From henk at ripe.net Thu Jul 1 01:01:01 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jul 1 02:34:59 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:34:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] USA Team Trials Appeal #2 In-Reply-To: <4C2B59A1.5090007@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C2B59A1.5090007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: >This is similar to this well-known case : >1H p 3H p >p ? >You see on their CC that 3H is preemptive, so you reopen, and the result >is catastrophic. However, 3H was encouraging, and they both knew it. >Now, reopening the bidding is as risky vs 17 / 5 HCP in opponents' hands >as it is vs 13 / 9, so there is no link, hence no need to see whether it >has been severed afterwards. While I understant the principle, I disagree with this example. While it is true that the opponents could have 17/5, they could also have 13/5, in which case letting them play 3H undoubled in a 9-card fit will probably give you a bad score; your goal may be +140 in 3S versus +100 in 3H. In addition, even if you are going down, you are less likely to be doubled, so you may escape for -50 or -100 versus -140. If the opponents are known to have more than half the high cards, and they know it, you will probably get doubled, so a double or 3S balance is more likely to turn -140 into -200 or -300 than +100 into +140. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 1 02:37:25 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:37:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Aussie kibitzers rule OK [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows, Guys and Dolls: "One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to come to you and show you a nice, brand new deck of cards on which the seal has not yet been broken. This man is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. Now son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you stand there, you are going to wind up with an earful of cider." Aussie kibitzer rule: >>20.1.2 Provided that a spectator observes the provisions of >>paragraph 20.1.1 (immediately above) and matters of general >>etiquette, a player has no right to object to the >>spectator's presence at the table. Eric Landau: [snip] >Should I really be allowed to sit in place silently opposite >someone I don't like, over their objection, stare intently >at them for 26 boards, perhaps shake my head, narrow my >eyes, wrinkle my nose, or protrude my tongue very slightly >every time they make a bid or play? Richard Hills: Eric is describing some mixed pairs partnerships. The male chauvinist pig stares intently at his female victim for 26 boards, shaking his head whenever his partner perpetrates a real or imagined error. However, according to the Lawbook, "matters of general etiquette" more rigidly apply to kibitzers than to players. Law 73D1 permits a player to unintentionally vary her manner. Law 76B3 requires a kibitzer to refrain from mannerisms. So the kibitzer must maintain her unvarying bland expression even if the jack of spades squirts cider into her ear. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jul 1 03:17:59 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:17:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> On 6/29/2010 2:42 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > Law 12 A1 applies (only) when no other law "provides > indemnity to a non-offending contestant ...". Yes. The conditions for L12A1 are existence of a "violation," existence of damage, and absence of other "indemnity." Damage is defined in L12B1 as "an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred," so there's an additional requirement that the NOS be "innocent," a term not defined so far as I can tell. > Obviously Law 23 is not applicable here (as Richard > proofed upthread), but this is not the end of ruling. > Law 12 A1 might still be applicable. Obviously. > As I understand Law 12 A1 NOS will only get redress, if > - they could do anything better without the offence _or_ > - (if they were damaged by a lucky action of the offending side > _and_ Law 23 applies for this action). Where is the requirement for L23 to apply? The conditions listed above suffice as far as I can tell. On 6/30/2010 9:43 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > 4. Logically, reasonably, we expect that the lucky suboptimal play which > happens to work is not adjusted for. That may be logical and reasonable, but I don't see any indication that's what TFLB actually says. > BUT, there is no legal justification I can find for Step #4. Indeed. > I think this is just an error (or errors) in the laws and > I would rule that declarer keeps his rub-of-the-green lucky results. If you rule that way, you will have to be prepared to defend yourself against your players' complaints. If instead you rule according to the text, you can ask Grattan and Ton to defend you. :-) Or you can just tell the complainers to put the dummy down properly from now on. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 1 04:06:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:06:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Lord Rochester (1647-1680), epitaph for Charles II: Here lies our sovereign lord the King Whose promise none relies on; Richard Hills, 4th June 2010 promise: >>>Since my responses to Steve Willner have obviously >>>irritated him into using the arguable word "often", I >>>will likewise cease responding to any further messages >>>from Steve Willner. Steve Willner: >The conditions for L12A1 are existence of a "violation," >existence of damage, and absence of other "indemnity." [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, the adjective "other" is not le mot juste. With the trivial exception of the title of Law 88, the word "indemnity" appears solely in Law 12A1. The rest of the Lawbook uses a word with a somewhat different meaning, "rectification". Law 12B2: "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." Richard Hills: I note that the rectification provided in Law 41D is zero rectification, so perhaps the old husband's tale "everyone is responsible for dummy" is true. Robert Frick: [snip] >>Logically, reasonably, we expect that the lucky sub- >>optimal play which happens to work is not adjusted for. [snip] Steve Willner: >That may be logical and reasonable, but I don't see any >indication that's what TFLB actually says. [snip] Richard Hills: Some decades ago, Edgar Kaplan's semi-official opinion was that a Law 12A1 "indemnity" should be paid only in very rare circumstances. The natural consequences of Steve Willner's unofficial opinion about a Law 12A1 "indemnity" is that almost every ruling would invoke Law 12A1, which suggests that that interpretation might be an Ivory Tower view of the Lawbook. Lord Rochester (1647-1680), epitaph for Charles II: He never said a foolish thing, Nor ever did a wise one. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Jul 1 05:27:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 13:27:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 12B2: "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." Richard Hills, first thoughts: I note that the rectification provided in Law 41D is zero rectification, so perhaps the old husband's tale "everyone is responsible for dummy" is true. Richard Hills, second thoughts: It is possible that the two situations described below may not be synonymous for the purposes of Law 12B2: (a) zero rectification provided, for example Law 41D and (b) rectification of zero provided, for example Law 55B1 - Declarer Required to Retract Lead "If declarer has led from his or dummy's hand when it was a defender's turn to lead, and if either defender requires him to retract such lead, declarer restores the card led in error to the proper hand. No further rectification applies." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jul 1 12:59:34 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:59:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: <201005030922.o439Mhh8015646@dog.ripe.net> References: <201005030922.o439Mhh8015646@dog.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C2C7516.6000505@aol.com> Hola Henk! I somehow seem to have managed to delete the usage statistics for May. At least I can't find them anywhere. (computer incapability) Could you send them to me again? I did receive (and not delete) the other monthly messages. Thanks, JE Am 03.05.2010 11:22, schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: > BLML usage statistics for April 2010 > > Posts From > ----- ---- > 54 agot (at) ulb.ac.be > 44 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk > 36 ehaa (at) starpower.net > 32 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au > 29 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com > 22 Hermandw (at) skynet.be > 21 rfrick (at) rfrick.info > 14 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au > 13 svenpran (at) online.no > 12 dpb3 (at) fastmail.fm > 11 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com > 10 bpark56 (at) comcast.net > 9 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl > 8 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr > 8 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com > 8 axman22 (at) hotmail.com > 8 adam (at) irvine.com > 7 jfusselman (at) gmail.com > 6 cibor (at) poczta.fm > 6 blml (at) arcor.de > 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr > 4 schoderb (at) msn.com > 4 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk > 4 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com > 4 geller (at) nifty.com > 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de > 3 p.j.m.smulders (at) home.nl > 3 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com > 2 swillner (at) nhcc.net > 2 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com > 2 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com > 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu > 2 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com > 1 sater (at) xs4all.nl > 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm > 1 henk (at) ripe.net > 1 bridgeinindia (at) gmail.com > 1 bbickford (at) charter.net > 1 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au > 1 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jul 1 13:06:29 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:06:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: <4C2C7516.6000505@aol.com> References: <201005030922.o439Mhh8015646@dog.ripe.net> <4C2C7516.6000505@aol.com> Message-ID: <4C2C76B5.90608@aol.com> Did you receive this? For some unknown reason it came back to me as if I had sent it to myself so I don't know if you received it. Thus I shall try again. JE Am 01.07.2010 12:59, schrieb Jeff Easterson: > Hola Henk! I somehow seem to have managed to delete the usage > statistics for May. At least I can't find them anywhere. (computer > incapability) Could you send them to me again? I did receive (and not > delete) the other monthly messages. Thanks, JE > > Am 03.05.2010 11:22, schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: >> BLML usage statistics for April 2010 >> >> Posts From >> ----- ---- >> 54 agot (at) ulb.ac.be >> 44 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk >> 36 ehaa (at) starpower.net >> 32 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au >> 29 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com >> 22 Hermandw (at) skynet.be >> 21 rfrick (at) rfrick.info >> 14 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au >> 13 svenpran (at) online.no >> 12 dpb3 (at) fastmail.fm >> 11 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com >> 10 bpark56 (at) comcast.net >> 9 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl >> 8 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr >> 8 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com >> 8 axman22 (at) hotmail.com >> 8 adam (at) irvine.com >> 7 jfusselman (at) gmail.com >> 6 cibor (at) poczta.fm >> 6 blml (at) arcor.de >> 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr >> 4 schoderb (at) msn.com >> 4 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk >> 4 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com >> 4 geller (at) nifty.com >> 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de >> 3 p.j.m.smulders (at) home.nl >> 3 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com >> 2 swillner (at) nhcc.net >> 2 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com >> 2 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com >> 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu >> 2 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com >> 1 sater (at) xs4all.nl >> 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm >> 1 henk (at) ripe.net >> 1 bridgeinindia (at) gmail.com >> 1 bbickford (at) charter.net >> 1 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au >> 1 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jul 1 13:07:47 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:07:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: <4C2C76B5.90608@aol.com> References: <201005030922.o439Mhh8015646@dog.ripe.net> <4C2C7516.6000505@aol.com> <4C2C76B5.90608@aol.com> Message-ID: <4C2C7703.7060306@aol.com> Am 01.07.2010 13:06, schrieb Jeff Easterson: > Did you receive this? For some unknown reason it came back to me as if > I had sent it to myself so I don't know if you received it. Thus I > shall try again. JE > > Am 01.07.2010 12:59, schrieb Jeff Easterson: >> Hola Henk! I somehow seem to have managed to delete the usage >> statistics for May. At least I can't find them anywhere. (computer >> incapability) Could you send them to me again? I did receive (and not >> delete) the other monthly messages. Thanks, JE >> >> Am 03.05.2010 11:22, schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: >>> BLML usage statistics for April 2010 >>> >>> Posts From >>> ----- ---- >>> 54 agot (at) ulb.ac.be >>> 44 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk >>> 36 ehaa (at) starpower.net >>> 32 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au >>> 29 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com >>> 22 Hermandw (at) skynet.be >>> 21 rfrick (at) rfrick.info >>> 14 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au >>> 13 svenpran (at) online.no >>> 12 dpb3 (at) fastmail.fm >>> 11 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com >>> 10 bpark56 (at) comcast.net >>> 9 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl >>> 8 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr >>> 8 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com >>> 8 axman22 (at) hotmail.com >>> 8 adam (at) irvine.com >>> 7 jfusselman (at) gmail.com >>> 6 cibor (at) poczta.fm >>> 6 blml (at) arcor.de >>> 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr >>> 4 schoderb (at) msn.com >>> 4 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk >>> 4 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com >>> 4 geller (at) nifty.com >>> 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de >>> 3 p.j.m.smulders (at) home.nl >>> 3 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com >>> 2 swillner (at) nhcc.net >>> 2 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com >>> 2 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com >>> 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu >>> 2 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com >>> 1 sater (at) xs4all.nl >>> 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm >>> 1 henk (at) ripe.net >>> 1 bridgeinindia (at) gmail.com >>> 1 bbickford (at) charter.net >>> 1 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au >>> 1 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jul 1 13:14:56 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:14:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] stupid question Message-ID: <4C2C78B0.5070806@aol.com> Hola Henk! As you know I am a computer anti-talent. I received the usage statistics for May (June? the posting you sent out today with the others) but seem to have deleted it; at least I can't find it any more. Tried to send you an email asking you to send it again but the email kept coming back to me as if I had sent it to myself. Thus I don't know if you received it. Anyway, could you send me the usage statistics again? If they are for June, could you send me the usage statistics for May as well. I don't seem to have ever received them. Ciao, JE From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 1 13:16:16 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 13:16:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: <4C2C76B5.90608@aol.com> References: <201005030922.o439Mhh8015646@dog.ripe.net> <4C2C7516.6000505@aol.com> <4C2C76B5.90608@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001cb190e$d32c1830$79844890$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff > Easterson > Sent: 1. juli 2010 13:06 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics > > Did you receive this? For some unknown reason it came back to me as if I had > sent it to myself so I don't know if you received it. Thus I shall try again. JE > > Am 01.07.2010 12:59, schrieb Jeff Easterson: > > Hola Henk! I somehow seem to have managed to delete the usage > > statistics for May. At least I can't find them anywhere. (computer > > incapability) Could you send them to me again? I did receive (and > > not > > delete) the other monthly messages. Thanks, JE 1: You sent (both) your message to blml so it was (they were) handled like ordinary posts. 2: I don't think usage statistics for May was ever sent out. Sven From henk at ripe.net Thu Jul 1 16:26:23 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:26:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201007011426.o61EQNTO004722@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for June 2010 Posts From ----- ---- From henk at ripe.net Thu Jul 1 16:26:36 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:26:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201007011426.o61EQafc005175@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for June 2010 Posts From ----- ---- From henk at ripe.net Thu Jul 1 16:27:38 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:27:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201007011427.o61ERceR006232@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for May 2010 Posts From ----- ---- 53 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 33 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 18 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 14 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 14 ehaa (at) starpower.net 10 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 10 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 9 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 8 svenpran (at) online.no 8 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 7 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 6 swillner (at) nhcc.net 6 dpb3 (at) fastmail.fm 6 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 5 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 5 adam (at) tameware.com 4 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 4 geller (at) nifty.com 4 cibor (at) poczta.fm 3 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 3 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 3 blml (at) arcor.de 3 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 posundelin (at) yahoo.se 2 jrhind (at) therock.bm 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 1 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 henk (at) ripe.net 1 gampas (at) aol.com 1 doghoward (at) aol.com 1 bridge (at) vwalther.de 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 adam (at) irvine.com From henk at ripe.net Thu Jul 1 16:30:55 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:30:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201007011430.o61EUtdu007659@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for June 2010 Posts From ----- ---- 56 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 26 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 24 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 14 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 14 ehaa (at) starpower.net 14 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 11 svenpran (at) online.no 11 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 10 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 10 blml (at) arcor.de 10 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 9 geller (at) nifty.com 7 swillner (at) nhcc.net 5 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 5 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 5 dpb3 (at) fastmail.fm 5 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 5 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 5 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 4 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 3 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 3 jrhind (at) therock.bm 3 hirsch9000 (at) gmail.com 3 henk (at) ripe.net 3 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 3 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 3 adam (at) tameware.com 2 schoderb (at) msn.com 2 sater (at) xs4all.nl 2 posundelin (at) yahoo.se 2 jeff.ford (at) gmail.com 2 hermandw2610 (at) gmail.com 2 brian (at) peacenik.net 2 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 1 thegruffle (at) mac.com 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 gampas (at) aol.com 1 bpark56 (at) comcast.net From henk at ripe.net Thu Jul 1 16:35:03 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:35:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: <000001cb190e$d32c1830$79844890$@no> References: <201005030922.o439Mhh8015646@dog.ripe.net> <4C2C7516.6000505@aol.com> <4C2C76B5.90608@aol.com> <000001cb190e$d32c1830$79844890$@no> Message-ID: <4C2CA797.9020409@ripe.net> Jeff, others, > 1: You sent (both) your message to blml so it was (they were) handled like > ordinary posts. Correct, but then I still do see them, work (and BBO) sometimes interfere with quickly answering them though. > 2: I don't think usage statistics for May was ever sent out. I thought I ran this job but apparently I didn't. I just fixed that, so both May and June should be in your inbox. In any case: all messages sent to the list are archived at: http://www.rtflb.org/ Go there, click on list archives and you'll see all mails sorted by thread, subject, author or date. If you ever deleted a mail, it should be there. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jul 1 18:03:38 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:03:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: <4C2CA797.9020409@ripe.net> References: <201005030922.o439Mhh8015646@dog.ripe.net> <4C2C7516.6000505@aol.com> <4C2C76B5.90608@aol.com> <000001cb190e$d32c1830$79844890$@no> <4C2CA797.9020409@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C2CBC5A.8040909@aol.com> Hola Henk! Thanks, I'll try to remember to follow these instructions in the future. Ciao, JE Am 01.07.2010 16:35, schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: > Jeff, others, > >> 1: You sent (both) your message to blml so it was (they were) handled like >> ordinary posts. > > Correct, but then I still do see them, work (and BBO) sometimes interfere > with quickly answering them though. > >> 2: I don't think usage statistics for May was ever sent out. > > I thought I ran this job but apparently I didn't. I just fixed that, > so both May and June should be in your inbox. > > In any case: all messages sent to the list are archived at: > > http://www.rtflb.org/ > > Go there, click on list archives and you'll see all mails sorted > by thread, subject, author or date. If you ever deleted a mail, > it should be there. > > Henk > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 2 00:21:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 08:21:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: > ... She thought she had a singleton in hand and AKQ10x in >dummy, so she finessed the 10. Which won. But playing the 10 >revealed a hidden club in dummy, I actually had AKQ10xx. > >For the latter combination, the natural and correct play is >to try to drop the jack, which doesn't work -- it is Jxxx >of clubs onside. ... George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945): "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." ACBL Duplicate Decisions, page 14: "When a player, usually the dummy, says, 'Everyone is responsible for the dummy', the response should be that some are more responsible than others." Richard Hills: Dummy's infraction of Law 41D causing putative damage to the non-offending side = go to Law 12, go directly to Law 12, do not pass "Go", do not collect $200. Not so. It is mandatory for a Director to first consider Law 84A and Law 84D. Law 84 - Rulings on Agreed Facts When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows: A. No Rectification If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play. [snip of irrelevant Laws 84B and 84C] D. Director's Option The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 2 00:44:03 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:44:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000401cb196e$e7b88e40$b729aac0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945): > > "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Just for this sentence it is a pity that George Orwell did not write in Norwegian! "more equal" translates into the Norwegian word "likere", but this word in Norwegian can also mean "better"! I feel sure that he would have loved it. From adam at tameware.com Fri Jul 2 02:13:59 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 20:13:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Reno NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Reno2010.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! Comments are now posted, for both the NABC+ and Non-NABC+ cases. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 2 03:49:29 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:49:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:17:59 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > On 6/30/2010 9:43 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> 4. Logically, reasonably, we expect that the lucky suboptimal play which >> happens to work is not adjusted for. > > That may be logical and reasonable, but I don't see any indication > that's what TFLB actually says. > > > BUT, there is no legal justification I can find for Step #4. > > Indeed. > >> I think this is just an error (or errors) in the laws and >> I would rule that declarer keeps his rub-of-the-green lucky results. > > If you rule that way, you will have to be prepared to defend yourself > against your players' complaints. If instead you rule according to the > text, you can ask Grattan and Ton to defend you. :-) Or you can just > tell the complainers to put the dummy down properly from now on. I think I should be prepared to defend my judgment no matter what ruling make. This includes the rational process behind constructing a law. I I have to decide when the laws are just in error and I should just ignore them. Usually, the decision is easy. For example "any normal line of play" in L70E1 is obviously wrong. Or, an opponent telling me he has the ace of hearts is AI to me, even though L16A suggests it is UI. It was probably an oversight not to mention rectification for a hidden card in dummy. I ask myself, if that rectification had been in the 1997 laws, would they have taken it out for the 2007 laws? Furthermore, it does not seem like a well-designed thought-out part of the laws that this particular rectification is not protected against rub-of-the-green good results. Instead, that seems to be just an accident of the law. It is also inconsistent with the general principles in the laws ("Forcing ofender to use a suboptimal process is sufficient rectification"). A problem occurs when I can't tell if an odd thing in the laws is on purpose or not (and no one will tell me when I ask, which is why I am bitching now). The ACBL specifies that a bid from the bidding box is made when it is held touching or nearly touching the table. Just like declarer playing a card but without the word "face up". So a player pulled a bid out of the box, said "wait a minute", and thought about what to do. While thinking, she idly placed the edge of the bidding card on the table. The bid card was facing herself and away from everyone else. Is the bid now irrevocably made? That doesn't seem right, but if the lawmakers thought about it and wanted it that way, I would be comfortable to rule that way. If they just made a careless mistake, I would rather rule the other way. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 3 16:55:47 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:55:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How to say "I can't pay attention to you right now" In-Reply-To: <000401cb196e$e7b88e40$b729aac0$@no> References: <000401cb196e$e7b88e40$b729aac0$@no> Message-ID: Okay. What if I am giving 100% of my brainpower to something important, like changing a score on the computer. Then a player asks me a question. I don't want to interrupt what I am doing. I will forget. I probably didn't even process what they are saying. I don't even want to think about how to tell them I can't talk to them right now. What do I do? Hold up a finger to say as in "just a second"? I am thinking of making a card with an hourglass that says "System Processing, please wait." Anyway, a reasonably serious problem. And in talking to another director yesterday, I realized this must be a universal director problem. From tedying at yahoo.com Sat Jul 3 17:31:55 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] How to say "I can't pay attention to you right now" In-Reply-To: References: <000401cb196e$e7b88e40$b729aac0$@no> Message-ID: <503740.42342.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I typically say, "Please be patient, I'll be with you in a moment." If the player is coming up and needs to get back to the table, I sometimes say "please come back at the hospitality break" or "What pair number are you? I'll come find you when I've finished." depending on the situation and timing. -Ted. ________________________________ From: Robert Frick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sat, July 3, 2010 10:55:47 AM Subject: [BLML] How to say "I can't pay attention to you right now" Okay. What if I am giving 100% of my brainpower to something important, like changing a score on the computer. Then a player asks me a question. I don't want to interrupt what I am doing. I will forget. I probably didn't even process what they are saying. I don't even want to think about how to tell them I can't talk to them right now. What do I do? Hold up a finger to say as in "just a second"? I am thinking of making a card with an hourglass that says "System Processing, please wait." Anyway, a reasonably serious problem. And in talking to another director yesterday, I realized this must be a universal director problem. _______________________________________________ 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/20100703/9cd56687/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 3 23:47:47 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:47:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> On 7/1/2010 9:49 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I have to decide when the laws are just in error and I should just ignore > them. I hope few if any other Directors take this approach. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 4 00:22:21 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:22:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:47:47 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 7/1/2010 9:49 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> I have to decide when the laws are just in error and I should just >> ignore >> them. > > I hope few if any other Directors take this approach. I doubt you get your wish. Declarer has claimed. The claim is faulty and there are several lines of play to explore, declarer getting the worst of them. One line of play leads to the situation where LHO leads a heart. Can declarer finesse in dummy in hearts? 1. Can finesse if RHO has shown out in hearts on this line of play; can't finesse if RHO has not shown out in hearts on this line of play. Other lines of play are irrelevant. 2. Yes if RHO shows out in hearts on every possible line of play; no if RHO does not show out on one of the other lines of play even if RHO has shown out on this line of play. 3. Yes if RHO shows out in hearts on any line of play, even if RHO has not shown out in hearts in this line of play; no if RHO shows out in hearts on every line of play. Will anyone follow either the law (choice #3) or the blml rewrite of this law (choice #2)? Or will most directors pick the emminently sensible #1 and not even realize there is a problem? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 4 00:45:48 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:45:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy II In-Reply-To: <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: LHO says to you "I have a great hand." You now face a close decision whether or not to preempt in front of LHO. It is a close decision. So you need to know if this information from the opponent is AI or UI. What do you do? Or what does the director do if called on you possibly using UI? 1. You know it is AI so you don't even bother reading the laws? 2. You read the laws for some way to interpet this as AI. You will stretch and distort and do whatever you can do to come to the conclusion that this is AI. 3. You read the laws in an unbiased way and follow whatever the laws seem to say. If you decide it is UI, you try to educate other directors. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 4 02:06:39 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 02:06:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick .............. > Declarer has claimed. The claim is faulty and there are several lines of play to > explore, declarer getting the worst of them. One line of play leads to the situation > where LHO leads a heart. Can declarer finesse in dummy in hearts? > > 1. Can finesse if RHO has shown out in hearts on this line of play; can't finesse if > RHO has not shown out in hearts on this line of play. Other lines of play are > irrelevant. > > 2. Yes if RHO shows out in hearts on every possible line of play; no if RHO does > not show out on one of the other lines of play even if RHO has shown out on this > line of play. > > 3. Yes if RHO shows out in hearts on any line of play, even if RHO has not shown > out in hearts in this line of play; no if RHO shows out in hearts on every line of > play. > > > Will anyone follow either the law (choice #3) or the blml rewrite of this law (choice > #2)? Or will most directors pick the emminently sensible #1 and not even realize > there is a problem? I simply do not understand what you are trying to express here, but the claim laws are very clear although they can sometimes be a bit demanding on the Directors ability to judge. 