusing me of inconsistency, yet again. I have, on many occasions, said that "if you bid 2D with hearts, then you have an agreement that 2D was transfer"; exactly the thing I am saying Grattan is wrong in saying above. However, there is no inconsistence there. When I have said that, many times, is when the players have maintained that they have no firm agreement. Since they appear to be on the same wavelength, I wish to rule that they have such an agreement. OTOH, in the case I presented in this thread, it is the pair who are claiming they have a firm agreement, when in fact they haven't. All this to show that you cannot use simple rules in order to rule correctly. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 6 12:06:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:06:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > >> David Burn wrote: >>> One might add to Steve Willner's concerns the following. >>> >>> If I and, say, Steve Willner sit down to play for the first time, we may >>> agree on strong no trump and transfers. We may forget to agree what >>> happens >>> if 1NT is doubled. Sure enough, Steve opens 1NT which is doubled, and I >>> have: >>> >>> xxx J109xx xxx xx >>> >>> Now, I will reason thus: >>> >>> I do not know if Steve expects transfers to apply here; so >>> my safest course is to bid 2D and if that is doubled remove to 2H; and >>> my least safe course is to bid 2H, because Steve might bid 2S over that >>> whether 2H is doubled or not; moreover >>> if no one doubles 2D, but this costs more undoubled than 2H would have >>> done >>> doubled, that will teach us to discuss our system. >>> >>> When the auction proceeds 2D (unalerted) - double - pass - pass, I of >>> course >>> remove to 2H because that was my intention all along; doing otherwise was >>> never an alternative for me (logical or otherwise). If I understand >>> correctly what is being said by some here, the notion is that because >>> partner did not alert 2D (in a jurisdiction where an alert of a transfer >>> is >>> required) I must proceed as though he is passing in the certain knowledge >>> that I have hearts, and is strongly suggesting that diamonds will play >>> better than hearts. If I knew that this was our actual agreement, I would >>> of >>> course pass, since I have three small diamonds. But since I do not know >>> what >>> our actual agreement is (or rather, I know that we do not have any actual >>> agreement), why am I constrained to assume that (a) we have one and (b) I >>> know what it is? >>> >>> David Burn >>> London, England >>> >> (Herman) >> David is absolutely right in this post. Absolutely and completely. >> It just needed to be said. >> > +=+ Except, of course, that the Director must determine whether > UI from partner suggested removal to 2H and whether he may > have been assisted in his choice of action by the UI. If he thinks > it possible the question of whether 'Pass' is a logical alternative > will arise and the Director will consult peer players. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > David handled this subject. He stated quite clearly that there was, IHO, no LA to bidding 2H. David was right in saying that, and there is no exception needed. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 6 12:22:56 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:22:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B446E41.6000404@skynet.be> References: <72012C070EAC4E22862FBB7520EBA6AF@Mildred> <4B446E41.6000404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B447290.80000@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > I must interject one piece here, before people begin accusing me of > inconsistency, yet again. I have, on many occasions, said that "if you > bid 2D with hearts, then you have an agreement that 2D was transfer"; > exactly the thing I am saying Grattan is wrong in saying above. > However, there is no inconsistence there. When I have said that, many > times, is when the players have maintained that they have no firm > agreement. Since they appear to be on the same wavelength, I wish to > rule that they have such an agreement. > AG : I agree with most of what you said, but you should be careful before you decide there was such an agreement. You hold : AKQ - Axx - xxxx - Qxx and partner opens a natural 4C. They ask, you answer. You decide you've enough to cue-bid 4H. Quite surprisingly, partner passes. He thought 4C was a weak transfer to H (4H being stronger, a popular agreement in Brussels). You reach the right contract facing partner's expected (in his wiew) x - KQxxxxxx - x - xxx. Yet, director HdW will tell you that you've an agreement about 4C that it was a transfer because partner completed it. I don't like this. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 6 12:26:17 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:26:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Grattan wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, >> Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? >> Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme >> Beats with light wing against the ivory gate >> Telling a tale not too importunate." >> [William Morris] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:22 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? >> >> >> >>> David Burn wrote: >>> >>>> One might add to Steve Willner's concerns the following. >>>> >>>> If I and, say, Steve Willner sit down to play for the first time, we may >>>> agree on strong no trump and transfers. We may forget to agree what >>>> happens >>>> if 1NT is doubled. Sure enough, Steve opens 1NT which is doubled, and I >>>> have: >>>> >>>> xxx J109xx xxx xx >>>> >>>> Now, I will reason thus: >>>> >>>> I do not know if Steve expects transfers to apply here; so >>>> my safest course is to bid 2D and if that is doubled remove to 2H; and >>>> my least safe course is to bid 2H, because Steve might bid 2S over that >>>> whether 2H is doubled or not; moreover >>>> if no one doubles 2D, but this costs more undoubled than 2H would have >>>> done >>>> doubled, that will teach us to discuss our system. >>>> >>>> When the auction proceeds 2D (unalerted) - double - pass - pass, I of >>>> course >>>> remove to 2H because that was my intention all along; doing otherwise was >>>> never an alternative for me (logical or otherwise). If I understand >>>> correctly what is being said by some here, the notion is that because >>>> partner did not alert 2D (in a jurisdiction where an alert of a transfer >>>> is >>>> required) I must proceed as though he is passing in the certain knowledge >>>> that I have hearts, and is strongly suggesting that diamonds will play >>>> better than hearts. If I knew that this was our actual agreement, I would >>>> of >>>> course pass, since I have three small diamonds. But since I do not know >>>> what >>>> our actual agreement is (or rather, I know that we do not have any actual >>>> agreement), why am I constrained to assume that (a) we have one and (b) I >>>> know what it is? >>>> >>>> David Burn >>>> London, England >>>> >>>> >>> (Herman) >>> David is absolutely right in this post. Absolutely and completely. >>> It just needed to be said. >>> >>> >> +=+ Except, of course, that the Director must determine whether >> UI from partner suggested removal to 2H and whether he may >> have been assisted in his choice of action by the UI. If he thinks >> it possible the question of whether 'Pass' is a logical alternative >> will arise and the Director will consult peer players. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > > David handled this subject. He stated quite clearly that there was, IHO, > no LA to bidding 2H. David was right in saying that, and there is no > exception needed. > FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D doubled, I would pass. In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. Does it make 2D a LA ? Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 6 15:00:33 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:00:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be> <4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B449781.6070301@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D > doubled, I would pass. > In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner > passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. > > Does it make 2D a LA ? > No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take out the pass to 2H again. Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what to do when 1NT is doubled. > Best regards > > Alain Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 6 15:04:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:04:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B447290.80000@ulb.ac.be> References: <72012C070EAC4E22862FBB7520EBA6AF@Mildred> <4B446E41.6000404@skynet.be> <4B447290.80000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B449880.9040308@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > AG : I agree with most of what you said, but you should be careful > before you decide there was such an agreement. > > You hold : AKQ - Axx - xxxx - Qxx and partner opens a natural 4C. They > ask, you answer. You decide you've enough to cue-bid 4H. Quite > surprisingly, partner passes. > He thought 4C was a weak transfer to H (4H being stronger, a popular > agreement in Brussels). > You reach the right contract facing partner's expected (in his wiew) x - > KQxxxxxx - x - xxx. > > Yet, director HdW will tell you that you've an agreement about 4C that > it was a transfer because partner completed it. > > I don't like this. > Well sorry Alain, but if this is what happens, I will not like it either. You say you have no agreement, and yet you act as if you have one. Who is to say that rather than "having enough to cue-bid 4H" you have "catered for the two possibilities - him having clubs or him having hearts". Since this is a possibility (can you deny that it's possible - other than by saying "trust me, I'm honest" ?) I will rule as if it is the truth. And yes, sometimes this means you are being ruled against when you were talking the truth after all. That's like. You should not have had a misunderstanding to start with. Herman. > Best regards > > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 6 15:03:19 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:03:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be><1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3CEB50BF121B428E855E6E8CAA74B250@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? >>> >> +=+ Except, of course, that the Director must determine whether >> UI from partner suggested removal to 2H and whether he may >> have been assisted in his choice of action by the UI. If he thinks >> it possible the question of whether 'Pass' is a logical alternative >> will arise and the Director will consult peer players. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > David handled this subject. He stated quite clearly that there was, IHO, > no LA to bidding 2H. David was right in saying that, and there is no > exception needed. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ +=+ But I am right in saying it will not be David's assertion that determines the matter but the opinions of his peers. I have not suggested what are the chances that one in five or more of them might elect to pass. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 6 15:16:21 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:16:21 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <3CEB50BF121B428E855E6E8CAA74B250@Mildred> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be><1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be> <3CEB50BF121B428E855E6E8CAA74B250@Mildred> Message-ID: <000b01ca8eda$d2e81400$78b83c00$@com> [GE] But I am right in saying it will not be David's assertion that determines the matter but the opinions of his peers. [DALB] Not necessarily. It is surely open to a director to decide on his own initiative that there is no logical alternative to a chosen action. For example, if a player has AKQJ1098765432 None None None and his LHO opens 7H which his partner doubles slowly, the director need not consult anyone at all before allowing a bid of 7S to stand. Similarly, if a director is convinced by my arguments that 2D (intending to remove to 2H whatever happens) is a course of action compared with which an immediate 2H would be dangerously absurd (not to say absurdly dangerous), he need not consult anyone else. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 6 15:35:35 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:35:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B449781.6070301@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be> <4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> <4B449781.6070301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B449FB7.2010305@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> >>> >> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >> doubled, I would pass. >> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >> >> Does it make 2D a LA ? >> >> > > No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David > started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular > partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take > out the pass to 2H again. > Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have > agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what to do > when 1NT is doubled. > > AG : ... or one with whom you have the meta-agreement that 'passes of doubled conventional bids are a suggestion to play there'. (common among Multi-ers) In that specific case, you could have no agreement about the 2D bid, yet have good reason to pass. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 6 15:39:23 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:39:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A In-Reply-To: <000001ca8e66$07cca160$1765e420$@com> References: <000001ca8e66$07cca160$1765e420$@com> Message-ID: <7B21D9C3-3D34-4230-A3A6-9AA05C64E921@starpower.net> On Jan 5, 2010, at 7:20 PM, David Burn wrote: > [RH] > > David Burn's scenario is more relevant, but David does not go far > enough. > Now it is my turn to shift the goalposts. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1NT (1) X (2) > 2D (3) Pass Pass X (2) > ? > > (1) 15-17 > (2) Penalty double > (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts > > You, West, hold: > > xxx J109xx xxx xx > > David Burn's original intention was "to bid 2D and if that is > doubled remove > to 2H", but is David (or a peer of David) now permitted to change > his mind > since authorised information from the Expected Alert and Expected > Explanation, plus authorised information from the Unexpected Pass > suggests > that partner > holds diamond length? > > [DALB] > > As I remarked before, if I were playing with a first-time partner > and knew > that we had not discussed whether transfers applied after a penalty > double, > I would plan to bid 2D and then 2H if I had a chance to do so. If > partner > were to explain my 2D bid as hearts and pass 2D then, whether I had > been > doubled by my LHO or my RHO, any deviation by me from this plan > would in my > view be actual cheating: I would know that partner wanted to play in > diamonds whether or not I had hearts, and I would also know that I > was not > allowed to know this. That's exactly right. 2D is systemically ambiguous, which David knew at the time he bid it. Partner's telling the opponents that it was a transfer is a misexplanation, which he is obligated to ignore. His logical alternatives are evalutated in the hypothetical context in which his partner's explanation matched his own (in this case correct)) understanding. If we accept David's contention that *in that context* he has no LA to bidding 2H (which I would), then he must bid 2H regardless of what his partner alerted, didn't alert, or explained. > [RH] > > Note that in the Law 16B1(b) definition of Logical Alternative, the > criterion "using the methods of the partnership" should be expanded to > "using what one is authorised to believe are the methods of the > partnership", due to Law 40C3(a): > > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled > during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, > calculation > or technique." > > [DALB] > > I don't know why Richard keeps quoting this; it seems to be to be > completely > irrelevant. I have no memory of having played with this partner > before, nor > does his alerting or not alerting assist my (prior) calculation > that if I > bid 2H and he bids 2S, we will do worse than if I bid 2D whatever > happens > thereafter. As to "technique", nobody knows what this means > including the > people who wrote that Law in the first place. I think it means you can't browse your Clyde Love in mid-hand. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 16:06:41 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:06:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B449880.9040308@skynet.be> References: <72012C070EAC4E22862FBB7520EBA6AF@Mildred> <4B446E41.6000404@skynet.be> <4B447290.80000@ulb.ac.be> <4B449880.9040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2010/1/6 Herman De Wael : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >> AG ?: I agree with most of what you said, but you should be careful >> before you decide there was such an agreement. >> >> You hold : ?AKQ - Axx - xxxx - Qxx and partner opens a natural 4C. They >> ask, you answer. You decide you've enough to cue-bid 4H. Quite >> surprisingly, partner passes. >> He thought 4C was a weak transfer to H (4H being stronger, a popular >> agreement in Brussels). >> You reach the right contract facing partner's expected (in his wiew) x - >> KQxxxxxx - x - xxx. >> >> Yet, director HdW will tell you that you've an agreement about 4C that >> it was a transfer because partner completed it. >> >> I don't like this. >> > > Well sorry Alain, but if this is what happens, I will not like it > either. You say you have no agreement, and yet you act as if you have > one. Who is to say that rather than "having enough to cue-bid 4H" you > have "catered for the two possibilities - him having clubs or him having > hearts". Since this is a possibility (can you deny that it's possible - > other than by saying "trust me, I'm honest" ?) I will rule as if it is > the truth. > > And yes, sometimes this means you are being ruled against when you were > talking the truth after all. That's like. You should not have had a > misunderstanding to start with. Would you rule the same if I was in Alains chair, prior to reading his post avobe? I've never ever heard about the mentioned Brussels treatment before, and as such, could never have imagined partner holding a "weak" 4H opening. > Herman. > >> Best regards >> >> >> ? ?Alain >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 6 16:14:21 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:14:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1471DE46-7CC8-4816-94C9-6878D5568852@starpower.net> On Jan 5, 2010, at 8:29 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > David Burn: > >> .....If partner were to explain my 2D bid as hearts and pass >> 2D then, whether I had been doubled by my LHO or my RHO, any >> deviation by me from this plan would in my view be actual >> cheating: I would know that partner wanted to play in diamonds >> whether or not I had hearts, and I would also know that I was >> not allowed to know this..... > > Richard Hills: > > Let's do the timewarp again. Yet another goalpost shifting. > > DALB NORTH RJBH SOUTH > --- Pass 1NT (1) X (2) > 2D (3) Pass Pass X (2) > ? > > (1) 15-17 > (2) Penalty double > (3) Expecting neither an Alert nor a non-Alert, since the new > partner is Richard Hills (whose mind works in mysterious > ways in assessing implicit partnership understandings) > > Scenario A > > RJBH unexpectedly Alerts and unexpectedly explains 2D as a > transfer to hearts, giving DALB UI that RJBH holds diamonds, > thus DALB's only legal logical alternative is to run to 2H. > > Scenario B > > RJBH unexpectedly non-Alerts and unexpectedly explains 2D as a > natural bid, giving DALB UI that RJBH does not hold diamonds, > thus DALB's only legal logical alternative is to pass. > > Scenario C > > Schrodinger's cat expectedly simultaneously Alerts and non- > Alerts, giving DALB no UI whatsoever. Scenario C continues with RJBH (expectedly) explaining that 2D is in fact systemically ambiguous and might be either a natural bid or a transfer to hearts. In Richard's view, David would still have no UI, and would be free to choose between his logical alternatives, pass and 2H. In David's view, he would have no LA to bidding 2H. The key point is to recognize that regardless of which of them is right about DALB's LAs in scenario C, his LAs in scenarios A and B must be the same as they are in C. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 6 16:16:18 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:16:18 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be><4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> <4B449781.60703 01@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >> doubled, I would pass. >> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >> >> Does it make 2D a LA ? >> > > No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David > started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular > partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take > out the pass to 2H again. > Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have > agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what to do > when 1NT is doubled. > > Herman. < +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side". He may even have read my quotation some days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. I doubt if a mere assertion by a player, even one of the great and the good, will stand in the way of the Director's doing what he has to do. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 6 16:32:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:32:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <72012C070EAC4E22862FBB7520EBA6AF@Mildred> <4B446E41.6000404@skynet.be> <4B447290.80000@ulb.ac.be> <4B449880.9040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B44AD1E.7010104@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2010/1/6 Herman De Wael : > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> AG : I agree with most of what you said, but you should be careful >>> before you decide there was such an agreement. >>> >>> You hold : AKQ - Axx - xxxx - Qxx and partner opens a natural 4C. They >>> ask, you answer. You decide you've enough to cue-bid 4H. Quite >>> surprisingly, partner passes. >>> He thought 4C was a weak transfer to H (4H being stronger, a popular >>> agreement in Brussels). >>> You reach the right contract facing partner's expected (in his wiew) x - >>> KQxxxxxx - x - xxx. >>> >>> Yet, director HdW will tell you that you've an agreement about 4C that >>> it was a transfer because partner completed it. >>> >>> I don't like this. >>> >>> >> Well sorry Alain, but if this is what happens, I will not like it >> either. You say you have no agreement, and yet you act as if you have >> one. Who is to say that rather than "having enough to cue-bid 4H" you >> have "catered for the two possibilities - him having clubs or him having >> hearts". Since this is a possibility (can you deny that it's possible - >> other than by saying "trust me, I'm honest" ?) >> Well, I could perhaps show the appropriate line on my Convention Card, with 'minimal length 7' and no check in the 'artificial' box. Isn't this a case where the CC would be used to determine what our true agreement is ? Remember that they only need to be told what our agreements are. Not what my partne's hand is. Taking into account the fact that partner might have erred is legal, absent UI. Since partner didn't do anything else than open, there was no UI. (and remember that not alerting wouldn't be UI to partner, because we don't alert at that level) > Would you rule the same if I was in Alains chair, prior to reading his > post avobe? > I've never ever heard about the mentioned Brussels treatment before, > and as such, could never have imagined partner holding a "weak" 4H > opening. > You're contradicting. If the treatment is so wild that I couldn't have heard of, you can't pretend I took it into account. BTW, I refuse to play this. From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jan 6 16:37:08 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:37:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000b01ca8eda$d2e81400$78b83c00$@com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > [GE] > > But I am right in saying it will not be David's assertion that determines > the matter but the opinions of his peers. > > [DALB] > > Not necessarily. It is surely open to a director to decide on his own > initiative that there is no logical alternative to a chosen action. For > example, if a player has > > AKQJ1098765432 None None None > > and his LHO opens 7H which his partner doubles slowly, the director need > not > consult anyone at all before allowing a bid of 7S to stand. It is an extreme example. In real life things aren't that simple. > Similarly, if a > director is convinced by my arguments that 2D (intending to remove to 2H > whatever happens) is a course of action compared with which an immediate > 2H > would be dangerously absurd (not to say absurdly dangerous), he need not > consult anyone else. The problem with this approach is that it makes the ruling depend on the relative skills of the TD and the player. I, as a player, will be able to convince about anyone who plays two divisions lower than me that any action is a LA, is obvious, is dumb or whatever I need it to be at the moment. By the same token if Balicki starts telling me that a certain bid is obvious then who am I to tell him otherwise? Maybe he is right after all? You know, the man can play. I'd feel silly telling him "Mr Balicki, your argument about that bid doesn't add up in my eyes, my judgment is that this bid would be idiotic and I'm putting my judgment over yours". In Poland we instruct the TD to always (if at all possible) to consult player's peers to eliminate that danger. I am the member of the National Appeals Committee in Poland and I always, in every case, make a poll when making a ruling even if I have a very firm opinion about something. And I'm telling you - I was in for a shock about the results of such poll more than once. Bridge players are very good at constructing convincing arguments when they know all four hands. The knowledge of the entire deal can really cloud judgment even that of an expert. Listening to opinions of people who don't know all four hands can really affect your assessment of certain actions. It can work the other way round, too. We once had a case from Second Division where a player was misinformed and didn't bid game fearing bad break in clubs (there was none but there would be if an explanation given had been correct). Our opinion was that bidding game was automatic nonetheless - MI or no MI. We made a poll among First Division players (this was during a First Dvision round robin play so they were easily available) and everybody bid game. So we thought that not bidding game was a wild action, not affected by MI at all. Back home we started asking Second Division players. And given the erroneous explanation most of them passed their partner's 3H bid arguing "I have a minimum point count and clubs don't break" without thinking further. This was the typical case of partial analysis (if you thought any deeper than that you would work out that the game should be on even with clubs breaking badly) but they seemingly were unable to do any better. So all in all we decided to adjust on the grounds that at Division Two level MI did, indeed, affect the result of the board. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Slownik angielsko-polski na Twoj telefon! Pobierz >> http://link.interia.pl/f255c From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 6 16:41:15 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:41:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be><4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> <4B449781.60703 01@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B44AF1B.3010004@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:00 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >>> doubled, I would pass. >>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >>> >>> Does it make 2D a LA ? >>> >>> >> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David >> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular >> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take >> out the pass to 2H again. >> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have >> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what to do >> when 1NT is doubled. >> >> Herman. >> > < > +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming > that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and > they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has > experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he > "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with > which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls > that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- > offending side". He may even have read my quotation some > days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to > 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. AG : I don't like this. What about psyches ? Say I open 2NT, natural and strong in our system (as shown on the CC), holding a weak one-suiter in clubs.. Suppose that partner wrongly alerts, because he (wrongly) thinks that a 2NT bid that might include a 5-card major should be alerted, and responds 3C, asking for majors, and I pass. Now, I tell you it's a psyche and of course 'I was always going to pass 3C if partner happened to bid it'. Do you squelch my argument ? (well, in all honesty, you could squelch psyches forever too, and I wouldn't consider it outrageous. But that's not the point) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 6 17:04:51 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 11:04:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be><4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> <4B449781.60703 01@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >>> doubled, I would pass. >>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >>> >>> Does it make 2D a LA ? >> >> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David >> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular >> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take >> out the pass to 2H again. >> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have >> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what >> to do >> when 1NT is doubled. > > +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming > that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and > they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has > experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he > "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with > which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls > that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- > offending side". He may even have read my quotation some > days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to > 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. I doubt if a mere assertion > by a player, even one of the great and the good, will stand in > the way of the Director's doing what he has to do. What the director "has to do" is determine the preponderance of the evidence between David's self-serving mere assertion that "he was always going to" bid 2H and "the evidence of the hand" that David "thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D" that it was a transfer. As the former has practically no weight, it would be up to David to convince the director that the latter has literally no weight. It is obvious that if David thought 2D was a transfer by agreement, he would have bid 2D 100% of the time. To counter this, David must show that if he knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, and assumed that partner knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, he would still have bid 2D 100% of the time. If he can do that (and he has, IMO, made a pretty good case for it in this forum), then "the evidence of the hand" no longer suggests that he had an agreement that it was a transfer, and absent any additional evidence that he might have, his 2H bid should stand. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 6 17:21:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:21:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be><4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> <4B449781.6070301@skynet.be> <4B44AF1B.3010004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0F507136E88540F69B16C56A7F855575@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:00 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >>> doubled, I would pass. >>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >>> >>> Does it make 2D a LA ? >>> >>> >> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David >> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular >> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take >> out the pass to 2H again. >> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have >> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what to do >> when 1NT is doubled. >> >> Herman. >> > < > +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming > that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and > they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has > experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he > "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with > which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls > that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- > offending side". He may even have read my quotation some > days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to > 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. < AG : I don't like this. What about psyches ? Say I open 2NT, natural and strong in our system (as shown on the CC), holding a weak one-suiter in clubs.. Suppose that partner wrongly alerts, because he (wrongly) thinks that a 2NT bid that might include a 5-card major should be alerted, and responds 3C, asking for majors, and I pass. Now, I tell you it's a psyche and of course 'I was always going to pass 3C if partner happened to bid it'. Do you squelch my argument ? +=+ You have no UI that suggests you should pass If you had such UI the question would be whether you had any logical alternative to 'Pass'. In the circumstances of a baby psyche like that I can't imagine what logical alternative might exist. +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 6 17:33:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:33:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be><4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> <4B449781.60703 01@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B44BB45.4000907@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Grattan wrote: > > >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >>>> doubled, I would pass. >>>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >>>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >>>> >>>> Does it make 2D a LA ? >>>> >>> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David >>> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular >>> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take >>> out the pass to 2H again. >>> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have >>> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what >>> to do >>> when 1NT is doubled. >>> >> +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming >> that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and >> they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has >> experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he >> "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with >> which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls >> that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >> offending side". He may even have read my quotation some >> days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to >> 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. I doubt if a mere assertion >> by a player, even one of the great and the good, will stand in >> the way of the Director's doing what he has to do. >> > > What the director "has to do" is determine the preponderance of the > evidence between David's self-serving mere assertion that "he was > always going to" bid 2H and "the evidence of the hand" that David > "thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D" that it was a transfer. > > As the former has practically no weight, it would be up to David to > convince the director that the latter has literally no weight. It is > obvious that if David thought 2D was a transfer by agreement, he > would have bid 2D 100% of the time. To counter this, David must show > that if he knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, and > assumed that partner knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, > he would still have bid 2D 100% of the time. If he can do that (and > he has, IMO, made a pretty good case for it in this forum), then "the > evidence of the hand" no longer suggests that he had an agreement > that it was a transfer, and absent any additional evidence that he > might have, his 2H bid should stand. > > AG : perhaps I can offer a better case. In our system, 1NT(weak)-pass-2C is an asking bid, mainly directed at hearts (2D : at spades, as you surely have guessed). We're allowed to do it on any positive hand with 4+ hearts, on some strong hands, and on weak hands with 5+D and 3+H, because there are only two answers. But they double 1NT. If I was unsure whether, after a double (or after this particular meaning of double), we played 'system on' or 'transfer', I'd surely bid 2C with xx - Kxx - Q10xxxx - xx and would surely pass partner's 2D bid whatever he might tell to my opponents. Once again, covering all cases isn't disallowed absent UI. Surely I would have a strong case telling the TD that there was no alternative to bidding 2C and passing 2D even if there was some ambiguity about 2C. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 6 17:38:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:38:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <0F507136E88540F69B16C56A7F855575@Mildred> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be><4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> <4B449781.6070301@skynet.be> <4B44AF1B.3010004@ulb.ac.be> <0F507136E88540F69B16C56A7F855575@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B44BC6D.1050507@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:41 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:00 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? >> >> >> >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >>>> doubled, I would pass. >>>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >>>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >>>> >>>> Does it make 2D a LA ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David >>> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular >>> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take >>> out the pass to 2H again. >>> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have >>> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what to do >>> when 1NT is doubled. >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> >> < >> +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming >> that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and >> they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has >> experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he >> "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with >> which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls >> that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >> offending side". He may even have read my quotation some >> days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to >> 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. >> > < > AG : I don't like this. What about psyches ? > > Say I open 2NT, natural and strong in our system (as shown on the CC), > holding a weak one-suiter in clubs.. > Suppose that partner wrongly alerts, because he (wrongly) thinks that a > 2NT bid that might include a 5-card major should be alerted, and > responds 3C, asking for majors, and I pass. > > Now, I tell you it's a psyche and of course 'I was always going to pass > 3C if partner happened to bid it'. > Do you squelch my argument ? > > +=+ You have no UI that suggests you should pass If you > had such UI the question would be whether you had > any logical alternative to 'Pass'. In the circumstances > of a baby psyche like that I can't imagine what logical > alternative might exist. +=+ > Whence you have to admit that always discarding the "I was always going to do so" argument can't be right. If you do want it, throw in any number of UI informations from partner (eg he pulled some bid, then hesitated, than bid 3C) and consider the case. I'll still have no LA. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 6 18:02:52 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:02:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: Message-ID: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >>>> doubled, I would pass. >>>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >>>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >>>> >>>> Does it make 2D a LA ? >>> >>> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David >>> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular >>> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take >>> out the pass to 2H again. >>> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have >>> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what >>> to do >>> when 1NT is doubled. >> >> +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming >> that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and >> they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has >> experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he >> "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with >> which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls >> that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >> offending side". He may even have read my quotation some >> days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to >> 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. I doubt if a mere assertion >> by a player, even one of the great and the good, will stand in >> the way of the Director's doing what he has to do. > > What the director "has to do" is determine the preponderance of the > evidence between David's self-serving mere assertion that "he was > always going to" bid 2H and "the evidence of the hand" that David > "thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D" that it was a transfer. > > As the former has practically no weight, it would be up to David to > convince the director that the latter has literally no weight. It is > obvious that if David thought 2D was a transfer by agreement, he > would have bid 2D 100% of the time. To counter this, David must show > that if he knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, and > assumed that partner knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, > he would still have bid 2D 100% of the time. If he can do that (and > he has, IMO, made a pretty good case for it in this forum), then "the > evidence of the hand" no longer suggests that he had an agreement > that it was a transfer, and absent any additional evidence that he > might have, his 2H bid should stand. > +=+ What the Director has to do. His first task is to determine whether David has received UI from partner. Second to judge whether this could suggest the action David has taken. David's argument alone is insufficient to put the matter beyond doubt. It will need corroboration If there is credible corroborative evidence to put the matter beyond doubt the Director rules accordingly. Otherwise he will pursue the question of logical alternatives. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 6 21:09:48 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:09:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B44BC6D.1050507@ulb.ac.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be><4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> <4B449781.6070301@skynet.be> <4B44AF1B.3010004@ulb.ac.be> <0F507136E88540F69B16C56A7F855575@Mildred> <4B44BC6D.1050507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : > >>> +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming >>> that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and >>> they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has >>> experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he >>> "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with >>> which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls >>> that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >>> offending side". He may even have read my quotation some >>> days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to >>> 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. >> >> AG : I don't like this. What about psyches ? >> >> Say I open 2NT, natural and strong in our system (as shown on the >> CC), >> holding a weak one-suiter in clubs.. >> Suppose that partner wrongly alerts, because he (wrongly) thinks >> that a >> 2NT bid that might include a 5-card major should be alerted, and >> responds 3C, asking for majors, and I pass. >> >> Now, I tell you it's a psyche and of course 'I was always going to >> pass >> 3C if partner happened to bid it'. >> Do you squelch my argument ? >> >> +=+ You have no UI that suggests you should pass If you >> had such UI the question would be whether you had >> any logical alternative to 'Pass'. In the circumstances >> of a baby psyche like that I can't imagine what logical >> alternative might exist. +=+ > > Whence you have to admit that always discarding the "I was always > going > to do so" argument can't be right. > If you do want it, throw in any number of UI informations from partner > (eg he pulled some bid, then hesitated, than bid 3C) and consider the > case. I'll still have no LA. Your LAs are defined in the context of whatever your own understanding of your call was when you made it. They don't change if you have UI, regardless of what the UI may suggest. If it isn't an LA in the absence of UI, then it isn't an LA, period, and nothing partner might do will turn it into one. Grattan is correct insofar as the fact that you were "always going to make that call" because it was superior to any of its LAs carries no weight if there was UI available that "suggested" it, notwithstanding that the "suggestion" may have done nothing more than reinforce your existing conviction that it was always the superior call. And Alain is correct insofar as the fact that you were "always going to make that call" because you had no LA is determinative, and no "number of UI informations from partner" can require you to do otherwise. As Grattan writes, "the question [is] whether you had any LA to 'pass'", and the presence or nature of whatever UI you might have had when you passed cannot have any effect on the answer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 21:16:27 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 21:16:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B44AD1E.7010104@ulb.ac.be> References: <72012C070EAC4E22862FBB7520EBA6AF@Mildred> <4B446E41.6000404@skynet.be> <4B447290.80000@ulb.ac.be> <4B449880.9040308@skynet.be> <4B44AD1E.7010104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2010/1/6 Alain Gottcheiner : > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> 2010/1/6 Herman De Wael : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> AG ?: I agree with most of what you said, but you should be careful >>>> before you decide there was such an agreement. >>>> >>>> You hold : ?AKQ - Axx - xxxx - Qxx and partner opens a natural 4C. They >>>> ask, you answer. You decide you've enough to cue-bid 4H. Quite >>>> surprisingly, partner passes. >>>> He thought 4C was a weak transfer to H (4H being stronger, a popular >>>> agreement in Brussels). >>>> You reach the right contract facing partner's expected (in his wiew) x - >>>> KQxxxxxx - x - xxx. >>>> >>>> Yet, director HdW will tell you that you've an agreement about 4C that >>>> it was a transfer because partner completed it. >>>> >>>> I don't like this. >>>> >>>> >>> Well sorry Alain, but if this is what happens, I will not like it >>> either. You say you have no agreement, and yet you act as if you have >>> one. Who is to say that rather than "having enough to cue-bid 4H" you >>> have "catered for the two possibilities - him having clubs or him having >>> hearts". Since this is a possibility (can you deny that it's possible - >>> other than by saying "trust me, I'm honest" ?) >>> > Well, I could perhaps show the appropriate line on my Convention Card, > with 'minimal length 7' and no check in the 'artificial' box. > Isn't this a case where the CC would be used to determine what our true > agreement is ? > > Remember that they only need to be told what our agreements are. > Not what my partne's hand is. > > Taking into account the fact that partner might have erred is legal, > absent UI. Since partner didn't do anything else than open, there was no UI. > (and remember that not alerting wouldn't be UI to partner, because we > don't alert at that level) > >> Would you rule the same if I was in Alains chair, prior to reading his >> post avobe? >> I've never ever heard about the mentioned Brussels treatment before, >> and as such, could never have imagined partner holding a "weak" 4H >> opening. >> > You're contradicting. > If the treatment is so wild that I couldn't have heard of, you can't > pretend I took it into account. > BTW, I refuse to play this. Excuse me, Alain, I was merely questioning Herman to get a closer idea of his reasoning here. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 6 22:44:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 21:44:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <4B44BC6D.1050507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <62D8C24DCFC94854BA54BF6B08D08D5E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:41 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:00 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? >> >> >> >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >>>> doubled, I would pass. >>>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >>>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >>>> >>>> Does it make 2D a LA ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David >>> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular >>> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take >>> out the pass to 2H again. >>> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have >>> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what to do >>> when 1NT is doubled. >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> >> < >> +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming >> that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and >> they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has >> experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he >> "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with >> which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls >> that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >> offending side". He may even have read my quotation some >> days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to >> 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. >> > < > AG : I don't like this. What about psyches ? > > Say I open 2NT, natural and strong in our system (as shown on the CC), > holding a weak one-suiter in clubs.. > Suppose that partner wrongly alerts, because he (wrongly) thinks that a > 2NT bid that might include a 5-card major should be alerted, and > responds 3C, asking for majors, and I pass. > > Now, I tell you it's a psyche and of course 'I was always going to pass > 3C if partner happened to bid it'. > Do you squelch my argument ? > > +=+ You have no UI that suggests you should pass If you > had such UI the question would be whether you had > any logical alternative to 'Pass'. In the circumstances > of a baby psyche like that I can't imagine what logical > alternative might exist. +=+ > Whence you have to admit that always discarding the "I was always going to do so" argument can't be right. If you do want it, throw in any number of UI informations from partner (eg he pulled some bid, then hesitated, than bid 3C) and consider the case. I'll still have no LA. +=+ I gather you did not read the earlier contribution. The subject we are addressing has to do with Law 16B situations. +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 6 22:48:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:48:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: http://lonestar.texas.net/~robison/dactyls.html Double Dactyl Higgledy piggledy Dactyls in dimeter, Verse form with choriambs (Masculine rhyme): One sentence (two stanzas) Hexasyllabically Challenges poets who Don't have the time. +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side". He may even have read my quotation some days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. I doubt if a mere assertion by a player, even one of the great and the good, will stand in the way of the Director's doing what he has to do. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: As a counterbalance to those sheepish blmlers bleating that they fully agree with David Burn, I would like to fully agree with Grattan Endicott, but I find that I differ on one point. Given that the gravamen of David Burn's disputed fact is that both sides are non-offending sides, one could say that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of David Burn". So first the Director must use Law 85 to determine whether or not David Burn is an offending player; there is not any shortcut available instead by the Director bypassing Law 85 and jumping directly to Law 84D. Law 84D - Rulings on ***Agreed*** Facts - Director's Option The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12). 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 Jan 7 01:02:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:02:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Higgledy piggledy Janus Patulcius, God of beginnings and Also of gates, Figures in calendars, Primopositional Foremost in naming the Months in our dates. David Burn: >.....For example, if a player has > >AKQJ1098765432 None None None > >and his LHO opens 7H which his partner doubles slowly, the >director need not consult anyone at all before allowing a bid of >7S to stand..... Richard Hills: The Director need not consult anyone at all before ruling fouled board pursuant to the Law 6D2 criterion "cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck* * A 'sorted deck' is a pack of cards not randomized from its prior condition." The Director well knows that attempted humour from a prankster choosing the obvious joke of three voids is zillions of times more likely than a hand with three voids being dealt from a randomised deck. 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 Jan 7 01:05:35 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:05:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000b01ca8eda$d2e81400$78b83c00$@com> Message-ID: <4B45254F.3020800@yahoo.co.uk> [Konrad Ciborowski] The problem with this approach is that it makes the ruling depend on the relative skills of the TD and the player. I, as a player, will be able to convince about anyone who plays two divisions lower than me that any action is a LA, is obvious, is dumb or whatever I need it to be at the moment. By the same token if Balicki starts telling me that a certain bid is obvious then who am I to tell him otherwise? Maybe he is right after all? You know, the man can play. I'd feel silly telling him "Mr Balicki, your argument about that bid doesn't add up in my eyes, my judgment is that this bid would be idiotic and I'm putting my judgment over yours". In Poland we instruct the TD to always (if at all possible) to consult player's peers to eliminate that danger. [Nigel] IMO Konrad is right as usual. Similarly, bridge Quiz panellists often predict a unanimous panel, only to find that their answer is unique. In the auction, 1N (X) 2D, where you have no agreement and you have 5 hearts, David Burn's 2D is a clever tactic; IMO, however, many players would just bid 2H in this context, relying on partner to treat an undiscussed bid as natural. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 7 01:26:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:26:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7B21D9C3-3D34-4230-A3A6-9AA05C64E921@starpower.net> Message-ID: David Stevenson, quoted out of context: >>.....bend over backwards..... Eric Landau: >.....Partner's telling the opponents that it was a >transfer is a misexplanation, which he is obligated to >ignore...... Richard Hills: The obligation is not to "ignore" UI from partner; rather, as David Stevenson colloquially put it, the obligation is to "bend over backwards" after UI from partner. If your peers believe that there must be two logical alternatives (but those peers are deemed to have received only and exclusively AI when they decided how many logical alternatives existed), 2H or Pass, but without UI you personally would always select 2H, you cannot "ignore" UI from pard and continue with your original selection of 2H. Rather, if the UI from pard demonstrably suggests 2H, you are obligated to select the Pass which would be chosen by some of your peers despite the fact that in an unconstrained-by-UI auction you personally would always choose 2H. 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 Jan 7 02:10:05 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:10:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B45254F.3020800@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000b01ca8eda$d2e81400$78b83c00$@com> <4B45254F.3020800@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B45346D.3090800@yahoo.co.uk> David Burn claims that he doesn't understand what is an *expected alert* My guess is that if you already know the systemic meaning of your call then you expect partner's *correct* (non-)alert. Although the (non-)alert would normally be unauthorised information to you, in this particular context, you may choose a suggested logical alternative, legally and with impunity. Grattan, please tell us if this interpretation is correct. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 7 05:20:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:20:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Conditions of Contest [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Conditions of Contest, December 2009: http://lists.herald.co.uk/pipermail/lois-bujold/2010-January/040756.html On Tuesday, Dec. 8th, Canadian science fiction author Dr. Peter Watts was arrested and beaten while returning to Canada after reportedly helping a friend move in Nebraska. According to Cory Doctorow (a personal friend of Dr. Watts), as border guards were inspecting his car, Dr. Watts got out and questioned what they were doing. He was subsequently punched, pepper-sprayed, beaten, handcuffed, and jailed. The witnesses in the car reported that Dr. Watts did nothing to provoke the guards into this response. After hearing of this incident, Doctorow contacted Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who was able to arrange bail for the author. However, Dr. Watts is now facing a felony charge and potentially two years in prison for supposedly assaulting a federal officers -- according to the guards involved. He denies this, as do the accompanying witnesses. Conditions of Contest, May 2004: No, I agree with the ABF Tournament Unit that we can learn from the CoC of another sport. For example, two soccer teams were contesting a game, and only one of them could proceed to the next stage. Towards the end of normal time, Team A was leading Team B by 2-1. Unfortunately, Team A could qualify only if it either beat Team B by 3-1 in normal time, or if the scores were tied 2-2 after normal time, and Team A then scored a "golden goal" in extra time. Even more unfortunately for Team A, Team B worked out the mathematics quicker than Team A, so before Team A could "dump" a goal into its own net, Team B had half its players guarding Team A's net, and the other half of Team B's players were guarding their own net. Team A frantically spent the remainder of normal time trying to kick a goal into either net, but the stout defence of both halves of Team B prevailed. :-) 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 Jan 7 06:08:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:08:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, San Diego, CA November 28, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chip Martel, Chairperson Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair Matt Smith Eric Rodwell Robb Gordon John Solodar Allan Falk Howard Weinstein Georgia Heth Chris Compton Ron Gerard (by phone) Jeff Polisner ALSO PRESENT: Gary Blaiss, ACBL Executive Administrative Officer Mike Flader, ACBL Tournament Director and scribe Matt Koltnow, ACBL Tournament Director Al Levy, ACBL Board of Directors Tad Yoshida, Japanese Contract Bridge League Executive Secretary The meeting was called to order at 10:05 AM. A motion was made by Adam Wildavsky to approve the Washington DC minutes. Seconded by Robb Gordon. Approved. Adam Wildavsky reported on the WBF LC meetings in Sao Paulo. The minutes from the WBF meetings in Sao Paulo were discussed. Al Levy asked if the wording of the Laws can be changed by ACBL and/or should it be a footnote/asterisk to the Laws. Jeff Polisner was of the opinion that members (i.e. country federations) of the WBF are required to follow the WBF version of the Laws, but that organizations like the ACBL which is not a member may differ. 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. Robb Gordon wondered at what point of divergence are the two organizations playing different games. Adam Wildavsky made a motion to make the ACBL Laws Commission's interpretation of Law 12C1e(ii) a footnote to the ACBL's laws, rather than embedding it in the text of the law as at present. There was no second, as it was felt further discussion should be deferred to the Spring meeting. Law 23's place in the laws was briefly discussed. Since the WBF version of the Laws contains no chapters and sections, it was the opinion of the group that Law 23 was designed to apply to all phases of a bridge hand not just the auction. Allan Falk's motion regarding Law 21 was tabled until the next meeting. A discussion of what information is authorized for the opponents of a pair having a misunderstanding followed. Eric Rodwell moved that the information that the opponents are having a misunderstanding is authorized if you are aware of it. This motion did not get a second as it was felt it was premature to finalize policy now, so discussion of questions asked during the auction was deferred until next spring. Law 7B1 was discussed. Suppose North-South look at their hands before a member of the other side or the director is present. Should Law 6C apply? A footnote to the Law was proposed. It was suggested that such a footnote be drafted and then discussed online. OLD BUSINESS: Law 20F and concerns regarding what questions are allowed to be asked about the auction was brought up. It was decided to discuss this issue online and decide in Reno. NEW BUSINESS: Regarding responsibility for responding to a question by a defender about whose lead it is, whose responsibility is it to correct bad information? It was pointed out that in the auction all players are responsible for correcting a misstatement in the review. It was the opinion of the speaker that this same standard should be applied to this question. A discussion ensued regarding the standards applied to the non-offending side when assigning an adjusted score. Matt Smith volunteered to write an opinion and to discuss online and in Reno. The meeting adjourned at 12:03 PM. Respectfully submitted, Mike Flader, Scribe 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 Jan 7 06:36:15 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:36:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >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. Richard Hills: In Blaiss-speak, does cooperation with the ACBL mean domination by the ACBL? Is Gary referring to the good old days of drafting the intentionally ambiguous 1997 Lawbook, when the Drafting Committee was: Edgar Kaplan, ACBL, Chairman Karen Allison, ACBL Ralph Cohen, ACBL Chip Martel, ACBL Roger Stern, ACBL Grattan Endicott, England Meanwhile, in Hills-speak, I would argue that the Drafting Committee for the less ambiguous 2007 Lawbook was representative of all stakeholders, ACBL or otherwise. Furthermore, since the Drafting Committee decisions were taken by consensus, ACBL interests were never damaged due to the ACBL DC members being hypothetically out- voted. John Wignall, New Zealand, Chairman Grattan Endicott, England, Co-ordinator Max Bavin, England Ralph Cohen, ACBL (deceased) Joan Gerard, ACBL Ton Kooijman, The Netherlands Jeffrey Polisner, ACBL William ("Kojak") Schoder, ACBL origin, now a citizen of the world 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 Thu Jan 7 09:31:42 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:31:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> <4B3E021A.7020103@skynet.be> <618C68A9B3DD4615B9A52D92A7521D32@Mildred> <4B3F1647.1060004@skynet.be> <4B3FD97C.6060301@verizon.net> <4B40A25B.6090805@skynet.be> <4B40B8C8.9000008@yahoo.co.uk> <4B40FCFA.4000004@yahoo.co.uk> <4B42B2AC.3070608@nhcc.net> <4B42D8D0.1000608@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca8e2f$bc7805f0$356811d0$@com> <4B44647E.5000100@skynet.be> <1B71D9EFC76F4977AB764FCE8A927F67@Mildred> <4B446E99.6000802@skynet.be><4B447359.4000505@ulb.ac.be> <4B449781.60703 01@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B459BEE.2000609@skynet.be> Please note, Grattan, that my case is totally reverse! I am calling the partner who alerts (correct according to hand, not according to agreement) and then passes (thereby giving UI) a cheat, and I would call the guy who then passes on 2Di a user of UI. I don't want to talk anymore of David's case. David has put it completely correctly. I was replying to Alain, who had not noticed the constraints of the case. I don't see why you needed to butt in to that post, when all you can say has been said seven times already, and does not confirm to either case. OK? Herman. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:00 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >>> doubled, I would pass. >>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >>> >>> Does it make 2D a LA ? >>> >> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David >> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular >> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take >> out the pass to 2H again. >> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have >> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what to do >> when 1NT is doubled. >> >> Herman. > < > +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming > that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and > they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has > experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he > "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with > which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls > that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- > offending side". He may even have read my quotation some > days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to > 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. I doubt if a mere assertion > by a player, even one of the great and the good, will stand in > the way of the Director's doing what he has to do. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 7 09:44:09 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:44:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B459ED9.7010404@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Rather, if the UI from pard demonstrably suggests 2H, you > are obligated to select the Pass which would be chosen by > some of your peers despite the fact that in an > unconstrained-by-UI auction you personally would always > choose 2H. > This is absurd. If you "would always bid 2H" then so would your peers, given the same situation. If some of your peers would not bid 2H, then the statement "I would always bid 2H" is self-serving and wrong. This question is not about "would always bid", or what David's peers would or would not do. This thread is about people telling David Burn that he would be wrong in bidding 2H, even after David Burn assures us that all his peers would bid 2H. Those people are wrong. Herman. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 7 11:23:54 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:23:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B45B63A.7010609@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:04 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > > >> On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >> >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> >>> >>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D >>>>> doubled, I would pass. >>>>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner >>>>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand. >>>>> >>>>> Does it make 2D a LA ? >>>>> >>>> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David >>>> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular >>>> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take >>>> out the pass to 2H again. >>>> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have >>>> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what >>>> to do >>>> when 1NT is doubled. >>>> >>> +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming >>> that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and >>> they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has >>> experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he >>> "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with >>> which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls >>> that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >>> offending side". He may even have read my quotation some >>> days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to >>> 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. I doubt if a mere assertion >>> by a player, even one of the great and the good, will stand in >>> the way of the Director's doing what he has to do. >>> >> What the director "has to do" is determine the preponderance of the >> evidence between David's self-serving mere assertion that "he was >> always going to" bid 2H and "the evidence of the hand" that David >> "thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D" that it was a transfer. >> >> As the former has practically no weight, it would be up to David to >> convince the director that the latter has literally no weight. It is >> obvious that if David thought 2D was a transfer by agreement, he >> would have bid 2D 100% of the time. To counter this, David must show >> that if he knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, and >> assumed that partner knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, >> he would still have bid 2D 100% of the time. If he can do that (and >> he has, IMO, made a pretty good case for it in this forum), then "the >> evidence of the hand" no longer suggests that he had an agreement >> that it was a transfer, and absent any additional evidence that he >> might have, his 2H bid should stand. >> >> > +=+ What the Director has to do. His first task is to determine > whether David has received UI from partner. Second to judge > whether this could suggest the action David has taken. David's > argument alone is insufficient to put the matter beyond doubt. > It will need corroboration If there is credible corroborative > evidence to put the matter beyond doubt the Director rules > accordingly. Otherwise he will pursue the question of logical > alternatives. > ~ G ~ +=+ > AG : agree wholeheartedly. And this means that the " desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to > 'squelch' all arguments of that kind." can't be right. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Thu Jan 7 15:15:31 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:15:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1262873731.22315.1353422753@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Jeff Polisner was of the opinion that members (i.e. country federations) > of the WBF are required to follow the WBF version of the Laws, but that > organizations like the ACBL which is not a member may differ. ACBL is a zonal member of WBF, and Polisner cannot be seriously saying that USBF is the actual NO for bridge in the USA. Where is he coming from here? > 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. The November 2007 ACBLLC minutes say, "The Commission decided to accept the change in title and, in fact, *in order to ensure that the ACBL version of the Laws is the same as the WBF verwion*, accepts as the ACBL version the drfat approved by the WBF" (emphasis added) What has happened to bring about the change in attitude indicated by the latest minutes? and -- if having seven ACBL'ers on the fifteen-member WBFLC isn't enough to ensure WBF/ACBL cooperation in law-making, what "return to [a] previous situation" is envisioned? David Babcock From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Jan 7 15:34:33 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:34:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1262873731.22315.1353422753@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1262873731.22315.1353422753@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <4B45F0F9.1080901@yahoo.co.uk> IMO, the WBF should publish "The Rules of Duplicate Bridge" = Current *Laws* + *Regulations*. The WBF should not depend on agreement or permission from The Portland Club or ACBL or any other organisation. International contests would be held under WBF rules. Any NBO, however could vary the rules in any way it wanted for the purposes of local competition, provided that it didn't call it *Duplicate Bridge*. For example the ACBL might call their variant *American Fairy Bridge*. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 7 15:37:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:37:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> Message-ID: <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> On Jan 6, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >>> +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming >>> that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and >>> they are pointing to the evidence of the hand. The Director has >>> experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he >>> "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with >>> which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling. He recalls >>> that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >>> offending side". He may even have read my quotation some >>> days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to >>> 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. I doubt if a mere assertion >>> by a player, even one of the great and the good, will stand in >>> the way of the Director's doing what he has to do. >> >> What the director "has to do" is determine the preponderance of the >> evidence between David's self-serving mere assertion that "he was >> always going to" bid 2H and "the evidence of the hand" that David >> "thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D" that it was a transfer. >> >> As the former has practically no weight, it would be up to David to >> convince the director that the latter has literally no weight. It is >> obvious that if David thought 2D was a transfer by agreement, he >> would have bid 2D 100% of the time. To counter this, David must show >> that if he knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, and >> assumed that partner knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, >> he would still have bid 2D 100% of the time. If he can do that (and >> he has, IMO, made a pretty good case for it in this forum), then "the >> evidence of the hand" no longer suggests that he had an agreement >> that it was a transfer, and absent any additional evidence that he >> might have, his 2H bid should stand. > > +=+ What the Director has to do. His first task is to determine > whether David has received UI from partner. Second to judge > whether this could suggest the action David has taken. David's > argument alone is insufficient to put the matter beyond doubt. > It will need corroboration If there is credible corroborative > evidence to put the matter beyond doubt the Director rules > accordingly. Otherwise he will pursue the question of logical > alternatives. Grattan puts the cart before the horse. The director's first task is to determine whether David has recieved UI from partner. Second is to determine whether David had any logical alternatives to the action he has taken. Only then, third, does he judge whether that action was suggested "from among logical alternatives" [L16B1(a)] by the UI. To judge "suggested' without first establishing the set of LAs to the chosen action is an empty exercise; any information of any kind can always be deemed to have suggested some logical action over some irrational one. David's assertion that he has acted legally and properly stands or falls on that critical second determination. If the set of LAs is found to be empty, what the alleged UI may have suggested need not be addressed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 7 16:17:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:17:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Lightfoot Sue In-Reply-To: <1262873731.22315.1353422753@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1262873731.22315.1353422753@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <2BD35F86-922A-49CE-9E89-F7ED24AD8688@starpower.net> On Jan 7, 2010, at 9:15 AM, David Babcock wrote: >> Jeff Polisner was of the opinion that members (i.e. country >> federations) >> of the WBF are required to follow the WBF version of the Laws, but >> that >> organizations like the ACBL which is not a member may differ. > > ACBL is a zonal member of WBF, and Polisner cannot be seriously saying > that USBF is the actual NO for bridge in the USA. Where is he coming > from here? The USBF is a legal fiction. It was formed to satisfy the requirements of the IOC (which does not recognize multi-country sponsoring organizations) at a time when there was an attempt to get bridge recognized as an Olympic sport. It no longer has any purpose that couldn't be met equally well by a BoD committee or subcommittee, as was the case prior to the let's-get-into-the-Olympics flap. Anyone with a U.S. address who joins the ACBL becomes a member of the USBF. ACBL dues "include" USBF dues in the finest of fine print. There is no way to become a member of the USBF other than by joining the ACBL. Despite being a fully paid-up member of the USBF, I have never received any communication of any kind from it. The vast majority of members of the USBF are unaware of its existence. It is a case study in how bureaucracies self-perpetuate even when they no longer serve any valid purpose. My apologies if I have offended any member of this forum who holds some official position in the USBF hierarchy, but if there is such, I would have no reason to be aware of it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Thu Jan 7 17:23:49 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:23:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Lightfoot Sue In-Reply-To: <2BD35F86-922A-49CE-9E89-F7ED24AD8688@starpower.net> References: <1262873731.22315.1353422753@webmail.messagingengine.com> <2BD35F86-922A-49CE-9E89-F7ED24AD8688@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1262881429.11982.1353445545@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:17 -0500, "Eric Landau" wrote: > The USBF is a legal fiction. ... > My apologies if I have offended any member of this forum who holds > some official position in the USBF hierarchy, but if there is such, I > would have no reason to be aware of it. Me neither. Our monthly magazine says ACBL. Our club's remittances go to ACBL. The tournaments around here sport the ACBL logo. *Our laws are promulgated by ACBL*. The idea that ACBL is not our NO in addition to being the zonal organization is, in any practical sense, ludicrous. I will cheerfully retract that last if anyone points to *anything* USBF has done regarding day-to-day bridge in the US outside of running the trials. David Babcock From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 7 17:37:34 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:37:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> [EL] Grattan puts the cart before the horse. The director's first task is to determine whether David has recieved UI from partner. Second is to determine whether David had any logical alternatives to the action he has taken. [DALB] A logical alternative is defined as an action that "among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." So Grattan and others presumably think (not without justification) that in order to determine whether I had any logical alternative to bidding 2H once 2D is doubled, the TD has to go and ask several members of my class of player what they would seriously consider doing in a partnership where no agreed method exists over 1NT doubled. If some of them might pass out 2D doubled on the grounds that "partner must have diamonds", then I will be awarded the score for 2D doubled and not the score for anything resulting from a removal to 2H. Moreover, my opinion of my own class as a player will have taken a downward turn, since I will appear to have been classed together with a bunch of idiots. Some confusion appears to exist as to whether the 2D bid itself is permitted; of course it is, since I didn't have any UI when I made it. Further confusion appears to exist as to whether the fact that I bid 2D is evidence that we actually had an agreement to play transfers after 1NT is doubled; of course we don't, or I would indeed not be allowed to remove 2D doubled. David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 7 18:00:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:00:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) Message-ID: 1NT 2Di(1) 3C 3S 3NT (1) described as Capelletti, showing the majors. In fact, the 2 Di bidder just had a diamond suit. Declarer claims he was damaged. Misbid or misexplanation? Facts: They never played together before They have one convention card. The convention card says Capelletti They said their agreement was to play the convention card. Likely to be true. The 2 Di bidder does not know Capelletti. Clueless what it is I still have to make a ruling. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 20:34:59 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:34:59 -0600 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b1001071134i1b8a088ap9ac67319c06af5fc@mail.gmail.com> Robert Frick writes: > 1NT 2Di(1) 3C ?3S > 3NT > > > (1) described as Capelletti, showing the majors. In fact, the 2 Di bidder > just had a diamond suit. > > Declarer claims he was damaged. Misbid or misexplanation? > > Facts: They never played together before > They have one convention card. > The convention card says Capelletti > They said their agreement was to play the convention card. Likely to be true. > The 2 Di bidder does not know Capelletti. Clueless what it is > > I still have to make a ruling. > I like the question. I am curious about two points: Does the CC say "Capelletti" and nothing more? How did you find out that the 2 Di bidder is clueless about Capelletti---accidentally, or did you seek the information? Regardless of the above, I would rule MI. A pair has no partnership understanding to play X if one of them is clueless about what X is. This is one of the reasons I prefer the term "partnership understanding" to "partnership agreement." Jerry Fusselman From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jan 7 22:38:31 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:38:31 -0800 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1262873731.22315.1353422753@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <28FCF3C464344E1180F28ED935501EA6@MARVLAPTOP> From: "David Babcock" > and -- if having seven ACBL'ers on the fifteen-member WBFLC isn't > enough > to ensure WBF/ACBL cooperation in law-making, what "return to [a] > previous situation" is envisioned? [the quote is attributed to Gary Blaiss, former Chief Tournament Director of the ACBL] > Perhaps cooperation means that the ACBL would not make substantive changes in the Laws created by the WBF. Since Gary Blaiss is the one who prepared the ACBL's 2008 Laws, that might seem unlikely. However,the ACBL LC surely edited what Gary produced, stating (Chip Martel) that the WBF Laws serve only as a guide. I believe the ACBL's current "2008" laws represents the first time ever that an ACBL edition contradicted or substantively supplemented the WBF's "official" Laws. Since the ACBL was previously an NBO and therefore subject to WBF By-laws (which they never acknowledged), the WBF version was previously honored. But since 2001 it is independent of the WBF and can do what it wishes. Not only was the ACBL well-represented on the Drafting Committee, it was extremely over-represented, going by membership numbers of other NBOs. When I wrote to then-President Dayani about the fact that the ACBL no longer is an NBO and therefore can do what it wants with the Laws, I got this reply: But it is totally clear that the WBF Laws Commission leads and control the Laws of Duplicate Bridge as published in 2007. (See attached) With kind regards Jos? Damiani President of the WBF Attached was a foreword to the 2007 laws, stating in part: NBOs may utilise the text on the Web Site (and this foreword if they wish), but if they print in any format they are requested to put the following: The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 Copyright World Bridge Federation The ACBL ignored this "request." in its "2008" Laws. Its position seems to be that the ACBL indeed honors the WBF's 2007 Laws, but only in regard to international competition. Within ACBL-land, its 2008 Laws govern all play. Since the ACBL is not an NBO, that position seems legal although outrageous. But money speaks, and the WBF won't do anything to offend the ACBL, whose BoD donated $100,000 to the WBF (via the USBF) for the right to host the World Series of Bridge in Philadelphia next fall. $200,000 more is pledged by the USBF, with $63,000 in the bank as of last July toward that commitment.. Also $100,000 is required if the room block at hotels is not filled, and there is a $50,000 obligation for sponsors' reception and other hospitality. These are theoretically USBF obligations. On its web site the USBF asks for donations toward these expenses. Oh, and the expenses incurred in fund-raising efforts are to be reimbursed. We ACBL members wonder what we get in return for this honor, other than the opportunity for rich ACBL members to participate in this very expensive tournament. Does the ACBL BoD play for free, I wonder? The USBF is used by the ACBL as a funnel through which WBF membership fees for it and two other NBOs (Canada and Mexico), based on ACBL membership, are paid. Thus the fees officially come from the USBF and the other two NBOs, not the ACBL, in principle. That is, those fees are sent individually, based on NBO membership numbers. Oddity: We American ACBL members (not Canadian and Mexican members) are automatically "regular" members of the USBF, willy-nilly, but the ACBL itself is not a member. Actually we are not truly members of the USBF, since it charges membership fees indpendent of the ACBL, $50 a year or $130 for three years. Real members are Active Members (who have paid USBF dues), Athlete members (Active members who have done well in international competition), and Resident Members (foreigners who qualify in various ways). Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 7 23:06:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:06:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B459ED9.7010404@skynet.be> Message-ID: David Burn (parallel thread): >>>Moreover, my opinion of my own class as a player will have >>>taken a downward turn, since I will appear to have been >>>classed together with a bunch of idiots. Richard Hills: >>Rather, if the UI from pard demonstrably suggests 2H, you >>are obligated to select the Pass which would be chosen by >>some of your peers despite the fact that in an >>unconstrained-by-UI auction you personally would always >>choose 2H. Herman De Wael: >This is absurd. > >If you "would always bid 2H" then so would your peers, >given the same situation. Richard Hills: A peer is not a player with identical _inclination_, rather a peer is a player with similar _expertise_. If Herman De Wael's interpretation of the Law 16B1(b) "class of players in question" was adopted by Directors and Appeals Committees, then there would almost never be a Law 16 adjusted score. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: class, n. Rank or order of society (upper, upper-middle, middle, lower-middle, lower, working, professional &c) Richard Hills: Translated to bridge context we have ranks or orders in our society of World Champions, International Representatives, National Experts, Unlucky Experts, Mr Smugs, Futile Willies and Mrs Guggenheims. 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 Fri Jan 8 03:13:04 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:13:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b1001071134i1b8a088ap9ac67319c06af5fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b1001071134i1b8a088ap9ac67319c06af5fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:34:59 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Robert Frick writes: > >> 1NT 2Di(1) 3C 3S >> 3NT >> >> >> (1) described as Capelletti, showing the majors. In fact, the 2 Di >> bidder >> just had a diamond suit. >> >> Declarer claims he was damaged. Misbid or misexplanation? >> >> Facts: They never played together before >> They have one convention card. >> The convention card says Capelletti >> They said their agreement was to play the convention card. Likely to be >> true. >> The 2 Di bidder does not know Capelletti. Clueless what it is >> >> I still have to make a ruling. >> > > I like the question. I am curious about two points: > > Does the CC say "Capelletti" and nothing more? The convention card seemed to have a description of what each bid meant. > > How did you find out that the 2 Di bidder is clueless about > Capelletti---accidentally, or did you seek the information? I knew the 2 Di bidder probably did not know Capelletti. I asked what 2 Di meant in Capelletti and he said it showed a six-card suit, which is of course the wrong answer. > > Regardless of the above, I would rule MI. A pair has no partnership > understanding to play X if one of them is clueless about what X is. > This is one of the reasons I prefer the term "partnership > understanding" to "partnership agreement." > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 8 03:18:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:18:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> Message-ID: Higgledy piggledy Plato, philosopher, Dreamed up a new concept One febrile night: Juxtaposed images, Phantasmagoria, Objects that do not go Bump in the light. Eric Landau: [big snip] >If the set of LAs is found to be empty, what the alleged UI may >have suggested need not be addressed. Richard Hills: We have had this debate on blml before. If not any call(1) is a logical alternative (i.e. if a Master Solvers' Club of peers would unanimously vote "Abstain"), then the limited Law 16B does not apply, but the broader Platonic power of Law 73C does apply. Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage(2) from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Best wishes Mr Smug (1) Except, perhaps, the only logical alternative call might be an insufficient bid. :-) (2) That is, if only illogical alternatives are available, then one must "carefully avoid taking any advantage" by avoiding the choice of the illogical alternative which is suggested by the UI. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jan 8 03:50:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:50:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nom d'un nom d'un nom (was and...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hercule Poirot: "It is true that I can speak the exact, the idiomatic English. But, my friend, to speak the broken English is an enormous asset. It leads people to despise you. They say - a foreigner - he can't even speak English properly." Robert Frick: >I knew the 2 Di bidder probably did not know Capelletti. I asked >what 2 Di meant in Capelletti and he said it showed a six-card >suit, which is of course the wrong answer. Richard Hills: No, it is the right answer in some Canberra circles. They switched the meanings of 2C (now both majors) and 2D (now an unspecified six-card suit). In Canberra they get bored waiting for 5-5 shape in the majors to intervene, so they get into the auction's action with 4-5 or 5-4 in the majors. Hence, whenever advancer holds 2-2 or 3-3 in the majors, advancer now has the bidding space to try 2D, showing equal length in the majors, thus allowing overcaller to play in her longer major. The point is that most Regulating Authorities deprecate one word descriptions such as "Stayman", since there are a zillion different customised versions of Stayman around the world. E.g. Double-barrelled Stayman (embedded in Law 75), Extended Stayman (hugely popular in Australia), Puppet Stayman, Stayman promising values, Garbage Stayman, Stayman guaranteeing a major, Stayman possibly the first step to a signoff in 3C, and Goman. 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jan 8 05:50:30 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:50:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: writes: > 1NT 2Di(1) 3C 3S > 3NT > > > (1) described as Capelletti, showing the majors. In fact, the 2 Di bidder > just had a diamond suit. > > Declarer claims he was damaged. Misbid or misexplanation? > > Facts: They never played together before > They have one convention card. > The convention card says Capelletti > They said their agreement was to play the convention card. Likely to be true. > The 2 Di bidder does not know Capelletti. Clueless what it is > > I still have to make a ruling. Absent convincing evidence, assume misexplanation rather than misbid. Whether the 2D bidder never looked at the card, or looked at the card but believes in a different version of Cappelletti, there is no convincing evidence that they agreed to play 2D showing both majors. In an established partnership with a properly-marked pair of cards (particularly if one was in the misbidder's handwriting), you could accept a statement from the 2D bidder that they have always played Cappelletti and he forgot. But when one player in a pick-up partnership agrees to play partner's card and doesn't have the same understanding of something on the card, there is no agreement and a misexplanation should be ruled. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 8 08:40:46 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:40:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <5E6BE4BE4DBC4B2FB2CFFCB1B3CC1B85@MARVLAPTOP> >From Richard Hills, thanks Richard > > MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION > Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, San Diego, CA > November 28, 2009 > > Jeff Polisner was of the opinion that members (i.e. country > federations) > of the WBF are required to follow the WBF version of the Laws, but > that > organizations like the ACBL which is not a member may differ. There is no other organization that deviates significantly from the WBF version of the Laws. The ACBL stands alone. > Robb Gordon wondered at what point of divergence are the two > organizations playing different games. How could he not know this? Didn't the LC discuss the two substantive changes made by the ACBL? > Al Levy asked if the wording of the Laws can be changed by ACBL > and/or > should it be a footnote/asterisk to the Laws. > > Adam Wildavsky made a motion to make the ACBL Laws Commission's > interpretation of Law 12C1e(ii) a footnote to the ACBL's laws, > rather > than embedding it in the text of the law as at present. There was > no > second, as it was felt further discussion should be deferred to > the > Spring meeting. That would make both substantive changes in the form of footnotes, perhaps implying that the ACBL Laws conform to the WBF Laws. Adam and Al, footnotes are just as much law as the text to which they refer. > A discussion ensued regarding the standards applied to the > non-offending > side when assigning an adjusted score. Matt Smith volunteered to > write an > opinion and to discuss online and in Reno. > This perhaps an effect of my pointing out to the LC by e-mail that ACBL's current policies on rulings for each side violate L12C1(b). Not just for the NOS, but also for the OS. In short, ACBL policy is that serious error means no score adjustment for the NOS. This contradicts L12C1(b) which says their score is adjusted, but with the serious error included. For offenders, ACBL policy is that NOS's serious error is included in their score adjustment, while L12C1(b) says it is not. Why not have Matt consider this aspect also? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 8 09:30:52 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:30:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B46ED3C.8070306@skynet.be> I've read two answers already, and I believe they are wrong. rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > 1NT 2Di(1) 3C 3S 3NT > > > (1) described as Capelletti, showing the majors. In fact, the 2 Di > bidder just had a diamond suit. > > Declarer claims he was damaged. Misbid or misexplanation? > > Facts: They never played together before They have one convention > card. Which they both state to be their system card? > The convention card says Capelletti Of which, in their region, only one version exists? > They said their agreement was to play the convention card. Likely to > be true. So we'll accept that? > The 2 Di bidder does not know Capelletti. Clueless what it > is > We'll also accept that. > I still have to make a ruling. Well: imagine three very similar cases. Case Two (case one being the original): 2Di is alerted, and the opponents look at the system card, read Capeletti and play continues. Would you rule misinformation or misbid? Case Three: The 2Di bidder does know Capeletti, remembers that he read the SC and just forgot he was playing it? Misbid or Misinformation? Case Four: 2Di is bid from the other side, with majors, and not alerted by the original 2Di-bidder, who does not know Capeletti at all. You believe that he does not know Capeletti, so how could they have an agreement playing Capeletti? Misbid or Misinformation? If you are going to rule that the SC defines the system, and that deviations from it (in bidding) are Misbids, then you must do so in Case Three, and in Case Two, and, by extension, in the original Case. It does not matter whether the player knows Capeletti or not. He agreed to play what was on the System Card, so that is his system. Forgetting your system, or not knowing it to start with, must be treated the same. I rule misbid in the original. Herman. > > > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 8 09:20:41 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:20:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B46EAD9.2050104@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > >> This is absurd. >> >> If you "would always bid 2H" then so would your peers, >> given the same situation. > > Richard Hills: > > A peer is not a player with identical _inclination_, rather > a peer is a player with similar _expertise_. > > If Herman De Wael's interpretation of the Law 16B1(b) "class > of players in question" was adopted by Directors and Appeals > Committees, then there would almost never be a Law 16 > adjusted score. > Richard once again finds it useful to cite only part of my post. What I said was that it wass absurd for Grattan to criticize David Burn by saying that the Director should consult David's peers. David knows this, and when David says "I would always bid 2He", he means, "every one of my peers would bid 2He". The object under discussion was not whether David was right in saying that, but whether David, given that "every one would bid 2He" was allowed to bid 2He if UI suggested this. And of course David was right, and Grattan was being absurd in just citing the UI Laws, which David knows quite well. Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Jan 8 09:55:56 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:55:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> Message-ID: <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> [David Burn] Some confusion appears to exist as to whether the 2D bid itself is permitted; of course it is, since I didn't have any UI when I made it. Further confusion appears to exist as to whether the fact that I bid 2D is evidence that we actually had an agreement to play transfers after 1NT is doubled; of course we don't, or I would indeed not be allowed to remove 2D doubled. [Nige1] Suppose David Burn has agreed strong notrump and transfers with a partner he respects as equally cunning. He opens 1N and the undiscussed auction 1N (X) 2D ensues. Should David alert his partner's 2D? Without an alert, opponents are unlikely to realise that this would be his partner's normal tactic with a weak hand and hearts. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 8 10:25:23 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:25:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [David Burn] > Some confusion appears to exist as to whether the 2D bid itself is > permitted; of course it is, since I didn't have any UI when I made it. > Further confusion appears to exist as to whether the fact that I bid 2D > is evidence that we actually had an agreement to play transfers after > 1NT is doubled; of course we don't, or I would indeed not be allowed to > remove 2D doubled. > > [Nige1] > Suppose David Burn has agreed strong notrump and transfers with a > partner he respects as equally cunning. He opens 1N and the undiscussed > auction 1N (X) 2D ensues. Should David alert his partner's 2D? Without > an alert, opponents are unlikely to realise that this would be his > partner's normal tactic with a weak hand and hearts. It does indeed seem logical to act as David does. Which would make it an implicit agreement. Which would be alertable (at least in Norway). But the explanation would then be: "We have no agreement, but it is wise, when weak and holding hearts, to bid 2Di." But of course David could be stronger and with diamonds, intending to bid 3Di over 2He. So the explanation should then be: "We have no agreements, but it is wise, both when weak with hearts and strong with diamonds, to bid 2Di". And that explanation is totally useless for the opponents, who are in the very same situation yet again. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 8 11:14:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:14:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B47058D.3010102@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > writes: > > >> 1NT 2Di(1) 3C 3S >> 3NT >> >> >> (1) described as Capelletti, showing the majors. In fact, the 2 Di bidder >> just had a diamond suit. >> >> Declarer claims he was damaged. Misbid or misexplanation? >> >> Facts: They never played together before >> They have one convention card. >> The convention card says Capelletti >> They said their agreement was to play the convention card. Likely to be true. >> The 2 Di bidder does not know Capelletti. Clueless what it is >> >> I still have to make a ruling. >> > > Absent convincing evidence, assume misexplanation rather than misbid. Whether > the 2D bidder never looked at the card, or looked at the card but believes in a > different version of Cappelletti, there is no convincing evidence that they > agreed to play 2D showing both majors. > > In an established partnership with a properly-marked pair of cards (particularly > if one was in the misbidder's handwriting) AG : that's an argument I had never heard of. In our country, established partnerships use card-writing software. They have to, from intermediate level, because of the information duties in team competition. > , you could accept a statement from > the 2D bidder that they have always played Cappelletti and he forgot. But when > one player in a pick-up partnership agrees to play partner's card and doesn't > have the same understanding of something on the card, there is no agreement and > a misexplanation should be ruled. > AG : indeed. But this is somewhat twisted, since it means that it would be advantageous for said player to lie and say he forgot, when he just didn't know. To sum up : the CC is an indication that they are using Cappelletti. Their declarations are an indication that they don't. In case of contrasting evidence, rule MI. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 8 15:29:15 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:29:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 7, 2010, at 9:18 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [big snip] > >> If the set of LAs is found to be empty, what the alleged UI may >> have suggested need not be addressed. > > Richard Hills: > > We have had this debate on blml before. If not any call(1) is a > logical alternative (i.e. if a Master Solvers' Club of peers would > unanimously vote "Abstain"), then the limited Law 16B does not > apply, but the broader Platonic power of Law 73C does apply. > > Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner > > "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from > his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, > mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an > unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid > taking any advantage(2) from that unauthorized information. > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." > > Best wishes > > Mr Smug > > (1) Except, perhaps, the only logical alternative call might be an > insufficient bid. :-) > > (2) That is, if only illogical alternatives are available, then one > must "carefully avoid taking any advantage" by avoiding the choice > of the illogical alternative which is suggested by the UI. In the context of my post, I would have thought it apparent that "LAs" was to be read as "logical alternatives to the action taken" rather than as "logical alternative actions available". In Richard's terms, it means that "a Master Solvers Club of peers would unanimously vote" for the call actually chosen. My apologies if that wasn't as obvious as I thought. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 19:22:35 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:22:35 -0600 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) In-Reply-To: <4B47058D.3010102@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B47058D.3010102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b1001081022o27a28263h90983971bc940673@mail.gmail.com> Alain Gottcheiner writes: > David Grabiner a ?crit : >> >> In an established partnership with a properly-marked pair of cards (particularly >> if one was in the misbidder's handwriting) > AG : that's an argument I had never heard of. In our country, > established partnerships use card-writing software. > They have to, from intermediate level, because of the information duties > in team competition. There are several examples of considering who wrote the convention cards in the ACBL casebooks. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 19:55:16 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:55:16 -0600 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) In-Reply-To: <4B46ED3C.8070306@skynet.be> References: <4B46ED3C.8070306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b1001081055t71e5e8b5qb8697f4fd157d718@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, Herman! I will answer your questions: Herman De Wael writes: > > Well: imagine three very similar cases. > > Case Two (case one being the original): > 2Di is alerted, and the opponents look at the system card, read > Capeletti and play continues. Would you rule misinformation or misbid? > MI, because the system card does not match their partnership understanding. > Case Three: > The 2Di bidder does know Capeletti, remembers that he read the SC and > just forgot he was playing it? Misbid or Misinformation? This example sounds like my case C below, so it is a misbid, because there is a true partnership understanding and it matches the disclosure. > > Case Four: > 2Di is bid from the other side, with majors, and not alerted by the > original 2Di-bidder, who does not know Capeletti at all. You believe > that he does not know Capeletti, so how could they have an agreement > playing Capeletti? Misbid or Misinformation? I would rule MI due to the failure to alert 2Di. They do not have a partnership understanding to play 2Di natural. > > If you are going to rule that the SC defines the system, The SC is evidence, but it does not always define the system. If my SC says that we play sound openings but we actually play light openings and I open 1Sp light, then the card is MI---it was not a misbid. This is just one example to show that the SC by itself does not define the system. (The card is MI even if I open 1Sp with 15 HCP.) > and that > deviations from it (in bidding) are Misbids, then you must do so in Case > Three, and in Case Two, and, by extension, in the original Case. > > It does not matter whether the player knows Capeletti or not. He agreed > to play what was on the System Card, so that is his system. Forgetting > your system, or not knowing it to start with, must be treated the same. I don't think so. I could clarify my position by giving three cases: A. Not knowing Capeletti at all. B. Knows Capelletti, but usually forgets it. C. Knows Capelletti, rarely forgets it, but forgot it this time. In A and B I would rule MI; in C, I would rule no MI. Jerry Fusselman From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 8 21:19:16 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:19:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b1001081055t71e5e8b5qb8697f4fd157d718@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B46ED3C.8070306@skynet.be> <2b1e598b1001081055t71e5e8b5qb8697f4fd157d718@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B479344.4050108@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > I don't think so. I could clarify my position by giving three cases: > > A. Not knowing Capeletti at all. > B. Knows Capelletti, but usually forgets it. > C. Knows Capelletti, rarely forgets it, but forgot it this time. > > In A and B I would rule MI; in C, I would rule no MI. > I might argue with B, but I understand your emotion. However, what is the difference between a player accepting to play a SC reading it, and then forgetting to ask what Capeletti means precisely, and one who does not even read it? Both have "agreed" to play Capeletti! > Jerry Fusselman Herman. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 22:01:12 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:01:12 -0600 Subject: [BLML] and their agreement is... (day in the life) In-Reply-To: <4B479344.4050108@skynet.be> References: <4B46ED3C.8070306@skynet.be> <2b1e598b1001081055t71e5e8b5qb8697f4fd157d718@mail.gmail.com> <4B479344.4050108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b1001081301v140c008akc3c90901afe26a5d@mail.gmail.com> Herman writes: > > However, what is the difference between a player accepting to play a SC > reading it, and then forgetting to ask what Capeletti means precisely, > and one who does not even read it? In both cases, "Capeletti" (or "Shows the majors") would be MI. > Both have "agreed" to play Capeletti! > This illustrates why "partnership understanding" is a superior term to "partnership agreement." The new laws have fortunately greatly improved in this regard, because most of the previous references to partnership agreement have been replaced with the better term. It may help to understand my position if you stop thinking about agreements and instead focus on understandings. If both partners understand (and usually remember) that 2Di shows the majors, then that is their partnership understanding. Otherwise, it is not their understanding. When your partnership understanding does not match your disclosure, you have MI. Jerry Fusselman From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 8 23:26:02 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:26:02 -0800 Subject: [BLML] LOOT vs a slam References: Message-ID: <9B4611F28B554BB0859C1C089049C9C2@MARVLAPTOP> > Richard Hills: > > The opponents confidently bid to 7D. > Partner is considering a sacrifice in 7S. > You lead the ace of diamonds out of turn. > Not pertinent, but I was reminded that I just in a bridge problem book that Kantar many years ago made a brilliant play against a small slam when his partner's OOT lead of an ace was not accepted. Kantar just underled the ace of his suit (which had been raised), allowing his partner to win with the king and therefore cash two tricks That was never legal, was it? Marv From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 8 23:34:07 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:34:07 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP><86298ECAF713415FB67C3901D6DD7E2B@MARVLAPTOP> <0D7D5E69F22445118E79100B80CBE62F@Mildred> Message-ID: From: "Grattan" > > +=+ Although the footnote bars the Director from treating the > call as an infraction it does not remove the effect of 'should > call' > that other timing remains an irregularity if not an infraction. Guess I was wrong, but I don't understand this. Don't all irregularities have consequences? What is the TD to do? Perhaps: "You are not supposed to call me until end of play, please remember that" ? or, Probst-like: "Why are you wasting my time?" I hope it's agreed that an earlier call, while not an infraction, does not get the TD involved with the UI matter. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at irvine.com Fri Jan 8 23:38:44 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:38:44 -0800 Subject: [BLML] LOOT vs a slam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:26:02 PST." <9B4611F28B554BB0859C1C089049C9C2@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <201001082222.OAA11596@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > > > The opponents confidently bid to 7D. > > Partner is considering a sacrifice in 7S. > > You lead the ace of diamonds out of turn. > > > Not pertinent, but I was reminded that I just in a bridge problem > book that Kantar many years ago made a brilliant play against a > small slam when his partner's OOT lead of an ace was not accepted. > Kantar just underled the ace of his suit (which had been raised), > allowing his partner to win with the king and therefore cash two > tricks That was never legal, was it? 1987 Law 16C2: For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action is authorized, after the payment of any penalty imposed by law. However, information arising from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized; then, a player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information. 1997 Law 16C2: For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information. (If your last question was intended with irony, I haven't followed this thread closely enough to detect that. Sorry.) -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 8 23:54:08 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:54:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 53 and L16B3 questions References: <583F863CE6654935887A20089B945BB5@MARVLAPTOP> <7811669C261D4524A1B225CD021EB181@erdos> Message-ID: From: "David Grabiner" > > "Substantial reason" need not be convincing evidence of a > violation (such as > hesitation Blackwood), just evidence of a probable violation. > When a player > pulls a slow penalty double, or competes after a slow pass, > calling the TD at > that time is probably appropriate; there will be less question > about the length > of the hesitation. How many times do we have to say that first, UI is not an infraction, and second, it is an insult to imply that an opponent receiving the UI may have committed one? The hesitating side's opinion about the UI should carry little weight, delay or not. If the TD decides this matter immediately at the end of play, the time lapse is inconsequential. I have never witnessed a case in which an opponent has lied about UI created by the other side. That is not the sort of lie that bridge players commit. Bridge is a timed event and playing time should not be wasted in this way, as most UI does not lead to an infraction. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Jan 9 00:05:20 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:05:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> [Herman De Wael] It does indeed seem logical to act as David does. Which would make it an implicit agreement. Which would be alertable (at least in Norway). But the explanation would then be: "We have no agreement, but it is wise, when weak and holding hearts, to bid 2Di." But of course David could be stronger and with diamonds, intending to bid 3Di over 2He. So the explanation should then be: "We have no agreements, but it is wise, both when weak with hearts and strong with diamonds, to bid 2Di". And that explanation is totally useless for the opponents, who are in the very same situation yet again. {Nige1] I don't agree with Herman that DALB's opponents are in the same disclosure situation as they would be against less cunning players. Also, if your implicit understanding will come as surprise to opponents, is it OK for you to deprive them of that information because you think that the information is of no use to them? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jan 9 00:13:51 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:13:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] LOOT vs a slam References: <201001082222.OAA11596@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2A9F096FB3C840B690C059EA621FD31E@MARVLAPTOP> Adam Beneschan wrote: Marv wrote: >> Not pertinent, but I was reminded that I just in a bridge problem >> book that Kantar many years ago made a brilliant play against a >> small slam when his partner's OOT lead of an ace was not >> accepted. >> Kantar just underled the ace of his suit (which had been raised), >> allowing his partner to win with the king and therefore cash two >> tricks That was never legal, was it? > > 1987 Law 16C2: > > For the offending side, information arising from its own > withdrawn action > is authorized, after the payment of any penalty imposed by law. > However, > information arising from withdrawn actions of the non-offending > side is > unauthorized; then, a player of the offending side may not > choose from > among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have > been > suggested over another by the unauthorized information. > > 1997 Law 16C2: > > For the offending side, information arising from its own > withdrawn > action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is > unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from > among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably > have > been suggested over another by the unauthorized information. > > (If your last question was intended with irony, I haven't followed > this thread closely enough to detect that. Sorry.) Not irony. Neither the 1963 Laws nor the 1975 Laws, with the former probably in force when Kantar did this, had the provision about the UI. Nor do their sections on UI cover such a situation. I guess that makes his lead a legal one, but I'm not sure about its ethical implications. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 8 23:56:42 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:56:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: Message-ID: <622F55EF8E4C488C9EE09FB7BBF05F16@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > In the context of my post, I would have thought it apparent that > "LAs" was to be read as "logical alternatives to the action taken" > rather than as "logical alternative actions available". In Richard's > terms, it means that "a Master Solvers Club of peers would > unanimously vote" for the call actually chosen. My apologies if that > wasn't as obvious as I thought. > +=+ In Law 16B1(a) the phrase "from among logical alternatives" requires that the action chosen itself is one of the logical alternative possibilities. I have always believed that in normal circumstances his choice of the action indicates that, for him, the action is logical. However, this does not stand up if his action is wild or gambling, although such an action is not very likely to be suggested by the UI. On the other hand 16B3 is worded so that it only matters whether there is an alternative action to the action selected that would meet the definition in 16A1(b). We are not required to judge whether the chosen action is logical and the award of an adjusted score is triggered when an infraction results in advantage to the OS. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Jan 9 01:33:31 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 00:33:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <000a01ca90c3$5f000620$1d001260$@com> Higgledy piggledy Richard James Hills, though he Knew what his partner meant, This was a fluke. Trying to bend over Backwards, his statement was Incontrovertible Gobbledygook. [NG] I don't agree with Herman that DALB's opponents are in the same disclosure situation as they would be against less cunning players. [DALB] It isn't really a question of "cunning". As Eric Landau has suggested, correct procedure for a pair of David Burns sitting down to play together for the first time wound be this: 7.35 pm (five minutes after the start of the event, but of course a pair of David Burns would not have finished their beers by 7.30) "Standard English, partner?" "Fine." 7.40 pm 1NT, double, ? (432 J10932 432 32) "Better bid 2D, because not sure this position is covered in Standard English; can remove to 2H if things get sticky; absurd to bid 2H because things really will get sticky if partner thinks I have spades." 7.40:20 pm 1NT, double, 2D, pass or double, ? (A76 Q654 A65 A54) "Better alert, because not sure if he has diamonds or hearts, but in England we are supposed to alert if we think a call might be conventional even if we don't know what it might mean. Better pass, because he might have either red suit. Better explain everything I have just thought to the player who has asked me a question - after all, I am playing with a David Burn, and I know how they think even though I do not always know when, or why, or with what." 12.40 am "So, Grattan, what you are telling me is that next time the bidding starts 1NT Double and I don't have any agreement, my best course is to bid 2D and leave the table immediately - then, I will be able to bid 2H on my return, otherwise I will not?" What would not happen at 7.40:20 pm if one of me (I?) had A7 54 QJ10965 AQ4 and had opened a weak no trump (well, partner is only David Burn so I had better try to play the hand) is that I would alert only when I had this kind of hand before passing. After all, that would be cheating; regretfully, I know that the David Burn opposite is going to pull 2D doubled to 2H, but I cannot help that. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 9 09:47:59 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:47:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > It does indeed seem logical to act as David does. > Which would make it an implicit agreement. > Which would be alertable (at least in Norway). > But the explanation would then be: "We have no agreement, but it is > wise, when weak and holding hearts, to bid 2Di." > But of course David could be stronger and with diamonds, intending to > bid 3Di over 2He. > So the explanation should then be: "We have no agreements, but it is > wise, both when weak with hearts and strong with diamonds, to bid 2Di". > And that explanation is totally useless for the opponents, who are in > the very same situation yet again. > > {Nige1] > I don't agree with Herman that DALB's opponents are in the same > disclosure situation as they would be against less cunning players. > That is not what I said. I said they would be in the same position as they would without saying anything. > Also, if your implicit understanding will come as surprise to opponents, > is it OK for you to deprive them of that information because you think > that the information is of no use to them? Of course not. It is not up to David, as player, to judge what can or cannot be of use to them. But as Director, I am allowed to rule that the information they did not get would have been of no use to them, and so they are not damaged. My point was against (I don't remember who said it) the notion that David would behave like this with weak hearts, and that opponents needed to know this. I corrected that, saying that David would behave like this with either weak hearts of strong diamonds, and that that was what the opponents should have received - which is worthless to them. Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Jan 9 15:39:54 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:39:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> [Herman De Wael] My point was against (I don't remember who said it) the notion that David would behave like this with weak hearts, and that opponents needed to know this. I corrected that, saying that David would behave like this with either weak hearts of strong diamonds, and that that was what the opponents should have received - which is worthless to them. [Nigel] It was I who expressed the view that opponents should be alerted to likely unusual and unexpected meanings. My point is that a player should not take it upon himself to judge that the unusual meaning of his partner's bid is of no use to his opponents --- especially when, as in this case, the information may well be of use to his opponents :) From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 9 16:52:39 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:52:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > My point was against (I don't remember who said it) the notion that > David would behave like this with weak hearts, and that opponents needed > to know this. I corrected that, saying that David would behave like this > with either weak hearts of strong diamonds, and that that was what the > opponents should have received - which is worthless to them. > > [Nigel] > It was I who expressed the view that opponents should be alerted to > likely unusual and unexpected meanings. > > My point is that a player should not take it upon himself to judge that > the unusual meaning of his partner's bid is of no use to his opponents > --- especially when, as in this case, the information may well be of use > to his opponents :) > Well, my point was that I disagree with this last sentence of yours. Yes indeed, David could be bidding 2Di when weak with hearts, but he could also be bidding 2Di when strong enough to correct 2He back to 3Di. That is what the opponents should be told, and that information is of no use to them :) You should not automatically reverse the reasoning: if he bids it with this hand, he is showing this hand. He could be bidding it with two different kids of hands and then the bid shows either the one or the other. Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Jan 9 17:42:03 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:42:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> One last try to understand your stance, Herman :) Are you saying that it is lawful for a player not to alert a call by his partner that has unexpected meaning(s), on the grounds that, in his opinion, his opponents are incapable of using that information to their advantage? From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 9 23:06:12 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:06:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be> <4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B48FDD4.8080501@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > One last try to understand your stance, Herman :) > > Are you saying that it is lawful for a player not to alert a call by his > partner that has unexpected meaning(s), on the grounds that, in his > opinion, his opponents are incapable of using that information to their > advantage? > No, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that in this case, although David's partner may well have needed to alert David's bid, the explanation would have been such that opponents would have been incapable of using it. In short, Misinformation without damage. OK? Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 10 13:33:57 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:33:57 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be><4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48FDD4.8080501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8480F76333954B3DA737968BDD1A35D6@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> One last try to understand your stance, Herman :) >> >> Are you saying that it is lawful for a player not to alert a call by his >> partner that has unexpected meaning(s), on the grounds that, in his >> opinion, his opponents are incapable of using that information to their >> advantage? >> > > No, that is not what I was saying. > I was saying that in this case, although David's partner may well have > needed to alert David's bid, the explanation would have been such that > opponents would have been incapable of using it. > > In short, Misinformation without damage. > > OK? > > Herman. > +=+ However, opponents must have the opportunity of making for themselves the judgement whether they can use the information. For example, they may judge to pass out the hand in 2D undoubled.. If it transpires this would have given them a more favourable result they have a claim that they are damaged as Law 40B6(b) provides. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 10 14:43:12 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:43:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <8480F76333954B3DA737968BDD1A35D6@Mildred> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be><4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48FDD4.8080501@skynet.be> <8480F76333954B3DA737968BDD1A35D6@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B49D970.5060901@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > >> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>> One last try to understand your stance, Herman :) >>> >>> Are you saying that it is lawful for a player not to alert a call by his >>> partner that has unexpected meaning(s), on the grounds that, in his >>> opinion, his opponents are incapable of using that information to their >>> advantage? >>> >> No, that is not what I was saying. >> I was saying that in this case, although David's partner may well have >> needed to alert David's bid, the explanation would have been such that >> opponents would have been incapable of using it. >> >> In short, Misinformation without damage. >> >> OK? >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ However, opponents must have the opportunity of making > for themselves the judgement whether they can use the information. > For example, they may judge to pass out the hand in 2D undoubled.. > If it transpires this would have given them a more favourable result > they have a claim that they are damaged as Law 40B6(b) provides. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Of course, Grattan. But I was reacting to someone saying it needed to be alerted because it showed weak hearts. I said it didn't show that. Furthermore I stated that, if it shows either weak hearts or strong diamonds, the opponents would not judge to pass it out. In short, they would not be damaged by the MI. There is not need for you to reply to each and every single one of my posts, just to add that the director needs to judge all that I am saying. Of course this is up to the director. I never said it wasn't. I was just saying that it is not as easy as it sounds. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 10 21:56:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:56:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Directors' Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Francis Wheen, How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World, page 248: F.M. Cornford's famous Principle of the Wedge holds that "you should not act justly now for fear of raising expectations that you will act still more justly in the future". He meant it satirically - a point overlooked by figures such as Noam Chomsky and Harold Pinter, who argued that NATO's failure to protect people in Rwanda somehow disqualified it from trying to save the Kosovars. In the words of another Cornfordism, the Principle of the Dangerous Precedent: "Nothing should ever be done for the first time." Richard Hills: The first issue of the revived ABDA Directors' Bulletin has just been published. While some articles will be for experienced Directors and Tournament Organizers, it will not contain obtuse blml mumbo-jumbo, as editors Laurie and Sue Kelso state: "Our aim is to include material for the beginner director as well as those who are very experienced. Also our intention is to have sections on the Laws, movements, scoring and the general management of the club environment." The editors also state "...we rely on contributions from directors all over...", which can be emailed to: lskelso at ihug.com.au To subscribe or resubscribe to the ABDA Directors' Bulletin, do _not_ contact the Editors, but rather the ABDA Treasurer; see: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html 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 Jan 11 00:40:50 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:40:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be><4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48FDD4.8080501@skynet.be><8480F76333954B3DA737968BDD1A35D6@Mildred> <4B49D970.5060901@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > Grattan wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 10:06 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? >> >> >>> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>>> One last try to understand your stance, Herman :) >>>> >>>> Are you saying that it is lawful for a player not to alert a call by >>>> his >>>> partner that has unexpected meaning(s), on the grounds that, in his >>>> opinion, his opponents are incapable of using that information to their >>>> advantage? >>>> >>> No, that is not what I was saying. >>> I was saying that in this case, although David's partner may well have >>> needed to alert David's bid, the explanation would have been such that >>> opponents would have been incapable of using it. >>> >>> In short, Misinformation without damage. >>> >>> OK? >>> >>> Herman. >>> >> +=+ However, opponents must have the opportunity of making >> for themselves the judgement whether they can use the information. >> For example, they may judge to pass out the hand in 2D undoubled.. >> If it transpires this would have given them a more favourable result >> they have a claim that they are damaged as Law 40B6(b) provides. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Of course, Grattan. > But I was reacting to someone saying it needed to be alerted because it > showed weak hearts. I said it didn't show that. > Furthermore I stated that, if it shows either weak hearts or strong > diamonds, the opponents would not judge to pass it out. > In short, they would not be damaged by the MI. > > There is not need for you to reply to each and every single one of my > posts, just to add that the director needs to judge all that I am > saying. Of course this is up to the director. I never said it wasn't. > I was just saying that it is not as easy as it sounds. > > Herman. > +=+ You really must not take everything personally, Herm. I browse these messages and my interest is aroused when some point of law pops up. I am perpetually concerned to keep the discussion on the rails of what the law book actually says. I find increasingly that preconceptions intrude upon a careful and objective reading of the law. The great majority of your works prompt no comment from me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 11 06:29:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:29:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: David II, king of repartee with wit: >Higgledy piggledy >Richard James Hills, though he >Knew what his partner meant, >This was a fluke. >Trying to bend over >Backwards, his statement was >Incontrovertible >Gobbledygook. >..... >7.35 pm (five minutes after the start of the event, but of course >a pair of David Burns would not have finished their beers by 7.30) >"Standard English, partner?" "Fine." > >7.40 pm 1NT, double, ? (432 J10932 432 32) "Better bid 2D, >because not sure this position is covered in Standard English; can >remove to 2H if things get sticky; absurd to bid 2H because things >really will get sticky if partner thinks I have spades." >..... >12.40 am "So, Grattan, what you are telling me is that next time >the bidding starts 1NT Double and I don't have any agreement, my >best course is to bid 2D and leave the table immediately - then, I >will be able to bid 2H on my return, otherwise I will not?" >..... Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 2H 2S 3H 3S ? You, South, hold: 9853 T942 KJ5 J7 What call would a pear of peers of DALB make? What other calls would a pear of peers of DALB consider making? W.S. Gilbert, Iolanthe (1882): The House of Peers, throughout the war, Did nothing in particular, And did it very well. Best wishes Richard IV*, king of repartee with half-wit * They asked me to come forth, so I did. Fourth place in the ACT Open Trials on eight occasions (with only the 1st to 3rd placed pairs qualifying for the ACT Open Team). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jan 11 07:34:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:34:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B46EAD9.2050104@skynet.be> Message-ID: +=+ You really must not take everything personally, Herm. I browse these messages and my interest is aroused when some point of law pops up. I am perpetually concerned to keep the discussion on the rails of what the law book actually says. I find increasingly that preconceptions intrude upon a careful and objective reading of the law. The great majority of your works prompt no comment from me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael: [big snip] Forgetting your system, or not knowing it to start with, must be treated the same. Richard Hills: Is Herman's Hogwarts Express on the rails of what the law book actually says? (a) Partner explains "We have agreement X", you two indeed do have agreement X, then you temporarily forget and bid in accordance with non-agreement Y = Misbid, legal under Law 75C. (b) Partner explains "We have agreement X", but you never came to an agreement with partner's diktat in the first place (so partner should instead have explained "We have no agreement", since a unilateral belief of _one_ partner is not a mutual understanding of _both_ partners), then you randomly chose to bid in accordance with non-agreement X = Misexplanation, illegal under Law 75B. Note that in (b) your cards correspond to partner's explanation, but pard has still committed an MI infraction. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 11 11:05:43 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:05:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be><4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48FDD4.8080501@skynet.be><8480F76333954B3DA737968BDD1A35D6@Mildred> <4B49D970.5060901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4AF7F7.80605@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:43 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > >> Grattan wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 10:06 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? >>> >>> >>>> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>>>> One last try to understand your stance, Herman :) >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying that it is lawful for a player not to alert a call by >>>>> his >>>>> partner that has unexpected meaning(s), on the grounds that, in his >>>>> opinion, his opponents are incapable of using that information to their >>>>> advantage? >>>>> >>>> No, that is not what I was saying. >>>> I was saying that in this case, although David's partner may well have >>>> needed to alert David's bid, the explanation would have been such that >>>> opponents would have been incapable of using it. >>>> >>>> In short, Misinformation without damage. >>>> >>>> OK? >>>> >>>> Herman. >>>> >>> +=+ However, opponents must have the opportunity of making >>> for themselves the judgement whether they can use the information. >>> For example, they may judge to pass out the hand in 2D undoubled.. >>> If it transpires this would have given them a more favourable result >>> they have a claim that they are damaged as Law 40B6(b) provides. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> Of course, Grattan. >> But I was reacting to someone saying it needed to be alerted because it >> showed weak hearts. I said it didn't show that. >> Furthermore I stated that, if it shows either weak hearts or strong >> diamonds, the opponents would not judge to pass it out. >> In short, they would not be damaged by the MI. >> >> There is not need for you to reply to each and every single one of my >> posts, just to add that the director needs to judge all that I am >> saying. Of course this is up to the director. I never said it wasn't. >> I was just saying that it is not as easy as it sounds. >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ You really must not take everything personally, Herm. I browse > these messages and my interest is aroused when some point of law > pops up. I am perpetually concerned to keep the discussion on the > rails of what the law book actually says. I find increasingly that > preconceptions intrude upon a careful and objective reading of the > law. The great majority of your works prompt no comment from me. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Well Grattan, maybe then you should stop reading blml that way. When you comment on something by repeating something that has been said earlier in a thread, you create reactions like this one. Anyway, I read a birthday is coming up and I wish to be the first to congratulate you on it! Hope to see you soon, perhaps in Sanremo? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 11 11:14:08 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:14:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B4AF9F0.2000506@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > +=+ You really must not take everything personally, Herm. I browse > these messages and my interest is aroused when some point of law > pops up. I am perpetually concerned to keep the discussion on the > rails of what the law book actually says. I find increasingly that > preconceptions intrude upon a careful and objective reading of the > law. The great majority of your works prompt no comment from me. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Herman De Wael: > > [big snip] > > Forgetting your system, or not knowing it to start with, must be > treated the same. > > Richard Hills: > > Is Herman's Hogwarts Express on the rails of what the law book > actually says? > > (a) Partner explains "We have agreement X", you two indeed do have > agreement X, then you temporarily forget and bid in accordance with > non-agreement Y = Misbid, legal under Law 75C. > > (b) Partner explains "We have agreement X", but you never came to > an agreement with partner's diktat in the first place (so partner > should instead have explained "We have no agreement", since a > unilateral belief of _one_ partner is not a mutual understanding of > _both_ partners), then you randomly chose to bid in accordance with > non-agreement X = Misexplanation, illegal under Law 75B. > > Note that in (b) your cards correspond to partner's explanation, > but pard has still committed an MI infraction. > Sorry Richard, but this makes no sense whatsoever. In your b, you state that they have an agreement and then you rule that they have not. While in a, you state that they have an agreement and you make no ruling whatsoever on the fact. That means that the two cannot be equated. A better comparison should be this one: (a) the pair AB have convention X on their SC. Player A bids according to system Y. Player A has forgotten that he was playing convention Y. (b) the pair AB have convention X on their SC. Player A bids according to system Y. Player A has never played convention Y. Now there are two possible rulings: + The TD decides not to accept that the SC accurately describes the system, and he rules MI; or + The TD decides to accept that the SC accurately describes the system, and he rules misbid. Please note that the Director can rule either way in either case. Of course, I grant you that it is more likely that the director will rule not to accept the SC in case (b), but is that ruling not just based on what player A states? Would it not be far better to accept or not, a SC, on the basis of more tangible evidence - like the names of the two players, the age of the document, it's written or type-written nature? Besides, have you never played a convention that you had never played before? (logical impossibility, that one). Have you never forgotten that convention the first time? Is that evidence that you had not agreed to play that convention. IMHO, when a player accepts to play a SC, that is his agreement, even if he then omits to read that SC. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 11 11:46:05 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:46:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B4AF9F0.2000506@skynet.be> References: <4B4AF9F0.2000506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4B016D.8090006@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > > (a) the pair AB have convention X on their SC. Player A bids according > to system Y. Player A has forgotten that he was playing convention Y. > > (b) the pair AB have convention X on their SC. Player A bids according > to system Y. Player A has never played convention Y. > This makes no sense whatsoever - please change the last two Y's in X's. :) Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 11 11:51:22 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:51:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B4AF9F0.2000506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <76EB7B6BD6764988B8C0A8B5AAD858AC@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > Besides, have you never played a convention that you had never played > before? (logical impossibility, that one). Have you never forgotten that > convention the first time? Is that evidence that you had not agreed to > play that convention. > > IMHO, when a player accepts to play a SC, that is his agreement, even if > he then omits to read that SC. > > Herman. > +=+ Once upon a time, when I was young and naive, I played a session with Kathy Nelson. Foolishly I agreed to her wish to play transfer overcalls, which I had not played before then. After I had forgotten the agreement four or five times we reverted to natural overcalls. There was no doubt we had an agreement. If you give your opponents a system card it is a listing of your partnership understandings [Law 40B2(a)] and you have agreed to play what it lists. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Jan 11 13:13:41 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:13:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <76EB7B6BD6764988B8C0A8B5AAD858AC@Mildred> References: <4B4AF9F0.2000506@skynet.be> <76EB7B6BD6764988B8C0A8B5AAD858AC@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B4B15F5.4010703@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] +=+ Once upon a time, when I was young and naive, I played a session with Kathy Nelson. Foolishly I agreed to her wish to play transfer overcalls, which I had not played before then. After I had forgotten the agreement four or five times we reverted to natural overcalls. There was no doubt we had an agreement. If you give your opponents a system card it is a listing of your partnership understandings [Law 40B2(a)] and you have agreed to play what it lists. [Nigel] Thank you Grattan! Welcome news to me! I think Richard Hills was under the impression that if neither partner knows a convention then it is not part of their understandings, even if they have verbally agreed to play it and even written it's name on their system card. If I've stated Richard's position correctly and he is wrong, then I'm delighted, as that interpretation would make law-enforcement a nightmare. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Jan 11 13:24:29 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:24:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B48FDD4.8080501@skynet.be> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be> <4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48FDD4.8080501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4B187D.2030202@yahoo.co.uk> [Herman De Wael] No, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that in this case, although David's partner may well have needed to alert David's bid, the explanation would have been such that opponents would have been incapable of using it. In short, Misinformation without damage. OK? [Nigel] In these circumstances, does Herman still rule that David's partner is a *cheat* if he alerts and passes, holding two hearts and five diamonds? From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 11 15:17:53 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:17:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B4B187D.2030202@yahoo.co.uk> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be> <4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48FDD4.8080501@skynet.be> <4B4B187D.2030202@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B4B3311.7030907@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > No, that is not what I was saying. > I was saying that in this case, although David's partner may well have > needed to alert David's bid, the explanation would have been such that > opponents would have been incapable of using it. In short, > Misinformation without damage. OK? > > [Nigel] > In these circumstances, does Herman still rule that David's partner is a > *cheat* if he alerts and passes, holding two hearts and five diamonds? > I don't see what that has to do with this - of course I do! David said it OK - David knows his partner does not know what David has. So whan David's partner passes, it's presumably because David's partner thinks David has diamonds, or prefers 2Di undoubled to any other contract. But when he also alerts (and none of David's partners would do that) David's partner alters that presumption. And that is giving UI, deliberately. Now to return to Nigel's question - David's partner would not alert (in Norway) and pass 2Di on just 2-5. A partner of David's (in England) may well alert it and answer, when questioned "probably for hearts, but David is willing to play 2D undoubled". Both Davids would then be playing Poker, and explaining it as such. The guy I called a cheat did not have 2-5, but 1-6. He was playing in Norway, where alerting indicated a transfer and not alerting a natural bid. He was transmitting the information that he wanted to play 2Di, even doubled, even if 2Di was a transfer. That is Cheating with a capital C. Do you understand the difference, Nigel? Sometimes I take up the atmosphere of a particular ruling and I go on in that atmosphere. A ruling in Norway may be quite different from one in England, even when the simple facts are the same. Sometimes, I don't bother to repeat the circumstances, relying on people to have read the thread just as I have. Then, my rulings seem ridiculous if you transpose them on totally different situations. Which is what Nigel seems to have done here. OK? Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 11 15:42:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:42:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A In-Reply-To: <76EB7B6BD6764988B8C0A8B5AAD858AC@Mildred> References: <4B4AF9F0.2000506@skynet.be> <76EB7B6BD6764988B8C0A8B5AAD858AC@Mildred> Message-ID: <221067EA-2C5D-4AFE-B37F-4C71A34AAD50@starpower.net> On Jan 11, 2010, at 5:51 AM, Grattan wrote: > If you give your opponents a system card it is a listing of your > partnership understandings [Law 40B2(a)] and you have > agreed to play what it lists. If your system card describes a particular understanding, you have agreed to play the call(s) in question as described. But if it merely names a method without describing it (and the RA has not provided a definition for that name by regulation), you have merely agreed to call your individual understandings -- which may or may not be similar -- by the same name. Does a partnership's writing "Cappelletti" on their SC constitute a legal representation to their opponents that they have a common understanding of what "Cappelletti" is? Even if so, it can't logically consitute a legal representation that their common understanding matches their opponents'! That's why the rules require you to disclose what your understandings are, not what names you choose to call them by. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 11 16:18:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:18:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A In-Reply-To: <221067EA-2C5D-4AFE-B37F-4C71A34AAD50@starpower.net> References: <4B4AF9F0.2000506@skynet.be> <76EB7B6BD6764988B8C0A8B5AAD858AC@Mildred> <221067EA-2C5D-4AFE-B37F-4C71A34AAD50@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B4B4143.1070304@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jan 11, 2010, at 5:51 AM, Grattan wrote: > > >> If you give your opponents a system card it is a listing of your >> partnership understandings [Law 40B2(a)] and you have >> agreed to play what it lists. >> > > If your system card describes a particular understanding, you have > agreed to play the call(s) in question as described. AG : minor quibble : only in ordinary situations. Recently, at the end of a 20-board match, I realized that the SCs I had handled to our opponents were from a different partnership. Nobody noticed, there was no MI AFAIK because they preferred to ask (screens were on), but it shows that the information on our SCs did not describe our agreements in any way. > But if it > merely names a method without describing it (and the RA has not > provided a definition for that name by regulation), you have merely > agreed to call your individual understandings -- which may or may not > be similar -- by the same name. Does a partnership's writing > "Cappelletti" on their SC constitute a legal representation to their > opponents that they have a common understanding of what "Cappelletti" > is? Even if so, it can't logically consitute a legal representation > that their common understanding matches their opponents'! That's why > the rules require you to disclose what your understandings are, not > what names you choose to call them by. > AG : major quibble : IMNSHO, there are two possible situations : a) the convention is listed in some official document, and the level of the competition is such that it'll be known from most participants. In which case, the name gives good enough explanation and should be understood as an agreement. Some (like Multi) could need added information. This raises the problem of the pair who uses modified answers to Multi (like those for whom 2S is a natural answer), and IMOBO the word shan't be used in that case. b) the convention isn't popular enough to be known to almost everyone here : in that case, the names on the SC should be considered as null and void, and better still, using names should explicitly be disallowed. A strange name could double as a reminder to ask or look, akin to a bracketed number, but semi-familiar names are much more dangerous for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Cappelletti is one of those, as there are at least two popular versions. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 11 23:44:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:44:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <76EB7B6BD6764988B8C0A8B5AAD858AC@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>(a) Partner explains "We have agreement X", you two indeed do have >>agreement X, then you temporarily forget and bid in accordance with >>non-agreement Y = Misbid, legal under Law 75C. >> >>(b) Partner explains "We have agreement X", but you never came to >>an agreement with partner's diktat in the first place (so partner >>should instead have explained "We have no agreement", since a >>unilateral belief of _one_ partner is not a mutual understanding of >>both_ partners), then you randomly chose to bid in accordance with >>non-agreement X = Misexplanation, illegal under Law 75B. >> >>Note that in (b) your cards correspond to partner's explanation, >>but pard has still committed an MI infraction. Herman De Wael: >Sorry Richard, but this makes no sense whatsoever. >In your (b), you state that they have an agreement and then you rule >that they have not. Richard Hills: No, in my case (b) I stated that partner _misexplained_ "We have agreement X" when the correct explanation would be "No agreement". Grattan Endicott: If you give your opponents a system card it is a listing of your partnership understandings [Law 40B2(a)] and you have agreed to play what it lists. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Some time ago a blmler (was it Matthias Berghaus?) stated how he sent his partner a zillion pages of new system notes. However, when that blmler was asked by an opponent about the meaning of a particularly obscure part of the system, that blmler correctly guessed that his partner had not yet had enough time to read that page of the new system notes, so the blmler correctly responded "No agreement". Grattan Endicott: +=+ Once upon a time, when I was young and naive, I played a session with Kathy Nelson. Foolishly I agreed to her wish to play transfer overcalls, which I had not played before then. After I had forgotten the agreement four or five times we reverted to natural overcalls. There was no doubt we had an agreement. Herman De Wael: >While in (a), you state that they have an agreement and you make no >ruling whatsoever on the fact. Richard Hills: I would have thought that a ruling of "misbid, legal under Law 75C" was identical to a ruling of "misbid, no infraction, no score adjustment". Note that in Grattan's scenario he and Kathy Nelson initially had the mutual meeting of minds required for a mutual partnership understanding. Hence, if Kathy Nelson alerted and explained Grattan's first overcall of the session as "transfer overcall", then Kathy did not misexplain, Grattan merely misbid. However, by the fourth or fifth Grattanic debacle, Kathy and Grattan had a new Law 40C1 implicit partnership understanding that Kathy's overcalls were transfers, but that Grattan's overcalls were natural. They then superseded this Law 40C1 implicit understanding with a new understanding "reached explicitly in discussion" that overcalls by both partners would have a natural meaning (which did not, of course, prevent Grattan from psyching his 2D overcall with a heart suit). Herman De Wael: >A better comparison should be this one: > >(a) the pair AB have convention X on their SC. Player A bids >according to system Y. Player A has forgotten that he was playing >convention X. Richard Hills: Infrequent forgets by Player A = Law 75C = no, MI not on System Card Frequent forgets by Player A = Law 40C1 = yes, MI upon System Card Herman De Wael: >(b) the pair AB have convention X on their SC. Player A bids >according to system Y. Player A has never played convention X. Richard Hills: Non-agreement upon System Card = Law 40B4 = yes, MI upon System Card Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jan 11 23:58:38 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:58:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A In-Reply-To: <4B4B4143.1070304@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4AF9F0.2000506@skynet.be> <76EB7B6BD6764988B8C0A8B5AAD858AC@Mildred><221067EA-2C5D-4AFE-B37F-4C71A34AAD50@starpower.net> <4B4B4143.1070304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C3F6DD761534462BB4E9DE5681CEC1B@erdos> "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: >AG : major quibble : IMNSHO, there are two possible situations : >a) the convention is listed in some official document, and the level of >the competition is such that it'll be known from most participants. In >which case, the name gives good enough explanation and should be >understood as an agreement. Some (like Multi) could need added >information. This raises the problem of the pair who uses modified >answers to Multi (like those for whom 2S is a natural answer), and IMOBO >the word shan't be used in that case. >b) the convention isn't popular enough to be known to almost everyone >here : in that case, the names on the SC should be considered as null >and void, and better still, using names should explicitly be disallowed. >A strange name could double as a reminder to ask or look, akin to a >bracketed number, but semi-familiar names are much more dangerous for >the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Cappelletti is one of >those, as there are at least two popular versions. And system cards should not be designed to encourage such problems. The ACBL convention card has a check box for "Responsive Doubles", but half the people who play responsive doubles play that they apply only when partner has doubled, and the other half play that they apply when partner has doubled or overcalled. Cappelletti is properly handled because there is plenty of room to list your explicit defenses to a 1NT opening; writing "Capp" on the 2C line and leaving the 2D line blank borders on misinformation. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jan 12 00:27:38 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:27:38 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A References: <4B4AF9F0.2000506@skynet.be> <76EB7B6BD6764988B8C0A8B5AAD858AC@Mildred><221067EA-2C5D-4AFE-B37F-4C71A34AAD50@starpower.net><4B4B4143.1070304@ulb.ac.be> <4C3F6DD761534462BB4E9DE5681CEC1B@erdos> Message-ID: <60E0B67648704D7BA12FA3D0A9878927@MARVLAPTOP> From: "David Grabiner" > > And system cards should not be designed to encourage such > problems. The ACBL > convention card has a check box for "Responsive Doubles", but half > the people > who play responsive doubles play that they apply only when partner > has doubled, > and the other half play that they apply when partner has doubled > or overcalled. Responsive doubles are when partner has doubled. When partner has overcalled, this is properly an Advancive Double. You advance an overcall, you don't respond to it, because an overcall doesn't ask for a response. The ACBL should have a check box for Advancive Doubles. An early name was Advanced Responsive Doubles, which was later shortened (and corrected). Another nomenclature mixup is the red box for Forcing Stayman under 2D treatments. This should be labeled Game-Forcing Stayman. Forcing Stayman is the treatment saying that responder's 2H/2S rebid is forcing: 1NT=2C=2D=2H/2S forcing. If not forcing that is Non-forcing Stayman. How did this happen? Here's how: Years ago when Stayman was new, it was played two ways, Forcing Stayman and Non-Forcing Stayman, with two boxes provided on the CC. Then later those playing Two-Way Stayman usurped the two boxes for their purposes, checking both. The boxes were not for that purpose, but the practice was so widespread that 2D Game Forcing Stayman came to be called Forcing Stayman and that error is perpetrated on the ACBL convention card. I play Forcing Stayman, which is not Alertable, so I can't check the red box with that label. No problem, on my self-composed CC it is shown in black. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 12 01:42:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:42:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >..... >If you give your opponents a system card it is a listing of your >partnership understandings [Law 40B2(a)] and you have agreed to play >what it lists. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: This is either a poor choice of words by Grattan, or it is the logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is going to be. Therefore firemen cause fire.* :-) The more partnership understandings you have, the more detail you write on your System Cards. Therefore System Cards cause partnership understandings. :-) What Grattan should have written is: "If you give your opponents a system card it should be a listing of your partnership understandings [otherwise you have infracted Law 40B2(a)], and you might have agreed to play what it lists. Or, perhaps, you formally agreed to play what your System Card lists but now have a new Law 40C1 implicit understanding [which, because the new implicit understanding is not listed on your System Card, means that you have infracted Law 40B2(a)]." The obvious counter-example to Grattan's poor choice of words is the super-scientist Alain Gottcheiner's story. Like me, Alain plays wildly different methods in his various partnerships, thus Alain Gottcheiner: >>AG : Recently, at the end of a 20-board match, I realized that the >>SCs I had handled to our opponents were from a different >>partnership. Nobody noticed, there was no MI AFAIK because they >>preferred to ask (screens were on), but it shows that the >>information on our SCs did not describe our agreements in any way. Best wishes Richard Hills * Sometimes the case in ancient Rome, which carried free enterprise to excess with a number of very competitive fire-fighting businesses. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Jan 12 02:09:51 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:09:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B4BCBDF.3050203@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] The obvious counter-example to Grattan's poor choice of words is the super-scientist Alain Gottcheiner's story. Like me, Alain plays wildly different methods in his various partnerships, thus [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : Recently, at the end of a 20-board match, I realized that the SCs I had handled to our opponents were from a different partnership. Nobody noticed, there was no MI AFAIK because they preferred to ask (screens were on), but it shows that the information on our SCs did not describe our agreements in any way. [Nigel] Obviously, Alain's system card was a work of fiction; From time to time, we have all had system-cards that were in error, to a greater or lesser extent. According to Grattan, however, the law says your system card *should* describe your agreements. That is also the common sense view. And, IMO, the practical view that a director should adopt. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 12 07:44:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:44:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 2H 2S 3H 3S ? You, South, hold: 9853 T942 KJ5 J7 What call would a pear of peers of DALB make? What other calls would a pear of peers of DALB consider making? The expert actually holding the South cards at the table in April 2005 was Sean Mullamphy, a peer of David Burn. (Albeit Sean ranks as a Baron in the expert peerage, while DALB ranks as a Duke. On the other hand, in the Director's peerage Aussie CTD Sean Mullamphy is Prince of Waels.) And at the table Baron Mullamphy elected to bid 4H, perhaps for the same reasons espoused by Marquis Grabiner. David J. Grabiner, April 2005: >Both pass and 4H are LA's; my choice is 4H. Yes, partner bid 3H >as competitive, not invitational, but this looks like a magic >fit hand; we appear to have ten hearts and nothing wasted in >spades. It's possible that 3S and 4H will both make, and not >that likely that 4H will be down two doubled when the opponents >aren't about to bid and make 4S, or down when 3S is making. > >That is, I am expecting 19 total tricks; if partner has six >hearts and one spade, or five hearts and no spades, there are 18 >total trumps but the pure spade situation argues for a 19th. > >(And if partner did bid 3H with only five, he should have good >hearts and an offensive hand.) Sir Sherlock Holmes, Baronet, January 2010 (offlist email): >>Pass, but I play that partner must bid a new suit with serious >>game interest. Wait, vulnerable, imps? I bid 4H. But alas, this was the complete deal -> JT2 K8753 A3 A83 KQ7 A64 Q AJ6 Q862 T974 KT964 Q52 9853 T942 KJ5 J7 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 2H 2S 3H 3S 4H Dble Pass Pass Pass The defence had no difficulty winning three spades, one club and two trumps for +800. Given David G's logic, South's pear-shaped 4H bid was neither a serious error, nor wild, nor gambling. The real issue is whether South should have been informed that West did (and does) psyche more frequently than the rest of the Canberra experts combined. That is, does _any_ partner of West _automatically_ have "more reason to be aware" that West's cards could well not correspond to West's calls? Of course, Sean Mullamphy (in addition to his duties as Prince of Waels) has also been Director of the Canberra Bridge Club for two millennia, so Sean was even more aware of West's tendencies than was East. 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 Jan 12 11:59:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:59:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B4BCBDF.3050203@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Apology and Law 75A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard Hills] > The obvious counter-example to Grattan's poor choice of words is the > super-scientist Alain Gottcheiner's story. Like me, Alain plays > wildly different methods in his various partnerships, thus > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > AG : Recently, at the end of a 20-board match, I realized that the SCs I > had handled to our opponents were from a different partnership. Nobody > noticed, there was no MI AFAIK because they preferred to ask (screens > were on), but it shows that the information on our SCs did not describe > our agreements in any way. > > [Nigel] > Obviously, Alain's system card was a work of fiction; From time to time, > we have all had system-cards that were in error, to a greater or lesser > extent. According to Grattan, however, the law says your system card > *should* describe your agreements. That is also the common sense view. > And, IMO, the practical view that a director should adopt. > +=+ Whoa! Easy girl, slow down to a gallop! The law says that the card is "for the prior listing of a partnership's understandings". The law says nothing about 'should' or 'must'. Instead it allows the RA to prescribe how the system card is to be used. The regulation will often create a 'shall' requirement, although it is not uncommon for the 'should' phraseology to be used. Players' experiences will vary in this regard and we must consult the regulations for the particular tournament in which we are playing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 12 12:43:25 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:43:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B4C605D.8020400@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H Pass 2H > 2S 3H 3S ? > > You, South, hold: > > 9853 > T942 > KJ5 > J7 > > What call would a pear of peers of DALB make? > What other calls would a pear of peers of DALB consider making? > > > Given David G's logic, South's pear-shaped 4H bid was neither a > serious error, nor wild, nor gambling. > AG : not a serious error ? If partner indeed holds a spade singleton or void, he has already taken it into account in deciding how many hearts to bid (remember he can bid 3 1/2 by trying a new suit or, in many partnerships, by doubling). If he indeed holds a spade singleton or void *and* he didn't try for game, he should hold a bare minimum and heart length ; I'd be more afraid of them making 4S than of us making 4H. In that case, one should let sleeping dogs lie. 1H-3H anyone ? > The real issue is whether South should have been informed that > West did (and does) psyche more frequently than the rest of the > Canberra experts combined. That is, does _any_ partner of West > _automatically_ have "more reason to be aware" that West's cards > could well not correspond to West's calls? > Isn't there a slot in the SC for precisely this purpose ? If there isn't in your country, then "frequent psyches" should be written in the "important notes" section. Best regards Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 12 21:42:19 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:42:19 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B4B3311.7030907@skynet.be> References: <752B54D6667A466395625A4300ECC6DB@Mildred> <192C98A5-BF5C-4439-8E2A-22BB7DBD3A88@starpower.net> <000901ca8fb7$b758d5c0$260a8140$@com> <4B46F31C.50402@yahoo.co.uk> <4B46FA03.5030503@skynet.be> <4B47BA30.2070103@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4842BF.2060803@skynet.be> <4B48953A.6050800@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48A647.5080503@skynet.be> <4B48B1DB.3010100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B48FDD4.8080501@skynet.be><4B4B187D.2030202@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4B3311.7030907@skynet.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 08:17 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> [Herman De Wael] >> No, that is not what I was saying. >> I was saying that in this case, although David's partner may well have >> needed to alert David's bid, the explanation would have been such that >> opponents would have been incapable of using it. In short, >> Misinformation without damage. OK? >> >> [Nigel] >> In these circumstances, does Herman still rule that David's partner is a >> *cheat* if he alerts and passes, holding two hearts and five diamonds? >> > > I don't see what that has to do with this - of course I do! > > David said it OK - David knows his partner does not know what David has. > > So whan David's partner passes, it's presumably because David's partner > thinks David has diamonds, or prefers 2Di undoubled to any other > contract. But when he also alerts (and none of David's partners would do > that) David's partner alters that presumption. And that is giving UI, > deliberately. > > Now to return to Nigel's question - David's partner would not alert (in > Norway) and pass 2Di on just 2-5. A partner of David's (in England) may > well alert it and answer, when questioned "probably for hearts, but > David is willing to play 2D undoubled". Both Davids would then be > playing Poker, and explaining it as such. > > The guy I called a cheat did not have 2-5, but 1-6. He was playing in > Norway, where alerting indicated a transfer and not alerting a natural > bid. He was transmitting the information that he wanted to play 2Di, > even doubled, even if 2Di was a transfer. That is Cheating with a capital > C. > > Do you understand the difference, Nigel? > > Sometimes I take up the atmosphere of a particular ruling and I go on in > that atmosphere. A ruling in Norway may be quite different from one in > England, even when the simple facts are the same. > Sometimes, I don't bother to repeat the circumstances, relying on people > to have read the thread just as I have. Then, my rulings seem ridiculous > if you transpose them on totally different situations. Which is what > Nigel seems to have done here. > > OK? > > Herman. There must be a reason behind everything because yesterday I was wandering the labyrinth of 1's and 0's on my hard drive when I stumbled upon these words: "PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." Some days ago Burn put forth an interesting string of words along the lines of 'partner and I have talked some about bridge agreements while leaving a good deal left to be said. And during a hand a fork in the road came concerning those things left to be said where a choice was to be made. And the choice was to take a calculated risk founded not upon a meeting of the minds but upon human nature and some experience of the partner. And consequently some fuss ensued.' At this point I'll suggest a question: Would a fuss have been justified had Burn and partner not employed a method of extraneous communication? Or from a different perspective, would the whole business have seen the light of day if Burn and partner did not use a system of alerts and lack of alerts thereby becoming aware what page the other was on? I might be hopeful that the response to be a universal no, but would suspect otherwise. Generally, I refrain from senseless debate that arises from illegally propagated rules but the prodding of those aforementioned 1s & 0s signaled the stars were aligned. In an attempt to clarify one can seek out the provisions of 2008L80B2f which makes it clear that it is illegal to compel partners to communicate by an alert system. This clarity is unobstructed by every passage of law save the exception found in 2008L20. To remove the last vestige of clouds the necessary condition for implementing some provisions of 2008L40B2a involve the coincident requirement of screens. To answer assertions that alerts are not communications to partner one need merely to read 2008L20F5b to realize that the law compels the player to pay attention to partner's behaviors [in particular to alerts and absence thereof] so as to be able to satisfy the provision 'must call the Director' as events warrant. Nevertheless, even though the law provides with supposed protection from illegal regulations to we players, there exists a near universal like of the worst of rules. And for the life of me I fail to comprehend why players submit to the angst caused by alerts; perhaps it is in spite of the hardship, or perhaps because of it. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 13 02:35:15 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:35:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B4C605D.8020400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills, April 2005: >>>>What call do you make? >>>> >>>>What other call do you consider making? Eric Landau, April 2005: >>>Pass. >>> >>>The baby-sitter, to check on the kids. Richard Hills, January 2010: >>The real issue is whether South should have been informed that >>West did (and does) psyche more frequently than the rest of the >>Canberra experts combined. That is, does _any_ partner of West >>_automatically_ have "more reason to be aware" that West's cards >>could well not correspond to West's calls? Alain Gottcheiner, January 2010: >Isn't there a slot in the SC for precisely this purpose ? > >If there isn't in your country, then "frequent psyches" should be >written in the "important notes" section. Richard Hills: Two points of dissonance here. Firstly the relatively trivial point that "psyche more frequently than the rest of the Canberra experts combined" does _not_ have an identical meaning to "frequent psyches". There is a ridiculously low level of psyching in Canberra expert circles, with the majority never psyching and all of the minority rarely psyching. West's rare psyches merely lack the infinitesimally rare nature of those other Canberra experts who elect to rarely psyche. Secondly, and much more importantly, Alain Gottcheiner has fallen off the pons asinorum of "What is a psyche?" Under the 1997 Law- book it was possible to interpret a psyche as a "gross misstatement" of _revealed_ partnership understandings. But under the 2007 Law- book Law 40C1 makes it clear that a psyche is a "gross misstatement" of _actual_ partnership understandings. Hence if one opens 1H in third seat at favourable vulnerability with 3+ hearts and 0-3 hcp sufficiently frequently to cause one to write "frequent psyches of favourable vul third seat 1H openings" on one's System Card, then that 1H opening is _not_ a psyche, but rather a pseudo-psychic Law 40C1 "part of the partnership's methods". Therefore the actual West neither writes anything about psyches on his System Cards, nor writes anything about psyches in his system notes. And the actual West strives to avoid ever perpetrating a pseudo-psyche (albeit West unintentionally overstepped the line in the sand half-a-dozen years ago). Hamlet: "I am but mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, I know a psyche from a pseudo-psyche." Best wishes Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 13 04:40:58 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:40:58 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind. Message-ID: Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Richard Hills, June 2008: (a) pard didn't hesitate, or (b) if pard did hesitate, I didn't notice, or (c) if I noticed, the opponents weren't damaged, or (d) if the opponents were damaged, it was their own IWoG fault. Grattan Endicott, January 2010: +=+ An aphorism was quoted on blml that "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason". Perhaps it may equally be said that a long habit of thinking a thing right will give it a superficial semblance of not being wrong and if the belief is challenged a formidable outcry in defence of custom will ensue. But with peace, time and due reflection, conversions may occur in time. A senior colleague has just raised with me doubts about a longstanding administrative practice at a high level. I believe this colleague to be right and I think it possible that a change will be made quietly when convenient. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, January 2010: So the De Wael School is soon to be adopted by the powers-that-be? :-) Perhaps that was not Grattan's intended message. Many years of me translating Grattanese into English suggests to me that Grattan's subtle hint was intended to let blmlers guess that the WBF Appeals Committee will soon cease to employ what the EBU has dubbed "Reveley Rulings". 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 Wed Jan 13 06:19:48 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:19:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind. Message-ID: <0528EBFD1676456398312A5B21F767F5@Mildred> Cleaning up the typos. Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > So the De Wael School is soon to be adopted by the powers-that-be? > :-) > Perhaps that was not Grattan's intended message. Many years of > translating Grattanese into English suggests to me that Grattan's > subtle hint was intended to let blmlers guess that the WBF Appeals > Committee will soon cease to employ what the EBU has dubbed > "Reveley Rulings". > +=+ In the latter regard my opinion is that, being a matter of bridge judgement, as the WBF Code of Practice says the final judgement of equity in Law 12C1(c) is the imprescriptible prerogative of the appeals committee. In my judgement any attempt to restrict it is ultra vires. (And whenever the laws refer to equity this paradigm applies throughout.) As for the Hermanic view of his specialist subject, it would be insensitive of me to comment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Jan 13 08:35:11 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:35:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B4D77AF.3080802@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] As for the Hermanic view of his specialist subject, it would be insensitive of me to comment. [Nigel] "Hermeneutic", surely? :) From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 13 09:38:17 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:38:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> Richard falls into his own logical trap: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Secondly, and much more importantly, Alain Gottcheiner has fallen > off the pons asinorum of "What is a psyche?" Under the 1997 Law- > book it was possible to interpret a psyche as a "gross misstatement" > of _revealed_ partnership understandings. But under the 2007 Law- > book Law 40C1 makes it clear that a psyche is a "gross misstatement" > of _actual_ partnership understandings. > > Hence if one opens 1H in third seat at favourable vulnerability with > 3+ hearts and 0-3 hcp sufficiently frequently to cause one to write > "frequent psyches of favourable vul third seat 1H openings" on one's > System Card, then that 1H opening is _not_ a psyche, but rather a > pseudo-psychic Law 40C1 "part of the partnership's methods". > By this reasoning, every psyche becomes a pseudo-psyche. Regardless of how few and far between the psyches of the Canberra expert are, there is a pattern to them. "Once every 2 years, he will do something". Not very much of a pattern, but a pattern nevertheless. Full disclosure means that even this pattern should be readily available to opponents. They can hardly do anything with it, but that merely makes the MI non-damaging, not go away. So if, as Richard believes, some psyching pattern makes a psyche systemic and therefore a pseudo-psyche, then all psyches become pseudo-psyches, and the extra qualification "psuedo-" becomes meaningless. I wish Richard would therefore stop using this qualification for the H1H. There are far more dangerous things out there that are called, by the perpetrators, psyches which are none of the sort, being at best pseudo-psyches and at worst illegal systems. The definition of a psyche must contain elements of deviation and frequency, not of habit. > Therefore the actual West neither writes anything about psyches on > his System Cards, nor writes anything about psyches in his system > notes. And the actual West strives to avoid ever perpetrating a > pseudo-psyche (albeit West unintentionally overstepped the line in > the sand half-a-dozen years ago). > And this actual West thus fails in his duty to inform his opponents that he is, among Canberra experts, a super-frequent psycher, having psyched once a year on average, which is ten times the local average. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 13 09:54:28 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:54:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B4D77AF.3080802@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Grattan] > As for the Hermanic view of his specialist subject, it would be > insensitive of me to comment. > > [Nigel] > "Hermeneutic", surely? :) < +=+ I like it. So apt. Can one spell it with a middle 'a'? +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 13 10:19:04 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:19:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4B4D77AF.3080802@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B4D9008.4030804@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> >> [Nigel] >> "Hermeneutic", surely? :) > < > +=+ I like it. So apt. Can one spell it with a middle 'a'? +=+ > Hermaneurotic? Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 13 11:29:04 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:29:04 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B4D77AF.3080802@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4D9008.4030804@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan wrote: >> >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> "Hermeneutic", surely? :) >> < >> +=+ I like it. So apt. Can one spell it with a middle 'a'? +=+ >> > > Hermaneurotic? > +=+ A very flexible theme. But the nerve is evident. So how about Hermanerotic? +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 13 12:59:51 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:59:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B4DB5B7.8000500@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > Two points of dissonance here. > > Firstly the relatively trivial point that "psyche more frequently > than the rest of the Canberra experts combined" does _not_ have an > identical meaning to "frequent psyches". There is a ridiculously > low level of psyching in Canberra expert circles, with the majority > never psyching and all of the minority rarely psyching. West's > rare psyches merely lack the infinitesimally rare nature of those > other Canberra experts who elect to rarely psyche. > AG : if that's the situation, then writing down "occasional psyches" where most write "very rare" is both correct and sufficient alerting. > Secondly, and much more importantly, Alain Gottcheiner has fallen > off the pons asinorum of "What is a psyche?" Under the 1997 Law- > book it was possible to interpret a psyche as a "gross misstatement" > of _revealed_ partnership understandings. But under the 2007 Law- > book Law 40C1 makes it clear that a psyche is a "gross misstatement" > of _actual_ partnership understandings. > > Hence if one opens 1H in third seat at favourable vulnerability with > 3+ hearts and 0-3 hcp sufficiently frequently to cause one to write > "frequent psyches of favourable vul third seat 1H openings" on one's > System Card, then that 1H opening is _not_ a psyche, but rather a > pseudo-psychic Law 40C1 "part of the partnership's methods". > AG : there is a fundamental difference, of course. If a pair 'occasionally' or 'quite often' psyches, it means that their psyches don't follow any pattern. In that case, the donkey hurdle you mention doesn't exist anymore. The problem arises only if the pair is aware or some psyching pattern, like the one you mention. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 13 13:53:35 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:53:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4B4D77AF.3080802@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4D9008.4030804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4DC24F.3080005@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:19 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Grattan wrote: >>>> [Nigel] >>>> "Hermeneutic", surely? :) >>> < >>> +=+ I like it. So apt. Can one spell it with a middle 'a'? +=+ >>> >> Hermaneurotic? >> > +=+ A very flexible theme. But the nerve is evident. > So how about Hermanerotic? +=+ > Grattan, I never imagined that from you! I'm flattered! Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 13 15:08:31 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:08:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> On Jan 13, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Hence if one opens 1H in third seat at favourable vulnerability with >> 3+ hearts and 0-3 hcp sufficiently frequently to cause one to write >> "frequent psyches of favourable vul third seat 1H openings" on one's >> System Card, then that 1H opening is _not_ a psyche, but rather a >> pseudo-psychic Law 40C1 "part of the partnership's methods". > > By this reasoning, every psyche becomes a pseudo-psyche. > Regardless of how few and far between the psyches of the Canberra > expert > are, there is a pattern to them. "Once every 2 years, he will do > something". Not very much of a pattern, but a pattern nevertheless. > Full > disclosure means that even this pattern should be readily available to > opponents. They can hardly do anything with it, but that merely makes > the MI non-damaging, not go away. > So if, as Richard believes, some psyching pattern makes a psyche > systemic and therefore a pseudo-psyche, then all psyches become > pseudo-psyches, and the extra qualification "psuedo-" becomes > meaningless. > > I wish Richard would therefore stop using this qualification for the > H1H. There are far more dangerous things out there that are called, by > the perpetrators, psyches which are none of the sort, being at best > pseudo-psyches and at worst illegal systems. > > The definition of a psyche must contain elements of deviation and > frequency, not of habit. > >> Therefore the actual West neither writes anything about psyches on >> his System Cards, nor writes anything about psyches in his system >> notes. And the actual West strives to avoid ever perpetrating a >> pseudo-psyche (albeit West unintentionally overstepped the line in >> the sand half-a-dozen years ago). > > And this actual West thus fails in his duty to inform his opponents > that > he is, among Canberra experts, a super-frequent psycher, having > psyched > once a year on average, which is ten times the local average. A "pattern" is some norm (either externally or self-imposed) to which one's behavior conforms. It is not synonymous with -- or even related to -- frequency. A "psyching pattern [that] makes a psych systemic and therefore a pseudo-psyche" means a history of similar psychs in analogous situations. Psychs may be rare but conform to a pattern, and psychs may be frequent but not have any pattern to them. Partner's knowing that I like to psych is in no way analogous to partner's knowing that I like to open 1H in third seat with 0-3 HCP and 3+ hearts. It is the existence of a "pattern" that distinguishes a "pseudo-psych" from the real thing. How often it happens is irrelevant. Of course, the more often one psychs, the more likely it is that a pattern will develop. But that's beside the point. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 13 15:33:13 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:33:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B4DD9A9.1050309@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Therefore the actual West neither writes anything about psyches on >>> his System Cards, nor writes anything about psyches in his system >>> notes. And the actual West strives to avoid ever perpetrating a >>> pseudo-psyche (albeit West unintentionally overstepped the line in >>> the sand half-a-dozen years ago). >>> (Eric) > A "pattern" is some norm (either externally or self-imposed) to which > one's behavior conforms. It is not synonymous with -- or even > related to -- frequency. A "psyching pattern [that] makes a psych > systemic and therefore a pseudo-psyche" means a history of similar > psychs in analogous situations. Psychs may be rare but conform to a > pattern, and psychs may be frequent but not have any pattern to them. > > Partner's knowing that I like to psych is in no way analogous to > partner's knowing that I like to open 1H in third seat with 0-3 HCP > and 3+ hearts. It is the existence of a "pattern" that distinguishes > a "pseudo-psych" from the real thing. How often it happens is > irrelevant. > AG : right. And, albeit few pairs have a "psyche pattern", every regular partnership has a statistical frequency of psyches, that *must be disclosed, *as any matter of style must. * *And this is why West's "not writing anything about psyches on his system card" is illegal. * *Some have even tried to define official adjectives, e.g. "very uncommon" is less than once a year. Perhaps the definitions should be adapted in Canberra, where "about once a year" would be called "frequent". But anyway, the information should be at opponents' disposal. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 13 16:46:45 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:46:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> Eric falls into the same trap: Eric Landau wrote: > > A "pattern" is some norm (either externally or self-imposed) to which > one's behavior conforms. It is not synonymous with -- or even > related to -- frequency. A "psyching pattern [that] makes a psych > systemic and therefore a pseudo-psyche" means a history of similar > psychs in analogous situations. Psychs may be rare but conform to a > pattern, and psychs may be frequent but not have any pattern to them. > And that is where Eric is wrong. I happen to perform only one particular psyche - hence it has a pattern. Others have more variation in their psyches, but each of them follows a pattern. If I were to add some other psyche, say a random 1NT overcall, to my arsenal, then I would have two patterned psyches. That would not alter the nature of either of them. > Partner's knowing that I like to psych is in no way analogous to > partner's knowing that I like to open 1H in third seat with 0-3 HCP > and 3+ hearts. If a partner knows that you like to psyche, then he also knows what kinds of psyches you like to perform. He's just not telling. Or you're not telling. But the pattern still exists. The only thing that is different with me is that I've been so honest (foolish ?) to keep track of my psyches and say that there is a pattern to them. Others, who are less foolish, keep their patterns to themselves (hopefully also from their partners). But the pattern still exists and it should be open to opponents. > It is the existence of a "pattern" that distinguishes > a "pseudo-psych" from the real thing. How often it happens is > irrelevant. > Again, that word. What is it that makes a "pattern" a pseudo-psych? The fact that it exists? Then all psyches are pseudo-psyches, but most psychers don't allow the TD into their minds to search for the patterns. This distinction is worthless. Furthermore, what is the use of the word pseudo-psyche? What are you going to rule? > Of course, the more often one psychs, the more likely it is that a > pattern will develop. But that's beside the point. > No it's not. It IS the point - all psychers will have patterns. They don't need to develop, they only need to be recognized (in the first instance by the psycher himself - he may be unaware of a pattern, yet it may still exist). 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 richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Jan 13 17:22:27 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:22:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Again, that word. What is it that makes a "pattern" a pseudo-psych? The > fact that it exists? Then all psyches are pseudo-psyches, but most > psychers don't allow the TD into their minds to search for the patterns. > This distinction is worthless. > You have explained (many times) that the Herman 1H is deterministic. You make this bid each and every time that you have the requisite hand. There is no random element to the hand, nor is there room for judgement. > -- > 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/20100113/57c26dfd/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 13 17:33:49 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:33:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4DF5ED.1070602@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Eric falls into the same trap: > > Eric Landau wrote: > >> A "pattern" is some norm (either externally or self-imposed) to which >> one's behavior conforms. It is not synonymous with -- or even >> related to -- frequency. A "psyching pattern [that] makes a psych >> systemic and therefore a pseudo-psyche" means a history of similar >> psychs in analogous situations. Psychs may be rare but conform to a >> pattern, and psychs may be frequent but not have any pattern to them. >> >> > > And that is where Eric is wrong. > I happen to perform only one particular psyche - hence it has a pattern. > Others have more variation in their psyches, but each of them follows a > pattern. If I were to add some other psyche, say a random 1NT overcall, > to my arsenal, then I would have two patterned psyches. That would not > alter the nature of either of them. > Herman, you seem to forget that there is a place on the Belgian SC where you have to mention what you know about psyches, and that can only be frequency and situations, not types of bid, because that would "create implicit understandings". Yes, repeated similar psyches can, this is in TFLB. > >> Partner's knowing that I like to psych is in no way analogous to >> partner's knowing that I like to open 1H in third seat with 0-3 HCP >> and 3+ hearts. >> AG : and that's obvious enough to your partners not to be a psyhe anymore. It's a convention. Whether it's allowed is another story. > > If a partner knows that you like to psyche, then he also knows what > kinds of psyches you like to perform. He's just not telling. Or you're > not telling. But the pattern still exists. AG : okay, I take you at the word. I have a partner that, AFAIK, psyched twice. Once, he overcalled in clubs while he in fact held hearts. The second time, he made an ostensibly natural trial bid in a non-existent suit. What's the pattern ? (he also makes occasional tactical bids, like suppressing 3-card support for partner's major, but the distortion isn't big enough to qualify as a psyche) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 13 22:36:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:36:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4DD9A9.1050309@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DD9A9.1050309@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> A "pattern" is some norm (either externally or self-imposed) to which >> one's behavior conforms. It is not synonymous with -- or even >> related to -- frequency. A "psyching pattern [that] makes a psych >> systemic and therefore a pseudo-psyche" means a history of similar >> psychs in analogous situations. Psychs may be rare but conform to a >> pattern, and psychs may be frequent but not have any pattern to them. >> >> Partner's knowing that I like to psych is in no way analogous to >> partner's knowing that I like to open 1H in third seat with 0-3 HCP >> and 3+ hearts. It is the existence of a "pattern" that distinguishes >> a "pseudo-psych" from the real thing. How often it happens is >> irrelevant > > AG : right. And, albeit few pairs have a "psyche pattern", every > regular > partnership has a statistical frequency of psyches, that *must be > disclosed, *as any matter of style must. * > *And this is why West's "not writing anything about psyches on his > system card" is illegal. > * > *Some have even tried to define official adjectives, e.g. "very > uncommon" is less than once a year. > Perhaps the definitions should be adapted in Canberra, where "about > once > a year" would be called "frequent". > But anyway, the information should be at opponents' disposal. Some time ago, ACBL convention cards had an entry for "psychs" with checkboxes for "frequent", "occasional", "rare" and "never". It was removed in the 1970s as part of Don Oakie's (blatantly illegal and totaly inappropriate but rather successful) campaign to convince the bridge players of the ACBL that psyching of any kind was cheating. Unfortunately, it had the side-effect of implying to those who exercised their TFLB-given right to psych that it was no longer proper, or necessary, to supply their opponents with such information, even on request. As Alain implies, however, this is totally contrary to the true nature of disclosure and the requirements set forth in TFLB. IMHO, it's past due for the ACBL to remedy such nonsense by restoring the requirement to reveal one's frequency of psychs on one's CC. This is one of the reasons I have been trying so hard to defend the Kaplan paradigm for disclosure and its concomitant strict interpretation of L40A1(b) against the depredations of Grattan and others who would read L20F1 as providing a legitimate rationale for refusing to disclose, on request, information not "specified" by the RA per L40A1(b). It is not at all clear that "How often does he psych?" is a question "about calls actually made,... relevant alternative calls available... and relevant inferences", and one could make a strong case that it is not. No RA should be allowed to get away with effectively nullifying clear mandates laid down in TFLB by their choices in the design of their system card. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 13 23:38:57 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:38:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > Again, that word. What is it that makes a "pattern" a pseudo-psych? The > fact that it exists? Then all psyches are pseudo-psyches, but most > psychers don't allow the TD into their minds to search for the patterns. > This distinction is worthless. > > You have explained (many times) that the Herman 1H is deterministic. > You make this bid each and every time that you have the requisite hand. > There is no random element to the hand, nor is there room for judgement. > This is a useless argument. It is not that with a particular hand I would make the same bid, but that the bid shows a particular hand. yes, it is true, that when I open 1H, there are two possibilities: 12-19 with hearts, or 0-3 without. But: a) the frequency of the one is several times the other; b) there is no way for me of showing the second possibility; c) there is no catering by partner for the second possibility. Those facts must be taken into account. You cannot, after a psyche, go around asking players if they would do the same every single time in that situation. The answer is either dishonest, or impossible - because the same situation will not arise. I am trying to defend myself against non-psychers here, and probably anti-psychers. I am certain that more frequent psychers will agree that if they be truely honest, they have a number of frequent situations they try a psyche in. The question is one of honesty, nothing else. Being honest about psyching tendencies should not make them any less psychic. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 13 23:48:54 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:48:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4DF5ED.1070602@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <4B4DF5ED.1070602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B4E4DD6.4040602@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > Herman, you seem to forget that there is a place on the Belgian SC > where you have to mention what you know about psyches, and that can only > be frequency and situations, not types of bid, because that would > "create implicit understandings". Yes, repeated similar psyches can, > this is in TFLB. indeed - and so what? Was I not the first who wished to put this on my SC? Was I not forbidden to do this? >> >>> Partner's knowing that I like to psych is in no way analogous to >>> partner's knowing that I like to open 1H in third seat with 0-3 HCP >>> and 3+ hearts. >>> > AG : and that's obvious enough to your partners not to be a psyhe > anymore. It's a convention. Whether it's allowed is another story. > Well, I would not go so far as to call it a convention, since I am prepared to play in the suit - that's what I systemically promise. I do agree that it's partnership understanding. So what? There is no reason to call it anything else than a psyche. The only person who tells opponents about it is me. Most of my partners have no idea I do this - or if they do, they are against me doing it. I could of course just shut up, never say anything about it, and let every director figure out for himself whether I have done this before and whether my partner knows more than he's letting on. In stead, I tell my opponents after the hand that I have this tendency, and ask them if they would have done something different if they had known there was a (small) chance I was psyching. By calling my tendencies "pseudo-" psyches, people are giving it a name that no doubt contains negative connotations. That is what I object to. Nothing I do is not done in some degree by every single psyche, apart from admitting to it. If my psyches are judged "wrong", then one is using yardsticks that make all psyches "wrong". Which is, of course, what some people would like to do. >> If a partner knows that you like to psyche, then he also knows what >> kinds of psyches you like to perform. He's just not telling. Or you're >> not telling. But the pattern still exists. > > AG : okay, I take you at the word. > > I have a partner that, AFAIK, psyched twice. Once, he overcalled in > clubs while he in fact held hearts. The second time, he made an > ostensibly natural trial bid in a non-existent suit. > What's the pattern ? > How should we know? This is, AFAIK. Maybe he's made up for himself some pattern of when he is likely to do this. Maybe he's not even recognized the pattern (yet). My point is that there is a pattern, just like there is in my H1H. So simply saying that a pattern turns something into something "wrong" would render all psyches wrong. > (he also makes occasional tactical bids, like suppressing 3-card support > for partner's major, but the distortion isn't big enough to qualify as a > psyche) And that would be the real definition of a "pseudo-" psyche. Since the distortion is not big enough, I would qualify it as grey system rather than psyche. But that was your point too, I believe. Herman. From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 00:20:12 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:20:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> Its a useless argument because 1. You're a cheat who is using word games to justify playing an illegal convention 2. You don't want to admit such As I have said several times before, if you genuinely believed that your behavior was above board, you'd submit this example to the local regulatory body for adjudication. You persistently maintain that there is no need for you to do so, since they might fail to recognize the logic of your arguments. On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard willey wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Herman De Wael > > wrote: > > > > > > Again, that word. What is it that makes a "pattern" a pseudo-psych? > The > > fact that it exists? Then all psyches are pseudo-psyches, but most > > psychers don't allow the TD into their minds to search for the > patterns. > > This distinction is worthless. > > > > You have explained (many times) that the Herman 1H is deterministic. > > You make this bid each and every time that you have the requisite hand. > > There is no random element to the hand, nor is there room for judgement. > > > > This is a useless argument. > It is not that with a particular hand I would make the same bid, but > that the bid shows a particular hand. > > yes, it is true, that when I open 1H, there are two possibilities: 12-19 > with hearts, or 0-3 without. But: > a) the frequency of the one is several times the other; > b) there is no way for me of showing the second possibility; > c) there is no catering by partner for the second possibility. > > Those facts must be taken into account. > > You cannot, after a psyche, go around asking players if they would do > the same every single time in that situation. The answer is either > dishonest, or impossible - because the same situation will not arise. > > I am trying to defend myself against non-psychers here, and probably > anti-psychers. I am certain that more frequent psychers will agree that > if they be truely honest, they have a number of frequent situations they > try a psyche in. The question is one of honesty, nothing else. Being > honest about psyching tendencies should not make them any less psychic. > > Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100113/04343f35/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 14 10:36:25 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:36:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > Its a useless argument because > > 1. You're a cheat who is using word games to justify playing an illegal > convention the dreaded c-word! word games? what else can we do? > 2. You don't want to admit such > of course I won't - wht should I admit to something I don't believe to be true. And it's not true - not simply because Richard W says so. > As I have said several times before, if you genuinely believed that your > behavior was above board, you'd submit this example to the local > regulatory body for adjudication. > Which I do. But since I'm part of that body, there's a bit of a problem. > You persistently maintain that there is no need for you to do so, since > they might fail to recognize the logic of your arguments. > No, they follow the same logic as you do. So? Please Richard, tell me on what basis you believe I am a cheat. I don't like to defend myself unless I know the allegations. Herman. > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > richard willey wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Herman De Wael > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > Again, that word. What is it that makes a "pattern" a > pseudo-psych? The > > fact that it exists? Then all psyches are pseudo-psyches, but > most > > psychers don't allow the TD into their minds to search for > the patterns. > > This distinction is worthless. > > > > You have explained (many times) that the Herman 1H is deterministic. > > You make this bid each and every time that you have the requisite > hand. > > There is no random element to the hand, nor is there room for > judgement. > > > > This is a useless argument. > It is not that with a particular hand I would make the same bid, but > that the bid shows a particular hand. > > yes, it is true, that when I open 1H, there are two possibilities: 12-19 > with hearts, or 0-3 without. But: > a) the frequency of the one is several times the other; > b) there is no way for me of showing the second possibility; > c) there is no catering by partner for the second possibility. > > Those facts must be taken into account. > > You cannot, after a psyche, go around asking players if they would do > the same every single time in that situation. The answer is either > dishonest, or impossible - because the same situation will not arise. > > I am trying to defend myself against non-psychers here, and probably > anti-psychers. I am certain that more frequent psychers will agree that > if they be truely honest, they have a number of frequent situations they > try a psyche in. The question is one of honesty, nothing else. Being > honest about psyching tendencies should not make them any less psychic. > > Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate > Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate > priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression > (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek > > Those were simpler times > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 14 11:07:39 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:07:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > richard willey wrote: >> >> 1. You're a cheat who is using word games to justify playing an illegal >> convention > > > Please Richard, tell me on what basis you believe I am a cheat. I don't > like to defend myself unless I know the allegations. > I notice that Richard has in fact stated why he believes I am a cheat. He's referring to system policy, presumably on weak openings. He must be aware that in any correct system policy, psyches are excluded. So the problem is merely whether this is a psyche (with some partnership understanding as to nature and frequency) or a part of system. Of course that is a difficult question, and the mere facts presented here cannot suffice to make a decision. Because Richard bases his decision to call it systemic on two facts: - the presumed frequency (I've done it often) - the strict nature (I do it always) To base a decision on frequency is lunacy: This leads to the joke told about the American regulations: "it's OK to psyche, so long as you do it only once in your lifetime". To base it on the strict nature is equally lunatic: the only way you've gotten to know about this is because I told you. And we wish to create honest bridgers, who know what they can and cannot do, and not need to lie about it. If I were to say I do it 80% of the time, would that satisfy your criteria? Then I will say that. But then you'll ask "what 80%". If I'm honest, I'll tell you - never in serious matches unless I feel I'm behind anyway. So then you'll say "aha - then it's 100% of those situations". And you'd be right, since every hand comes up only once, the fact that you've done it makes it 100% of the times you've had that hand. And when a player admits nothing, you have no way of proving that he's done it before. No Richard, there must be other criteria besides frequency and pattern. Frequency and pattern turn psyches into psyches with partnership understanding - but not into system. I can be accused of giving insufficient information to opponents (because it is simply impossible to provide accurate information concerning psyches) but that has to be dealt with using the UI laws, and I accept and cooperate with any such ruling. But if frequency and/or pattern turn psyches into (illegal) system without any other criterium, then you are simply forbidding every psyche (possibly even including the first one, since the player cannot prove it's his first one). There are other criteria, and I will look hard at those. I have told you that I don't play Drury. I believe that in combination with Drury, this psyche may cross a line into systemhood - Drury could be used to uncover the psyche. I myself have frequently encountered a 4He bid by partner. It is precisely because I want to learn what the other criteria ought to be that I am so heavily stmping on anybody who wishes to banish the psyche simply from the point of view of "pattern". Every psyche everywhere has some "pattern" and me disclosing this pattern is me being honest, not cheating. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 14 11:19:40 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:19:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4EEFBC.8040002@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > Please Richard, tell me on what basis you believe I am a cheat. I don't > like to defend myself unless I know the allegations. > AG : as a matter of fact, it's not so much Herman who acts illegally, but rather his partners, who know he uses the 1H opening (it created an understanding) and don't alert it. The fact that the responses are similar to what they are over a natural 1H is irrelevant. Whether such a 2-way opening is allowed is beyond my knowledge, but I guess it would not be allowed in Belgium below a rather high level of competition. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 14 11:44:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:44:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > I notice that Richard has in fact stated why he believes I am a cheat. > He's referring to system policy, presumably on weak openings. > He must be aware that in any correct system policy, psyches are excluded. > You must be aware that a psyche that is systematically repeated is no more a psyche and enters the field of systems policy. > To base it on the strict nature is equally lunatic: the only way you've > gotten to know about this is because I told you. No big wonder, because you have to. So, you're honest by telling what you're doing. Be honest by admitting that it doesn't qualify as a psyche anymore. BTW, the question of relative frequency isn't central in this problem ; it is the question of absolute frequency, because this is how partner becomes aware of it. > No Richard, there must be other criteria besides frequency and pattern. > Frequency and pattern turn psyches into psyches with partnership > understanding - but not into system. That's not what L20 says. (or is it 40 ?) Repeated violations may create understaindings. And I add that systematic violations surely will. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 14 12:16:04 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:16:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> I notice that Richard has in fact stated why he believes I am a cheat. >> He's referring to system policy, presumably on weak openings. >> He must be aware that in any correct system policy, psyches are excluded. >> > You must be aware that a psyche that is systematically repeated is no > more a psyche and enters the field of systems policy. > Alain, that is precisely what I am argueing against. I must not know it, and it is wrong. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 14 12:21:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:21:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B4EFE1D.8090507@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > BTW, the question of relative frequency isn't central in this problem ; > it is the question of absolute frequency, because this is how partner > becomes aware of it. > No, it's the relative frequency that counts. If I open 100 times 1H, and twice it is psychic, then my partner may well remember that it canbe psychic, but he will not be able to use that knowledge. Anyway, we are not talking about disclosure here, but about system policy. System policy says explicitely (sometimes) that psyches are not considered. So we need to define psyches. If the frequency is taken into account, then all second psyches (and perhaps even all first ones) become systemic. >> No Richard, there must be other criteria besides frequency and pattern. >> Frequency and pattern turn psyches into psyches with partnership >> understanding - but not into system. > That's not what L20 says. (or is it 40 ?) > Repeated violations may create understaindings. And I add that > systematic violations surely will. > Understandings must be disclosed. System policy is about system, not about psyches. If any psyche about which something must be disclosed becomes systemic, then no psyche remains. Even "my partner has never ever psyched before in his lifetime" is something which must be disclosed. Mere knowledge about frequency and even pattern cannot turn a psyche into systemic. Please respond to my arguments rather than merely repeating something which I clearly state is not true (IMO). Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 14 12:35:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:35:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com><4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <35D928BDC98A4015B03D9D9A499D3783@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > To base a decision on frequency is lunacy: This leads to the joke told > about the American regulations: "it's OK to psyche, so long as you do it > only once in your lifetime". > To base it on the strict nature is equally lunatic: the only way you've > gotten to know about this is because I told you. And we wish to create > honest bridgers, who know what they can and cannot do, and not need to > lie about it. If I were to say I do it 80% of the time, would that > satisfy your criteria? Then I will say that. But then you'll ask "what > 80%". If I'm honest, I'll tell you - never in serious matches unless I > feel I'm behind anyway. So then you'll say "aha - then it's 100% of > those situations". And you'd be right, since every hand comes up only > once, the fact that you've done it makes it 100% of the times you've had > that hand. And when a player admits nothing, you have no way of proving > that he's done it before. > > No Richard, there must be other criteria besides frequency and pattern. > Frequency and pattern turn psyches into psyches with partnership > understanding - but not into system. I can be accused of giving > insufficient information to opponents (because it is simply impossible > to provide accurate information concerning psyches) but that has to be > dealt with using the UI laws, and I accept and cooperate with any such > ruling. But if frequency and/or pattern turn psyches into (illegal) > system without any other criterium, then you are simply forbidding every > psyche (possibly even including the first one, since the player cannot > prove it's his first one). > +=+ The subject is dealt with in Law 40C1(a). I have not seen discussion by Herman or others debating here about the way in which his activities fit with that law. Certainly it makes frequency an issue; another main issue is that partner must be no more able to anticipate the 'psyche' than opponents. The statement that "it is simply impossible to provide accurate information concerning psyches" is suspect insofar as disclosure can always include as much as the partner knows from experience or otherwise. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 14 12:39:00 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:39:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> I notice that Richard has in fact stated why he believes I am a cheat. >>> He's referring to system policy, presumably on weak openings. >>> He must be aware that in any correct system policy, psyches are excluded. >>> >>> >> You must be aware that a psyche that is systematically repeated is no >> more a psyche and enters the field of systems policy. >> >> > > Alain, that is precisely what I am argueing against. > I must not know it, and it is wrong. > Sorry, Herman, but since you're alone against the whole world and against TFLB, you can't just go and repeat "I'm right and everybody else is wrong". My quote hereabove is not from my imagination, but from TFLB. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 14 12:43:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:43:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4EFE1D.8090507@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFE1D.8090507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B4F035A.3010600@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> BTW, the question of relative frequency isn't central in this problem ; >> it is the question of absolute frequency, because this is how partner >> becomes aware of it. >> >> > > No, it's the relative frequency that counts. If I open 100 times 1H, and > twice it is psychic, then my partner may well remember that it canbe > psychic, but he will not be able to use that knowledge. > You're mixing two things. The fact that partner will take into acocunt, or not, the strange character of the 1H bid, isn't the key to the fact that it's your pair's understanding. > > > Understandings must be disclosed. > System policy is about system, not about psyches. > If any psyche about which something must be disclosed becomes systemic, > then no psyche remains. Indeed, and that's not what we're saying. We say that if the same psyche is repeated several times, it may become an agreement, as is the cxase of any deviation. Read TFLB. From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 14:38:24 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:38:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e1001140538o2d6acb71ja3352f9d83f18c2e@mail.gmail.com> > > >> As I have said several times before, if you genuinely believed that your > >> behavior was above board, you'd submit this example to the local > >> regulatory body for adjudication. > > Which I do. But since I'm part of that body, there's a bit of a problem. > This is very different from your last set of claims where you had the balls to directly state that you feared that you would be ruled against. The simple way to deal with these sorts of conflict of interest issues is to recuse yourself from the decision making process. It is, of course, perfectly appropriate for you to appear before the group in an advocacy role. Also, given that you are a member of said regulatory body, its should be quite easy for you to get a slot on their schedule. -- 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/20100114/3081d944/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 15:05:19 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:05:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e1001140605x7d3589abi9918b8d33324b2c3@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Because Richard bases his decision to call it systemic on two facts: > - the presumed frequency (I've done it often) > - the strict nature (I do it always) > My decision making is based on a very simple principle: Rules need to be applied consistently. Otherwise, you end up with chaos. Consider the following: Partnership A and B are both playing the Herman 1H opening. Partnership A goes to the regulatory committee and say "We are playing a conventional 1H opening that shows either hand type X (a normal 1H opening) or hand type Y (and hand with 0-3 HCP and precisely 3 Hearts)". The regulatory committee looks at the rule book, sees that this is an unlicensed convention, and bans them from playing the method. Partnership B goes to the regulatory committee and describes the same 1H opening using different vocabulary. They state that their 1H opening shows hand type X (a normal 1H opening) but they psyche 1H whenever they hold a hand with 0-3 HCP and precisely 3 Hearts. The regulatory committee looks at the rule book, sees that a normal 1H opening is licenses, and allows them to play their methods. Both partnership are employeeing precisely the same methods. The only difference is that one of the partnerships is providing an accurate description of their methods while the other is involved in sophistry. You don't want to create a system that provides an incentive for folks to lie about their methods. (And, to be very clear, I am directly accusing you of lying about your methods so that you can play an illegal convention) For what its worth, I understand your point that its unfair that you might be punished because you are being honest about your bidding proclivities. (You've directly stated in the past that you'll simple start lying about the frequency with which you open the weak 1H variant or, alternatively, pass with one of these hands so you don't have to say that you "always" open with the weak hand types. - You just do it 99.9% of the time and someday, you might not do it once again). My reaction to that is simple: The regulatory system has all sorts of systems in place designed to deal with people who misrepresent their actual agreements. The case that you propose is no different than that of a partnership who doesn't provide accurate disclosure regarding their range, carding agreements, what have you... The system presumes that players are going to tell the truth. When the system does identify that individuals are cheating, it needs to deal with them harshly. More importantly, when members of the rules making body seem to care more about engaging in sophistry than they do about playing by the rules, they should be given the boot - and damn quickly. Out of curiousity, are you actually allowed to direct serious events? (I asked some friends in Belgium and they said that you weren't) > -- > 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/20100114/e488e12e/attachment-0001.html From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Jan 14 15:11:50 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:11:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> [richard willey] You're a cheat who is using word games to justify playing an illegal convention [Nigel] I wish BLMLers would stop accusing each other of being cheats. I agree with Richard that Herman is breaking the law, but he doesn't know he is, so he is *not* a cheat. I don't think I know any cheats; but I confess that BLML directors often steer close to the wind. One of the worst and most blatant examples... Not so long ago, on laws discussion lists, there was a debate about what a director should do when he witnesses an irregularity but no player asks for his services. Many leading directors including several BLMLers said they do nothing. They use all kinds of daft word-games to jusfify their inaction. e.g. They are wearing a spectator-hat, not their director-hat. Or it is unfair to remedy the irregularity at this table when you know players are getting away with murder at other tables. And so on. The directors *deliberately contravened the law*. (Even had there been no such law, IMO, they had a *moral duty* to act). But their motive wasn't personal gain, so I don't think they are cheats. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 14 15:52:20 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:52:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1EE8C33F-9055-447D-8679-81020FCC20A3@starpower.net> On Jan 13, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric falls into the same trap: The "trap" into which I have fallen, which Herman cleverly avoids, is making the distinction between individual idiosyncracies and partnership understandings. > Eric Landau wrote: > >> A "pattern" is some norm (either externally or self-imposed) to which >> one's behavior conforms. It is not synonymous with -- or even >> related to -- frequency. A "psyching pattern [that] makes a psych >> systemic and therefore a pseudo-psyche" means a history of similar >> psychs in analogous situations. Psychs may be rare but conform to a >> pattern, and psychs may be frequent but not have any pattern to them. > > And that is where Eric is wrong. > I happen to perform only one particular psyche - hence it has a > pattern. > Others have more variation in their psyches, but each of them > follows a > pattern. If I were to add some other psyche, say a random 1NT > overcall, > to my arsenal, then I would have two patterned psyches. That would not > alter the nature of either of them. If Herman were to add a second pattern of psychs to his arsenal, his prospective partners, including his potential future newly-acquired ones, would not necessarily become immediately aware of Herman's intent via his psychic emanations. >> Partner's knowing that I like to psych is in no way analogous to >> partner's knowing that I like to open 1H in third seat with 0-3 HCP >> and 3+ hearts. > > If a partner knows that you like to psyche, then he also knows what > kinds of psyches you like to perform. That, of course, is totally absurd. I would like Herman to imagine sitting down with me to play a session at the last minute. We agree to play BWS with minimal further discussion. Just before we start, I say to him, "By the way, I psych a lot." I would challenge him to tell me "what kinds of psychs [I am likely] to perform". > He's just not telling. Or you're > not telling. But the pattern still exists. The only thing that is > different with me is that I've been so honest (foolish ?) to keep > track > of my psyches and say that there is a pattern to them. Others, who are > less foolish, keep their patterns to themselves (hopefully also from > their partners). But the pattern still exists and it should be open to > opponents. The opponents are entitled to know everything your partner knows, no more and no less. >> It is the existence of a "pattern" that distinguishes >> a "pseudo-psych" from the real thing. How often it happens is >> irrelevant. > > Again, that word. What is it that makes a "pattern" a pseudo-psych? > The > fact that it exists? The fact that partner is aware of it. > Then all psyches are pseudo-psyches, but most > psychers don't allow the TD into their minds to search for the > patterns. > This distinction is worthless. Most psychers don't "allow" their partners into their minds either. As Herman recognizes, they may not even be aware of any pattern themselves. They are psychers, not psychics. Herman either doesn't recognize the difference or considers it "worthless". > Furthermore, what is the use of the word pseudo-psyche? What are you > going to rule? That the alleged psych is not one, but rather an implicit partnership understanding. The key word in that sentence is "partnership". >> Of course, the more often one psychs, the more likely it is that a >> pattern will develop. But that's beside the point. > > No it's not. It IS the point - all psychers will have patterns. They > don't need to develop, they only need to be recognized (in the first > instance by the psycher himself - he may be unaware of a pattern, > yet it > may still exist). Even if it does indeed exist, it doesn't matter whether the psycher himself is aware of it. It is a disclosable understanding if and only if his partner is aware of it. Herman's views of disclosure in general (e.g. this thread, the "DWS" debate, David B.'s 1NT-X-2D) would be perfectly suited to a world in which a disclosure request magically conveyed to the discloser the ability to know with certainty exactly what his partner is thinking so that he might tailor his responses accordingly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 14 16:02:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:02:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > Not so long ago, on laws discussion lists, there was a debate about what > a director should do when he witnesses an irregularity but no player > asks for his services. > > Many leading directors including several BLMLers said they do nothing. > They use all kinds of daft word-games to jusfify their inaction. e.g. > They are wearing a spectator-hat, not their director-hat. Or it is > unfair to remedy the irregularity at this table when you know players > are getting away with murder at other tables. And so on. > > The directors *deliberately contravened the law*. (Even had there been > no such law, IMO, they had a *moral duty* to act). If you're convinced of the sentence between brackets, su much the best. But there is no law dictating that we intervene. There is only a law saying that we're allowed to (part of L81 IIRC). IMOCO, there are some irregularities you shouldn't let them go away with, some others about which you shouldn't mum anymore than the average spectator (e.g. revokes), and others with which it's dangerous to interfere. I'll always remember that well-known Belgian TD, stating on stern tones "I know your system well enough to say that those last two bids should have been alerted, and I'll penalize you if it happens again", only to be told by our opponents that 'we asked for no alerts and you spoiled the thing'. Best regards Alain From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Jan 14 18:49:13 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:49:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> [Alain Gottcheiner] ... there is no law dictating that we intervene. There is only a law saying that we're allowed to (part of L81 IIRC). [Nige1] Weird that some BLMLers accuse Herman of putting his telescope to his blind eye :). [TFLB L81C3] Director?s Duties and Powers. The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: ... to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. [TFLB L82A] Director?s Duty. It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 14 19:33:04 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:33:04 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be><4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be> <4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 05:39 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>>> I notice that Richard has in fact stated why he believes I am a cheat. >>>> He's referring to system policy, presumably on weak openings. >>>> He must be aware that in any correct system policy, psyches are >>>> excluded. >>> You must be aware that a psyche that is systematically repeated is no >>> more a psyche and enters the field of systems policy. >> Alain, that is precisely what I am argueing against. >> I must not know it, and it is wrong. >> > Sorry, Herman, but since you're alone against the whole world and > against TFLB, you can't just go and repeat "I'm right and everybody else > is wrong". > My quote hereabove is not from my imagination, but from TFLB. The law is a straw man, constructed so as to make some right and some wrong- without regard as to whether its foundation is on bedrock or sand. Over the years Herman has argued that the law is built on bedrock. An assertion that I find preposterous since he disproves the assertion by continuing to argue certain resolutions to the problems of players while others argue conflicting resolutions to those same problems. Now, Herman is indeed right that the law imposes wrong headed burdens upon players. He is not necessarily well founded as to what would be right headed solutions. Outside of the internet table I am aware of very few occasions where CPU had a hand in unfair bluffing. The problem of unfair bluffing is comparatively, if not nearly all related to the availability of UI- and not to MI/CPU. The only instance that I am aware of in fact occurred last year during the spingold. The occasion arose after Gittleman inquired before the round about agreement B. When the opponent's partner arrived they left the table during which they decided that the agreement would be C against this pair, that they would alert it, and only then inform them that the agreement was not B. and such events did transpire. On the other hand things such as tempo [variations], mannerisms and changes in mannerisms, and such can suggest** occasions that bluffing might be undertaken to advantage with reduced risk of plight. And similarly, variations in tempo and manner such as those which often accompany the occasions when a player is deciding which message he dare send to partner while trying to maintain the partnership method often also accompany those times when a player is deciding if and how to bluff his opponent. It is the patterns of variation [not the action taken] that a player might recognize that lead a partner to be a bit more circumspect on certain more relevant occasions. If the bluffing does not involve tell-tale signs, that is when it is fair [or more correctly, exceedingly likely to be fair]. It being irrelevant that the pair has bluffed zero or thousands of times prior. This is because the basic fact is that it is folly for a partnership to assign a multi-meaning message where one of the messages is bluff and the others are constructive without a mechanism to communicate the difference. As for Herman's Multi 1H, or perhaps better phrased so-called multi 1H is not a multi all. The only constructive objective of opening 1H on the prescribed Herman 1H values is to suggest to the opponents that he has values that he doesn't which might persuade them to or from actions that make smiles on the score sheet. And because Herman has no control over the opponents nor his partner to cooperate it would be absurd to assert that the Herman partnership has the Herman 1H as a method. In fact, so long as Herman employs his bluff fairly, it can even be detrimental to suggest to the opponents that there is such a thing as the Herman 1H because such a thing is deceptively suggestive- kind of like a lawyer testifying by asking improper questions- even though the objections to the questions are sustained the suggestion to the jury won't be dismissed from the mind. ** these so called suggestions might well come from partner, or, the opponents; as such, a partnership that does not exhibit the skill of successfully attempting to maintain steady tempo and mannerism is not in a position to fair when they bluff regards, roger pewick From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 15 03:18:52 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:18:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [Alain Gottcheiner] ... there is no law dictating that we intervene. There is only a law saying that we're allowed to (part of L81 IIRC). [Nige1] Weird that some BLMLers accuse Herman of putting his telescope to his blind eye :). [TFLB L81C3] Director?s Duties and Powers. The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: ... to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. [TFLB L82A] Director?s Duty. It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. +=+ It appears to me that in normal situations (i.e. when the Director is unaware of anything militating against it) the Director has a duty to rectify any error or irregularity "of which he becomes aware in any manner". This does not mean that he should rush in on the instant. Depending on the nature of the irregularity of which he has become aware he may delay intervention until it is too late for rectification other than restoration of equity. ~ G ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jan 15 04:00:20 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:00:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4F9EEA.5060102@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4B4F9EEA.5060102@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4B4FDA44.2050901@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > The fact that partner will take into acocunt, or not, the strange > character of the 1H bid, isn't the key to the fact that it's your pair's > understanding. That's far from self-evident. In fact, some of us would say it's entirely wrong. Keep in mind that the question of what must be disclosed is (or at least may be) quite different from the question of what is regulated. > From: richard willey > Partnership A goes to the regulatory committee and say > "We are playing a conventional 1H opening that shows either hand type X (a > normal 1H opening) or hand type Y (and hand with 0-3 HCP and precisely 3 > Hearts)". If they say this, they presumably have methods to separate the two possibilities. I am reminded of the old "Kaplan-Sheinwold controlled psychs," which were, of course, not psychs at all but part of the system with methods for handling the weak option. > Partnership B goes to the regulatory committee and describes the same 1H > opening using different vocabulary. They state that their 1H opening shows > hand type X (a normal 1H opening) but they psyche 1H whenever they hold a > hand with 0-3 HCP and precisely 3 Hearts. The regulatory committee looks at > the rule book, sees that a normal 1H opening is licenses, and allows them to > play their methods. And so they should, as long as there are no methods to deal with the weak option and as long as the B responder always treats the 1H opening as a normal one. Of course the regulatory committee might want to specify how Partnership B is to disclose its agreement. If it turns out after all that Partnership B has methods for handling the so-called psychic, that's a different matter. Then they are indeed in the same boat as Partnership A. By the way, even if Richard's and Alain's view were adopted, it wouldn't apply to unilateral actions unknown to partner. That is, even under the strictest interpretation, Herman is entirely free to psych his 1H bid when partnering anyone who is unaware of his (claimed) practice. Furthermore, no disclosure would be required. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Jan 15 04:33:55 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:33:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B4FE223.7080202@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] +=+ It appears to me that in normal situations (i.e. when the Director is unaware of anything militating against it) the Director has a duty to rectify any error or irregularity "of which he becomes aware in any manner". This does not mean that he should rush in on the instant. Depending on the nature of the irregularity of which he has become aware he may delay intervention until it is too late for rectification other than restoration of equity. [Nigel] How does Grattan reconcile his interpretation with Law 81 C3. The law-book does not specify this softly softly protocol for rectifying irregularities. What kind of thing might militate against correcting an irregularity? Why should the director delay? To protect the law-breaker from any hint of deterrence? From blml at arcor.de Fri Jan 15 06:10:30 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:10:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B4D9008.4030804@skynet.be> References: <4B4D9008.4030804@skynet.be> <4B4D77AF.3080802@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <32301032.1263532230416.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > >> > >> [Nigel] > >> "Hermeneutic", surely? :) > > < > > +=+ I like it. So apt. Can one spell it with a middle 'a'? +=+ > > > > Hermaneurotic? Hermaniac has one more 'a'. Thomas Schluss mit teuer - her mit den Schn?ppchen! Jetzt alle Discounter-Angebote von Aldi ?ber Douglas bis Schlecker ?bersichtlich f?r Sie geordnet - jetzt klicken und sparen! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.discounto From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 15 09:15:49 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:15:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B502435.4050009@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > [TFLB L82A] > Director?s Duty. It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify > errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner > that is not contrary to these Laws. > > +=+ It appears to me that in normal situations (i.e. when > the Director is unaware of anything militating against it) > the Director has a duty to rectify any error or irregularity > "of which he becomes aware in any manner". > This does not mean that he should rush in on the > instant. Depending on the nature of the irregularity of > which he has become aware he may delay intervention > until it is too late for rectification other than restoration > of equity. > ~ G ~ +=+ > AG : I insist that, if the TD sees a revoke, he shouldn't help the guilty side by stating it. Another case in misinformation. This is an irregularity, but before the NOS claims damage, the TD shouldn't intervene. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 15 09:17:29 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:17:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4FDA44.2050901@nhcc.net> References: <4B4F9EEA.5060102@cfa.harvard.edu> <4B4FDA44.2050901@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4B502499.2090800@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > > By the way, even if Richard's and Alain's view were adopted, it wouldn't > apply to unilateral actions unknown to partner. That is, even under the > strictest interpretation, Herman is entirely free to psych his 1H bid > when partnering anyone who is unaware of his (claimed) practice. > Furthermore, no disclosure would be required. > Of course. But wer're speaking about repeated "psyches" of one specific kind. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 15 09:19:55 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4FE223.7080202@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B4FE223.7080202@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B50252B.7030606@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Grattan] > +=+ It appears to me that in normal situations (i.e. when > the Director is unaware of anything militating against it) > the Director has a duty to rectify any error or irregularity > "of which he becomes aware in any manner". > This does not mean that he should rush in on the > instant. Depending on the nature of the irregularity of > which he has become aware he may delay intervention > until it is too late for rectification other than restoration > of equity. > > [Nigel] > How does Grattan reconcile his interpretation with Law 81 C3. > The law-book does not specify this softly softly protocol for rectifying > irregularities. > What kind of thing might militate against correcting an irregularity? > Why should the director delay? To protect the law-breaker from any hint > of deterrence? > To protect the lax-breaker's opponents from what they could have gained, in the case of a revoke before it's established. To avoird interferring with the bidding, in the case of MI. If he doesn't mum, there is fair chance that the board will proceed without needing any adjustment. If he does, it is certain that the flow of operations will be interrupted, needing an adjusted score. Remember : save the board ! From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jan 15 09:42:07 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:42:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > > +=+ It appears to me that in normal situations (i.e. when > the Director is unaware of anything militating against it) > the Director has a duty to rectify any error or irregularity > "of which he becomes aware in any manner". > This does not mean that he should rush in on the > instant. Depending on the nature of the irregularity of > which he has become aware he may delay intervention > until it is too late for rectification other than restoration > of equity. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Case from a TD course in Germany a year ago. Practical exercise. Declarer discovers he is a card short. TD looks for the card, finds it on the floor. This card should have been played on the trick just quitted, so the revoke is not established, easily correctable. A discussion broke out among our participating top TDs whether the TD should actively check for a revoke or not. My vote was "not", wanting to wait for 64B to kick in. I lost the vote 3:1. Looks like there are supporters of my view, if I read Grattan's post correctly. Morer opinions please. Besr regards Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 15 10:42:40 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:42:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B503890.3050609@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Grattan schrieb: > >> +=+ It appears to me that in normal situations (i.e. when >> the Director is unaware of anything militating against it) >> the Director has a duty to rectify any error or irregularity >> "of which he becomes aware in any manner". >> This does not mean that he should rush in on the >> instant. Depending on the nature of the irregularity of >> which he has become aware he may delay intervention >> until it is too late for rectification other than restoration >> of equity. >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> > > Case from a TD course in Germany a year ago. Practical exercise. > Declarer discovers he is a card short. TD looks for the card, finds it > on the floor. This card should have been played on the trick just > quitted, so the revoke is not established, easily correctable. > > A discussion broke out among our participating top TDs whether the TD > should actively check for a revoke or not. My vote was "not", wanting to > wait for 64B to kick in. I lost the vote 3:1. > > Looks like there are supporters of my view, if I read Grattan's post > correctly. Morer opinions please. > If the TD intervenes before the revoke is established, the OS will benefit from it, in the form of a lesser penalty. This is not fair. How will you explain to the NOS that they were unlucky that you were there ? From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Jan 15 10:55:26 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:55:26 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> Message-ID: <9791D18E68824204AAAF71A2F7D54461@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:42 PM Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) > Grattan schrieb: >> >> >> +=+ It appears to me that in normal situations (i.e. when >> the Director is unaware of anything militating against it) >> the Director has a duty to rectify any error or irregularity >> "of which he becomes aware in any manner". >> This does not mean that he should rush in on the >> instant. Depending on the nature of the irregularity of >> which he has become aware he may delay intervention >> until it is too late for rectification other than restoration >> of equity. >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> > > Case from a TD course in Germany a year ago. Practical exercise. > Declarer discovers he is a card short. TD looks for the card, finds it > on the floor. This card should have been played on the trick just > quitted, so the revoke is not established, easily correctable. > > A discussion broke out among our participating top TDs whether the TD > should actively check for a revoke or not. My vote was "not", wanting to > wait for 64B to kick in. I lost the vote 3:1. > > Looks like there are supporters of my view, if I read Grattan's post > correctly. Morer opinions please. > > Besr regards > Matthias Perhaps, rather than making the players decision for them, it may be sufficient to read them Law 14.B.4 before play continues. best wishes bill > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jan 15 11:03:27 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:03:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <4B503890.3050609@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B503890.3050609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B503D6F.7000409@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> > If the TD intervenes before the revoke is established, the OS will > benefit from it, in the form of a lesser penalty. This is not fair. > How will you explain to the NOS that they were unlucky that you were there ? I won't, as I wouldn't intervene _at that time_ (unless someone can convince me here). The possible outcomes will be: a) declarer discovers revoke by himself b) NOS speaks up, so revoke is not established (unlikely if TD manages to hand back the card without anyone seeing its face) c) revoke gets established and is discovered d) revoke gets established and is not discovered before 64B conditions kick in. My position is that the TD should wait and use 64C if case d) happens. This is not quite easy to do without making the players aware that something is happening or without missing the chance to find out whether a revoke has, in fact, happened, but no one said the job is easy. The others argued that a check for an unestablished revoke causes the least deviation from the "normal" bridge result. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jan 15 11:13:34 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:13:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <9791D18E68824204AAAF71A2F7D54461@acer> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <9791D18E68824204AAAF71A2F7D54461@acer> Message-ID: <4B503FCE.5050206@t-online.de> Bill & Helen Kemp schrieb: >> Case from a TD course in Germany a year ago. Practical exercise. >> Declarer discovers he is a card short. TD looks for the card, finds it >> on the floor. This card should have been played on the trick just >> quitted, so the revoke is not established, easily correctable. >> >> A discussion broke out among our participating top TDs whether the TD >> should actively check for a revoke or not. My vote was "not", wanting to >> wait for 64B to kick in. I lost the vote 3:1. >> >> Looks like there are supporters of my view, if I read Grattan's post >> correctly. Morer opinions please. >> >> Besr regards >> Matthias > > Perhaps, rather than making the players decision for them, it may be > sufficient to read them Law 14.B.4 before play continues. This is more or less my position, yes. Let them find out or not, time will tell. The argument from the other guys was that an unestablished revoke is a "lesser" infraction and that discovering it now would cause a lesser deviation from the "natural" bridge result, especially in a pairs tournament, where half the field would probably gain or lose by an established revoke, depending on where they sit. My point of view is that discovering a revoke is as much part of bridge as finessing, and that the result of the board is in the balance until the time for 64A (or 62, even) has run out. Best regards Matthias > best wishes > bill > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 11:19:45 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:19:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be> <4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>>> I notice that Richard has in fact stated why he believes I am a cheat. >>>> He's referring to system policy, presumably on weak openings. >>>> He must be aware that in any correct system policy, psyches are excluded. >>>> >>>> >>> You must be aware that a psyche that is systematically repeated is no >>> more a psyche and enters the field of systems policy. >>> >>> >> Alain, that is precisely what I am argueing against. >> I must not know it, and it is wrong. >> > Sorry, Herman, but since you're alone against the whole world and > against TFLB, you can't just go and repeat "I'm right and everybody else > is wrong". > My quote hereabove is not from my imagination, but from TFLB. Your quote above says what I've been saying all along: psyching tendencies are part of partnership understanding. But you are making a logical error: that system policy covers all partnership understandings - it doesn't: it covers only systemic actions, not psychic ones. There is no contradiction there: system policies specifically exclude psychic actions. Psychic actions are those that are as unexpected for partner as for opponents. If psychic actions are "expected" (*) by partner, that expectency must be told opponents, but they don't make the psychic actions systemic, or susceptible to ruling on system policy. Ask yourself the following question: at what point does a psyche become "systemic"? The answer is not to be given. Long before any particular partner recognizes a pattern, that pattern already exists. So the psyche has become "systemic" long before anyone recognizes it as such. I have recognized, in myself, a pattern. And I've told my opponents (not my partners). My telling them does not make the psyches any less psychic than they were beforehand. And I don't believe I'm alone in the world. As usual, I'm alone on blml. Alone, that is, form among those that dare speak against the majority. (*) I mean, in some statistical sense. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 15 11:20:12 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:20:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <4B503D6F.7000409@t-online.de> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B503890.3050609@ulb.ac.be> <4B503D6F.7000409@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B50415C.6030600@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > > My position is that the TD should wait and use 64C if case d) happens. > This is not quite easy to do without making the players aware that > something is happening or without missing the chance to find out whether > a revoke has, in fact, happened, but no one said the job is easy. The > others argued that a check for an unestablished revoke causes the least > deviation from the "normal" bridge result. > > Right in a sense, but there should be no difference in this deviation's impact between a table where you are present and one where you aren't, hence I too would les d) happen. Some have argued before, on BLML, that the normal bridge result at a table where one player acts uncautiously is that he will pay for his lapses (in a thread about cancelling penalties, or rather, not doing it). From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 11:24:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:24:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B4F035A.3010600@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFE1D.8090507@skynet.be> <4B4F035A.3010600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B504270.8080100@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> BTW, the question of relative frequency isn't central in this problem ; >>> it is the question of absolute frequency, because this is how partner >>> becomes aware of it. >>> >>> >> No, it's the relative frequency that counts. If I open 100 times 1H, and >> twice it is psychic, then my partner may well remember that it canbe >> psychic, but he will not be able to use that knowledge. >> > You're mixing two things. > The fact that partner will take into acocunt, or not, the strange > character of the 1H bid, isn't the key to the fact that it's your pair's > understanding. > I am not mixing two things. It can only be understanding if partner understands it, and acts upon it. Something that happens once every 100 occasions must not be acted upon, as that would lead to 99 bad results. >> >> Understandings must be disclosed. >> System policy is about system, not about psyches. >> If any psyche about which something must be disclosed becomes systemic, >> then no psyche remains. > Indeed, and that's not what we're saying. We say that if the same psyche > is repeated several times, it may become an agreement, as is the cxase > of any deviation. Read TFLB. > MAY. not MUST. Your whole argument has been that the H1H is a part of our system. You base your argument on the fact that the lawbook says that it can become part of the system. I agree with that, but I'm trying to figure out what makes this a certainty. And my position is that frequency and pattern alone cannot make it so. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 11:39:43 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:39:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <35D928BDC98A4015B03D9D9A499D3783@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com><4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <35D928BDC98A4015B03D9D9A499D3783@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B5045EF.3000107@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:07 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > > >> To base a decision on frequency is lunacy: This leads to the joke told >> about the American regulations: "it's OK to psyche, so long as you do it >> only once in your lifetime". >> To base it on the strict nature is equally lunatic: the only way you've >> gotten to know about this is because I told you. And we wish to create >> honest bridgers, who know what they can and cannot do, and not need to >> lie about it. If I were to say I do it 80% of the time, would that >> satisfy your criteria? Then I will say that. But then you'll ask "what >> 80%". If I'm honest, I'll tell you - never in serious matches unless I >> feel I'm behind anyway. So then you'll say "aha - then it's 100% of >> those situations". And you'd be right, since every hand comes up only >> once, the fact that you've done it makes it 100% of the times you've had >> that hand. And when a player admits nothing, you have no way of proving >> that he's done it before. >> >> No Richard, there must be other criteria besides frequency and pattern. >> Frequency and pattern turn psyches into psyches with partnership >> understanding - but not into system. I can be accused of giving >> insufficient information to opponents (because it is simply impossible >> to provide accurate information concerning psyches) but that has to be >> dealt with using the UI laws, and I accept and cooperate with any such >> ruling. But if frequency and/or pattern turn psyches into (illegal) >> system without any other criterium, then you are simply forbidding every >> psyche (possibly even including the first one, since the player cannot >> prove it's his first one). >> > +=+ The subject is dealt with in Law 40C1(a). I have not seen discussion > by Herman or others debating here about the way in which his activities fit > with that law. Certainly it makes frequency an issue; another main issue is > that partner must be no more able to anticipate the 'psyche' than opponents. > The statement that "it is simply impossible to provide accurate information > concerning psyches" is suspect insofar as disclosure can always include as > much as the partner knows from experience or otherwise. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Here, we are definitely at a difference of opinion regarding the disclosure laws. I believe that full disclosure is an ideal, rarely achieved. When it is not achieved, the director shall investigate if damage has ensued, and will correct for that damage. The phrase: partner must not anticipate the psyche more than opponents should IMO be viewed as follows: if partner knows that the player is apt to psyche (in a certain position) then so should his opponents. If the opponents are not so informed, they are entitled to a ruling. But I don't believe that this non-information turns the psyche into something else. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 11:50:26 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:50:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e1001140605x7d3589abi9918b8d33324b2c3@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001140605x7d3589abi9918b8d33324b2c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B504872.3010202@skynet.be> Richard, your logic is flawed. You start from the premise that I am doing something wrong, in order to prove that I am doing something wrong. richard willey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > Because Richard bases his decision to call it systemic on two facts: > - the presumed frequency (I've done it often) > - the strict nature (I do it always) > > My decision making is based on a very simple principle: Rules need to > be applied consistently. Otherwise, you end up with chaos. > > Consider the following: > > Partnership A and B are both playing the Herman 1H opening. > > Partnership A goes to the regulatory committee and say > > "We are playing a conventional 1H opening that shows either hand type X > (a normal 1H opening) or hand type Y (and hand with 0-3 HCP and > precisely 3 Hearts)". The regulatory committee looks at the rule book, > sees that this is an unlicensed convention, and bans them from playing > the method. > I would agree with this. But ask yourself how this can happen. It can happen only when it is discussed, and when there has also been a discussion about what to do over a third-in-hand 1H opening. If the pair are so stupid as to decide to answer 4H when holding 11 points and 5 hearts, then their system is not worth a lot. > Partnership B goes to the regulatory committee and describes the same 1H > opening using different vocabulary. They state that their 1H opening > shows hand type X (a normal 1H opening) but they psyche 1H whenever they > hold a hand with 0-3 HCP and precisely 3 Hearts. The regulatory > committee looks at the rule book, sees that a normal 1H opening is > licenses, and allows them to play their methods. > I would also agree with that. Provided the LC looks at the psyche and asks relevant questions about it, and about how the partner responds to third-in-hand 1H openings. If there is no mechanism to deal with this, I do not mind this LC allowing that psyche. > Both partnership are employeeing precisely the same methods. No they are not. > The only > difference is that one of the partnerships is providing an accurate > description of their methods while the other is involved in sophistry. No it is not. It tells precisely what they are doing. > You don't want to create a system that provides an incentive for folks > to lie about their methods. (And, to be very clear, I am directly > accusing you of lying about your methods so that you can play an illegal > convention) > Well, you cannot accuse me of lying if you've called it only sophistry before now. > For what its worth, I understand your point that its unfair that you > might be punished because you are being honest about your bidding > proclivities. (You've directly stated in the past that you'll simple > start lying about the frequency with which you open the weak 1H variant > or, alternatively, pass with one of these hands so you don't have to say > that you "always" open with the weak hand types. - You just do it > 99.9% of the time and someday, you might not do it once again). > And that would be fine to get out of you and your way of ruling. Which is just another proof that your ruling is stupid, since it depends on player's honesty in order to catch them. > My reaction to that is simple: The regulatory system has all sorts of > systems in place designed to deal with people who misrepresent their > actual agreements. The case that you propose is no different than that > of a partnership who doesn't provide accurate disclosure regarding their > range, carding agreements, what have you... The system presumes that > players are going to tell the truth. When the system does identify that > individuals are cheating, it needs to deal with them harshly. > But once again, how can you identify patterns if all you have to go on is one occurence. I prefer to accept that something is a psyche, regarless of pattern or frequency, unless I can find evidence of systemic dealing by partner. Sort of the "red psyche" of the English. > More importantly, when members of the rules making body seem to care > more about engaging in sophistry than they do about playing by the > rules, they should be given the boot - and damn quickly. Out of > curiousity, are you actually allowed to direct serious events? (I asked > some friends in Belgium and they said that you weren't) > Who said that? I direct all the top events in Belgium. I am a qualified director, classed by the EBL as NBO-director (there are 50 of those in Europe). I have completed the EBL exam three times in the past, and finished in the top-10 three times. I am going for a fourth shot in Sanremo in two weeks'. I am not boasting but merely setting the record straight, OK? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 11:55:32 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:55:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <1EE8C33F-9055-447D-8679-81020FCC20A3@starpower.net> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <1EE8C33F-9055-447D-8679-81020FCC20A3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B5049A4.2010507@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> If a partner knows that you like to psyche, then he also knows what >> kinds of psyches you like to perform. > > That, of course, is totally absurd. I would like Herman to imagine > sitting down with me to play a session at the last minute. We agree > to play BWS with minimal further discussion. Just before we start, I > say to him, "By the way, I psych a lot." I would challenge him to > tell me "what kinds of psychs [I am likely] to perform". > When I said the above, the meaning was that partner knew it from experience, not just from you telling him. In that case, what I said is true. A partner cannot know about frequency without also knowing about pattern. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 15 11:16:29 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:16:29 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B4D9008.4030804@skynet.be> <4B4D77AF.3080802@yahoo.co.uk> <32301032.1263532230416.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <07003B18DBD246A28FC0C2B7BCB1124B@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Upon the wings of the wind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > >> > >> [Nigel] > >> "Hermeneutic", surely? :) > > < > > +=+ I like it. So apt. Can one spell it with a middle 'a'? +=+ > > > > Hermaneurotic? Hermaniac has one more 'a'. Thomas +=+ Whose maniac is that? At least we have now discovered this jewel's many facets. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 15 11:54:55 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:54:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 8:42 AM Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) Nigel Guthrie Not so long ago, on laws discussion lists, there was a debate about what a director should do when he witnesses an irregularity but no player asks for his services. > Many leading directors including several BLMLers said they do nothing. They use all kinds of daft word-games to justify their inaction. e.g. They are wearing a spectator-hat, not their director-hat. Or it is unfair to remedy the irregularity at this table when you know players are getting away with murder at other tables. And so on. > The directors *deliberately contravened the law*. (Even had there been no such law, IMO, they had a *moral duty* to act). < [Alain Gottcheiner] ... there is no law dictating that we intervene. There is only a law saying that we're allowed to (part of L81 IIRC). +=+ It appears to me that in normal situations (i.e. when the Director is unaware of anything militating against it) the Director has a duty to rectify any error or irregularity "of which he becomes aware in any manner". This does not mean that he should rush in on the instant. Depending on the nature of the irregularity of which he has become aware he may delay intervention until it is too late for rectification other than restoration of equity. ~ G ~ +=+ > Matthias Berghaus: Case from a TD course in Germany a year ago. Practical exercise. Declarer discovers he is a card short. TD looks for the card, finds it on the floor. This card should have been played on the trick just quitted, so the revoke is not established, easily correctable. > A discussion broke out among our participating top TDs whether the TD should actively check for a revoke or not. My vote was "not", wanting to wait for 64B to kick in. I lost the vote 3:1. > Looks like there are supporters of my view, if I read Grattan's post correctly. More opinions please. > (Alain Gottcheiner) If the TD intervenes before the revoke is established, the OS will benefit from it, in the form of a lesser penalty. This is not fair.How will you explain to the NOS that they were unlucky that you were there ? < [Nigel Guthrie] How does Grattan reconcile his interpretation with Law 81 C3.The law-book does not specify this softly softly protocol for rectifying irregularities. What kind of thing might militate against correcting an irregularity? Why should the director delay? To protect the law-breaker from any hint of deterrence? < +=+ Would you not say that it is undesirable for the Director to participate in the play? Indeed the law book does not specify the softly softly approach. Nor, I suggest, does it specify any other. I suppose the question one has to decide is the intention of the word 'orderly' in Law 81C1; I have not considered this to include prevention of players' commission of irregularities. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 11:56:36 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:56:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <1EE8C33F-9055-447D-8679-81020FCC20A3@starpower.net> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <1EE8C33F-9055-447D-8679-81020FCC20A3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B5049E4.8030702@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > The opponents are entitled to know everything your partner knows, no > more and no less. > Yes, more. Opponents are entitled to know everything partner might know. Whether he does know it is of no importance. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 12:00:18 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:00:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <1EE8C33F-9055-447D-8679-81020FCC20A3@starpower.net> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <1EE8C33F-9055-447D-8679-81020FCC20A3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B504AC2.80504@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> Again, that word. What is it that makes a "pattern" a pseudo-psych? >> The >> fact that it exists? > > The fact that partner is aware of it. > Again, wrong. IMO, the fact that partner is aware of it does not make a psyching pattern disclosable - that happens much sooner. You cannot rule that a psyche becomes illegal once partner becomes aware that it can occur. How are you going to check that he knows it? Besides, most of my partners are not aware of my psyching tendency regarding the H1H. Does that mean that I'm allowed to act this way? Doe sit mean that my opponents are no longer entitled to know about this? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 12:04:00 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:04:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B502499.2090800@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4F9EEA.5060102@cfa.harvard.edu> <4B4FDA44.2050901@nhcc.net> <4B502499.2090800@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B504BA0.7060802@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Steve Willner a ?crit : >> By the way, even if Richard's and Alain's view were adopted, it wouldn't >> apply to unilateral actions unknown to partner. That is, even under the >> strictest interpretation, Herman is entirely free to psych his 1H bid >> when partnering anyone who is unaware of his (claimed) practice. >> Furthermore, no disclosure would be required. >> > Of course. But wer're speaking about repeated "psyches" of one specific > kind. Please forget the "one specific kind". If I have a catlogue of psyches, the argumentation we are using should apply to all of them, separately. Suppose you meet a player who is known to psyche a lot. He opens a H1H. You ask him if he did this before. Probably I did, he says. Does that make his H1H illegal? How does it affect all other psyches? Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 15 12:15:45 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:15:45 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be><1EE8C33F-9055-447D-8679-81020FCC20A3@starpower.net> <4B5049A4.2010507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1E0C282AE924493CAE72F548ACB40949@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > Eric Landau wrote: >>> If a partner knows that you like to psyche, then he also knows what >>> kinds of psyches you like to perform. >> >> That, of course, is totally absurd. I would like Herman to imagine >> sitting down with me to play a session at the last minute. We agree >> to play BWS with minimal further discussion. Just before we start, I >> say to him, "By the way, I psych a lot." I would challenge him to >> tell me "what kinds of psychs [I am likely] to perform". >> > > When I said the above, the meaning was that partner knew it from > experience, not just from you telling him. > In that case, what I said is true. A partner cannot know about frequency > without also knowing about pattern. > > Herman. < +=+ This is true, Herman, but only up to a point. A thoroughly inventive player may only psyche twice in the same way a year or more apart. It is then difficult to discern a pattern. If a player psyches frequently he is likely to make the same kind of psyche sufficiently often for a regular partner to become aware of it. The WBF Code of Practice has things to say about this. As to disclosure the question, of course, is one of awareness - whether or not the partner uses the information is irrelevant. A certain ranking player in an international match made the baby psyche of 1H - dbl - *1S* on a small doubleton. In the course of enquiry he asserted "I always bid 1S in this situation". He was told that it was therefore a part of his methods and to be disclosed (he was playing with his wife at the time, so it was considered his habitual methods were no mystery to her). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 15 12:51:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:51:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn There is no contradiction there: system policies specifically exclude psychic actions. Psychic actions are those that are as unexpected for partner as for opponents. If psychic actions are "expected" (*) by partner, that expectency must be told opponents, but they don't make the psychic actions systemic, or susceptible to ruling on system policy. +=+ Compare Law 40C1:: ".... implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership methods .... " ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 15 13:03:48 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:03:48 -0600 Subject: [BLML] How many beers? In-Reply-To: <4B50252B.7030606@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred><4B4FE223.7080202@yahoo.co.uk> <4B50252B.7030606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: What's left: N=D7 S=CJ E=D7 W=CA The contract is 3N in the N and the lead is in the E and the cards are played out. L44F. Tricks Not Containing Trumps A trick that does not contain a trump is won by the player who has contributed to it the highest card of the suit led. By my tally N and E win the last trick. How many beers and who pays for them? Of course, you know the real question. Oh, you don't. Well then, what else do the laws say about 14 tricks in one board? regards roger pewick From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 13:18:38 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:18:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How many beers? In-Reply-To: References: <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B4FE223.7080202@yahoo.co.uk> <4B50252B.7030606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2010/1/15 Roger Pewick : > What's left: > > N=D7 > S=CJ > E=D7 > W=CA > > The contract is 3N in the N and the lead is in the E and the cards are > played out. > > L44F. Tricks Not Containing Trumps > A trick that does not contain a trump is won by the player who has > contributed to it the highest card of the suit led. > > By my tally N and E win the last trick. ?How many beers and who pays for > them? > > Of course, you know the real question. > > Oh, you don't. ?Well then, what else do the laws say about 14 tricks in one > board? The deck being used does not comply with L1 in TFLB. If they played with pre-duplicated boards, you should be able to correct the board and obtain a prober result. If not, the board has to be cancelled. > > regards > roger pewick > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jan 15 13:44:40 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:44:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How many beers? In-Reply-To: References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred><4B4FE223.7080202@yahoo.co.uk> <4B50252B.7030606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B506338.70305@t-online.de> Roger Pewick schrieb: > What's left: > > N=D7 > S=CJ > E=D7 > W=CA > > The contract is 3N in the N and the lead is in the E and the cards are > played out. > > L44F. Tricks Not Containing Trumps > A trick that does not contain a trump is won by the player who has > contributed to it the highest card of the suit led. > > By my tally N and E win the last trick. How many beers Two, obviously. Or one, to be shared by E and N. Depends on house rules, probably. > and who pays for > them? South and West, respectively. > > Of course, you know the real question. > > Oh, you don't. Well then, what else do the laws say about 14 tricks in one > board? Depends on which lawbook you read. The laws of Doppelkopf (a German cardgame which has two of each card ) would award the trick to opening leader (well in fact to club jack, but that s another matter altogether). The _laws of Duplicate Bridge_ say that if these people tried to play said game they didn't succeed, see Law 1. They broke Law 7B2 too. I am too busy to figure out whether it will be one beer or two to worry about other laws. Best regards Matthias P.S. I remember a situation where we opened a brand new deck in a club game (the cards being worn off and having to be replaced), _removed jokers and other paraphernalia_, dealt, and every player, upon observing what today is L7B2 said "stop, I've got 14 cards". A brand new deck, mind you, still wrapped in cellophane or whatever it is they use. The deck missing 4 cards seems to have been sold to a different club, as no occurence of twelve cards per player was repeorted. > > regards > roger pewick > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 13:46:52 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:46:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 10:19 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > > > > There is no contradiction there: system policies specifically exclude > psychic actions. Psychic actions are those that are as unexpected for > partner as for opponents. If psychic actions are "expected" (*) by > partner, that expectency must be told opponents, but they don't make the > psychic actions systemic, or susceptible to ruling on system policy. > > +=+ Compare Law 40C1:: > ".... implicit understandings which then form part of the > partnership methods .... " > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes Grattan, so? Is "partnership methods" mentioned in the system policy? We really need to settle this. When the system policies speak of "not applicable to psyches", what does this mean? It simply cannot be true that a player who opens on 2HP falls foul of the "rule of 18" on the simple basis of him telling the TD that he has done it once before. Or even that he has done it every single time in the past year he held 2HP in third hand. If that is indeed not true, then where and how does one draw a line between him and me? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 13:49:58 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:49:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How many beers? In-Reply-To: References: <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B4FE223.7080202@yahoo.co.uk> <4B50252B.7030606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B506476.7040503@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2010/1/15 Roger Pewick : >> What's left: >> >> N=D7 >> S=CJ >> E=D7 >> W=CA >> >> The contract is 3N in the N and the lead is in the E and the cards are >> played out. >> >> L44F. Tricks Not Containing Trumps >> A trick that does not contain a trump is won by the player who has >> contributed to it the highest card of the suit led. >> >> By my tally N and E win the last trick. How many beers and who pays for >> them? >> >> Of course, you know the real question. >> >> Oh, you don't. Well then, what else do the laws say about 14 tricks in one >> board? > > The deck being used does not comply with L1 in TFLB. > > If they played with pre-duplicated boards, you should be able to > correct the board and obtain a prober result. No you cannot. Contrary to the hand with only 51 cards, the player who has the wrong D7 has done nothing wrong, so you cannot impose on him to have acted in the same manner once we substitute his D7 for the (say) C3. > If not, the board has to be cancelled. > It should be at this table as well. >> regards >> roger pewick >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 15 13:54:20 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:54:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How many beers? In-Reply-To: References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred><4B4FE223.7080202@yahoo.co.uk> <4B50252B.7030606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B50657C.2030106@ulb.ac.be> Roger Pewick a ?crit : > What's left: > > N=D7 > S=CJ > E=D7 > W=CA > > The contract is 3N in the N and the lead is in the E and the cards are > played out. > > L44F. Tricks Not Containing Trumps > A trick that does not contain a trump is won by the player who has > contributed to it the highest card of the suit led. > > By my tally N and E win the last trick. How many beers and who pays for > them? > > Of course, you know the real question. > > Oh, you don't. Well then, what else do the laws say about 14 tricks in one > board? > AG : they don't , of course, but they do cover the contents of a board and atittude about fouled boards. Unless the fault is one of the present player's (e.g. he pulled one and only one card in the wrog board, but not very plausible), the board didn't exist at all, at it doesn't fit the requirements from L1. Would you assess a result if they were playing with a pinochle deck ? Or mah-jong tiles, by the way ? I play the 7 of bamboo - me too- me too - me too. The ruling might be different if one of those D7's had been exposed as part of dummy, but you specified N was declarer. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 15 13:56:27 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:56:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1E0C282AE924493CAE72F548ACB40949@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be><1EE8C33F-9055-447D-8679-81020FCC20A3@starpower.net> <4B5049A4.2010507@skynet.be> <1E0C282AE924493CAE72F548ACB40949@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B5065FB.6040003@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> In that case, what I said is true. A partner cannot know about frequency >> without also knowing about pattern. >> >> Herman. > < > +=+ This is true, Herman, but only up to a point. A thoroughly > inventive player may only psyche twice in the same way a year > or more apart. It is then difficult to discern a pattern. What makes you think my psyches are more frequent than this? No-one has discerned the pattern except me. > If a player psyches frequently he is likely to make the same > kind of psyche sufficiently often for a regular partner to become > aware of it. The WBF Code of Practice has things to say about > this. As to disclosure the question, of course, is one of awareness I even go further - possible awareness! > - whether or not the partner uses the information is irrelevant. Indeed. > A certain ranking player in an international match made the > baby psyche of 1H - dbl - *1S* on a small doubleton. In the > course of enquiry he asserted "I always bid 1S in this situation". > He was told that it was therefore a part of his methods and to > be disclosed (he was playing with his wife at the time, so it was > considered his habitual methods were no mystery to her). That is not open for debate. We agree on this one. But when does this "part of methods" become "systemic" as to system policy? My point is that there must be a gap between the two. Since most system policies exclude psyches, and most psyches have some form of partnership experience about them, the simple fact of "awareness" cannot suffice for system regulation. I've said this so many times already - would somebody please address my concerns in this - either by expressing a belief that all levels of "awareness" make a psyche systemic (and hence banning all light openings except the very first psyche) or by agreeing with me that some extra line has to be crossed and to help me look for a definition of that line. Herman. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 15 13:59:02 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:59:02 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B503890.3050609@ulb.ac.be><4B503D6F.7000409@t-online.de> <4B50415C.6030600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1DC8887913814A41925492245628FF50@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > > My position is that the TD should wait and use 64C if case d) happens. > This is not quite easy to do without making the players aware that > something is happening or without missing the chance to find out whether > a revoke has, in fact, happened, but no one said the job is easy. The > others argued that a check for an unestablished revoke causes the least > deviation from the "normal" bridge result. > > Right in a sense, but there should be no difference in this deviation's impact between a table where you are present and one where you aren't, hence I too would les d) happen. < +=+ I asked Max Bavin, WBF CTD, for his view. Addressing me, he replied: ""81C3 gives the Director no choice but to act at some point within the correction period. Broadly speaking I agree with what you have already said on the subject. For example, the Director notices that a player has revoked. I'd wait until the 64C period before doing anything. In other words, I'd give the revoking side a chance to notice their own revoke before it became established, and I'd give the non-offending side the chance to notice it and receive the penalty tricks. Only if no-one noticed it would I act, and I'd do so within the 64C period [equity only]. I'm a little surprised that there's any real debate on this subject. "" .................................................................................................... My contribution to the discussion reflects my opinion that this is best practice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 15 14:47:12 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:47:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > > Grattan wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 10:19 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn >> >> >> >> There is no contradiction there: system policies specifically exclude >> psychic actions. Psychic actions are those that are as unexpected for >> partner as for opponents. If psychic actions are "expected" (*) by >> partner, that expectancy must be told opponents, but they don't make the >> psychic actions systemic, or susceptible to ruling on system policy. >> >> +=+ Compare Law 40C1:: >> ".... implicit understandings which then form part of the >> partnership methods .... " >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Yes Grattan, so? > Is "partnership methods" mentioned in the system policy? > We really need to settle this. When the system policies speak of "not > applicable to psyches", what does this mean? > It simply cannot be true that a player who opens on 2HP falls foul of > the "rule of 18" on the simple basis of him telling the TD that he has > done it once before. Or even that he has done it every single time in > the past year he held 2HP in third hand. > If that is indeed not true, then where and how does one draw a line > between him and me? > > Herman. < +=+ I am not sure what Herman considers to be the difference between 'system' and 'partnership methods'. Looking at the WBF Systems Policy I note the use of 'method' in various places, particularly in section number 7. Since 'system' is not defined in the law book (other than to say that the purpose of a system card is to list a partnership's understandings) I have taken a look in the standard dictionaries. Among the meanings of the word I find 'a method of procedure', 'an organized scheme or method'. 'a method or complex of methods', and the synonyms quoted include 'method', 'modus operandi', 'practice'. I am content that a partnership's system is a complex of methods that it adopts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 14:58:30 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:58:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> References: <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be> <4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be> <27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> Message-ID: <2da24b8e1001150558r1bb612e7h4eb2a18647db596b@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ I am not sure what Herman considers to be the difference > between 'system' and 'partnership methods'. Looking at the > WBF Systems Policy I note the use of 'method' in various > places, particularly in section number 7. > Since 'system' is not defined in the law book (other than > to say that the purpose of a system card is to list a partnership's > understandings) I have taken a look in the standard dictionaries. > Among the meanings of the word I find 'a method of procedure', > 'an organized scheme or method'. 'a method or complex of > methods', and the synonyms quoted include 'method', 'modus > operandi', 'practice'. > I am content that a partnership's system is a complex of > methods that it adopts. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It might also be worthwhile to provide the definition of "methods". Mirriam-Webster provides the following: *1* *:* a procedure or process for attaining an object: as *a **(1)* *:* a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art *(2)* *:* a systematic plan followed in presenting material for instruction *b **(1)* *:* a way, technique, or process of or for doing something *(2)* *:* a body of skills or techniques Determinism - doing something systemically - is one of the defining characteristics of the term. -- 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/20100115/a68a09f0/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 15 15:29:55 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:29:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be><4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be><4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be><27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> <2da24b8e1001150558r1bb612e7h4eb2a18647db596b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: +=+ I am not sure what Herman considers to be the difference between 'system' and 'partnership methods'. Looking at the WBF Systems Policy I note the use of 'method' in various places, particularly in section number 7. Since 'system' is not defined in the law book (other than to say that the purpose of a system card is to list a partnership's understandings) I have taken a look in the standard dictionaries. Among the meanings of the word I find 'a method of procedure', 'an organized scheme or method'. 'a method or complex of methods', and the synonyms quoted include 'method', 'modus operandi', 'practice'. I am content that a partnership's system is a complex of methods that it adopts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It might also be worthwhile to provide the definition of "methods". Mirriam-Webster provides the following: 1 : a procedure or process for attaining an object: as a (1) : a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art (2) : a systematic plan followed in presenting material for instruction b (1) : a way, technique, or process of or for doing something (2) : a body of skills or techniques Determinism - doing something systemically - is one of the defining characteristics of the term. +=+ Indeed. Under 'method' Chambers Dictionary gives me "a system or rule". I concentrated on 'system' because I was looking for support for the contention that the WBF System Policy applies to a partnership's methods. ~ G ~ +=+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100115/076e7386/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 16 00:11:24 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:11:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be> <4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be> <27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:47:12 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 12:46 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > > >> >> Grattan wrote: >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 10:19 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no contradiction there: system policies specifically exclude >>> psychic actions. Psychic actions are those that are as unexpected for >>> partner as for opponents. If psychic actions are "expected" (*) by >>> partner, that expectancy must be told opponents, but they don't make >>> the >>> psychic actions systemic, or susceptible to ruling on system policy. >>> >>> +=+ Compare Law 40C1:: >>> ".... implicit understandings which then form part of the >>> partnership methods .... " >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> >> Yes Grattan, so? >> Is "partnership methods" mentioned in the system policy? >> We really need to settle this. When the system policies speak of "not >> applicable to psyches", what does this mean? >> It simply cannot be true that a player who opens on 2HP falls foul of >> the "rule of 18" on the simple basis of him telling the TD that he has >> done it once before. Or even that he has done it every single time in >> the past year he held 2HP in third hand. >> If that is indeed not true, then where and how does one draw a line >> between him and me? >> >> Herman. > < > +=+ I am not sure what Herman considers to be the difference > between 'system' and 'partnership methods'. Looking at the > WBF Systems Policy I note the use of 'method' in various > places, particularly in section number 7. > Since 'system' is not defined in the law book (other than > to say that the purpose of a system card is to list a partnership's > understandings) I have taken a look in the standard dictionaries. > Among the meanings of the word I find 'a method of procedure', > 'an organized scheme or method'. 'a method or complex of > methods', and the synonyms quoted include 'method', 'modus > operandi', 'practice'. > I am content that a partnership's system is a complex of > methods that it adopts. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Suppose our partnership agreement is to open 1 NT with 15-17 HCP. However, because I like to play the hand, I always open 1NT with 14 HCP. My partner has never noticed, and my partner plays a learned system of responses to my 1NT that is not affected by my opening 1NT with 14 HCP. It seems to me that opening 1NT with 14 HCP is part of my methods. Right? Is it part of our system? From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Jan 16 00:52:11 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:52:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] +=+ Would you not say that it is undesirable for the Director to participate in the play? Indeed the law book does not specify the softly softly approach. Nor, I suggest, does it specify any other. I suppose the question one has to decide is the intention of the word 'orderly' in Law 81C1; I have not considered this to include prevention of players' commission of irregularities. [Nigel] There can be few games where a referee would refuse to deal with an irregularity on the grounds that he might be spuriously accused of "participating" in the play. Or imagine a policeman refusing to stop a rape on such grounds. When you consider its more Delphic pronouncements the law book is relatively clear about directors duties ... [TFLB L81C3] Director?s Duties and Powers. The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: ... to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. [TFLB L82A] Director?s Duty. It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. In any common sense reading, "normally" in L81C3 must mean "unless the regulating authority decide otherwise". It cannot mean "unless the director (personally) can't be bothered". L82A hammers home the direcor's duties. I worry that some of those who are keen to evicerate these fundamental laws have the nerve to criticise Herman's far less destructive interpretations of other laws. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 16 03:53:37 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:53:37 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: References: <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be> <4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be> <27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b1001151853k28343b21u797b3a1fc9cc6d91@mail.gmail.com> Robert Frick writes > > Suppose our partnership agreement is to open 1 NT with 15-17 HCP. However, > because I like to play the hand, I always open 1NT with 14 HCP. My partner > has never noticed, and my partner plays a learned system of responses to > my 1NT that is not affected by my opening 1NT with 14 HCP. > > It seems to me that opening 1NT with 14 HCP is part of my methods. Right? > Is it part of our system? > I note that your hypothetical is "I always open 1NT with 14 HCP." In answer to your two questions, I am tempted to say methods, yes, system, no. I am tempted because each partner is allowed some latitude for style. But I think this would be the wrong answer in the ACBL. In the ACBL, I think what you describe is illegal. You would announce 15-17 when your partner opens 1NT, but he should announce 14-17 when you open 1NT. You are varying your system by who opens. You are not going to be able open very many 14 HCP hands with 1NT before someone complains, and then you will have to admit that you always open your NT-distribution 14-counts with 1NT. Then partner will have to announce the new range, and then you have illegal methods. In the ACBL, it is illegal to have a full-point difference in your NT ranges. If you open 25% of your 14-HCP hands with 1NT and your partner opens 0%, then you may be okay provided both of you open 1 NT on 95% of your 15-HCP hands with proper distribution. Had you used weak twos for your example, the ACBL would probably allow it most of the time, provided you kept within a rigid HCP range, like 5-11, in about 100% of the cases. If you keep within a rigid range for your weak twos, you are allowed a great deal of latitude for passing in some of the cases. With that one proviso, one of you can be much more aggressive. But not for opening 1NT. Jerry Fusselman From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sat Jan 16 06:15:47 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:15:47 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <1FA36DA973FB467B96FE417FEBD29996@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) [Grattan] +=+ Would you not say that it is undesirable for the Director to participate in the play? Indeed the law book does not specify the softly softly approach. Nor, I suggest, does it specify any other. I suppose the question one has to decide is the intention of the word 'orderly' in Law 81C1; I have not considered this to include prevention of players' commission of irregularities. [Nigel] There can be few games where a referee would refuse to deal with an irregularity on the grounds that he might be spuriously accused of "participating" in the play. Or imagine a policeman refusing to stop a rape on such grounds. When you consider its more Delphic pronouncements the law book is relatively clear about directors duties ... [TFLB L81C3] Director?s Duties and Powers. The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: ... to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. [TFLB L82A] Director?s Duty. It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. In any common sense reading, "normally" in L81C3 must mean "unless the regulating authority decide otherwise". It cannot mean "unless the director (personally) can't be bothered". L82A hammers home the direcor's duties. I worry that some of those who are keen to evicerate these fundamental laws have the nerve to criticise Herman's far less destructive interpretations of other laws. _________________________________________ Hang on, I'm a bit lost here. the original email stated; >Case from a TD course in Germany a year ago. Practical exercise. > Declarer discovers he is a card short. TD looks for the card, finds it > on the floor. This card should have been played on the trick just > quitted, so the revoke is not established, easily correctable. > > A discussion broke out among our participating top TDs whether the TD > should actively check for a revoke or not. My vote was "not", wanting to > wait for 64B to kick in. I lost the vote 3:1. > There is no indication that anyone knew that an irregularity had occurred at this stage. This is common in my experience. I do not believe it appropriate to check the quitted trick(s) at this stage, on the off chance that a revoke has occurred, without a claim of revoke from a player cheers bill _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jan 16 08:22:52 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:22:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> Nigel Guthrie schrieb: > In any common sense reading, "normally" in L81C3 must mean "unless the > regulating authority decide otherwise". It cannot mean "unless the > director (personally) can't be bothered". > > L82A hammers home the direcor's duties. > > I worry that some of those who are keen to evicerate these fundamental > laws have the nerve to criticise Herman's far less destructive > interpretations of other laws. > > Nigel, would you be so kind to point out to me where anyone in this discussion gave the impression of not wanting to do his job? The point under discussion is what that job _is_ , whether it is to check actively for a possible revoke, or whether it is to restore equity in case the players didn't find out in time to handle the situation by other laws than 64C. I can't imagine how you misread everyone's postings in a way to come to the view you express above. Best regards Matthias From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 16 10:09:44 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:09:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be> <27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B518258.2050808@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > < > +=+ I am not sure what Herman considers to be the difference > between 'system' and 'partnership methods'. Looking at the > WBF Systems Policy I note the use of 'method' in various > places, particularly in section number 7. I am not certain either. But I realize three things: - there is no concerted effort, between the writers of the lawbook and the systems policy, to use the same words - ergo, there could very well be a difference; - there is a logical reason for there needing to be a difference - after all, even "my partner has never psyched in his life" is a part of partnership experience which is disclosable; there are many other examples where I feel that something disclosable cannot be part of system; - in the system policy, it is mentioned that "this does not apply to psyches" - that must mean that psyches are excluded from the system policy; but if all psyches are brandished systemic, that sentence becomes meaningless. To conclude: I am not certain what the difference is, but I feel very strongly that there must be a difference. Such a difference cannot be contained in anything quantitative. If one player admits to doing a particular psyche three times a year and another one 5 times, there is no way the line can be drawn at 4. And what applies to 3 also applies to 1, to 1 a decade, to never at all. There must be something else and I urge blml to go looking for that something and not find it in a player being honest enough to admit that he has done a particular psyche more than once and has not seen reason to stop doing it. > Since 'system' is not defined in the law book (other than > to say that the purpose of a system card is to list a partnership's > understandings) I have taken a look in the standard dictionaries. > Among the meanings of the word I find 'a method of procedure', > 'an organized scheme or method'. 'a method or complex of > methods', and the synonyms quoted include 'method', 'modus > operandi', 'practice'. > I am content that a partnership's system is a complex of > methods that it adopts. This could be a good definition. But does a partnership "adopt" a method when one player decides to sometimes psyche? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Jan 16 16:27:17 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:27:17 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> [Matthias Berghaus] Nigel, would you be so kind to point out to me where anyone in this discussion gave the impression of not wanting to do his job? The point under discussion is what that job _is_ , whether it is to check actively for a possible revoke, or whether it is to restore equity in case the players didn't find out in time to handle the situation by other laws than 64C. I can't imagine how you misread everyone's postings in a way to come to the view you express above. [Nige1] This isn't the first time we've discussed these laws :) It's a pious fiction that current laws restore equity. Unashamedly, rule-makers reward and encourage law-breaking. For example, many infractions never get as far as a ruling. If an infraction does get as far as an adverse ruling, then the law often simply restores the status-quo, thus guaranteeing the law-breaker a long-term profit. If a director witnesses an infraction, but deliberately delays dealing with it, intending to reduce the redress to the victim and the (already derisory) deterrent effect on the law-breaker, then, morally, the director further betrays the law-abiding player. For once, a few laws (especially 82A) are on side of the angels. This may be an oversight by rule-makers but it is clearly the law. Richard Willey told Herman de Wael "You're a cheat who is using word games to justify playing an illegal convention". Similarly I suspect that some directors may use spurious word-games to rationalize ducking moral and legal duties and responsibilities. But -- I hasten to add -- that does not make them cheats! and Herman is not a cheat either! From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jan 16 16:30:09 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:30:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> Nice response Nigel but what does it have to do with Matthias' question? JE Nigel Guthrie schrieb: > [Matthias Berghaus] > Nigel, would you be so kind to point out to me where anyone in this > discussion gave the impression of not wanting to do his job? > The point under discussion is what that job _is_ , whether it is to > check actively for a possible revoke, or whether it is to restore equity > in case the players didn't find out in time to handle the situation by > other laws than 64C. I can't imagine how you misread everyone's postings > in a way to come to the view you express above. > > [Nige1] > This isn't the first time we've discussed these laws :) > > It's a pious fiction that current laws restore equity. Unashamedly, > rule-makers reward and encourage law-breaking. For example, many > infractions never get as far as a ruling. If an infraction does get as > far as an adverse ruling, then the law often simply restores the > status-quo, thus guaranteeing the law-breaker a long-term profit. > > If a director witnesses an infraction, but deliberately delays dealing > with it, intending to reduce the redress to the victim and the (already > derisory) deterrent effect on the law-breaker, then, morally, the > director further betrays the law-abiding player. > > For once, a few laws (especially 82A) are on side of the angels. This > may be an oversight by rule-makers but it is clearly the law. > > Richard Willey told Herman de Wael "You're a cheat who is using word > games to justify playing an illegal convention". > > Similarly I suspect that some directors may use spurious word-games to > rationalize ducking moral and legal duties and responsibilities. But -- > I hasten to add -- that does not make them cheats! and Herman is not a > cheat either! > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Jan 16 20:24:41 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:24:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> Message-ID: <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> [Jeff Easterson] Nice response Nigel but what does it have to do with Matthias' question? JE [Nige1] Mathias asked "Nigel, would you be so kind to point out to me where anyone in this discussion gave the impression of not wanting to do his job?" My response was intended to address that question. In summary, some BLMLers seem to want to ignore laws like 82A that specify directors' duties and responsibilities. This is a general malaise. Now, I'll try to address Mathias' specific example. Case 1. [Matthias Berghaus] If the TD intervenes before the revoke is established, the OS will benefit from it, in the form of a lesser penalty. This is not fair. How will you explain to the NOS that they were unlucky that you were there? {Nige1] "Because the law says its my duty to rectify irregularities". Most players would prefer not to win from opponents' mechanical lapses that can be prevented easily. Case 2. Reductio ad absurdum: Suppose Matthias sees a player about to punch an opponent. Would he argue that he must do nothing to prevent this because, if he allows the player to beat up his victim, then the resulting ruling would result in a better score? I concede that there are circumstances where the director may have to delay rectifying an infraction. For example ... Case 3. Suppose the director sees a player about to take an action that seems to be predicated on unauthorised information. He may suspect an infraction but can't be sure, without further investigation (e.g polling the player's peers). In such a case, it is reasonable that the director should delay interfering until the end of the play. [TFLB L81C3] Director?s Duties and Powers. The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: ... to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. IMO ... [A] "duties and powers normally include..." may mean that the director can have other duties that supervene *or* it may mean that a regulating authority can modify his duties. It can't mean that the director, himself, may decide what his duties are. [B] The rest of this law means "If the director becomes aware of an irregularity/infraction before the end of the correction period, then his duty is to rectify it." Some BLMLers interpret it to mean that the director can *delay rectification* provided he does something before the end of the correction period. Unfortunately, unnecessary delay sometimes risks inadequate rectification. L82A is stronger; but even L81C3 doesn't seem to bear the popular BLML interpretation BTW Thanks for not drawing attention to the way I spelled "director" and "eviscerate". From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 16 20:43:17 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:43:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B50942D.9090508@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4B50942D.9090508@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4B5216D5.50401@nhcc.net> > From: Grattan > Since 'system' is not defined in the law book (other than > to say that the purpose of a system card is to list a partnership's > understandings) I have taken a look in the standard dictionaries. > Among the meanings of the word I find 'a method of procedure', > 'an organized scheme or method'. 'a method or complex of > methods', and the synonyms quoted include 'method', 'modus > operandi', 'practice'. > I am content that a partnership's system is a complex of > methods that it adopts. There's a distinction between "practice" and "modus operandi" versus all the other definitions. Probably the most obvious contrast is with "an organized scheme or method." It strikes me that this distinction is precisely the distinction between what must be disclosed and what is regulated as part of "system," but I'm not aware of any authority having made that clear. > As to disclosure the question, of course, is one of awareness > - whether or not the partner uses the information is irrelevant. On disclosure, I'd come down somewhere between Grattan and Herman. In ordinary cases where MI is alleged, nobody requires actual awareness of the system before ruling MI. All we require is that an agreement exist and not be properly explained; having temporarily forgotten is no excuse. Psychs are by definition not a matter of agreement, but I'd say a player who reasonably could (or perhaps "should") be aware of partner's psyching tendencies has a responsibility to disclose them in whatever manner the RA requires. (Sadly, this appears to be "not at all" in some RAs, but I'm not the one who makes the rules.) Actual awareness isn't required, but a player who has seen only one or two (different) psychs from partner is obviously not in position to determine any pattern. > A certain ranking player in an international match made the > baby psyche of 1H - dbl - *1S* on a small doubleton. In the > course of enquiry he asserted "I always bid 1S in this situation". > He was told that it was therefore a part of his methods and to > be disclosed (he was playing with his wife at the time, so it was > considered his habitual methods were no mystery to her). The parenthetical seems too restrictive to me. Whether or not the wife had actual knowledge, she reasonably could have had such knowledge, so it was right to rule MI. Whether the "baby psych" was a matter of system was probably irrelevant; most jurisdictions permit any agreement after an opponent's convention such as takeout double. I've been meaning for a long time to write a little essay on "What is the true agreement?" It's often a hard problem. Usually it comes up in "MI or misbid" cases, but it's also an issue in "psych or system" cases, as has been noted in this thread. Obviously it's ultimately a matter for TD (and perhaps AC) judgment, but making that judgment requires consideration of a wide variety of facts and circumstances. However, it seems to me that the most important circumstance is the rest of the system, i.e., which potential meaning is most consistent with other agreements being played. Partner's choice of action is also highly relevant, as the EBU recognizes. By comparison, system cards and notes are much less important, at least in my view. However, I wouldn't expect universal agreement with my view, at least partly because there seems to have been little systematic thinking done on this issue. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 16 20:54:43 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:54:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B50FAC8.5050005@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4B50FAC8.5050005@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4B521983.4050405@nhcc.net> > From: Robert Frick > Suppose our partnership agreement is to open 1 NT with 15-17 HCP. However, > because I like to play the hand, I always open 1NT with 14 HCP. My partner > has never noticed, and my partner plays a learned system of responses to > my 1NT that is not affected by my opening 1NT with 14 HCP. This seems a good example to apply the principles stated in my earlier message. A regular partner could reasonably have noticed your tendency, even if he's failed to do so. Therefore explaining your 1NT as 15-17 looks to me like MI. If partner uses a response system that's predicated on opener having 15 points and never makes the slightest allowance for 14, I'd say the light opening is not "system" in the regulatory sense. You might have a practical problem proving that, especially with the ACBL regulation Jerry mentions, but I don't believe it should be a problem in principle. Are the Hog and the Walrus forbidden to play as partners in the ACBL? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 17 01:42:34 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:42:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk><4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) < [B] The rest of this law means "If the director becomes aware of an irregularity/infraction before the end of the correction period, then his duty is to rectify it." Some BLMLers interpret it to mean that the director can *delay rectification* provided he does something before the end of the correction period. Unfortunately, unnecessary delay sometimes risks inadequate rectification. < +=+ I share the following opinion addressed to me by the WBF CTD: <<""81C3 gives the Director no choice but to act at some point within the correction period. Broadly speaking I agree with what you have already said on the subject. For example, the Director notices that a player has revoked. I'd wait until the 64C period before doing anything. In other words, I'd give the revoking side a chance to notice their own revoke before it became established, and I'd give the non- offending side the chance to notice it and receive the penalty tricks. Only if no-one noticed it would I act, and I'd do so within the 64C period [equity only]. I'm a little surprised that there's any real debate on this subject. "">> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bridgenz2004 at gmail.com Sun Jan 17 02:12:47 2010 From: bridgenz2004 at gmail.com (BridgeNZ) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:12:47 +1300 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk><4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B52640F.60506@bridgenz.co.nz> What if your attention is drawn to the revoke by a kibitzer? Are you still required to act upon this information - especially if neither the offending sode or the non-offending side may be aware that an infraction occurred? Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:24 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of > Davids Burn) > < > [B] The rest of this law means "If the director becomes > aware of an irregularity/infraction before the end of the > correction period, then his duty is to rectify it." Some > BLMLers interpret it to mean that the director can > *delay rectification* provided he does something > before the end of the correction period. Unfortunately, > unnecessary delay sometimes risks inadequate rectification. > < > +=+ I share the following opinion addressed to me by > the WBF CTD: > > <<""81C3 gives the Director no choice but to act at some point > within the correction period. > > Broadly speaking I agree with what you have already said on > the subject. For example, the Director notices that a player has > revoked. I'd wait until the 64C period before doing anything. In > other words, I'd give the revoking side a chance to notice their > own revoke before it became established, and I'd give the non- > offending side the chance to notice it and receive the penalty > tricks. Only if no-one noticed it would I act, and I'd do so > within the 64C period [equity only]. > > I'm a little surprised that there's any real debate on this > subject. "">> > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 17 04:41:56 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:41:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:42:34 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:24 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of > Davids Burn) > < > [B] The rest of this law means "If the director becomes > aware of an irregularity/infraction before the end of the > correction period, then his duty is to rectify it." Some > BLMLers interpret it to mean that the director can > *delay rectification* provided he does something > before the end of the correction period. Unfortunately, > unnecessary delay sometimes risks inadequate rectification. > < > +=+ I share the following opinion addressed to me by > the WBF CTD: > > <<""81C3 gives the Director no choice but to act at some point > within the correction period. > > Broadly speaking I agree with what you have already said on > the subject. For example, the Director notices that a player has > revoked. I'd wait until the 64C period before doing anything. In > other words, I'd give the revoking side a chance to notice their > own revoke before it became established, and I'd give the non- > offending side the chance to notice it and receive the penalty > tricks. Only if no-one noticed it would I act, and I'd do so > within the 64C period [equity only]. > > I'm a little surprised that there's any real debate on this > subject. "">> Again, L81C is a list of duties and powers. It never says which ones on the list are duties and which ones are powers. I don't think it makes sense to read them as all being duties. Because of this ambiguity, L81C cannot be used to support the idea of the director having a responsibility to act. I would be very surprised to learn that the laws provide that much guidance for when a director should intervene following a revoke. And ironically, I revoked as a playing director last week. The opponents did not notice. What are my responsibilities? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 17 13:22:07 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:22:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be><5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net><4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be><2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com><4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be><2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com><4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be><4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred><4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de><4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de><4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com><4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk><00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:42:34 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Nigel Guthrie" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:24 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of >> Davids Burn) >> < >> [B] The rest of this law means "If the director becomes >> aware of an irregularity/infraction before the end of the >> correction period, then his duty is to rectify it." Some >> BLMLers interpret it to mean that the director can >> *delay rectification* provided he does something >> before the end of the correction period. Unfortunately, >> unnecessary delay sometimes risks inadequate rectification. >> < >> +=+ I share the following opinion addressed to me by >> the WBF CTD: >> >> <<""81C3 gives the Director no choice but to act at some point >> within the correction period. >> >> Broadly speaking I agree with what you have already said on >> the subject. For example, the Director notices that a player has >> revoked. I'd wait until the 64C period before doing anything. In >> other words, I'd give the revoking side a chance to notice their >> own revoke before it became established, and I'd give the non- >> offending side the chance to notice it and receive the penalty >> tricks. Only if no-one noticed it would I act, and I'd do so >> within the 64C period [equity only]. >> >> I'm a little surprised that there's any real debate on this >> subject. "">> > > Again, L81C is a list of duties and powers. It never says which ones on > the list are duties and which ones are powers. I don't think it makes > sense to read them as all being duties. Because of this ambiguity, L81C > cannot be used to support the idea of the director having a responsibility > to act. > > I would be very surprised to learn that the laws provide that much > guidance for when a director should intervene following a revoke. > > And ironically, I revoked as a playing director last week. The opponents > did not notice. What are my responsibilities? > +=+ Would you not think that the matters listed, and others generally, are not either duties or powers but both duties and powers? As to a playing Director's revoke, my opinion is that he is at the table as a player not as a Director. He has the responsibilities of a player. If these require the Director to be summoned he calls himself, puts on a different hat, rules and rectifies. It is better that he should not rule at his own table if there is someone available (who is not still due to play the board) who can meet the need. It is for the Director to know what the law requires of him. His guidance comes from his training. In the tournament his power of interpreting the law prevails. If there were to be ambiguity he is empowered to resolve it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Jan 17 14:15:36 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:15:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk><4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B530D78.1040402@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] Broadly speaking I agree with what you [Adam] have already said on the subject. For example, the Director notices that a player has revoked. I'd wait until the 64C period before doing anything. In other words, I'd give the revoking side a chance to notice their own revoke before it became established, and I'd give the non- offending side the chance to notice it and receive the penalty tricks. Only if no-one noticed it would I act, and I'd do so within the 64C period [equity only]. I'm a little surprised that there's any real debate on this subject. "">> [Nigel] I suppose it depends on what Law 81C3 means by "rectify" and whether law 82A means anything at all. But at least Grattan recommends that the director intervenes *eventually*. More worrying is that many BLMLers act in accordance with Alain Gottcheiner's view: [Alain Gottcheiner] ... there is no law dictating that we intervene. There is only a law saying that we're allowed to (part of L81 IIRC). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 17 14:09:05 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:09:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be><27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> <4B518258.2050808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7EABF5F588754CB399CBEDBA25649C73@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > This could be a good definition. But does a partnership "adopt" a method when one player decides to sometimes psyche? > +=+ 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 ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 17 14:38:28 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:38:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <4B50942D.9090508@cfa.harvard.edu> <4B5216D5.50401@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9451AF55C1944C75BEE27D550CB4DE89@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn >> From: Grattan >> Since 'system' is not defined in the law book (other than >> to say that the purpose of a system card is to list a partnership's >> understandings) I have taken a look in the standard dictionaries. >> Among the meanings of the word I find 'a method of procedure', >> 'an organized scheme or method'. 'a method or complex of >> methods', and the synonyms quoted include 'method', 'modus >> operandi', 'practice'. >> I am content that a partnership's system is a complex of >> methods that it adopts. > > There's a distinction between "practice" and "modus operandi" versus all > the other definitions. Probably the most obvious contrast is with "an > organized scheme or method." It strikes me that this distinction is > precisely the distinction between what must be disclosed and what is > regulated as part of "system," but I'm not aware of any authority having > made that clear. > +=+ As I see it you may have methods of dealing severally with each situation that may arise; the aggregate of these methods is your system. I have suggested that a definition in these or like terms be incorporated in the WBF Systems Policy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 17 15:05:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:05:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk><4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk><4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk><00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B530D78.1040402@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4A18A6BC028040C28224BE7727047B78@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) > ****[Grattan] > Broadly speaking I agree with what you [Adam] have already said on > the subject. For example, the Director notices that a player has > revoked. I'd wait until the 64C period before doing anything. In > other words, I'd give the revoking side a chance to notice their > own revoke before it became established, and I'd give the non- > offending side the chance to notice it and receive the penalty > tricks. Only if no-one noticed it would I act, and I'd do so > within the 64C period [equity only]. > > I'm a little surprised that there's any real debate on this > subject. "">>**** > > [Nigel] > I suppose it depends on what Law 81C3 means by "rectify" and whether > law 82A means anything at all. But at least Grattan recommends that the > director intervenes *eventually*. > > More worrying is that many BLMLers act in accordance with Alain > Gottcheiner's view: > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > ... there is no law dictating that we intervene. There is only a law > saying that we're allowed to (part of L81 IIRC). > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 17 17:15:17 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:15:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <7EABF5F588754CB399CBEDBA25649C73@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be><27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> <4B518258.2050808@skynet.be> <7EABF5F588754CB399CBEDBA25649C73@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B533795.9070909@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 9:09 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > > > This could be a good definition. But does a partnership > "adopt" a method when one player decides to sometimes > psyche? > +=+ 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. Tell me Grattan, what do you call the sentence "my partner has opened 1He on less than 4 points, three times in the past five years"? Partnership experience? Which must be disclosed? Or not? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Jan 17 17:29:31 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:29:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B533795.9070909@skynet.be> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be><27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> <4B518258.2050808@skynet.be> <7EABF5F588754CB399CBEDBA25649C73@Mildred> <4B533795.9070909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B533AEB.1030105@yahoo.co.uk> [Herman De Wael] Tell me Grattan, what do you call the sentence "my partner has opened 1He on less than 4 points, three times in the past five years"? Partnership experience? Which must be disclosed? Or not? {Nigel] I've used the Acol 4N specific Ace asking-bid once in about 60 years. Since it's part of my methods, it is still a disclosable convention. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 17 20:33:09 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:33:09 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be><27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> <4B518258.2050808@skynet.be><7EABF5F588754CB399CBEDBA25649C73@Mildred> <4B533795.9070909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <43A71223EAEC47F5878AD7C0927C6178@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > Grattan wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, >> Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? >> Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme >> Beats with light wing against the ivory gate >> Telling a tale not too importunate." >> [William Morris] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 9:09 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn >> >> >> This could be a good definition. But does a partnership >> "adopt" a method when one player decides to sometimes >> psyche? >> +=+ 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. > > Tell me Grattan, what do you call the sentence "my partner > has opened 1He on less than 4 points, three times in the > past five years"? Partnership experience? Which must be > disclosed? Or not? > >> +=+ I think the Director must reach a decision whether any of (a) through (d) in the CoP section on 'Psychic calls' may apply. One could say (a) is a possibility. Of course, if partner takes action that caters for the possibility of the call being psychic it will add to the weight in the scales. I would look also at possibility (d). For example, when the player is Herman is partner aware of the repeated declarations of the tendency and references to it on blml? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 17 20:48:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:48:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:22:07 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 3:41 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) > > >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:42:34 -0500, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Nigel Guthrie" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:24 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of >>> Davids Burn) >>> < >>> [B] The rest of this law means "If the director becomes >>> aware of an irregularity/infraction before the end of the >>> correction period, then his duty is to rectify it." Some >>> BLMLers interpret it to mean that the director can >>> *delay rectification* provided he does something >>> before the end of the correction period. Unfortunately, >>> unnecessary delay sometimes risks inadequate rectification. >>> < >>> +=+ I share the following opinion addressed to me by >>> the WBF CTD: >>> >>> <<""81C3 gives the Director no choice but to act at some point >>> within the correction period. >>> >>> Broadly speaking I agree with what you have already said on >>> the subject. For example, the Director notices that a player has >>> revoked. I'd wait until the 64C period before doing anything. In >>> other words, I'd give the revoking side a chance to notice their >>> own revoke before it became established, and I'd give the non- >>> offending side the chance to notice it and receive the penalty >>> tricks. Only if no-one noticed it would I act, and I'd do so >>> within the 64C period [equity only]. >>> >>> I'm a little surprised that there's any real debate on this >>> subject. "">> >> >> Again, L81C is a list of duties and powers. It never says which ones on >> the list are duties and which ones are powers. I don't think it makes >> sense to read them as all being duties. Because of this ambiguity, L81C >> cannot be used to support the idea of the director having a >> responsibility >> to act. >> >> I would be very surprised to learn that the laws provide that much >> guidance for when a director should intervene following a revoke. >> >> And ironically, I revoked as a playing director last week. The opponents >> did not notice. What are my responsibilities? >> > +=+ Would you not think that the matters listed, and others generally, > are not either duties or powers but both duties and powers? Do I have the duty to refer any matter to an appropriate committee? To me, this reads more like a power -- I can handle a "matter" by myself, but I have the power to refer any matter to an appropriate committee. Would you say that when a matter comes up I have an obligation to refer it to an appropriate committee? > As to a playing Director's revoke, my opinion is that he is > at the table as a player not as a Director. He has the responsibilities > of a player. If these require the Director to be summoned he calls > himself, puts on a different hat, rules and rectifies. This is a really interesting point of view. I agree. But.... what if I am directing but at the table as a kibitzer? Do I have the obligations of a kibitzer instead of the obligations of a director? I think so. But then we are back to not having to rectify a revoke that wasn't noticed when I am kibitzing. Bob From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 17 23:59:12 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:59:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B533AEB.1030105@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be><27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> <4B518258.2050808@skynet.be> <7EABF5F588754CB399CBEDBA25649C73@Mildred> <4B533795.9070909@skynet.be> <4B533AEB.1030105@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B539640.5030504@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > Tell me Grattan, what do you call the sentence "my partner has opened > 1He on less than 4 points, three times in the past five years"? > Partnership experience? Which must be disclosed? Or not? > > {Nigel] > I've used the Acol 4N specific Ace asking-bid once in about 60 years. > Since it's part of my methods, it is still a disclosable convention. Nigel, my point is not that something you have used (often or not) is disclosable. My point is that if anything which is disclosable is also systemic, then all psyches become systemic, which is, in itself a contradiction. Grattan told me that psyches cannot be systemic, by definition. What I am trying to get Grattan to say is that psyches can, at the same time, be non-systemic and yet disclosable. Grattan? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 18 00:02:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:02:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <43A71223EAEC47F5878AD7C0927C6178@Mildred> References: <4B4D8679.9030602@skynet.be> <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4EE599.4090201@skynet.be> <4B4EECEB.7040800@skynet.be> <4B4EF594.9080706@ulb.ac.be> <4B4EFCF4.9090208@skynet.be><4B4F0254.1020504@ulb.ac.be> <4B504141.6030901@skynet.be> <4B5063BC.6030901@skynet.be><27FE6310B77E49B0926B5BB988529BBF@Mildred> <4B518258.2050808@skynet.be><7EABF5F588754CB399CBEDBA25649C73@Mildred> <4B533795.9070909@skynet.be> <43A71223EAEC47F5878AD7C0927C6178@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B5396E9.3000900@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:15 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > > >> Grattan wrote: >>> Grattan Endicott>> ******************************** >>> "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, >>> Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? >>> Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme >>> Beats with light wing against the ivory gate >>> Telling a tale not too importunate." >>> [William Morris] >>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 9:09 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn >>> >>> >>> This could be a good definition. But does a partnership >>> "adopt" a method when one player decides to sometimes >>> psyche? >>> +=+ 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. >> Tell me Grattan, what do you call the sentence "my partner >> has opened 1He on less than 4 points, three times in the >> past five years"? Partnership experience? Which must be >> disclosed? Or not? > +=+ I think the Director must reach a decision whether any > of (a) through (d) in the CoP section on 'Psychic calls' may > apply. One could say (a) is a possibility. Of course, if partner > takes action that caters for the possibility of the call being > psychic it will add to the weight in the scales. > I would look also at possibility (d). For example, when > the player is Herman is partner aware of the repeated > declarations of the tendency and references to it on blml? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > A problematic answer, since I don't have the references to (a) through (d) at hand. But what I learn from this answer is that there are more elements to the question than mere frequency and disclosability. But Grattan, please enlighten us: is it possible for a psyche to have disclosable elements, and yet remain non-systemic and hence still a psyche? Some people on this list seem to believe that this is not the case, that as soon as something can be said about a psyche, it becomse systemic and hence no longer a psyche. Grattan? Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Jan 18 00:41:37 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:41:37 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> [Matthias Berghaus] Nigel, would you be so kind to point out to me where anyone in this discussion gave the impression of not wanting to do his job? [Alain Gottcheiner] ... there is no law dictating that we intervene. There is only a law saying that we're allowed to (part of L81 IIRC). [Robert Frick] But.... what if I am directing but at the table as a kibitzer? Do I have the obligations of a kibitzer instead of the obligations of a director? I think so. But then we are back to not having to rectify a revoke that wasn't noticed when I am kibitzing. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jan 18 08:39:51 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:39:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> References: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> Nigel Guthrie schrieb: > [Matthias Berghaus] > Nigel, would you be so kind to point out to me where anyone in this > discussion gave the impression of not wanting to do his job? > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > ... there is no law dictating that we intervene. There is only a law > saying that we're allowed to (part of L81 IIRC). Surely there is a difference between "intervening" and "waiting for certain time limits to expire before rectifying"? In the case which started this subthread there was a card on the floor. As we well know this card belongs to a certain hand all along, so it might constitute a revoke. In this case the player had indeed revoked (not established). I now asked the question whether the TD should check for, and - if need be - correct such a revoke _at this moment_ . The next thing I knew I was accused of not doing my job, protecting infractors, and doing practically everything short of causing earthquakes and similar catastrophes. Nigel, what gives? What do you want a director to do? Correct now (thereby, in my eyes, protecting the infractor by not letting the revoke become established), or give the player a chance to notice for himself, then give the opponents a chance to notice in case the revoke got established, in other words _letting the players play Bridge_ ? Crying out loud about "protecting infractors" and what not while simultaneously wanting to let the director protect the infracting side from establishing their revoke seems ludicrous to me, to put it politely. > > [Robert Frick] > But.... what if I am directing but at the table as a kibitzer? Do I have > the obligations of a kibitzer instead of the obligations of a director? > I think so. But then we are back to not having to rectify a revoke that > wasn't noticed when I am kibitzing. And what is your problem here? Robert asked a question, stated his opinion of the correct answer (which I don't agree with, by the way), and drew a conclusion based on the answer he gave. Now you might not agree with his answer, and you can tell him so if you feel like it, but he never refused to do his job, he tried to find out what his job in those specific circumstances actually _is_ ! Which is a good thing to do. This thread started with a question: what is the director supposed to do? It then degenerated into: [Nige1] If a director witnesses an infraction, but deliberately delays dealing with it, intending to reduce the redress to the victim and the (already derisory) deterrent effect on the law-breaker, then, morally, the director further betrays the law-abiding player. [End quote] So letting nature run its course and possibly letting the revoke become established is now "reducing redress to the victim", yes? Since when do the laws provide harsher rectifications for unestablished revokes than for established ones? Did I miss a revision of the laws? Or is it maybe only that your view of my intentions is - shall we say - misguided? If you should have detected a shade of annoyance in my tone then you are correct. I am absolutely not amused having my work ethics questioned by someone who never saw me work. I have read enough of your posts to know that you do not want to give offence or insult somebody, but you do not always succeed.... From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 18 14:13:07 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:13:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> References: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> [MB] Crying out loud about "protecting infractors" and what not while simultaneously wanting to let the director protect the infracting side from establishing their revoke seems ludicrous to me, to put it politely. [DALB] What worries me is the notion that if Directors are supposed to act on their own initiative in rectifying irregularities, then which irregularities are rectified and which are not becomes, in effect, a random process. Suppose that X and Y, A and B are tied for first going into the last round of a pairs tournament, and that both X and A in their anxiety happen to drop a card on the floor. A director is passing X's table, sees the card on the floor, and prevents X from revoking. No director is passing A's table, so A revokes and finishes second. Does A have a legitimate grievance? David Burn London, England From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Jan 18 14:25:49 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:25:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> References: <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:13:07 +0100, David Burn wrote: > [MB] > > Crying out loud about "protecting infractors" and what not while > simultaneously wanting to let the director protect the infracting side > from > establishing their revoke seems ludicrous to me, to put it politely. > > [DALB] > > What worries me is the notion that if Directors are supposed to act on > their > own initiative in rectifying irregularities, then which irregularities > are > rectified and which are not becomes, in effect, a random process. > FWIW, the Austrian Regulations state that the Director should only intervene when called, unless it is a disciplinary matter or an infraction which seriously impairs the running of the tournament, like players sitting at a wrong table. Regards, Petrus > Suppose that X and Y, A and B are tied for first going into the last > round > of a pairs tournament, and that both X and A in their anxiety happen to > drop > a card on the floor. A director is passing X's table, sees the card on > the > floor, and prevents X from revoking. No director is passing A's table, > so A > revokes and finishes second. Does A have a legitimate grievance? > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Jan 18 17:41:40 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:41:40 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> Message-ID: <4B548F44.30506@yahoo.co.uk> [MB] Crying out loud about "protecting infractors" and what not while simultaneously wanting to let the director protect the infracting side from establishing their revoke seems ludicrous to me, to put it politely. [Nige1] If somebody starts to attack me but a policemen prevents him, I don't blame the policeman for upholding the law even if .... ... I would have preferred to endure the attack and sue for damages; ... my attacker would have received a prison term if he had killed me. [DALB] What worries me is the notion that if Directors are supposed to act on their own initiative in rectifying irregularities, then which irregularities are rectified and which are not becomes, in effect, a random process. Suppose that X and Y, A and B are tied for first going into the last round of a pairs tournament, and that both X and A in their anxiety happen to drop a card on the floor. A director is passing X's table, sees the card on the floor, and prevents X from revoking. No director is passing A's table, so A revokes and finishes second. Does A have a legitimate grievance? [Nige1] The process is *inherently* random! Few players or directors know the law. Attention isn't drawn to all infractions. Often, players who are out of contention don't report infractions. "Protect yourself" and "Double shot" legislation further inhibit the reporting of infractions. Rulings that don't deter the law-breaker or compensate the victim may be the last straw. Yes. Its a lottery and many infractions go unrectified. But rectifying a *few more* infractions can't be bad. [Petrus Schuster OBE] FWIW, the Austrian Regulations state that the Director should only intervene when called, unless it is a disciplinary matter or an infraction which seriously impairs the running of the tournament, like players sitting at a wrong table. [Nigel] Rejection of the WBF conversatio morum :( From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 18 17:51:12 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:51:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> Message-ID: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:13:07 +0100, David Burn > wrote: > >> [MB] >> >> Crying out loud about "protecting infractors" and what not while >> simultaneously wanting to let the director protect the infracting side >> from >> establishing their revoke seems ludicrous to me, to put it politely. >> >> [DALB] >> >> What worries me is the notion that if Directors are supposed to act on >> their >> own initiative in rectifying irregularities, then which irregularities >> are >> rectified and which are not becomes, in effect, a random process. >> > > FWIW, the Austrian Regulations state that the Director should only > intervene when called, unless it is a disciplinary matter or an infraction > which seriously impairs the running of the tournament, like players > sitting at a wrong table. I like this, but prefer Grattan's idea that sometimes a director is wearing the director's hat and sometimes not. I just now went to a table voluntarily, because the discussion there seemed just a little bit "heated". Surely we want this to be my right as director. When the director is not wearing his director's hat, the question becomes what a kibitzer should be allowed to do. I give my kibitzers lots of rights, so I have thought about this. Definitely anyone should have the right to correct errors ocurring before or after the play of the board. During the play of the board, I wouldn't allow much. I want them calling me if a wrong ruling is made at the table by one of the players. I think the dropped card is really borderline and I don't know the answer. But the sentiment here seems to be that anyone would point out a dropped card if they noticed it. > > Regards, > Petrus > >> Suppose that X and Y, A and B are tied for first going into the last >> round >> of a pairs tournament, and that both X and A in their anxiety happen to >> drop >> a card on the floor. A director is passing X's table, sees the card on >> the >> floor, and prevents X from revoking. No director is passing A's table, >> so A >> revokes and finishes second. Does A have a legitimate grievance? >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jan 18 19:54:37 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:54:37 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk><4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> Message-ID: From: "David Burn" > What worries me is the notion that if Directors are supposed to > act on their > own initiative in rectifying irregularities, then which > irregularities are > rectified and which are not becomes, in effect, a random process. > > Suppose that X and Y, A and B are tied for first going into the > last round > of a pairs tournament, and that both X and A in their anxiety > happen to drop > a card on the floor. A director is passing X's table, sees the > card on the > floor, and prevents X from revoking. No director is passing A's > table, so A > revokes and finishes second. Does A have a legitimate grievance? They should have, but a poor principle in the Laws says no. 1963 Law Law 97 TD's general reponsibilities: (e) to administer and interpret these Laws. 1975: Law 81C TD's Duties and Powers: C6 To rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware. 1997: Law 81C TD's Duties and Powers C6: To rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner... 2007: ditto In the old days (pre 1975) a nearby table was arguing about a revoke. I waved to a TD and said, "None of my business, but I think that table needs your attention." "You're right, it's none of your business," she said, and walked away. The principle, explained to me later, was that the TD goes to a table only when called by the table (except for behavioral or procedural matters). A card seen on the floor by a passing TD was not rectified (justifiable as a procedural matter) until play was complete. Otherwise contestants are not being treated equally. Kibitzers were told to keep their mouths shut, as noting irregularities was not one of their "duties and powers." Any statement by them was ignored. Scoring errors were not subject to these restrictions, so an unstated commonsense rule of "becomes aware in any manner" was applicable to scores that were "patently incorrect." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 19 12:00:07 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:00:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com><4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be><4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred><4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de><4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de><4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com><4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk><00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk><4B541047.2000701@t-online.de><000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) >> FWIW, the Austrian Regulations state that the Director should only intervene when called, unless it is a disciplinary matter or an infraction which seriously impairs the running of the tournament, like players sitting at a wrong table. > +=+ If accurately reported this regulation is patently ultra vires and void. It is in conflict with Law 81C3. [See Law 80B2(f).] The regulation could legitimately state that unless it is imperative* to act immediately the Director should only intervene if called, but being aware of an irregularity must then deal with it later before expiry of the Correction Period. (* for the kind of reason cited in the reported regulation) ~ Grattan +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 19 14:09:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:09:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:00:07 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Today's word is 'patently'. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 1:25 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of > Davids Burn) > > >>> > > FWIW, the Austrian Regulations state that the Director should only > intervene when called, unless it is a disciplinary matter or an > infraction > which seriously impairs the running of the tournament, like players > sitting at a wrong table. >> > +=+ If accurately reported this regulation is patently ultra vires > and void. It is in conflict with Law 81C3. [See Law 80B2(f).] > The regulation could legitimately state that unless it is > imperative* to act immediately the Director should only intervene > if called, but being aware of an irregularity must then deal with it > later before expiry of the Correction Period. > (* for the kind of reason cited in the reported regulation) > ~ Grattan +=+ I read L81C3 as being my right to intervene in any irregularity I notice, so I too find the Austrian regulation contradictory with that. Of course, if you read L81C3 as a responsibility then you come to the same conclusion. I don't think everything on the list in L81C can be read as a responsibility though. However, Grattan has suggested that perhaps the Director can wear different hats and is not bound to intervene when not wearing his director hat. Then the Austrian regulation could be legal and merely be stating when a person is wearing his director hat. I would not want to give up my right to intervene whenever I wanted. For example, there is a discussion of a point of law between experts and beginners, and the experts are wrong. I am intervening. Or, I would probably intervene whenever I noticed dummy suggesting a line of play to declarer. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 19 15:05:39 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:05:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred><4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de><4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de><4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com><4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk><00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk><4B541047.2000701@t-online.de><000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> Message-ID: <1528BD8707194A7DA47F1737431DD233@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) > I read L81C3 as being my right to intervene in any irregularity I notice, > so I too find the Austrian regulation contradictory with that. Of course, > if you read L81C3 as a responsibility then you come to the same > conclusion. I don't think everything on the list in L81C can be read as a > responsibility though. > > However, Grattan has suggested that perhaps the Director can wear > different hats and is not bound to intervene when not wearing his director > hat. Then the Austrian regulation could be legal and merely be stating > when a person is wearing his director hat. > > +=+ The 'different hats' concept applies only when the person is both player and director IMO. If the individual is a director and not playing then I do not think he changes colour, chameleon like, at any stage. But even in the case of a playing Director I think he must deal with the problem eventually before the CP terminates. Incidentally, in the case of the card found on the floor some contributions here seem to think that if the hand is played out the lack of a card would not be apparent by the time the players came to the thirteenth trick. This appears very unlikely. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 19 15:29:38 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:29:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <1528BD8707194A7DA47F1737431DD233@Mildred> References: <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred><4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de><4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de><4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com><4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk><00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk><4B541047.2000701@t-online.de><000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <1528BD8707194A7DA47F1737431DD233@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B55C1D2.50703@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > >> I read L81C3 as being my right to intervene in any irregularity I notice, >> so I too find the Austrian regulation contradictory with that. Of course, >> if you read L81C3 as a responsibility then you come to the same >> conclusion. I don't think everything on the list in L81C can be read as a >> responsibility though. (Robert) >> AG : IMHO, it's impossible to interpret it as absolute duty. Some irregularities would be compounded by his intervention. Some would be substantially altered. Sometimes he will help the OS. Sometimes he will go wrong, as in the case of 'we asked for no alerts' case I mentioned. But perhaps it should be stated as a duty when the irregularity is of the kind that would mix up the tournament (wrong seats, wrong boards). Just one more example : if somebody places one's played cards worngly (marking a non-existent trick or the opposite), that's a (light) irregularity, but signalling it would alter the proceedings in his favor. > Incidentally, in the case of the card found on the floor some > contributions here seem to think that if the hand is played out > the lack of a card would not be apparent by the time the players > came to the thirteenth trick. This appears very unlikely. > AG : we have different experience here. He who doesn't count his cards won't realize the problem until late. Cows have a tendency to hover. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 19 15:39:39 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:39:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> References: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> Message-ID: <70EE133E-B3F8-4F1B-84D8-7FB23FCCBEE8@starpower.net> On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:13 AM, David Burn wrote: > What worries me is the notion that if Directors are supposed to act > on their > own initiative in rectifying irregularities, then which > irregularities are > rectified and which are not becomes, in effect, a random process. Or worse, if some director, perhaps without even being aware of it, is a bit more assiduous about noticing some players' irregularities than others'. > Suppose that X and Y, A and B are tied for first going into the > last round > of a pairs tournament, and that both X and A in their anxiety > happen to drop > a card on the floor. A director is passing X's table, sees the card > on the > floor, and prevents X from revoking. No director is passing A's > table, so A > revokes and finishes second. Does A have a legitimate grievance? If the director is known to be a friend of X but not on particularly good terms with A, nobody is going to be all that concerned about whether or not A's grievance is technically "legitimate". The case for the interpretation that would require a director to intervene immediately upon noticing any irreglarity would seem to rest at least in part on the dubious assumption that the director's noticing, and thus rectifying, an irregularity would be a genuinely random occurrence. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 19 15:55:51 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:55:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <70EE133E-B3F8-4F1B-84D8-7FB23FCCBEE8@starpower.net> References: <5FF9E41E-BEBB-444A-99CC-816351763190@starpower.net> <4B4DEAE5.3050408@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001130822t7cfb8cb2qba7c369911c46684@mail.gmail.com> <4B4E4B81.40705@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be> <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <70EE133E-B3F8-4F1B-84D8-7FB23FCCBEE8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B55C7F7.6070609@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > If the director is known to be a friend of X but not on particularly > good terms with A, nobody is going to be all that concerned about > whether or not A's grievance is technically "legitimate". > > The case for the interpretation that would require a director to > intervene immediately upon noticing any irreglarity would seem to > rest at least in part on the dubious assumption that the director's > noticing, and thus rectifying, an irregularity would be a genuinely > random occurrence. > > AG : a TD, worrying about cliams that a pair occasionally uses UI from imperceptible expressions, decides to spy at them during his spare time. Even if the claims are wrong, their potential irregularities of some other kind will be noticed, a clear case of self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, there are pairs I like to kibitz. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 19 16:17:15 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:17:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com><4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be><4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred><4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de><4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de><4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com><4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk><00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk><4B541047.2000701@t-online.de><000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> Message-ID: <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan .............. > The regulation could legitimately state that unless it is > imperative* to act immediately the Director should only intervene > if called, but being aware of an irregularity must then deal with it > later before expiry of the Correction Period. I believe this is the most important principle that every Director should always have in mind. If the Director becomes aware of an irregularity at a table (for other reasons than being summoned to the table) and the nature of the irregularity is such that the corresponding rectification depends on possible further developments at the table (e.g. a revoke in progress), then a direct intervention by the director will most certainly jeopardize rights of one or maybe even both sides. It is therefore imperative that the Director never intervenes (unless summoned to the table) until it is too late for the affected players to influence the consequences of their irregularity. This of course does not exclude the Director's right, or even duty to intervene immediately when he for instance notices that players are seated incorrectly or attempts to play an incorrect board. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 19 16:38:17 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:38:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> References: <2da24b8e1001131520u60c29f86q42161e6d5c24c3aa@mail.gmail.com><4B4F2626.3040100@yahoo.co.uk> <4B4F3217.7010305@ulb.ac.be><4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk><303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred><4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de><4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de><4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com><4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk><00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk><4B541047.2000701@t-online.de><000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> Message-ID: <0A1CC19F-D5E5-41D9-82DE-07FD29B1D2AF@starpower.net> On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Grattan > >> The regulation could legitimately state that unless it is >> imperative* to act immediately the Director should only intervene >> if called, but being aware of an irregularity must then deal with it >> later before expiry of the Correction Period. > > I believe this is the most important principle that every Director > should > always have in mind. > > If the Director becomes aware of an irregularity at a table (for other > reasons than being summoned to the table) and the nature of the > irregularity > is such that the corresponding rectification depends on possible > further > developments at the table (e.g. a revoke in progress), then a direct > intervention by the director will most certainly jeopardize rights > of one or > maybe even both sides. > > It is therefore imperative that the Director never intervenes (unless > summoned to the table) until it is too late for the affected > players to > influence the consequences of their irregularity. > > This of course does not exclude the Director's right, or even duty to > intervene immediately when he for instance notices that players are > seated > incorrectly or attempts to play an incorrect board. The correct placement and movement of pairs and boards are essential components of "the on-site technical management of the tournament", therefore this particular responsibility is imposed on the director by L81B1, regardless of how we choose to interpret L81C. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jan 19 16:44:58 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:44:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please Message-ID: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> Following situation: pairs, declarer and dummy are weak players (albeit with about 80-100 years of bridge playing experience). You are called to the table after declarer plays the AK of diamonds (no trump contract) from her hand and all follow. There have been no indications of defender's distribution. She now has a small diamond in her hand and Q10 on the table. She plays her diamond and LHO follows small (no hesitation). Before she can choose which card to play from the table the dummy puts the 10 in the played position. She then decides to play the 10. Dummy says he has not looked at the hands of the opponents (obviously self-serving) and the opponents did not notice him doing so. Naturally the Jx are onside, the diamonds are not divided 3-3. Your ruling? I am not asking about a (possible) procedural penalty for the dummy. What do you determine to be the result of the bd.? With the diamond finesse declarer made 7 tricks (contract 1NT); when she plays the Q she is -2. Fulfilling the (inferior) contract (7 tricks) would result in a score of 65% for the defenders; if she guesses wrong it would be almost 100% for the defenders. What do you think? (Defenders called the TD immediately when the dummy took the card and "played" it.) Ciao, JE From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jan 19 16:50:05 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:50:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> Message-ID: <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:44 PM Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please > Following situation: pairs, declarer and dummy are weak players (albeit > with about 80-100 years of bridge playing experience). You are called > to the table after declarer plays the AK of diamonds (no trump contract) > from her hand and all follow. There have been no indications of > defender's distribution. She now has a small diamond in her hand and > Q10 on the table. She plays her diamond and LHO follows small (no > hesitation). Before she can choose which card to play from the table > the dummy puts the 10 in the played position. She then decides to play > the 10. Dummy says he has not looked at the hands of the opponents > (obviously self-serving) and the opponents did not notice him doing so. > Naturally the Jx are onside, the diamonds are not divided 3-3. > Your ruling? 4 tricks - L45F. Cibor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprawd??, czy nie przep??acasz za ubezpieczenie! kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f256f From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 19 17:06:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:06:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B55D897.6040304@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:44 PM > Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please > > > >> Following situation: pairs, declarer and dummy are weak players (albeit >> with about 80-100 years of bridge playing experience). You are called >> to the table after declarer plays the AK of diamonds (no trump contract) >> from her hand and all follow. There have been no indications of >> defender's distribution. She now has a small diamond in her hand and >> Q10 on the table. She plays her diamond and LHO follows small (no >> hesitation). Before she can choose which card to play from the table >> the dummy puts the 10 in the played position. She then decides to play >> the 10. Dummy says he has not looked at the hands of the opponents >> (obviously self-serving) and the opponents did not notice him doing so. >> Naturally the Jx are onside, the diamonds are not divided 3-3. >> Your ruling? >> > > 4 tricks - L45F. > AG : I don't see which Law allows you to award an adjusted score that is even lower than the "minimum among plausible results" mentioned in L12. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 19 17:11:00 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:11:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson > > Following situation: pairs, declarer and dummy are weak players (albeit > > with about 80-100 years of bridge playing experience). You are called > > to the table after declarer plays the AK of diamonds (no trump contract) > > from her hand and all follow. There have been no indications of > > defender's distribution. She now has a small diamond in her hand and > > Q10 on the table. She plays her diamond and LHO follows small (no > > hesitation). Before she can choose which card to play from the table > > the dummy puts the 10 in the played position. She then decides to play > > the 10. Dummy says he has not looked at the hands of the opponents > > (obviously self-serving) and the opponents did not notice him doing so. > > Naturally the Jx are onside, the diamonds are not divided 3-3. > > Your ruling? > > 4 tricks - L45F. 4 ??????? The result shall be adjusted as if Declarer chooses unfortunately. In this case that means she plays the Queen. I believe OP stated that this would result in 1NT down 2 or 5 tricks? From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jan 19 17:10:59 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:10:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <4B55D897.6040304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6ACA1113F8284B1A94A9E757032DCA8A@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] your opinion(s) please Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:44 PM > Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please > > > >> Following situation: pairs, declarer and dummy are weak players (albeit >> with about 80-100 years of bridge playing experience). You are called >> to the table after declarer plays the AK of diamonds (no trump contract) >> from her hand and all follow. There have been no indications of >> defender's distribution. She now has a small diamond in her hand and >> Q10 on the table. She plays her diamond and LHO follows small (no >> hesitation). Before she can choose which card to play from the table >> the dummy puts the 10 in the played position. She then decides to play >> the 10. Dummy says he has not looked at the hands of the opponents >> (obviously self-serving) and the opponents did not notice him doing so. >> Naturally the Jx are onside, the diamonds are not divided 3-3. >> Your ruling? >> > > 4 tricks - L45F. > >AG : I don't see which Law allows you to award an adjusted score that is >even lower than the "minimum among plausible results" mentioned in L12. I was referring to the number of tricks in diamonds. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wygraj nowoczesny telefon komorkowy! Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f2581 From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jan 19 18:13:45 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:13:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] your opinion(s) please > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jeff Easterson > >> > Following situation: pairs, declarer and dummy are weak players (albeit >> > with about 80-100 years of bridge playing experience). You are called >> > to the table after declarer plays the AK of diamonds (no trump >> > contract) >> > from her hand and all follow. There have been no indications of >> > defender's distribution. She now has a small diamond in her hand and >> > Q10 on the table. She plays her diamond and LHO follows small (no >> > hesitation). Before she can choose which card to play from the table >> > the dummy puts the 10 in the played position. She then decides to play >> > the 10. Dummy says he has not looked at the hands of the opponents >> > (obviously self-serving) and the opponents did not notice him doing so. >> > Naturally the Jx are onside, the diamonds are not divided 3-3. >> > Your ruling? >> >> 4 tricks - L45F. > > 4 ??????? > > The result shall be adjusted as if Declarer chooses unfortunately. Yes, of course, this is what I was intending to say all along. I just can't count. Other than that - I was dead right. :) Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wygraj nowoczesny telefon komorkowy! Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f2581 From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 19 18:39:00 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:39:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> Message-ID: <002101ca992e$4917ead0$db47c070$@no> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski ...... > Yes, of course, this is what I was intending to say > all along. I just can't count. Other than that - > I was dead right. :) Absolutely 8-) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 19 18:49:34 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:49:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <002101ca992e$4917ead0$db47c070$@no> Message-ID: <5299BC762BFC4AB89C2C9A04FFA64FCC@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] your opinion(s) please > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > ...... >> Yes, of course, this is what I was intending to say >> all along. I just can't count. Other than that - >> I was dead right. :) > > Absolutely 8-) > +=+ Absolutely dead, having been shot before the correction. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 19 19:14:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:14:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1><000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> Message-ID: <22BF2C7705E040CF95EAB2A1E5D29438@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] your opinion(s) please From: "Sven Pran" > The result shall be adjusted as if Declarer chooses unfortunately. < +=+ Hmm..... It may be suggested this is not exactly what the book says.. Should he not restore the expectation had the irregularity not occurred taking away the advantage gained? See Law 12B1. What was the expectation? Was it Diamond tricks 3 = 50%, 4 = 50%? Is the advantage not the margin between that and 100% of 4? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 19 20:40:43 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:40:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1><000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <22BF2C7705E040CF95EAB2A1E5D29438@Mildred> Message-ID: <569B1170D7934D289A254EDAB086419F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] your opinion(s) please > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:13 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] your opinion(s) please > > > > From: "Sven Pran" >> > The result shall be adjusted as if Declarer chooses > unfortunately. > < > +=+ Hmm..... > It may be suggested this is not exactly what > the book says.. > Should he not restore the expectation had > the irregularity not occurred taking away the > advantage gained? See Law 12B1. > What was the expectation? Was it Diamond > tricks 3 = 50%, 4 = 50%? Is the advantage > not the margin between that and 100% of 4? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ Add: [ the LOL is playing the hand; might she be more than 50% liable to play the Q? A matter for bridge judgement.] +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Jan 19 22:21:53 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:21:53 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Simples Message-ID: <4B562271.9050204@virginmedia.com> Recent discussion of laws 81 and 82 illustrate another area of director ignorance. Once again, this isn't a question of judgement. These are generic contexts with no dispute about facts. Sometimes the problem is not even interpretation. Occasionally, as here, the English meaning of the law seems clear. Although. as usual, it could be clearer. Unfortunately, the law is so fragmented and sophisticated that directors can rationalise mistaken interpretations. The resulting disputes can even lead to them accusing each other of cheating. It is not surprising that few players know the law when so few directors understand it. And players are just as motivated as directors, to rationalise their spurious interpretations. A solution may be to try to complete and simplify the rules without altering the fundamental nature of the game. Getting rid of unnecessary rules is a first step. For example rules about "protecting yourself" and "double-shots" add no discernible value to the game. Rules that spell out directors' duties can also be dropped. If a director repudiates his duty to *uphold and enforce the laws of Bridge*, no mere law is likely to make a difference. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 19 22:35:57 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:35:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <22BF2C7705E040CF95EAB2A1E5D29438@Mildred> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1><000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <22BF2C7705E040CF95EAB2A1E5D29438@Mildred> Message-ID: <003e01ca994f$654e3210$2fea9630$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > From: "Sven Pran" > > > The result shall be adjusted as if Declarer chooses > unfortunately. > < > +=+ Hmm..... > It may be suggested this is not exactly what > the book says.. > Should he not restore the expectation had > the irregularity not occurred taking away the > advantage gained? See Law 12B1. > What was the expectation? Was it Diamond > tricks 3 = 50%, 4 = 50%? Is the advantage > not the margin between that and 100% of 4? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I prefer, and i believe this is also the preferred approach in Norway, to apply Law 16B1 in such (and similar) cases. So I rule that Declarer may not choose a fortunate alternative that could have been suggested by the extraneous information received from dummy, i.e. (in this case) the suggestion to play the ten. No weighted score. Regards sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 19 23:07:08 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:07:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> References: <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:17:15 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Grattan > .............. >> The regulation could legitimately state that unless it is >> imperative* to act immediately the Director should only intervene >> if called, but being aware of an irregularity must then deal with it >> later before expiry of the Correction Period. > > I believe this is the most important principle that every Director should > always have in mind. > > If the Director becomes aware of an irregularity at a table (for other > reasons than being summoned to the table) and the nature of the > irregularity > is such that the corresponding rectification depends on possible further > developments at the table (e.g. a revoke in progress), then a direct > intervention by the director will most certainly jeopardize rights of > one or > maybe even both sides. > > It is therefore imperative that the Director never intervenes (unless > summoned to the table) until it is too late for the affected players to > influence the consequences of their irregularity. > > This of course does not exclude the Director's right, or even duty to > intervene immediately when he for instance notices that players are > seated > incorrectly or attempts to play an incorrect board. So, a player has a penalty card but is about to lead from hand. I am at the table as director. I should not intervene? And if I revoke as playing director, am I obligated to point out the revoke after the offending side has made a call on the next deal? From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 20 00:19:01 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:19:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> Message-ID: <004701ca995d$c973acd0$5c5b0670$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > So, a player has a penalty card but is about to lead from hand. I am at the table as > director. I should not intervene? If you are at the table where a player has a penalty card it is probably because of the irregularity that resulted in the penalty card. In that case it is one of your duties to protect all players in an abnormal situation so of course you must stop the player from committing another irregularity. Whenever I have ordered a penalty card I remain at the table (if at all possible) until the penalty card situation has been resolved, and I inform the players that I shall do so (and why).. > And if I revoke as playing director, am I obligated to point out the revoke after the > offending side has made a call on the next deal? Definitely yes, why not? Law 64C applies. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 20 05:23:11 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:23:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> Message-ID: <000001ca9988$47067d10$d5137730$@com> [RF] So, a player has a penalty card but is about to lead from hand. I am at the table as director. I should not intervene? [DALB] I don't understand this. Declarer, the only player of whom I would say that he is "about to lead from hand [as opposed to from dummy]" cannot have a penalty card. If the notion is that a defender on lead with a penalty card is about to lead some other card from his hand, then if you are at the table as director and the player is about to do this, you did not discharge your duties when first called to the table very well, if at all. Still, one may imagine this scenario for the purposes of the present discussion: Player X has a major penalty card, and is on lead. It has been explained by Director A to player X that should X obtain the lead, he must lead his penalty card [Law 50D1(a)]. Director A has been called to some other table (or to resume play at his own table, if a playing Director) before player X gains the lead. Director B, who happens to be passing the table, sees player X about to lead some other card from his hand [that is, to revoke per Law 61A]. Should Director B intervene to prevent player X from doing this? No, he should not, any more than any passing Director should intervene to prevent any player from committing any other kind of irregularity. There may or may not be universal agreement on this point; from the comments I have read I am in some doubt, but if a peripatetic Director informed one of my opponents that he had a spade and ought therefore not to have discarded on the current trick, I would react adversely whether that spade was in my opponent's hand or on the floor underneath his chair. Well, Director B correctly does not intervene. But X's opponents are not experienced players, and simply assume that X was within his rights not to lead his major penalty card - perhaps they did not fully understand what Director A had said when called to the table. If X's side obtains a better result than it would have done had X led his penalty card, should Director B now intervene on his own initiative? I would say not; again, it seems to me nonsensical that the outcome of a bridge tournament might be decided simply by the random positioning of Directors with respect to the players. Since as a practical matter it is impossible for most tournaments to be comprehensively policed - one of the many factors that (regrettably) makes bridge unique among organized games - it is sensible that the responsibility for having the Law correctly applied should rest with the players and not with the police, who should refuse to act unless explicitly summoned. But the scenario I have described above has seriously shaken my faith in this position. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 20 05:40:28 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:40:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> Message-ID: <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> [KC] Yes, of course, this is what I was intending to say all along. I just can't count. Other than that - I was dead right. [DALB] Even this is not clear to me. Consider not Q10xx AKx but Q10xxx AKx South cashes the ace and king, West following twice and East showing out on the second round but cleverly discarding from the suit of the same colour as the critical suit. Declarer leads low. West follows low. Declarer starts to think. What would you do if, while declarer was thinking, dummy played the ten? David Burn London, England From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Jan 20 08:17:45 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:17:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?your_opinion=28s=29_please?= In-Reply-To: <003e01ca994f$654e3210$2fea9630$@no> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1><000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <22BF2C7705E040CF95EAB2A1E5D29438@Mildred> <003e01ca994f$654e3210$2fea9630$@no> Message-ID: <1NXUoz-2EqK2q0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Grattan > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > > The result shall be adjusted as if Declarer chooses > > unfortunately. > > < > > +=+ Hmm..... > > It may be suggested this is not exactly what > > the book says.. > > Should he not restore the expectation had > > the irregularity not occurred taking away the > > advantage gained? ? ?See Law 12B1. > > What was the expectation? Was it Diamond > > tricks 3 = 50%, ?4 = 50%? Is the advantage > > not the margin between that and 100% of 4? > > ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > > > I prefer, and i believe this is also the preferred approach in Norway, > to apply Law 16B1 in such (and similar) cases. > > So I rule that Declarer may not choose a fortunate alternative that > could have been suggested by the extraneous information received from > dummy, i.e. > (in this case) the suggestion to play the ten. > > No weighted score. Where is your legal basis for this approach? Law 45 F: "After dummy?s hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested." It says "Play continues". There is no hint of UI in here. Although Law 16 is "always applicable" a reference here would have been more than appropriate, if the lawmakers would have thought so. The law moreover says (paraphrased): Let's play Bridge; let's look, whether declarer takes the line dummy suggested; and - finally - let's look, whether the suggested line - if taken - damaged the defenders. Nothing about UI or similar. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 08:33:15 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:33:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> Message-ID: 2010/1/20 David Burn : > [KC] > > Yes, of course, this is what I was intending to say all along. I just can't > count. Other than that - I was dead right. > > [DALB] > > Even this is not clear to me. Consider not > > Q10xx > > AKx > > but > > Q10xxx > > AKx > > South cashes the ace and king, West following twice and East showing out on > the second round but cleverly discarding from the suit of the same colour as > the critical suit. Declarer leads low. West follows low. Declarer starts to > think. What would you do if, while declarer was thinking, dummy played the > ten? > Well, the play is obvious, once you start to think. You should play the ten, which will always win the trick. From declarer's perspective, the jack is still in LHO's hand or it has already been played; unless someone already revoked. It might not be as obvious to this declarer, but as (s)he is already thinking, it's likely that (s)he would eventually work this out. I'd have to know the player in question to be certain to make the correct ruling here, though. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 20 10:49:45 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:49:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <000001ca9988$47067d10$d5137730$@com> References: <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> <000001ca9988$47067d10$d5137730$@com> Message-ID: <4B56D1B9.8010205@yahoo.co.uk> [David Burn] Well, Director B correctly does not intervene. But X's opponents are not experienced players, and simply assume that X was within his rights not to lead his major penalty card - perhaps they did not fully understand what Director A had said when called to the table. If X's side obtains a better result than it would have done had X led his penalty card, should Director B now intervene on his own initiative? I would say not; again, it seems to me nonsensical that the outcome of a bridge tournament might be decided simply by the random positioning of Directors with respect to the players. Since as a practical matter it is impossible for most tournaments to be comprehensively policed - one of the many factors that (regrettably) makes bridge unique among organized games - it is sensible that the responsibility for having the Law correctly applied should rest with the players and not with the police, who should refuse to act unless explicitly summoned. But the scenario I have described above has seriously shaken my faith in this position. [Nigel] I'm unclear whether David is describing what the law is or what it ought to be. The current law says the director should rectify an irregularity, however he is made aware of it; and the only real controversy is whether he can delay his intervention until what he deems to be an appropriate moment (FWIW I think not, because that would add an *avoidable* "random" factor. The director would often be in a position to decide the severity of his ruling, just by his timing). Anyway, a problem with what David suggests, under current law, is that the victims of an infraction are lulled into a false sense of security. Knowing the law and knowing that a director is witnessing events, they won't imagine that the director would collude in inflicting illegal damage on them. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 20 11:07:44 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:07:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1><000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no><000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> Message-ID: <0172A35B69FD46E09BA02800A979CEDF@Mildred> Grattan Endicott >> >> Q10xxx >> >> AKx >> >> South cashes the ace and king, West following twice and East showing out >> on >> the second round but cleverly discarding from the suit of the same colour >> as >> the critical suit. Declarer leads low. West follows low. Declarer starts >> to >> think. What would you do if, while declarer was thinking, dummy played >> the >> ten? >> > Well, the play is obvious, once you start to think. You should play > the ten, which will always win the trick. From declarer's perspective, > the jack is still in LHO's hand or it has already been played; unless > someone already revoked. > > It might not be as obvious to this declarer, but as (s)he is already > thinking, it's likely that (s)he would eventually work this out. > > I'd have to know the player in question to be certain to make the > correct ruling here, though. > +=+ The question is not whether the play is obvious. The question is whether (Law 45F) Dummy has touched or indicated a card. When the answer is 'yes' Law 45F applies. If declarer has been unobservant it is not for Dummy to help him out, whether Dummy has tumbled to the situation or not. Incidentally it is the specific Law 45F that applies here, not the more general Law 16B1, as has already been pointed out. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 20 11:31:31 2010 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:31:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How difficult can a player make the life of a TD? Message-ID: <006e01ca99bb$bc16b7e0$344427a0$@nl> The game: board 4 W/all KJ10 102 AQ84 A987 Q87652 - 96 AJ754 J6 109732 543 KJ10 A943 KQ83 K5 Q62 west north east south pass 1 C 1 H dbl pass ..1 S pass 4 S dbl pass pass pass No comments on the bidding - south clearly ignored the BID of north before responding 1S to the double. The play: Ace of hearts and a small heart, taken by the King. Small spade to the 10, diamond to the king, small spade to the jack and the king of spades. Ace of diamonds, upon which east discards the 10 of clubs. Before the revoke is established east apologizes and replaces the 10 of clubs with a small diamond. The 10 of clubs remains on the table. No TD is called. Declarer continues with Queen of diamonds, discarding a club in dummy and ruffed by West. West immediately returns a small club, the 9 in North and east waits for some moments before playing the king of clubs. When declarer asks east why she does not play the ten, east replies that declarer should have instructed her to play the 10 and in the absence of such an instruction she now has won the trick. Declarer, not really knowing what to think about all of this, calls a small club from dummy, but the dummy, who had been grumbling for some time already now calls for the TD. What should the TD do now, besides giving a strong lecture to all players not to invent their own ruling but to call the TD as soon as an irregularity happens instead of applying EW's misinterpretation of how a major penalty card must be treated and considering a technical penalty for both pairs? The normal result of the board is 4 S x -1. It doesn't really matter whether east plays the 10 or the king as the defense will always make a club, a heart and two trumps. But. suppose that the TD does not allow the play of the club King, that card is now a second penalty card. Declarer wins the trick in dummy with the club Queen and can play the ace of spades to which east must contribute the King of clubs. Declarer then will make four spades, three clubs, one heart and two diamonds: 4 S doubled just made. Does BLML agree that the TD should award an adjusted score based on a number of times 4 S x made (100%) and a smaller number of times 4 S x -1 (3%)? The favorite contract was by the way 3 NT +1. Only one other pair arrived in 4S (minus two undoubled). Rob Bosman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100120/c0be4665/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 20 12:44:42 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:44:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <000001ca9988$47067d10$d5137730$@com> References: <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> <000001ca9988$47067d10$d5137730$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:23:11 -0500, David Burn wrote: > [RF] > > So, a player has a penalty card but is about to lead from hand. I am at > the > table as director. I should not intervene? > > [DALB] > > I don't understand this. Declarer, the only player of whom I would say > that > he is "about to lead from hand [as opposed to from dummy]" cannot have a > penalty card. > > If the notion is that a defender on lead with a penalty card is about to > lead some other card from his hand, then if you are at the table as > director > and the player is about to do this, you did not discharge your duties > when > first called to the table very well, if at all. > > Still, one may imagine this scenario for the purposes of the present > discussion: > > Player X has a major penalty card, and is on lead. It has been explained > by > Director A to player X that should X obtain the lead, he must lead his > penalty card [Law 50D1(a)]. Director A has been called to some other > table > (or to resume play at his own table, if a playing Director) before > player X > gains the lead. > > Director B, who happens to be passing the table, sees player X about to > lead > some other card from his hand [that is, to revoke per Law 61A]. > > Should Director B intervene to prevent player X from doing this? > > No, he should not, any more than any passing Director should intervene to > prevent any player from committing any other kind of irregularity. There > may > or may not be universal agreement on this point; from the comments I have > read I am in some doubt, but if a peripatetic Director informed one of my > opponents that he had a spade and ought therefore not to have discarded > on > the current trick, I would react adversely whether that spade was in my > opponent's hand or on the floor underneath his chair. > > Well, Director B correctly does not intervene. But X's opponents are not > experienced players, and simply assume that X was within his rights not > to > lead his major penalty card - perhaps they did not fully understand what > Director A had said when called to the table. If X's side obtains a > better > result than it would have done had X led his penalty card, should > Director B > now intervene on his own initiative? > > I would say not; again, it seems to me nonsensical that the outcome of a > bridge tournament might be decided simply by the random positioning of > Directors with respect to the players. Since as a practical matter it is > impossible for most tournaments to be comprehensively policed - one of > the > many factors that (regrettably) makes bridge unique among organized > games - > it is sensible that the responsibility for having the Law correctly > applied > should rest with the players and not with the police, who should refuse > to > act unless explicitly summoned. But the scenario I have described above > has > seriously shaken my faith in this position. This seems like a logical position, but I don't know if it is tenable. If I accidentally overhear experts misexplaining the law to beginners, I am going to intervene. Because it's completely wrong, and because it's my job to make things right. And frankly I don't care what the rules are concerning this, but I will cite my L81C3 right to intervene. And even if you make me ignore that, you do not avoid the random-director-actions effect. I was wandering around for some reason and just happened to notice that a pair had gone to the wrong table. They were about to play the board, presumably leading to an A+ for their opponents. Everyone seems to agree that I was right to intervene. I do agree that, contrary to Sven's opinion, is it not fair to me or my partner if as playing director I have to correct for revokes I make that the opponents do not notice. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 20 13:15:31 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:15:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <000001ca9988$47067d10$d5137730$@com> References: <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> <000001ca9988$47067d10$d5137730$@com> Message-ID: I think that to solve the problem of when a director should intervene or not, we need to realize the director is sometimes wearing his director's hat, sometimes wearing a kibitzer hat, and sometimes wearing his player hat. But there is something else. If I accidentally revoke and the opponents do not notice, I am not required to point out my error. If I accidentally miscore a board and the opponents do not notice, I am required to point out my error. I think this difference gets carried into whether wandering directors (or kibitzers or players at other tables) are allowed to intervene. I think most people will say it is not right for a director to point out a revoke the opponents have not noticed. It is right to point out and correct a scoring error. Unfortunately, the laws do not categorize most irregularity. But I think most irregularities are easily categorized. If I make an insufficient bid and the opponents do not notice, I think I am not required to point it out to them. There is, unfortunately, another important category not even mentioned in the laws. It is considered part of the skill of the game not to revoke. So it would be extremely inappropriate for a director to prevent a revoke. It is (usually) not considered part of the skill of the game to remember to play a penalty card. So it becomes appropriate for a director (or anyone else) to remind the player of their penalty card and prevent the "revoke" of not playing it when it can be legally played. And it is certainly not considered part of the skill of the game to get to the right table, so anyone is encouraged to stop a pair from going to the wrong table. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 20 13:43:28 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:43:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> Message-ID: <4B56FA70.3040200@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2010/1/20 David Burn : >> [KC] >> >> Yes, of course, this is what I was intending to say all along. I just can't >> count. Other than that - I was dead right. >> >> [DALB] >> >> Even this is not clear to me. Consider not >> >> Q10xx >> >> AKx >> >> but >> >> Q10xxx >> >> AKx >> >> South cashes the ace and king, West following twice and East showing out on >> the second round but cleverly discarding from the suit of the same colour as >> the critical suit. Declarer leads low. West follows low. Declarer starts to >> think. What would you do if, while declarer was thinking, dummy played the >> ten? >> > Well, the play is obvious, once you start to think. You should play > the ten, which will always win the trick. From declarer's perspective, > the jack is still in LHO's hand or it has already been played; unless > someone already revoked. > > It might not be as obvious to this declarer, but as (s)he is already > thinking, it's likely that (s)he would eventually work this out. > I don't think so. Declarer has thought longer than needed to realize that she should finesse, so it seems clear to me that declarer failed to notice that fourth hand had shown out. Since declarer is still thinking, the Q is still a likely card that can be played. > I'd have to know the player in question to be certain to make the > correct ruling here, though. > Of course, but I believe the story makes that obvious, I think. >> David Burn >> London, England >> Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 20 13:52:27 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:52:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How difficult can a player make the life of a TD? In-Reply-To: <006e01ca99bb$bc16b7e0$344427a0$@nl> References: <006e01ca99bb$bc16b7e0$344427a0$@nl> Message-ID: <4B56FC8B.307@skynet.be> Rob Bosman wrote: [cards and story (with some obvious small mistakes) snipped] > Ace of diamonds, upon which east discards the 10 of clubs. Before the > revoke is established east apologizes and replaces the 10 of clubs with > a small diamond. The 10 of clubs remains on the table. No TD is called. > Declarer continues with Queen of diamonds, discarding a club in dummy > and ruffed by West. West immediately returns a small club, the 9 in > North and east waits for some moments before playing the king of clubs. > When declarer asks east why she does not play the ten, east replies that > declarer should have instructed her to play the 10 and in the absence of > such an instruction she now has won the trick. Declarer, not really > knowing what to think about all of this, calls a small club from dummy, > but the dummy, who had been grumbling for some time already now calls > for the TD. > > > > What should the TD do now, besides giving a strong lecture to all > players not to invent their own ruling but to call the TD as soon as an > irregularity happens instead of applying EW?s misinterpretation of how a > major penalty card must be treated and considering a technical penalty > for both pairs? > > > > The normal result of the board is 4 S x -1. It doesn?t really matter > whether east plays the 10 or the king as the defense will always make a > club, a heart and two trumps. But? suppose that the TD does not allow > the play of the club King, that card is now a second penalty card. > Declarer wins the trick in dummy with the club Queen and can play the > ace of spades to which east must contribute the King of clubs. Declarer > then will make four spades, three clubs, one heart and two diamonds: 4 > S doubled just made. Does BLML agree that the TD should award an > adjusted score based on a number of times 4 S x made (100%) and a > smaller number of times 4 S x -1 (3%)? > This depends a bit on the level of play here. If the players are reasonably versed in the laws, they know that a penalty card must be played. They might not know of lead penalties - so I would not impose that knowledge to them - but they do know that a penalty card must be played. Hence, both West and North expect East to play the ten to the club trick and expect the trick to be made by dummy's queen. They should get what they expect, which is that trick for the CQ. As to the CK becoming a new penalty card, if I consider East to be even slightly knowledgeable (and the fact that he left the C10 faced up seems to indicate this), then I rule that indeed the CK becomes a new penalty card. This will teach him to call the director. After all, it was East who made the original error as well, wasn't it? Herman. > > > The favorite contract was by the way 3 NT +1. Only one other pair > arrived in 4S (minus two undoubled). > > > > Rob Bosman > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 20 13:56:54 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:56:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> <000001ca9988$47067d10$d5137730$@com> Message-ID: <4B56FD96.10601@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > > > There is, unfortunately, another important category not even mentioned in > the laws. It is considered part of the skill of the game not to revoke. So > it would be extremely inappropriate for a director to prevent a revoke. It > is (usually) not considered part of the skill of the game to remember to > play a penalty card. So it becomes appropriate for a director (or anyone > else) to remind the player of their penalty card and prevent the "revoke" > of not playing it when it can be legally played. And it is certainly not > considered part of the skill of the game to get to the right table, so > anyone is encouraged to stop a pair from going to the wrong table. > Probably the best explanation and advice I've seen on this subject. Thanks. Now .. is it part of the skill of the game to be able to explain partner's bids ? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 14:01:44 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:01:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <0172A35B69FD46E09BA02800A979CEDF@Mildred> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> <0172A35B69FD46E09BA02800A979CEDF@Mildred> Message-ID: 2010/1/20 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?[William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harald Skj?ran" >>> >>> Q10xxx >>> >>> AKx >>> >>> South cashes the ace and king, West following twice and East showing out >>> on >>> the second round but cleverly discarding from the suit of the same colour >>> as >>> the critical suit. Declarer leads low. West follows low. Declarer starts >>> to >>> think. What would you do if, while declarer was thinking, dummy played >>> the >>> ten? >>> >> Well, the play is obvious, once you start to think. You should play >> the ten, which will always win the trick. From declarer's perspective, >> the jack is still in LHO's hand or it has already been played; unless >> someone already revoked. >> >> It might not be as obvious to this declarer, but as (s)he is already >> thinking, it's likely that (s)he would eventually work this out. >> >> I'd have to know the player in question to be certain to make the >> correct ruling here, though. >> > +=+ The question is not whether the play is obvious. ?The question > is whether (Law 45F) Dummy has touched or indicated a card. > ? ? ? When the answer is 'yes' Law 45F applies. If declarer has > been unobservant it is not for Dummy to help him out, whether > Dummy has tumbled to the situation or not. > ? ? ? Incidentally it is the specific Law 45F that applies here, not > the more general Law 16B1, as has already been pointed out. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ Well, yes. I'm applying L45F. However, that law say: "At the end of play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested." So the TD had to consider whether the defenders were damaged or not. If the TD considers that declarer would always play the card dummy suggested, there's no damage. I've read Peter Eidt's post above, of course. And what he says isn't what the law actually says. It might be the lawmakers intent, though. The matter wasn't touched at the two EBL TD seminars I've attended. Peter has AFAIK attended other seminars than I have, where this matter might have been touched, and be in a better position to know the lawmakers intent than me. If he's correct about intent, the law needs rewording. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 20 14:00:16 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:00:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How difficult can a player make the life of a TD? In-Reply-To: <4B56FC8B.307@skynet.be> References: <006e01ca99bb$bc16b7e0$344427a0$@nl> <4B56FC8B.307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B56FE60.7090505@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > This depends a bit on the level of play here. If the players are > reasonably versed in the laws, they know that a penalty card must be > played. They might not know of lead penalties - so I would not impose > that knowledge to them - but they do know that a penalty card must be > played. > Hence, both West and North expect East to play the ten to the club trick > and expect the trick to be made by dummy's queen. They should get what > they expect, which is that trick for the CQ. As to the CK becoming a new > penalty card, if I consider East to be even slightly knowledgeable (and > the fact that he left the C10 faced up seems to indicate this), then I > rule that indeed the CK becomes a new penalty card. This will teach him > to call the director. > AG : it is, of course, as is any illegally played card. But I would have awarded separate scores, the worst of it to both sides, as both sides are OSs (L9). Best regards Alain From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Jan 20 14:00:58 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:00:58 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) References: <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de><4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de><4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com><4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk><00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk><4B541047.2000701@t-online.de><000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no><000001ca9988$47067d10$d5137730$@com> Message-ID: <000b01ca99d0$b1ee9250$2401a8c0@p41600> Whilst directing at a local club, I sometimes like to watch a match in progress. I always ask permission first and tell them "I am not here, if you want me, call me". Seems to work well. ********************** Give me maturity, chastity and continence.but not just yet !! ********************** > I think that to solve the problem of when a director should intervene or > not, we need to realize the director is sometimes wearing his director's > hat, sometimes wearing a kibitzer hat, and sometimes wearing his player > hat. > > But there is something else. If I accidentally revoke and the opponents do > not notice, I am not required to point out my error. If I accidentally > miscore a board and the opponents do not notice, I am required to point > out my error. I think this difference gets carried into whether wandering > directors (or kibitzers or players at other tables) are allowed to > intervene. I think most people will say it is not right for a director to > point out a revoke the opponents have not noticed. It is right to point > out and correct a scoring error. > > Unfortunately, the laws do not categorize most irregularity. But I think > most irregularities are easily categorized. If I make an insufficient bid > and the opponents do not notice, I think I am not required to point it out > to them. > > > > There is, unfortunately, another important category not even mentioned in > the laws. It is considered part of the skill of the game not to revoke. So > it would be extremely inappropriate for a director to prevent a revoke. It > is (usually) not considered part of the skill of the game to remember to > play a penalty card. So it becomes appropriate for a director (or anyone > else) to remind the player of their penalty card and prevent the "revoke" > of not playing it when it can be legally played. And it is certainly not > considered part of the skill of the game to get to the right table, so > anyone is encouraged to stop a pair from going to the wrong table. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 14:07:49 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:07:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <4B56FA70.3040200@skynet.be> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> <4B56FA70.3040200@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2010/1/20 Herman De Wael : > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> 2010/1/20 David Burn : >>> [KC] >>> >>> Yes, of course, this is what I was intending to say all along. I just can't >>> count. Other than that - I was dead right. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> Even this is not clear to me. Consider not >>> >>> Q10xx >>> >>> AKx >>> >>> but >>> >>> Q10xxx >>> >>> AKx >>> >>> South cashes the ace and king, West following twice and East showing out on >>> the second round but cleverly discarding from the suit of the same colour as >>> the critical suit. Declarer leads low. West follows low. Declarer starts to >>> think. What would you do if, while declarer was thinking, dummy played the >>> ten? >>> >> Well, the play is obvious, once you start to think. You should play >> the ten, which will always win the trick. From declarer's perspective, >> the jack is still in LHO's hand or it has already been played; unless >> someone already revoked. >> >> It might not be as obvious to this declarer, but as (s)he is already >> thinking, it's likely that (s)he would eventually work this out. >> > > I don't think so. Declarer has thought longer than needed to realize > that she should finesse, so it seems clear to me that declarer failed to > notice that fourth hand had shown out. Since declarer is still thinking, > the Q is still a likely card that can be played. You need to think in a different way than normal here, Herman. It doesn't work to try and remember if RHO followed suit or showed out on the round before, if you didn't notice. You have to apply pure logic here, not "bridge logic", odds, etc. Try to give Davids problem to some players around you, with west following twice, east following the first time, but you didn't notice easts card on the second round. And thus have no clue what he played at all. Some is unable to understand the problem, or, rather, that there exist a logical solution. Problem solvers will see the solution pretty quick, many will have to think for a while.... > >> I'd have to know the player in question to be certain to make the >> correct ruling here, though. >> > > Of course, but I believe the story makes that obvious, I think. > >>> David Burn >>> London, England >>> > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 20 14:31:44 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:31:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> <0172A35B69FD46E09BA02800A979CEDF@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B5705C0.50405@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2010/1/20 Grattan : > >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, >> Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? >> Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme >> Beats with light wing against the ivory gate >> Telling a tale not too importunate." >> [William Morris] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Harald Skj?ran" >> >>>> Q10xxx >>>> >>>> AKx >>>> >>>> South cashes the ace and king, West following twice and East showing out >>>> on >>>> the second round but cleverly discarding from the suit of the same colour >>>> as >>>> the critical suit. Declarer leads low. West follows low. Declarer starts >>>> to >>>> think. What would you do if, while declarer was thinking, dummy played >>>> the >>>> ten? >>>> >>>> >>> Well, the play is obvious, once you start to think. You should play >>> the ten, which will always win the trick. From declarer's perspective, >>> the jack is still in LHO's hand or it has already been played; unless >>> someone already revoked. >>> >>> It might not be as obvious to this declarer, but as (s)he is already >>> thinking, it's likely that (s)he would eventually work this out. >>> >>> I'd have to know the player in question to be certain to make the >>> correct ruling here, though. >>> >>> >> +=+ The question is not whether the play is obvious. The question >> is whether (Law 45F) Dummy has touched or indicated a card. >> When the answer is 'yes' Law 45F applies. If declarer has >> been unobservant it is not for Dummy to help him out, whether >> Dummy has tumbled to the situation or not. >> Incidentally it is the specific Law 45F that applies here, not >> the more general Law 16B1, as has already been pointed out. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Well, yes. I'm applying L45F. > However, that law say: "At the end of play the Director shall award an > adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and > the defenders were damaged by the play suggested." > > So the TD had to consider whether the defenders were damaged or not. > If the TD considers that declarer would always play the card dummy > suggested, there's no damage. > AG : the fact that declarers pauses to think is a strong indication that he didn't see RHO discard, else what would he be thinking of ?. That's enough for me. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 20 14:49:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:49:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> Message-ID: On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Following situation: pairs, declarer and dummy are weak players > (albeit > with about 80-100 years of bridge playing experience). You are called > to the table after declarer plays the AK of diamonds (no trump > contract) > from her hand and all follow. There have been no indications of > defender's distribution. She now has a small diamond in her hand and > Q10 on the table. She plays her diamond and LHO follows small (no > hesitation). Before she can choose which card to play from the table > the dummy puts the 10 in the played position. She then decides to > play > the 10. Dummy says he has not looked at the hands of the opponents > (obviously self-serving) and the opponents did not notice him doing > so. > Naturally the Jx are onside, the diamonds are not divided 3-3. > Your ruling? > I am not asking about a (possible) procedural penalty for the dummy. > What do you determine to be the result of the bd.? With the diamond > finesse declarer made 7 tricks (contract 1NT); when she plays the Q > she > is -2. Fulfilling the (inferior) contract (7 tricks) would result > in a > score of 65% for the defenders; if she guesses wrong it would be > almost > 100% for the defenders. > What do you think? (Defenders called the TD immediately when the > dummy > took the card and "played" it.) Did "dummy suggest[] a play to declarer"? Yes. Were "the defenders... damaged by the play suggested"? Yes. "The director shall award an adjusted score". L45F. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 20 15:12:52 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:12:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk> <4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> Message-ID: <336234D8-A155-4A0E-A2F3-DC37144FA5A3@starpower.net> On Jan 19, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:17:15 -0500, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Grattan >> >>> The regulation could legitimately state that unless it is >>> imperative* to act immediately the Director should only intervene >>> if called, but being aware of an irregularity must then deal with it >>> later before expiry of the Correction Period. >> >> I believe this is the most important principle that every Director >> should >> always have in mind. >> >> If the Director becomes aware of an irregularity at a table (for >> other >> reasons than being summoned to the table) and the nature of the >> irregularity >> is such that the corresponding rectification depends on possible >> further >> developments at the table (e.g. a revoke in progress), then a direct >> intervention by the director will most certainly jeopardize rights of >> one or >> maybe even both sides. >> >> It is therefore imperative that the Director never intervenes (unless >> summoned to the table) until it is too late for the affected >> players to >> influence the consequences of their irregularity. >> >> This of course does not exclude the Director's right, or even duty to >> intervene immediately when he for instance notices that players are >> seated >> incorrectly or attempts to play an incorrect board. > > So, a player has a penalty card but is about to lead from hand. I > am at > the table as director. I should not intervene? But you already have, or the player wouldn't have a penalty card. Once you have intervened to rectify an irregularity, you are obliged to see the rectification through. You cannot "un-intervene" when you have already taken control. > And if I revoke as playing director, am I obligated to point out the > revoke after the offending side has made a call on the next deal? TFLB does not define or use the term "playing director", so the real question here is whether a "playing director" is something inherently different from either a player or a director, or merely a person with two "alternating hats" who acts as one or the other situationally. Parsimony of interpretation suggests the latter (if "playing director" was meant to be a special status, TFLB would presumably say something about it). That suggests that you have the same L9A4 right to keep mum that any other player would. But, having been many times a playing director in real life, I wouldn't exercise it. I may not be required by law to call my TD- self on my player-self, but IMHO I have an obligation to my customers. Moreover, moral issue aside, someone is likely to notice eventually, and it would be terrible PR. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 20 15:34:09 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:34:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> <4B56FA70.3040200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B571461.7020809@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >> I don't think so. Declarer has thought longer than needed to realize >> that she should finesse, so it seems clear to me that declarer failed to >> notice that fourth hand had shown out. Since declarer is still thinking, >> the Q is still a likely card that can be played. > > You need to think in a different way than normal here, Herman. > It doesn't work to try and remember if RHO followed suit or showed out > on the round before, if you didn't notice. > You have to apply pure logic here, not "bridge logic", odds, etc. > Try to give Davids problem to some players around you, with west > following twice, east following the first time, but you didn't notice > easts card on the second round. And thus have no clue what he played > at all. > > Some is unable to understand the problem, or, rather, that there exist > a logical solution. > Problem solvers will see the solution pretty quick, many will have to > think for a while.... > OK, I did not see it that way, true. But I would need strong convincing to accept from this declarer: a) that she reallized that she hadn't noticed whether RHO had followed or not; and b) that she was trying to figure out how to solve it; and c) that she would solve it before accepting that this was indeed the case. The way I read David's case, this is one of a player not noticing the discard AND thinking there had been a suit followed AND trying to decide whether to play for the finesse or the drop. I'm sure you'll agree that in that case the dummy should not help. OK? Herman. >>> I'd have to know the player in question to be certain to make the >>> correct ruling here, though. >>> >> Of course, but I believe the story makes that obvious, I think. >> >>>> David Burn >>>> London, England >>>> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 20 15:33:37 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:33:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> Message-ID: <93641268-B1A0-42B1-842B-023374A02AB3@starpower.net> On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:40 PM, David Burn wrote: > [KC] > > Yes, of course, this is what I was intending to say all along. I > just can't > count. Other than that - I was dead right. > > [DALB] > > Even this is not clear to me. Consider not > > Q10xx > > AKx > > but > > Q10xxx > > AKx > > South cashes the ace and king, West following twice and East > showing out on > the second round but cleverly discarding from the suit of the same > colour as > the critical suit. Declarer leads low. West follows low. Declarer > starts to > think. What would you do if, while declarer was thinking, dummy > played the > ten? I would let the score stand and give the dummy a procedural penalty (which would depend on the degree of expectation for the player in question to "know better"). Yes, I know, it is logically inconsistent ot me to award a PP only in the absense of an adverse score adjustment ("punishment for irregularities" are supposed to be entirely separate from "redress for damage"), but that's the way it's done in the provinces. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 20 15:39:37 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:39:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How difficult can a player make the life of a TD? In-Reply-To: <4B56FE60.7090505@ulb.ac.be> References: <006e01ca99bb$bc16b7e0$344427a0$@nl> <4B56FC8B.307@skynet.be> <4B56FE60.7090505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B5715A9.4090308@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > But I would have awarded separate scores, the worst of it to both sides, > as both sides are OSs (L9). > > Best regards > I do not agree. When a player leaves open his "penalty" card, I accept that declarer does not call the director and still expects the opponent to play the card at the earliest opportunity. I would not call this declarer an OS. But you're right in theory, of course. Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 20 15:44:27 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:44:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <0172A35B69FD46E09BA02800A979CEDF@Mildred> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com><52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1><000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no><000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> <0172A35B69FD46E09BA02800A979CEDF@Mildred> Message-ID: <7A8C0F17-EC96-41CE-8302-C816EA20DCE1@starpower.net> On Jan 20, 2010, at 5:07 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > >>> Q10xxx >>> >>> AKx >>> >>> South cashes the ace and king, West following twice and East >>> showing out >>> on >>> the second round but cleverly discarding from the suit of the >>> same colour >>> as >>> the critical suit. Declarer leads low. West follows low. Declarer >>> starts >>> to >>> think. What would you do if, while declarer was thinking, dummy >>> played >>> the >>> ten? >> >> Well, the play is obvious, once you start to think. You should play >> the ten, which will always win the trick. From declarer's >> perspective, >> the jack is still in LHO's hand or it has already been played; unless >> someone already revoked. >> >> It might not be as obvious to this declarer, but as (s)he is already >> thinking, it's likely that (s)he would eventually work this out. >> >> I'd have to know the player in question to be certain to make the >> correct ruling here, though. > > +=+ The question is not whether the play is obvious. The question > is whether (Law 45F) Dummy has touched or indicated a card. That is only one of two questions. The other is whether "defenders were damaged by the play suggested". An adjustment must meet the criteria of L12C, and seems quite reasonable to determine that declarer's failure to take the marked finesse, notwithstanding that he had to think about it for a bit, was not "at all probable": no damage, no adjustment. > When the answer is 'yes' Law 45F applies. If declarer has > been unobservant it is not for Dummy to help him out, whether > Dummy has tumbled to the situation or not. > Incidentally it is the specific Law 45F that applies here, not > the more general Law 16B1, as has already been pointed out. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 20 18:18:52 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:18:52 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) In-Reply-To: <004701ca995d$c973acd0$5c5b0670$@no> References: <4B4F5919.6050204@yahoo.co.uk> <303D27674ADB4AA2A1132D0DCA1C8E54@Mildred> <4B502A5F.1050906@t-online.de> <4B50FFAB.9060005@yahoo.co.uk><4B51694C.1020406@t-online.de> <4B51DAD5.2080602@yahoo.co.uk><4B51DB81.1010603@aol.com> <4B521279.5090604@yahoo.co.uk> <00414403BED5489B82016440934E3C9F@Mildred> <4B53A031.90101@yahoo.co.uk> <4B541047.2000701@t-online.de> <000001ca983f$fa29de90$ee7d9bb0$@com> <000001ca991a$7cd47be0$767d73a0$@no> <004701ca995d$c973acd0$5c5b0670$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 17:19 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn) > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> And if I revoke as playing director, am I obligated to point out the >> revoke after the offending side has made a call on the next deal? > > Definitely yes, why not? Law 64C applies. One of the bogus beliefs emanating from deferred remedy of revokes is that a fair adjusted score can be determined. The reason the belief is bogus is that once the cards have been mixed immense doubt exists as to what has transpired. And while it is possible for a person or persons [including an 'observant' spectator such as a TD] can be accurate [and even to the point of convincing others] that one or more revokes had occurred, the facts needed for adjusting the score are as good as lost to the undependable recollections of biased players. regards roger pewick From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 19:46:37 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:46:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinion(s) please In-Reply-To: <4B571461.7020809@skynet.be> References: <4B55D37A.1040504@aol.com> <52E01C7F960D4E619BA49D3638FE7CDA@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca9921$fe95ef90$fbc1ceb0$@no> <000101ca998a$b0e16ae0$12a440a0$@com> <4B56FA70.3040200@skynet.be> <4B571461.7020809@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2010/1/20 Herman De Wael : > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>>> >>> I don't think so. Declarer has thought longer than needed to realize >>> that she should finesse, so it seems clear to me that declarer failed to >>> notice that fourth hand had shown out. Since declarer is still thinking, >>> the Q is still a likely card that can be played. >> >> You need to think in a different way than normal here, Herman. >> It doesn't work to try and remember if RHO followed suit or showed out >> on the round before, if you didn't notice. >> You have to apply pure logic here, not "bridge logic", odds, etc. >> Try to give Davids problem to some players around you, with west >> following twice, east following the first time, but you didn't notice >> easts card on the second round. And thus have no clue what he played >> at all. >> >> Some is unable to understand the problem, or, rather, that there exist >> a logical solution. >> Problem solvers will see the solution pretty quick, many will have to >> think for a while.... >> > > OK, I did not see it that way, true. > But I would need strong convincing to accept from this declarer: > a) that she reallized that she hadn't noticed whether RHO had followed > or not; and > b) that she was trying to figure out how to solve it; and > c) that she would solve it > > before accepting that this was indeed the case. > > The way I read David's case, this is one of a player not noticing the > discard AND thinking there had been a suit followed AND trying to decide > whether to play for the finesse or the drop. > I'm sure you'll agree that in that case the dummy should not help. > OK? Actually, I believe the dummy should NEVER help. :-)) But WHEN he does, the director has to do his job and find out what would have happened if.... Btw, I totally agree with your reasoning above. :) > > Herman. > >>>> I'd have to know the player in question to be certain to make the >>>> correct ruling here, though. >>>> >>> Of course, but I believe the story makes that obvious, I think. >>> >>>>> David Burn >>>>> London, England >>>>> >>> Herman. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 21 22:16:09 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:16:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) Message-ID: N E S W 1D 1NT 2S(1) P P P (1) Explained as 10 points when East asked before the final pass. East claims he was planning on doubling until he heard the explanation. Standard American is that 2S is to play and probably weak, not strong enough to double 1NT. down 1. South actually had QJ10xxx xxxx x Qx I ruled that 2S down one vulnerable should be changed to 2S doubled down one vulnerable. It was protested and sent to committee. The reason for the appeal: "I never heard of the auction being changed from 2S to 2S doubled just because of a bidding misexplanation." The committee chair ruled that 2S should be returned to undoubled because "10 points" was an accurate description of the South hand. Not even North and South had the gall to make that claim. If you don't want to take East on his word that he was going to double, he had Kxx QJx KJxx AKx East was maybe the fourth best player in the room. I asked the best player if he would double with that hand and he said he would not consider it. Then he added that East might. Asking another very good player who plays with East a lot, and he said that he would not double with that hand but agreed that East probably would. So I presented to the committee that almost no one would double with that hand but East likely would. A reason for the committee removing the double: "He doesn't have a double." And another reason for removing the double "2 Spades should make. He was lucky to get +100". The owner also disagreed with my ruling. "He should know that 2Sp is to play and he was asking just to get a wrong explanation so then we would be legally protected. We cannot reward him for asking what 2Sp means." So remind what a committee does that couldn't be done more quickly and easily and accurately with a coin flip? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jan 21 23:38:01 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:38:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B58D749.9080700@aol.com> Did the committee explain how they reasoned that 10 points was an accurate description of the hand? I'd mistrust this committee in the future. JE Robert Frick schrieb: > N E S W > 1D 1NT 2S(1) P > P P > > (1) Explained as 10 points when East asked before the final pass. East > claims he was planning on doubling until he heard the explanation. > Standard American is that 2S is to play and probably weak, not strong > enough to double 1NT. > > down 1. South actually had > QJ10xxx > xxxx > x > Qx > > I ruled that 2S down one vulnerable should be changed to 2S doubled down > one vulnerable. > > It was protested and sent to committee. The reason for the appeal: "I > never heard of the auction being changed from 2S to 2S doubled just > because of a bidding misexplanation." > > > The committee chair ruled that 2S should be returned to undoubled because > "10 points" was an accurate description of the South hand. Not even North > and South had the gall to make that claim. > > If you don't want to take East on his word that he was going to double, he > had > > Kxx > QJx > KJxx > AKx > > East was maybe the fourth best player in the room. I asked the best player > if he would double with that hand and he said he would not consider it. > Then he added that East might. Asking another very good player who plays > with East a lot, and he said that he would not double with that hand but > agreed that East probably would. > > So I presented to the committee that almost no one would double with that > hand but East likely would. A reason for the committee removing the > double: "He doesn't have a double." > > And another reason for removing the double "2 Spades should make. He was > lucky to get +100". > > The owner also disagreed with my ruling. "He should know that 2Sp is to > play and he was asking just to get a wrong explanation so then we would be > legally protected. We cannot reward him for asking what 2Sp means." > > So remind what a committee does that couldn't be done more quickly and > easily and accurately with a coin flip? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 22 00:31:38 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:31:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) In-Reply-To: <4B58D749.9080700@aol.com> References: <4B58D749.9080700@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:38:01 -0500, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Did the committee explain how they reasoned that 10 points was an > accurate description of the hand? I'd mistrust this committee in the > future. JE It was just one member of the committee, though it was the committee head. Everyone else on the committee thought it was idiotic. But anyway, 1 point for the 5th spade, 2 points for the sixth spade, and 1 point for the fourth heart or singleton diamond, adding up to 9 offensive points. > > Robert Frick schrieb: >> N E S W >> 1D 1NT 2S(1) P >> P P >> >> (1) Explained as 10 points when East asked before the final pass. East >> claims he was planning on doubling until he heard the explanation. >> Standard American is that 2S is to play and probably weak, not strong >> enough to double 1NT. >> >> down 1. South actually had >> QJ10xxx >> xxxx >> x >> Qx >> >> I ruled that 2S down one vulnerable should be changed to 2S doubled down >> one vulnerable. >> >> It was protested and sent to committee. The reason for the appeal: "I >> never heard of the auction being changed from 2S to 2S doubled just >> because of a bidding misexplanation." >> >> >> The committee chair ruled that 2S should be returned to undoubled >> because >> "10 points" was an accurate description of the South hand. Not even >> North >> and South had the gall to make that claim. >> >> If you don't want to take East on his word that he was going to double, >> he >> had >> >> Kxx >> QJx >> KJxx >> AKx >> >> East was maybe the fourth best player in the room. I asked the best >> player >> if he would double with that hand and he said he would not consider it. >> Then he added that East might. Asking another very good player who plays >> with East a lot, and he said that he would not double with that hand but >> agreed that East probably would. >> >> So I presented to the committee that almost no one would double with >> that >> hand but East likely would. A reason for the committee removing the >> double: "He doesn't have a double." >> >> And another reason for removing the double "2 Spades should make. He was >> lucky to get +100". >> >> The owner also disagreed with my ruling. "He should know that 2Sp is to >> play and he was asking just to get a wrong explanation so then we would >> be >> legally protected. We cannot reward him for asking what 2Sp means." >> >> So remind what a committee does that couldn't be done more quickly and >> easily and accurately with a coin flip? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 adam at tameware.com Fri Jan 22 01:22:56 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:22:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> 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! -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100122/65e1d2af/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Fri Jan 22 01:55:42 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:55:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> 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! -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jan 22 03:10:14 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:10:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ Case 17 Message-ID: <17BE37EB829F4CDAA3C34A63ECA56036@erdos> Teams, opponents vulnerable, you hold KT32 T85 Q85 T54. LHO opens 1H, and RHO bids 3S showing an unspecified splinter. Do you double for the lead? There was a real need for a poll of this action, as the correct ruling depends on how likely it is that this hand would double. I don't normally make a lead-directing double on an unsupported king, as it is too strong a request (I want partner to lead away from the DK), gives the opponents more bidding room in their slam investigation, and may help the declarer place the cards. However, I'm not a good enough player to play in the finals of the North American Swiss Teams, so you shouldn't trust my judgment. The Committee found double was a 50% action, but that looks wrong as well. From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 04:02:15 2010 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:02:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Did anyone ascertain what the actual partnership agreement was? It seems to me that unless someone is claiming that N played S for this hand, that you have to find out the agreement before you can even begin to decide is there was a mis-explanation. Am I missing something? Collins On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > N E S W > 1D 1NT 2S(1) P > P P > > (1) Explained as 10 points when East asked before the final pass. East > claims he was planning on doubling until he heard the explanation. > Standard American is that 2S is to play and probably weak, not strong > enough to double 1NT. > > down 1. South actually had > QJ10xxx > xxxx > x > Qx > > I ruled that 2S down one vulnerable should be changed to 2S doubled down > one vulnerable. > > It was protested and sent to committee. The reason for the appeal: "I > never heard of the auction being changed from 2S to 2S doubled just > because of a bidding misexplanation." > > > The committee chair ruled that 2S should be returned to undoubled because > "10 points" was an accurate description of the South hand. Not even North > and South had the gall to make that claim. > > If you don't want to take East on his word that he was going to double, he > had > > Kxx > QJx > KJxx > AKx > > East was maybe the fourth best player in the room. I asked the best player > if he would double with that hand and he said he would not consider it. > Then he added that East might. Asking another very good player who plays > with East a lot, and he said that he would not double with that hand but > agreed that East probably would. > > So I presented to the committee that almost no one would double with that > hand but East likely would. A reason for the committee removing the > double: "He doesn't have a double." > > And another reason for removing the double "2 Spades should make. He was > lucky to get +100". > > The owner also disagreed with my ruling. "He should know that 2Sp is to > play and he was asking just to get a wrong explanation so then we would be > legally protected. We cannot reward him for asking what 2Sp means." > > So remind what a committee does that couldn't be done more quickly and > easily and accurately with a coin flip? > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20100122/cc08c1aa/attachment-0001.html From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Jan 22 04:06:54 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:06:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 Message-ID: <4B59164E.6010701@virginmedia.com> NABC01. LM Open Pairs Q2. Board #1 None vul North deals North S: Q97 H: AQT D: A7 C: AKT43 ----- 2N (_P) ..P (_P) 3N AP South passed after BIT of 5-7 secs The Facts: The director was called during the hand and again after the play was completed. South said ?her bids are always slow.? The Ruling: The director determined that there was a BIT that demonstrably suggested the 3NT bid and that pass was a logical alternative. Therefore, he adjusted the result for both sides to 3S by East down one, E/W minus 50 ? Laws 16A2 and 12C1(e) The Appeal: N/S appealed the director?s ruling. North, South, and West attended the hearing. N/S said that they play automatic reopenings. Their convention card is marked ?Auto reopenings over 1x-2y-Pass-Pass.? North said he didn?t notice a hesitation and South said she didn?t take very long. West said East thought it was longer than five seconds. West said South took some time but not a long hesitation. North said he would not have reopened if he thought South hesitated. West felt East might make 3S if the defense were not perfect. Also, West thought South would not have taken five seconds with nothing. The Decision: The committee determined that a 5-7 second hesitation in a pressure auction did not transmit UI. Therefore, the committee found no irregularity and restored the table result of 3NT by North making three, N/S plus 400. The Committee: Aaron Silverstein (Chair), Michael Huston, Gene Kales, Jacob Morgan and David Stevenson. [Nigel] IMO, the director was right, the committee wrong. And the committee should have issued an AMWM. Presumably, after North's 2N, East waited for 10 seconds before passing. Hence, South's 5-7 seconds was on top of that. It doesn't take 15 seconds to pass with a balanced Yarborough, so South's hesitation promised some values. Although NS may automatically reopen after 1x (2y) _P (_P), that doesn't imply a firm agreement over (3S). A suspicion which is reinforced by North's statement that he would pass if he thought that South hestitated. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jan 22 04:24:50 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:24:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego non-NABC+ Case 8; where's the merit? Message-ID: If it is not obvious, the AC/Panel needs to explain why it found an appeal to have merit just as much as it needs to explain why it found an appeal to lack merit. Case 8 seems to be an obvious case for an appeal without merit. West declined to sacrifice against a slam, East made a slow double (BIT agreed by all players), and then West sacrificed. The auction: E S W N P 1H X 1S 3C 4H 5C 5H P 6H P P ..X P 7C P P X The West hand was JT54 - T9863 AKQ6. If West didn't expect 7C to be a good sacrifice before East doubled, he can't possibly expect it to be a good sacrifice once East doubles (as opposed to passing or sacrificing in 7H). If West has some logical reason, he or the Panel needs to explain it, and I don't see one. From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 22 04:51:17 2010 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Sm9z6SBNaWd1ZWw=?= ) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:51:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) References: Message-ID: I'm agree with Colins, if the agreement is to play 2S like a bad hand with S there is mis-explanation, but if the agreement is 10 HCP, and South bids 2S with this hand, there is no infraction at all. Well, may be there was no way to prove the N-S system and the TD decided mis-explanation... On the other hand, I do not agree with the appelants and of course with the Appeals Committee: the TD may change the score actually get at the table for any other than he thinks is the correct score, in aplication of the law 12, and, IMO, they have no merit for the appeal and they lose the deposit. The last is than, I dissagree with the decission. IMO the only way that East is going to double is if he knows the hand. I'm sure than it won't be a very popular opinion, but... I don't like this kind of players than claim when there is a small differece in the explanation of a call, and allways get the rigth auction when there is in fact small diference. East has no more than 4 sure tricks, may be less and he is claiming than he is allways going to double this auction, and his partner, who has some points for sure, is silent, silent in the bidding, silent in the question, and silent in the claim, and East who is the player than, IMO, has no bridge reason for double allways is going to double... May be West has anything to claim, but not East. East claims is product of the impotence. Jos? -------Mensaje original------- De: Collins Williams Fecha: 22/01/2010 4:02:45 Para: Bridge Laws Mailing List Asunto: Re: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) Did anyone ascertain what the actual partnership agreement was? It seems to me that unless someone is claiming that N played S for this hand, that you have to find out the agreement before you can even begin to decide is there was a mis-explanation. Am I missing something? Collins On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Robert Frick wrote: N E S W 1D 1NT 2S(1) P P P (1) Explained as 10 points when East asked before the final pass. East claims he was planning on doubling until he heard the explanation. Standard American is that 2S is to play and probably weak, not strong enough to double 1NT. down 1. South actually had QJ10xxx xxxx x Qx I ruled that 2S down one vulnerable should be changed to 2S doubled down one vulnerable. It was protested and sent to committee. The reason for the appeal: "I never heard of the auction being changed from 2S to 2S doubled just because of a bidding misexplanation." The committee chair ruled that 2S should be returned to undoubled because "10 points" was an accurate description of the South hand. Not even North and South had the gall to make that claim. If you don't want to take East on his word that he was going to double, he had Kxx QJx KJxx AKx East was maybe the fourth best player in the room. I asked the best player if he would double with that hand and he said he would not consider it. Then he added that East might. Asking another very good player who plays with East a lot, and he said that he would not double with that hand but agreed that East probably would. So I presented to the committee that almost no one would double with that hand but East likely would. A reason for the committee removing the double: "He doesn't have a double." And another reason for removing the double "2 Spades should make. He was lucky to get +100". The owner also disagreed with my ruling. "He should know that 2Sp is to play and he was asking just to get a wrong explanation so then we would be legally protected. We cannot reward him for asking what 2Sp means." So remind what a committee does that couldn't be done more quickly and easily and accurately with a coin flip? _______________________________________________ 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/20100122/ab8cfdae/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 22 08:16:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:16:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:02:15 -0500, Collins Williams wrote: > Did anyone ascertain what the actual partnership agreement was? It > seems to > me that unless someone is claiming that N played S > for this hand, that you have to find out the agreement before you can > even > begin to decide is there was a mis-explanation. > > Am I missing something? You seem to be focusing on a point of the law. I wish you had been on the committee. Obviously, South thought they had one agreement and North thought they had a different agreement. They are not going to be able to provide evidence that North is correct, so that point of law should go ruled as misexplanation. Furthermore, as a long standing partnership, they are not going to have any evidence that they did not discuss this in the past and then forget it. Obviously, I am not very sympathetic to wrong explanations. In practice, I am guessing that North forgot that with a strong hand South would double for penalties. There is an interesting theoretical discussion of what people are agreeing to when they agree to play "Capelletti" or "support doubles" or "Standard American". Ths partnership agreed to Standard American, and it is standard in Standard American that 2S is weak or to play. > > Collins > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> N E S W >> 1D 1NT 2S(1) P >> P P >> >> (1) Explained as 10 points when East asked before the final pass. East >> claims he was planning on doubling until he heard the explanation. >> Standard American is that 2S is to play and probably weak, not strong >> enough to double 1NT. >> >> down 1. South actually had >> QJ10xxx >> xxxx >> x >> Qx >> >> I ruled that 2S down one vulnerable should be changed to 2S doubled down >> one vulnerable. >> >> It was protested and sent to committee. The reason for the appeal: "I >> never heard of the auction being changed from 2S to 2S doubled just >> because of a bidding misexplanation." >> >> >> The committee chair ruled that 2S should be returned to undoubled >> because >> "10 points" was an accurate description of the South hand. Not even >> North >> and South had the gall to make that claim. >> >> If you don't want to take East on his word that he was going to double, >> he >> had >> >> Kxx >> QJx >> KJxx >> AKx >> >> East was maybe the fourth best player in the room. I asked the best >> player >> if he would double with that hand and he said he would not consider it. >> Then he added that East might. Asking another very good player who plays >> with East a lot, and he said that he would not double with that hand but >> agreed that East probably would. >> >> So I presented to the committee that almost no one would double with >> that >> hand but East likely would. A reason for the committee removing the >> double: "He doesn't have a double." >> >> And another reason for removing the double "2 Spades should make. He was >> lucky to get +100". >> >> The owner also disagreed with my ruling. "He should know that 2Sp is to >> play and he was asking just to get a wrong explanation so then we would >> be >> legally protected. We cannot reward him for asking what 2Sp means." >> >> So remind what a committee does that couldn't be done more quickly and >> easily and accurately with a coin flip? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 22 08:28:12 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:28:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:51:17 -0500, Jos? Miguel wrote: > I'm agree with Colins, if the agreement is to play 2S like a bad hand > with S > there is mis-explanation, but if the agreement is 10 HCP, and South > bids 2S > with this hand, there is no infraction at all. Well, may be there was no > way > to prove the N-S system and the TD decided mis-explanation... > > > > On the other hand, I do not agree with the appelants and of course with > the > Appeals Committee: the TD may change the score actually get at the table > for > any other than he thinks is the correct score, in aplication of the law > 12, > and, IMO, they have no merit for the appeal and they lose the deposit. > > > > The last is than, I dissagree with the decission. IMO the only way that > East > is going to double is if he knows the hand. I'm sure than it won't be a > very > popular opinion, but... I don't like this kind of players than claim when > there is a small differece in the explanation of a call, and allways get > the > rigth auction when there is in fact small diference. East has no more > than 4 > sure tricks, may be less and he is claiming than he is allways going to > double this auction, and his partner, who has some points for sure, is > silent, silent in the bidding, silent in the question, and silent in the > claim, and East who is the player than, IMO, has no bridge reason for > double > allways is going to double... May be West has anything to claim, but not > East. East claims is product of the impotence. Hi Jose. I think you focus on an important problem. Right, I have seen players make claims that are impossible to believe. Myself, I usually get pissed off at the people who made the wrong explanation for putting me in this position and give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. But I don't give them a license to claim whatever they want. But I am not sure what you are saying. The opinion of the expert players at the club was that East was likely to double with that hand. (I am not trying to use "likely" in the same sense as the law.) Are you accepting this expert decision but still not allowing East to double just because no one else but East would double? There is also the point that if South had corrected the misexplanation before the opening lead, then the auction would have been reopened and East would have had the option to actually double or not. But I digress into an actual consideration of the law. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 08:54:21 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:54:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 In-Reply-To: <4B59164E.6010701@virginmedia.com> References: <4B59164E.6010701@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: 2010/1/22 Nigel Guthrie : > NABC01. LM Open Pairs Q2. Board #1 None vul North deals > North S: Q97 H: AQT D: A7 C: AKT43 > ----- 2N (_P) ..P Should be ---- 2N (3S) ...P > (_P) 3N AP > South passed after BIT of 5-7 secs > The Facts: The director was called during the hand and again after the > play was completed. South said ?her bids are always slow.? > The Ruling: The director determined that there was a BIT that > demonstrably suggested the 3NT bid and that pass was a logical > alternative. Therefore, he adjusted the result for both sides to 3S by > East down one, E/W minus 50 ? Laws 16A2 and 12C1(e) > The Appeal: N/S appealed the director?s ruling. North, South, and West > attended the hearing. > N/S said that they play automatic reopenings. Their convention card is > marked ?Auto reopenings over 1x-2y-Pass-Pass.? > North said he didn?t notice a hesitation and South said she didn?t take > very long. West said East thought it was longer than five seconds. West > said South took some time but not a long hesitation. North said he would > not have reopened if he thought South hesitated. > West felt East might make 3S if the defense were not perfect. Also, West > thought South would not have taken five seconds with nothing. > The Decision: The committee determined that a 5-7 second hesitation in a > pressure auction did not transmit UI. Therefore, the committee found no > irregularity and restored the table result of 3NT by North making three, > N/S plus 400. > The Committee: Aaron Silverstein (Chair), Michael Huston, Gene Kales, > Jacob Morgan and David Stevenson. > > [Nigel] > IMO, the director was right, the committee wrong. And the committee > should have issued an AMWM. > Presumably, after North's 2N, East waited for 10 seconds before passing. ... before bidding 3S > Hence, South's 5-7 seconds was on top of that. It doesn't take 15 > seconds to pass with a balanced Yarborough, so South's hesitation > promised some values. Although NS may automatically reopen after 1x (2y) > _P (_P), that doesn't imply a firm agreement over (3S). A suspicion > which is reinforced by North's statement that he would pass if he > thought that South hestitated. > Except for the mistyping, I totally agree with the above. Anyway, another case that shows that the Norwegian stop regulation is superior - here both North and East should use the stop card before bidding (2N and 3S respectively). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 09:13:57 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:13:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ 6 Message-ID: N/EW East: A54, 854, 86, AJT85 - (1N) P (2H) x (3H) P (P) 3S (P) ? Almost agree with Ed Lazarus, dissenting in the AC. EW should have -200. After this bidding by partner, I wouldn't just raise to 4S, I'd bid 4H, showing a strong 4S raise. How anyone can consider passing 3S is beyond me - I can't find words..... -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 22 10:38:48 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:38:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott Message-ID: -Mensaje original------- De: Robert Frick Fecha: 22/01/2010 8:29:26 Para: Bridge Laws Mailing List Asunto: Re: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:51:17 -0500, Jos? Miguel wrote: > I'm agree with Colins, if the agreement is to play 2S like a bad hand > with S > there is mis-explanation, but if the agreement is 10 HCP, and South > bids 2S > with this hand, there is no infraction at all. Well, may be there was no > way > to prove the N-S system and the TD decided mis-explanation... > > > > On the other hand, I do not agree with the appelants and of course with > the > Appeals Committee: the TD may change the score actually get at the table > for > any other than he thinks is the correct score, in aplication of the law > 12, > and, IMO, they have no merit for the appeal and they lose the deposit. > > > > The last is than, I dissagree with the decission. IMO the only way that > East > is going to double is if he knows the hand. I'm sure than it won't be a > very > popular opinion, but... I don't like this kind of players than claim when > there is a small differece in the explanation of a call, and allways get > the > rigth auction when there is in fact small diference. East has no more > than 4 > sure tricks, may be less and he is claiming than he is allways going to > double this auction, and his partner, who has some points for sure, is > silent, silent in the bidding, silent in the question, and silent in the > claim, and East who is the player than, IMO, has no bridge reason for > double > allways is going to double... May be West has anything to claim, but not > East. East claims is product of the impotence. Hi Jose. I think you focus on an important problem. Right, I have seen players make claims that are impossible to believe. Myself, I usually get pissed off at the people who made the wrong explanation for putting me in this position and give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. But I don't give them a license to claim whatever they want. But I am not sure what you are saying. The opinion of the expert players at the club was that East was likely to double with that hand. (I am not trying to use "likely" in the same sense as the law.) Are you accepting this expert decision but still not allowing East to double just because no one else but East would double? I'm sure that they think that East is going to double, is sure than the two experts belive it. The mine problem is why they belive it. If it's because they have seen East doublig this kind of situations too many times, it's ok (in fact I thnk this is the way to ask the other expertes: have you seen him to double this auction too many times?), but I don't think so. IMO the have seen East saying it too many times, and the really belive him. I can't be sure of it, of course, and only a long study if his old hands can solve the question, and Inot me, nor the TD are going to do it, so we must belive him. . but I don't really like the situation and l'm going out of this hand with the sensation of this kind of experts make a bad favor to bridge, and the problem is than we must rule in beliving them too much times than they deserve. There is also the point that if South had corrected the misexplanation before the opening lead, then the auction would have been reopened and East would have had the option to actually double or not. But I digress into an actual consideration of the law. I'm agree than if South had corrected the explanation before the lead, the problem is easyer, and we have known if East is really going to double. That s why I allways call the TD when I'm in front of this situation. _______________________________________________ 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/20100122/c35b5e39/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 22 12:10:02 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:10:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: <4B58D749.9080700@aol.com> Message-ID: <4B59878A.207@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:38:01 -0500, Jeff Easterson > wrote: > > >> Did the committee explain how they reasoned that 10 points was an >> accurate description of the hand? I'd mistrust this committee in the >> future. JE >> > > It was just one member of the committee, though it was the committee head. > Everyone else on the committee thought it was idiotic. But anyway, 1 point > for the 5th spade, 2 points for the sixth spade, and 1 point for the > fourth heart or singleton diamond, adding up to 9 offensive points. > > AG : perhaps, but the usual way of giving honor contents are in HCP. At least that's the way References: Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:43:50 -0500, Jos? Miguel wrote: > -Mensaje original------- > > > De: Robert Frick > > Fecha: 22/01/2010 8:29:26 > > Para: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Asunto: Re: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:51:17 -0500, Jos? Miguel > > wrote: > > >> I'm agree with Colins, if the agreement is to play 2S like a bad hand > >> with S > >> there is mis-explanation, but if the agreement is 10 HCP, and South > >> bids 2S > >> with this hand, there is no infraction at all. Well, may be there was no > >> way > >> to prove the N-S system and the TD decided mis-explanation... > >> > >> > >> > >> On the other hand, I do not agree with the appelants and of course with > >> the > >> Appeals Committee: the TD may change the score actually get at the table > >> for > >> any other than he thinks is the correct score, in aplication of the law > >> 12, > >> and, IMO, they have no merit for the appeal and they lose the deposit. > >> > >> > >> > >> The last is than, I dissagree with the decission. IMO the only way that > >> East > >> is going to double is if he knows the hand. I'm sure than it won't be a > >> very > >> popular opinion, but... I don't like this kind of players than claim >> when > >> there is a small differece in the explanation of a call, and allways get > >> the > >> rigth auction when there is in fact small diference. East has no more > >> than 4 > >> sure tricks, may be less and he is claiming than he is allways going to > >> double this auction, and his partner, who has some points for sure, is > >> silent, silent in the bidding, silent in the question, and silent in the > >> claim, and East who is the player than, IMO, has no bridge reason for > >> double > >> allways is going to double... May be West has anything to claim, but >> not > >> East. East claims is product of the impotence. > > > > Hi Jose. I think you focus on an important problem. Right, I have seen > > players make claims that are impossible to believe. Myself, I usually get > > pissed off at the people who made the wrong explanation for putting me in > > this position and give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. But I don't > > give them a license to claim whatever they want. > > > But I am not sure what you are saying. The opinion of the expert players > > at the club was that East was likely to double with that hand. (I am not > > trying to use "likely" in the same sense as the law.) Are you accepting > > this expert decision but still not allowing East to double just because > no > > one else but East would double? > > > > I'm sure that they think that East is going to double, is sure than the > two > experts belive it. The mine problem is why they belive it. If it's > because > they have seen East doublig this kind of situations too many times, it's > ok > (in fact I thnk this is the way to ask the other expertes: have you seen > him > to double this auction too many times?), Thanks for clarifying this. Right. The question was about style, and both experts were responding to his style -- that he alone of anyone at the club very well might double with that hand. > but I don't think so. IMO the have > seen East saying it too many times, and the really belive him. I can't be > sure of it, of course, and only a long study if his old hands can solve > the > question, and Inot me, nor the TD are going to do it, so we must belive > him. > . but I don't really like the situation and l'm going out of this hand > with > the sensation of this kind of experts make a bad favor to bridge, and the > problem is than we must rule in beliving them too much times than they > deserve. > > > There is also the point that if South had corrected the misexplanation > > before the opening lead, then the auction would have been reopened and > > East would have had the option to actually double or not. But I digress > > into an actual consideration of the law. > > > > I'm agree than if South had corrected the explanation before the lead, > the > problem is easyer, and we have known if East is really going to double. > That > s why I allways call the TD when I'm in front of this situation. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Jan 22 13:54:29 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:54:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 In-Reply-To: <4B59164E.6010701@virginmedia.com> References: <4B59164E.6010701@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <4B59A005.3020104@yahoo.co.uk> Thank you Harald. Sorry I missed 3S bid from Auction. Corrected below NABC01. LM Open Pairs Q2. Board #1 None vul North deals North S: Q97 H: AQT D: A7 C: AKT43 ----- 2N (3S) ..P (_P) 3N AP South passed after BIT of 5-7 secs The Facts: The director was called during the hand and again after the play was completed. South said ?her bids are always slow.? The Ruling: The director determined that there was a BIT that demonstrably suggested the 3NT bid and that pass was a logical alternative. Therefore, he adjusted the result for both sides to 3S by East down one, E/W minus 50 ? Laws 16A2 and 12C1(e) The Appeal: N/S appealed the director?s ruling. North, South, and West attended the hearing. N/S said that they play automatic reopenings. Their convention card is marked ?Auto reopenings over 1x-2y-Pass-Pass.? North said he didn?t notice a hesitation and South said she didn?t take very long. West said East thought it was longer than five seconds. West said South took some time but not a long hesitation. North said he would not have reopened if he thought South hesitated. West felt East might make 3S if the defense were not perfect. Also, West thought South would not have taken five seconds with nothing. The Decision: The committee determined that a 5-7 second hesitation in a pressure auction did not transmit UI. Therefore, the committee found no irregularity and restored the table result of 3NT by North making three, N/S plus 400. The Committee: Aaron Silverstein (Chair), Michael Huston, Gene Kales, Jacob Morgan and David Stevenson. [Nigel] IMO, the director was right, the committee wrong. And the committee should have issued an AMWM. Presumably, after North's 2N, East waited for 10 seconds before overcalling 3S. Hence, South's 5-7 seconds was on top of that. It doesn't take 15 seconds to pass with a balanced Yarborough, so South's hesitation promised some values. Although NS may automatically reopen after 1x (2y) _P (_P), that doesn't imply a firm agreement over (3S). A suspicion reinforced by North's statement that he would pass if he thought that South hesitated. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 22 14:35:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:35:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 In-Reply-To: <4B59A005.3020104@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B59164E.6010701@virginmedia.com> <4B59A005.3020104@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B59A992.5090504@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > Thank you Harald. Sorry I missed 3S bid from Auction. Corrected below > > NABC01. LM Open Pairs Q2. Board #1 None vul North deals > North S: Q97 H: AQT D: A7 C: AKT43 > ----- 2N (3S) ..P > (_P) 3N AP > South passed after BIT of 5-7 secs > The Facts: The director was called during the hand and again after the > play was completed. South said ?her bids are always slow.? > The Ruling: The director determined that there was a BIT that > demonstrably suggested the 3NT bid and that pass was a logical > alternative. Therefore, he adjusted the result for both sides to 3S by > East down one, E/W minus 50 ? Laws 16A2 and 12C1(e) > The Appeal: N/S appealed the director?s ruling. North, South, and West > attended the hearing. > N/S said that they play automatic reopenings. Their convention card is > marked ?Auto reopenings over 1x-2y-Pass-Pass.? > North said he didn?t notice a hesitation and South said she didn?t take > very long. West said East thought it was longer than five seconds. West > said South took some time but not a long hesitation. North said he would > not have reopened if he thought South hesitated. > West felt East might make 3S if the defense were not perfect. Also, West > thought South would not have taken five seconds with nothing. > The Decision: The committee determined that a 5-7 second hesitation in a > pressure auction did not transmit UI. Therefore, the committee found no > irregularity and restored the table result of 3NT by North making three, > N/S plus 400. > The Committee: Aaron Silverstein (Chair), Michael Huston, Gene Kales, > Jacob Morgan and David Stevenson. > > [Nigel] > IMO, the director was right, the committee wrong. And the committee > should have issued an AMWM. > Presumably, after North's 2N, East waited for 10 seconds before > overcalling 3S. Hence, South's 5-7 seconds was on top of that. It > doesn't take 15 seconds to pass with a balanced Yarborough, so South's > hesitation promised some values. Although NS may automatically reopen > after 1x (2y) _P (_P), that doesn't imply a firm agreement over (3S). A > suspicion reinforced by North's statement that he would pass if he > thought that South hesitated. > AG : yes, that last bit is important. They took two very different positions : first, they say there wasn't any tempo, which makes reopening free ; then, they said that they always reopen. That would have been the first argument if it was 100% true. BTW, mentions such as 'always reopen' are a little suspect. When you reopen after a tempo, you point at them, and when you don't reopen, they pass unnoticed. Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Jan 22 14:38:39 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:38:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) References: Message-ID: <4F41C5514FD44DCCBF63AF1A91795D0C@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:38 AM Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > +=+ As it happened, in a remote parochial bridge > club, a certain innocent FEL was prevented from > playing five or six boards of a 26 board session > The Director was to blame. > Upon advice the Director decided to award > the dear lady her own average (about 54%) on > the missed boards. When she was told this the > FEL said "Oh no, you can't do that, it is against > the law". She found a law book and showed the > Director Law 12C2(a); "It says here", she said, > "that you must give me at least 60% on each > board." Wriggle as he might, the Director could > find no authority in the laws for doing anything > else and I have found nothing legal to counter > the frail elderly lady's protest. . > Any thoughts? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The famous Lille screwup and pairs getting "percenetage of their game" insead of 60% for sitouts? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Szybkie i niedrogie... Tylko dla mezczyzn! Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f2569 From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Jan 22 15:02:36 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:02:36 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) References: Message-ID: <84A90245E74A42199755B76ACE67F878@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 5:38 PM Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate > Telling a tale not too importunate." > [William Morris] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > +=+ As it happened, in a remote parochial bridge > club, a certain innocent FEL was prevented from > playing five or six boards of a 26 board session > The Director was to blame. > Upon advice the Director decided to award > the dear lady her own average (about 54%) on > the missed boards. When she was told this the > FEL said "Oh no, you can't do that, it is against > the law". She found a law book and showed the > Director Law 12C2(a); "It says here", she said, > "that you must give me at least 60% on each > board." Wriggle as he might, the Director could > find no authority in the laws for doing anything > else and I have found nothing legal to counter > the frail elderly lady's protest. . > Any thoughts? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > A single pair in a session unable to play 5 or 6 boards with 100% of the blame belonging to the director! I would give them their 60% for the 5 or 6 boards bringing their session average to 55.2% - 55.4%. I would also be interested in learning another legal solution, preferably one which the FEL would also be convinced was legal. bill _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 22 15:29:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:29:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) References: <4F41C5514FD44DCCBF63AF1A91795D0C@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <1A52616C9D874533B6D8734AD42459C3@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:38 AM Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) > > +=+ As it happened, in a remote parochial bridge > club, a certain innocent FEL was prevented from > playing five or six boards of a 26 board session > The Director was to blame. > Upon advice the Director decided to award > the dear lady her own average (about 54%) on > the missed boards. When she was told this the > FEL said "Oh no, you can't do that, it is against > the law". She found a law book and showed the > Director Law 12C2(a); "It says here", she said, > "that you must give me at least 60% on each > board." Wriggle as he might, the Director could > find no authority in the laws for doing anything > else and I have found nothing legal to counter > the frail elderly lady's protest. . > Any thoughts? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The famous Lille screwup and pairs getting "percenetage of their game" insead of 60% for sitouts? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland +=+ Ah, yes, Lille! Now there's a point. What was the applicable Law that allowed of that? Law 88 of that time was even more forceful than the current law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 22 15:33:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:33:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ Case 17 In-Reply-To: <17BE37EB829F4CDAA3C34A63ECA56036@erdos> References: <17BE37EB829F4CDAA3C34A63ECA56036@erdos> Message-ID: <663ECAE1-C4C7-44D1-A8E7-9C166FE1B9AE@starpower.net> On Jan 21, 2010, at 9:10 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Teams, opponents vulnerable, you hold KT32 T85 Q85 T54. LHO opens > 1H, and RHO > bids 3S showing an unspecified splinter. Do you double for the lead? No. > There was a real need for a poll of this action, as the correct > ruling depends > on how likely it is that this hand would double. I don't normally > make a > lead-directing double on an unsupported king, as it is too strong a > request (I > want partner to lead away from the DK), gives the opponents more > bidding room in > their slam investigation, and may help the declarer place the > cards. However, > I'm not a good enough player to play in the finals of the North > American Swiss > Teams, so you shouldn't trust my judgment. The Committee found > double was a 50% > action, but that looks wrong as well. But established partnerships vary a great deal in their attitude towards lead-directing doubles, which may range from vague suggestions to strong demands, so this is to some extent a question of style. IME (which seems to coincide with David's), absent any partnership understanding it is normally taken as a rather strong suggestion (which makes sense -- when in doubt, preserve partnership harmony), making it a poor choice on this hand for the reasons David suggests. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 22 15:52:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:52:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego non-NABC+ Case 8; where's the merit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 21, 2010, at 10:24 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > If it is not obvious, the AC/Panel needs to explain why it found an > appeal to > have merit just as much as it needs to explain why it found an > appeal to lack > merit. I strongly disagree. An appeal without merit penalty (or warning) is a proactive sanction imposed for the infraction of bringing a meritless appeal. Unless someone has some specific reason to believe that there has been a positive infraction of L92A, there is no more reason for the committee to discuss or justify its lack of an adverse finding on the matter than there would be for any other infraction in the book. Indeed, there may be considerably less reason, since bringing an appeal without merit isn't even an actionable infraction under L92A unless the RA chooses to make it so by regulation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Fri Jan 22 16:43:44 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:43:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ Case 17 In-Reply-To: <17BE37EB829F4CDAA3C34A63ECA56036@erdos> References: <17BE37EB829F4CDAA3C34A63ECA56036@erdos> Message-ID: <3307231.1264175024390.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> David Grabiner wrote: > Teams, opponents vulnerable, you hold KT32 T85 Q85 T54. LHO opens 1H, and > RHO bids 3S showing an unspecified splinter. Do you double for the lead? No. For starters, I play that double as takeout of hearts, not for a S lead. But even if I played lead directing doubles here, I would not make one. I am fine with the normal trump lead against the splinter auction. I can stand a D lead, too. > There was a real need for a poll of this action, as the correct ruling > depends on how likely it is that this hand would double. I don't normally make a > lead-directing double on an unsupported king, as it is too strong a request > (I want partner to lead away from the DK), gives the opponents more bidding > room in > their slam investigation, and may help the declarer place the cards. > However, > I'm not a good enough player to play in the finals of the North American > Swiss > Teams, so you shouldn't trust my judgment. The Committee found double was a > 50% action, but that looks wrong as well. 50% looks too high to me. Thomas Schluss mit teuer - her mit den Schn?ppchen! Jetzt alle Discounter-Angebote von Aldi ?ber Douglas bis Schlecker ?bersichtlich f?r Sie geordnet - jetzt klicken und sparen! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.discounto From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Jan 22 16:57:36 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:57:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ Case 17 In-Reply-To: <17BE37EB829F4CDAA3C34A63ECA56036@erdos> References: <17BE37EB829F4CDAA3C34A63ECA56036@erdos> Message-ID: <4B59CAF0.9040701@yahoo.co.uk> [David Grabiner] Teams, opponents vulnerable, you hold KT32 T85 Q85 T54. LHO opens 1H, and RHO bids 3S showing an unspecified splinter. Do you double for the lead? There was a real need for a poll of this action, as the correct ruling depends on how likely it is that this hand would double. I don't normally make a lead-directing double on an unsupported king, as it is too strong a request (I want partner to lead away from the DK), gives the opponents more bidding room in their slam investigation, and may help the declarer place the cards. However, I'm not a good enough player to play in the finals of the North American Swiss Teams, so you shouldn't trust my judgment. The Committee found double was a 50% action, but that looks wrong as well. [Nigel] IMO the Director and Committee got this right. David's poll might have been a good idea. Suppose the double is a 30% and pass an 70% action. Here are some questions, the answers to which, would help me and other ordinary players to understand the law better... [Q1] Under ACBL law, would the ruling still be 6H-1. [Q2] In the rest of the world, may the director give a *weighted* ruling say 30% of the score that would result from 6H-1 and 70% of 6H=. (Leaving the victims with 30% of what *they believe* they would have earned against law-abiding opponents, and the law-breakers with a possible 70% profit). [Q3] If he so judges, may the (non-ACBL) director award an *unsymmetric* score, instead. So that, for example, the law-breakers get 100% of 6H-1. (Although this is unlikely to deter law-breakers, it does reduce their long-term profits). From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 22 17:18:21 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:18:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) In-Reply-To: <84A90245E74A42199755B76ACE67F878@acer> References: <84A90245E74A42199755B76ACE67F878@acer> Message-ID: <4B59CFCD.6090505@ulb.ac.be> Bill & Helen Kemp a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan" > To: > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 5:38 PM > Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) > > > >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, >> Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? >> Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme >> Beats with light wing against the ivory gate >> Telling a tale not too importunate." >> [William Morris] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> +=+ As it happened, in a remote parochial bridge >> club, a certain innocent FEL was prevented from >> playing five or six boards of a 26 board session >> The Director was to blame. >> Upon advice the Director decided to award >> the dear lady her own average (about 54%) on >> the missed boards. When she was told this the >> FEL said "Oh no, you can't do that, it is against >> the law". She found a law book and showed the >> Director Law 12C2(a); "It says here", she said, >> "that you must give me at least 60% on each >> board." Wriggle as he might, the Director could >> find no authority in the laws for doing anything >> else and I have found nothing legal to counter >> the frail elderly lady's protest. . >> Any thoughts? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Why do you need to counter it ? The 60% principle is there to cover the possibility that she might have scored better against those other two pairs. Could oyu swear that she wouldn't ? A local club did a great move last year : in similar circumstances, a pair clinched 2nd place (with about 57%) for a thin margin. There were two 2nd prizes that day. Best regards Alain From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Jan 22 17:25:38 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:25:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC+ 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B59D182.5000708@yahoo.co.uk> [Harald Skj?ran] N/EW East: A54, 854, 86, AJT85 - (1N) P (2H) x (3H) P (P) 3S (P) ? Almost agree with Ed Lazarus, dissenting in the AC. EW should have -200. After this bidding by partner, I wouldn't just raise to 4S, I'd bid 4H, showing a strong 4S raise. How anyone can consider passing 3S is beyond me - I can't find words .... [Nigel] The committee are to be commended for penalizing NS with a PP. I think Harald is suggesting that *NS* should the score for 4S(EW)-2 -- but I think it should be 4S-1. EW *did* get the score for 4S-2 but again I wonder why it wasn't 4S-1. I feel that it is hard to play a hand properly when you suspect opponents' actions. The law seems to insist that you suspend disbelief. If you believe opponents, that may entail playing for horrible breaks. If it transpires that they were at it, I think you may argue that you might have bid or played differently. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Jan 22 17:52:41 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:52:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) References: <84A90245E74A42199755B76ACE67F878@acer> <4B59CFCD.6090505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01ca9b83$5be5ac40$2401a8c0@p41600> I have worked with tds who think that lots of 60s are just too much. They advocate 60s up to half the brds / rnd (rounded up) and 50s for the rest. In this case if 5 bds and 2 b/r they would award 3x60s and 2x50s. Can't see any basis though. lnb >> +=+ As it happened, in a remote parochial bridge >> club, a certain innocent FEL was prevented from >> playing five or six boards of a 26 board session >> The Director was to blame. >> Upon advice the Director decided to award >> the dear lady her own average (about 54%) on >> the missed boards. When she was told this the >> FEL said "Oh no, you can't do that, it is against >> the law". She found a law book and showed the >> Director Law 12C2(a); "It says here", she said, >> "that you must give me at least 60% on each >> board." Wriggle as he might, the Director could >> find no authority in the laws for doing anything >> else and I have found nothing legal to counter >> the frail elderly lady's protest. . >> Any thoughts? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Why do you need to counter it ? The 60% principle is there to cover the possibility that she might have scored better against those other two pairs. Could oyu swear that she wouldn't ? A local club did a great move last year : in similar circumstances, a pair clinched 2nd place (with about 57%) for a thin margin. There were two 2nd prizes that day. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Jan 22 18:11:44 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:11:44 +0000 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) In-Reply-To: <4B59878A.207@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B58D749.9080700@aol.com> <4B59878A.207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B59DC50.2010604@yahoo.co.uk> [Alain Gottcheiner] ... perhaps, but the usual way of giving honor contents are in HCP. At least that's the way Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > +=+ As it happened, in a remote parochial bridge > club, a certain innocent FEL was prevented from > playing five or six boards of a 26 board session > The Director was to blame. > Upon advice the Director decided to award > the dear lady her own average (about 54%) on > the missed boards. When she was told this the > FEL said "Oh no, you can't do that, it is against > the law". She found a law book and showed the > Director Law 12C2(a); "It says here", she said, > "that you must give me at least 60% on each > board." Wriggle as he might, the Director could > find no authority in the laws for doing anything > else and I have found nothing legal to counter > the frail elderly lady's protest. . > Any thoughts? The 60% should logically be "shrunk" toward 54%, taking into account the number of boards missed. If just one board, maybe two, is missed, then 60% is fine. If the lady had scored 66% on boards played, then 66% should be shrunk toward 60% for multiple unplayed boards. The problem seems related to Stein's Paradox, or more specifically, the James-Stein Estimator. If someone comes up with a good solution, it would be inappropiate in the Laws but the ACBL could give it effect in a footnote. :-) A similar problem involves what scores to give pairs for multiple boards unplayed through no fault of theirs. The best estimate of what they would have scored on those boards is not the percentage scored on other boards (the current rule). That is Stein's Paradox. Coming up with a useful equation should not be too difficult for the math-oriented. Check out Stein's Paradox on Wikipedia. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Jan 22 19:35:56 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:35:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) References: <4F41C5514FD44DCCBF63AF1A91795D0C@sfora4869e47f1> <1A52616C9D874533B6D8734AD42459C3@Mildred> Message-ID: <40871E1D0F7E4C678C30523895DE316F@sfora4869e47f1> >The famous Lille screwup and pairs getting >"percenetage of their game" insead of 60% for >sitouts? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland +=+ Ah, yes, Lille! Now there's a point. What was the applicable Law that allowed of that? Law 88 of that time was even more forceful than the current law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I know no such law. I've always thought that giving pairs percenetage of their game rather than 60% for sitouts in Lille was outright illegal. Though Larry Cohen in the "Bridge World" supported this decision. He wrote "initially you were to get 60% but finally sanity prevailed and you got percentage of your game". But this decision was still illegal in my view. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sypie, sypie, ale czy sypac bedzie nadal? Sprawdz pogode >> http://link.interia.pl/f2530 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 22 21:49:22 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:49:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) In-Reply-To: <4B59DC50.2010604@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B58D749.9080700@aol.com> <4B59878A.207@ulb.ac.be> <4B59DC50.2010604@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <449718BA-EE2D-43CB-884D-66274AE67A94@starpower.net> On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Milton Work High Card Points are crude and inaccurate but most players > know what they are. Now, after decades of EBU propoganda, we can just > about get our heads around "rule of x". That is about as far as we can > go. Anyway, experts recommend many different ways of evaluating > texture, > honour distribution, shape, and so on, so it is futile to write laws > that involve such considerations. Actually, experts also recommend many different ways of evaluating high-card strength, Milton Work high-card points being only one of a bevy of such, before they even get to evaluative adjustments for texture, honor distribution, shape, and so on, so it is just as "futile" (I'd have chosen a different word, but Nigel's point is clear) to write laws involving such first-approximation considerations as it is to write laws involving adjustments to them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 22 22:45:23 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:45:23 -0800 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) References: <4B58D749.9080700@aol.com> <4B59878A.207@ulb.ac.be> <4B59DC50.2010604@yahoo.co.uk> <449718BA-EE2D-43CB-884D-66274AE67A94@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5C43BDAED2F54181B327FD48D08C4FF8@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > > Actually, experts also recommend many different ways of evaluating > high-card strength, Milton Work high-card points being only one of > a > bevy of such, before they even get to evaluative adjustments for > texture, honor distribution, shape, and so on, so it is just as > "futile" (I'd have chosen a different word, but Nigel's point is > clear) to write laws involving such first-approximation > considerations as it is to write laws involving adjustments to > them. > My partners refuse to believe me when I say that honor count (HC) is more accurate than any point count. I also tell them that 3-2-1-1/2 (Four Ace count), rough though it be, is more accurate for suit bidding than 4-3-2-1 (Work count). They laugh at that. I like my example of Kxx and Qxx opposite Qxx and Kxx in the other hand. 5 HCP and 1/2+ HC for each hand, 1-1/2 playing tricks total. Change that to KQx opposite KQx, 5 HCP and 1 HC for each hand, 3 playing tricks total. Point count says the two situations are identical in value, HC says the lattter is more valuable, and it is. The principle is that honors in combination are worth more than isolated honors, not recognized by point count. They still don't believe me. How could I be right, when everyone uses point count? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jan 22 23:23:02 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:23:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B5A2546.40409@aol.com> OK, I'll start on them tomorrow. JE Adam Wildavsky schrieb: > 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! > > -- > Adam Wildavsky > > www.tameware.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Jan 23 01:46:39 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:46:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] committes! (day in the life) In-Reply-To: <449718BA-EE2D-43CB-884D-66274AE67A94@starpower.net> References: <4B58D749.9080700@aol.com> <4B59878A.207@ulb.ac.be> <4B59DC50.2010604@yahoo.co.uk> <449718BA-EE2D-43CB-884D-66274AE67A94@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B5A46EF.2040308@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] Milton Work High Card Points are crude and inaccurate but most players know what they are. Now, after decades of EBU propaganda, we can just about get our heads around "rule of x". That is about as far as we can go. Anyway, experts recommend many different ways of evaluating texture, honour distribution, shape, and so on, so it is futile to write laws that involve such considerations. [Eric Landau] Actually, experts also recommend many different ways of evaluating high-card strength, Milton Work high-card points being only one of a bevy of such, before they even get to evaluative adjustments for texture, honor distribution, shape, and so on, so it is just as "futile" (I'd have chosen a different word, but Nigel's point is clear) to write laws involving such first-approximation considerations as it is to write laws involving adjustments to them. [Nige2] Eric and Marvin imply that honour tricks or 7531 or 6421 or whatever are theoretically superior ways of estimating high card strength. I am happy to concede they're right. I argue, however, that it doesn't matter, as far as the law is concerned. I feel, for example, that disclosure should be simple enough to benefit Walruses as well as experts. If you disclose the high card strength range of your 1N opener in Milton Work HCP -- then the Walrus will understand. The expert may sneer at the crudeness of the measure -- but he too will understand. If, instead, you state the range is in Zar points or include sophisticated adjustments for texture, honour distribution and shape -- then only the expert will be the wiser. As a result, naive Walruses may misdefend. Surely, we are sufficiently handicapped already without disclosure laws defining a one-way channel for information? Obviously, it is OK to impress your opponents with an explanation involving Zar points or whatever, provided that you also provide a translation into HCP and shape requirements that they can understand. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 23 13:34:50 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:34:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] failing to play a penalty card on lead Message-ID: Last Monday my partner led a heart while having a diamond as a penalty card. Does L51A (declarer designates which of two penalty cards is to be played) apply? I am reading the laws as it does not. The lead of a heart is a revoke. The revoke is to be immediately corrected when noticed (L62A). The correction of the revoke is to withdraw the heart and substitute the diamond (L62B). The heart becomes a penalty card. But there were never two penalty cards at the same time and anyway the law directs playing the diamond. Right? Or, just tell me if I am wrong. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Jan 23 13:57:58 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:57:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?failing_to_play_a_penalty_card_on_lead?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1NYfYs-0jd19s0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > Last Monday my partner led a heart while having a diamond as a penalty > card. Does L51A (declarer designates which of two penalty cards is to > be played) apply? I am reading the laws as it does not. > > The lead of a heart is a revoke. The revoke is to be immediately > corrected when noticed (L62A). The correction of the revoke is to > withdraw the heart and substitute the diamond (L62B). The heart > becomes a penalty card. But there were never two penalty cards at the > same time and anyway the law directs playing the diamond. > > Right? Or, just tell me if I am wrong. You are wrong; try Law 52. From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 23 14:08:59 2010 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:08:59 -0000 Subject: [BLML] failing to play a penalty card on lead References: <1NYfYs-0jd19s0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <76542A3499954142A4285DB060617298@Anne> Unless the D was a minor penalty card Law 50C Anne Please visit my web site. http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] failing to play a penalty card on lead > From: "Robert Frick" >> Last Monday my partner led a heart while having a diamond as a penalty >> card. Does L51A (declarer designates which of two penalty cards is to >> be played) apply? I am reading the laws as it does not. >> >> The lead of a heart is a revoke. The revoke is to be immediately >> corrected when noticed (L62A). The correction of the revoke is to >> withdraw the heart and substitute the diamond (L62B). The heart >> becomes a penalty card. But there were never two penalty cards at the >> same time and anyway the law directs playing the diamond. >> >> Right? Or, just tell me if I am wrong. > > You are wrong; try Law 52. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jan 23 17:01:58 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:01:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego non-NABC+ Case 8; where's the merit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Eric Landau" writes: > On Jan 21, 2010, at 10:24 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > >> If it is not obvious, the AC/Panel needs to explain why it found an >> appeal to >> have merit just as much as it needs to explain why it found an >> appeal to lack >> merit. > > I strongly disagree. An appeal without merit penalty (or warning) is > a proactive sanction imposed for the infraction of bringing a > meritless appeal. Unless someone has some specific reason to believe > that there has been a positive infraction of L92A, there is no more > reason for the committee to discuss or justify its lack of an adverse > finding on the matter than there would be for any other infraction in > the book. You are right here, and my point was too strong. A simple statement that the appeal had merit is good enough if a reader can infer from the write-up what the merit was; if the AC upholds a ruling but either the ruling or the facts are not clear to the appelants, no explanation is needed. But in a case like non-NABC+ Case 8,simply saying, "The appeal was found to have merit" is not satisfactory. When West declines to sacrifice, East makes a slow double, and then West sacrifices, it appears that West has taken an action suggested by the BIT, and West should have known this before appealing. This is the type of appeal (leaving a decision to partner, then overriding partner given UI) that AWMWs are intended to discourage; and by not explaining the lack of AWMW, the write-up creates the impression that such warnings are capriciously imposed. I checked the other rulings, and there are two other cases where it appears from the facts of the case that an AWMW would be justified, but in both cases, the AC gave an explanation. (It also included explaantions in some other cases in which it upheld a TD ruling.) NABC+ Case 10: "The appeal was found to have merit because of the dispute over the existence of UI." Non-NABC+ Case 14: "While the appeal had no merit, the panel determined to simply educate a player with 58 masterpoints." From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 24 15:04:40 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:04:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) In-Reply-To: <40871E1D0F7E4C678C30523895DE316F@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4F41C5514FD44DCCBF63AF1A91795D0C@sfora4869e47f1> <1A52616C9D874533B6D8734AD42459C3@Mildred> <40871E1D0F7E4C678C30523895DE316F@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B5C5378.7020205@skynet.be> It is not illegal when you consider the new movement to be one that the organisers prescribed. In that new movement, there were sit-outs. Those sit-outs were to be dealt with in just the same way as if there had been an odd number of participants to start with. Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> The famous Lille screwup and pairs getting >> "percenetage of their game" insead of 60% for >> sitouts? > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > +=+ Ah, yes, Lille! Now there's a point. What was > the applicable Law that allowed of that? > Law 88 of that time was even more forceful than > the current law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I know no such law. I've always thought that > giving pairs percenetage of their game rather than 60% > for sitouts in Lille was outright illegal. Though Larry > Cohen in the "Bridge World" supported this > decision. He wrote "initially you were to get 60% > but finally sanity prevailed and you got > percentage of your game". > > But this decision was still illegal in my view. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sypie, sypie, ale czy sypac bedzie nadal? > Sprawdz pogode >> http://link.interia.pl/f2530 > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 24 21:36:05 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:36:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) References: <4F41C5514FD44DCCBF63AF1A91795D0C@sfora4869e47f1> <1A52616C9D874533B6D8734AD42459C3@Mildred><40871E1D0F7E4C678C30523895DE316F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B5C5378.7020205@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) It is not illegal when you consider the new movement to be one that the organisers prescribed. In that new movement, there were sit-outs. Those sit-outs were to be dealt with in just the same way as if there had been an odd number of participants to start with. < +=+ Ah, indeed! How interesting. And, of course, these arrangements were published "in advance of the tournament" and "available to the contestants", I assume. Right? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 25 00:36:13 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:36:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) In-Reply-To: References: <4F41C5514FD44DCCBF63AF1A91795D0C@sfora4869e47f1> <1A52616C9D874533B6D8734AD42459C3@Mildred><40871E1D0F7E4C678C30523895DE316F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B5C5378.7020205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B5CD96D.2070200@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Those who dream by night wake > in the day to find that it was vanity: > but the daydreamers of the day are > dangerous men, for they may act > their dreams with open eyes, to > make it possible." > [ T.E. Lawrence] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) > > > It is not illegal when you consider the new movement > to be one that the organisers prescribed. In that new > movement, there were sit-outs. Those sit-outs were > to be dealt with in just the same way as if there had > been an odd number of participants to start with. > < > +=+ Ah, indeed! How interesting. And, of course, > these arrangements were published "in advance of > the tournament" and "available to the contestants", > I assume. Right? What does that have to do with it? Is it not the TD's job to make the movement and alter it when necessary? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From adam at tameware.com Mon Jan 25 05:21:44 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:21:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd41001242021ree7a071yd36f686062e2d14c@mail.gmail.com> 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 -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 25 06:06:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:06:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Archbishop John Morton was also Lord Chancellor under King Henry VII of England, charged with collecting the King's taxes. His cunning ploy is now known as Morton's Fork: "If the subject is seen to live frugally, tell him because he is clearly a money saver of great ability he can afford to give generously to the King. If, however, the subject lives a life of great extravagance, tell him he, too, can afford to give largely, the proof of his opulence being evident in his expenditure." Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Ah, indeed! How interesting. And, of course, these >>arrangements were published "in advance of the >>tournament" and "available to the contestants", I >>assume. Right? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael, rhetorical Morton's Fork question: >What does that have to do with it? Law 78D - Conditions of Contest: "If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of Contest **in advance of a tournament** or contest. These should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and shall incorporate any information specified by the Regulating Authority. They should be **available to contestants**." Herman De Wael, rhetorical Morton's Fork question: >Is it not the TD's job to make the movement and alter it >when necessary? Richard Hills: No, as Law 78D shows, that is the Tournament Organizer's role. Law 80 footnote: "* It is normal in some jurisdictions for the Director to assume responsibility for some or all of the tasks that the Tournament Organizer is here required to arrange." Richard Hills: So the Director may take over some Law 78D responsibilities from the Tournament Organizer, but the Director is NOT thereby empowered to over-ride the "in advance of the tournament" and "available to the contestants" constraints placed upon the Tournament Organizer. However, the Director does have a special emergency power. Law 81B1, second sentence: "He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer." Richard Hills: If, for example, both the Tournament Organizer and the Director had forgotten to create "in advance of the tournament" a tie-break rule which was "available to the contestants", then Law 81B1 permits the Director the special emergency power of creating a post facto tie- break rule. But..... Law 81B1 is not applicable in the stem case of multiple fouled boards created by the Director's error, since there has not been any "omission" by the Tournament Organizer as Laws 82C and 12C2 fully cover all relevant issues. 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 Jan 25 06:31:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:31:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <336234D8-A155-4A0E-A2F3-DC37144FA5A3@starpower.net> Message-ID: William Blake (1757 - 1827) Tyger Tyger, burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye, Could frame thy fearful symmetry? Eric Landau: [snip] >TFLB does not define or use the term "playing director", so the >real question here is whether a "playing director" is something >inherently different from either a player or a director, or >merely a person with two "alternating hats" who acts as one or >the other situationally. > >Parsimony of interpretation suggests the latter (if "playing >director" was meant to be a special status, TFLB would >presumably say something about it). That suggests that you >have the same L9A4 right to keep mum that any other player >would. > >But, having been many times a playing director in real life, I >wouldn't exercise it. I may not be required by law to call my >TD-self on my player-self, but IMHO I have an obligation to my >customers. Moreover, moral issue aside, someone is likely to >notice eventually, and it would be terrible PR. Australian Bridge Directors Association, Code of Ethics [snip] * Before making a bridge judgement ruling, a Tournament Director should, if possible, seek advice from another director and/or (particularly when another Director is not available) uninvolved, experienced players of an appropriate standard: this is both to test his bridge judgement and to ensure that he has not overlooked something obvious. It will often be appropriate to delay giving a final ruling on bridge judgement decisions - particularly for a playing Director - until the end of the session. * When a playing Tournament Director has a ruling in which his side is involved, he must ensure that no suggestion of bias is possible. Whenever practicable, he should find an alternate Director to give the ruling. When this is not possible (as is often the case), he might well consider ruling against his side and then appealing, especially in cases where a judgement decision is concerned. Only if, after consulting, he is quite sure of his ground should he make a judgement ruling in his side's favour. If it is a book ruling, then he may give it, but he should then exhibit a greater degree of care in explaining the thought processes. [snip] 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 Mon Jan 25 09:18:38 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:18:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B5D53DE.4050002@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael, rhetorical Morton's Fork question: > >> What does that have to do with it? > > Law 78D - Conditions of Contest: > > "If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring > methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be > adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions > of Contest **in advance of a tournament** or contest. These > should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, > determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. > The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and > shall incorporate any information specified by the > Regulating Authority. They should be **available to > contestants**." > I read: should, should and should. If a TD needs to change the movement for whatever reason, he is no longer able to perform the duty of advance notification, so he does so at the earliest convenience. > Herman De Wael, rhetorical Morton's Fork question: > >> Is it not the TD's job to make the movement and alter it >> when necessary? > > Richard Hills: > > No, as Law 78D shows, that is the Tournament Organizer's > role. > > Law 80 footnote: > > "* It is normal in some jurisdictions for the Director to > assume responsibility for some or all of the tasks that the > Tournament Organizer is here required to arrange." > > Richard Hills: > > So the Director may take over some Law 78D responsibilities > from the Tournament Organizer, but the Director is NOT > thereby empowered to over-ride the "in advance of the > tournament" and "available to the contestants" constraints > placed upon the Tournament Organizer. > > However, the Director does have a special emergency power. > > Law 81B1, second sentence: > > "He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament > Organizer." > > Richard Hills: > > If, for example, both the Tournament Organizer and the > Director had forgotten to create "in advance of the > tournament" a tie-break rule which was "available to the > contestants", then Law 81B1 permits the Director the > special emergency power of creating a post facto tie- > break rule. > > But..... > > Law 81B1 is not applicable in the stem case of multiple > fouled boards created by the Director's error, since there > has not been any "omission" by the Tournament Organizer as > Laws 82C and 12C2 fully cover all relevant issues. > But changing the movement surely is within the powers - for example if the TO has "omitted" to ensure that the movement is correct! > > 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 > Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 25 10:51:31 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:51:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B5D53DE.4050002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <285EBB4420274E78B4F0826B43544558@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Herman De Wael, rhetorical Morton's Fork question: >> >>> What does that have to do with it? >> >> Law 78D - Conditions of Contest: >> >> "If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring >> methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be >> adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions >> of Contest **in advance of a tournament** or contest. These >> should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, >> determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. >> The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and >> shall incorporate any information specified by the >> Regulating Authority. They should be **available to >> contestants**." >> > > I read: should, should and should. > If a TD needs to change the movement for whatever reason, he is no > longer able to perform the duty of advance notification, so he does so > at the earliest convenience. > >> Herman De Wael, rhetorical Morton's Fork question: >> >>> Is it not the TD's job to make the movement and alter it >>> when necessary? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> No, as Law 78D shows, that is the Tournament Organizer's >> role. >> >> Law 80 footnote: >> >> "* It is normal in some jurisdictions for the Director to >> assume responsibility for some or all of the tasks that the >> Tournament Organizer is here required to arrange." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> So the Director may take over some Law 78D responsibilities >> from the Tournament Organizer, but the Director is NOT >> thereby empowered to over-ride the "in advance of the >> tournament" and "available to the contestants" constraints >> placed upon the Tournament Organizer. >> >> However, the Director does have a special emergency power. >> >> Law 81B1, second sentence: >> >> "He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament >> Organizer." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> If, for example, both the Tournament Organizer and the >> Director had forgotten to create "in advance of the >> tournament" a tie-break rule which was "available to the >> contestants", then Law 81B1 permits the Director the >> special emergency power of creating a post facto tie- >> break rule. >> >> But..... >> >> Law 81B1 is not applicable in the stem case of multiple >> fouled boards created by the Director's error, since there >> has not been any "omission" by the Tournament Organizer as >> Laws 82C and 12C2 fully cover all relevant issues. >> > > But changing the movement surely is within the powers - for > example if the TO has "omitted" to ensure that the movement > is correct! > +=+ This last assertion seems to link a change of movement to a presumed power to override the laws on scoring and/or to allot scores on boards the contestant is not due to play. All this said, the chief omission seems to have been one of the drafting committee and others in not picking up on the Lille experience. However, the frail lady would be unimpressed by anything less than 60%. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Jan 25 13:02:56 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:02:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] NABC02 San Diego Appeal Message-ID: <4B5D8870.90702@virginmedia.com> [San Diego NABC Appeal 02] LA Open Pairs Q1. #30 LA/E S: A K 8 4 H: 9 2 D: 8 7 C: Q J T 7 6 ---- -- 1D 1S (_P) 2S (_X) _P (3D) P# (_P) 3S AP # Before passing, North reached toward bid box, pulled her hand back and thought briefly. Table Result: 3S-1 EW+50. Director Ruling: 3D= EW+110. AC Ruling: 3S-1 EW+50 The Facts: The director was called after the 3S call and again after the play of the hand was completed. The director determined that North?s actions noted above were UI, which arose from her body actions and not so much from her tempo. The Ruling: The director judged that the UI demonstrably suggested action over inaction and that a pass over 3D was a logical alternative for South. Therefore, he adjusted the result for both sides to 3D by East making three, E/W plus 110. The Appeal: N/S appealed the director?s decision and all four players attended the hearing. East maintained that North moved her hand toward the bidding box, withdrew her hand, and then reached for and pulled out a pass card. The Decision: The committee determined that North had a physical handicap that prevented her from reaching the pass card on her first try, and that accordingly there was no UI. With no infraction there was no basis to adjust the score. The table result of 3S by South down one, N/S minus 50 was restored for both sides. The Committee: Richard Popper (Chairman), Dick Budd, Ellen Kent, Barry Rigal and Riggs Thayer. [Adam Wildavsky] I?d like to know more about this case. The AC?s judgment seems unremarkable, but if the table action was due to a physical handicap I?d have expected the TD to rule the same way. One way or another something doesn?t add up. [Nigel] North's handicap caused her to think before making a 2nd try? Why didn't she tell the TD? Adam seems right to be concerned. Perhaps, he could examine the TD/AC workings and publish his summation? From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 25 13:43:42 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:43:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <285EBB4420274E78B4F0826B43544558@Mildred> References: <4B5D53DE.4050002@skynet.be> <285EBB4420274E78B4F0826B43544558@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B5D91FE.70106@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >>> >> But changing the movement surely is within the powers - for >> example if the TO has "omitted" to ensure that the movement >> is correct! >> > +=+ This last assertion seems to link a change of movement to > a presumed power to override the laws on scoring and/or to > allot scores on boards the contestant is not due to play. I don't see it like that - I see the boards not played now as "sit-outs" for which "own average" is the standard score. Not that there is any regulation written that says this - but it is standard practice. > All this said, the chief omission seems to have been one of > the drafting committee and others in not picking up on the Lille > experience. However, the frail lady would be unimpressed by > anything less than 60%. That is certainly true. Not knowing how the TD managed to screw up so royally, I would not be able to comment on his reasons for awarding just the own average. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > One more word on regulations: Nothing of this sort has ever been written by the WBF. I have in the past offered to write comprehensive regulations on these matters, for use by the WBF and all who wish to take them up. Perhaps this should be done before Philadelphia - maybe we would discuss this in Sanremo, Ton? Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 25 15:15:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:15:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] failing to play a penalty card on lead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CCE1392-2DF6-43F7-B2B1-EE4924153D07@starpower.net> On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Last Monday my partner led a heart while having a diamond as a penalty > card. Does L51A (declarer designates which of two penalty cards is > to be > played) apply? I am reading the laws as it does not. > > The lead of a heart is a revoke. The revoke is to be immediately > corrected > when noticed (L62A). The correction of the revoke is to withdraw > the heart > and substitute the diamond (L62B). The heart becomes a penalty > card. But > there were never two penalty cards at the same time and anyway the law > directs playing the diamond. > > Right? Or, just tell me if I am wrong. Wrong. This is not a revoke; it is a failure to lead a penalty card, which is explicitly governed by L52. Declarer may choose either lead, and the other card remains as a major PC (L52B). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jan 25 15:22:15 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:22:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] failing to play a penalty card on lead In-Reply-To: <5CCE1392-2DF6-43F7-B2B1-EE4924153D07@starpower.net> References: <5CCE1392-2DF6-43F7-B2B1-EE4924153D07@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2010/1/25 Eric Landau : > On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Last Monday my partner led a heart while having a diamond as a penalty >> card. Does L51A (declarer designates which of two penalty cards is >> to be >> played) apply? I am reading the laws as it does not. >> >> The lead of a heart is a revoke. The revoke is to be immediately >> corrected >> when noticed (L62A). The correction of the revoke is to withdraw >> the heart >> and substitute the diamond (L62B). The heart becomes a penalty >> card. But >> there were never two penalty cards at the same time and anyway the law >> directs playing the diamond. >> >> Right? Or, just tell me if I am wrong. > > Wrong. ?This is not a revoke; it is a failure to lead a penalty card, Wrong, it's a revoke. A. Definition of Revoke Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.) > which is explicitly governed by L52. ?Declarer may choose either > lead, and the other card remains as a major PC (L52B). This is, however, correct. > > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 25 15:42:28 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:42:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57653DF9-45C6-4460-ADD1-EBDAFE6B3A31@starpower.net> On Jan 25, 2010, at 12:31 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >> TFLB does not define or use the term "playing director", so the >> real question here is whether a "playing director" is something >> inherently different from either a player or a director, or >> merely a person with two "alternating hats" who acts as one or >> the other situationally. >> >> Parsimony of interpretation suggests the latter (if "playing >> director" was meant to be a special status, TFLB would >> presumably say something about it). That suggests that you >> have the same L9A4 right to keep mum that any other player >> would. >> >> But, having been many times a playing director in real life, I >> wouldn't exercise it. I may not be required by law to call my >> TD-self on my player-self, but IMHO I have an obligation to my >> customers. Moreover, moral issue aside, someone is likely to >> notice eventually, and it would be terrible PR. > > Australian Bridge Directors Association, Code of Ethics > > [snip] > > * Before making a bridge judgement ruling, a Tournament Director > should, if possible, seek advice from another director and/or > (particularly when another Director is not available) > uninvolved, experienced players of an appropriate standard: this > is both to test his bridge judgement and to ensure that he has > not overlooked something obvious. It will often be appropriate > to delay giving a final ruling on bridge judgement decisions - > particularly for a playing Director - until the end of the > session. > > * When a playing Tournament Director has a ruling in which his > side is involved, he must ensure that no suggestion of bias is > possible. Whenever practicable, he should find an alternate > Director to give the ruling. When this is not possible (as is > often the case), he might well consider ruling against his side > and then appealing, especially in cases where a judgement > decision is concerned. Only if, after consulting, he is quite > sure of his ground should he make a judgement ruling in his > side's favour. > > If it is a book ruling, then he may give it, but he should then > exhibit a greater degree of care in explaining the thought > processes. > > [snip] That is a sensible and suitable guideline for playing directors to follow when called upon to rule on their own infractions, but not directly relevant to the question on the table, which is about the ethics of failing to call attention to one's own infraction in the first place. This is legal and ethical for an ordinary player (L9A4); should a playing TD be held to (or impose upon himself) a higher standard? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jan 25 15:44:49 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:44:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 In-Reply-To: <4B59164E.6010701@virginmedia.com> References: <4B59164E.6010701@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <4B5DAE61.2030904@aol.com> Can anyone explain to me how he fulfilled the contract? I see only 8 tricks with any normal defence. I doubt that Levin played the king of spades and then switched to hearts. What am I missing? I'd be interested in the play. Levin was perhaps squeezed when the clubs were run? JE Nigel Guthrie schrieb: > NABC01. LM Open Pairs Q2. Board #1 None vul North deals > North S: Q97 H: AQT D: A7 C: AKT43 > ----- 2N (_P) ..P > (_P) 3N AP > South passed after BIT of 5-7 secs > The Facts: The director was called during the hand and again after the > play was completed. South said ?her bids are always slow.? > The Ruling: The director determined that there was a BIT that > demonstrably suggested the 3NT bid and that pass was a logical > alternative. Therefore, he adjusted the result for both sides to 3S by > East down one, E/W minus 50 ? Laws 16A2 and 12C1(e) > The Appeal: N/S appealed the director?s ruling. North, South, and West > attended the hearing. > N/S said that they play automatic reopenings. Their convention card is > marked ?Auto reopenings over 1x-2y-Pass-Pass.? > North said he didn?t notice a hesitation and South said she didn?t take > very long. West said East thought it was longer than five seconds. West > said South took some time but not a long hesitation. North said he would > not have reopened if he thought South hesitated. > West felt East might make 3S if the defense were not perfect. Also, West > thought South would not have taken five seconds with nothing. > The Decision: The committee determined that a 5-7 second hesitation in a > pressure auction did not transmit UI. Therefore, the committee found no > irregularity and restored the table result of 3NT by North making three, > N/S plus 400. > The Committee: Aaron Silverstein (Chair), Michael Huston, Gene Kales, > Jacob Morgan and David Stevenson. > > [Nigel] > IMO, the director was right, the committee wrong. And the committee > should have issued an AMWM. > Presumably, after North's 2N, East waited for 10 seconds before passing. > Hence, South's 5-7 seconds was on top of that. It doesn't take 15 > seconds to pass with a balanced Yarborough, so South's hesitation > promised some values. Although NS may automatically reopen after 1x (2y) > _P (_P), that doesn't imply a firm agreement over (3S). A suspicion > which is reinforced by North's statement that he would pass if he > thought that South hestitated. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 25 15:47:38 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:47:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] failing to play a penalty card on lead In-Reply-To: <5CCE1392-2DF6-43F7-B2B1-EE4924153D07@starpower.net> References: <5CCE1392-2DF6-43F7-B2B1-EE4924153D07@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B5DAF0A.1050907@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > > >> Last Monday my partner led a heart while having a diamond as a penalty >> card. Does L51A (declarer designates which of two penalty cards is >> to be >> played) apply? I am reading the laws as it does not. >> >> The lead of a heart is a revoke. The revoke is to be immediately >> corrected >> when noticed (L62A). The correction of the revoke is to withdraw >> the heart >> and substitute the diamond (L62B). The heart becomes a penalty >> card. But >> there were never two penalty cards at the same time and anyway the law >> directs playing the diamond. >> >> Right? Or, just tell me if I am wrong. >> > > Wrong. This is not a revoke; it is a failure to lead a penalty card, > which is explicitly governed by L52. Declarer may choose either > lead, and the other card remains as a major PC (L52B). > AG : I think this is summarized by "the lead is cancelled and the card becomes a MPC". The fact that declarer may choose and the other card remains a MPC is a consequence of PC laws. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 25 16:03:17 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:03:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) In-Reply-To: <285EBB4420274E78B4F0826B43544558@Mildred> References: <4B5D53DE.4050002@skynet.be> <285EBB4420274E78B4F0826B43544558@Mildred> Message-ID: <3278E5C9-FEC3-46CC-ACF3-0BCF7A5ED60F@starpower.net> On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:51 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael, rhetorical Morton's Fork question: >>> >>>> What does that have to do with it? >>> >>> Law 78D - Conditions of Contest: >>> >>> "If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring >>> methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be >>> adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions >>> of Contest **in advance of a tournament** or contest. These >>> should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, >>> determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. >>> The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and >>> shall incorporate any information specified by the >>> Regulating Authority. They should be **available to >>> contestants**." >>> >> >> I read: should, should and should. >> If a TD needs to change the movement for whatever reason, he is no >> longer able to perform the duty of advance notification, so he >> does so >> at the earliest convenience. >> >>> Herman De Wael, rhetorical Morton's Fork question: >>> >>>> Is it not the TD's job to make the movement and alter it >>>> when necessary? >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> No, as Law 78D shows, that is the Tournament Organizer's >>> role. >>> >>> Law 80 footnote: >>> >>> "* It is normal in some jurisdictions for the Director to >>> assume responsibility for some or all of the tasks that the >>> Tournament Organizer is here required to arrange." >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> So the Director may take over some Law 78D responsibilities >>> from the Tournament Organizer, but the Director is NOT >>> thereby empowered to over-ride the "in advance of the >>> tournament" and "available to the contestants" constraints >>> placed upon the Tournament Organizer. >>> >>> However, the Director does have a special emergency power. >>> >>> Law 81B1, second sentence: >>> >>> "He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament >>> Organizer." >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> If, for example, both the Tournament Organizer and the >>> Director had forgotten to create "in advance of the >>> tournament" a tie-break rule which was "available to the >>> contestants", then Law 81B1 permits the Director the >>> special emergency power of creating a post facto tie- >>> break rule. >>> >>> But..... >>> >>> Law 81B1 is not applicable in the stem case of multiple >>> fouled boards created by the Director's error, since there >>> has not been any "omission" by the Tournament Organizer as >>> Laws 82C and 12C2 fully cover all relevant issues. >> >> But changing the movement surely is within the powers - for >> example if the TO has "omitted" to ensure that the movement >> is correct! > > +=+ This last assertion seems to link a change of movement to > a presumed power to override the laws on scoring and/or to > allot scores on boards the contestant is not due to play. > All this said, the chief omission seems to have been one of > the drafting committee and others in not picking up on the Lille > experience. However, the frail lady would be unimpressed by > anything less than 60%. Legally speaking, is starting an event using a flawed, unworkable (non-)movement an "irregularity"? Is substituting a proper, workable movement a "rectification"? If the original movement announcement led a player to believe that he was going to play a particular set (or number) of boards (or that a particular set of boards he has already played was going to count), is the fact that he will not do so in the subsituted movement "owing to an irregularity", so that L12C2(a) applies, or is it merely "owing" to the nature of the movement? IMHO common sense suggests the latter. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 25 16:16:32 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:16:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] NABC02 San Diego Appeal In-Reply-To: <4B5D8870.90702@virginmedia.com> References: <4B5D8870.90702@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <743D527B-5EF7-4327-B592-37C7905F27DD@starpower.net> On Jan 25, 2010, at 7:02 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [San Diego NABC Appeal 02] > LA Open Pairs Q1. #30 LA/E > S: A K 8 4 H: 9 2 D: 8 7 C: Q J T 7 6 > ---- -- 1D 1S > (_P) 2S (_X) _P > (3D) P# (_P) 3S > AP > # Before passing, North reached toward bid box, pulled her hand > back and > thought briefly. > Table Result: 3S-1 EW+50. Director Ruling: 3D= EW+110. AC Ruling: > 3S-1 EW+50 > The Facts: The director was called after the 3S call and again > after the > play of the hand was completed. The director determined that North?s > actions noted above were UI, which arose from her body actions and not > so much from her tempo. > The Ruling: The director judged that the UI demonstrably suggested > action over inaction and that a pass over 3D was a logical alternative > for South. Therefore, he adjusted the result for both sides to 3D by > East making three, E/W plus 110. > The Appeal: N/S appealed the director?s decision and all four players > attended the hearing. > East maintained that North moved her hand toward the bidding box, > withdrew her hand, and then reached for and pulled out a pass card. > The Decision: The committee determined that North had a physical > handicap that prevented her from reaching the pass card on her first > try, and that accordingly there was no UI. With no infraction there > was > no basis to adjust the score. The table result of 3S by South down > one, > N/S minus 50 was restored for both sides. > The Committee: Richard Popper (Chairman), Dick Budd, Ellen Kent, Barry > Rigal and Riggs Thayer. > > [Adam Wildavsky] > I?d like to know more about this case. The AC?s judgment seems > unremarkable, but if the table action was due to a physical > handicap I?d > have expected the TD to rule the same way. One way or another > something > doesn?t add up. > > [Nigel] > North's handicap caused her to think before making a 2nd try? Why > didn't > she tell the TD? Adam seems right to be concerned. Perhaps, he could > examine the TD/AC workings and publish his summation? With advancing age, I have discovered as I grow progressively enfeebled, one develops a tentativeness of physical motion that may be easily mistaken by an unfamiliar observer for a hesitancy or uncertainty of intent. Not every failure to make every call in a robotically repetitive manner conveys UI. It is up to the TD and the AC to make such judgments, and not terribly surprising if occasionally they reach different conclusions. Nobody said they had an easy job. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 25 16:49:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:49:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NABC02 San Diego Appeal In-Reply-To: <743D527B-5EF7-4327-B592-37C7905F27DD@starpower.net> References: <4B5D8870.90702@virginmedia.com> <743D527B-5EF7-4327-B592-37C7905F27DD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B5DBD72.1090306@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> [Nigel] >> North's handicap caused her to think before making a 2nd try? Why >> didn't >> she tell the TD? Adam seems right to be concerned. Perhaps, he could >> examine the TD/AC workings and publish his summation? >> > > With advancing age, I have discovered as I grow progressively > enfeebled, one develops a tentativeness of physical motion that may > be easily mistaken by an unfamiliar observer for a hesitancy or > uncertainty of intent. Not every failure to make every call in a > robotically repetitive manner conveys UI. It is up to the TD and the > AC to make such judgments, and not terribly surprising if > occasionally they reach different conclusions. Nobody said they had > an easy job. > > AG : agreed, but doesn't fit very well with the facts.: ACs should, when changing the TD's ruling, mention iwhether they had additional information or if they just had a different judgment. Here, my feeling is that only the former could justify the change, but I don't understand why the TD didn't have that informaiton at his disposal. BTW, the hand is consistent with an hesitation. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 25 16:43:48 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:43:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) In-Reply-To: <3278E5C9-FEC3-46CC-ACF3-0BCF7A5ED60F@starpower.net> References: <4B5D53DE.4050002@skynet.be> <285EBB4420274E78B4F0826B43544558@Mildred> <3278E5C9-FEC3-46CC-ACF3-0BCF7A5ED60F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B5DBC34.3070901@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Legally speaking, is starting an event using a flawed, unworkable > (non-)movement an "irregularity"? AG : according to the definition of "irregularity", it is. The question isn't whether one will play this or that board, but whether one would play one's full contingent of boards and have as many opportunities for tops as every other player. Giving the NOS the benefit of the doubt as to whether they would have scored well on an unplayable board is standard, and surely you're NO if you've followed the TD's instructions and they appear to be wrong. Best regards Alain From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Jan 25 18:03:41 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:03:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 In-Reply-To: <4B5DAE61.2030904@aol.com> References: <4B59164E.6010701@virginmedia.com> <4B5DAE61.2030904@aol.com> Message-ID: <4B5DCEED.3090207@yahoo.co.uk> [Jeff Easterson] Can anyone explain to me how he fulfilled the contract? I see only 8 tricks with any normal defence. I doubt that Levin played the king of spades and then switched to hearts. What am I missing? I'd be interested in the play. Levin was perhaps squeezed when the clubs were run? JE [Nigel] ---- 2N (_P) ..P (_P) 3N AP Leader S: A K J T 6 4 3 H: K 4 2 D: 6 3 C: 9 _Dummy S: 5 H: J 8 7 5 D: J 9 7 C: Q J 7 6 2 Successful defence isn't that easy. - Diamond at trick one or - Diamond switch at trick 2, after cashing one top spade or - Three rounds of spades (AK & another). If you lead a heart or a club, declarer can set up hearts. If you lead a small spade, then you can be strip squeezed (although it's hard for declarer to read the position). It would be interesting to learn how many defeated 3N by North at other tables. From lali808 at gmail.com Mon Jan 25 19:31:47 2010 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:31:47 -1000 Subject: [BLML] misinformation to ops? Message-ID: In a KO game. LHO opens 1C, pass, RHO 2C, pass; LHO quickly starts putting bidding cards back in box. The passout seat halts proceedings to ask what the 2C means. Opps are playing 2/1. Partner asks what the 2C means and is told it is weak. Holding 4-4 in the majors, partner thinks that the points are evenly split and balances with a double. RHO jumps up with 3C, pass, LHO thinks and bids 3NT. RHO shows up with 5C and a limit raise containing 2 aces. 3N makes 3NT bidder has 14hcp. Director is called. LHO card on table shows inverted minors but RHO says that it is the wrong card. RHO has no card. The right card is produced and does not show inverted. Director asks what 1C- 3C would mean and is told weak. When asked how they can show a limit raise in Clubs he is told they bid something else and then bid again or something.... with no specific way to show a limit. Director takes case under advisement and later allows the 3N bid to stand. Was the ruling correct? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100125/223b1846/attachment.html From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Jan 25 19:54:32 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:54:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] misinformation to ops? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B5DE8E8.10506@yahoo.co.uk> [Lali] In a KO game. LHO opens 1C, pass, RHO 2C, pass; LHO quickly starts putting bidding cards back in box. The passout seat halts proceedings to ask what the 2C means. Opps are playing 2/1. Partner asks what the 2C means and is told it is weak. Holding 4-4 in the majors, partner thinks that the points are evenly split and balances with a double. RHO jumps up with 3C, pass, LHO thinks and bids 3NT. RHO shows up with 5C and a limit raise containing 2 aces. 3N makes 3NT bidder has 14hcp. Director is called. LHO card on table shows inverted minors but RHO says that it is the wrong card. RHO has no card. The right card is produced and does not show inverted. Director asks what 1C- 3C would mean and is told weak. When asked how they can show a limit raise in Clubs he is told they bid something else and then bid again or something.... with no specific way to show a limit. Director takes case under advisement and later allows the 3N bid to stand. Was the ruling correct? [Nige1] IMO, on the facts as given, the director ruled incorrectly. LHO presented a system card to you; it should describe their system. Hence LHO misinformed you; leading to your damage. The other facts are consistent with this; with the possible exception of the other card; even that is ambiguous in the light of the fact that they say 1C-3C is weak. I hope that this is Grattan's position, too. Unfortunately, however, I fear that some other sophisticated BLMLers may disagree. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 26 01:44:32 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:44:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn References: <57653DF9-45C6-4460-ADD1-EBDAFE6B3A31@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2D9382DFE4754BD8A4F85E93F0239D26@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn > On Jan 25, 2010, at 12:31 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Eric Landau: >> >> [snip] >> >>> TFLB does not define or use the term "playing director", so the >>> real question here is whether a "playing director" is something >>> inherently different from either a player or a director, or >>> merely a person with two "alternating hats" who acts as one or >>> the other situationally. >>> >>> Parsimony of interpretation suggests the latter (if "playing >>> director" was meant to be a special status, TFLB would >>> presumably say something about it). That suggests that you >>> have the same L9A4 right to keep mum that any other player >>> would. >>> >>> But, having been many times a playing director in real life, I >>> wouldn't exercise it. I may not be required by law to call my >>> TD-self on my player-self, but IMHO I have an obligation to my >>> customers. Moreover, moral issue aside, someone is likely to >>> notice eventually, and it would be terrible PR. >> >> Australian Bridge Directors Association, Code of Ethics >> >> [snip] >> >> * Before making a bridge judgement ruling, a Tournament Director >> should, if possible, seek advice from another director and/or >> (particularly when another Director is not available) >> uninvolved, experienced players of an appropriate standard: this >> is both to test his bridge judgement and to ensure that he has >> not overlooked something obvious. It will often be appropriate >> to delay giving a final ruling on bridge judgement decisions - >> particularly for a playing Director - until the end of the >> session. >> >> * When a playing Tournament Director has a ruling in which his >> side is involved, he must ensure that no suggestion of bias is >> possible. Whenever practicable, he should find an alternate >> Director to give the ruling. When this is not possible (as is >> often the case), he might well consider ruling against his side >> and then appealing, especially in cases where a judgement >> decision is concerned. Only if, after consulting, he is quite >> sure of his ground should he make a judgement ruling in his >> side's favour. >> >> If it is a book ruling, then he may give it, but he should then >> exhibit a greater degree of care in explaining the thought >> processes. >> >> [snip] > > That is a sensible and suitable guideline for playing directors to > follow when called upon to rule on their own infractions, but not > directly relevant to the question on the table, which is about the > ethics of failing to call attention to one's own infraction in the > first place. This is legal and ethical for an ordinary player > (L9A4); should a playing TD be held to (or impose upon himself) a > higher standard? > +=+ When he reverts from being a player to being a Director I think he is certainly bound by Law 81C3. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 26 01:49:00 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:49:00 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) References: <4B5D53DE.4050002@skynet.be> <285EBB4420274E78B4F0826B43544558@Mildred><3278E5C9-FEC3-46CC-ACF3-0BCF7A5ED60F@starpower.net> <4B5DBC34.3070901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <018A9762C802424FA10A56F42C54387D@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Legally speaking, is starting an event using a flawed, unworkable > (non-)movement an "irregularity"? AG : according to the definition of "irregularity", it is. The question isn't whether one will play this or that board, but whether one would play one's full contingent of boards and have as many opportunities for tops as every other player. Giving the NOS the benefit of the doubt as to whether they would have scored well on an unplayable board is standard, and surely you're NO if you've followed the TD's instructions and they appear to be wrong. < +=+ It appears to me that it constitutes an irregularity as Alan says. I am toying with the thought that the session must be aborted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 08:40:40 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:40:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misinformation to ops? In-Reply-To: <4B5DE8E8.10506@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B5DE8E8.10506@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: 2010/1/25 Nigel Guthrie : > [Lali] > In a KO game. LHO opens 1C, pass, RHO 2C, pass; LHO quickly starts > putting bidding cards back in box. ?The passout seat halts proceedings > to ask what the 2C means. Opps are playing 2/1. Partner asks what the 2C > means and is told it is weak. Holding 4-4 in the majors, partner thinks > that the points are evenly split and balances with a double. RHO jumps > up with 3C, pass, LHO thinks and bids 3NT. RHO shows up with 5C and a > limit raise containing 2 aces. 3N makes 3NT bidder has 14hcp. Director > is called. LHO card on table shows inverted minors but RHO says that it > is the wrong card. RHO has no card. The right card is produced and does > not show inverted. ?Director asks what 1C- 3C would mean and is told > weak. ?When asked how they can show a limit raise in Clubs he is told > they bid something else and then bid again or something.... with no > specific way to show a limit. Director takes case under advisement and > later allows the 3N bid to stand. Was the ruling correct? > > [Nige1] > IMO, on the facts as given, the director ruled incorrectly. LHO > presented a system card to you; it should describe their system. Hence > LHO misinformed you; leading to your damage. The other facts are > consistent with this; with the possible exception of the other card; > even that is ambiguous in the light of the fact that they say 1C-3C is weak. Huh? You might be correct that the TD ruled wrong, but your basis for this is not. Why should a SC that opponents didn't use (look at), and which appears to be the wrong card, influense the ruling? On the facts given, it seems quite clear that it was the wrong SC. Not only did RHO state that it was the wrong SC, they were able to produce the correct card. The wrong card probably didn't have RHOs name on it, but that's not clear from the OP. It seems like they have a hole in their system, and this should have been explained. Then balancing would be less obvious, maybe even odds against - hard to say, with no hand presented. And the ruling should be based on this. > > I hope that this is Grattan's position, too. Unfortunately, however, I > fear that some other sophisticated BLMLers may disagree. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 26 11:40:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:40:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misinformation to ops? In-Reply-To: References: <4B5DE8E8.10506@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B5EC696.3030409@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2010/1/25 Nigel Guthrie : > >> [Lali] >> In a KO game. LHO opens 1C, pass, RHO 2C, pass; LHO quickly starts >> putting bidding cards back in box. The passout seat halts proceedings >> to ask what the 2C means. Opps are playing 2/1. Partner asks what the 2C >> means and is told it is weak. Holding 4-4 in the majors, partner thinks >> that the points are evenly split and balances with a double. RHO jumps >> up with 3C, pass, LHO thinks and bids 3NT. RHO shows up with 5C and a >> limit raise containing 2 aces. 3N makes 3NT bidder has 14hcp. Director >> is called. LHO card on table shows inverted minors but RHO says that it >> is the wrong card. RHO has no card. The right card is produced and does >> not show inverted. Director asks what 1C- 3C would mean and is told >> weak. When asked how they can show a limit raise in Clubs he is told >> they bid something else and then bid again or something.... with no >> specific way to show a limit. Director takes case under advisement and >> later allows the 3N bid to stand. Was the ruling correct? >> >> [Nige1] >> IMO, on the facts as given, the director ruled incorrectly. LHO >> presented a system card to you; it should describe their system. Hence >> LHO misinformed you; leading to your damage. The other facts are >> consistent with this; with the possible exception of the other card; >> even that is ambiguous in the light of the fact that they say 1C-3C is weak. >> > > Huh? You might be correct that the TD ruled wrong, but your basis for > this is not. > Why should a SC that opponents didn't use (look at), and which appears > to be the wrong card, influense the ruling? > On the facts given, it seems quite clear that it was the wrong SC. Not > only did RHO state that it was the wrong SC, they were able to produce > the correct card. The wrong card probably didn't have RHOs name on it, > but that's not clear from the OP. > AG : I agree with Harald. You should be told what their system is, not what a random sheet of paper on the table says. The "other" SC had as much relevance as the wine list, unless of course it misinformed you, but that seems not to be the case. Not long ago, I had the wrong SC on the table for a whole 20-deal match ; it transpired when opponents debriefed and tried to understand a bidding sequence using the SC left on the table. Of course, our explanations were consistent with the system, not with the random sheet of paper and no MI problem arised. > It seems like they have a hole in their system, and this should have > been explained. Then balancing would be less obvious, maybe even odds > against - hard to say, with no hand presented. And the ruling should > be based on this. > Their system is, in fact, that they bid 2C with a hand worth 3C and then they hope for you to balance. This should have been stated. This isn't illegal per se ; after all, Standard American and its variants use 1-bids that can be so heavy that you'd think thrice before reopening. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 26 12:42:51 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:42:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] non-NABC+, Case 4 In-Reply-To: <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: You are on lead with QJ8 of diamonds (trumps) and 9 of clubs. If you draw trumps, you believe your hand is good. But just in case..... should you play out all of your trumps first, in case there is a higher club? Maybe the person with the higher club will be pseudo-squeezed and pitch wrong. But what if your eight of diamonds isn't good? Then you might lose the last two tricks. Maybe you should play two high trumps and then your And if you claim at this point? Should you be forced to take the worst of these two options? It seems to me, IMO, that directors should not be playing the hand for the players following a claim. If there is a choice to be made, something to be noticed like a bad trump break, some logic to work out for which is the best play, then declarer should not be claiming. One justification for this is that it is a relatively clear demarcation for the director to follow. As opposed to the actual Case 4, where the director decided that the player would count trumps and then make the appropriate play. Also, there is something wrong with assuming the declarer will not make a mistake in the play of the hand when declarer has just made a mistake by claiming. And to continue the rant, the panel took into account the declarer's ability. AND their logic was wrong. Their stated reasoning was that a player of this ability would have noticed that there was still a higher trump out, and hence it would have been irrational at that time to play the last trump. Yes, it would have been irrational to do that. But it was not irrational to miss that a higher trump was out. That is merely careless. Bob From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 12:57:45 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:57:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] non-NABC+, Case 4 In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2010/1/26 Robert Frick : > You are on lead with QJ8 of diamonds (trumps) and 9 of clubs. If you draw > trumps, you believe your hand is good. > > But just in case..... should you play out all of your trumps first, in > case there is a higher club? Maybe the person with the higher club will be > pseudo-squeezed and pitch wrong. > > But what if your eight of diamonds isn't good? Then you might lose the > last two tricks. Maybe you should play two high trumps and then your > > And if you claim at this point? Should you be forced to take the worst of > these two options? > > > > It seems to me, IMO, that directors should not be playing the hand for the > players following a claim. If there is a choice to be made, something to > be noticed like a bad trump break, some logic to work out for which is the > best play, then declarer should not be claiming. > > One justification for this is that it is a relatively clear demarcation > for the director to follow. As opposed to the actual Case 4, where the > director decided that the player would count trumps and then make the > appropriate play. > > Also, there is something wrong with assuming the declarer will not make a > mistake in the play of the hand when declarer has just made a mistake by > claiming. > > And to continue the rant, the panel took into account the declarer's > ability. > > AND their logic was wrong. Their stated reasoning was that a player of > this ability would have noticed that there was still a higher trump out, > and hence it would have been irrational at that time to play the last > trump. Yes, it would have been irrational to do that. But it was not > irrational to miss that a higher trump was out. That is merely careless. When resolving a disputed claim, you take into account what's been said in the claim statement (if there was any), declarers plan (look up the play of the hand leading up to the claim), and, to some degree, the players ability. I might have ruled as the TD and AC in this case, or not. The exact play of the hand isn't given in the write up. > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From lali808 at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 20:06:34 2010 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:06:34 -1000 Subject: [BLML] misinformation to ops? In-Reply-To: <4B5EC696.3030409@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B5DE8E8.10506@yahoo.co.uk> <4B5EC696.3030409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: As it has been said... the wrong SC on the table should have no bearing on this case. The only question is the hidden information that 1m-2m could have as much as a limit hand dependent on further bidding rather than being given the information that it is a weak bid. The fact that the opener tried to put away the bidding cards before the last bidder could bid also seems suspect to further bid on her part after her partner raises to 3C? Appreciate all the feedback folks! On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > 2010/1/25 Nigel Guthrie : > > > >> [Lali] > >> In a KO game. LHO opens 1C, pass, RHO 2C, pass; LHO quickly starts > >> putting bidding cards back in box. The passout seat halts proceedings > >> to ask what the 2C means. Opps are playing 2/1. Partner asks what the 2C > >> means and is told it is weak. Holding 4-4 in the majors, partner thinks > >> that the points are evenly split and balances with a double. RHO jumps > >> up with 3C, pass, LHO thinks and bids 3NT. RHO shows up with 5C and a > >> limit raise containing 2 aces. 3N makes 3NT bidder has 14hcp. Director > >> is called. LHO card on table shows inverted minors but RHO says that it > >> is the wrong card. RHO has no card. The right card is produced and does > >> not show inverted. Director asks what 1C- 3C would mean and is told > >> weak. When asked how they can show a limit raise in Clubs he is told > >> they bid something else and then bid again or something.... with no > >> specific way to show a limit. Director takes case under advisement and > >> later allows the 3N bid to stand. Was the ruling correct? > >> > >> [Nige1] > >> IMO, on the facts as given, the director ruled incorrectly. LHO > >> presented a system card to you; it should describe their system. Hence > >> LHO misinformed you; leading to your damage. The other facts are > >> consistent with this; with the possible exception of the other card; > >> even that is ambiguous in the light of the fact that they say 1C-3C is > weak. > >> > > > > Huh? You might be correct that the TD ruled wrong, but your basis for > > this is not. > > Why should a SC that opponents didn't use (look at), and which appears > > to be the wrong card, influense the ruling? > > On the facts given, it seems quite clear that it was the wrong SC. Not > > only did RHO state that it was the wrong SC, they were able to produce > > the correct card. The wrong card probably didn't have RHOs name on it, > > but that's not clear from the OP. > > > AG : I agree with Harald. You should be told what their system is, not > what a random sheet of paper on the table says. The "other" SC had as > much relevance as the wine list, unless of course it misinformed you, > but that seems not to be the case. > Not long ago, I had the wrong SC on the table for a whole 20-deal match > ; it transpired when opponents debriefed and tried to understand a > bidding sequence using the SC left on the table. Of course, our > explanations were consistent with the system, not with the random sheet > of paper and no MI problem arised. > > It seems like they have a hole in their system, and this should have > > been explained. Then balancing would be less obvious, maybe even odds > > against - hard to say, with no hand presented. And the ruling should > > be based on this. > > > Their system is, in fact, that they bid 2C with a hand worth 3C and then > they hope for you to balance. This should have been stated. > This isn't illegal per se ; after all, Standard American and its > variants use 1-bids that can be so heavy that you'd think thrice before > reopening. > > Best regards > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20100126/f52819a5/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 26 20:44:31 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:44:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) In-Reply-To: <018A9762C802424FA10A56F42C54387D@Mildred> References: <4B5D53DE.4050002@skynet.be> <285EBB4420274E78B4F0826B43544558@Mildred><3278E5C9-FEC3-46CC-ACF3-0BCF7A5ED60F@starpower.net> <4B5DBC34.3070901@ulb.ac.be> <018A9762C802424FA10A56F42C54387D@Mildred> Message-ID: <829C16B6-0418-4E24-931F-869066B285D5@starpower.net> On Jan 25, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > The question isn't whether one will play this or that board, but > whether > one would play one's full contingent of boards and have as many > opportunities for tops as every other player. Giving the NOS the > benefit > of the doubt as to whether they would have scored well on an > unplayable > board is standard, and surely you're NO if you've followed the TD's > instructions and they appear to be wrong. > > +=+ It appears to me that it constitutes an irregularity as Alan says. > I am toying with the thought that the session must be aborted. That "must" is pretty categorical. If the movement is screwed up but the TD can find a reasonable way to save the session without a great deal of disruption we would surely prefer that he do that. OTOH, I can see where the lawmakers might be reluctant to give the TD carte blanche to try to save the session by any means he can think to try however far out. It shouldn't be all that hard, though, to word a law that falls somewhere between these extremes. Obviously, awarding some pairs 60% scores on whole rounds' worth of boards isn't workable. Grattan's "must", however, is probably appropriate for high-level major championships, and would probably have been the right answer in Lille. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 26 21:08:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:08:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] non-NABC+, Case 4 In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53646F2C-01D3-4631-8D14-32C490697DE9@starpower.net> On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > You are on lead with QJ8 of diamonds (trumps) and 9 of clubs. If > you draw > trumps, you believe your hand is good. > > But just in case..... should you play out all of your trumps first, in > case there is a higher club? Maybe the person with the higher club > will be > pseudo-squeezed and pitch wrong. > > But what if your eight of diamonds isn't good? Then you might lose the > last two tricks. Maybe you should play two high trumps and then your > > And if you claim at this point? Should you be forced to take the > worst of > these two options? If your claim is based on the misperception that all of your suits are running regardless of how they are distributed between the opponents' hands, you should be deemed to play those suits in the least advantageous order; "rationality" when you think all your cards are good is limited to not playing a particular card if you have a higher one in the same suit. That does seem to be the case here. > It seems to me, IMO, that directors should not be playing the hand > for the > players following a claim. If there is a choice to be made, > something to > be noticed like a bad trump break, some logic to work out for which > is the > best play, then declarer should not be claiming. > > One justification for this is that it is a relatively clear > demarcation > for the director to follow. As opposed to the actual Case 4, where the > director decided that the player would count trumps and then make the > appropriate play. > > Also, there is something wrong with assuming the declarer will not > make a > mistake in the play of the hand when declarer has just made a > mistake by > claiming. > > And to continue the rant, the panel took into account the declarer's > ability. > > AND their logic was wrong. Their stated reasoning was that a player of > this ability would have noticed that there was still a higher trump > out, > and hence it would have been irrational at that time to play the last > trump. Yes, it would have been irrational to do that. But it was not > irrational to miss that a higher trump was out. That is merely > careless. The AC misread and misapplied L70E1. Opponent's showing out means only that if your line of play won't work unless you locate a particular card of that suit it is presumed that you will locate it successfully. A line of play premised solely on all of the opponents' relevant cards falling under your higher ones is not a "line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From tedying at yahoo.com Tue Jan 26 21:49:47 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:49:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) In-Reply-To: <829C16B6-0418-4E24-931F-869066B285D5@starpower.net> References: <4B5D53DE.4050002@skynet.be> <285EBB4420274E78B4F0826B43544558@Mildred><3278E5C9-FEC3-46CC-ACF3-0BCF7A5ED60F@starpower.net> <4B5DBC34.3070901@ulb.ac.be> <018A9762C802424FA10A56F42C54387D@Mildred> <829C16B6-0418-4E24-931F-869066B285D5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <26657.89798.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> It seems to me that it is often forgotten on this list that the laws were made for both tournaments and club games. At a club, the thought that a director would abort the session when there was a possibility of the players continuing to play, even under poor conditions of contest would incite a riot. Most players want to "get their money's worth" and play cards. And over the years, I have had many very difficult movements where I have spent most of the evening working out patterns to allow players to continue playing and then trying to provide what equity I can to the players. I agree with Eric that aborting the session may be appropriate for high-level major events, but I do not think that it would be at all appropriate for the vast majority of bridge that is covered by the laws. In the case in point, I feel strongly that the players in question, are entitled by law to their 60% on all boards that they were unable to play through the director's irregularity. This pair was not allowed to compete fairly on a deal through no fault of their own. Law 12.C.2.a is pretty clear that they are entitled to 60%. There are no clauses that give the director the leeway to award a different artificial assigned score except as a penalty and in this case, the FEL was a non-offending party and not subject to any penalties. There are no laws to "protect the field" which is what those lobbying for a lesser artificial assigned score seen to favor. Law 81.B.2 specifically says that the director is bound by the laws. So, unless the law changes, the director needs to award 60% for each unplayed board which was not the FEL's fault. -Ted. ________________________________ From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 2:44:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) On Jan 25, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > The question isn't whether one will play this or that board, but > whether > one would play one's full contingent of boards and have as many > opportunities for tops as every other player. Giving the NOS the > benefit > of the doubt as to whether they would have scored well on an > unplayable > board is standard, and surely you're NO if you've followed the TD's > instructions and they appear to be wrong. > > +=+ It appears to me that it constitutes an irregularity as Alan says. > I am toying with the thought that the session must be aborted. That "must" is pretty categorical. If the movement is screwed up but the TD can find a reasonable way to save the session without a great deal of disruption we would surely prefer that he do that. OTOH, I can see where the lawmakers might be reluctant to give the TD carte blanche to try to save the session by any means he can think to try however far out. It shouldn't be all that hard, though, to word a law that falls somewhere between these extremes. Obviously, awarding some pairs 60% scores on whole rounds' worth of boards isn't workable. Grattan's "must", however, is probably appropriate for high-level major championships, and would probably have been the right answer in Lille. 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 Jan 27 04:32:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:32:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B504872.3010202@skynet.be> Message-ID: Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland How doth the little crocodile Improve his shining tail, And pour the waters of the Nile On every golden scale! How cheerfully he seems to grin, How neatly spreads his claws, And welcomes little fishes in With gently smiling jaws! Richard Willey: [snip] >>More importantly, when members of the rules making body seem to care >>more about engaging in sophistry than they do about playing by the >>rules, they should be given the boot - and damn quickly. Out of >>curiosity, are you actually allowed to direct serious events? (I >>asked some friends in Belgium and they said that you weren't) Herman De Wael: >Who said that? I direct all the top events in Belgium. I am a >qualified director, classed by the EBL as NBO-director (there are 50 >of those in Europe). I have completed the EBL exam three times in the >past, and finished in the top-10 three times. I am going for a fourth >shot in Sanremo in two weeks. > >I am not boasting but merely setting the record straight, OK? Richard Hills: I direct none of the top events in Australia. I am a qualified director, classed by the ABF as a Club Director (there are hundreds of those in Australia). I have completed the BFACT exam once, gaining a pass mark. But... At the end of 2006 my work assisting Grattan Endicott and the Drafting Committee partially contributed to my ill health. I then received this encouraging email from William ("Kojak") Schoder: >>>Richard, your help in getting the laws into good "legal" shape is >>>much appreciated by those of us who labor daily in this area. >>>Surely the distribution of the drafts-of-drafts is going to >>>generate a flood of comments, arguments, etc., in the hands of the >>>blml'ers. What a juicy opportunity to show their erudition! [snip] >>>I hope we continue that where there is a specific law to cover an >>>infraction we only go there and where it sends us to rectify, and >>>that the "general" laws are guidance when the infraction is not >>>covered. >>> >>>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. [snip] >>>Your health comes first -- guard it strenuously -- my therapy is >>>GOLF. Since it is about 95% brains, and only 5% body to play it well >>>it is clearly appropriate for a type A like me. >>> >>>Best regards, Kojak Richard Hills: I am not boasting but merely setting the record straight, OK? Also on the record are the second and third sentences of Law 40C1: "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." 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 Jan 27 07:43:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:43:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B4DF5ED.1070602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Monty Python's Flying Circus: "And now for something completely different." Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >(he also makes occasional tactical bids, like suppressing 3-card >support for partner's major, but the distortion isn't big enough >to qualify as a psyche) Richard Hills: Law 40C1 has a broad remit, covering both "gross misstatements" and also "tiny distortions". A so-called "tactical bid" will become part of the partnership's methods whenever it has been employed sufficiently frequently by one partner that the other partner has "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents". And now for something completely different. South West Pacific Teams, Match 4, Board 13 The anti-clockwise auction has proceeded -> RHO Pard LHO Me 3H 2S (1) Pass ? (1) Weak jump undercall I held: K8762 7 AK AJ543 If pard held perfect cards for his weak jump undercall, then 6S would make. However, one of the Rules that Bob Hamman imposes upon his partner is: "Never play Bob for perfect cards, since he never holds them". So I dragged the 4S card out of my bidding box, and it was halfway to the table (visible to RHO but not yet visible to pard), when suddenly... ...I realised that the clockwise auction had actually proceeded -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Richard Hashmat Hills Ali --- 1C (1) Pass 2S (2) 3H ? (1) 15+ hcp, any shape (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1, but singleton kings not counted), at least 5/5 in the minors So I put my 4S card back into my bidding box, and announced that 2S should have been alerted. At this stage East-West called for a Director, to rule upon the status of the phule's hovering 4S bidding box card. This provided some entertainment for the entire Directing staff as they parsed the relevant part of the Bidding Box Regulation. Clause 3.5 "A call is considered made (without screens) when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." So the Directors' rule for the phule was that I could retract my 4S bidding card without any further rectification (although my phulish antics were unauthorised information for partner). The auction concluded -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Richard Hashmat Hills Ali --- 1C Pass 2S 3H 4NT(3) Pass 5D (4) Pass 6C Pass Pass Pass (3) Old-fashioned Blackwood (4) One ace The complete deal was -> K8762 7 AK AJ543 QJ5 A943 KQJT653 942 7 Q6543 QT 9 T A8 JT982 K8762 +1370 and 13 imps to the good guys. Rueful Rabbit redux! 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 Jan 27 09:02:49 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:02:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B5FF329.4030506@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Also on the record are the second and third sentences of Law 40C1: > > "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form > part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance > with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director > judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he > shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." > What these sentences NOT say, and what we are discussing (these sentences have not ever been discussed by me) is that these understandings become part of the partnership's SYSTEM and are subject to the system regulations. There is no use repeating seventeen times something which I have never denied, never thought applicable, and told you sixteen times it is not applicable. Rather, you should try and help us find sentences which are applicable, and finish a discussion in a constructive manner. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 27 22:27:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:27:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: South West Pacific Teams, Match 4, Board 13 Dlr: North K8762 Vul: All 7 AK AJ543 QJ5 A943 KQJT653 942 7 Q6543 QT 9 T A8 JT982 K8762 This deal was the subject of two separate appeals. One appeal was traditional. After a highly competitive auction, East-West bid to 4H and one member of the North-South partnership slooowly doubled for penalties. The other member of the North-South partnership removed to 5C, NS +620. The Directors adjusted the score to 4Hx, NS -790. North-South appealed on the traditional meritless ground that the logical alternative of bidding 5C would always have been selected had partner not hesitated. Yet the Appeals Committee did not fine North-South victory points for a meritless appeal. Why was that so? The Appeals Committee's adjusted score was: 90% of 4Hx, NS -790 10% of 4Hx, NS +200 since the Appeals Committee believed that 10% of the time the North-South partnership would have found the spade ruff which was necessary to defeat 4Hx. As the Appeals Committee had (very marginally) improved the score of the appealing side, the Appeals Committee thought it would be logically inconsistent to fine the appealing side for a meritless appeal. The other appeal was my opponents appealing against the "played bidding box card" ruling by the Directors at my table. Law 40C2 "Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or (b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played." ABF Bidding Box Regulation about played bidding box card "A call is considered made (without screens) when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." The table Director and the Chief Director attended my Appeals Committee hearing. The Chair of the Appeals Committee was the former Chief Director of Australia (now retired in order to play bridge), so he instantly noticed the parallel wording of the Bidding Box Regulation and Law 40C2. Therefore the Chair carefully questioned the Chief Director whether the application of the regulation was intended to be consistent with the application of Law 40C2. The Chief Director confirmed that this was so. Ergo, the appellants' case that a new precedent should be set, with any card halfway to the table deemed to be nearly touching the table, was given short shrift. For this appeal the Appeals Committee awarded an appeal without merit fine. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jan 27 22:46:34 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:46:34 -0800 Subject: [BLML] NABC Appeals Cases Message-ID: <43FC1FAA59BC48A583CC38933EDF5242@MARVLAPTOP> I see that the AC cases have been combined on the ACBL web site for 2009 Washington DC and Houston cases. Presumably San Diego cases will be combined after the expert commentary is included. Therefore I won't be doing this anymore. The task of combining the pre-2009 cases might be a good task for someone, Adam Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 27 23:38:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:38:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B5FF329.4030506@skynet.be> Message-ID: Sherlock Holmes ("The Sign of Four"): "You know my methods. Apply them." Law 40C1, second and third sentences: "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Herman De Wael: >What these sentences NOT say, and what we are discussing (these >sentences have not ever been discussed by me) is that these >understandings become part of the partnership's SYSTEM and are subject >to the system regulations. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: method, n. Way of doing something, **system** of procedure Law 40A - Players' **Systemic** Agreements 1. (a) Partnership understandings as to the **methods** adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or **implicitly** through mutual experience or awareness of the players. (b) Each partnership has a **duty to make available** its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The **Regulating Authority specifies** the manner in which this shall be done. 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 Jan 27 23:54:46 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:54:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B60C436.7000706@skynet.be> Sorry Richard, but when one text uses one word and another uses a different word, usual practice is to say that they had a reason for it, and there is a difference between the two. This really should not be discussed on semantics but on reason. There is no reason to ban my psyches just because I am so honest to admit that I have done two in the past. And basically, that is what you are doing. You may say that it is because there have been more than two, but I see nowhere in any text that two is allright but three not. Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Sherlock Holmes ("The Sign of Four"): > > "You know my methods. Apply them." > > Law 40C1, second and third sentences: > > "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form > part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance > with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director > judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he > shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." > > Herman De Wael: > >> What these sentences NOT say, and what we are discussing (these >> sentences have not ever been discussed by me) is that these >> understandings become part of the partnership's SYSTEM and are subject >> to the system regulations. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > method, n. Way of doing something, **system** of procedure > > Law 40A - Players' **Systemic** Agreements > > 1. (a) Partnership understandings as to the **methods** adopted by a > partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or **implicitly** > through mutual experience or awareness of the players. > > (b) Each partnership has a **duty to make available** its > partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against > them. The **Regulating Authority specifies** the manner in which this > shall be done. > > > 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 Thu Jan 28 01:04:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:04:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B60C436.7000706@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Sorry Richard, but when one text uses one word and another uses a >different word, usual practice is to say that they had a reason for >it, and there is a difference between the two. Richard Hills: Law 75 uses "partnership agreement". Law 40 uses "partnership understanding". The only reason for the difference between the two was poor proof-reading by me. Herman De Wael: >This really should not be discussed on semantics but on reason. Richard Hills: Since the Lawbook is written in words rather than in logical symbols, semantics is necessarily the basis for discussion. Anyway, the distinction that Herman is attempting to draw between "system" and "method" is moot. The key phrase in Law 40C1 is "implicit understandings". Ergo ..... Law 40B1: (a) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as "special partnership understandings". A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament. (b) Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning. Richard Hills: ..... as Director at the South Canberra Bridge Club I would rule the De Wael third-seat favourable vul 1H opening on 0-3 hcp and 3+ hearts to be an implicit partnership understanding pursuant to Law 40C1 and Law 40B1(b). I would consult the South Canberra Bridge Club regulations, and note that -- even though Herman's partner alerted the 1H opening -- it was still an illegal Yellow (HUM) Law 40B1(a) special partnership understanding, thus subject to procedural penalty and perhaps score adjustment under Law 40B5. Herman De Wael: >There is no reason to ban my psyches just because I am so honest >to admit that I have done two in the past. English proverb: "Honesty is its own reward." Herman De Wael: >And basically, that is what you are doing. You may say that it is >because there have been more than two, but I see nowhere in any >text that two is allright but three not. Text of the WBF Code of Practice, four criteria for pseudo-psyches: (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. A psychic call which is found on the above basis to be a matter of partnership understanding is disallowed and a score adjustment may be awarded, together with a procedural penalty to the offending side if deemed appropriate. Players who are found to have any explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, or an **implicit agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic call**, are to be reminded that they have a partnership agreement that is subject to the regulations established under the authority of Law 40. In particular, see Law 40C1. 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 Jan 28 02:26:25 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:26:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7EABF5F588754CB399CBEDBA25649C73@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 14th January, second paragraph: [unfair snip removing context] The statement that "it is simply impossible to provide accurate information concerning psyches" is suspect insofar as disclosure can always include as much as the partner knows from experience or otherwise. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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 ~ +=+ Walt Whitman (1819-1892): Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes). Herman De Wael, 14th January: [fair snip not removing context] >No Richard, there must be other criteria besides frequency and >pattern. > >Frequency and pattern turn psyches into psyches with >partnership understanding - but not into system. I can be >accused of giving insufficient information to opponents >(because it is simply impossible to provide accurate >information concerning psyches) [fair snip not removing context] Grattan Endicott, 14th January, first paragraph: +=+ The subject is dealt with in Law 40C1. I have not seen discussion by Herman or others debating here about the way in which his activities fit with that law. Certainly it makes frequency an issue; another main issue is that partner must be no more able to anticipate the 'psyche' than opponents. Richard Hills, 27th January: So Grattan was not guilty of contradicting himself. On 14th January Grattan was discussing a "psyche". On 18th January Grattan was discussing a psyche. Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 2H ? You, West, hold: KQ7 Q Q862 KT964 What call do you make? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Jan 28 03:00:28 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:00:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B60EFBC.4090008@comcast.net> So...a player faithfully alerts and explains that "Partner has been know to psych that bid." This throws opponents into thought mode, sometimes leading them to act to their disadvantage. If the frequency of these alerts is, say, 100 times the frequency of the psychs, has the player behaved in nefarious fashion...or is all in accordance with the law and regulations? (And what if he says "Goody, goody" to himself before making these alerts?) --Bob Park richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott, 14th January, second paragraph: > > [unfair snip removing context] > > The statement that "it is simply impossible to provide accurate > information concerning psyches" is suspect insofar as disclosure > can always include as much as the partner knows from experience > or otherwise. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > 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 ~ +=+ > > Walt Whitman (1819-1892): > > Do I contradict myself? > Very well then I contradict myself, > (I am large, I contain multitudes). > > Herman De Wael, 14th January: > > [fair snip not removing context] > > >> No Richard, there must be other criteria besides frequency and >> pattern. >> >> Frequency and pattern turn psyches into psyches with >> partnership understanding - but not into system. I can be >> accused of giving insufficient information to opponents >> (because it is simply impossible to provide accurate >> information concerning psyches) >> > > [fair snip not removing context] > > Grattan Endicott, 14th January, first paragraph: > > +=+ The subject is dealt with in Law 40C1. I have not seen > discussion by Herman or others debating here about the way in > which his activities fit with that law. Certainly it makes > frequency an issue; another main issue is that partner must be > no more able to anticipate the 'psyche' than opponents. > > Richard Hills, 27th January: > > So Grattan was not guilty of contradicting himself. > > On 14th January Grattan was discussing a "psyche". > On 18th January Grattan was discussing a psyche. > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H Pass 2H > ? > > You, West, hold: > > KQ7 > Q > Q862 > KT964 > > What call do you make? > > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100128/fb94014d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 28 04:08:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:08:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B60EFBC.4090008@comcast.net> Message-ID: 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 ~ +=+ Bob Park scenario, 28th January: >So...a player faithfully alerts and explains that "Partner has >been know to psych that bid." This throws opponents into thought >mode, sometimes leading them to act to their disadvantage. > >If the frequency of these alerts is, say, 100 times the >frequency of the psychs, has the player behaved in nefarious >fashion...or is all in accordance with the law and regulations? > >(And what if he says "Goody, goody" to himself before making >these alerts?) Richard Hills scenario, 28th January: In my opinion Bob Park has not yet fully grasped what is required by Law 40C1, due to Bob ignoring the fact that "a psyche cannot be a matter of partnership understanding", so therefore a psyche cannot be alertable. Therefore, my hypothetical scenario is slightly different. Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 2H ? You, West, hold: KQ7 Q Q862 KT964 and the call you elect to make is 2S. East faithfully alerts and explains, "Once too often my partner has chosen to overcall at the two level with a three-card spade suit, so we now have an implicit partnership understanding. The regulations of this No Fear tournament do permit psyches of natural bids (since otherwise the regulations would be unLawful)." East continues: "However, the regulations also state that having either explicit or implicit partnership understandings to the effect that an overcall might be based on a three-card suit are defined as special partnership understandings. These special partnership understandings are prohibited in this No Fear tournament." East keeps on keeping on: "Therefore, whether or not my partner holds only three spades on this particular occasion, his 2S overcall is unLawful, so I will summon the Director to protect your Law 40B5 rights. Director!" Law 9B1(b): "**Any** player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Jan 28 06:29:06 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:29:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 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 ~ +=+ >>> > > Bob Park scenario, 28th January: > > >> So...a player faithfully alerts and explains that "Partner has >> been know to psych that bid." This throws opponents into thought >> mode, sometimes leading them to act to their disadvantage. >> >> If the frequency of these alerts is, say, 100 times the >> frequency of the psychs, has the player behaved in nefarious >> fashion...or is all in accordance with the law and regulations? >> >> (And what if he says "Goody, goody" to himself before making >> these alerts?) >> > > Richard Hills scenario, 28th January: > > In my opinion Bob Park has not yet fully grasped what is required > by Law 40C1, due to Bob ignoring the fact that "a psyche cannot > be a matter of partnership understanding", so therefore a psyche > cannot be alertable. > So Richard...How would you propose to alert opponents to your knowledge that partner occasionally (but rarely) psychs in a certain situation? Or are you saying that once you recognize that he might, he can no longer psych in that situation again? Or do you simply say nothing? Please keep in mind that there is no issue of fielding here. --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100128/c5773de5/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 28 08:34:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:34:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B613DE9.3010802@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Bob Park scenario, 28th January: > >> So...a player faithfully alerts and explains that "Partner has >> been know to psych that bid." This throws opponents into thought >> mode, sometimes leading them to act to their disadvantage. >> >> If the frequency of these alerts is, say, 100 times the >> frequency of the psychs, has the player behaved in nefarious >> fashion...or is all in accordance with the law and regulations? >> >> (And what if he says "Goody, goody" to himself before making >> these alerts?) > > Richard Hills scenario, 28th January: > > In my opinion Bob Park has not yet fully grasped what is required > by Law 40C1, due to Bob ignoring the fact that "a psyche cannot > be a matter of partnership understanding", so therefore a psyche > cannot be alertable. > Where does Richard get that sentence from? Could he please provide quote (as he so loves to do). Richard starts from a totally wrong premise - no wonder he fails to understand the issue completely. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 28 08:47:53 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:47:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B614129.6050106@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> Sorry Richard, but when one text uses one word and another uses a >> different word, usual practice is to say that they had a reason for >> it, and there is a difference between the two. > > Richard Hills: > > Law 75 uses "partnership agreement". Law 40 uses "partnership > understanding". The only reason for the difference between the two > was poor proof-reading by me. > Bad reason. If you are the only proofreader - heaven help the WBF. Better reasoning suggests that the two are not alike. But anyway, we are not talking about the laws here, but about system policy. In order to call a psyche illegal, you have to rule it thus by "light openings" or something such. Or is Richard still working under the delusion that without disclosure, any call becomes illegal - it doesn't Richard, it simply becomes subject to the laws on full disclosure, meaning that damage has to be shown before a rectification can occur. Actually Richard, what are you argueing? Other than "Herman is wrong, and this is so self-evident I don't need to say what is right", that is. Herman. > Herman De Wael: > >> This really should not be discussed on semantics but on reason. > > Richard Hills: > > Since the Lawbook is written in words rather than in logical > symbols, semantics is necessarily the basis for discussion. > > Anyway, the distinction that Herman is attempting to draw between > "system" and "method" is moot. The key phrase in Law 40C1 is > "implicit understandings". Ergo ..... > Indeed, moot. I have never stated that psyches cannot have "understandings". But that does not make them illegal! > Law 40B1: > > (a) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain > partnership understandings as "special partnership understandings". > A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the > opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood > and anticipated by a significant number of players in the > tournament. > > (b) Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a > partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the > Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and > treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is > the case with any call that has an artificial meaning. > Yes, so? > Richard Hills: > > ..... as Director at the South Canberra Bridge Club I would rule > the De Wael third-seat favourable vul 1H opening on 0-3 hcp and 3+ > hearts to be an implicit partnership understanding pursuant to Law > 40C1 and Law 40B1(b). I would consult the South Canberra Bridge > Club regulations, and note that -- even though Herman's partner > alerted the 1H opening -- it was still an illegal Yellow (HUM) Law > 40B1(a) special partnership understanding, thus subject to > procedural penalty and perhaps score adjustment under Law 40B5. > Your first decision would be right, your second would not, since the definition of a HUM contains the words "by agreement" or "system" or something like that, while all you have ruled in your first decision is that there is an understanding. Since the words understanding and system are not the same word, your second decision does not follow logically from your first. You might rule that the H1H is systemic apart from being an understanding, but you would need other criteria for that, other criteria than frequency and habit, otherwise you would simply be banning all psyches, something which a sensible system policy specifically excludes. Will you please try and understand my point and address it, not repeat for the eighteenth time things you have written before? > Herman De Wael: > >> There is no reason to ban my psyches just because I am so honest >> to admit that I have done two in the past. > > English proverb: > > "Honesty is its own reward." > > Herman De Wael: > >> And basically, that is what you are doing. You may say that it is >> because there have been more than two, but I see nowhere in any >> text that two is allright but three not. > > Text of the WBF Code of Practice, four criteria for pseudo-psyches: > Please quote everything, I do not remember the words "pseudo-psyches" in there - nor do I know what pseudo-psyches are, nor do I know what the WBF proposes to do with pseudo-psyches. > (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 > Please note that all these criteria are very fuzzy - acceptable when discussing the information the opponents should have received, but quite unacceptable in deciding whether or not a particular call shall be allowed or not. > (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 > idem. > (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 > idem. > (d) the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some > significant external matter that may help recognition of the > psychic call. > This one is qualitative rather than quantitative - could you please provide examples on how it relates to the H1H or say this is of no importance. > A psychic call which is found on the above basis to be a matter of > partnership understanding is disallowed and a score adjustment may > be awarded, score adjustment - seems like application of MI rules to me - not the banning of the call. > together with a procedural penalty to the offending > side if deemed appropriate. Players who are found to have any > explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, or an **implicit > agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic call**, are to > be reminded that they have a partnership agreement that is subject > to the regulations established under the authority of Law 40. In > particular, see Law 40C1. > here we are talking of explicit agreements - not what we are talking of, is it? > > 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 > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 28 09:24:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:24:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A few thoughts about psyches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6149A1.6020701@skynet.be> A few thoughts about richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > >> There is no reason to ban my psyches just because I am so honest >> to admit that I have done two in the past. > > English proverb: > > "Honesty is its own reward." > I would like Richard to ask himself the following question: Suppose Herman was playing in Canberra and performed a H1H. Sitting at the next table is someone else who also opens 1H on the same hand (also after two passes, of course). Richard is Director and will ask the two players a number of questions, to which both will answer truthfully. Compose a set of answers for each, which will allow Richard to rule against Herman (what ruling?) but not against his neighbour. I hope Richard is not of the general opinion "it's OK to psyche as long as you do it only once", so let's assume that the neighbour has also performed this kind of psyches a number of times in the past. What differences can Richard find? Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Jan 28 10:23:49 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:23:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> [Robert Park] So Richard...How would you propose to alert opponents to your knowledge that partner occasionally (but rarely) psychs in a certain situation? Or are you saying that once you recognize that he might, he can no longer psych in that situation again? Or do you simply say nothing? Please keep in mind that there is no issue of fielding here. [Nigel] IMO, if your partner knows that you occasionally depart from your normal system in specific situations, it is an *implicit agreement* not a *psych*. Hence it is disclosable. Certainly alertable. IMO, it should also be on your system-card. Perhaps it is even pre-alertable. Examples of a disclosable understanding: [A] 3rd in hand, partner knows that you open 1H with a normal 1H opener and also with any hand of 0-3 HCP. [B] Partner knows your pseudo-psyching propensities such as after 1H (X) you like to bid 1S with heart support but without spades. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 28 12:00:33 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:00:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0222728E-E775-444A-BE49-C445B1E69BC1@starpower.net> On Jan 27, 2010, at 7:04 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Text of the WBF Code of Practice, four criteria for pseudo-psyches: > > (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. > > A psychic call which is found on the above basis to be a matter of > partnership understanding is disallowed and a score adjustment may > be awarded, together with a procedural penalty to the offending > side if deemed appropriate. Players who are found to have any > explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, or an **implicit > agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic call**, are to > be reminded that they have a partnership agreement that is subject > to the regulations established under the authority of Law 40. In > particular, see Law 40C1. Even in a first-time partnership, one would be "aware" of the common- sense knowledge that partner would be far more likely to pull some psych out of left field when having a poor or mediocre game than when having a potentially winning one. Does (d) above mean that a psych that would be legal when one is having a good game could become an illegal CPU if things aren't going so well that day? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 28 12:24:53 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:24:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B60EFBC.4090008@comcast.net> References: <4B60EFBC.4090008@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Robert Park wrote: > So...a player faithfully alerts and explains that "Partner has been > know to psych that bid." This throws opponents into thought mode, > sometimes leading them to act to their disadvantage. > > If the frequency of these alerts is, say, 100 times the frequency > of the psychs, has the player behaved in nefarious fashion...or is > all in accordance with the law and regulations? > > (And what if he says "Goody, goody" to himself before making these > alerts?) I can attest (although I'll spare you the war stories) that Bob is onto something serious. I trust and assume that what we've been discussing here is how we disclose psyching tendencies in reply to an opponent's specific inquiry about a particular call. I sincerely hope that no RA would be so foolish as to consider requiring that a call be proactively alerted merely because "partner has been known to psych that bid". At least in an ordinary club game, that would be handing the psychers the keys to the kingdom. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 28 12:33:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:33:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <0222728E-E775-444A-BE49-C445B1E69BC1@starpower.net> References: <0222728E-E775-444A-BE49-C445B1E69BC1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B617602.6010000@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Even in a first-time partnership, one would be "aware" of the common- > sense knowledge that partner would be far more likely to pull some > psych out of left field when having a poor or mediocre game than when > having a potentially winning one. Does (d) above mean that a psych > that would be legal when one is having a good game could become an > illegal CPU if things aren't going so well that day? > > AG : obviously not. What could be CPU is to know some specific bids are frequently psyched. This isn't the case here. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 28 12:40:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:40:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1B63095E-F3C2-4C54-8A04-9F9CEDAE235A@starpower.net> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:08 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Bob Park scenario, 28th January: > >> So...a player faithfully alerts and explains that "Partner has >> been know to psych that bid." This throws opponents into thought >> mode, sometimes leading them to act to their disadvantage. >> >> If the frequency of these alerts is, say, 100 times the >> frequency of the psychs, has the player behaved in nefarious >> fashion...or is all in accordance with the law and regulations? >> >> (And what if he says "Goody, goody" to himself before making >> these alerts?) > > Richard Hills scenario, 28th January: > > In my opinion Bob Park has not yet fully grasped what is required > by Law 40C1, due to Bob ignoring the fact that "a psyche cannot > be a matter of partnership understanding", so therefore a psyche > cannot be alertable. In my opinion Bob has fully grasped the fact that Richard's (admittedly correct) quibble would be lost on anyone but a regular BLML reader, and understands that "Partner has been known to pseudo- psych that bid" would only serve to obfuscate the message. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 28 13:52:46 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:52:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Park] > So Richard...How would you propose to alert opponents to your knowledge > that partner occasionally (but rarely) psychs in a certain situation? > Or are you saying that once you recognize that he might, he can no > longer psych in that situation again? Or do you simply say nothing? > Please keep in mind that there is no issue of fielding here. > > [Nigel] > IMO, if your partner knows that you occasionally depart from your normal > system in specific situations, it is an *implicit agreement* Yes, agreed - but see below > not a > *psych*. No, not agreed. Why should these two be mutually exclusive? Why can something not be at the same time a psych, and contain some disclosable part. Unless of course you define a psyche and an "implicit agreement" as being mutually exclusive. In which case I no longer agree with your first sentence, and in which case I ask: why can there not be disclosable understandings about a psyche, while remaining a psyche? After all "my partner has never psyched before in his life" is a part of partnership experience, and must be disclosed, as such. Does that mean that this player can now not perform a psyche, since there has been "implicit partnership agreement" about it? > Hence it is disclosable. Certainly alertable. IMO, it should > also be on your system-card. Perhaps it is even pre-alertable. > > Examples of a disclosable understanding: > > [A] 3rd in hand, partner knows that you open 1H with a normal 1H opener > and also with any hand of 0-3 HCP. > > [B] Partner knows your pseudo-psyching propensities such as after 1H (X) > you like to bid 1S with heart support but without spades. > Agreed as being disclosable - not as being no longer psyches. They remain gross deviation of the agreed range. If you start saying that any "implicit understanding" makes a psyche systemic, then you are ruling that psyches do not exist. After all, even the player above, whilst performing the first psyche of his career, has partnership understanding "my partner has never psyched before, but he never said he would never do so". I agree that you may believe that my actions are illegal, but you need to do better than saying "your partner knows you might psyche". That simply won't do. As for the 0-3 range, let's put it this way: I have experimented with opening on 4 points, and found the psyche to be costing. So I don't do that psyche any more. Basically, all my partner could know is that I won't perform a 4+point opening, or a baby 1Sp over a double. Is it illegal for me to perform other psyches when I have stated I won't do those ones? Look at it from my point of view: I've told the world that I've performed a particular call a few times in the past. Nothing more. I cannot undo my previous psyches, and I cannot undo my telling about it (even if I would wish that - which I don't, since I believe my opponents have the right to know that). Meanwhile, my partner may (or may not, unimportant) know about the psyches I have performed. That knowledge too (if it exists) cannot be erased. I do not wish to state that I'll never psyche again - as that would be either a lie, or a forced truth, equal to my submitting to your banning of me psyching. Given all that, what do you propose that I should do if you ban me from psyching - stop playing bridge? Because that is what you are doing with your narrow interpretation: banning all psyches. If banning all psyches was not intention, then please tell me under what conditions you'll allow me to psyche. And if you don't call it psyching, then please tell me under what conditions you'll allow me to exercise my god-given right to open 1He whenever I feel like it. Herman. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 14:08:41 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:08:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e1001280508q4c5ec8b9q6e28e3631f568180@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Herman De Wael > And if you don't call it psyching, then please tell me under what > conditions you'll allow me to exercise my god-given right to open 1He > whenever I feel like it. You can do whatever the fuck you want in your own bedroom, or in this case, your own kitchen. However... IF you are playing bridge in an event sponsored by and external body AND said body explicitly bans a 1H opening that you want to play THEN your decision to play in said event limits your right to play said convention. All your stupid little word games shouldn't disguise the fact that you are a cheat who is deliberately playing games to disclosure to conceal this fact. -- 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/20100128/5898786f/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 28 14:13:11 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:13:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >> [Robert Park] >> So Richard...How would you propose to alert opponents to your knowledge >> that partner occasionally (but rarely) psychs in a certain situation? >> Or are you saying that once you recognize that he might, he can no >> longer psych in that situation again? Or do you simply say nothing? >> Please keep in mind that there is no issue of fielding here. >> >> [Nigel] >> IMO, if your partner knows that you occasionally depart from your normal >> system in specific situations, it is an *implicit agreement* >> > > Yes, agreed - but see below > > >> not a >> *psych*. >> > > No, not agreed. > > Why should these two be mutually exclusive? Why can something not be at > the same time a psych, and contain some disclosable part. > Unless of course you define a psyche and an "implicit agreement" as > being mutually exclusive. The answer to this is simple : an implicit agreement is a specdific kind of agreement ; a psyche is a substantial departure from one's agreements ; something cannot both be an agreement and a departure from agreement ; if you are wanting to admit the contrary, then I can prove that you're the Pope. No, this is NOT a joke, but a trick due to the great mathematician G.H. Hardy. Having stated that starting from any contradiction he could prove anything, he was chellenged to prove, given as premise that 2+2=5, that he was the Pope. He succeeded easily. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 28 14:39:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:39:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e1001280508q4c5ec8b9q6e28e3631f568180@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <2da24b8e1001280508q4c5ec8b9q6e28e3631f568180@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B619375.6020107@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Herman De Wael > > > And if you don't call it psyching, then please tell me under what > > conditions you'll allow me to exercise my god-given right to open 1He > > whenever I feel like it. > > You can do whatever the fuck you want in your own bedroom, or in this > case, your own kitchen. However... > > IF you are playing bridge in an event sponsored by and external body AND > said body explicitly bans a 1H opening that you want to play > > THEN your decision to play in said event limits your right to play said > convention. > You did not read my post through and through. I have told you I have opened 1He in the past. Nothing more. Does that mean I can not open 1He in the future? If that is what it means, then the "said body"'s explicit ban of my 1He opening is in breach of L40 and should not stand. > All your stupid little word games shouldn't disguise the fact that you > are a cheat who is deliberately playing games to disclosure to conceal > this fact. > No, I am not a cheat. I am trying to make you see that your rules can not be interpreted the way you believe they are. And I don't take kindly to being called a cheat - certainly not for that. Herman. > > > > > > -- > I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate > Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate > priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression > (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek > > Those were simpler times > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 28 14:42:25 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:42:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > The answer to this is simple : > an implicit agreement is a specdific kind of agreement ; > a psyche is a substantial departure from one's agreements ; > something cannot both be an agreement and a departure from agreement ; > if you are wanting to admit the contrary, then I can prove that you're > the Pope. > > No, this is NOT a joke, but a trick due to the great mathematician G.H. > Hardy. > Having stated that starting from any contradiction he could prove > anything, he was chellenged to prove, given as premise that 2+2=5, that > he was the Pope. > He succeeded easily. > Alain, if you call any psyche of which there is something to say systemic, then there are no more psyches, since you can say something about every single psyche in the world. In which case, this discussion is futile, and the system policy should simply say "you are not allowed to open on 3Points". But it doesn't, ergo, not all psyches of which there is something to say are systemic. And I am not the pope, and 2+2=4. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 28 15:13:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:13:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B619441.2050102@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> Message-ID: <4B619B9A.3090204@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> The answer to this is simple : >> an implicit agreement is a specdific kind of agreement ; >> a psyche is a substantial departure from one's agreements ; >> something cannot both be an agreement and a departure from agreement ; >> if you are wanting to admit the contrary, then I can prove that you're >> the Pope. >> >> No, this is NOT a joke, but a trick due to the great mathematician G.H. >> Hardy. >> Having stated that starting from any contradiction he could prove >> anything, he was chellenged to prove, given as premise that 2+2=5, that >> he was the Pope. >> He succeeded easily. >> >> > > Alain, if you call any psyche of which there is something to say > systemic, I don't. This should be obvious. I call systemic any psyche that's governed by definition rules and has been performed several times. And I dare pretend that's consistent with L40. Once agin you commit the (extremely severe) error of trnasforming somebody's position in order to be able to attack it, when it can't be attacked in its original form. Surely you aren't dumb enough to be unable to discriminate between my position and what you pretend it is, whence I deduct you're doing it on purpose. From adam at tameware.com Thu Jan 28 22:32:09 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:32:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] NABC Appeals Cases In-Reply-To: <43FC1FAA59BC48A583CC38933EDF5242@MARVLAPTOP> References: <43FC1FAA59BC48A583CC38933EDF5242@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <694eadd41001281332h1ace4f92wb669658caecc2696@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Marvin French wrote: > I see that the AC cases have been combined on the ACBL web site for 2009 > Washington DC and Houston cases. Presumably San Diego cases will be combined > after the expert commentary is included. Therefore I won't be doing this > anymore. > > The task of combining the pre-2009 cases might be a good task for someone, > Adam > I am pretty sure that they are combined because you combined them. I just forwarded your files for posting. Thanks for your efforts! If anyone wants to volunteer to combine some or all of the separate pre-2009 cases I'll be delighted to forward those as well. AW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100128/8854d0de/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 28 23:13:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:13:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B614129.6050106@skynet.be> Message-ID: I Was A Teenage Frankenstein: "Speak - you've got a civil tongue in your head. I know you have because I sewed it back myself!" Richard Hills: >>Law 75 uses "partnership agreement". Law 40 uses "partnership >>understanding". The only reason for the difference between the two >>was poor proof-reading by me. Herman De Wael: >Bad reason. If you are the only proofreader - heaven help the WBF. >Better reasoning suggests that the two are not alike. Richard Hills: Good reason. Last year Robert Frick noted that the verb "infringe" in Law 72B1 was based upon a different word than the noun "infraction" in the rest of the Lawbook. This issue of synonyms was specifically discussed by the WBF Laws Committee at Sao Paulo, and they officially ruled: 10. The committee noted dictionary definitions as follows: "infract" - to violate or break (a law etc.), to infringe. "infringe" - to violate (esp. a law), to neglect to obey. Herman De Wael: >Actually Richard, what are you arguing? >Other than "Herman is wrong, and this is so self-evident Self-evident Pocket Oxford Dictionary: synonym, n. Word identical & coextensive in sense & usage with another of same language 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 Jan 28 23:51:14 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:51:14 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net><4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Robert Park] >> So Richard...How would you propose to alert opponents to your knowledge >> that partner occasionally (but rarely) psychs in a certain situation? >> Or are you saying that once you recognize that he might, he can no >> longer psych in that situation again? Or do you simply say nothing? >> Please keep in mind that there is no issue of fielding here. >> >> [Nigel] >> IMO, if your partner knows that you occasionally depart from your normal >> system in specific situations, it is an *implicit agreement* > > Yes, agreed - but see below > >> not a >> *psych*. > > No, not agreed. > > Why should these two be mutually exclusive? Why can something not be at > the same time a psych, and contain some disclosable part. > Unless of course you define a psyche and an "implicit agreement" as > being mutually exclusive. In which case I no longer agree with your > first sentence, and in which case I ask: why can there not be > disclosable understandings about a psyche, while remaining a psyche? > > After all "my partner has never psyched before in his life" is a part of > partnership experience, and must be disclosed, as such. Does that mean > that this player can now not perform a psyche, since there has been > "implicit partnership agreement" about it? > >> Hence it is disclosable. Certainly alertable. IMO, it should >> also be on your system-card. Perhaps it is even pre-alertable. >> >> Examples of a disclosable understanding: >> >> [A] 3rd in hand, partner knows that you open 1H with a normal 1H opener >> and also with any hand of 0-3 HCP. >> >> [B] Partner knows your pseudo-psyching propensities such as after 1H (X) >> you like to bid 1S with heart support but without spades. >> > > Agreed as being disclosable - not as being no longer psyches. They > remain gross deviation of the agreed range. > If you start saying that any "implicit understanding" makes a psyche > systemic, then you are ruling that psyches do not exist. After all, even > the player above, whilst performing the first psyche of his career, has > partnership understanding "my partner has never psyched before, but he > never said he would never do so". > > I agree that you may believe that my actions are illegal, but you need > to do better than saying "your partner knows you might psyche". That > simply won't do. > > As for the 0-3 range, let's put it this way: I have experimented with > opening on 4 points, and found the psyche to be costing. So I don't do > that psyche any more. Basically, all my partner could know is that I > won't perform a 4+point opening, or a baby 1Sp over a double. Is it > illegal for me to perform other psyches when I have stated I won't do > those ones? > > Look at it from my point of view: I've told the world that I've > performed a particular call a few times in the past. Nothing more. I > cannot undo my previous psyches, and I cannot undo my telling about it > (even if I would wish that - which I don't, since I believe my opponents > have the right to know that). Meanwhile, my partner may (or may not, > unimportant) know about the psyches I have performed. That knowledge too > (if it exists) cannot be erased. I do not wish to state that I'll never > psyche again - as that would be either a lie, or a forced truth, equal > to my submitting to your banning of me psyching. > Given all that, what do you propose that I should do if you ban me from > psyching - stop playing bridge? > Because that is what you are doing with your narrow interpretation: > banning all psyches. > > If banning all psyches was not intention, then please tell me under what > conditions you'll allow me to psyche. > > And if you don't call it psyching, then please tell me under what > conditions you'll allow me to exercise my god-given right to open 1He > whenever I feel like it. > > Herman. > +=+ The foregoing conversazione staggers about in areas that are treated in the WBF Code of Practice under "Psychic calls" and "Disclosure of psychic tendencies". It would be sensible to look at what the CoP says. For example, "Players who are found to have any explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, or an implicit agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic call, are to be reminded that they have a partnership agreement that is subject to the regulations established under the authority of Law 40. In particular see Law 40C1." Again, the CoP states "Opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." Having absorbed that much we should go back to the sub- paragraphs (a) through (d) under 'Psychic calls'. Revelations on blml can be adjudged to create a mutual awareness of the kind to which (d) refers; if any of us were to sit down with Herman as partner we could not deny a mutual awareness in respect of what he has described here. More widely the Director would be required to consider the level of bruit - the degree to which awareness of Herman's assertions, on blml and wherever, has circulated abroad. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 29 00:02:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:02:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> Message-ID: Thomas Hobson (1544-1631) was a livery stable owner at Cambridge in England. To rotate the use of his horses he offered a prospective customer the choice of taking the horse in the stable nearest to the door, or the other choice of taking no horse at all. 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 ~ +=+ Bob Park, 28th January: >So Richard...How would you propose to alert opponents to your >knowledge that partner occasionally (but rarely) psychs in a >certain situation? > >Or are you saying that once you recognize that he might, he can no >longer psych in that situation again? > >Or do you simply say nothing? > >Please keep in mind that there is no issue of fielding here. Richard Hills, 29th January: The ambiguities in the 1997 Law 40A (which permitted undefined "psyching" in an undefined way) saw some Regulating Authorities promulgate official System Cards which had three check boxes along these lines: We psyche: * Rarely * Sometimes * Frequently Under the 2007 Law 40 it is clear that such check boxes are unLawful. Those Regulating Authorities (for example Belgium) should reprint their official System Cards with this Hobson's Choice format: We psyche: * Rarely -- so rarely that when a psyche occurs "in a certain situation" all three opponents are caught completely by surprise, with pard having zero memory of the previous "certain situation" 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 Fri Jan 29 00:34:19 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:34:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net><4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B621EFB.8030905@comcast.net> On 1/28/10 5:51 PM, Grattan wrote >> +=+ The foregoing conversazione staggers about in areas that >> are treated in the WBF Code of Practice under "Psychic calls" >> and "Disclosure of psychic tendencies". It would be sensible to >> look at what the CoP says. For example, "Players who are >> found to have any explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, >> or an implicit agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic >> call, are to be reminded that they have a partnership agreement >> that is subject to the regulations established under the authority of >> Law 40. In particular see Law 40C1." Again, the CoP states >> "Opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any >> agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of >> action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." >> Having absorbed that much we should go back to the sub- >> paragraphs (a) through (d) under 'Psychic calls'. Revelations on >> blml can be adjudged to create a mutual awareness of the kind >> to which (d) refers; if any of us were to sit down with Herman >> as partner we could not deny a mutual awareness in respect of >> what he has described here. More widely the Director would >> be required to consider the level of bruit - the degree to which >> awareness of Herman's assertions, on blml and wherever, has >> circulated abroad. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> So...are you saying that once I become aware that my partner has psyched a particular bid...say, twice in 2 years...that he may no longer psych that bid, and therefore that I don't need to alert what I have observed of his tendency? My apologies, but I sometimes have difficulty discerning exactly what it is you are trying to say. Perhaps I am a slow learner. The sense I am getting is that you (and Richard) are part of the movement to ban psychs. --Bob Park From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 29 01:10:40 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:10:40 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B619441.2050102@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> Message-ID: <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@com> [AG] No, this is NOT a joke, but a trick due to the great mathematician G.H. Hardy. [DALB] Bertrand Russell, as I recall, but no great matter. [HdW] Alain, if you call any psyche of which there is something to say systemic, then there are no more psyches, since you can say something about every single psyche in the world. [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. (1) What, at this point in the auction, are my duties under L40 (and any other Laws that may occur to you)? (2) How should the Director react when, after I have told the simple truth - "my partner has either a 1H opening or a worthless hand", my opponents ask whether we are playing a legal method? The trouble may be that Herman thinks he has answered this question satisfactorily, whereas as far as I (and others) can see, he has not. Perhaps if he would confine himself to explaining what I should do in the position above, I might have some better chance of understanding his argument. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 29 01:58:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:58:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B621EFB.8030905@comcast.net> Message-ID: Alice and the Cheshire Cat: "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?" "That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat. "I don't much care where --" said Alice. "Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat Bob Park: >So...are you saying that once I become aware that my partner has >psyched a particular bid...say, twice in 2 years...that he may no >longer psych that bid, Richard Hills: No, I am saying that if pard waits long enough for you to forget about his psyche "in a certain situation" ... say in 2012 (when you will be distracted by a tsunami reaching Mount Everest) ... then it will again be legal for pard to psych that bid, since your implicit partnership understanding will then have faded away like the Cheshire Cat's grin. Bob Park: >and therefore that I don't need to alert what I have observed of >his tendency? Richard Hills: If a partnership understanding is alertable, then that partnership understanding is alertable. It matters not whether the partnership understanding is explicit or implicit. Bob Park: >My apologies, but I sometimes have difficulty discerning exactly >what it is you are trying to say. Perhaps I am a slow learner. Richard Hills: Grattan Endicott and I deprecate undisclosed implicit partnership understandings (Law 40B4) and/or prohibited implicit special partnership understandings (Law 40B5). Bob Park: >The sense I am getting is that you [Grattan] (and Richard) are >part of the movement to ban psychs. Richard Hills An interesting deal came up last 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? 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 Fri Jan 29 02:58:57 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Tactical bid Message-ID: <4B6240E1.5020805@virginmedia.com> [TFLB Glossary] /Psychic call /(commonly /?psych[e]? /or /?psychic?/) ? a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length. [Nigel] IMO, some of the disagreement about the *Herman Heart* and similar "psychs" (as Herman would call them) are due to poor nomenclature. For example what the WBF COP (and the EBU Orange Book) refer to as "psychs" are not psychs according to to the above law-book definition (They are what Richard calls "pseudo-psychs") The TFLB "psych" definition is of limited practical relevance - - What is the nature of the misstatement? Does it violate the declared partnership agreement? Or does it violate a secret private agreement? Presumably the former -- but if so that should be made clear. - To begin with, the law should not worry about whether the deviation is *deliberate*. (Later on, one of the things that the director may hope to determine is whether the player is genuinely mistaken as to his agreement). - Also even a *minor* deviation can inflict considerable damage. I think the law is (or should be) concerned with *deviations* from *disclosed* agreements (whether they are *gross* or *deliberate* is of less concern). Thus, experts rarely psych but often deviate. I think the laws should be more concerned about these so-called *tactical bids* than *psychs*. Regular partnerships have different habits of which they are mutually aware. However they rarely disclose these propensities. They can be quite effective. Examples ... They declare a notrump range as 12-14 or 15-17 but regularly shade by a point. They make deceptive use of trial bids, cue bids, exclusion bids, and so on. With highly artificial systems, the opportunities for virtually risk-free confusion is enormous. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 29 03:24:09 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:24:09 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Tactical bid References: <4B6240E1.5020805@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <8B36F1B088314E6790C21A292335F9EC@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:58 AM Subject: [BLML] Tactical bid ....... experts rarely psych but often deviate. +=+ Which is to say that experts are devious? +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 29 04:33:36 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:33:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net><4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B621EFB.8030905@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4468653D9380447E867FCC90ACC98618@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On 1/28/10 5:51 PM, Grattan wrote >>> +=+ The foregoing conversazione staggers about in areas that >>> are treated in the WBF Code of Practice under "Psychic calls" >>> and "Disclosure of psychic tendencies". It would be sensible to >>> look at what the CoP says. For example, "Players who are >>> found to have any explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, >>> or an implicit agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic >>> call, are to be reminded that they have a partnership agreement >>> that is subject to the regulations established under the authority of >>> Law 40. In particular see Law 40C1." Again, the CoP states >>> "Opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any >>> agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of >>> action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." >>> Having absorbed that much we should go back to the sub- >>> paragraphs (a) through (d) under 'Psychic calls'. Revelations on >>> blml can be adjudged to create a mutual awareness of the kind >>> to which (d) refers; if any of us were to sit down with Herman >>> as partner we could not deny a mutual awareness in respect of >>> what he has described here. More widely the Director would >>> be required to consider the level of bruit - the degree to which >>> awareness of Herman's assertions, on blml and wherever, has >>> circulated abroad. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >>> > > So...are you saying that once I become aware that my partner has psyched > a particular bid...say, twice in 2 years...that he may no longer psych > that bid, and therefore that I don't need to alert what I have observed > of his tendency? > > My apologies, but I sometimes have difficulty discerning exactly what it > is you are trying to say. Perhaps I am a slow learner. The sense I am > getting is that you (and Richard) are part of the movement to ban psychs. > > --Bob Park ........................................................................................................ +=+ Richard must speak for himself, but in my case absolutely not. But psyches must be genuine in the sense that the psycher and his partner must not gain advantage from a pretence that the partner has no greater awareness of the deviation than have opponents (Law 40C). There must be a level playing field so the equality in this respect has to be real. Twice in two years, or indeed quite a bit more frequently than that, does not strike me as likely to make such an impression that you will be looking out for his psyches. That could have worked for Herman too, until he decided to shout his practice from the rooftops. [RICHARD HILLS: can you manage to put up the quotes from the CoP on the subject?] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 29 05:22:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:22:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4468653D9380447E867FCC90ACC98618@Mildred> Message-ID: "Those who dream by night wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the daydreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible." [ T.E. Lawrence] Robert Park: [snip] >>The sense I am getting is that you (and Richard) are part of the >>movement to ban psychs. >> >> --Bob Park Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Richard must speak for himself, but in my case absolutely not. Richard Hills: Absolutely not from me, too. Few bridgeurs employ intentional psyches nowadays, but all bridgeurs employ unintentional misbids. And a Law change banning psyches would necessarily involve a Law change banning misbids, which would fundamentally alter the nature of the game of Duplicate Bridge. Grattan Endicott: > But psyches must be genuine in the sense that the psycher >and his partner must not gain advantage from a pretence that the >partner has no greater awareness of the deviation than have >opponents (Law 40C). There must be a level playing field so the >equality in this respect has to be real. > Twice in two years, or indeed quite a bit more frequently >than that, does not strike me as likely to make such an impression >that you will be looking out for his psyches. Richard Hills: A slight quibble. It is not just calendar years which are relevant as a measurement of time, but also whether you have played merely hundreds or instead thousands of boards with the psycher between psyches. In the previous millennium the Ali-Hills partnership was very active, playing three times each week plus some congresses on weekends. So in the previous millennium I had a free hand in psyching, catching Hashmat Ali unawares each time. But in this millennium we now play together just once a week, and not at all at weekend congresses. So now I have to be much more cautious with my psyches with Hashmat as my partner to prevent them from transmogrifying into unLawful implicit partnership understandings. Grattan Endicott: >That could have worked for Herman too, until he decided to shout >his practice from the rooftops. > [RICHARD HILLS: can you manage to put up the quotes from >the CoP on the subject?] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBF Code of Practice, revised edition October 2008 Disclosure of psychic tendencies A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed. 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 Jan 29 05:28:54 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:28:54 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption Message-ID: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> 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? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 29 05:59:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:59:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > [RICHARD HILLS: can you manage to put up the quotes from >the CoP on the subject?] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Another pithy quote, WBF Code of Practice, October 2008, page 6: A player is permitted to make and use judgements about the abilities and tendencies of opponents and about the inclinations ("style") of his partner in matters where the partner's decisions are spontaneous rather than habitual or systemic. A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and to the requisite disclosure. Habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated. Not to disclose knowledge of partner's habits and practices is a violation of Law 40 (and thus illegal) when the call is made. Richard Hills: There is a slight typo at the end of the above paragraph; "when the call is made" should instead be "when the call (or defender's false card) is made". As declarer I sometimes call for dummy to play a false card. But at the start of the round my partner pre-Alerts the opponents to the fact that I not only play Cooper Echoes, but I also play Psychic Cooper Echoes. 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 ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com Fri Jan 29 08:32:14 2010 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:02:14 +0530 Subject: [BLML] Alertable bids Message-ID: Dear Sir, I like to have a view for necessary clarifications. In cases where 2/1 response shows a 5 card suit, there 2C is alertable as in some cases it could have been even doubleton, but for the partnership who do not have any such strict bindings, is it necessary to alert any natural suit bidding (if it is 3 cards or more? At times one may respond 2/1 with even 3 card suit to primarily create a GF situation say after 1H/S-2C with even 3 cards and GF value just to support opener's suit on the next turn. This is further required when 1M-2NT is artificial like Jacoby. Any ART bid or 4 Suit Game Forcing is obviously alertable but is any natural 3 card suit is alertable? Similarly often 1D-1H is bid with 3 card suit for players who plays inverted minors and the hand not suitable for NT response. Bidding any 3 card suit is a natural bid, Are those bids alertable? I think a natural 3 card suit is not alertable when his partner also do not have any idea about it, Kindly offer your comments and clarify about the alertability of the same. As I feel, bridge bidding will lost its charm, if it is considered as psychic.At times this type of liberty is necessary. Regards Ranju Bhattacharjee on behalf of Sourendra Coomer Dutt _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100129/5c84fc3b/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 08:39:04 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:39:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alertable bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 January 2010 08:32, Ranju Bhattacharjee wrote: > Dear Sir, > > ?I like to have a view for necessary clarifications. In cases where 2/1 > response shows a 5 card suit,?there 2C is alertable as in some cases it > could have been even doubleton, but for the partnership who do not have any > such strict bindings, is it necessary to alert any natural suit bidding (if > it is 3 cards or more? At times one may respond 2/1 with even 3 card suit to > primarily create a GF situation say after 1H/S-2C with even 3 cards and GF > value just to support opener's suit on the next turn. This is further > required when 1M-2NT is artificial like Jacoby. Any ART bid or 4 Suit Game > Forcing is obviously alertable but is any natural 3 card suit is alertable? > Similarly often 1D-1H is bid with 3 card suit for players who plays inverted > minors and the hand not suitable for NT response.?Bidding any 3 card suit?is > a natural bid, Are those bids alertable? I think a natural 3 card suit is > not alertable when his partner also do not have?any idea about it,?Kindly > offer your comments and clarify about the alertability of the same. > As I feel, bridge bidding will lost its charm, if it is considered as > psychic.At times this type of liberty is necessary. Alert rules are not universal, it's up to the local RA to decide their own rules. IMO, a 1M response that might be made on a 3-card suit should be alertable. A 2C response that could be made on a 3-card suit should not be alertable; it's normal to bid 2C on a 3-card suit in most natural systems. If there are hands that you're obliged to respond 2C on a doubleton, this should be alertable. This has nothing to do with psyches, what you describe is systemic. > > Regards > > Ranju Bhattacharjee > > on behalf of Sourendra Coomer Dutt > > ________________________________ > Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 29 09:37:36 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:37:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B619B9A.3090204@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net> <4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B618D67.9090307@ulb.ac.be> <4B619441.2050102@skynet.be> <4B619B9A.3090204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B629E50.1050707@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >> Alain, if you call any psyche of which there is something to say >> systemic, > I don't. This should be obvious. It is obvious. But: > I call systemic any psyche that's governed by definition rules and has > been performed several times. And I dare pretend that's consistent with L40. > There are not definition rules. There is only an emerged pattern. I have performed the same psyche a number of times in the past and a pattern has emerged: I do it on 3 but not on 4. That pattern exists, whether I tell you this or not. If the existenca of a pattern is enough, then (IMO) all psyches qualify. Surely you will not rule that I am allowed to psyche if I don't reveal the pattern to my opponents? > Once agin you commit the (extremely severe) error of trnasforming > somebody's position in order to be able to attack it, when it can't be > attacked in its original form. Indeed I transform your position, in order to show you that what you say is wrong. > Surely you aren't dumb enough to be unable to discriminate between my > position and what you pretend it is, whence I deduct you're doing it on > purpose. > No, I do understand your position, but it is simply wrong - as it leads to the banning of all psyches. The pattern exists, and there is nothing I can do about it. If you ask me to break the pattern, that means I can no longer perform the psyche I want to do. So you are banning the psyche because of the pattern. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 29 09:50:44 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:50:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901caa077$7dd0d1b0$79727510$@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> Message-ID: <4B62A164.1050603@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > [HdW] > > Alain, if you call any psyche of which there is something to say systemic, > then there are no more psyches, since you can say something about every > single psyche in the world. > > [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. > Something which, at this moment, amounts to misinformation. > (1) What, at this point in the auction, are my duties under L40 (and any > other Laws that may occur to you)? > You might want to tell them this. And then again, you would not, accepting a ruling of misinformation after the facts. > (2) How should the Director react when, after I have told the simple truth - > "my partner has either a 1H opening or a worthless hand", my opponents ask > whether we are playing a legal method? > 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. > The trouble may be that Herman thinks he has answered this question > satisfactorily, whereas as far as I (and others) can see, he has not. > Perhaps if he would confine himself to explaining what I should do in the > position above, I might have some better chance of understanding his > argument. > Well, my point is that there is some knowledge out there: Herman has, in the past, performed a particular type of psyche a number of times, and he has not stated publicly that he'll never do that again. From that, anyone can deduce that I have more than 3 points for my pass. That knowledge exists, and it can not be undone. If the existence of that knowledge alone is enough to ban me from psyching, then I am banned from psyching ever again. Whether my partner has this knowledge or not (if he does not have it, he could have it, and so it remains disclosable). The fact that I've told the world about my psyching pattern alters nothing to the fact that the pattern exists. Some other player may have a similar pattern, but he's kept it to himself. His partner may have picked up on it, and he keeps it to himself as well. The opponents are misinformed, but since no-one reveals the existing pattern, that misinformation will not come to light. I, OTOH, will inform my opponents and the director, after the hand has been played, of the pattern. They too have been misinformed (since it's virtually impossible to disclose adequately psyching patterns), but they'll receive an adjustment if they have been damaged by the failure to warn them of the possibility and pattern of this psyche. Can I put this any clearer? The pattern exists, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Every single player has a psyching pattern, though most players will not recognize it. The existence of the pattern can not, in itself, be enough to rule the psyche systemic. Now perhaps there are other elements that make my pattern systemic, but then I'd like to hear about those (so that I can correct you about them), but so far all anyone has stated is no more than that I've done the psyches in the past. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 29 09:55:31 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:55:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net><4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B62A283.9020102@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> > +=+ The foregoing conversazione staggers about in areas that > are treated in the WBF Code of Practice under "Psychic calls" > and "Disclosure of psychic tendencies". It would be sensible to > look at what the CoP says. For example, "Players who are > found to have any explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, > or an implicit agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic > call, are to be reminded that they have a partnership agreement > that is subject to the regulations established under the authority of > Law 40. In particular see Law 40C1." Again, the CoP states > "Opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any > agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of > action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." > Having absorbed that much we should go back to the sub- > paragraphs (a) through (d) under 'Psychic calls'. Revelations on > blml can be adjudged to create a mutual awareness of the kind > to which (d) refers; if any of us were to sit down with Herman > as partner we could not deny a mutual awareness in respect of > what he has described here. More widely the Director would > be required to consider the level of bruit - the degree to which > awareness of Herman's assertions, on blml and wherever, has > circulated abroad. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes Grattan, but then I've never denied that there is knowledge which must be disclosed. In fact, I am going further than the CoP, by saying that even if partner is not aware of the tendencies (by being not on blml), the knowledge still is disclosable. But that is not under discussion here. What we are debating is whether the psyche, when there is knowledge to be disclosed about it, remains a psyche (and thus not falling under the scope of the system policy), or becomes a part of system (and thus, when being a weak opening, banned in most tournaments). And this within the scope of the word "system" as used in system policies. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 29 10:11:23 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:11:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B62A63B.1080708@skynet.be> Richard, do you realize what you are saying? richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Bob Park: > >> So...are you saying that once I become aware that my partner has >> psyched a particular bid...say, twice in 2 years...that he may no >> longer psych that bid, > > Richard Hills: > > No, I am saying that if pard waits long enough for you to forget > about his psyche "in a certain situation" ... say in 2012 (when > you will be distracted by a tsunami reaching Mount Everest) ... > then it will again be legal for pard to psych that bid, since > your implicit partnership understanding will then have faded away > like the Cheshire Cat's grin. > So Bob's partner is not allowed to psyche in 2011 but he is in 2012? Because Bob knows it in 2011 but has forgotten it in 2012? How should Bob's partner know that Bob has forgotten it? How should Bob's partner know that Bob knows it in the first place? And how do you reconcile this with your assertion that my psyches are banned? Have I ever told you of any partner who knows about my psyches? (really, they don't, since they don't read blml). Do you not realize, Richard, that what you are proposing is totally worthless in real life? Contrast this with my view: whenever a psyche occurs, the psycher reveals how often he's done this in the past. The director investigates if opponents would have done something different if they had known the psyching frequency in the past. If they are damaged through their non-knowledge, he rules for them. But the psyche is a psyche regardless of the frequency, and regardless of whether the partner knows that frequency or not. That view is workable. Yours isn't. And one other thing: we are still talking about system policies, yes? The baby 1Sp-psyche can never be ruled against by system policy - how do you suppose to rule on that one, within your frame? It's not allowed if partner knows it - and then what? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 29 10:13:06 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:13:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B62A6A2.9030204@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > An interesting deal came up last 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. > Again, Richard's wrong assertion: a call does not become unlawful from non-disclosure! As long as Richard keeps up with this mistaken view, there is no need to listen to anything else he has to say. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 29 10:35:36 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:35:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B62ABE8.4020904@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > WBF Code of Practice, revised edition October 2008 > > Disclosure of psychic tendencies > > A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its > psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, > although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a > psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent > to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are > entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, > explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action > and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed. > My point a few times already as well. It is not because partner knows something that a pattern becomes disclosable - it is when partner might have known it. Basically, as soon as the pattern exists, it becomes disclosable. Since any psyche contains some pattern, that basically makes all psyches disclosable. Hence, a ruling banning a psyche merely based upon the existence of a pattern is a ruling banning all psyches. Since everyone apparently shies away from banning "all" psyches, they must be careful to base their rulings banning some psyches on something more than disclosability and pattern. There are many "psyches" out there that contain elements that would make them non-psyches, but mine are not among those (IMO). > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 29 10:39:29 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:39:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4468653D9380447E867FCC90ACC98618@Mildred> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net><4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B621EFB.8030905@comcast.net> <4468653D9380447E867FCC90ACC98618@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B62ACD1.9020909@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> >> My apologies, but I sometimes have difficulty discerning exactly what it >> is you are trying to say. Perhaps I am a slow learner. The sense I am >> getting is that you (and Richard) are part of the movement to ban psychs. >> >> --Bob Park > ........................................................................................................ > +=+ Richard must speak for himself, but in my case absolutely not. I am glad to hear it. > But psyches must be genuine in the sense that the psycher > and his partner must not gain advantage from a pretence that the > partner has no greater awareness of the deviation than have > opponents (Law 40C). My view exactly. "no greater awareness". But we disagree about the penalty that has to be imposed. If a "greater awareness" exists in partner than in opponents, then that awareness ought to be told opponents, rendering the awareness equal again. If that does not happen, the pair are guilty of misinformation, just like they are when they fail to alert an alertable call. Misinformation is dealt with using L40B4 and L12. There is no different treatment in L40 regarding non-disclosure of "awareness" and other non-disclosures. > There must be a level playing field so the > equality in this respect has to be real. Indeed - and this is very hard to achieve. > Twice in two years, or indeed quite a bit more frequently than > that, does not strike me as likely to make such an impression that > you will be looking out for his psyches. I agree, but that is hardly the point. I believe that even "twice in two years" is something the opponents are entitled to know. Especially when contrasted with "never ever", which is the psyching frequency of the majority of players. > That could have worked > for Herman too, until he decided to shout his practice from the > rooftops. And that is hardly fair. By shouting it from the rooftops (in anyone's direction save my partners') I have ensured that the opponents, and especially the director, are MORE aware of my psyching tendencies than are my partners. Do you prefer players who psyche with the same partner but not with others, and then partners who keep quiet about all those psyches? > [RICHARD HILLS: can you manage to put up the quotes > from the CoP on the subject?] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 29 10:51:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:51:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alertable bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B62AF9F.6030206@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > A 2C response that could be made on a 3-card suit should not be > alertable; it's normal to bid 2C on a 3-card suit in most natural > systems. As much as 1H-1NT (nonforcing)-2C (or even 2D) could be made in a 3-card suit when holding a "1 1/2 NT bid" ; this aso is considered as natural enough to be alert-free. > If there are hands that you're obliged to respond 2C on a > doubleton, this should be alertable. > And I think the other responses (showing 5 cards) should be alertable too. Of course, those considerations would be made easier if we used two-tier alerts. Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 12:47:59 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:47:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alertable bids In-Reply-To: <4B62AF9F.6030206@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B62AF9F.6030206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 29 January 2010 10:51, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> A 2C response that could be made on a 3-card suit should not be >> alertable; it's normal to bid 2C on a 3-card suit in most natural >> systems. > As much as 1H-1NT (nonforcing)-2C (or even 2D) could be made in a 3-card > suit when holding a "1 1/2 NT bid" ; this aso is considered as natural > enough to be alert-free. > >> If there are hands that you're obliged to respond 2C on a >> doubleton, this should be alertable. >> > And I think the other responses (showing 5 ?cards) should be alertable too. Agree, I overlooked that when responding. (That is, 1M-2m promising at least 5cm should be alerted, not 1S-2H), > > Of course, those considerations would be made easier if we used two-tier > alerts. > > > > Best regards > > ?Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 29 13:09:11 2010 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:09:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B62A164.1050603@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> Message-ID: <862200.76493.qm@web27907.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> My right hand opponent psyched a strong no trump overcall. Later in the auction my left hand opponent - with a hand that would expect to play in game - passes. He defends his actions by stating he knew from the bidding of myself and my partner that his partner had psyched. Should he have alerted at any point in the auction? (The TD ruled he had not fielded the psyche.) Alan H ________________________________ From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Fri, 29 January, 2010 8:50:44 Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] David Burn wrote: > > [HdW] > > Alain, if you call any psyche of which there is something to say systemic, > then there are no more psyches, since you can say something about every > single psyche in the world. > > [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. > Something which, at this moment, amounts to misinformation. > (1) What, at this point in the auction, are my duties under L40 (and any > other Laws that may occur to you)? > You might want to tell them this. And then again, you would not, accepting a ruling of misinformation after the facts. > (2) How should the Director react when, after I have told the simple truth - > "my partner has either a 1H opening or a worthless hand", my opponents ask > whether we are playing a legal method? > 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. > The trouble may be that Herman thinks he has answered this question > satisfactorily, whereas as far as I (and others) can see, he has not. > Perhaps if he would confine himself to explaining what I should do in the > position above, I might have some better chance of understanding his > argument. > Well, my point is that there is some knowledge out there: Herman has, in the past, performed a particular type of psyche a number of times, and he has not stated publicly that he'll never do that again. From that, anyone can deduce that I have more than 3 points for my pass. That knowledge exists, and it can not be undone. If the existence of that knowledge alone is enough to ban me from psyching, then I am banned from psyching ever again. Whether my partner has this knowledge or not (if he does not have it, he could have it, and so it remains disclosable). The fact that I've told the world about my psyching pattern alters nothing to the fact that the pattern exists. Some other player may have a similar pattern, but he's kept it to himself. His partner may have picked up on it, and he keeps it to himself as well. The opponents are misinformed, but since no-one reveals the existing pattern, that misinformation will not come to light. I, OTOH, will inform my opponents and the director, after the hand has been played, of the pattern. They too have been misinformed (since it's virtually impossible to disclose adequately psyching patterns), but they'll receive an adjustment if they have been damaged by the failure to warn them of the possibility and pattern of this psyche. Can I put this any clearer? The pattern exists, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Every single player has a psyching pattern, though most players will not recognize it. The existence of the pattern can not, in itself, be enough to rule the psyche systemic. Now perhaps there are other elements that make my pattern systemic, but then I'd like to hear about those (so that I can correct you about them), but so far all anyone has stated is no more than that I've done the psyches in the past. > David Burn > London, England > 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/20100129/8be46a14/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 29 13:40:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:40:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <862200.76493.qm@web27907.mail.ukl.yahoo.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> <862200.76493.qm@web27907.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B62D750.4000309@skynet.be> Alan Hill wrote: > My right hand opponent psyched a strong no trump overcall. Later in the > auction my left hand opponent - with a hand that would expect to play in > game - passes. He defends his actions by stating he knew from the > bidding of myself and my partner that his partner had psyched. Should he > have alerted at any point in the auction? (The TD ruled he had not > fielded the psyche.) > Alan H > > This is not really the case we've been discussing these last few days. But interesting as well. What this player has done, amounts to two things: he has listened to the auction, and he has used the information that his partner has a higher psyching frequency than his opponents. Both these pieces of information are authorized to him, and so he has done nothing wrong in passing. OTOH, the opponents are also entitled to know that their one of their opponents has a higher frequency of psyching than themselves. That piece of information was not available to them, and if damage results, they should get redress. Damage could result from them not knowing that the partner of 1NT bidder took the possibility of a psych into account and passed with 10 points rather than 0. If, in the play (them being declaring side obviously - otherwise only in the lead) that fact makes them choose a less successful line, they are to get a few tricks extra. I don't believe the player should alert and say "I believe my partner has psyched". That would tell the opponents that he has 10 points, and, while they are entitled to know which of the two psyches the most, they are not entitled to know that there was a psych in this particular hand. Of course, when a player starts telling his opponents that his partner sometimes psyches, it's because he realizes that this was the time. This is one of those cases where it is physically impossible to provide the opponents with information to which they are entitled. That is just too bad, but not, IMO, a problem. The director will after the board restore equity by giving the opponents the information and assessing what they might have done with it. OK? Herman. > > > ________________________________ > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Fri, 29 January, 2010 8:50:44 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > David Burn wrote: > > > > [HdW] > > > > Alain, if you call any psyche of which there is something to say > systemic, > > then there are no more psyches, since you can say something about every > > single psyche in the world. > > > > [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. > > > > Something which, at this moment, amounts to misinformation. > > > (1) What, at this point in the auction, are my duties under L40 (and any > > other Laws that may occur to you)? > > > > You might want to tell them this. And then again, you would not, > accepting a ruling of misinformation after the facts. > > > (2) How should the Director react when, after I have told the simple > truth - > > "my partner has either a 1H opening or a worthless hand", my > opponents ask > > whether we are playing a legal method? > > > > 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. > > > The trouble may be that Herman thinks he has answered this question > > satisfactorily, whereas as far as I (and others) can see, he has not. > > Perhaps if he would confine himself to explaining what I should do in the > > position above, I might have some better chance of understanding his > > argument. > > > > Well, my point is that there is some knowledge out there: Herman has, in > the past, performed a particular type of psyche a number of times, and > he has not stated publicly that he'll never do that again. From that, > anyone can deduce that I have more than 3 points for my pass. > That knowledge exists, and it can not be undone. If the existence of > that knowledge alone is enough to ban me from psyching, then I am banned > from psyching ever again. Whether my partner has this knowledge or not > (if he does not have it, he could have it, and so it remains disclosable). > > The fact that I've told the world about my psyching pattern alters > nothing to the fact that the pattern exists. Some other player may have > a similar pattern, but he's kept it to himself. His partner may have > picked up on it, and he keeps it to himself as well. The opponents are > misinformed, but since no-one reveals the existing pattern, that > misinformation will not come to light. I, OTOH, will inform my opponents > and the director, after the hand has been played, of the pattern. They > too have been misinformed (since it's virtually impossible to disclose > adequately psyching patterns), but they'll receive an adjustment if they > have been damaged by the failure to warn them of the possibility and > pattern of this psyche. > > Can I put this any clearer? > > The pattern exists, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Every > single player has a psyching pattern, though most players will not > recognize it. The existence of the pattern can not, in itself, be enough > to rule the psyche systemic. > > Now perhaps there are other elements that make my pattern systemic, but > then I'd like to hear about those (so that I can correct you about > them), but so far all anyone has stated is no more than that I've done > the psyches in the past. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 29 15:24:32 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:24:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net><4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <18AE1263-AFB5-4798-8BC5-438D4170F91A@starpower.net> On Jan 28, 2010, at 5:51 PM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ The foregoing conversazione staggers about in areas that > are treated in the WBF Code of Practice under "Psychic calls" > and "Disclosure of psychic tendencies". It would be sensible to > look at what the CoP says. For example, "Players who are > found to have any explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, > or an implicit agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic > call, are to be reminded that they have a partnership agreement > that is subject to the regulations established under the authority of > Law 40. In particular see Law 40C1." This regulation, as written, covers implicit understandings gained through prior partnership experience that partner may be inclined to perpetrate a particular type of psych, or to psych in a particular type of situation. It specifically avoids covering implicit understandings gained through prior partnership experience that are limited to no more than the knowledge that "partner likes to psych" or "partner has never psyched". This is in accord with common sense, that a vague, undifferentiated inclination pro- or anti- psychic does not rise to the level of "form[ing] part of the partnership's methods" [L40C1]. I like it, but suspect it will prove controversial in this forum. > Again, the CoP states > "Opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any > agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of > action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." But then this passage, taken in isolation, could be read as contradicting the one above. > Having absorbed that much we should go back to the sub- > paragraphs (a) through (d) under 'Psychic calls'. Since sub-paragraphs (a) through (d) appear to be relevant to the discussion, perhaps someone could post them. > Revelations on > blml can be adjudged to create a mutual awareness of the kind > to which (d) refers; if any of us were to sit down with Herman > as partner we could not deny a mutual awareness in respect of > what he has described here. More widely the Director would > be required to consider the level of bruit - the degree to which > awareness of Herman's assertions, on blml and wherever, has > circulated abroad. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Fri Jan 29 15:46:03 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:46:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <1264776363.32401.1357239551@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:28 -0800, "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? Whether you like that thinking depends on whether you think a pair should be expected to know their own methods as well as they are expected to know the laws when they sit down at the table. I happen to think that would be entirely reasonable and in the best interest of the game. But do the laws allow this? I'm far from sure that they do. David From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 29 15:48:45 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:48:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: <4B621EFB.8030905@comcast.net> References: <4B6120A2.7010905@comcast.net><4B6157A5.9030404@yahoo.co.uk> <4B61889E.9020101@skynet.be> <4B621EFB.8030905@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Jan 28, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Robert Park wrote: > On 1/28/10 5:51 PM, Grattan wrote > >>> +=+ The foregoing conversazione staggers about in areas that >>> are treated in the WBF Code of Practice under "Psychic calls" >>> and "Disclosure of psychic tendencies". It would be sensible to >>> look at what the CoP says. For example, "Players who are >>> found to have any explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, >>> or an implicit agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic >>> call, are to be reminded that they have a partnership agreement >>> that is subject to the regulations established under the >>> authority of >>> Law 40. In particular see Law 40C1." Again, the CoP states >>> "Opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any >>> agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of >>> action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." >>> Having absorbed that much we should go back to the sub- >>> paragraphs (a) through (d) under 'Psychic calls'. Revelations on >>> blml can be adjudged to create a mutual awareness of the kind >>> to which (d) refers; if any of us were to sit down with Herman >>> as partner we could not deny a mutual awareness in respect of >>> what he has described here. More widely the Director would >>> be required to consider the level of bruit - the degree to which >>> awareness of Herman's assertions, on blml and wherever, has >>> circulated abroad. > > So...are you saying that once I become aware that my partner has > psyched > a particular bid...say, twice in 2 years...that he may no longer psych > that bid, and therefore that I don't need to alert what I have > observed > of his tendency? As a matter of law, what this says is that once you "become aware that your partner has psyched a particular bid..." it becomes "part of [your] partnership methods" [L40C1], so that whether you may continue to do it, or whether you must alert it, depend on local regulation. > My apologies, but I sometimes have difficulty discerning exactly > what it > is you are trying to say. Perhaps I am a slow learner. The sense I am > getting is that you (and Richard) are part of the movement to ban > psychs. 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. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 15:52:36 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:52:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2da24b8e1001290652n234253c4l14106e7e24a61c48@mail.gmail.com> I don't think that this goes nearly far enough... Why are we focusing on conventions rather that bidding and even card play? If some stupid noob has the audacity to miss an opportunity for a mandatory falsecard they should be punished... On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:28 PM, 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? > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I 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/20100129/1965e30e/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 29 16:29:01 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:29:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:28 PM, 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"? The first sentence is reasonable only if "to be expected" refers to what the partnership expects, not to what Bobby Wolff or some other "authority" expects. The second sentence is reasonable only if "may be" is interpreted to implicity incorporate "when the requirement in the first sentence is not fulfilled". > Easily enforced? Sure, since, as a practical matter, given the above, enforcement means that a partnership using a convention must be able to explain its application in any auction they choose. I do, however, share Marv's concern that the ACBL intends the Wolffian interpretation, which would permit legal redress for misbids in general, rather than the sensible one, which would maintain consistency with L75. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 29 16:38:18 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:38:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <70EFCC20-63DD-4725-8FB6-53C62658990E@starpower.net> On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:59 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Another pithy quote, WBF Code of Practice, October 2008, page 6: > > A player is permitted to make and use judgements about the > abilities and tendencies of opponents and about the inclinations > ("style") of his partner in matters where the partner's decisions > are spontaneous rather than habitual or systemic. A player's > habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's > awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is > subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and > to the requisite disclosure. Habit is to be identified when an > occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated. Not to > disclose knowledge of partner's habits and practices is a > violation of Law 40 (and thus illegal) when the call is made. This seems self-contradictory. If "partner's decisions" are genuinely "spontaneous rather than habitual or systemic", mustn't that mean that he has no consistent "inclinations ('style')" for you to "make and use judgments about". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 29 16:46:00 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:46:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4B6302B8.9040300@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:28 PM, 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"? >> > > The first sentence is reasonable only if "to be expected" refers to > what the partnership expects, not to what Bobby Wolff or some other > "authority" expects. IMOCO this first sentence doesn't say anything. Partnership methods apply in all auctions. It's only that different parts of the methods apply in different anctions. Would you believe a player who would say to you "sorry, our methods don't apply here" ? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 29 17:05:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:05:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <1264776363.32401.1357239551@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <1264776363.32401.1357239551@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:46 AM, David Babcock wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:28 -0800, "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? > > Whether you like that thinking depends on whether you think a pair > should be expected to know their own methods as well as they are > expected to know the laws when they sit down at the table. I > happen to > think that would be entirely reasonable and in the best interest of > the > game. But do the laws allow this? I'm far from sure that they do. "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. Typically, the players whom I might expect actually do know anything about the laws might barely be enough for a one-table rubber game. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 29 17:24:33 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:24:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e1001290652n234253c4l14106e7e24a61c48@mail.gmail.com> References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <2da24b8e1001290652n234253c4l14106e7e24a61c48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:52:36 -0500, richard willey wrote: > I don't think that this goes nearly far enough... > > Why are we focusing on conventions rather that bidding and even card > play? > If some stupid noob has the audacity to miss an opportunity for a > mandatory > falsecard they should be punished... The best false-card being to have the agreement to play odd-even discards and your partner doesn't know what that means. From blml at arcor.de Fri Jan 29 17:50:19 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:50:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> 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. 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 Jan 29 18:07:54 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:07:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> 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. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Jan 29 18:18:10 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:18:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B6315EA.8000206@ulb.ac.be> <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <24032342.1264785490142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> 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. According to the above ACBL regulation, the pair that agreed to play multi would have to have a clear understanding of responder's 2S bid. It is quite possible to agree on playing multi and not discuss the 2S response, just as it is possible to agree on playing four card majors and a weak NT and not define the single raise in a major. 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 Fri Jan 29 23:14:32 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:14:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B62A164.1050603@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> Message-ID: <000001caa130$6f6c9690$4e45c3b0$@com> [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. 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. David Burn London, England From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jan 30 01:53:55 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:53:55 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP> <23255842.1264783819884.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <3CC46F0BFFE844BF9A869BD07BF3EAA3@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Thomas Dehn" 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? Thomas: 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. Marv: The subject line (Bobby Wolff's coinage) should provide the clue that this is referring mainly to conventions, although it refers to highly unusual treatments also, hence "methods." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Jan 30 03:06:05 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:06:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pseudo-encrypted pseudo-psyches Message-ID: <4B63940D.9040300@virginmedia.com> [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. Long ago, I suggested a sophisticated variation on the Herman Heart. If you have four deuces, you may "psych" 1C; four treys, 1D; and so on. You can define different pip combinations that permit a whole variety of "psychs" in different contexts. The advantage is that partner is wary of a suspicious bid if he he holds any of the specified small cards; but can be confident in it, otherwise. For example, if your 1C opener seems initially suspicious, but he holds any deuce, he knows that your bid is genuine. Strangely, I believe that this method is legal, provided you declare it and provided that all the meanings *including the pseudo-psychic meanings* are legal. It doesn't infract encryption legislation because the same statistical inferences are available to opponents. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sat Jan 30 03:11:06 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:11:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Convention Disruption In-Reply-To: References: <05903A6623D54681BEFBC07F76EF142A@MARVLAPTOP><1264776363.32401.1357239551@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1264817466.4210.1357333803@webmail.messagingengine.com> 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). David From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jan 30 07:05:02 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:05:02 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Alertable bids References: Message-ID: From: "Harald Skj?ran" > Ranju Bhattacharjee wrote: >> Dear Sir, >> >> I like to have a view for necessary clarifications. In cases >> where 2/1 >> response shows a 5 card suit, there 2C is alertable as in some >> cases it >> could have been even doubleton, but for the partnership who do >> not have any >> such strict bindings, is it necessary to alert any natural suit >> bidding (if >> it is 3 cards or more? At times one may respond 2/1 with even 3 >> card suit to >> primarily create a GF situation say after 1H/S-2C with even 3 >> cards and GF >> value just to support opener's suit on the next turn. This is >> further >> required when 1M-2NT is artificial like Jacoby. Any ART bid or 4 >> Suit Game >> Forcing is obviously alertable but is any natural 3 card suit is >> alertable? >> Similarly often 1D-1H is bid with 3 card suit for players who >> plays inverted >> minors and the hand not suitable for NT response. Bidding any 3 >> card suit is >> a natural bid, Are those bids alertable? I think a natural 3 card >> suit is >> not alertable when his partner also do not have any idea about >> it, Kindly >> offer your comments and clarify about the alertability of the >> same. >> As I feel, bridge bidding will lost its charm, if it is >> considered as >> psychic.At times this type of liberty is necessary. > > Alert rules are not universal, it's up to the local RA to decide > their > own rules. > > IMO, a 1M response that might be made on a 3-card suit should be > alertable. [Marv] That's a little strong, IMO. If the bid is part of the system, then yes, Alertable. I *might* do it once in a blue moon, unexpected by partner, no Alert or other disclosure. > > A 2C response that could be made on a 3-card suit should not be > alertable; it's normal to bid 2C on a 3-card suit in most natural > systems. If there are hands that you're obliged to respond 2C on a > doubleton, this should be alertable. > > This has nothing to do with psyches, what you describe is > systemic. What Harald writes seems to be in accordance with ACBL regulations. When choosing between two three-card minors, if the weaker is normally chosen that should be Alerted. ACBL Alert Procedure, page 11 of 13: Opener's rebid of two of a minor over partner's forcing or semi-forcing 1NT response to a major does not require an Alert if it shows three or more of the suit bid (4-5-2-2 does not require an Alert as long as responder expects three or more cards in the minor). Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 30 12:35:03 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:35:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] 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: <0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [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. > (Grattan) +=+ Proposition 1: If the method is not disclosed beforehand it is illegal to make the bid. [Law 40A3] Proposition 2: If the method is adopted then it has the same meaning whichever member of the partnership makes it (unless the RA disapplies the requirement). [Law 40B2(a)] +=+ From brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jan 30 17:02:00 2010 From: brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:02:00 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Double infraction Message-ID: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> De-lurking after some years, I would appreciate blmlers views on this situation, which arose at the club the other day. North is the dealer, but East passes OOT and then removes the pass card and substitutes 1NT. The TD is called and establishes that the pass was not unintended (in fact East initially miscounted her points), so that L25A did not apply to the change of call. Dealing first with the change of call, L25B allows South to accept 1NT, failing which the original pass stands (and L16D applies to the withdrawn call). Now a pass OOT (not accepted by South) would then be subject to L30A; East merely repeats the pass after North's call. However, 1NT OOT (not accepted by South) would be subject to L31A. If North now bids, West will most likely be silenced for the remainder of the auction. The question is: can South accept the corrected 1NT bid in accordance with L25B and then exercise his L31A right to refuse it as a BOOT? Readers may care to bear in mind: (a) Although L25B is worded as 'first call stands as the default, unless LHO chooses to *accept* the substituted call' effectively LHO selects which of the two calls shall stand'; and (b) if South cannot accept INT (L25B)and then reject it (L31A), then East is better off having committed the double infraction than he would have been had he simply bid 1NT OOT. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 30 18:37:30 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:37:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0377AB3A4A8D42409814F6227E9A2153@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> Message-ID: <4B646E5A.1060600@nhcc.net> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Proposition 1: > If the method is not disclosed beforehand it is illegal to make the > bid. [Law 40A3] Shouldn't that be "disclosed in the manner specified by the RA?" In any case, 40A3 is the wrong reference. It specifically permits certain actions but does not ban anything unless one wishes to "assume the converse." The fact is, the rules on this whole subject are a mess and, as written, can be interpreted to forbid or allow anything one wishes. My suspicion is that no authority has quite come to grips with the whole issue. > Proposition 2: > If the method is adopted then it has the same meaning whichever > member of the partnership makes it (unless the RA disapplies > the requirement). [Law 40B2(a)] +=+ Yes, if it's system or method. The question is how to draw the line between system on the one hand and "style and judgment" on the other. L40B2a makes clear that _some_ distinction must exist. While I don't think the subject is an easy one, the question "What is the true agreement?" might be a good place to start. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 30 21:40:41 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:40:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] 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> Message-ID: <7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan wrote: >> +=+ Proposition 1: >> If the method is not disclosed beforehand it is illegal to make >> the >> bid. [Law 40A3] > > Shouldn't that be "disclosed in the manner specified by the RA?" In any > case, 40A3 is the wrong reference. It specifically permits certain > actions but does not ban anything unless one wishes to "assume the > converse." > > The fact is, the rules on this whole subject are a mess and, as written, > can be interpreted to forbid or allow anything one wishes. My suspicion > is that no authority has quite come to grips with the whole issue. > +++=+++ "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> +++=+++ >> Proposition 2: >> If the method is adopted then it has the same meaning whichever >> member of the partnership makes it (unless the RA disapplies >> the requirement). [Law 40B2(a)] +=+ > > Yes, if it's system or method. The question is how to draw the line > between system on the one hand and "style and judgment" on the other. > L40B2a makes clear that _some_ distinction must exist. > +++=+++ Not quite. 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. +++=+++ From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Sun Jan 31 00:02:55 2010 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:02:55 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Double infraction In-Reply-To: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <19735385.137681.1264892575236.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f26> Hello As usual double infringement is not concidered by the laws.(see for instance laws 94,95,96 and so on...) 2 options IMO : director rules only POOT and withdraws 1NT bid (law 16 applies) and South may accept or not POOT That's all folks ! Or director rules law 25 first and if South accept 1NT bid then he will be able to accept or not BOOT with (if not) varying consequences if North passes (no ruling) or bids (law 31 A 2 a or b) This last ruling seems attractive to me but you should take some time to explain to the players ! NB: I would like to discuss this issue in San Remo... Hello Ton :) Best regards Henri Defranchi > Message du 30/01/10 17:02 > De : "Brambledown" > A : "BLML" > Copie ? : > Objet : [BLML] Double infraction > > > De-lurking after some years, I would appreciate blmlers views on this > situation, which arose at the club the other day. > > North is the dealer, but East passes OOT and then removes the pass card and > substitutes 1NT. The TD is called and establishes that the pass was not > unintended (in fact East initially miscounted her points), so that L25A did > not apply to the change of call. > > Dealing first with the change of call, L25B allows South to accept 1NT, > failing which the original pass stands (and L16D applies to the withdrawn > call). > > Now a pass OOT (not accepted by South) would then be subject to L30A; East > merely repeats the pass after North's call. > > However, 1NT OOT (not accepted by South) would be subject to L31A. If North > now bids, West will most likely be silenced for the remainder of the > auction. > > The question is: can South accept the corrected 1NT bid in accordance with > L25B and then exercise his L31A right to refuse it as a BOOT? > > Readers may care to bear in mind: > > (a) Although L25B is worded as 'first call stands as the default, unless LHO > chooses to *accept* the substituted call' effectively LHO selects which of > the two calls shall stand'; > > and (b) if South cannot accept INT (L25B)and then reject it (L31A), then > East is better off having committed the double infraction than he would have > been had he simply bid 1NT OOT. > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, 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/20100130/48dc6c91/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Sun Jan 31 14:07:48 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:07:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> 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. From craigstamps at comcast.net Sun Jan 31 14:17:17 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:17:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> <8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000e01caa277$b6a1b7a0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> One more trick to the defence. While it would be careless or inferior to lose to the jack, it would surely not be irrational to cash the queen and the ace. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:07 AM Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling > This is the heart suit: > > A1082 > K4 J765 > Q93 > > Declarer is in 6NT. He needs three tricks from the suit. He has plenty > of entries to each hand. > > He leads the 2 to the 9, which loses to the king. Now he claims, saying > "I have three heart tricks." > > How do you rule, and does it depend upon the ability of any of the > players? > > If it matters, this is the EBU. > > > The above problem was posted by a strong player on the Laws section of > Bridgebase forum, under the heading "I have three hearts." > > How would you rule? And please indicate whether you allocate one more > trick to the defence or none, as those can be assumed to the only > options. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Jan 31 14:51:04 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:51:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?A_claim_ruling?= In-Reply-To: <000e01caa277$b6a1b7a0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <000e01caa277$b6a1b7a0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <1NbaCe-0sPCwi0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Irrational is no matter of law anymore and the footnote in "contested claims and concessions" says: "For the purpose of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the player involved. I accept the claim; declarer found the Jack. From: "craig" > One more trick to the defence. While it would be careless or inferior > to lose to the jack, it would surely not be irrational to cash the > queen and the ace. > > From: > > This is the heart suit: > > > > A1082 > > K4 J765 > > Q93 > > > > Declarer is in 6NT. He needs three tricks from the suit. He has > > plenty of entries to each hand. > > > > He leads the 2 to the 9, which loses to the king. Now he claims, > > saying "I have three heart tricks." > > > > How do you rule, and does it depend upon the ability of any of the > > players? > > > > If it matters, this is the EBU. > > > > > > The above problem was posted by a strong player on the Laws section > > of Bridgebase forum, under the heading "I have three hearts." > > > > How would you rule? And please indicate whether you allocate one > > more trick to the defence or none, as those can be assumed to the > > only options. From wrgptfan at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 15:10:39 2010 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:10:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <1NbaCe-0sPCwi0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <000e01caa277$b6a1b7a0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <1NbaCe-0sPCwi0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5D1D61BC-01A6-4B4A-8807-73E6A8083CA6@gmail.com> On Jan 31, 2010, at 8:51, "Peter Eidt" wrote: > Irrational is no matter of law anymore and the footnote > in "contested claims and concessions" says: > "For the purpose of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" > includes play that would be careless or inferior > for the player involved. > > I accept the claim; declarer found the Jack. I disagree. If west is a strong defender, this is a standard falsecard from KJx. If declarer is weak, the finesse of the J will surely be repeated. A strong declarer should be aware of this possiblilty and should not claim in this situation, especially without a statement. I would award 0 tricks to the defence if declarer was weak, but one trick if declarer was strong. Dave Kent > > > From: "craig" >> One more trick to the defence. While it would be careless or inferior >> to lose to the jack, it would surely not be irrational to cash the >> queen and the ace. >> >> From: >>> 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 31 15:13:10 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:13:10 -0600 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <1NbaCe-0sPCwi0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <000e01caa277$b6a1b7a0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <1NbaCe-0sPCwi0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Eidt" Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 07:51 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling > Irrational is no matter of law anymore and the footnote > in "contested claims and concessions" says: > "For the purpose of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" > includes play that would be careless or inferior > for the player involved. > > I accept the claim; declarer found the Jack. Surely you recall the occasion in the WC when Belladonna was unhappy to be in 7C missing something like KTxxx and if Kantar? falsecards the K then he says that he will go down on the trump coup. regards roger pewick > From: "craig" >> One more trick to the defence. While it would be careless or inferior >> to lose to the jack, it would surely not be irrational to cash the >> queen and the ace. >> >> From: >> > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gampas at aol.com Sun Jan 31 15:19:53 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:19:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling Message-ID: <8CC709797A432F1-1470-23006@webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com> [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? 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. From wrgptfan at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 15:52:35 2010 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:52:35 -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: Sent from my iPhone 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. Dave Kent > 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. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sun Jan 31 15:55:42 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:55:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling In-Reply-To: <000e01caa277$b6a1b7a0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl><8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> <000e01caa277$b6a1b7a0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <1264949742.28412.1357492081@webmail.messagingengine.com> > One more trick to the defence. While it would be careless or inferior to > lose to the jack, it would surely not be irrational to cash the queen and > the ace. Remember that declarer said he has three heart tricks. He clearly knows that that the J is out or his first play in the suit would not have been what it was. Therefore he must consider the finesse marked and is planning to take it, as he no other basis for claiming three tricks (unless he is said when he claimed that he knew the suit to be 3-3, but we are not told that he said that). Corollary: if the cards lie differently and West has falsecarded from KJx(+), I still consider the finesse to have been implicit in the claim, and I will let South decline to take it only if East shows out when declarer leads the 8 or 10 from dummy. David From wrgptfan at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 16:03:28 2010 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:03:28 -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, 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? > 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. Interesting that the "theoretically best play" loses to Jxxx with RHO and probably Jxx if your intention is to always play LHO to have falsecarded. You have "found" the J. Why would you not continue to play RHO to hold the J unless LHO is a strong defender. Also, if you are a strong declarer, why did you play this combination incorrectly. I believe the correct play is to run the Q originally, then finesse again if it loses to the K. Dave Kent > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From craigstamps at comcast.net Sun Jan 31 18:21:04 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:21:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A claim ruling References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl><8CC708D859978DC-4894-EEB3@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com><000e01caa277$b6a1b7a0$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <1264949742.28412.1357492081@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <001901caa299$c4eb4750$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> I was under the impression that a statement of claim with no line of play indicated is not allowed to profit ny any but a proven finesse. Surely the finesse is not "proven" here as repeating it is not automatic against a good defender who has false carded with KJx. Also the typical club player of NLM rank is certainly capable of just playing for the 3-3 break though this would of course be "inferior". Claims should be accompanied by a line of play. When they are not and two lines of play are rational (not necessarily superior) the decision must go against the claimer who failed to say what he meant. Craig Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Babcock" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A claim ruling >> One more trick to the defence. While it would be careless or inferior to >> lose to the jack, it would surely not be irrational to cash the queen and >> the ace. > > Remember that declarer said he has three heart tricks. He clearly knows > that that the J is out or his first play in the suit would not have been > what it was. Therefore he must consider the finesse marked and is > planning to take it, as he no other basis for claiming three tricks > (unless he is said when he claimed that he knew the suit to be 3-3, but > we are not told that he said that). > > Corollary: if the cards lie differently and West has falsecarded from > KJx(+), I still consider the finesse to have been implicit in the claim, > and I will let South decline to take it only if East shows out when > declarer leads the 8 or 10 from dummy. > > David > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Jan 31 18:48:05 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:48:05 -0000 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: <003e01caa29d$8b245620$a16d0260$@com> I attach a copy of a post that I have just complete on the Bridgebase forums. What follows is long and not especially interesting, but someone expressed surprise that I had not given an opinion on this case. I plead both ignorance and laziness, and ask for 203,478 similar offenses to be taken into consideration. I am not sure exactly what took place here - if I read correctly, the players came to a decision at the table that declarer would indeed make three heart tricks, so the claim was not referred to a Director. The question appears to be: what would have happened if it had been? Well, the Director applies these Laws in order: Law 70A 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. The Director proceeds as follows. This raises the unfortunate question of what "equitably" means; since no one knows, any given ruling is likely to generate more heat than light, but we cannot help that. For the moment we note only that "any doubtful point [...] shall be resolved against the claimer". Law 70B 1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. 2. Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections). 3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. In this case, the "clarification statement" appeared to be "I have three heart tricks." I assume in what follows that the defenders did not (as it appears that they actually did at the table) inquire as to how declarer proposed to make those tricks; I assume that either defender merely objected to the claim. See Law 70D3 below for guidance on what should be done if, for example, East had conceded the claim at the table after declarer had said that he would run H10 next, but West had objected on the grounds that he might have false-carded from HKJ(+) and wanted a Director's ruling at this point. Of course, no one would ever play with such a West again, but at least under the 2007 Laws it is far easier than it was under the 1997 Laws to rule against him as well as ostracizing him. Law 70D 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. [...2...] 3. In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim. Here, one might take the view that the successful line of play at the table is "embraced in the original clarification statement"; declarer thinks he knows which opponent holds HJ and will play accordingly to make the three heart tricks he has claimed. Unfortunately... Law 70E 1. 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 [...] failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. It is clear that the original clarification statement contained no indication that declarer would play so as to find East and not West with HJ. A suggestion has been made (if I read correctly) that this has been implied by declarer but not stated, so should be treated as if it had been stated; I can find no basis in language or in Law for such a procedure. Declarer has not stated that he will run the ten next, so it is open to the Director to adjudicate on the basis that he would not. The question is, then, whether it would be "irrational" for declarer to lose a trick to East's remaining HJxx by catering for West's holding the jack despite having won the nine with the king. The Laws provide no definition of either "rational" or "irrational", so the Director must make his own judgment; he may, of course, be guided by local regulation as to the meaning of those terms, by works of reference, or by common sense (though if he had any of that, he would have delegated the question to a junior Director forthwith). The many posts on this question so far have indicated no more than that there is a wide variety of opinion as to what might be an irrational course for a declarer of this particular class to adopt. It has been inferred that declarer cannot be all that strong a player, or he would not have played in this fashion to begin with. But such deductions are flimsy at best on the basis of such scanty evidence; it is true that a technician would play the suit by leading the queen, but a psychologist who as a player is as strong as or stronger than the technician might decide to gauge East's reaction to the play of a low card from dummy, since the difference in percentage chance of success between the two lines is very small. The word "irrational" means "contrary to reason", but this is capable of (at least) two interpretations in this context. On the one hand, we may say that to lose a trick to HJxx is "rational" because there is a good reason for it: West might have false-carded, and if he would do so whenever he should do so, a "rational" declarer should lose the trick. On the other hand, we may say that a player who is convinced from West's play of the king that East holds the jack would have no reason to play the queen next; to do so would for this player be "contrary to reason". This dual meaning of the term "irrational" has led to much grief and anguish in the adjudication of claims, and this case is one of many examples of why. For myself, I imagine that I would incline to the second interpretation and allow the claim, all other things being equal. But I would have sympathy with a Director who inclined to the first interpretation and disallowed the claim, or even with a Director who took the view that declarer might have forgotten about the jack having successfully finessed against it, and believed the remainder of his cards to be high. I have, as always, no sympathy whatsoever with the current Laws relating to claims. David Burn London, England From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 19:06:06 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:06:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alertable bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30 January 2010 07:05, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > >> ?Ranju Bhattacharjee wrote: > >>> Dear Sir, >>> >>> I like to have a view for necessary clarifications. In cases >>> where 2/1 >>> response shows a 5 card suit, there 2C is alertable as in some >>> cases it >>> could have been even doubleton, but for the partnership who do >>> not have any >>> such strict bindings, is it necessary to alert any natural suit >>> bidding (if >>> it is 3 cards or more? At times one may respond 2/1 with even 3 >>> card suit to >>> primarily create a GF situation say after 1H/S-2C with even 3 >>> cards and GF >>> value just to support opener's suit on the next turn. This is >>> further >>> required when 1M-2NT is artificial like Jacoby. Any ART bid or 4 >>> Suit Game >>> Forcing is obviously alertable but is any natural 3 card suit is >>> alertable? >>> Similarly often 1D-1H is bid with 3 card suit for players who >>> plays inverted >>> minors and the hand not suitable for NT response. Bidding any 3 >>> card suit is >>> a natural bid, Are those bids alertable? I think a natural 3 card >>> suit is >>> not alertable when his partner also do not have any idea about >>> it, Kindly >>> offer your comments and clarify about the alertability of the >>> same. >>> As I feel, bridge bidding will lost its charm, if it is >>> considered as >>> psychic.At times this type of liberty is necessary. >> >> Alert rules are not universal, it's up to the local RA to decide >> their >> own rules. >> >> IMO, a 1M response that might be made on a 3-card suit should be >> alertable. > > [Marv] That's a little strong, IMO. If the bid is part of the > system, then yes, Alertable. I *might* do it once in a blue moon, > unexpected by partner, no Alert or other disclosure. >> >> A 2C response that could be made on a 3-card suit should not be >> alertable; it's normal to bid 2C on a 3-card suit in most natural >> systems. If there are hands that you're obliged to respond 2C on a >> doubleton, this should be alertable. >> >> This has nothing to do with psyches, what you describe is >> systemic. > > What Harald writes seems to be in accordance with ACBL regulations. > When choosing between two three-card minors, if the weaker is > normally chosen that should be Alerted. > > ACBL Alert Procedure, page 11 of 13: > > Opener's rebid of two of a minor over partner's forcing or > semi-forcing 1NT ?response to a major does not require an Alert if > it shows three or more of the suit bid (4-5-2-2 does not require an > Alert as long as responder expects three or more cards in the > minor). You're probably correct in ACBL. But in Norway such a rebid which is systemic on a 3-card minor (or even a doubleton), is alertable. The forcing or semi-forcing 1NT response to 1M is pretty rare over here. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 31 21:53:10 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:53:10 -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 Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:07:48 -0500, 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. One trick to the defense. I would not claim in this situation. If I did, I would specify that I was taking the heart finesse against the marked jack. I would specify contingencies for jack being offside. Also, the heart suit could end up blocked depending on the order of playing the cards. I would claim in this situation if I forgot that the jack was out. I don't think it is irrational to forget that. It would be careless or inferior. IMO, it is not the director's job to remember what cards are out and to decide the best way to play the hand. But I am sympathetic to the notion that places differ in their claiming practices. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 31 21:55:16 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:55:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7047C93888DF412FAA3DEF2BA530E515@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> Message-ID: <4B65EE34.8000108@nhcc.net> > +++=+++ "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? 2. Is opener required to know which choice his partner habitually adopts? 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). 4. If opener knows but fails to disclose (perhaps not having been asked), is the 2C or 3NT bid illegal? From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 31 22:10:20 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:10:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Alertable bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B65F1BC.8020707@nhcc.net> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > You're probably correct in ACBL. But in Norway such a rebid which is > systemic on a 3-card minor (or even a doubleton), is alertable. I think the only response we can make to the OP is that alert rules depend on the jurisdiction, and not knowing where the OP plays, we can't give a definitive answer to his question. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 31 22:15:39 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:15:39 -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: <4B65F2FB.7060208@nhcc.net> 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. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 31 22:16:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:16:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Double infraction In-Reply-To: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20100130160201.6F3A1485C18C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:02:00 -0500, Brambledown wrote: > De-lurking after some years, I would appreciate blmlers views on this > situation, which arose at the club the other day. > > North is the dealer, but East passes OOT and then removes the pass card > and > substitutes 1NT. The TD is called and establishes that the pass was not > unintended (in fact East initially miscounted her points), so that L25A > did > not apply to the change of call. > > Dealing first with the change of call, L25B allows South to accept 1NT, > failing which the original pass stands (and L16D applies to the withdrawn > call). > > Now a pass OOT (not accepted by South) would then be subject to L30A; > East > merely repeats the pass after North's call. > > However, 1NT OOT (not accepted by South) would be subject to L31A. If > North > now bids, West will most likely be silenced for the remainder of the > auction. > > The question is: can South accept the corrected 1NT bid in accordance > with > L25B and then exercise his L31A right to refuse it as a BOOT? > > Readers may care to bear in mind: > > (a) Although L25B is worded as 'first call stands as the default, unless > LHO > chooses to *accept* the substituted call' effectively LHO selects which > of > the two calls shall stand'; > > and (b) if South cannot accept INT (L25B)and then reject it (L31A), then > East is better off having committed the double infraction than he would > have > been had he simply bid 1NT OOT. > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England It seems equitable that LHO can accept 1NT as a change of call, at which point it becomes a bid out of turn which does not have to be accepted. This seems to fit the intent of the laws. The laws have to be stretched in a really minor way to fit this interpretation -- the auction continues in the sense that the next thing after a BOOT is whether or not LHO wants to accept the BOOT.