1 is correct if RHO will have shown out before the time declarer arrives at the choice of finesse. This means that if RHO has not shown out at the time of the claim, but the claim statement implies cashing the Ace of hearts from declarer's hand before playing a small heart towards KJ in Dummy then declarer will be allowed the Jack from Dummy if RHO showed out already on the Ace. I have no idea of why you say "Other lines of play are irrelevant". For a line to be relevant it must either be obvious or mentioned (directly or indirectly) with the claim. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 4 02:47:06 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:47:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:06:39 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > .............. >> Declarer has claimed. The claim is faulty and there are several lines of > play to >> explore, declarer getting the worst of them. One line of play leads to >> the > situation >> where LHO leads a heart. Can declarer finesse in dummy in hearts? >> >> 1. Can finesse if RHO has shown out in hearts on this line of play; >> can't > finesse if >> RHO has not shown out in hearts on this line of play. Other lines of >> play > are >> irrelevant. >> >> 2. Yes if RHO shows out in hearts on every possible line of play; no if > RHO does >> not show out on one of the other lines of play even if RHO has shown out > on this >> line of play. >> >> 3. Yes if RHO shows out in hearts on any line of play, even if RHO has >> not > shown >> out in hearts in this line of play; no if RHO shows out in hearts on >> every > line of >> play. >> >> >> Will anyone follow either the law (choice #3) or the blml rewrite of >> this > law (choice >> #2)? Or will most directors pick the emminently sensible #1 and not even > realize >> there is a problem? > > I simply do not understand what you are trying to express here, but the > claim laws are very clear although they can sometimes be a bit demanding > on > the Directors ability to judge. > > 1 is correct if RHO will have shown out before the time declarer arrives > at > the choice of finesse. > > This means that if RHO has not shown out at the time of the claim, but > the > claim statement implies cashing the Ace of hearts from declarer's hand > before playing a small heart towards KJ in Dummy then declarer will be > allowed the Jack from Dummy if RHO showed out already on the Ace. > > I have no idea of why you say "Other lines of play are irrelevant". For a > line to be relevant it must either be obvious or mentioned (directly or > indirectly) with the claim. In this example, there are several "normal" lines of play to consider. We are now considering just one of them and asking if declarer will be allowed to finesse in hearts. It would be bizarre to say that declarer can finesse in this line of play if RHO shows out in hearts in *any* of the lines of play. It would be feasible, but far too strict, to say that declarer can finesse in hearts in this line of play only if RHO shows out in hearts in *every* other line of play. Instead, as you note, the other lines of play are irrelevant. We allow declarer to finesse only when RHO has already shown out on this line of play. That's reasonable, logical, rational, and I think every director is going to come to the same conclusion. We don't even need to read the exact wording of L73E1. If we did, we would assume that it says what we think it should say. But it says "unless the opponent failed to follow to the suit of the card before the claim was made or would subsequently fail to follow suit on *any* normal line of play". Q.E.D, ignoring the law. -- somepsychology.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 4 11:26:35 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:26:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> Message-ID: <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ......... > In this example, there are several "normal" lines of play to consider. We are now > considering just one of them and asking if declarer will be allowed to finesse in > hearts. > > It would be bizarre to say that declarer can finesse in this line of play if RHO shows > out in hearts in *any* of the lines of play. > > It would be feasible, but far too strict, to say that declarer can finesse in hearts in > this line of play only if RHO shows out in hearts in *every* other line of play. > > Instead, as you note, the other lines of play are irrelevant. We allow declarer to > finesse only when RHO has already shown out on this line of play. > > That's reasonable, logical, rational, and I think every director is going to come to > the same conclusion. > > We don't even need to read the exact wording of L73E1. If we did, we would > assume that it says what we think it should say. > > But it says "unless the opponent failed to follow to the suit of the card before the > claim was made or would subsequently fail to follow suit on > *any* normal line of play". > > Q.E.D, ignoring the law. Oh PLEASE! Don't confuse a clear situation like you did: If there is more than one single "normal" line of play that is consistent with the claim statement this simply implies that the claimer has made a deficient claim statement. In that case the Director shall not allow one "normal" line of play over another less successful "normal" line of play when both lines are consistent with the given claim statement. In other words: If the claimer simply states "the rest is mine" (or words to that effect) then all possible "normal" lines of play are consistent with this statement and he shall be given the number of tricks that would be the result of the (for him) least successful such line of play. However: If all lines of play that are consistent with the claim statement will be successful although one of them depends for instance on an unmentioned finesse the player will be allowed a successful play if, and only if the relevant card location must be revealed to him (for instance with a void) before he reaches the choice situation. (It is not necessary that this situation is "known" to him already at the time he makes his claim.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 4 15:17:02 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:17:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 05:26:35 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ......... >> In this example, there are several "normal" lines of play to consider. >> We > are now >> considering just one of them and asking if declarer will be allowed to > finesse in >> hearts. >> >> It would be bizarre to say that declarer can finesse in this line of >> play > if RHO shows >> out in hearts in *any* of the lines of play. >> >> It would be feasible, but far too strict, to say that declarer can >> finesse > in hearts in >> this line of play only if RHO shows out in hearts in *every* other line >> of > play. >> >> Instead, as you note, the other lines of play are irrelevant. We allow > declarer to >> finesse only when RHO has already shown out on this line of play. >> >> That's reasonable, logical, rational, and I think every director is >> going > to come to >> the same conclusion. >> >> We don't even need to read the exact wording of L73E1. If we did, we >> would >> assume that it says what we think it should say. >> >> But it says "unless the opponent failed to follow to the suit of the >> card > before the >> claim was made or would subsequently fail to follow suit on >> *any* normal line of play". >> >> Q.E.D, ignoring the law. > > Oh PLEASE! Don't confuse a clear situation like you did: > > If there is more than one single "normal" line of play that is consistent > with the claim statement this simply implies that the claimer has made a > deficient claim statement. > > In that case the Director shall not allow one "normal" line of play over > another less successful "normal" line of play when both lines are > consistent > with the given claim statement. > > In other words: If the claimer simply states "the rest is mine" (or > words to > that effect) then all possible "normal" lines of play are consistent with > this statement and he shall be given the number of tricks that would be > the > result of the (for him) least successful such line of play. > > However: If all lines of play that are consistent with the claim > statement > will be successful although one of them depends for instance on an > unmentioned finesse the player will be allowed a successful play if, and > only if the relevant card location must be revealed to him (for instance > with a void) before he reaches the choice situation. (It is not necessary > that this situation is "known" to him already at the time he makes his > claim.) Back to the topic. L73E1 contains an error. I ignore the error and rule exactly like you do. Steve Wilner said he hoped most directors did not do this, so we are discussing what they do or should do. I will take you as the norm. You know what the law should be and apparently you don't even notice that the law is different from how you and everyone else would rule. I was exactly the same until someone brought up the A10xxx opposite KJxxx example in blml. When I try to discuss the actual law, it "confuses the clear situation" for you. One way or another, everyone ignores the laws when they already know how they should rule. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 4 16:27:31 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 16:27:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> Message-ID: <000201cb1b85$0a392a70$1eab7f50$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > Back to the topic. L73E1 contains an error. I ignore the error and rule exactly like > you do. Steve Wilner said he hoped most directors did not do this, so we are > discussing what they do or should do. > > I will take you as the norm. You know what the law should be and apparently you > don't even notice that the law is different from how you and everyone else would > rule. I was exactly the same until someone brought up the A10xxx opposite KJxxx > example in blml. When I try to discuss the actual law, it "confuses the clear > situation" for you. > > One way or another, everyone ignores the laws when they already know how they > should rule. I haven't been following this thread much, and don't know if I shall care to follow it much further. But I strongly resent your insulting assertion that I do not rule according to law. BTW, I take it that your reference to L73E1 is a typo for L70E1? And would you please explain to me in what way you assert that that law contains an error? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 4 17:36:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 11:36:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <000201cb1b85$0a392a70$1eab7f50$@no> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> <000201cb1b85$0a392a70$1eab7f50$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:27:31 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >> Back to the topic. L73E1 contains an error. I ignore the error and rule > exactly like >> you do. Steve Wilner said he hoped most directors did not do this, so we > are >> discussing what they do or should do. >> >> I will take you as the norm. You know what the law should be and > apparently you >> don't even notice that the law is different from how you and everyone >> else > would >> rule. I was exactly the same until someone brought up the A10xxx >> opposite > KJxxx >> example in blml. When I try to discuss the actual law, it "confuses the > clear >> situation" for you. >> >> One way or another, everyone ignores the laws when they already know how > they >> should rule. > > I haven't been following this thread much, and don't know if I shall > care to > follow it much further. > > But I strongly resent your insulting assertion that I do not rule > according > to law. Okay. To be clear, I don't argue by insult. I meant this as a fact extremely relevant to the discussion. My argument is that no one rules according to the law, so you should not take this personally. > BTW, I take it that your reference to L73E1 is a typo for L70E1? yes And > would > you please explain to me in what way you assert that that law contains an > error? You have said, more than once, that declarer is allowed to finesse only if the player behind the finesse has shown out. ("In you own words: "the player will be allowed a successful play if, and only if the relevant card location must be revealed to him (for instance with a void) before he reaches the choice situation." or ..."playing a small heart towards KJ in Dummy then declarer will be allowed the Jack from Dummy if RHO showed out already on the Ace." You have been quite clear that this applies ONLY to the normal line of play under consideration. L73E1, however, clearly states that declarer is allowed the finesse when the player behind the finesse shows out on ANY normal line of play. It makes the events in the other normal lines of play very relevant. Even though you and I both know they are not. So you are making a rational sane ruling that any director would make. It simply does not correspond to L73E1. As stands, L73E1 is irrational. That's why I say it is an error. As someone noted long ago, it allows claiming with AJxxx opposite K10xxx and always picking up the suit. I lead towards the AJxxx and I am allowed to finesse the Jack with Qxx onside, because there is a normal line of play (small to the king) where RHO shows out. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 4 19:39:47 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 19:39:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> <000201cb1b85$0a392a70$1eab7f50$@no> Message-ID: <000001cb1b9f$e6183fd0$b248bf70$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick .......... > > BTW, I take it that your reference to L73E1 is a typo for L70E1? > > yes > > And > > would > > you please explain to me in what way you assert that that law contains > > an error? > > You have said, more than once, that declarer is allowed to finesse only if the > player behind the finesse has shown out. > > ("In you own words: "the player will be allowed a successful play if, and only if the > relevant card location must be revealed to him (for instance with a void) before he > reaches the choice situation." or ..."playing a small heart towards KJ in Dummy > then declarer will be allowed the Jack from Dummy if RHO showed out already on > the Ace." > > You have been quite clear that this applies ONLY to the normal line of play under > consideration. > > L73E1, however, clearly states that declarer is allowed the finesse when the > player behind the finesse shows out on ANY normal line of play. It makes the > events in the other normal lines of play very relevant. Even though you and I both > know they are not. > > > So you are making a rational sane ruling that any director would make. It simply > does not correspond to L73E1. As stands, L73E1 is irrational. > That's why I say it is an error. As someone noted long ago, it allows claiming with > AJxxx opposite K10xxx and always picking up the suit. I lead towards the AJxxx and > I am allowed to finesse the Jack with Qxx onside, because there is a normal line of > play (small to the king) where RHO shows out. Quote L70E1: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. Unquote 1: This law applies to any attempt by the claimer submitting for his claim a line of play that was not consistent with his original statement or, although consistent with that statement not explicitly specified in it. 2: When you write: quote: "that declarer is allowed the finesse when the player behind the finesse shows out on ANY normal line of play" you reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Law 70E1 (Let us stick to the correct law reference, shall we?) Law 70E1 specifically speaks about ANY (i.e. any unique) unstated line of play, the outcome of WHICH (i.e. THIS particular line of play) depends.... So what might be revealed for the claimer in a different (but "normal") line of play that he might suggest is completely irrelevant when ruling on this particular line of play. Be aware that when a claim opens for more than one specific line of play then the claimer is not free to select which of the alternatively available lines of play he will use; the Director shall rule according to that particular among the available lines of play that will turn out least favorable for the claimer. Although English is not my native language I understand that the word ANY can have many different meanings depending on the context in which it appears. Some of these meanings can even seem to be in direct conflict with each other. My Oxford says on ANY: Adjective: "One or some from three or more or from a quantity"; "Every"; "In a significant amount". Pronoun: "Any one"; "Some". Adverb: "At all" I don't think it is proper to assert that a Director who understands Law 70E1 and rules accordingly misunderstands this law simply because you have stuck with an understanding of the word ANY different from what WBFLC has intended in this law. Sometimes common sense can even be correct! From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 4 20:25:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:25:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <000001cb1b9f$e6183fd0$b248bf70$@no> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> <000201cb1b85$0a392a70$1eab7f50$@no> <000001cb1b9f$e6183fd0$b248bf70$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:39:47 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > .......... >> > BTW, I take it that your reference to L73E1 is a typo for L70E1? >> >> yes >> >> And >> > would >> > you please explain to me in what way you assert that that law contains >> > an error? >> >> You have said, more than once, that declarer is allowed to finesse only >> if > the >> player behind the finesse has shown out. >> >> ("In you own words: "the player will be allowed a successful play if, >> and > only if the >> relevant card location must be revealed to him (for instance with a >> void) > before he >> reaches the choice situation." or ..."playing a small heart towards KJ >> in > Dummy >> then declarer will be allowed the Jack from Dummy if RHO showed out > already on >> the Ace." >> >> You have been quite clear that this applies ONLY to the normal line of > play under >> consideration. >> >> L73E1, however, clearly states that declarer is allowed the finesse when > the >> player behind the finesse shows out on ANY normal line of play. It makes > the >> events in the other normal lines of play very relevant. Even though you > and I both >> know they are not. >> >> >> So you are making a rational sane ruling that any director would make. >> It > simply >> does not correspond to L73E1. As stands, L73E1 is irrational. >> That's why I say it is an error. As someone noted long ago, it allows > claiming with >> AJxxx opposite K10xxx and always picking up the suit. I lead towards the > AJxxx and >> I am allowed to finesse the Jack with Qxx onside, because there is a > normal line of >> play (small to the king) where RHO shows out. > > Quote L70E1: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated > line of > play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than > the > other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the > suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail > to > follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to > adopt > that line of play would be irrational. > Unquote > > 1: This law applies to any attempt by the claimer submitting for his > claim a > line of play that was not consistent with his original statement or, > although consistent with that statement not explicitly specified in it. > > 2: When you write: quote: "that declarer is allowed the finesse when the > player behind the finesse shows out on ANY normal line of play" you > reveal a > fundamental misunderstanding of Law 70E1 (Let us stick to the correct law > reference, shall we?) > > Law 70E1 specifically speaks about ANY (i.e. any unique) unstated line of > play, the outcome of WHICH (i.e. THIS particular line of play) > depends.... > > So what might be revealed for the claimer in a different (but "normal") > line > of play that he might suggest is completely irrelevant when ruling on > this > particular line of play. > > Be aware that when a claim opens for more than one specific line of play > then the claimer is not free to select which of the alternatively > available > lines of play he will use; the Director shall rule according to that > particular among the available lines of play that will turn out least > favorable for the claimer. > > Although English is not my native language I understand that the word ANY > can have many different meanings depending on the context in which it > appears. Some of these meanings can even seem to be in direct conflict > with > each other. > > My Oxford says on ANY: > Adjective: "One or some from three or more or from a quantity"; "Every"; > "In > a significant amount". > Pronoun: "Any one"; "Some". > Adverb: "At all" > > I don't think it is proper to assert that a Director who understands Law > 70E1 and rules accordingly misunderstands this law simply because you > have > stuck with an understanding of the word ANY different from what WBFLC has > intended in this law. > > Sometimes common sense can even be correct! I agree that common sense is correct in this case. I think the point is that you were using common sense and ignoring what the law actually says. You bring up a semi-new point of the meaning of "any". Can we say it means "every" and solve our problem? No. There is a context in which the two come to the same meaning -- "any person in the bar is over 18" and "every person in the bar is over 18". But in most contexts, they are different. "You can get a drink if any person in the bar is over 18" and "You can get a drink if everyone in the bar is over 18". NO ONE would ever use "any" to mean "every" in the second case. Or it would be a gross mistake. Put another way, whenever "any" and "every" could have different meanings, English speakers never use any to mean every. The second context corresponds exactly to L70E1. (L70E3 uses "unless" instead of "if".) So to say the "any" has the meaning of "every" is the worst sort of sophistry. The person starts with the goal of interpreting the law to have the correct meaning. The meaning is decided on advance, independently of the law. Then the person ignores that substituting "every" for "any" violates all rules of English. Then of course when I point out that "every" doesn't work either, everyone has to ignore me. I think "would subsequently fail to follow suit on any normal line of play" has to be interpreted as "has failed to follow suit in this line of play". There is no way to do this in English. "Subsequently" refers to the period of time after the claim, which is not the right time frame. "any normal line of play" refers to the other lines of play, which really are not relevant. "Every normal line of play" has the same problem. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 4 23:01:38 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:01:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> <000201cb1b85$0a392a70$1eab7f50$@no> <000001cb1b9f$e6183fd0$b248bf70$@no> Message-ID: <000401cb1bbc$18e39240$4aaab6c0$@no> ANY in Law 70E1 means "any specific" or "any individual" among possible alternative lines of play from which the claimer may want to suggest. So everything following the word ANY in this law refers to what might happen and be revealed within that selected line of play only. Other lines of play that the claimer could have suggested but does not are irrelevant for the application of Law 70E1. But of course, if the claimer attempts to again change his suggested line of play to still another possible line of play then this new line of play would become subject to the considerations in Law 70E1. As the claimer can never at the same time base his claim on more than one line of play there will never be more than one line of play to be considered for acceptance by the Director. And this line of play shall not be accepted if its success depends on finding a card with one rather than with the other opponent unless its location must become obvious from play before the claimer has to make his choice. Clear? > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: 4. juli 2010 20:25 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] hidden card in dummy > > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:39:47 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > .......... > >> > BTW, I take it that your reference to L73E1 is a typo for L70E1? > >> > >> yes > >> > >> And > >> > would > >> > you please explain to me in what way you assert that that law > >> > contains an error? > >> > >> You have said, more than once, that declarer is allowed to finesse > >> only if > > the > >> player behind the finesse has shown out. > >> > >> ("In you own words: "the player will be allowed a successful play if, > >> and > > only if the > >> relevant card location must be revealed to him (for instance with a > >> void) > > before he > >> reaches the choice situation." or ..."playing a small heart towards > >> KJ in > > Dummy > >> then declarer will be allowed the Jack from Dummy if RHO showed out > > already on > >> the Ace." > >> > >> You have been quite clear that this applies ONLY to the normal line > >> of > > play under > >> consideration. > >> > >> L73E1, however, clearly states that declarer is allowed the finesse > >> when > > the > >> player behind the finesse shows out on ANY normal line of play. It > >> makes > > the > >> events in the other normal lines of play very relevant. Even though > >> you > > and I both > >> know they are not. > >> > >> > >> So you are making a rational sane ruling that any director would make. > >> It > > simply > >> does not correspond to L73E1. As stands, L73E1 is irrational. > >> That's why I say it is an error. As someone noted long ago, it allows > > claiming with > >> AJxxx opposite K10xxx and always picking up the suit. I lead towards > >> the > > AJxxx and > >> I am allowed to finesse the Jack with Qxx onside, because there is a > > normal line of > >> play (small to the king) where RHO shows out. > > > > Quote L70E1: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated > > line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent > > rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent > > failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, > > or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line > > of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be > > irrational. > > Unquote > > > > 1: This law applies to any attempt by the claimer submitting for his > > claim a line of play that was not consistent with his original > > statement or, although consistent with that statement not explicitly > > specified in it. > > > > 2: When you write: quote: "that declarer is allowed the finesse when > > the player behind the finesse shows out on ANY normal line of play" > > you reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Law 70E1 (Let us stick to > > the correct law reference, shall we?) > > > > Law 70E1 specifically speaks about ANY (i.e. any unique) unstated line > > of play, the outcome of WHICH (i.e. THIS particular line of play) > > depends.... > > > > So what might be revealed for the claimer in a different (but > > "normal") line of play that he might suggest is completely irrelevant > > when ruling on this particular line of play. > > > > Be aware that when a claim opens for more than one specific line of > > play then the claimer is not free to select which of the alternatively > > available lines of play he will use; the Director shall rule according > > to that particular among the available lines of play that will turn > > out least favorable for the claimer. > > > > Although English is not my native language I understand that the word > > ANY can have many different meanings depending on the context in which > > it appears. Some of these meanings can even seem to be in direct > > conflict with each other. > > > > My Oxford says on ANY: > > Adjective: "One or some from three or more or from a quantity"; > > "Every"; "In a significant amount". > > Pronoun: "Any one"; "Some". > > Adverb: "At all" > > > > I don't think it is proper to assert that a Director who understands > > Law > > 70E1 and rules accordingly misunderstands this law simply because you > > have stuck with an understanding of the word ANY different from what > > WBFLC has intended in this law. > > > > Sometimes common sense can even be correct! > > I agree that common sense is correct in this case. I think the point is that you were > using common sense and ignoring what the law actually says. > > You bring up a semi-new point of the meaning of "any". Can we say it means > "every" and solve our problem? No. > > There is a context in which the two come to the same meaning -- "any person in > the bar is over 18" and "every person in the bar is over 18". > > But in most contexts, they are different. "You can get a drink if any person in the > bar is over 18" and "You can get a drink if everyone in the bar is over 18". > > NO ONE would ever use "any" to mean "every" in the second case. Or it would be > a gross mistake. Put another way, whenever "any" and "every" > could have different meanings, English speakers never use any to mean every. > > The second context corresponds exactly to L70E1. (L70E3 uses "unless" > instead of "if".) > > So to say the "any" has the meaning of "every" is the worst sort of sophistry. The > person starts with the goal of interpreting the law to have the correct meaning. > The meaning is decided on advance, independently of the law. Then the person > ignores that substituting "every" for "any" > violates all rules of English. > > Then of course when I point out that "every" doesn't work either, everyone has to > ignore me. > > I think "would subsequently fail to follow suit on any normal line of play" has to be > interpreted as "has failed to follow suit in this line of play". There is no way to do > this in English. "Subsequently" refers to the period of time after the claim, which is > not the right time frame. "any normal line of play" refers to the other lines of play, > which really are not relevant. "Every normal line of play" has the same problem. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 5 00:46:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:46:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asked: >LHO says to you "I have a great hand." > >You now face a close decision whether or not to pre- >empt in front of LHO. It is a close decision. So you >need to know if this information from the opponent is >AI or UI. > >What do you do? WBF Laws Committee, 4th September 2009, item 8: ".....Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told - the committee agreed this information is authorized....." Richard Hills notes: However, if you have misheard LHO, who actually said to a passing waiter, "I'll have a grated ham sandwich", then c'est la vie. Law 21A - Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Jul 5 03:51:26 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:51:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:46:37 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick asked: > >> LHO says to you "I have a great hand." >> >> You now face a close decision whether or not to pre- >> empt in front of LHO. It is a close decision. So you >> need to know if this information from the opponent is >> AI or UI. >> >> What do you do? > > WBF Laws Committee, 4th September 2009, item 8: > > ".....Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to > know what they have been told - the committee agreed > this information is authorized....." Okay, from experience, I know I should go slow on these. You are deciding whether or not to preempt, your opponent says he has a great hand. Is that AI or UI? NO ONE looks in the book to answer this question. We all know it is AI. We don't have to look in the book. The book addresses this question in L16A1. This information is obviously not AI according to L16A1(a),L16A1(b), or L16A1(d). That leaves if any law or regulation has specified it to be authorized or if it arises from the legal procedures authorized in these laws (L16A1(c)). So you have to read the whole law book to apply L16A1. Note, you are not reading the lawbook to find out the answer. You already know the answer and the lawbook is irrelevant. You are just trying to find some way to interpret the lawbook to justify what you already know. But it is really hard to do and I don't think you are going to find it. So the information that he has a good hand is extraneous, according to the law book. I rate this as a mistake. (This is not an isolated mistake. The fundamental problem with L16A1 is it treats information from partner and information from opponents as the same, when in fact they are very different. Almost everything your partner does, except legal calls and plays, is UI. Almost everything the opponents do is UI.) Now, can we find any justification for saying that this statement is AI? Richard's current best effort has quoted Adam W. We are not talking about a passed resolution of the WBFLC, it is just one member speaking in a conversation. That does not have force of law. And the context: At the Chairman?s request the committee considered the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. The Chief Director reminded the committee that the Director must be summoned. Mr. Endicott had asserted that when summoned the Director should apply Law 21. This states that the Director must judge whether a player?s decision to make a call ?could well have been influenced by the misinformation given?. Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told Anyway, we all know that this is not a general principle -- no one thinks that anything a player is told is AI. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 5 04:39:49 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:39:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <000401cb1bbc$18e39240$4aaab6c0$@no> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> <000201cb1b85$0a392a70$1eab7f50$@no> <000001cb1b9f$e6183fd0$b248bf70$@no> <000401cb1bbc$18e39240$4aaab6c0$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:01:38 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > ANY in Law 70E1 means "any specific" or "any individual" among possible > alternative lines of play from which the claimer may want to suggest. Sorry, it is the second "any" that is in question. Not the first. > So everything following the word ANY in this law refers to what might > happen > and be revealed within that selected line of play only. Other lines of > play > that the claimer could have suggested but does not are irrelevant for the > application of Law 70E1. That's the problem. According to the laws, you can take the finesse if the opponent behind the finesse would, subsequent to the claim, "fail to follow suit on any normal line of play". Actually, this isn't even controversial as far as I know. This came up on blml with the example of AJxxx opposite K10xxx. Declarer claims and when he finds out that LHO has Qxx, he picks up the suit by finessing the jack, which according to the law he is allowed to do because RHO shows out in hearts on one of the normal lines of play. No one of course would allow this at the table. The solution then was the change "any" to "every". The point is, everyone gave up on the traditional meaning for the second any in L73E1. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 5 11:03:41 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 10:03:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] stupid question References: <4C2C78B0.5070806@aol.com> Message-ID: <24102282D48D4E8C82B500F77321059F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 12:14 PM Subject: [BLML] stupid question > Hola Henk! As you know I am a computer anti-talent. I received the > usage statistics for May (June? the posting you sent out today with the > others) but seem to have deleted it; at least I can't find it any more. > Tried to send you an email asking you to send it again but the email > kept coming back to me as if I had sent it to myself. Thus I don't know > if you received it. Anyway, could you send me the usage statistics > again? If they are for June, could you send me the usage statistics for > May as well. I don't seem to have ever received them. Ciao, JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at ripe.net Mon Jul 5 13:02:52 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:02:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? Message-ID: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. The basic problem: North holds: A83 QJ9652 64 J9 E/EW and the auction starts: West North East South -- -- P P 2 NT 3 H X P 3 NT P P P Your lead? Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd pass? North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the contract. Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any of the 7 non-hearts). EW call the TD. The write-up says: The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. Why does the UI suggest to lead a small heart then? Is the write-up correct? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 5 13:18:44 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:18:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : > > I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. > > The basic problem: North holds: > > A83 > QJ9652 > 64 > J9 > > E/EW and the auction starts: > > West North East South > -- -- P P > 2 NT 3 H X P > 3 NT P P P > > Your lead? Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd > pass? > > North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the > contract. Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any > of the 7 non-hearts). EW call the TD. The write-up says: > > The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them > went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that > the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. > > So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, > with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. Why does the > UI suggest to lead a small heart then? Is the write-up correct? > > H AG : I don't see the problem here. With the loose definition for LA (which doesn't need anybody to eventually decide for it, only serioulsly thinking about doing so - see the word 'might'), the HQ is a LA. Think about it the other way round : if ths pair would lead their honors without the tempo, and their low cards with the tempo, we need to be able to disallow this. And how, if not by saying that the "suggested" small heart is disallowed ? Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 5 13:27:55 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:27:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> Message-ID: <000001cb1c35$1d7c9760$5875c620$@no> On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. > > The basic problem: North holds: > > A83 > QJ9652 > 64 > J9 > > E/EW and the auction starts: > > West North East South > -- -- P P > 2 NT 3 H X P > 3 NT P P P > > Your lead? Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd pass? > > North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the contract. > Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any of the 7 non- > hearts). EW call the TD. The write-up says: > > The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them > went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that > the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. > > So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, with the UI, they > still lead the same small heart. Why does the UI suggest to lead a small heart > then? Is the write-up correct? My immediate reaction was "of course a small heart". I agree that the UI may suggest (or rather "sustain") a small heart lead, but I see no future in leading a high heart here. And leading from any other suit seems like giving up the board right away. So while the heart lead may be suggested by UI, what logical alternatives exist? Regards Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jul 5 13:34:45 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:34:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 5 July 2010 13:18, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : >> >> I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. >> >> The basic problem: North holds: >> >> ? A83 >> ? QJ9652 >> ? 64 >> ? J9 >> >> E/EW and the auction starts: >> >> West ?North ?East ?South >> -- ? ?-- ? ? P ? ? P >> 2 NT ?3 H ? ?X ? ? P >> 3 NT ?P ? ? ?P ? ? P >> >> Your lead? ?Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd >> pass? >> >> North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the >> contract. ?Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any >> of the 7 non-hearts). ?EW call the TD. ?The write-up says: >> >> ? The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them >> ? went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that >> ? the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. >> >> So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, >> with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. ?Why does the >> UI suggest to lead a small heart then? ?Is the write-up correct? >> >> H > AG : I don't see the problem here. With the loose definition for LA > (which doesn't need anybody to eventually decide for it, only serioulsly > thinking about doing so - see the word 'might'), the HQ is a LA. L16B1b read: "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of player in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proprtion of such players, of whom it is judged some meight select it." The OP say nothing at all about anyone of the players asked gave serious consideration to leading an honour (which seems to imply they didn't). And none of them elected to lead an honour. It seems clear from this that leading an honour is NOT a LA for the class of player in question. I seriously doubt it''s a LA for any expert player at IMPs. So I'd let the result stand. > > Think about it the other way round : if ths pair would lead their honors > without the tempo, and their low cards with the tempo, we need to be > able to disallow this. And how, if not by saying that the "suggested" > small heart is disallowed ? > > Best regards > > ? Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jul 5 13:42:43 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:42:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> Message-ID: On 5 July 2010 13:02, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > > > I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. > > The basic problem: North holds: > > ?A83 > ?QJ9652 > ?64 > ?J9 > > E/EW and the auction starts: > > West ?North ?East ?South > -- ? ?-- ? ? P ? ? P > 2 NT ?3 H ? ?X ? ? P > 3 NT ?P ? ? ?P ? ? P > > Your lead? ?Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd > pass? Isn't this deal from the European Teams Championships? And they played with screens? How can NE know who, if anyone, broke tempo on the SW side of the screen? > > North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the > contract. ?Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any > of the 7 non-hearts). ?EW call the TD. ?The write-up says: > > ?The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them > ?went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that > ?the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. > > So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, > with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. ?Why does the > UI suggest to lead a small heart then? ?Is the write-up correct? > > Henk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre ? ? ? ? ?http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku > P.O.Box 10096 ? ? ? ? ?Singel 258 ? ? ? ? Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam ? ? ?1016 AB Amsterdam ?Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands ? ? ? ?The Netherlands ? ?Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I confirm today what I denied yesterday. ? ? ? ? ? ?Anonymous Politician. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From henk at ripe.net Mon Jul 5 13:46:37 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:46:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C31C61D.5030908@ripe.net> On 05/07/2010 13:42, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 5 July 2010 13:02, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. >> >> The basic problem: North holds: >> >> A83 >> QJ9652 >> 64 >> J9 >> >> E/EW and the auction starts: >> >> West North East South >> -- -- P P >> 2 NT 3 H X P >> 3 NT P P P >> >> Your lead? Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd >> pass? > > Isn't this deal from the European Teams Championships? > And they played with screens? Yes and yes, I said Oostende :-) > How can NE know who, if anyone, broke tempo on the SW side of the screen? The BIT was before the 3rd pass, after 3NT-P-P, south is then the only player who can still bid. Henk > >> >> North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the >> contract. Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any >> of the 7 non-hearts). EW call the TD. The write-up says: >> >> The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them >> went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that >> the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. >> >> So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, >> with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. Why does the >> UI suggest to lead a small heart then? Is the write-up correct? >> >> Henk >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >> RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku >> P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >> 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >> The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 5 13:54:01 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:54:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > On 5 July 2010 13:18, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : >> >>> I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. >>> >>> The basic problem: North holds: >>> >>> A83 >>> QJ9652 >>> 64 >>> J9 >>> >>> E/EW and the auction starts: >>> >>> West North East South >>> -- -- P P >>> 2 NT 3 H X P >>> 3 NT P P P >>> >>> Your lead? Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd >>> pass? >>> >>> North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the >>> contract. Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any >>> of the 7 non-hearts). EW call the TD. The write-up says: >>> >>> The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them >>> went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that >>> the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. >>> >>> So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, >>> with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. Why does the >>> UI suggest to lead a small heart then? Is the write-up correct? >>> >>> H >>> >> AG : I don't see the problem here. With the loose definition for LA >> (which doesn't need anybody to eventually decide for it, only serioulsly >> thinking about doing so - see the word 'might'), the HQ is a LA. >> > > L16B1b read: > "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of player > in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given > serious consideration by a significant proprtion of such players, of > whom it is judged some meight select it." > > The OP say nothing at all about anyone of the players asked gave > serious consideration to leading an honour (which seems to imply they > didn't). And none of them elected to lead an honour. It seems clear > from this that leading an honour is NOT a LA for the class of player > in question. I seriously doubt it''s a LA for any expert player at > IMPs. > AG : yeah right. BTA I'm not an expert. So I imagine some ordinary players may construct such a deal as : xxxx xx Axx Qxxx Axx Kxx QJ9xxx xx xx QJxx Jx 10xxx QJx AK10 K10xx AKx Isn't this typical of the bidding ? Now try leading a small heart. But since this layout is excluded by the tempo ... Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jul 5 14:20:48 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:20:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 5 July 2010 13:54, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> On 5 July 2010 13:18, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : >>> >>>> I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. >>>> >>>> The basic problem: North holds: >>>> >>>> ? A83 >>>> ? QJ9652 >>>> ? 64 >>>> ? J9 >>>> >>>> E/EW and the auction starts: >>>> >>>> West ?North ?East ?South >>>> -- ? ?-- ? ? P ? ? P >>>> 2 NT ?3 H ? ?X ? ? P >>>> 3 NT ?P ? ? ?P ? ? P >>>> >>>> Your lead? ?Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd >>>> pass? >>>> >>>> North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the >>>> contract. ?Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any >>>> of the 7 non-hearts). ?EW call the TD. ?The write-up says: >>>> >>>> ? The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them >>>> ? went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that >>>> ? the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. >>>> >>>> So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, >>>> with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. ?Why does the >>>> UI suggest to lead a small heart then? ?Is the write-up correct? >>>> >>>> H >>>> >>> AG : I don't see the problem here. With the loose definition for LA >>> (which doesn't need anybody to eventually decide for it, only serioulsly >>> thinking about doing so - see the word 'might'), the HQ is a LA. >>> >> >> L16B1b read: >> "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of player >> in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given >> serious consideration by a significant proprtion of such players, of >> whom it is judged some meight select it." >> >> The OP say nothing at all about anyone of the players asked gave >> serious consideration to leading an honour (which seems to imply they >> didn't). And none of them elected to lead an honour. It seems clear >> from this that leading an honour is NOT a LA for the class of player >> in question. I seriously doubt it''s a LA for any expert player at >> IMPs. >> > AG : yeah right. BTA I'm not an expert. So I imagine some ordinary > players may construct such a deal as : > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?xxxx > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?xx > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Axx > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Qxxx > > Axx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Kxx > QJ9xxx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?xx > xx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?QJxx > Jx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?10xxx > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?QJx > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AK10 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?K10xx > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AKx > > Isn't this typical of the bidding ? Now try leading a small heart. > But since this layout is excluded by the tempo ... You've constructed a layout where partner holds two small hearts, the spade king (needed to let him win the first trick if declarer plays on spades) and now way for declarer to get to nine tricks without leadind spades. What's the odds for that? Compared to hands where you need to lead a low heart? > > > Best regards > > > ?Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 5 14:34:31 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:34:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C31D157.7090308@skynet.be> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > > > I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. > > The basic problem: North holds: > > A83 > QJ9652 > 64 > J9 > > E/EW and the auction starts: > > West North East South > -- -- P P > 2 NT 3 H X P > 3 NT P P P > > Your lead? Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd > pass? > > North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the > contract. Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any > of the 7 non-hearts). EW call the TD. The write-up says: > > The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them > went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that > the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. > > So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, > with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. Why does the > UI suggest to lead a small heart then? Is the write-up correct? > The write-up is correct. The AC decided that the lead of the HQ was a LA. The ruling is simple on all other aspects. Herman. > Henk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2982 - Release Date: 07/04/10 20:35:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 5 14:37:53 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:37:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C31D221.7010208@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 5 July 2010 13:02, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. >> >> The basic problem: North holds: >> >> A83 >> QJ9652 >> 64 >> J9 >> >> E/EW and the auction starts: >> >> West North East South >> -- -- P P >> 2 NT 3 H X P >> 3 NT P P P >> >> Your lead? Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd >> pass? > > Isn't this deal from the European Teams Championships? > And they played with screens? > How can NE know who, if anyone, broke tempo on the SW side of the screen? > The hesitation was on the third pass! Surely it was not declarer who was thinking. South actually admitted that he considered 10 seconds to be too long here (although the regulations prescribe 20 seconds). North agreed that he had UI. >> >> North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the >> contract. Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any >> of the 7 non-hearts). EW call the TD. The write-up says: >> >> The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them >> went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that >> the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. >> >> So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, >> with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. Why does the >> UI suggest to lead a small heart then? Is the write-up correct? >> >> Henk >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >> RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku >> P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >> 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >> The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2982 - Release Date: 07/04/10 20:35:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jul 5 14:47:19 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:47:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C31D157.7090308@skynet.be> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31D157.7090308@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 5 July 2010 14:34, Herman De Wael wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. >> >> The basic problem: North holds: >> >> ? ?A83 >> ? ?QJ9652 >> ? ?64 >> ? ?J9 >> >> E/EW and the auction starts: >> >> West ?North ?East ?South >> -- ? ?-- ? ? P ? ? P >> 2 NT ?3 H ? ?X ? ? P >> 3 NT ?P ? ? ?P ? ? P >> >> Your lead? ?Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd >> pass? >> >> North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the >> contract. ?Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any >> of the 7 non-hearts). ?EW call the TD. ?The write-up says: >> >> ? ?The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them >> ? ?went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that >> ? ?the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. >> >> So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, >> with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. ?Why does the >> UI suggest to lead a small heart then? ?Is the write-up correct? >> > > The write-up is correct. > The AC decided that the lead of the HQ was a LA. A comment on why they decided that would be welcome.... > The ruling is simple on all other aspects. Indeed! > > Herman. > >> Henk >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Henk Uijterwaal ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >> RIPE Network Coordination Centre ? ? ? ? ?http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku >> P.O.Box 10096 ? ? ? ? ?Singel 258 ? ? ? ? Phone: +31.20.5354414 >> 1001 EB Amsterdam ? ? ?1016 AB Amsterdam ?Fax: +31.20.5354445 >> The Netherlands ? ? ? ?The Netherlands ? ?Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> I confirm today what I denied yesterday. ? ? ? ? ? ?Anonymous Politician. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2982 - Release Date: 07/04/10 20:35:00 >> > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jul 5 14:56:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:56:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C31D663.5080905@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > On 5 July 2010 13:54, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> >>> On 5 July 2010 13:18, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. >>>>> >>>>> The basic problem: North holds: >>>>> >>>>> A83 >>>>> QJ9652 >>>>> 64 >>>>> J9 >>>>> >>>>> E/EW and the auction starts: >>>>> >>>>> West North East South >>>>> -- -- P P >>>>> 2 NT 3 H X P >>>>> 3 NT P P P >>>>> >>>>> Your lead? Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd >>>>> pass? >>>>> >>>>> North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the >>>>> contract. Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any >>>>> of the 7 non-hearts). EW call the TD. The write-up says: >>>>> >>>>> The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them >>>>> went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that >>>>> the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. >>>>> >>>>> So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, >>>>> with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. Why does the >>>>> UI suggest to lead a small heart then? Is the write-up correct? >>>>> >>>>> H >>>>> >>>>> >>>> AG : I don't see the problem here. With the loose definition for LA >>>> (which doesn't need anybody to eventually decide for it, only serioulsly >>>> thinking about doing so - see the word 'might'), the HQ is a LA. >>>> >>>> >>> L16B1b read: >>> "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of player >>> in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given >>> serious consideration by a significant proprtion of such players, of >>> whom it is judged some meight select it." >>> >>> The OP say nothing at all about anyone of the players asked gave >>> serious consideration to leading an honour (which seems to imply they >>> didn't). And none of them elected to lead an honour. It seems clear >>> from this that leading an honour is NOT a LA for the class of player >>> in question. I seriously doubt it''s a LA for any expert player at >>> IMPs. >>> >>> >> AG : yeah right. BTA I'm not an expert. So I imagine some ordinary >> players may construct such a deal as : >> >> xxxx >> xx >> Axx >> Qxxx >> >> Axx Kxx >> QJ9xxx xx >> xx QJxx >> Jx 10xxx >> >> QJx >> AK10 >> K10xx >> AKx >> >> Isn't this typical of the bidding ? Now try leading a small heart. >> But since this layout is excluded by the tempo ... >> > > You've constructed a layout where partner holds two small hearts, the > spade king (needed to let him win the first trick if declarer plays on > spades) and now way for declarer to get to nine tricks without leadind > spades. What's the odds for that? > > Compared to hands where you need to lead a low heart? > AG : right. But I only need to laead low when declarer holds 4 hearts lacking 1 honor and forgot to pass. And my point is that the odds of about 5-1 against the above layout compared to yours become 100000-1 after the tempo. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jul 5 15:18:37 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:18:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C31D663.5080905@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> <4C31D663.5080905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 5 July 2010 14:56, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> On 5 July 2010 13:54, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >>> >>>> On 5 July 2010 13:18, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I'm trying to understand appeal #9 from Oostende. >>>>>> >>>>>> The basic problem: North holds: >>>>>> >>>>>> ? A83 >>>>>> ? QJ9652 >>>>>> ? 64 >>>>>> ? J9 >>>>>> >>>>>> E/EW and the auction starts: >>>>>> >>>>>> West ?North ?East ?South >>>>>> -- ? ?-- ? ? P ? ? P >>>>>> 2 NT ?3 H ? ?X ? ? P >>>>>> 3 NT ?P ? ? ?P ? ? P >>>>>> >>>>>> Your lead? ?Does your lead change if south broke tempo before his 3rd >>>>>> pass? >>>>>> >>>>>> North led a small heart, this turned out to be the way to defeat the >>>>>> contract. ?Declarer can make the contract after a high heart lead (or any >>>>>> of the 7 non-hearts). ?EW call the TD. ?The write-up says: >>>>>> >>>>>> ? The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them >>>>>> ? went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that >>>>>> ? the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, without the UI, all players (apparently 10) lead a small heart, >>>>>> with the UI, they still lead the same small heart. ?Why does the >>>>>> UI suggest to lead a small heart then? ?Is the write-up correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> H >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> AG : I don't see the problem here. With the loose definition for LA >>>>> (which doesn't need anybody to eventually decide for it, only serioulsly >>>>> thinking about doing so - see the word 'might'), the HQ is a LA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> L16B1b read: >>>> "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of player >>>> in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given >>>> serious consideration by a significant proprtion of such players, of >>>> whom it is judged some meight select it." >>>> >>>> The OP say nothing at all about anyone of the players asked gave >>>> serious consideration to leading an honour (which seems to imply they >>>> didn't). And none of them elected to lead an honour. It seems clear >>>> from this that leading an honour is NOT a LA for the class of player >>>> in question. I seriously doubt it''s a LA for any expert player at >>>> IMPs. >>>> >>>> >>> AG : yeah right. BTA I'm not an expert. So I imagine some ordinary >>> players may construct such a deal as : >>> >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?xxxx >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?xx >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Axx >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Qxxx >>> >>> Axx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Kxx >>> QJ9xxx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?xx >>> xx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?QJxx >>> Jx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?10xxx >>> >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?QJx >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AK10 >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?K10xx >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AKx >>> >>> Isn't this typical of the bidding ? Now try leading a small heart. >>> But since this layout is excluded by the tempo ... >>> >> >> You've constructed a layout where partner holds two small hearts, the >> spade king (needed to let him win the first trick if declarer plays on >> spades) and now way for declarer to get to nine tricks without leadind >> spades. What's the odds for that? >> >> Compared to hands where you need to lead a low heart? >> > AG : right. But I only need to laead low ?when declarer holds 4 hearts > lacking 1 honor and forgot to pass. > And my point is that the odds of about 5-1 against the above layout > compared to yours become 100000-1 after the tempo. Your numbers might be a little extreme, but there's nobody disagreeing with you that the odds after the break in tempo is huge in favour of leading low. 5-1 in favour of leading low is enough for international players to totally disregard leading high. Thus, leading low is no LA. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jul 5 15:21:04 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:21:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C31DC40.9030003@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > > You've constructed a layout where partner holds two small hearts, the > spade king (needed to let him win the first trick if declarer plays on > spades) and now way for declarer to get to nine tricks without leadind > spades. What's the odds for that? > > Compared to hands where you need to lead a low heart? > > AG : BTW, I can construct many others. For example, partner might hold the bare H10. Or you might just be giving the ninth trick : Kx xxx K10x Ax AKQxx Jxx Axx xxxxx Kx xxxx K10x Ax AKQxxx Jxx Kx Qxxx Notice tart all those examples imply a weak heart holding in partner's hand. From jeanmarc.boite at gmail.com Mon Jul 5 17:08:50 2010 From: jeanmarc.boite at gmail.com (Jean-Marc Boite) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:08:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> <4C31D663.5080905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2010/7/5 Harald Skj?ran > Your numbers might be a little extreme, but there's nobody disagreeing > with you that the odds after the break in tempo is huge in favour of > leading low. > 5-1 in favour of leading low is enough for international players to > totally disregard leading high. Thus, leading low is no LA. > This is perfectly correct. So I don't understand. 10 players are leading low. So the director's ruling was perfectly right. And I simply don't understand the decision of the appeal commitee. Herman, can you explain? Jean-Marc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100705/e9ee04ad/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jul 5 18:09:17 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:09:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4C2BECC7.2070407@nhcc.net> <4C2FB003.1030904@nhcc.net> <000701cb1b0c$c6b02060$54106120$@no> <000001cb1b5b$003135b0$0093a110$@no> <000201cb1b85$0a392a70$1eab7f50$@no> Message-ID: <4C3203AD.9040808@nhcc.net> On 7/4/2010 11:36 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > As stands, L73E1 is irrational. As Marv has often pointed out, the word "any" is ambiguous and should not be used in TFLB. In context of L70E1, I think it means "every." Of course that's still not right: what the Law-makers wanted was "every normal line of play leading to the decision in question." I don't see any great difficulty interpreting the text that way, but if you prefer "every normal line of play whatsoever," I won't argue with you. In practice, it will be very rare that the two interpretations lead to different results. Your point about whether an opponent's statement is AI is a much better one. I was no fan of the new L16 from the beginning, and I think there have been other things mentioned that ought to be AI that aren't. For the moment, one could twist "traits of their opponents" in L16A2 to cover the remark, but I agree this is not good. Opponents' tempo is covered in L73D, but I don't think such things as loudness or quietness of their voices, placement of bidding cards, facial expressions, and other such things always considered AI are mentioned anywhere unless you stretch L16A2. Neither of these has much to do with the original case, where the words of the Law are completely clear, and the final result is perfectly reasonable. A side simply cannot profit -- no matter how indirectly -- from putting dummy down wrong. What's the problem? You might prefer a different rule, but the Laws don't reflect our individual preferences. From posundelin at yahoo.se Mon Jul 5 20:10:22 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 18:10:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <603630.41331.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> In Ostend all penalty points were deemed to belong to a match, and qualifiers got a carry-over from matches against the other qualifiers. ? A few of us discussed this and would suggest (somewhat like most here) that ? Slow play penalties are defined as belonging to a match and therefore carried forward only?if received (lost?) against a qualifier. ? All other penalties are carried forward regardless when they were received. Cell phone, dress code, procedural alcohol in toilet... late arrival late line-up (penalized from second time...) ? drug test with sad result probably disqualifies a player and should?t hit the team ? Did we forget something? ? Anyone against? Why? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100705/28bcee9c/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 6 00:26:16 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 23:26:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points References: <603630.41331.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "To defend a bad policy as an 'error of judgement' does not excuse it - the right functioning of a man's judgement is his most fundamental responsibility." An item in the 2008 WBF LC minutes reads -> "Law 64C - If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke." Is this a typographical error? Perhaps the intention was -> "Law 64C - If there are two revokes on the same board **by the same side** the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke." I note that an item in the subsequent 2009 WBF LC minutes about both sides revoking (Law 64B7) does not mention chronological order -> "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Jul 6 01:03:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:03:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C3203AD.9040808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Charles Augustin Saint-Beuve (1804-1869): "Et Vigny, plus secret, Comme en sa tour d'ivoire, avant midi rentrait". Steve Willner: [big snip] >Neither of these has much to do with the original case, >where the words of the Law are completely clear, [snip] Law 12B1 definition of damage: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the **expectation** had the infraction not occurred" Richard Hills: It is completely within expectation that the offending declarer would have taken a careless or inferior line of play, had dummy's infraction not occurred. (For example, even with 13 cards on display in dummy, declarer may then miscalculate the percentage play in the club suit.) Steve Willner: >What's the problem? You might prefer a different rule, >but the Laws don't reflect our individual preferences. Richard Hills: What's the problem? Steve might prefer a different Law 12B1 (and Steve might prefer a different Law 68B2), but the Laws don't reflect Steve's individual preferences. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Jul 6 06:16:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:16:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee, 4th September 2009, item 8: ".....Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told - the committee agreed this information is authorized....." Robert Frick: [snip] >We are not talking about a passed resolution of the >WBFLC, it is just one member speaking in a >conversation. That does not have force of law. Richard Hills: Incorrect on two grounds. Firstly, Adam Wildavsky is not a member of the WBF Laws Committee (Adam was a guest at the WBF LC's two meetings in 2009). Secondly, when the official minutes of the WBF Laws Committee state "the committee agreed such-and-such", then that _does_ have the force of Law, since the WBF Laws Committee has a universal power to interpret any Law in the Lawbook Robert Frick: And the context: [snip] Richard Hills: And the _complete_ context: WBF LC 4th September 2009 meeting "At the Chairman's request the committee considered the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. The Chief Director reminded the committee that the Director must be summoned. Mr. Endicott had asserted that when summoned the Director should apply Law 21. This states that the Director must judge whether a player's decision to make a call 'could well have been influenced by the misinformation given'. Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told - the committee agreed this information is authorized - and to know the opponents' system. He considered that the player in last position in the example (2H - 4H where 2H is explained as 'strong') should be allowed to double the final contract on the basis of his awareness of conflict between these if he receives the information that 2H was weak. Much discussion ensued. Various examples were debated. The Chairman suggested that in Law 16A1(a) information derived from the legal calls and plays may be interpreted to include both the correct information given and the incorrect information. Under pressure of time the Chairman decided that the matter should be further discussed when the committee reconvenes." WBF LC 8th September 2009 meeting "The committee returned to the subject of the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. There was lengthy discussion following which it was determined: (a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call 'could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player'. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. (b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information. [*Secretary's note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.]" Robert Frick: >Anyway, we all know that this is not a general >principle -- no one thinks that anything a player is >told is AI. Richard Hills: Ah ha, General Principle leads his troops forward again. I think that the above quotes from the WBF LC minutes do indeed create a new General Principle of: anything a player is **extraneously** told **by an opponent** is AI, usable at the player's own risk. Of course, if LHO extraneously remarks, "I have a great hand!" when LHO actually holds a yarborough, then Law 73D2 and Law 73F are relevant. Best wishes R. J. B. 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 6 09:44:09 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:44:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31D157.7090308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C32DEC9.1090907@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >> The write-up is correct. >> The AC decided that the lead of the HQ was a LA. > > A comment on why they decided that would be welcome.... > What can I say? You might want to ask some other members of the AC. PO? >> The ruling is simple on all other aspects. > > Indeed! > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From henk at ripe.net Tue Jul 6 09:57:14 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:57:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C32DEC9.1090907@skynet.be> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31D157.7090308@skynet.be> <4C32DEC9.1090907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C32E1DA.7080209@ripe.net> On 06/07/2010 09:44, Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >>> The write-up is correct. >>> The AC decided that the lead of the HQ was a LA. >> >> A comment on why they decided that would be welcome.... >> > > What can I say? > You might want to ask some other members of the AC. > PO? There seem to be two options: 1. The 10 players polled all said something like "I'll lead the H2 but I'm also considering the HQ". That makes the HQ an LA. If this is the case, then the write-up is incomplete but the decision of the AC to overrule the TD is correct. 2. All players said (without hearing about the BIT) "I'll lead the H2". In that case, I don't understand why the AC overruled the TD. The TD polled 10 of North's peers and if they agree that the HQ is not an LA, why does the committee think differently, in particular since only 2 of the 5 committee members have ever played at this level. PO, Grattan, care to comment? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From henk at ripe.net Tue Jul 6 10:11:41 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:11:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: References: <603630.41331.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C32E53D.4080406@ripe.net> On 06/07/2010 00:26, Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: PO Sundelin > Anyone against? Why? I'm not against, I'm just suprised that this had not been discussed before the event. Time penalties have happened in every European championship for as long as anybody can remember, so it is hardly suprising that one occured in this tournament. The CoC should be clear on this. > Discussing the format of the event Max Bavin had > the thought that it might be more satisfactory to play a > full round robin of 14 board matches. If this were to be > contemplated I would think that the scale for converting > IMPs to VPs should be more widely tapered to reduce > the effect of massive imp margins against less potent > teams. Whatever, it still bears thinking about. I had another idea: start with a full round robin of 10 board matches. The top half qualifies for the final and plays another series of 10 board matches. With 40 teams, the first RR takes 39 rounds, the second 19. That is a total of 58 rounds, all 58 scores count. Play 5 or 6 matches a day and you are done in 10 to 12 days. Teams elimitated from the finals only play for a week (one of the goals was to make the event a bit shorter). The second RR can be played reversed-swiss (#1 qualifier against the #20 qualify in round 1, #1 against #2 in round 19). Advantages: 1. No issues with 1 group being weaker than the other in qualifying. 2. Dumping is discouraged, whereas the present setup calls for dumping in some cases. 3. You still accomplish the goal of a shorter event for the weaker teams. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Jul 6 10:22:16 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:22:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Carryover_of_penalty_points?= In-Reply-To: <4C32E53D.4080406@ripe.net> References: <4C32E53D.4080406@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1OW3Q1-09Zgae0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> From: Henk Uijterwaal > On 06/07/2010 00:26, Grattan wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: PO Sundelin > > > Anyone against? Why? > > I'm not against, I'm just suprised that this had not been discussed > before the event. Time penalties have happened in every European > championship for as long as anybody can remember, so it is hardly > suprising that one occured in this tournament. The CoC should be > clear on this. > > > > Discussing the format of the event Max Bavin had > > the thought that it might be more satisfactory to play a > > full round robin of 14 board matches. If this were to be > > contemplated I would think that the scale for converting > > IMPs to VPs should be more widely tapered to reduce > > the effect of massive imp margins against less potent > > teams. Whatever, it still bears thinking about. > > I had another idea: start with a full round robin of 10 board matches. > The top half qualifies for the final and plays another series of 10 > board matches. With 40 teams, the first RR takes 39 rounds, the > second 19. > That is a total of 58 rounds, all 58 scores count. What abot 39 rounds count (?) Take the matches against non-qualifiers as 10-board-matches; take the matches against qualifiers as 20-board-matches with two segments (the imps of the first RR as carry over (or 1st segment)). > Play 5 or 6 > matches a day and you are done in 10 to 12 days. Teams elimitated > from the finals only play for a week (one of the goals was to make the > event a bit shorter). The second RR can be played reversed-swiss (#1 > qualifier against the #20 qualify in round 1, #1 against #2 in round > 19). > > Advantages: > > 1. No issues with 1 group being weaker than the other in qualifying. > > 2. Dumping is discouraged, whereas the present setup calls for dumping > in some cases. > > 3. You still accomplish the goal of a shorter event for the weaker > teams. > > Henk From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Jul 6 09:33:38 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:33:38 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <1OW3Q1-09Zgae0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <4C32E53D.4080406@ripe.net> <1OW3Q1-09Zgae0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:22:16 +0300, Peter Eidt wrote: > > What abot 39 rounds count (?) > Take the matches against non-qualifiers as 10-board-matches; > take the matches against qualifiers as 20-board-matches with > two segments (the imps of the first RR as carry over (or 1st segment)). > That has the disadvantage that after conversion to VPs, the 10-board-matches against weak opponents will carry the same weight in the final rankings as the 20-board-matches against the stronger half. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Jul 6 10:41:37 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:41:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C32E1DA.7080209@ripe.net> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31D157.7090308@skynet.be> <4C32DEC9.1090907@skynet.be> <4C32E1DA.7080209@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C32EC41.5020609@btinternet.com> On 06/07/2010 08:57, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > There seem to be two options: > 1. The 10 players polled all said something like "I'll lead the H2 but > I'm also considering the HQ". That makes the HQ an LA. I would have thought that makes the HQ not an LA. L16B1(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. If no-one would select it, it's not an LA. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 6 10:49:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:49:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <4C32E1DA.7080209@ripe.net> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31D157.7090308@skynet.be> <4C32DEC9.1090907@skynet.be> <4C32E1DA.7080209@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C32EE02.6030309@ulb.ac.be> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : > There seem to be two options: > > 1. The 10 players polled all said something like "I'll lead the H2 but > I'm also considering the HQ". AG : or at least several of them did. > That makes the HQ an LA. If this is > the case, then the write-up is incomplete but the decision of the > AC to overrule the TD is correct. > > 2. All players said (without hearing about the BIT) "I'll lead the H2". > In that case, I don't understand why the AC overruled the TD. The > TD polled 10 of North's peers and if they agree that the HQ is not > an LA, why does the committee think differently, in particular since > only 2 of the 5 committee members have ever played at this level. > From henk at ripe.net Tue Jul 6 10:49:12 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:49:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: References: <4C32E53D.4080406@ripe.net> <1OW3Q1-09Zgae0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C32EE08.8050207@ripe.net> On 06/07/2010 09:33, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:22:16 +0300, Peter Eidt > wrote: > > >> >> What abot 39 rounds count (?) >> Take the matches against non-qualifiers as 10-board-matches; >> take the matches against qualifiers as 20-board-matches with >> two segments (the imps of the first RR as carry over (or 1st segment)). >> > > That has the disadvantage that after conversion to VPs, the > 10-board-matches against weak opponents will carry the same weight in the > final rankings as the 20-board-matches against the stronger half. Yes, which is why I'd score all 58 matches on a 25-5 scale. That way, you can score 50 VP's against the top teams (making those boards) more important but the boards against the weak teams still are important. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 6 11:38:28 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:38:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> <4C31D663.5080905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <730BDC8653E94689A6C235A821CB1571@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Your numbers might be a little extreme, but there's nobody disagreeing with you that the odds after the break in tempo is huge in favour of leading low. 5-1 in favour of leading low is enough for international players to totally disregard leading high. Thus, leading low is no LA. This is perfectly correct. So I don't understand. 10 players are leading low. So the director's ruling was perfectly right. And I simply don't understand the decision of the appeal commitee. Herman, can you explain? Jean-Marc ................................................................................... +=+ I am in doubt about the suggestion of 10 players consulted. My recollection is that it had been possible to consult some but few players*. I am aware that there had been much debate amongst the senior TDs as to whether HQ was a logical alternative lead. In the committee there were clear views that it was a LA. The committee was strong and experienced. The committee might have had an inclination to award a weighted result had this been lawful, one member had such a thought, but Law 16B1(a) does not tolerate such an award. It was considered there was sufficient opinion around to support the decision that HQ was a logical alternative lead. There was good evidence that players on the other side of the screen were aware of the slow return of the tray after the final pass. The case hinges on whether HQ is a LA or not ~ Grattan ~ +=+ * I may be confusing cases. I do not have the appeal form and my notes here. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 6 20:00:41 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:00:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what counts as official WBFLC? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I guess this is a question for Grattan. Or anyone who knows. Richard said: > When the official minutes of the WBF Laws > Committee state "the committee agreed such-and-such", > then that _does_ have the force of Law, since the WBF > Laws Committee has a universal power to interpret > any Law in the Lawbook Is this true? The actual sentence: "Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told - the committee agreed this information is authorized - and to know the opponents' system." If this is official, it would be nice if it was set off and made more clear what was being agreed upon. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 6 20:01:38 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:01:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:16:35 -0400, wrote: > WBF Laws Committee, 4th September 2009, item 8: > > ".....Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to > know what they have been told - the committee agreed > this information is authorized....." > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> We are not talking about a passed resolution of the >> WBFLC, it is just one member speaking in a >> conversation. That does not have force of law. > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect on two grounds. Firstly, Adam Wildavsky is > not a member of the WBF Laws Committee (Adam was a > guest at the WBF LC's two meetings in 2009). > > Secondly, when the official minutes of the WBF Laws > Committee state "the committee agreed such-and-such", > then that _does_ have the force of Law, since the WBF > Laws Committee has a universal power to interpret > any Law in the Lawbook > > Robert Frick: > > And the context: > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > And the _complete_ context: > > WBF LC 4th September 2009 meeting > > "At the Chairman's request the committee considered the > status of information arising when a misexplanation is > corrected. The Chief Director reminded the committee > that the Director must be summoned. Mr. Endicott had > asserted that when summoned the Director should apply > Law 21. This states that the Director must judge > whether a player's decision to make a call 'could well > have been influenced by the misinformation given'. Mr. > Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what > they have been told - the committee agreed this > information is authorized - and to know the opponents' > system. He considered that the player in last position > in the example (2H - 4H where 2H is explained as > 'strong') should be allowed to double the final > contract on the basis of his awareness of conflict > between these if he receives the information that 2H > was weak. > > Much discussion ensued. Various examples were debated. > The Chairman suggested that in Law 16A1(a) information > derived from the legal calls and plays may be > interpreted to include both the correct information > given and the incorrect information. Under pressure of > time the Chairman decided that the matter should be > further discussed when the committee reconvenes." > > WBF LC 8th September 2009 meeting > > "The committee returned to the subject of the status of > information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. > There was lengthy discussion following which it was > determined: > > (a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has > been made; the Director is required to judge whether the > call 'could well have been influenced by misinformation > given to the player'. Unless he judges that in > possession of the correct information (only) the player > could well have made a different call no change of call > under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under > Law 21B3. > > (b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected > before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to > Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director > should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player > may use both the misexplanation and the correct > information. > > [*Secretary's note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute > indicates that the Regulating Authority may give > guidance.]" > > Robert Frick: > >> Anyway, we all know that this is not a general >> principle -- no one thinks that anything a player is >> told is AI. > > Richard Hills: > > Ah ha, General Principle leads his troops forward > again. > > I think that the above quotes from the WBF LC minutes > do indeed create a new General Principle of: > > anything a player is **extraneously** > told **by an opponent** is AI, usable > at the player's own risk. > > Of course, if LHO extraneously remarks, "I have a great > hand!" when LHO actually holds a yarborough, then Law > 73D2 and Law 73F are relevant. > Hmm. Some holes. The committee was discussing the status of an incorrect explanation. Adam W. said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told. This sounds to me like a comment about the particular situation -- they are entitled to know the incorrect explanation. It doesn't sound like a general principle. Especially since it is wrong. From this you somehow deduce > anything a player is **extraneously** > told **by an opponent** is AI, usable > at the player's own risk. That's a magical jump. I don't think I would categorize an incorrect explanation as extraneous. So your general claim is irrelevant to Adam's claim, which was about non-extraneous information. It's like you start with "All crows are black" and use that to conclude "All butterflies have wings". True conclusion, but not a proper inference. And so what? The topic was whether the lawbook has errors. Everyone already knows that extraneous information from the opponent is AI. (Well, maybe some gray points.) The question is whether this is in the lawbook. It's not, right? The lawbook is wrong. And you have put a 1-cm patch on a 2-cm hole. What about information a player overhears? Or reads? From jeanmarc.boite at gmail.com Tue Jul 6 21:13:45 2010 From: jeanmarc.boite at gmail.com (Jean-Marc Boite) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 21:13:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <730BDC8653E94689A6C235A821CB1571@Mildred> References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> <4C31D663.5080905@ulb.ac.be> <730BDC8653E94689A6C235A821CB1571@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Grattan wrote: > * I may be confusing cases. I do not have the appeal > form and my notes here. > The case is on page 9 of the last daily bulletin, written by Herman de Wael. It says: *The Director:* *Established that there had been a break in tempo. The* *players disagreed about the timing, but the BBO operator* *confirmed that there had been some pause to think. The* *Director asked both players separately what a double* *would ask for, and they both replied that it would ask a* *spade lead. The Director asked a number of players for* *their lead and all of them went for the lead of a small heart.* *Most players agreed however that the hesitation suggested* *the lead of a small heart.* According to what he found the director's ruling was straightforward. We don't know how many players were asked, but they all answered the same. We don't know how many of them knew the hand before they were asked. Jean-Marc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100706/2a6cbcae/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 7 03:06:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 11:06:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado (1885): A wandering minstrel I-- A thing of shreds and patches, Of ballads, songs and snatches, And dreamy lullaby! My catalogue is long, Through every passion ranging, And to your humours changing I tune my supple song! Grattan Endicott, 25th November 2009: [snip] >It is my conviction that the current code of laws remains >a thing of shreds and patches, of incremental snatches, >and that one day a future generation may yet see the >reconstruction, the modern architecture for which I yearn >so ardently. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 20F4 - Explanation of Calls: If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. Richard Hills: Before the 2009 meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Sao Paulo, Grattan Endicott's personal opinion was that a Law 20F4 withdrawn explanation was UI to _both_ sides, not UI to the offending side and AI to the non-offending side. Law 16A2 - Players' Use of Information: Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations. Richard Hills: To the best of my (possibly imperfect) recollection, Grattan's pre-Sao Paulo argument was that a Law 20F4 cancelled incorrect explanation by an opponent was not a "trait" of that opponent. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: trait, n. an item in a portrait or description or in a person's face or character Richard Hills: However, the corporate decision of the 2009 meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Sao Paulo was a rare over- ruling of its Secretary, Grattan Endicott. So now "traits" joins "logical alternative" as a bridge term which differs from its dictionary definition. On to the next issue. The WBF LC has explicitly defined a withdrawn Law 20F4 explanation as a "trait". But has the WBF LC implicitly defined LHO remarking, "I have a great hand!" as a "trait"? In my opinion the implicit clue can be found in Law 73F - Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). Richard Hills: In order for a non-offending side to draw a false inference from an offending side's remark, it necessarily follows that it is Lawful for the non- offending side to draw inferences in the first place, i.e. a remark by LHO is AI to you. What's the problem? Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 7 09:43:15 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:43:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: References: <4C31BBDC.60805@ripe.net> <4C31BF94.2050001@ulb.ac.be> <4C31C7D9.6060604@ulb.ac.be> <4C31D663.5080905@ulb.ac.be> <730BDC8653E94689A6C235A821CB1571@Mildred> Message-ID: <000f01cb1da8$10d16260$32742720$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: I consider this to be an interesting case regarding the laws. The write up reads strange, I do not understand the word 'however' in '.agreed however that the hesitation." It suggests that the suggestion in itself is sufficient reason not to allow the lead of a small heart, which of course is wrong. If I am well informed seven players were asked what their lead would have been and all seven said small. But the board was played on many more tables and the recording shows that the heart Q was led quite often. Do we have to distinct the players in the top teams from the lesser? It would be nice to know what the answers of PO Sundelin and Jens Auken would have been had they been asked as player. It seems that the answer on this question seperates the real top bridger from the others. I would have understood the argument that the hesitation prevented Paulissen to lead the Q carelessly, but that is not a consideration within the scoop of the laws. I have my doubts about the decision by the AC. Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Jean-Marc Boite Verzonden: dinsdag 6 juli 2010 21:14 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Grattan wrote: * I may be confusing cases. I do not have the appeal form and my notes here. The case is on page 9 of the last daily bulletin, written by Herman de Wael. It says: The Director: Established that there had been a break in tempo. The players disagreed about the timing, but the BBO operator confirmed that there had been some pause to think. The Director asked both players separately what a double would ask for, and they both replied that it would ask a spade lead. The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. According to what he found the director's ruling was straightforward. We don't know how many players were asked, but they all answered the same. We don't know how many of them knew the hand before they were asked. Jean-Marc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100707/72ae8bf9/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 7 17:24:58 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:24:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:06:35 -0400, wrote: > Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado (1885): > > A wandering minstrel I-- > A thing of shreds and patches, > Of ballads, songs and snatches, > And dreamy lullaby! > > My catalogue is long, > Through every passion ranging, > And to your humours changing > I tune my supple song! > > > Grattan Endicott, 25th November 2009: > > [snip] > >> It is my conviction that the current code of laws remains >> a thing of shreds and patches, of incremental snatches, >> and that one day a future generation may yet see the >> reconstruction, the modern architecture for which I yearn >> so ardently. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Law 20F4 - Explanation of Calls: > > If a player subsequently realizes > that his own explanation was > erroneous or incomplete he must call > the Director immediately. The > Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. > > Richard Hills: > > Before the 2009 meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Sao > Paulo, Grattan Endicott's personal opinion was that a > Law 20F4 withdrawn explanation was UI to _both_ sides, not > UI to the offending side and AI to the non-offending side. > > Law 16A2 - Players' Use of Information: > > Players may also take account of > their estimate of their own score, > of the traits of their opponents, > and any requirement of the > tournament regulations. > > Richard Hills: > > To the best of my (possibly imperfect) recollection, > Grattan's pre-Sao Paulo argument was that a Law 20F4 > cancelled incorrect explanation by an opponent was not a > "trait" of that opponent. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > trait, n. an item in a portrait > or description or in a person's > face or character > > Richard Hills: > > However, the corporate decision of the 2009 meeting of > the WBF Laws Committee in Sao Paulo was a rare over- > ruling of its Secretary, Grattan Endicott. So now > "traits" joins "logical alternative" as a bridge term > which differs from its dictionary definition. > > On to the next issue. The WBF LC has explicitly defined > a withdrawn Law 20F4 explanation as a "trait". But has > the WBF LC implicitly defined LHO remarking, "I have a > great hand!" as a "trait"? > > In my opinion the implicit clue can be found in > > Law 73F - Violation of Proprieties > > When a violation of the Proprieties > described in this law results in > damage to an innocent opponent, if > the Director determines that an > innocent player has drawn a false > inference from a remark, manner, > tempo, or the like, of an opponent > who has no demonstrable bridge > reason for the action, and who > could have known, at the time of > the action, that the action could > work to his benefit, the Director > shall award an adjusted score (see > Law 12C). > > Richard Hills: > > In order for a non-offending side to draw a false > inference from an offending side's remark, it > necessarily follows that it is Lawful for the non- > offending side to draw inferences in the first place, > i.e. a remark by LHO is AI to you. > > What's the problem? 1. The fallacy of affirming the consequent: If a withdrawn explanation is a trait, it is AI. A withdrawn explanation is a AI. Therefore it is trait. 2. I could find no explicit mention of traits. The only clue I found as to why the withdrawn explanation would be AI: "The Chairman suggested that in Law 16A1(a) information derived from the legal calls and plays may be interpreted to include both the correct information given and the incorrect information." 3. Your conclusion makes no sense. A withdrawn explanation is a trait? That would be make the laws extremely complicated and difficult. Or make the law something to ridicule. But maybe you havse a good idea. I reversed the order of the letters for the 2009 minutes, tried various letter substitutions, and -- assuming the words usually had letters missing and were not in the correct order -- extracted the following secret message. (Trust me.) 1. Information from the opponents is AI unless the laws say otherwise. 2. Information from partner is AI when it is legal procedures and UI otherwise -- unless the laws say otherwise. 3. No player may base an action upon UI. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 7 17:52:53 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:52:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C34A2D5.5010108@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > 3. Your conclusion makes no sense. A withdrawn explanation is a trait? > That would be make the laws extremely complicated and difficult. Or make > the law something to ridicule. > > > AG : but the fact that this particular player is prone to confuse the meaning of such-and-such bids in such-and-such sequences (as proven from the misexplanation) is a trait, and an interesting one. Don't we all occasionally pass in the hope that their cue-bid becomes the final contract ? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 8 07:33:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:33:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C34A2D5.5010108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Winston Churchill (1874-1965), twice British Prime Minister: "The loyalties which centre on number one are enormous. If he trips he must be sustained. If he makes mistakes they must be covered. If he sleeps he must not be wantonly disturbed. If he is no good he must be pole-axed." The Guardian, 25th June 2010: "Australian politicians have never been afraid of slaughtering leaders who look like losers. The suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne are full of bitter men with bruised egos, ejected before they believed their time was up." 20th May 2004 scenario of an astute pro hamming it up: >1. An astute professional was commencing a >matchpoint pairs session with a beginner client. > >2. The beginner client admitted that they were >petrified with nervousness, fearing that they >would make too many mistakes. The beginner >client was also petrified about their >petrification, since the beginner client knew >that they made more mistakes than usual when >petrified. > >3. On the very first board, the astute pro >perpetrated a non-logical alternative of a >ridiculous vulnerable overcall. > >4. The astute pro moaned, "Oh no, what have I >done?" > >5. Prompted by the astute pro's moaning, the >opponents doubled. 8th July 2010 questions: Was the opponents' double Lawful? Or did the opponents unLawfully take advantage of UI from the astute pro, since a "moan" is not a "trait"? 20th May 2004 scenario of an astute pro hamming it up: >6. The astute pro accidentally dropped a trick >in the play, turning a sure -800 bottom into a >more spectacular -1100 bottom. > >7. After the board, the astute pro apologised >to the petrified beginner client, "Sorry pard. >After that sure bottom, we have no chance of >winning the session now." > >8. With the pressure off, the beginner client >was relaxed for the remainder of the session, >played to the best of their ability, and so >committed only routine idiocies. As a result, >the astute pro was able to carry their beginner >client to a North-South victory. > >9. Meanwhile, the astute pro's first round >opponents gained an unexpected East-West >victory by one matchpoint, due to their first >board top. > >As TD, how would you rule? New 2007 Law 72A: ".....The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants....." The ACBL has regulated that the unit quantity of "the chief object" is a single board, in which case an ACBL astute pro has committed an infraction. The EBU has regulated that the unit quantity of "the chief object" is the entire event, in which case an EBU astute pro has not committed an infraction. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Jul 8 10:24:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:24:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <4603A37D3CDB4FC8BB017770AC1733E9@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 6:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > > New 2007 Law 72A: > > ".....The chief object is to obtain a higher score than > other contestants....." > > The ACBL has regulated that the unit quantity of "the chief > object" is a single board, in which case an ACBL astute pro > has committed an infraction. > > The EBU has regulated that the unit quantity of "the chief > object" is the entire event, in which case an EBU astute pro > has not committed an infraction. > > +=+ In my opinion the desirable unit quantity for judging this application of Law 72A is a session or a match. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 8 14:55:33 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:55:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:33 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > New 2007 Law 72A: > > ".....The chief object is to obtain a higher score than > other contestants....." > > The ACBL has regulated that the unit quantity of "the chief > object" is a single board, in which case an ACBL astute pro > has committed an infraction. I was unaware of this, and would appreciate a citation if someone can supply it. As stated by Richard, it makes no sense (and I doubt that that's Richard's fault). What does it mean to "obtain a higher score than other contestants" on "a single board"? If, in a matchpoint event, I can choose between an action that will score 60% for sure and one with a 50-50 chance of getting a top or a bottom, I would seem to be required to choose one or the other, but need a more precisely stated regulation to know which. Since my choice can only be affected by the potential results on the particular individual board, it cannot be legal to make my decision based on my estimate of the state of my game for the session or event. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 9 01:32:00 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:32:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html New 2007 Law 72A: ".....The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants....." Richard Hills: >>The ACBL has regulated that the unit quantity of "the chief >>object" is a single board, in which case an ACBL astute pro >>has committed an infraction. Eric Landau: >I was unaware of this, and would appreciate a citation if >someone can supply it. ACBL General Conditions of Contest - Play - Clause 5: "Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's best long-term interest." Eric Landau: >As stated by Richard, it makes no sense (and I doubt that >that's Richard's fault). What does it mean to "obtain a >higher score than other contestants" on "a single board"? > >If, in a matchpoint event, I can choose between an action >that will score 60% for sure and one with a 50-50 chance of >getting a top or a bottom, I would seem to be required to >choose one or the other, but need a more precisely stated >regulation to know which. Richard Hills: Indeed. The imprecisely stated problem in the ACBL CoC is the undefined term "win". Aiming for an expected average return of 60% instead of 50% could be seen as trying to "win" the board. But shooting for a top and gaining that top could also be seen as trying to "win" the board. So my personal opinion is that both strategies are legal under the ACBL regulation. Eric Landau: >Since my choice can only be affected by the potential >results on the particular individual board, it cannot be >legal to make my decision based on my estimate of the >state of my game for the session or event. Richard Hills: If my opinion (that both shooting for a top and non-shooting for 60% are equally legal attempts to "win" the board) is correct, then the ACBL regulation does _not_ over-rule Law 16A2 - Players' Use of Information: "Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score....." Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Fri Jul 9 02:04:13 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:04:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <603630.41331.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <603630.41331.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C36677D.4020403@nhcc.net> On 7/5/2010 2:10 PM, PO Sundelin wrote: > Slow play penalties are defined as belonging to a match ... > All other penalties are carried forward regardless when they were received. > Cell phone, > dress code, > procedural > alcohol in toilet... > late arrival > late line-up (penalized from second time...) Those last two look equivalent to slow play to me. Why shouldn't they be handled the same way? "Procedural" might also belong to a single match, depending on exactly what it means. > drug test with sad result probably disqualifies a player and should?t hit the team In relay races (track and field, swimming), the whole team is disqualified if any member tests positive. (At least I think this is the general rule, though I gather there is controversy about possible exceptions.) If drugs enhance the performance of a team member, thereby benefiting the whole team, why shouldn't the whole team be disqualified? Alternatively, if the drugs didn't benefit performance, why should anyone be disqualified? From: "Grattan" > Discussing the format of the event Max Bavin had > the thought that it might be more satisfactory to play a > full round robin of 14 board matches. If this were to be > contemplated I would think that the scale for converting > IMPs to VPs should be more widely tapered to reduce > the effect of massive imp margins against less potent > teams. I've never understood the WBF VP scale, which is essentially linear in IMPs (but with different cutoffs for the winners and losers). If the goal is to reduce the effect of blowout matches, a non-linear scale is needed. The Bethe scale is the best one I've seen. The formula was posted on BLML long ago, or at least I'm almost certain it was, but I couldn't find it last time I looked for it. The scale is used in the USBF and in a few events in the ACBL, so someone on this continent must have the formula. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 9 07:38:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:38:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Passtime [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Samuel Beckett (1906-1989), Waiting for Godot: Vladimir: That passed the time. Estragon: It would have passed in any case. Vladimir: Yes, but not so rapidly. The auction has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass(1) Pass(1) Pass(2) Pass(1) (3) (1) A normal pass, could be a balanced 11 hcp. (2) By partnership agreement, a third seat pass guarantees 0-7 hcp, but East's pass was not alerted by West. (3) After South passes, East summons the TD and corrects West's MI, due to Law 20F5(b)??? Actually, it seems that East's Law 20F5(b) correction is un- Lawful. Law 20F5(b)(i) does not apply, since East was never a defender. Law 20F5(b)(ii) does not apply, since East was never declarer nor dummy. So it seems that for this very rare scenario Law 20F5(b)(ii) needs to be interpreted as actually meaning -> "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is for declarer or dummy (or any player involved in a Law 22A1 four passes auction), after the final pass of the auction." And consequentially for this very rare scenario Law 22A1 needs to be interpreted as actually meaning -> "The auction ends when: all four players pass (but see Law 25). Unless Law 20F5(b)(ii) applies and then consequently Law 21B applies, the hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal." Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 posundelin at yahoo.se Fri Jul 9 10:54:07 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 08:54:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <4C36677D.4020403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <169683.40591.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Den fre 2010-07-09 skrev Steve Willner : Fr?n: Steve Willner > Slow play penalties are defined as belonging to a match ... > All other penalties are carried forward regardless when they were received. > Cell phone, > dress code, > procedural > alcohol in toilet... > late arrival > late line-up (penalized from second time...) Those last two look equivalent to slow play to me.? Why shouldn't they be handled the same way?? ? Steve, IMHO Slow play is using more time than allowed to achieve a better result in a particular match.("belongs to the match"). Late arrival is different. It is a crime against the organizers. Penalties should stay with the team even if opponents are non-qualifiers. So is late lineup.? Costs VP second time. Just suppose captain A lines up late first against qualifier X and then against non-qualifier Y. Captain B does the same only in different order. Should A escape his penalty, and B carry forward his? ----- ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100709/3779cb5a/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 9 15:40:21 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:40:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01EE37D8-C657-4F6A-82F5-9648A3DD50E1@starpower.net> On Jul 8, 2010, at 7:32 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > New 2007 Law 72A: > > ".....The chief object is to obtain a higher score than > other contestants....." > > Richard Hills: > >>> The ACBL has regulated that the unit quantity of "the chief >>> object" is a single board, in which case an ACBL astute pro >>> has committed an infraction. > > Eric Landau: > >> I was unaware of this, and would appreciate a citation if >> someone can supply it. > > ACBL General Conditions of Contest - Play - Clause 5: > > "Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. > No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the > contestant's best long-term interest." > > Eric Landau: > >> As stated by Richard, it makes no sense (and I doubt that >> that's Richard's fault). What does it mean to "obtain a >> higher score than other contestants" on "a single board"? >> >> If, in a matchpoint event, I can choose between an action >> that will score 60% for sure and one with a 50-50 chance of >> getting a top or a bottom, I would seem to be required to >> choose one or the other, but need a more precisely stated >> regulation to know which. > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed. The imprecisely stated problem in the ACBL CoC is > the undefined term "win". > > Aiming for an expected average return of 60% instead of 50% > could be seen as trying to "win" the board. > > But shooting for a top and gaining that top could also be > seen as trying to "win" the board. > > So my personal opinion is that both strategies are legal > under the ACBL regulation. > > Eric Landau: > >> Since my choice can only be affected by the potential >> results on the particular individual board, it cannot be >> legal to make my decision based on my estimate of the >> state of my game for the session or event. > > Richard Hills: > > If my opinion (that both shooting for a top and non-shooting > for 60% are equally legal attempts to "win" the board) is > correct, then the ACBL regulation does _not_ over-rule > > Law 16A2 - Players' Use of Information: > > "Players may also take account of their estimate of their > own score....." So what happens if I decline my sure 60% for what I imagine to be a 50-50 shot at a top, but is in fact a hopeless play resulting in a sure bottom? The director can point out to the committee that I have taken an action identical to that which would have been taken by a player attempting to dump the board, that my motivation for doing so is irrelevant (at least in the absence of a mind-reading psychic on the committee), and that I have thus presumptively violated the anti- dumping rule. I will assert that what looked like a possible dumping attempt on my part was nothing more than faulty analysis, but what can I say to back up that assertion? I am, of course, ignoring the fatal flaw in such a rule, that it is totally unenforceable given an enforcement protocol that relies on an infractor's opponents' calling the director when they *may have been damaged* by the infraction. How often is the director called to the table by a pair that just got a top board? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 9 16:12:28 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:12:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham In-Reply-To: <01EE37D8-C657-4F6A-82F5-9648A3DD50E1@starpower.net> References: <01EE37D8-C657-4F6A-82F5-9648A3DD50E1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C372E4C.1010006@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> If my opinion (that both shooting for a top and non-shooting >> for 60% are equally legal attempts to "win" the board) is >> correct, then the ACBL regulation does _not_ over-rule >> >> Law 16A2 - Players' Use of Information: >> >> "Players may also take account of their estimate of their >> own score....." >> AG : and IIRC players can take into account their opponents' personality. In a medim-length match, are you allowed to take a gambling play which will either : a) succeed and win you some points (be it IMPs or Matchpoints) b) fail and give your opponents a false sense of superiority, once again earning you many points, but on the other boards ? (if only Matchpoints are concerned, take a Swiss pairs with 8 boards / table) ISTM that nothing can prevent you from doing so. Now, say that I think b) is much more probable, but profitable. What should I do ? IMHO, ACBL's concerns are about the impact on future matches, not the end result of this very match / table, but this isn't explicit. Apart from that, I do agree with Eric's last comment : dumping will nearly always be left unnoticed. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Jul 9 16:19:26 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:19:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Grated ham In-Reply-To: <01EE37D8-C657-4F6A-82F5-9648A3DD50E1@starpower.net> References: <01EE37D8-C657-4F6A-82F5-9648A3DD50E1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <15986032.1278685166939.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 8, 2010, at 7:32 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > New 2007 Law 72A: > > > > ".....The chief object is to obtain a higher score than > > other contestants....." > > > > Richard Hills: > > > >>> The ACBL has regulated that the unit quantity of "the chief > >>> object" is a single board, in which case an ACBL astute pro > >>> has committed an infraction. > > > > Eric Landau: > > > >> I was unaware of this, and would appreciate a citation if > >> someone can supply it. > > > > ACBL General Conditions of Contest - Play - Clause 5: > > > > "Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. > > No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the > > contestant's best long-term interest." [...] > So what happens if I decline my sure 60% for what I imagine to be a > 50-50 shot at a top, but is in fact a hopeless play resulting in a > sure bottom? The director can point out to the committee that I have > taken an action identical to that which would have been taken by a > player attempting to dump the board, that my motivation for doing so > is irrelevant (at least in the absence of a mind-reading psychic on > the committee), and that I have thus presumptively violated the anti- > dumping rule. I will assert that what looked like a possible dumping > attempt on my part was nothing more than faulty analysis, but what > can I say to back up that assertion? Imagine a player revokes twice in the same round, or even in the same board. Surely that is indistinguishable to dumping, and thus the subject to ACBL prescribed penalties Thomas -- Hotelbewertung: Blo? nicht die Katze im Sack kaufen bzw. den Floh auf der Matratze buchen - ob gesch?ftlich oder privat - erst das Hotel im Reise-Channel auf arcor.de checken! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.hotel From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 9 16:31:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:31:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham In-Reply-To: <15986032.1278685166939.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <01EE37D8-C657-4F6A-82F5-9648A3DD50E1@starpower.net> <15986032.1278685166939.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C3732C9.90104@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > > > Imagine a player revokes twice in the same round, or even in the same board. > Surely that is indistinguishable to dumping, and thus the subject to ACBL prescribed penalties > > AG : and what if one pulls the wrong card ? If one missorts one's hand ? Anyway, the best players in the world have been known to make whale-sized mistakes, which the best TDs in the world would be unable to distinguish from intended loss of points. And the player who wanted to dump the board would surely be able to pretend having miscounted the hand. Best regards Alain From posundelin at yahoo.se Sat Jul 10 02:02:28 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:02:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Herman? In-Reply-To: <000f01cb1da8$10d16260$32742720$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <783593.50277.qm@web23703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> The committee had available to it records of what was actually led?in the other matches against 3NT. A few tried a spade. Among the heart leaders: Open 11 queens (or Rusinow jacks),?4 small Women 20 queens, 3 small Seniors 15 queens, 1 small ? ? ? Fr?n: ton t.kooyman at worldonline.nl ton: ?I consider this to be an interesting case regarding the laws. The write up reads strange, I do not understand the word ?however? in ??agreed however that the hesitation?? ? It suggests that the suggestion in itself is sufficient reason not to allow the lead of a small heart, which of course is wrong. What suggestion? ? If I am well informed seven players were asked what their lead would have been and all seven said small. But the board was played on many more tables and the recording shows that the heart Q was led quite often. ?Do we have to distinct the players in the top teams from the lesser? It would be nice to know what the answers of PO Sundelin and Jens Auken would have been had they been asked as player. It seems that the answer on this question seperates the real top bridger from the others. FYI ?Italy, Poland, Sweden,Bulgaria, Russia led queens - not real top bridgers?? ? I would have understood the argument that the hesitation prevented Paulissen to lead the Q carelessly, but that is not a consideration within the scope of the laws. Are you saying that if a hesitation stops an honour lead and suggests a small card, that would not be?within the scope of the laws? Looking at the records I think we can ignore "carelessly". ? I have my doubts about the decision by the AC. ? ? ? ? The case is on page 9 of the last daily bulletin, written by Herman de Wael. ? It says: ? The Director: Established that there had been a break in tempo. The players disagreed about the timing, but the BBO operator confirmed that there had been some pause to think. The Director asked both players separately what a double would ask for, and they both replied that it would ask a spade lead. The Director asked a number of players for their lead and all of them went for the lead of a small heart. Most players agreed however that the hesitation suggested the lead of a small heart. ? ? According to what he found the director's ruling was straightforward. We don't know how many players were asked, but they all answered the same. We don't know how many of them knew the hand before they were asked. ? ? Jean-Marc ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100710/f1e59e8f/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jul 10 03:04:40 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:04:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? Message-ID: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board arrives from the other table, your hand is sorted. Is this AI to you that the board was probably passed out? (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if your hand and dummy are consistent with a pass-out, then it becomes much more likely that the board was passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous information. However, in a KO or Swiss, the player who did not sort the hand is a member of the team which is your current opponent. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 10 03:57:30 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:57:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <169683.40591.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <169683.40591.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C37D38A.5010405@nhcc.net> On 7/9/2010 4:54 AM, PO Sundelin wrote: > *Slow play* is using more time than allowed to achieve a better > result in a particular match.("belongs to the match"). I'm not sure exactly how the penalties work, but according to the view expressed above, there ought to be a penalty to the slow pair and compensation to the opponents for the IMPs they lost to the slow players. If that's done fairly, then after the match is over, the result is fair, and there's nothing other than the final result to carry forward. It's probably worth noting that not everyone considers slow play to be a "score adjustment" infraction. If it's a conduct infraction, it might be handled differently. Regardless of that, if it costs the opponents IMPs, they ought to be compensated. > *Late arrival* is different. It is a crime against the organizers. > Penalties should stay with the team even if opponents are > non-qualifiers. What happens if there is a late arrival? I'd expect boards to be taken away with compensation to the non-offending team. If that's done, the match will finish on time, and the result is fair and can stand. I don't see any crime to the organizers. If late arrival is handled in a different manner, then there might be a crime to the organizers. I hope the innocent team is compensated somehow if they are delayed finishing or forced to play faster than normal. > So is *late lineup.* Costs VP second time. This I don't understand at all. Why a penalty only for the second time? Isn't the main party harmed the opposing team, who cannot set their own lineup if they have seating rights and have less time to study the opponents' system? I'd expect compensation to the innocent team -- something like one VP per hour or fraction thereof late, perhaps. Again, after that's done, the match result is fair and can stand with no further penalty. But as I wrote above, these are my expectations and might not be consistent with the actual CoC. From lali808 at gmail.com Sat Jul 10 09:58:53 2010 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:58:53 -1000 Subject: [BLML] forgetting convention error - what is the ruling? Message-ID: In a team game bidding goes E/W vul N/S nonvul W N E S 1NT 2C (C + Major) X P P 2H X 3C X 3S X P P P N/S playing DONT so correct information given to ops final contract 3SX - 2 for 300 Director called by ops at end of bidding saying that declarer used his partner's explanation of DONT to make succeeding bids. For what its worth N forgot the convention and had a stiff C. Director said to play the hand. 3SX goes -2 for 300. 2CX goes -3 for 800. Depending on leads and play 3NT is possible with ops holding 24 hcp and guessing the distribution from bidding. What should the ruling be and why? Lali -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100710/4a4fb1d7/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 10 10:10:42 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:10:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:04 AM Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? > You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board > arrives from the other table, your hand is sorted. Is this AI to you that the board was probably passed out? > (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if your hand and dummy are consistent with a pass-out, then it becomes much more likely that the board was > passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) > > Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous information. However, in a KO or Swiss, the player who did not sort the hand is a member of the team which is your current opponent. > +=+ A sorted hand is primarily suggestive of a breach of Law 7C. The information does not derive from a legal procedure. Law 16A3 applies. See definition number 4 of 'play' The player who did not sort the hand could be a player in a previous match. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jul 10 15:12:12 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:12:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] forgetting convention error - what is the ruling? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: North has unauthorized information, so we need to determine whether he had a logical alternative to his bids. North almost surely has a logical alternative to 3S. He told South which major he wanted to play (whether he was supposed to do that or to pass 2Cx), and South could have chosen either to pass or to bid 2S, but South chose to bid 3C anyway and play there. North has shown his hand, and could respect partner's decision. I don't see that it is likely that E-W would reach 3NT. If North passes 2Cx, that ends the auction. If North passes 3Cx, then East, who doubled 2C, will leave the double of 3C in. Therefore, since North's 3S bid is an infraction, I adjust to 3Cx, apparently down four. It doesn't matter whether 2H was an infraction as well; if North committed two infractions, he gets the worse of the two possible adjustments. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lali To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 3:58 AM Subject: [BLML] forgetting convention error - what is the ruling? In a team game bidding goes E/W vul N/S nonvul W N E S 1NT 2C (C + Major) X P P 2H X 3C X 3S X P P P N/S playing DONT so correct information given to ops final contract 3SX - 2 for 300 Director called by ops at end of bidding saying that declarer used his partner's explanation of DONT to make succeeding bids. For what its worth N forgot the convention and had a stiff C. Director said to play the hand. 3SX goes -2 for 300. 2CX goes -3 for 800. Depending on leads and play 3NT is possible with ops holding 24 hcp and guessing the distribution from bidding. What should the ruling be and why? Lali ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20100710/452ce3f5/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 10 15:40:38 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:40:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:10:42 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > *************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > ............................................... > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Grabiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:04 AM > Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? > > >> You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board >> arrives from the other table, your hand is sorted. Is > this AI to you that the board was probably passed out? >> (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if > your hand and dummy are consistent with a pass-out, > then it becomes much more likely that the board was >> passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) >> >> Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous > information. However, in a KO or Swiss, the player > who did not sort the hand is a member of the team > which is your current opponent. >> > +=+ A sorted hand is primarily suggestive of a breach > of Law 7C. The information does not derive from a > legal procedure. Law 16A3 applies. See definition > number 4 of 'play' > The player who did not sort the hand could be > a player in a previous match. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Many players do not sort their hand after playing the hand. This offers some potentially useful information. So the issue is broader than just passed-out hands. We know that L16A1 is inadequate. The law should read that anything the opponents do is AI, except if mentioned in the laws. It doesn't say that. So it calls many things the opps do UI when we know it is AI. So we ignore the law. Or make ridiculout rulings. Here, we have to decide whether card-order should be AI hence we ignore the law or it shouldn't be AI (and we ignore the law). Once we have decided that, then Richard or someone can try to read the law to get to the right ruling. A second big problem with L16A1 is that it refers to all of the legal procedures hence requires reading the whole law book to make a ruling. On the good side, it allows a lot of leeway in interpreting L16A1 once we have decided on the right ruling. I would say that the right ruling is that it is AI. The opps are the offending side -- they should be shuffling their hand before putting it in the board. Players should not even have the temptation of using that information. It's not right. Anyway, how are you going to enforce a law saying people can't use that information? So, l7C: "...after which he restores them to the pocket...." The cards that you pick up are hence part of the legal procedures of the game. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 10 16:07:20 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:07:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> Message-ID: <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > We know that L16A1 is inadequate. The law should read that anything the > opponents do is AI, except if mentioned in the laws. It doesn't say that. > So it calls many things the opps do UI when we know it is AI. So we ignore > the law. Or make ridiculout rulings. Here, we have to decide whether > card-order should be AI hence we ignore the law or it shouldn't be AI (and > we ignore the law). Once we have decided that, then Richard or someone can > try to read the law to get to the right ruling. > > A second big problem with L16A1 is that it refers to all of the legal > procedures hence requires reading the whole law book to make a ruling. On > the good side, it allows a lot of leeway in interpreting L16A1 once we > have decided on the right ruling. > > I would say that the right ruling is that it is AI. The opps are the > offending side -- they should be shuffling their hand before putting it in > the board. Players should not even have the temptation of using that > information. It's not right. Anyway, how are you going to enforce a law > saying people can't use that information? For the purpose of applying law 16 "opponents" are the two players you meet at your table. It does not include any other player, not even team-mates of the two players you are meeting at your own table in a match for teams of four. I can't imagine that you will want to rewrite Law 16A1 so that instead of just referring to the entire set of the laws in the book should even include a copy of the texts into Law 16? Any information you might try to infer from the ordering of the cards when you retrieve then from the board is extraneous and therefore UI to you, period! From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 10 16:15:49 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:15:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> Message-ID: <18EE1164F5604727B8FA2ABCBF5A1F89@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:10:42 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> Skype directory: grattan.endicott >> *************************************** >> " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et >> le Verbe c'est Dieu." >> ('Les Contemplations'] >> ............................................... >> For words are The Word, and >> The Word is God. >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Grabiner" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:04 AM >> Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? >> >> >>> You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board >>> arrives from the other table, your hand is sorted. Is >> this AI to you that the board was probably passed out? >>> (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if >> your hand and dummy are consistent with a pass-out, >> then it becomes much more likely that the board was >>> passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) >>> >>> Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous >> information. However, in a KO or Swiss, the player >> who did not sort the hand is a member of the team >> which is your current opponent. >>> >> +=+ A sorted hand is primarily suggestive of a breach >> of Law 7C. The information does not derive from a >> legal procedure. Law 16A3 applies. See definition >> number 4 of 'play' >> The player who did not sort the hand could be >> a player in a previous match. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Many players do not sort their hand after playing the hand. This offers > some potentially useful information. So the issue is broader than just > passed-out hands. > > We know that L16A1 is inadequate. The law should read that anything the > opponents do is AI, except if mentioned in the laws. It doesn't say that. > So it calls many things the opps do UI when we know it is AI. So we ignore > the law. Or make ridiculout rulings. Here, we have to decide whether > card-order should be AI hence we ignore the law or it shouldn't be AI (and > we ignore the law). Once we have decided that, then Richard or someone can > try to read the law to get to the right ruling. > > A second big problem with L16A1 is that it refers to all of the legal > procedures hence requires reading the whole law book to make a ruling. On > the good side, it allows a lot of leeway in interpreting L16A1 once we > have decided on the right ruling. > > I would say that the right ruling is that it is AI. The opps are the > offending side -- they should be shuffling their hand before putting it in > the board. Players should not even have the temptation of using that > information. It's not right. Anyway, how are you going to enforce a law > saying people can't use that information? > > So, l7C: "...after which he restores them to the pocket...." The cards > that you pick up are hence part of the legal procedures of the game. > +=+ No player should sort his hand before returning it to the board. To do so is incorrect prodeure. Correct procedure is to shuffle it. Law 7C. It is illegal for a player to draw inferences from the condition in which the hand is passed to him. Law 16A3 applies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 10 16:57:52 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:57:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> Message-ID: <4C388A70.5030007@nhcc.net> On 7/10/2010 10:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Any information you might try to infer from the ordering of the cards when > you retrieve then from the board is extraneous and therefore UI to you, > period! Does this mean that in a team match, I can put my counterpart at the other table in an invidious UI position by sorting my cards before putting them back in the board? Wow! From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 10 17:31:05 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:31:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:07:20 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............. >> We know that L16A1 is inadequate. The law should read that anything the >> opponents do is AI, except if mentioned in the laws. It doesn't say >> that. >> So it calls many things the opps do UI when we know it is AI. So we >> ignore >> the law. Or make ridiculout rulings. Here, we have to decide whether >> card-order should be AI hence we ignore the law or it shouldn't be AI >> (and >> we ignore the law). Once we have decided that, then Richard or someone >> can >> try to read the law to get to the right ruling. >> >> A second big problem with L16A1 is that it refers to all of the legal >> procedures hence requires reading the whole law book to make a ruling. >> On >> the good side, it allows a lot of leeway in interpreting L16A1 once we >> have decided on the right ruling. >> >> I would say that the right ruling is that it is AI. The opps are the >> offending side -- they should be shuffling their hand before putting it >> in >> the board. Players should not even have the temptation of using that >> information. It's not right. Anyway, how are you going to enforce a law >> saying people can't use that information? > > For the purpose of applying law 16 "opponents" are the two players you > meet > at your table. It does not include any other player, not even team-mates > of > the two players you are meeting at your own table in a match for teams of > four. I think there is some potential humor here. Why are you focusing on the definition of opponents. Of course, it is critical for my version of L16, which corresponds to how people play and directors such as yourself would rule (and probably even your lawbook but not the English one). There is ample indication in the current laws that no one thought carefully about this. Otherwise "opponents" is used only in L16A2. Do you even rule consisently with what you said here? I am in a team match and I cannot take into account the traits of my opponents at the other table? I think you are the only one who would rule that way. Is yours the law book translation that replaces "traits" with "behaviors" in L16A2? > > I can't imagine that you will want to rewrite Law 16A1 so that instead of > just referring to the entire set of the laws in the book should even > include > a copy of the texts into Law 16? > > Any information you might try to infer from the ordering of the cards > when > you retrieve then from the board is extraneous and therefore UI to you, > period! > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 10 17:41:13 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:41:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <18EE1164F5604727B8FA2ABCBF5A1F89@Mildred> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <18EE1164F5604727B8FA2ABCBF5A1F89@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:15:49 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > *************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > ............................................... > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? > > >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:10:42 -0400, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> ******************************** >>> Skype directory: grattan.endicott >>> *************************************** >>> " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et >>> le Verbe c'est Dieu." >>> ('Les Contemplations'] >>> ............................................... >>> For words are The Word, and >>> The Word is God. >>> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "David Grabiner" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:04 AM >>> Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? >>> >>> >>>> You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board >>>> arrives from the other table, your hand is sorted. Is >>> this AI to you that the board was probably passed out? >>>> (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if >>> your hand and dummy are consistent with a pass-out, >>> then it becomes much more likely that the board was >>>> passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) >>>> >>>> Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous >>> information. However, in a KO or Swiss, the player >>> who did not sort the hand is a member of the team >>> which is your current opponent. >>>> >>> +=+ A sorted hand is primarily suggestive of a breach >>> of Law 7C. The information does not derive from a >>> legal procedure. Law 16A3 applies. See definition >>> number 4 of 'play' >>> The player who did not sort the hand could be >>> a player in a previous match. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> Many players do not sort their hand after playing the hand. This offers >> some potentially useful information. So the issue is broader than just >> passed-out hands. >> >> We know that L16A1 is inadequate. The law should read that anything the >> opponents do is AI, except if mentioned in the laws. It doesn't say >> that. >> So it calls many things the opps do UI when we know it is AI. So we >> ignore >> the law. Or make ridiculout rulings. Here, we have to decide whether >> card-order should be AI hence we ignore the law or it shouldn't be AI >> (and >> we ignore the law). Once we have decided that, then Richard or someone >> can >> try to read the law to get to the right ruling. >> >> A second big problem with L16A1 is that it refers to all of the legal >> procedures hence requires reading the whole law book to make a ruling. >> On >> the good side, it allows a lot of leeway in interpreting L16A1 once we >> have decided on the right ruling. >> >> I would say that the right ruling is that it is AI. The opps are the >> offending side -- they should be shuffling their hand before putting it >> in >> the board. Players should not even have the temptation of using that >> information. It's not right. Anyway, how are you going to enforce a law >> saying people can't use that information? >> >> So, l7C: "...after which he restores them to the pocket...." The cards >> that you pick up are hence part of the legal procedures of the game. >> > +=+ No player should sort his hand before returning it to the board. To > do so is incorrect prodeure. Correct procedure is to shuffle it. Law 7C. > It is illegal for a player to draw inferences from the condition > in > which the hand is passed to him. Law 16A3 applies. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hi Grattan. One general question is what to do when a law is obviously wrong. When it produced the wrong answer, we ignore it and make the correct ruling. (e.g., an opponent telling you he has a good hand is AI; your partner cannot look at his hand and then tell you what defense he wants to play over a Precision !Cl opening). So then the question is what to do when we have a question that we don't know the answer to. Even though L16 is fundamentally flawed, we still use it to answer questions? To me, this is like having a broken GPS system. I ignore it when I know how to get someplace, but I might as well follow it if I don't know how to get someplace? It would seem to be just random which answer the law produces. The fact is, we have a good map, and the good map says this information is AI. The good map just isn't in the lawbook. Or are you saying the the correct answer is that this information is obviously UI, then we should figure out how to interpret the law to come to the answer that it is UI? I mean, if you decide that the information is AI, I give at least a 80% probability to someone finding an interpretation to support you. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jul 10 17:50:00 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:50:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <4C388A70.5030007@nhcc.net> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> <4C388A70.5030007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <3D45F68B83FC461980BE1840A5474A03@erdos> This wouldn't be an invidious position. If this is UI, it is extraneous information from other sources (L16C), so the player with the UI would have to call the TD, and would receive an artificial adjusted score if the information is relevant, just as if he overheard the next table over saying that the board was passed out. And whoever sorted the hand, creating the UI, could be given a procedural penalty for causing another player to take an adjusted score. Thus, if the other team in a KO or Swiss leaves the cards sorted after a pass-out, and the UI is relevant, the board should be thrown out with a 3-IMP penalty to the offenders. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? > On 7/10/2010 10:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Any information you might try to infer from the ordering of the cards when >> you retrieve then from the board is extraneous and therefore UI to you, >> period! > > Does this mean that in a team match, I can put my counterpart at the > other table in an invidious UI position by sorting my cards before > putting them back in the board? Wow! > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 10 20:59:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:59:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <3D45F68B83FC461980BE1840A5474A03@erdos> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> <4C388A70.5030007@nhcc.net> <3D45F68B83FC461980BE1840A5474A03@erdos> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:50:00 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > This wouldn't be an invidious position. If this is UI, it is extraneous > information from other sources (L16C), so the player with the UI would > have to > call the TD, and would receive an artificial adjusted score if the > information > is relevant, This sounds good, but I am not sure about the details. Suppose the order of my cards suggests that an opening club would not be successful. I notify the director and I get an A+? (In the actual situation, a club lead gave declarer his 9th trick at 3NT. A neutral lead forced declarer to take the heart finesse for his 9th trick. When that worked, declarer made 10 tricks when hearts broke 3-3.) just as if he overheard the next table over saying that the > board > was passed out. > > And whoever sorted the hand, creating the UI, could be given a procedural > penalty for causing another player to take an adjusted score. Thus, if > the > other team in a KO or Swiss leaves the cards sorted after a pass-out, > and the UI > is relevant, the board should be thrown out with a 3-IMP penalty to the > offenders. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? > > >> On 7/10/2010 10:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Any information you might try to infer from the ordering of the cards >>> when >>> you retrieve then from the board is extraneous and therefore UI to you, >>> period! >> >> Does this mean that in a team match, I can put my counterpart at the >> other table in an invidious UI position by sorting my cards before >> putting them back in the board? Wow! >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- somepsychology.com From lali808 at gmail.com Sat Jul 10 21:12:28 2010 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:12:28 -1000 Subject: [BLML] forgetting convention error - what is the ruling? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you! On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:12 AM, David Grabiner < grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > North has unauthorized information, so we need to determine whether he > had a logical alternative to his bids. > > North almost surely has a logical alternative to 3S. He told South which > major he wanted to play (whether he was supposed to do that or to pass 2Cx), > and South could have chosen either to pass or to bid 2S, but South chose to > bid 3C anyway and play there. North has shown his hand, and could respect > partner's decision. > > I don't see that it is likely that E-W would reach 3NT. If North passes > 2Cx, that ends the auction. If North passes 3Cx, then East, who doubled 2C, > will leave the double of 3C in. > > Therefore, since North's 3S bid is an infraction, I adjust to 3Cx, > apparently down four. It doesn't matter whether 2H was an infraction as > well; if North committed two infractions, he gets the worse of the two > possible adjustments. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Lali > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Saturday, July 10, 2010 3:58 AM > *Subject:* [BLML] forgetting convention error - what is the ruling? > > In a team game bidding goes > > > E/W vul > N/S nonvul > > > > W > > N > > E > > S > > 1NT > > 2C (C + Major) > > X > > P > > P > > 2H > > X > > 3C > > X > > 3S > > X > > P > > P P > > > > N/S playing DONT so correct information given to ops > final contract 3SX - 2 for 300 > > > > Director called by ops at end of bidding saying that declarer used his > partner's explanation of DONT to make succeeding bids. For what its worth > N forgot the convention and had a stiff C. Director said to play the hand. > 3SX goes -2 for 300. 2CX goes -3 for 800. Depending on leads and play 3NT > is possible with ops holding 24 hcp and guessing the distribution from > bidding. What should the ruling be and why? > > Lali > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20100710/fa3ce284/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 12 02:11:04 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:11:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C3732C9.90104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Tom Stoppard (1937- ), British dramatist: "Save the gerund and screw the whale." Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >.....Anyway, the best players in the world have been known >to make whale-sized mistakes, which the best TDs in the >world would be unable to distinguish from intended loss of >points..... Richard Hills refutes: It is a common blml fallacy that the best TDs in the world are incompetent and/or some infractions are inherently undetectable. At the 1991 Bermuda Bowl in Yokohama, Japan, the Conditions of Contest were slightly flawed. In the final round-robin qualifying match Poland met one of the USA teams. Both teams were certain to make the knockout rounds, but whichever team happened to lose the match would then gain the privilege of playing the easy-beat Iceland team in their first knockout match. A Polish pair perpetrated a series of blatant dumps, but these dumps were often "unsuccessful" (e.g. when the Polish pair played an obvious game in a partscore, the American pair at the other table bid the good slam, one off). Thus because Poland "lost" the battle to lose the match, they had to play a hard-to-beat team in their first knockout match. In the Grand Final Poland finally met their preferred easy- beat opponents Iceland. Iceland thrashed them. But the 1991 Polish team did gain immortality by inspiring a new WBF regulation. WBF General Conditions of Contest 2009: 32.3 Team Requirements The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. While a team may rest its players and make other decisions for strategic reasons, it is not permissible for a partnership to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that of its opponents, and the Committee shall have the authority to determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether a partnership has done so. Any such finding will constitute grounds for such penalties as may be imposed by the Committee, which shall also be empowered to recommend that the Executive Council disqualify or suspend the offending contestant. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Jul 12 02:50:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:50:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01EE37D8-C657-4F6A-82F5-9648A3DD50E1@starpower.net> Message-ID: Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), on becoming Prime Minister: "I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole." Eric Landau: [big snip] >How often is the director called to the table by a pair >that just got a top board? Richard Hills: The Director is frequently called to the table when the "lucky" pair is irritated by getting a meaningless top, due to an opponent ridiculously infracting the Law 74B1 requirement to pay attention to the game. The reason that people play bridge is for the fun of bidding and playing against sensible opponents. There is no fun doubling a drunken opponent who opened the bidding with 7NT. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 geller at nifty.com Mon Jul 12 04:15:26 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:15:26 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C3A7ABE.8060806@nifty.com> (2010/07/12 9:50), richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The reason that people play bridge is for the fun of > bidding and playing against sensible opponents. There is > no fun doubling a drunken opponent who opened the bidding > with 7NT. Unless your're palying high-stakes rubber bridge. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Jul 12 08:17:43 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:17:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Grated ham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 12.07.2010, 02:50 Uhr, schrieb : > The reason that people play bridge is for the fun of > bidding and playing against sensible opponents. Punish them! The law is quite clear that they have to play to win. Having fun is extraneous. Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 12 10:39:16 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:39:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> Message-ID: <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board arrives from the other table, > your hand is sorted. Is this AI to you that the board was probably passed out? > (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if your hand and dummy are > consistent with a pass-out, then it becomes much more likely that the board was > passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) > > Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous information. However, in a KO or > Swiss, the player who did not sort the hand is a member of the team which is > your current opponent. > AG : if I were a member of the opposite team, I could well choose to sort hands that weren't passed out if I thought it could mislead my counterparts, had they the strange idea of taking this into account. Such a board happened recently. I opened an atypical Dutch 2H on Kx-Jxxxx-AJxx-xx, 2nd hand overcalled 2NT on a 15 count and went down two on a spade lead. I knew that, at the other table, it could well go 2H-all pass, and in this case I thought it would help my teammates if declarer didn't know about honor position. What if we had re-sorted our hands ? Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 12 11:48:54 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:48:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain > Gottcheiner > Sent: 12. juli 2010 10:39 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? > > David Grabiner a ?crit : > > You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board arrives from the > > other table, your hand is sorted. Is this AI to you that the board was probably > passed out? > > (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if your hand and > > dummy are consistent with a pass-out, then it becomes much more likely > > that the board was passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) > > > > Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous information. However, > > in a KO or Swiss, the player who did not sort the hand is a member of > > the team which is your current opponent. > > > AG : if I were a member of the opposite team, I could well choose to sort hands > that weren't passed out if I thought it could mislead my counterparts, had they the > strange idea of taking this into account. > > Such a board happened recently. I opened an atypical Dutch 2H on Kx-Jxxxx-AJxx- > xx, 2nd hand overcalled 2NT on a 15 count and went down two on a spade lead. > I knew that, at the other table, it could well go 2H-all pass, and in this case I > thought it would help my teammates if declarer didn't know about honor position. > What if we had re-sorted our hands ? > > Best regards You would have committed a violation of Law 7C, and Law 23 is definitely applicable. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 12 13:02:54 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:02:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> Message-ID: <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> > Alain > >> Gottcheiner >> Sent: 12. juli 2010 10:39 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? >> >> David Grabiner a ?crit : >> >>> You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board arrives from the >>> other table, your hand is sorted. Is this AI to you that the board was >>> > probably > >> passed out? >> >>> (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if your hand and >>> dummy are consistent with a pass-out, then it becomes much more likely >>> that the board was passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) >>> >>> Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous information. However, >>> in a KO or Swiss, the player who did not sort the hand is a member of >>> the team which is your current opponent. >>> >>> >> AG : if I were a member of the opposite team, I could well choose to sort >> > hands > >> that weren't passed out if I thought it could mislead my counterparts, had >> > they the > >> strange idea of taking this into account. >> >> Such a board happened recently. I opened an atypical Dutch 2H on >> > Kx-Jxxxx-AJxx- > >> xx, 2nd hand overcalled 2NT on a 15 count and went down two on a spade >> > lead. > >> I knew that, at the other table, it could well go 2H-all pass, and in this >> > case I > >> thought it would help my teammates if declarer didn't know about honor >> > position. > >> What if we had re-sorted our hands ? >> >> Best regards >> > > You would have committed a violation of Law 7C, and Law 23 is definitely > applicable. > > AG : thqt's the answer I expected. It means that you're allowed to take into account the fact that the hand is sorted, else I couldn't decieve you and L23 would never apply. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 12 13:26:08 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:26:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case In-Reply-To: <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> Message-ID: <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> Hi all, As a complement to the case of the sorted hand, whiich involves the classification of information into types, I have one more question to ask. A defender, while stirring his coffe, announces the card he'll play. That, according to TFLB, is legal, and makes said card a played card ... provided he does hold it. Now the defender realizes he doesn't hold that card. He plays whatever card he wishes (assume next player didn't play a card yet) but there is UI that he doesn't hold said card. Even a minor change, say a 5 in lieu of a 6, could be important, e.g. for count-giving reasons, when partner knows you don't hold the 6. Assume that you decide that the UI was relevant and ; what's your decision ? - information from mannerism, adjusted score if needed ? (but is naming a card a mannerism ?) - information from extraneous source, automatic artificial score ? (but can an information coming from partner ever be extraneous ?) - other ? Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 12 13:28:00 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:28:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. > >> What if we had re-sorted our hands ? > >> > >> Best regards > >> > > > > You would have committed a violation of Law 7C, and Law 23 is > > definitely applicable. > > > > > AG : thqt's the answer I expected. > > It means that you're allowed to take into account the fact that the hand is sorted, > else I couldn't decieve you and L23 would never apply. I have said it before, and apparently it is time to say it again: Please do not read the laws like Old Eric (aka the devil) reads the Holy Bible. The fact that you commit a violation of law does not automatically make information from such violation authorized to your opponents. Unless explicitly declared in the laws as authorized any information not derived from legal calls and play is unauthorized. The fact (if shown probable) that you committed such violation with an intent to deceive your opponents makes your violation a serious attempt to cheat. Whether or not such attempt turns out fortunate for you is immaterial, the very attempt makes you eligible for being expelled from all serious bridge events. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 12 13:48:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:48:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> Message-ID: <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > ............. > >>>> What if we had re-sorted our hands ? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> >>> You would have committed a violation of Law 7C, and Law 23 is >>> definitely applicable. >>> >>> >>> >> AG : thqt's the answer I expected. >> >> It means that you're allowed to take into account the fact that the hand >> > is sorted, > >> else I couldn't decieve you and L23 would never apply. >> > > I have said it before, and apparently it is time to say it again: > Please do not read the laws like Old Eric (aka the devil) reads the Holy > Bible. > > The fact that you commit a violation of law does not automatically make > information from such violation authorized to your opponents. Unless > explicitly declared in the laws as authorized any information not derived > from legal calls and play is unauthorized. > > So, if A creates information that may not be used by B, and B uses it, and it turns out to be a bad idea, then A is responsible for it ? Hopr I misunderstood it. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 12 13:49:57 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:49:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case In-Reply-To: <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201cb21b8$5a18e0b0$0e4aa210$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > As a complement to the case of the sorted hand, whiich involves the classification > of information into types, I have one more question to ask. > > A defender, while stirring his coffe, announces the card he'll play. > That, according to TFLB, is legal, and makes said card a played card ... > provided he does hold it. > Now the defender realizes he doesn't hold that card. He plays whatever card he > wishes (assume next player didn't play a card yet) but there is UI that he doesn't > hold said card. > Even a minor change, say a 5 in lieu of a 6, could be important, e.g. > for count-giving reasons, when partner knows you don't hold the 6. > > Assume that you decide that the UI was relevant and ; what's your decision ? > > - information from mannerism, adjusted score if needed ? (but is naming a card a > mannerism ?) > - information from extraneous source, automatic artificial score ? (but can an > information coming from partner ever be extraneous ?) > - other ? Why don't you just look up and make certain you understand Laws 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) and 16C: (Extraneous Information from Other Sources) About your question: The card named by the defender is not played just by naming it; instead the card initially becomes a major penalty card. If that defender does not have the card then his remark is extraneous, so again Law 16 is the applicable law. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 12 14:31:46 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:31:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner .................... > So, if A creates information that may not be used by B, and B uses it, and it turns > out to be a bad idea, then A is responsible for it ? Accidentally creating extraneous information is not a violation of law. Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law, and very serious so when it is an attempt to deceive opponents. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 12 15:09:34 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:09:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> Message-ID: <4C3B140E.2050502@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > .................... > >> So, if A creates information that may not be used by B, and B uses it, and >> > it turns > >> out to be a bad idea, then A is responsible for it ? >> > > Accidentally creating extraneous information is not a violation of law. > Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law, and very > serious so when it is an attempt to deceive opponents. > > But this doesn't answer my objection : creating any kind of infomation that they aren't allowed to use can't be wrong, since it can't hurt them (unless they themselves infract, of course). This is a consequence of basic law principles. So, in order to disallow me creating false information of some kind (which of course we would all want to do), you have to declare use of this kind of information legal. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 12 15:17:04 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:17:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case In-Reply-To: <000201cb21b8$5a18e0b0$0e4aa210$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> <000201cb21b8$5a18e0b0$0e4aa210$@no> Message-ID: <4C3B15D0.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > Why don't you just look up and make certain you understand Laws 16B > (Extraneous Information from Partner) and 16C: (Extraneous Information from > Other Sources) > > About your question: The card named by the defender is not played just by > naming it; instead the card initially becomes a major penalty card. If that > defender does not have the card then his remark is extraneous, so again Law > 16 is the applicable law. > AG : please specify the section where it is written that it becomes a penalty card. L50, which is about penalty cards, only mentions "exposed cards" as possible penalty cards The only relevant comment I see is in L45 : "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." L45 is "card played", not "penalty card". From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 12 15:33:44 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:33:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <3D45F68B83FC461980BE1840A5474A03@erdos> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> <4C388A70.5030007@nhcc.net> <3D45F68B83FC461980BE1840A5474A03@erdos> Message-ID: <63031BD8-136D-4C7B-BDAD-C802CDCECDDF@starpower.net> On Jul 10, 2010, at 11:50 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > This wouldn't be an invidious position. If this is UI, it is > extraneous > information from other sources (L16C), so the player with the UI > would have to > call the TD, and would receive an artificial adjusted score if the > information > is relevant, just as if he overheard the next table over saying > that the board > was passed out. > > And whoever sorted the hand, creating the UI, could be given a > procedural > penalty for causing another player to take an adjusted score. > Thus, if the > other team in a KO or Swiss leaves the cards sorted after a pass- > out, and the UI > is relevant, the board should be thrown out with a 3-IMP penalty to > the > offenders. > > From: "Steve Willner" > >> On 7/10/2010 10:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> Any information you might try to infer from the ordering of the >>> cards when >>> you retrieve then from the board is extraneous and therefore UI >>> to you, >>> period! >> >> Does this mean that in a team match, I can put my counterpart at the >> other table in an invidious UI position by sorting my cards before >> putting them back in the board? Wow! Steve's question isn't about leaving only passed-out hands unsorted; it's about "sorting [his] cards before putting them back in the board". How can sorting a hand after the deal has been played "create" UI? What is the I? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 12 16:24:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:24:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <63031BD8-136D-4C7B-BDAD-C802CDCECDDF@starpower.net> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> <4C388A70.5030007@nhcc.net> <3D45F68B83FC461980BE1840A5474A03@erdos> <63031BD8-136D-4C7B-BDAD-C802CDCECDDF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C3B25BA.5000101@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 10, 2010, at 11:50 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > > >> This wouldn't be an invidious position. If this is UI, it is >> extraneous >> information from other sources (L16C), so the player with the UI >> would have to >> call the TD, and would receive an artificial adjusted score if the >> information >> is relevant, just as if he overheard the next table over saying >> that the board >> was passed out. >> >> And whoever sorted the hand, creating the UI, could be given a >> procedural >> penalty for causing another player to take an adjusted score. >> Thus, if the >> other team in a KO or Swiss leaves the cards sorted after a pass- >> out, and the UI >> is relevant, the board should be thrown out with a 3-IMP penalty to >> the >> offenders. >> >> From: "Steve Willner" >> >> >>> On 7/10/2010 10:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Any information you might try to infer from the ordering of the >>>> cards when >>>> you retrieve then from the board is extraneous and therefore UI >>>> to you, >>>> period! >>>> >>> Does this mean that in a team match, I can put my counterpart at the >>> other table in an invidious UI position by sorting my cards before >>> putting them back in the board? Wow! >>> > > Steve's question isn't about leaving only passed-out hands unsorted; > it's about "sorting [his] cards before putting them back in the > board". How can sorting a hand after the deal has been played > "create" UI? What is the I? > BTW, one of my partners always sorts her hand after it has been played. Just to be kind. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 12 16:44:39 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:44:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case In-Reply-To: <4C3B15D0.4030404@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> <000201cb21b8$5a18e0b0$0e4aa210$@no> <4C3B15D0.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001cb21d0$c20d0b20$46272160$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > > AG : please specify the section where it is written that it becomes a penalty card. > L50, which is about penalty cards, only mentions "exposed cards" as possible > penalty cards > > The only relevant comment I see is in L45 : "A card must be played if a player > names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." > L45 is "card played", not "penalty card". If you had made a decent attempt to learn these laws you would easily have found Law 49. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 12 16:54:23 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:54:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <4C3B140E.2050502@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <4C3B140E.2050502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101cb21d2$1ef51ca0$5cdf55e0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > Accidentally creating extraneous information is not a violation of law. > > Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law, > > and very serious so when it is an attempt to deceive opponents. > > > > > But this doesn't answer my objection : creating any kind of infomation that they > aren't allowed to use can't be wrong, since it can't hurt them (unless they > themselves infract, of course). This is a consequence of basic law principles. Please excuse the strong words I am about to use now, but this is plain silly bullshit. And you ought to be aware of that. > So, in order to disallow me creating false information of some kind (which of > course we would all want to do), you have to declare use of this kind of information > legal. More bullshit: Just to state an example: You don't have to make using information inferred from hearing F... words legal in order to make uttering F... words illegal in a sacred environment. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jul 12 17:02:18 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:02:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case In-Reply-To: <000001cb21d0$c20d0b20$46272160$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> <000201cb21b8$5a18e0b0$0e4aa210$@no> <4C3B15D0.4030404@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21d0$c20d0b20$46272160$@no> Message-ID: On 12 Jul 2010, at 15:44, Sven Pran wrote > > If you had made a decent attempt to learn these laws you would > easily have > found Law 49. Why the rudeness Sven? From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 12 17:12:28 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:12:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case In-Reply-To: References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> <000201cb21b8$5a18e0b0$0e4aa210$@no> <4C3B15D0.4030404@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21d0$c20d0b20$46272160$@no> Message-ID: <000201cb21d4$a4c2e310$ee48a930$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Gordon Rainsford > Sent: 12. juli 2010 17:02 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case > > > On 12 Jul 2010, at 15:44, Sven Pran wrote > > > > If you had made a decent attempt to learn these laws you would easily > > have found Law 49. > > Why the rudeness Sven? > I'm exhausted from his arguing. I should have known better than trying to explain how he reasons wrong. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 12 17:25:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:25:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:31:46 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law, Is this a law? Are you just making this up? I guess I am getting tired of people following laws and principles when they lead where they want to go and then forgetting them or ignoring them when they lead to wrong answers. I believe players are allowed to think before bidding or playing. According to my version of L16A1, which corresponds to how people rule and play, this thinking is extraneous information (UI) to partner and AI to the opponents. Everyone agrees that due hesitation is legal and hence that it is legal to create this extraneous information for partner. RIght? So your principle is contrary to what everyone believes. I think that according to the real L16A1, the hesitation is AI. Then L16B1 gives the hesitation as an example of UI. If it is UI, then the opps can't use it. If there is anyone out there who doesn't ignore L16 when it gives the wrong answer. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 12 17:35:04 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:35:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> Message-ID: <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > > Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law, > > > Is this a law? 73A2 and 73D From tedying at yahoo.com Mon Jul 12 17:52:54 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> Message-ID: <836582.76222.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I've seen the various arguments going around on this thread and it seems to me to be devolving into legalese rules lawyering. As David said initially, there are other causes of sorted hands. In fact, I have found that in a team game, a sorted hand is just as likely to be because someone at the table (usually one of the three players who did not hold the hand during the play) wants to look at the board in the post mortem and asks the person who held the hand, that person says "Sure" and they look at the hand, sort it, figure out what would have, could have, might have happened and then pocket the hand again. I find that this happens more in a team game where there are no hand records. If you make an inference that there was a passout, you do so at your own risk because law 16A3 specifically says that you should not use this information. To me, trying to make the assumption that the hand was passed out is foolish. -Ted. ________________________________ From: David Grabiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 9:04:40 PM Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board arrives from the other table, your hand is sorted. Is this AI to you that the board was probably passed out? (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if your hand and dummy are consistent with a pass-out, then it becomes much more likely that the board was passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous information. However, in a KO or Swiss, the player who did not sort the hand is a member of the team which is your current opponent. _______________________________________________ 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/20100712/aacb812e/attachment-0001.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jul 12 17:58:31 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:58:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> Message-ID: <000601cb21db$138ec830$3aac5890$@btopenworld.com> >Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law > Is this a law? [SP] 73A2 and 73D [DALB] Have not been following this too closely, but if the notion is that Laws 73A2 and 73D make it illegal to do something deliberately which incidentally creates UI (such as thinking before making a call or play), that is nonsense. Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something deliberately with the intent of creating UI. All that is illegal is to use UI, for only the act of doing so indicates that illegal communication between partners has occurred. David Burn London, England From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Jul 12 18:18:32 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:18:32 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Dummy free bridge References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be><000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: I had a table that played a board without dummy facing her hand today. As I understand it no one noticed until the end of the hand. I was called in case there was a problem. I quickly decided that there were probably lots then ruled table result stands. They seemed happy enough. bill From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 12 18:31:53 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:31:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <836582.76222.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <836582.76222.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:52:54 -0400, Ted Ying wrote: > I've seen the various arguments going around on this thread and it seems > to me > to be > devolving into legalese rules lawyering. As David said initially, there > are > other causes > of sorted hands. In fact, I have found that in a team game, a sorted > hand is > just as > likely to be because someone at the table (usually one of the three > players who > did not > hold the hand during the play) wants to look at the board in the post > mortem and > asks > > the person who held the hand, that person says "Sure" and they look at > the hand, > sort it, > > figure out what would have, could have, might have happened and then > pocket the > hand > again. I find that this happens more in a team game where there are no > hand > records. > > If you make an inference that there was a passout, you do so at your own > risk > because > law 16A3 specifically says that you should not use this information. To > me, > trying to > make the assumption that the hand was passed out is foolish. > > -Ted. > > > > ________________________________ > From: David Grabiner > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 9:04:40 PM > Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? > > You are playing a KO or Swiss, and when the board arrives from the other > table, > your hand is sorted. Is this AI to you that the board was probably > passed out? > (Yes, there are other causes of sorted hands, but if your hand and dummy > are > consistent with a pass-out, then it becomes much more likely that the > board was > passed out rather than sorted in a post-mortem.) > > Normally, the sorted hand would be extraneous information. However, in > a KO or > Swiss, the player who did not sort the hand is a member of the team > which is > your current opponent. yes, but the ruling here is probably going to apply to an unshuffled hand, which will make suggestions about the order of play. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 12 18:38:20 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:38:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:35:04 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > >> >> > Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law, >> >> >> Is this a law? > > 73A2 and 73D I think that if I have a difficult play to make, in the bidding or play, that it is legal for me to think about it. That's deliberately creating extraneous information, right? 73A2 says that calls and plays should be made without *undue* hesitation or haste. That's why I said that due hesitations apparently were legal. 73D is even more strongly against your principle. "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo." Not required. Reading on"...players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." Careful is the key word. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 12 22:13:35 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:13:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <836582.76222.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <836582.76222.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Ted Ying wrote: > I've seen the various arguments going around on this thread and it > seems to me to be > devolving into legalese rules lawyering. As David said initially, > there are other causes > of sorted hands. In fact, I have found that in a team game, a > sorted hand is just as > likely to be because someone at the table (usually one of the three > players who did not > hold the hand during the play) wants to look at the board in the > post mortem and asks > the person who held the hand, that person says "Sure" and they look > at the hand, sort it, > figure out what would have, could have, might have happened and > then pocket the hand > again. I find that this happens more in a team game where there > are no hand records. > > If you make an inference that there was a passout, you do so at > your own risk because > law 16A3 specifically says that you should not use this > information. To me, trying to > make the assumption that the hand was passed out is foolish. Where I (and Ted) play, players reflexively shuffle their hands before putting them back into the board after a passout without even thinking about it. They do this consitently enough that receiving a sorted hand is a pretty sure indication that it was *not* passed out at the previous table. If there is any inference to be drawn from picking up a sorted hand, it is that someone at the previous table found the deal interesting enough to look at it again after it was played out, but it's hard to imagine such a broad inference being useful enough to raise concerns over what is probably technically UI. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 13 00:37:19 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:37:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000601cb21db$138ec830$3aac5890$@btopenworld.com> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> <000601cb21db$138ec830$3aac5890$@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <142179.84761.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [David Burn] Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something deliberately with the intent of creating UI. All that is illegal is to use UI, for only the act of doing so indicates that illegal communication between partners has occurred. [Nigel] Grattan, surely David is wrong, in the general case? For example, that would probably exonerate Reese and Schapiro. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 13 00:47:32 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:47:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <4C3B25BA.5000101@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> <4C388A70.5030007@nhcc.net> <3D45F68B83FC461980BE1840A5474A03@erdos> <63031BD8-136D-4C7B-BDAD-C802CDCECDDF@starpower.net> <4C3B25BA.5000101@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5520.72390.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] BTW, one of my partners always sorts her hand after it has been played. Just to be kind. [nigel] IMO the rules should stipulate that you sort your hand before returning it to the board. It helps players with manual dexterity problems and is much easier to enforce. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 13 02:19:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:19:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <836582.76222.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert, Iolanthe (1882): The Law is the true embodiment Of everything that's excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw, And I, my Lords, embody the Law. Ted Ying: >I've seen the various arguments going around on this thread >and it seems to me to be devolving into legalese rules >lawyering. Richard Hills: Is not the prime purpose of blml legalese rules lawyering? :-) Ted Ying: >As David said initially, there are other causes of sorted >hands. In fact, I have found that in a team game, a sorted >hand is just as likely to be because someone at the table >(usually one of the three players who did not hold the hand >during the play) wants to look at the board in the post >mortem and asks the person who held the hand, that person >says "Sure" and they look at the hand, sort it, figure out >what would have, could have, might have happened and then >pocket the hand again. Richard Hills: >From a legalistic rules lawyering perspective, such a post mortemer has infracted Law 7C by not reshuffling the cards before repocketing the hand. Ted Ying: >I find that this happens more in a team game where there >are no hand records. Richard Hills: In Australia hand records are universal for team games, so in Australia a sorted hand provides an overwhelmingly probable inference that the board was passed out at the previous table. Ted Ying: >If you make an inference that there was a passout, you do >so at your own risk ..... Richard Hills: Worse than that, you do so unLawfully. You must call the Director immediately you pick up a sorted hand. Law 16C1 - Extraneous Information from Other Sources "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, **as by** looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information." Richard Hills: In the 2007 Lawbook the phrase "as by" is synonymous to the phrase "for example". So Law 16C1 applies to 13 sorted cards, despite 13 sorted cards being missing from Law 16C1's list of indicative examples. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Jul 13 03:33:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:33:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 73D (was Is a sorted...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 73A2, first sentence: "Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste." Richard Hills: In my opinion, a key word in Law 73A2 is "undue". David Burn: >Have not been following this too closely, but if the >notion is that Laws 73A2 and 73D make it illegal to do >something deliberately which incidentally creates UI >(such as thinking before making a call or play), that >is nonsense. Law 73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." Robert Frick: [snip] >>Careful is the key word. Richard Hills: In my opinion, there is no such animal as _the_ key word in any Law of Duplicate Bridge. And, in my opinion, _a_ much more important key word in Law 73D1 is the word "unintentionally". David Burn: >Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something >deliberately with the intent of creating UI. Richard Hills: In my opinion, loose language. It is Lawful for a defender to have the intent of deliberately breaking up declarer's potential double squeeze, thus causing the defender to _unintentionally_ generate UI as she ponders which card is guaranteed to disrupt the squeeze mechanism. It infracts Law 73D2 to deliberately hesitate before playing a singleton with the intent of creating UI. David Burn: >All that is illegal is to use UI, for only the act >of doing so indicates that illegal communication >between partners has occurred. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 4th September 2009: "A request had been received from the ACBL for the committee to consider whether following a tempo breach and a call having a logical alternative, it would be possible to regard the hesitation as part of the infraction. Mr. Wildavsky reported that the ACBL has now gone away from this thought and the question may be laid to rest. The committee noted as a future possibility deletion of 'in itself' from Law 73D1." Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 13 08:49:23 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:49:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Dummy free bridge In-Reply-To: References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be><000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C3C0C73.40206@t-online.de> Bill & Helen Kemp schrieb: > I had a table that played a board without dummy facing her hand today. As I > understand it no one noticed until the end of the hand. I was called in case > there was a problem. I quickly decided that there were probably lots then > ruled table result stands. They seemed happy enough. > > bill > Looks like four dummies to me... :-) Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 09:04:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:04:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case In-Reply-To: <000001cb21d0$c20d0b20$46272160$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> <000201cb21b8$5a18e0b0$0e4aa210$@no> <4C3B15D0.4030404@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21d0$c20d0b20$46272160$@no> Message-ID: <4C3C0FE6.6060800@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > >> AG : please specify the section where it is written that it becomes a >> > penalty card. > >> L50, which is about penalty cards, only mentions "exposed cards" as >> > possible > >> penalty cards >> >> The only relevant comment I see is in L45 : "A card must be played if a >> > player > >> names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." >> L45 is "card played", not "penalty card". >> > > If you had made a decent attempt to learn these laws you would easily have > found Law 49. > > > I'm frightfully sorry, Sir, but this law, as it's written, applies to the case when a player mentions a card as being in one's hand (perhaps recriminating against partner), not to the case when one mentions one's intention to play this card, which is covered by L45. In the endless arguing between those who like to use the rules exactly as they are written, and those who want to interpret them and extend them to non-covered cases, I'm definitely in favor of the former. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 09:13:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:13:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <000101cb21d2$1ef51ca0$5cdf55e0$@no> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <4C3B140E.2050502@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21d2$1ef51ca0$5cdf55e0$@no> Message-ID: <4C3C1201.5000504@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >>> Accidentally creating extraneous information is not a violation of law. >>> Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law, >>> and very serious so when it is an attempt to deceive opponents. >>> >>> >>> >> But this doesn't answer my objection : creating any kind of infomation >> > that they > >> aren't allowed to use can't be wrong, since it can't hurt them (unless >> > they > >> themselves infract, of course). This is a consequence of basic law >> > principles. > > Please excuse the strong words I am about to use now, but this is plain > silly bullshit. > And you ought to be aware of that. > Well, in my culture, the first guy to be coarse loses the argument. Aside from that, far-fectched comparisons like the one below are worth what they are worth, that is, zilch squared. But if you really want to, I offer another, which is certainly less faraway : if you give your priority to another driver, and it happens that by taking it, he collides with a third person, you aren't responsible for that. Just to state an example: You don't have to make using information inferred from hearing F... words legal in order to make uttering F... words illegal in a sacred environment. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 09:17:38 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:17:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> Message-ID: <4C3C1312.1040105@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:31:46 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >> Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law, >> > > > Is this a law? Are you just making this up? > > I guess I am getting tired of people following laws and principles when > they lead where they want to go and then forgetting them or ignoring them > when they lead to wrong answers. > > I believe players are allowed to think before bidding or playing. > According to my version of L16A1, which corresponds to how people rule and > play, this thinking is extraneous information (UI) to partner and AI to > the opponents. Everyone agrees that due hesitation is legal and hence that > it is legal to create this extraneous information for partner. RIght? So > your principle is contrary to what everyone believes. > > AG : right. Is there anybody to think that it is illegal ? (well, it seems like there is, alas) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 09:22:30 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:22:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> Message-ID: <4C3C1436.802@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:35:04 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Deliberately creating extraneous information is a violation of law, >>>> >>> Is this a law? >>> >> 73A2 and 73D >> > > I think that if I have a difficult play to make, in the bidding or play, > that it is legal for me to think about it. That's deliberately creating > extraneous information, right? > AG : more precisely, that's deliberately doing something which creates extraneous information as a side effect. This surely isn't disallowed. To create extraneous information as such can be considered something else. Notice that L73 only covers extraneous information given to partner, whence it doesn't cover the present case. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 09:25:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:25:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <836582.76222.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C3C14D3.2090509@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Ted Ying wrote: > > >> I've seen the various arguments going around on this thread and it >> seems to me to be >> devolving into legalese rules lawyering. As David said initially, >> there are other causes >> of sorted hands. In fact, I have found that in a team game, a >> sorted hand is just as >> likely to be because someone at the table (usually one of the three >> players who did not >> hold the hand during the play) wants to look at the board in the >> post mortem and asks >> the person who held the hand, that person says "Sure" and they look >> at the hand, sort it, >> figure out what would have, could have, might have happened and >> then pocket the hand >> again. I find that this happens more in a team game where there >> are no hand records. >> >> If you make an inference that there was a passout, you do so at >> your own risk because >> law 16A3 specifically says that you should not use this >> information. To me, trying to >> make the assumption that the hand was passed out is foolish. >> > > Where I (and Ted) play, players reflexively shuffle their hands > before putting them back into the board after a passout without even > thinking about it. They do this consitently enough that receiving a > sorted hand is a pretty sure indication that it was *not* passed out > at the previous table. If there is any inference to be drawn from > picking up a sorted hand, it is that someone at the previous table > found the deal interesting enough to look at it again after it was > played out, but it's hard to imagine such a broad inference being > useful enough to raise concerns over what is probably technically UI. > AG : very interestng. So, some consider the inference to be that the hand was passed out, some that it wasn't. That's quite feeble inference, isn't it ? My personal inference would be that the guy argued with his partner and needed to show him the shape of his hand : "look : I DID hold 5 plums !" From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 09:26:55 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:26:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <142179.84761.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> <000601cb21db$138ec830$3aac5890$@btopenworld.com> <142179.84761.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C3C153F.7050503@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [David Burn] > Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something deliberately with the intent > of creating UI. All that is illegal is to use UI, for only the act of doing so > indicates that illegal communication between partners has occurred. > > [Nigel] > Grattan, surely David is wrong, in the general case? For example, that would > probably exonerate Reese and Schapiro. > AG : this is covered by another law, 73B2 rather than B1, so I don't think that's a major problem. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 09:30:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:30:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Dummy free bridge In-Reply-To: <4C3C0C73.40206@t-online.de> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be><000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <4C3C0C73.40206@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C3C15FE.9070104@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Bill & Helen Kemp schrieb: > >> I had a table that played a board without dummy facing her hand today. As I >> understand it no one noticed until the end of the hand. I was called in case >> there was a problem. I quickly decided that there were probably lots then >> ruled table result stands. They seemed happy enough. >> >> bill >> >> > > Looks like four dummies to me... :-) > > > AG : I understand your desire not to interfere with the course of the game, but IMNSHO the hand should have been voided. It wasn't played according to the rules of bridge. If they had played with the "house rule" that the 6 is the highest card in every suit, what would you have done ? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jul 13 09:34:13 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:34:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case In-Reply-To: <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 12 July 2010 13:26, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hi all, > > As a complement to the case of the sorted hand, whiich involves the > classification of information into types, I have one more question to ask. > > A defender, while stirring his coffe, announces the card he'll play. > That, according to TFLB, is legal, and makes said card a played card ... > provided he does hold it. Correct, as of L45C4a. > Now the defender realizes he doesn't hold that card. He plays whatever > card he wishes (assume next player didn't play a card yet) but there is > UI that he doesn't hold said card. > Even a minor change, say a 5 in lieu of a 6, could be important, e.g. > for count-giving reasons, when partner knows you don't hold the 6. > > Assume that you decide that the UI was relevant and ; what's your decision ? If I decide that the UI was relevant, and that his partner amont logical alternatives has chosen one suggested by the UI, I'd adjust the score. > > - information from mannerism, adjusted score if needed ? ?(but is naming > a card a mannerism ?) > - information from extraneous source, automatic artificial score ? (but > can an information coming from partner ever be extraneous ?) > - other ? > > > Best regards > > ?Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From posundelin at yahoo.se Tue Jul 13 10:08:46 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:08:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] World Bridge Series 2010. Attention In-Reply-To: <003801ca4992$7a6b84c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <389188.12816.qm@web23708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> ? Grattan Endicott References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be><000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <4C3C0C73.40206@t-online.de> <4C3C15FE.9070104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C3C25DA.4070808@peacenik.net> > AG : I understand your desire not to interfere with the course of the > game, but IMNSHO the hand should have been voided. It wasn't played > according to the rules of bridge. > If they had played with the "house rule" that the 6 is the highest card > in every suit, what would you have done ? That ought to be easy: Go back through the hand, trick by trick, and consider every trick on which a 6 was played to be won according to the real rules; if the person who played the 6 led to the next trick, it is a lead out of turn, accepted. That's what you do when a hand is played in the "wrong" trump suit, right? Brian Baresch Austin, Texas From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 13 11:02:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:02:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> <000601cb21db$138ec830$3aac5890$@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <9E849A49D0C146C598059C627F40FB59@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something deliberately with the intent of creating UI. All that is illegal is to use UI, for only the act of doing so indicates that illegal communication between partners has occurred. > +=+ I think this statement could encourage contravention of Law 73. See 73A1 and 73B1. Information may be communicated even if it is not used. Intentional communication is a violation of law and in this connection the word 'cheating' is near the surface. I agree that it may be very difficult to identify intent, but intentional communication and use of UI are separately offences each in its own right. Nigel mentioned Reese and Shapiro but there is also a fairly recent case in an EBL tournament. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 11:49:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:49:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <9E849A49D0C146C598059C627F40FB59@Mildred> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> <000601cb21db$138ec830$3aac5890$@btopenworld.com> <9E849A49D0C146C598059C627F40FB59@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C3C36B0.8010200@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > *************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > ............................................... > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:58 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? > > > Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something deliberately > with the intent of creating UI. All that is illegal is to use UI, > for only the act of doing so indicates that illegal > communication between partners has occurred. > > +=+ I think this statement could encourage contravention > of Law 73. See 73A1 and 73B1. > Information may be communicated even if it is not > used. Intentional communication is a violation of law and > in this connection the word 'cheating' is near the surface. > I agree that it may be very difficult to identify intent, but > intentional communication and use of UI are separately > offences each in its own right. > Nigel mentioned Reese and Shapiro but there is also > a fairly recent case in an EBL tournament. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > AG : I think we don't need to be mind-readers. We should just remember the following guidelines : a) creating UI as the by-product of normal procedure can't be deemed illegal (e.g. through questions asked, taking some time, ...) b) using it can lead to adjustments ; I'd like some other word than "illegal", perhaps "unappropriate", but that's another story. c) creating UI as the by-product or main effect or abnormal procedure (like oriented questions or a loud double) won't be penalized as such (unless it repeats and becomes a L74 offence) but of course b) applies d) deliberately creating UI that partner didn't use, without any bridge reason for it, is an attempt at cheating, and should be penalized as such, but I don't think it's common. The problem is that 73B1 and 73C mix a), c) and d) cases I think thae above statement, legalizing d), is wrong, but very possibly the intent was to leagalize c) Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 13 11:59:41 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:59:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos><4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no><4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <24AC7A74DA03437280FACB9459EC00D9@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case >> >> Alain wrote: >> - information from mannerism, adjusted score >> if needed ? ? (but is naming a card a mannerism ?) > +=+ Naming a card he proposes to play when that card is not in his hand is an action not authorized by law. He cannot propose to play a card he does not have. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 13 12:10:12 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:10:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <4C3C153F.7050503@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> <000601cb21db$138ec830$3aac5890$@btopenworld.com> <142179.84761.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C3C153F.7050503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <165505.27029.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [David Burn] Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something deliberately with the intent of creating UI. All that is illegal is to use UI, for only the act of doing so indicates that illegal communication between partners has occurred. [Nigel] Grattan, surely David is wrong, in the general case? For example, that would probably exonerate Reese and Schapiro. [Alain] this is covered by another law, 73B2 rather than B1, so I don't think that's a major problem. [Nigel] I understand David to mean that if you never use the unauthorised information that partner transmits, then no "communication" has occurred, hence no infraction. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 12:38:53 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:38:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case In-Reply-To: <24AC7A74DA03437280FACB9459EC00D9@Mildred> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos><4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no><4C3AFBD0.2040100@ulb.ac.be> <24AC7A74DA03437280FACB9459EC00D9@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C3C423D.8040301@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > *************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > ............................................... > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:34 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] sorted hand - A similar case > > > >>> Alain wrote: >>> - information from mannerism, adjusted score >>> if needed ? ? (but is naming a card a mannerism ?) >>> > +=+ Naming a card he proposes to play when that card > is not in his hand is an action not authorized by law. He > cannot propose to play a card he does not have. > AG : Right, but (see previous post) I would classify it as (c) rather than (d) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 13 12:41:15 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:41:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <165505.27029.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> <000601cb21db$138ec830$3aac5890$@btopenworld.com> <142179.84761.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C3C153F.7050503@ulb.ac.be> <165505.27029.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C3C42CB.2000508@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [David Burn] > > Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something deliberately with the intent > of creating UI. All that is illegal is to use UI, for only the act of doing so > indicates that illegal communication between partners has occurred. > > [Nigel] > Grattan, surely David is wrong, in the general case? For example, that would > probably exonerate Reese and Schapiro. > > [Alain] > this is covered by another law, 73B2 rather than B1, so I don't think that's a > major problem. > > [Nigel] > I understand David to mean that if you never use the unauthorised information > that partner transmits, then no "communication" has occurred, hence no > infraction. > AG : in this case I can't agree with him. An attempt at cheating should be punishable. Like Romanet's famous "did you hear, partner ? 1NT is weak", which in that case resulted in punishment by an expert (Romanet himself, probably) who placed the cards accordingly. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 13 13:48:19 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <9E849A49D0C146C598059C627F40FB59@Mildred> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <4C3AD4B4.2090602@ulb.ac.be> <000001cb21a7$72471ff0$56d55fd0$@no> <4C3AF65E.6020304@ulb.ac.be> <000101cb21b5$49d93540$dd8b9fc0$@no> <4C3B012A.1030502@ulb.ac.be> <000601cb21be$319a4dd0$94cee970$@no> <000301cb21d7$cce201c0$66a60540$@no> <000601cb21db$138ec830$3aac5890$@btopenworld.com> <9E849A49D0C146C598059C627F40FB59@Mildred> Message-ID: <686344.56185.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [David Burn] Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something deliberately with the intent of creating UI. All that is illegal is to use UI, for only the act of doing so indicates that illegal communication between partners has occurred. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I think this statement could encourage contravention of Law 73. See 73A1 and 73B1.Information may be communicated even if it is not used. Intentional communication is a violation of law and in this connection the word 'cheating' is near the surface. I agree that it may be very difficult to identify intent, but intentional communication and use of UI are separately offences each in its own right. Nigel mentioned Reese and Shapiro but there is also a fairly recent case in an EBL tournament. [Nigel] Thanks Grattan (and Alain). Please supply a reference to the relevant EBL case. From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Tue Jul 13 14:25:50 2010 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:25:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <4C3C14D3.2090509@ulb.ac.be> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <836582.76222.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4C3C14D3.2090509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Ted Ying wrote: >> >> >>> I've seen the various arguments going around on this thread and it >>> seems to me to be >>> devolving into legalese rules lawyering. ?As David said initially, >>> there are other causes >>> of sorted hands. ?In fact, I have found that in a team game, a >>> sorted hand is just as >>> likely to be because someone at the table (usually one of the three >>> players who did not >>> hold the hand during the play) wants to look at the board in the >>> post mortem and asks >>> the person who held the hand, that person says "Sure" and they look >>> at the hand, sort it, >>> figure out what would have, could have, might have happened and >>> then pocket the hand >>> again. ?I find that this happens more in a team game where there >>> are no hand records. >>> >>> If you make an inference that there was a passout, you do so at >>> your own risk because >>> law 16A3 specifically says that you should not use this >>> information. ?To me, trying to >>> make the assumption that the hand was passed out is foolish. >>> >> >> Where I (and Ted) play, players reflexively shuffle their hands >> before putting them back into the board after a passout without even >> thinking about it. ?They do this consitently enough that receiving a >> sorted hand is a pretty sure indication that it was *not* passed out >> at the previous table. ?If there is any inference to be drawn from >> picking up a sorted hand, it is that someone at the previous table >> found the deal interesting enough to look at it again after it was >> played out, but it's hard to imagine such a broad inference being >> useful enough to raise concerns over what is probably technically UI. >> > AG : very interestng. So, some consider the inference to be that the > hand was passed out, some that it wasn't. That's quite feeble inference, > isn't it ? > My personal inference would be that the guy argued with his partner and > needed to show him the shape of his hand : "look : I DID hold 5 plums !" > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > In my experience there are 2 ways to interpret the receipt of a sorted hand. If it is unbalanced, it is far more likely to be what Alan has suggested an artifact of a postmortem (probably a defender). But when I'm 4th seat and I pick up a sorted, balanced 11 count, I infer that it was passed out. I wonder if sometimes folks shuffle them automatically but then sort them to see what partial they had available. After all, they now have a little more free time. Collins From tedying at yahoo.com Tue Jul 13 16:08:30 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <836582.76222.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4C3C14D3.2090509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <505521.77851.qm@web53301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> And around this area, there are a fair number of weak NT's of 10-12, 11-13, 11-14. Additionally, we have a lot of people who open 11 counts. I can just as easily see holding a balanced 11 count that was sorted and thinking that someone opened the hand and at the end of the hand, their partner wanting to know "what in the world did you open on?" and wanting to look at this hand. :-) Of course that does lead to the inference that maybe passing would be a better option than bidding, doesn't it? -Ted. ________________________________ From: Collins Williams To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 8:25:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Ted Ying wrote: >> >> >>> I've seen the various arguments going around on this thread and it >>> seems to me to be >>> devolving into legalese rules lawyering. As David said initially, >>> there are other causes >>> of sorted hands. In fact, I have found that in a team game, a >>> sorted hand is just as >>> likely to be because someone at the table (usually one of the three >>> players who did not >>> hold the hand during the play) wants to look at the board in the >>> post mortem and asks >>> the person who held the hand, that person says "Sure" and they look >>> at the hand, sort it, >>> figure out what would have, could have, might have happened and >>> then pocket the hand >>> again. I find that this happens more in a team game where there >>> are no hand records. >>> >>> If you make an inference that there was a passout, you do so at >>> your own risk because >>> law 16A3 specifically says that you should not use this >>> information. To me, trying to >>> make the assumption that the hand was passed out is foolish. >>> >> >> Where I (and Ted) play, players reflexively shuffle their hands >> before putting them back into the board after a passout without even >> thinking about it. They do this consitently enough that receiving a >> sorted hand is a pretty sure indication that it was *not* passed out >> at the previous table. If there is any inference to be drawn from >> picking up a sorted hand, it is that someone at the previous table >> found the deal interesting enough to look at it again after it was >> played out, but it's hard to imagine such a broad inference being >> useful enough to raise concerns over what is probably technically UI. >> > AG : very interestng. So, some consider the inference to be that the > hand was passed out, some that it wasn't. That's quite feeble inference, > isn't it ? > My personal inference would be that the guy argued with his partner and > needed to show him the shape of his hand : "look : I DID hold 5 plums !" > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > In my experience there are 2 ways to interpret the receipt of a sorted hand. If it is unbalanced, it is far more likely to be what Alan has suggested an artifact of a postmortem (probably a defender). But when I'm 4th seat and I pick up a sorted, balanced 11 count, I infer that it was passed out. I wonder if sometimes folks shuffle them automatically but then sort them to see what partial they had available. After all, they now have a little more free time. Collins _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 14 01:47:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:47:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Dummy free bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C3C15FE.9070104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >AG : I understand your desire not to interfere with the >course of the game, but IMNSHO the hand should have been >voided. It wasn't played according to the rules of bridge. [snip] IMNSHO = In my not-so-humble opinion TLA = Three letter acronym WTP? = Three letter acronym Law 10B: "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions." Richard Hills: The defenders waived rectification for dummy continuing to be concealed (after the opening lead was faced) throughout tricks one to thirteen. The Director, Bill Kemp, then applied rule of bridge 10B and allowed those waivers. WTP? Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jul 14 02:16:56 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:16:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is a sorted hand AI in a team match? In-Reply-To: <5520.72390.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <6FE1C8201572417EA95801989906825B@erdos> <000601cb2039$369302e0$a3b908a0$@no> <4C388A70.5030007@nhcc.net> <3D45F68B83FC461980BE1840A5474A03@erdos> <63031BD8-136D-4C7B-BDAD-C802CDCECDDF@starpower.net> <4C3B25BA.5000101@ulb.ac.be> <5520.72390.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C3D01F8.3010506@nhcc.net> On 7/12/2010 6:47 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > IMO the rules should stipulate that you sort your hand before returning it to > the board. That's fine if the boards are made up by dealing machines or duplication from computer-generated dealing. However, if cards are manually shuffled and dealt, this procedure will create deals that have non-random suit distributions (more balanced than random dealing). On 7/13/2010 5:49 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > a) creating UI as the by-product of normal procedure can't be deemed > illegal (e.g. through questions asked, taking some time, ...) The list is a good way to examine the different situations. I think we'd all agree on a), at least if there's a requirement that the minimum feasible amount of UI be created. > b) using it can lead to adjustments ; I'd like some other word than > "illegal", perhaps "unappropriate", but that's another story. Nothing wrong with "illegal" as long as we understand that a normal misjudgment of logical alternatives or "suggested over another" is not a moral failing. A blatant misjudgment is a conduct matter. > c) creating UI as the by-product or main effect or abnormal procedure > (like oriented questions or a loud double) won't be penalized as such > (unless it repeats and becomes a L74 offence) but of course b) applies I don't think c) came out quite right, but I'd expect _unnecessary_ creation of UI to be an offence and an adjustment under L12A1 entirely possible. The "informatory question" is a prime example. Usually there will be no damage if partner avoids "using" the UI, but we can probably think of cases where damage occurs. If so, it should be redressed. > d) deliberately creating UI that partner didn't use, without any bridge > reason for it, is an attempt at cheating, and should be penalized as > such, but I don't think it's common. I'm not sure how d) differs from c). If the case is sufficiently blatant or outrageous, there's a conduct element in addition to possible score adjustment, but I don't see how the score adjustment part itself would change. Maybe I'm just not clear on the distinction Alain is making. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 14 03:38:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:38:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 73D (was Is a sorted...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something >deliberately with the intent of creating UI. All that is >illegal is to use UI, for only the act of doing so >indicates that illegal communication between partners has >occurred. Grattan Endicott: +=+ I think this statement could encourage contravention of Law 73. See 73A1 and 73B1. Information may be communicated even if it is not used. Intentional communication is a violation of law and in this connection the word 'cheating' is near the surface. I agree that it may be very difficult to identify intent, but intentional communication and use of UI are separately offences each in its own right. Nigel mentioned Reese and Shapiro but there is also a fairly recent case in an EBL tournament. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ * * * Press Release: European Open Bridge Championships, Tenerife, 27th June 2005 Following a lengthy hearing of the Championships' Appeals Committee, yesterday evening, the pair of M. Lanzarotti and A. Buratti, was disqualified from the teams event. The Appeals Committee has published its reasons - see text below. Disciplinary Hearing No. 2 Italy v Israel Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jens Auken (Denmark), Grattan Endicott (England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Teams Swiss "A" Round Board 23. Dealer South. All vulnerable. \ A3 \ JT \ J8543 \ KJ62 87 \ Q6542 A765 \ 9843 7 \ QT6 Q97543 \ 8 KJT9 \ KQ2 \ AK92 \ AT \ WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Roll Lanzarotti Bareket Buratti --- --- --- 2D Pass 2H Pass 2NT Pass 3S Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass 5C Pass 6D Pass Pass Pass Contract: Six Diamonds, played by South Lead: HA Play: C9, taken by the King, DJ-6-2-7, claim Result: 12 tricks, NS +1370 The Facts: At the end of the play, East called the Director to explain what he had seen. The Director: Told the facts to the Chief Tournament Director, who decided to call upon the Appeal Committee to hold a Disciplinary Hearing. Present: All players, the Captain of East/West, and the Coach of North/South The Players: The Chief Tournament Director explained to the Committee what the East player had told him. Dummy, North, had leaned across to take a look into East's cards. East had then noticed that North had held his arms crossed, and had signalled with three fingers on his arm. East had seen a signal with three fingers three times. Declarer had then played the DJ at trick three, and had let it run, thus making his contract. East then told the same story in his own words. He had not shown his cards, but North had taken a look into them anyway. East had seen three fingers on three occasions, and he had called the Director after Declarer had successfully finessed in diamonds. East complained that he had been so shaken about the whole thing, that he could no longer play to his full capacity. They had lost the match 2-25. - West related the play to the first three tricks: - West led the HA, East contributing the H8; - West then asked a number of questions, particularly about the HK, which South confirmed having shown in the auction; - West switched to the C9, taken by the King - After some thought, South called for the DJ, East contributing the D6 in tempo; - South thought for some more time and let the DJ run. East once more showed what he had seen North do: the left arm lay before him on the table, the right hand lay across it, with the middle three fingers pointing downwards. East showed that he had seen the three fingers once across the wrist, once across the forearm and once free on the table in front of the arm. South was asked to confirm the play as described above, which he did. South was then asked to explain why he played the diamonds in the manner he did. He gave the following responses: -The lead of the HA was curious because dummy had not made a cue-bid in hearts; -After all the questions he decided to play diamonds 1-3; -The first two boards were bad for him and he needed 20VP to qualify for the next round; -Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament. He had also found the DQ on board 24 (West commented that he had made lots of bids on that board, so finding that Queen was clear-cut). North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them. This could not be confirmed by East/West since this was the third board of the match and he had not been dummy on the first two. North told the Committee he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that side. When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards. The Coach of North/South, in name of their Captain (who was absent), explained that he had told his team to win the match by at least 19 or 20VP. He had never heard allegations of this kind in 30 years' work for the federation and this particular team. West finally added that South had also put his head on his arms while thinking about running the DJ. The Committee's Deliberation: The Committee addressed the issue of their jurisdiction under the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Under law 91B: Right to Disqualify, The Director (and on a reference, the Committee) is specifically empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause. - The Committee also addressed certain technical issues raised by North/South: - The Committee rejected the argument that "Diamonds are always badly divided in this Tournament". - The Committee noted that bidding and making Six Diamonds by normal play was quite likely to win the board as the slam was not straightforward to bid. - The Committee noted that tackling diamonds (trumps) by leading the Jack was singularly against the odds; except in the specific circumstances when declarer knows that East has exactly three diamonds. In this case the odds are 3-1 in favour of leading the Jack. - The Committee noted that East's duck of the Jack of Diamonds was correct technique. South could have had five diamonds, in which case it is a normal gambit to lead the Jack to induce a cover with Q10x. The Committee's reasons: In the play of the hand, East/West believed that Declarer had acted upon improper information conveyed from dummy. They suggested how this information was possibly passed. When asked to explain his reasons for playing the hand in such a fashion declarer gave a number of reasons which the Committee found unconvincing. It was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by a competent player was self-incriminating. The Committee's decision: Lanzarotti-Buratti to be disqualified from the teams event - Law 91B. Match Score adjusted to 18-0 in favour of the team of East/West. Matter to be referred to the Credentials' Committee with reference to the Pairs' event in these Championships. Statistics on board 23: The Scoring department has provided the Appeal Committee with the following information concerning the board that was the subject of the Disciplinary Hearing No. 2 This board was played in 41 matches, at 82 tables. 2 tables played unconventional contracts (6C-4; 2Hx-5 by West). 49 tables played No-Trump contracts (43 in 3NT, 1 in 4NT, 4 in 6NT). 31 tables played in Diamonds (4 in 5D, 27 in 6D). Of these 80 (49+31) contracts, 2 declarers made only 10 tricks, 74 made 11 tricks, and 4 made 12 tricks. Those four declarers were: -The South players for teams: -Goded, 6NT= on the lead of the D7 -Sazonov, 6D= on the lead of the S8 -Queran, 6D= on the lead of the D7 -and Mr Buratti, 6D= on the lead of the HA After the decision the Appeals Committee has established the following additional facts: In Disciplinary Hearing No. 2, Mssrs Lanzarotti and Buratti (LB) stated during the Appeals Committee meeting that they had had two bad boards starting the match. The two boards 21 and 22 were played just before board 23. There were 44 results on board 21 and the same number on board 22. These results are all from the Swiss Qualifying A. On board 21 LB were minus 400. The average was minus 460, which meant LB won 2 IMPs against the field. Their team- mates were plus 800 which meant that the LB team won 9 IMPs in the match. On board 22 LB were minus 110. The average was plus 23, which meant LB lost about 4 IMPs against the field. Their teammates were plus 110 and the board was therefore a push. The data of the match and of the two boards in question have been transmitted to the NCBO of Italy. * * * James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34: Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social scientists call "calibrating" their judgments. If your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a sense of how likely it is that your judgment is correct. But experts are much more like normal people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood that they're right. A survey on the question of overconfidence by economist Terrence Odean found that physicians, nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and investment bankers all believed that they knew more than they did. Similarly, a recent study of foreign-exchange traders found that 70 percent of the time, the traders overestimated the accuracy of their exchange-rate predictions. In other words, it wasn't just that they were wrong; they also didn't have any idea how wrong they were. And that seems to be the rule among experts. The only forecasters whose judgments are routinely well calibrated are expert bridge players and weathermen. It rains on 30 percent of the days when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance of rain. * * * Richard Hills, 28th June 2005 post: _Because_ bridge experts are an exception to the general rule that experts have poorly calibrated judgments, a decisive factor in the Committee's assessment was Buratti's poorly calibrated decision to choose to run the jack of diamonds (in the absence of UI) or his well calibrated decision (in the presence of UI suggesting a 1-3 break). Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 14 10:52:45 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:52:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Schlechter Claim Message-ID: <4C3D7ADD.9060805@aol.com> Wie wei?t man da? d. Alleinspieler nicht Treff verz?hlt hat (nachdem schon zweimal Treff abgeworfen wurde)? Wenn es das getan hat w?re es ja nicht notwendig d. letzte Treff zu stechen. Wer trumpft unn?tigerweise eine Karte die hoch ist? Das wurde auch seinem Claim entsprechen. Claims haben (laut Regeln) vollst?ndig zu sein. Wenn er nicht sagt da? er d. dritte Treff sticht, dann hat es nicht vor. Ciao, JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 14 19:20:55 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:20:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sorry Message-ID: <4C3DF1F7.6030601@aol.com> Sorry about the posting yesterday in German. I meant to send it to the German forum and made a mistake (again). JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 15 00:31:51 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:31:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sorry [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C3DF1F7.6030601@aol.com> Message-ID: Gelett Burgess (1866-1951): I never saw a Purple Cow, I never hope to see one; But I can tell you, anyhow, I'd rather see than be one! Gordon Rainsford: >>Why the rudeness Sven? Sven Pran: >I'm exhausted from his arguing. I should have known better >than trying to explain how he reasons wrong. Richard Hills: I am sorry for my rudeness towards Steve Willner in the recent past (in the exhaustive debate about Law 68B2). I am sorry for my rudeness towards Herman De Wael in the distant past (in the exhaustive debate about Law 20F5). The fact that these two gentlemen consistently reasoned wrong explains my rudeness. But I am sorry because this fact does _not_ in any way _condone_ my rudeness. Law 74A2: A blmler should carefully avoid any remark or ridicule that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another blmler or might interfere with the enjoyment of the postings. My sorry self will be absent from blml for two weeks while I visit my mother in Hobart to celebrate her 75th birthday. It is pure coincidence that the Aussie Winter Nationals are being held in Hobart during these two weeks. :-) :-) Gelett Burgess (1866-1951): Ah, yes! I wrote the "Purple Cow" - I'm sorry, now, I wrote it! But I can tell you anyhow, I'll kill you if you quote it! Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 schoderb at msn.com Thu Jul 15 02:23:01 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:23:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My, My!!! Something I posted on June 21st is now making it to the BLML. Somehow I wonder if the system could be updated to where it accepts other than plain text. Hell, I'd even contribute to making it so. Kojak I resent editing by selection and system where it occurs. ----- Original Message ----- From: WILLIAM SCHODER To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] The "wooden understanding" of being able to interpret the laws by removing them from the game of bridge and disecting them is a highly necessary part of these kinds of arguments. Makes for nice pedantic postings, but does little to help the TDs use them correctly. In this case the single word 'see' in Law 56 to mean 'apply the rectifications of' is a small step for those sapient enough to take it. "See" and "But see" is used in many other places in these Laws, and I don't believe that TDs, including the self-styled ones and pedants, have honest trouble with the meanings. I resent the implications of "......As everyone knows, trees are poor Directors and move too slowly to understand the Laws.....". Aphoristic drivel only serves to demean those who post it. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > World Wide Words is copyright (c) Michael Quinion 2010. > All rights reserved. The Words website is at > http://www.worldwidewords.org . > > The Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, Illinois, had a > story on 10 June about road construction: "Typical > concerns have centered on trees and motorists using local > roads as a detour." Edward Floden remarked, "As everyone > knows, trees are poor drivers and move too slowly." > > William ("Kojak") Schoder: > > >Answer: NO > > > >Here we go again. We have an infraction which has a > >specific law --- number 56 --- which tells us to apply > >Law 54D when a defender leads out of turn at any time > >other than the opening lead > > [snip] > > >There are places that could/should/would make the laws > >better in expressing the intent of the lawmakers in > >clearer language and format. I can't find this as one of > >them. > > > >Bill Schoder, > > > >Tampa, Florida > > Richard Hills: > > As everyone knows, trees are poor Directors and move too > slowly to understand the Laws. My wooden understanding > of Law 54D is that it applies ONLY to the opening lead. > > 2007 Law 54D: > > "Declarer may require a defender to retract > his faced _opening_ lead out of turn. The > withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card > and Law 50D applies." > > As a pedantic nitpicker I argue that the 2018 Law 54D > should be expressed in clearer language and format, e.g. > > 2018 Law 54D: > > "Declarer may require a defender to retract > his faced opening lead out of turn (and, > indeed, declarer may require a defender to > retract a lead out of turn at tricks two to > thirteen). The withdrawn card becomes a > major penalty card and Law 50D applies." > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > 02 6223 8453 > richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100715/2b788863/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 15 02:55:39 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:55:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] [snip] (was Leading question) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder: [snip] >Kojak > >I resent editing by selection and system where it occurs. [big snip of previous posts] Richard Hills: A post can canvass many issues. If a respondent to the post wishes to discuss only one of those issues, it is standard netiquette to [snip] the extraneous material. In this case I wish to discuss resentment of [snipping]. So I [snipped] the irrelevant other half of Kojak's post (in which Kojak revealed that, like Nigel Guthrie, he apparently has an email system which occasionally delivers blml posts to him much later than other blmlers receive those posts). I agree with Kojak that iniquitous [snipping] to distort the meaning of a post should be resented. But I also assert that "top posting" with not any [snipping] of the post below can frequently make an argument very hard to follow. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Jul 15 08:01:28 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:01:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 73D (was Is a sorted...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 183-184: >Berkeley political scientist Chandra Nemeth has shown >in a host of studies of mock juries that the presence >of a minority viewpoint, all by itself, makes a >group's decisions more nuanced and its decision- >making process more rigorous. This is true even when >the minority viewpoint turns out to be ill-conceived. >The confrontation with a dissenting view, logically >enough, forces the majority to interrogate its own >positions more seriously. > >This doesn't mean that the ideal jury will follow the >plot of "Twelve Angry Men", where a single holdout >convinces eleven men who are ready to convict that >they're all wrong. But it does mean that having even >a single different opinion can make a group wiser. Sven Pran correctly stated: >>> ... Deliberately creating extraneous information is >>>a violation of law, ... 73A2 and 73D Robert Frick minority viewpoint: >>I think that if I have a difficult play to make, in >>the bidding or play, that it is legal for me to think >>about it. That's deliberately creating extraneous >>information, right? Richard Hills nuanced response: Wrong. That is _unintentionally_ creating extraneous information as an incidental byproduct of the difficult play. "Bridge is a thinking game." Robert Frick minority viewpoint: >73A2 says that calls and plays should be made without >*undue* hesitation or haste. That's why I said that >due hesitations apparently were legal. Richard Hills nuanced response: Yes and no. A "due" hesitation is not Lawful unless it also passes the test of Law 73D1 to be "unintentional". Slightly off-topic -> An "unintentional" but "undue" hesitation is also a Law 90B2 offence of "unduly slow play". Robert Frick minority viewpoint: >73D is even more strongly against your principle. "It >is desirable, though not always required, for players >to maintain steady tempo." Not required. ... Richard Hills nuanced response: A fallacious attempt to rebut Sven's principle that _intentionally_ creating extraneous information is necessarily unLawful. The "not required" phrase is in Law 73D1 because it is physiologically impossible for players to invariably call and play in robotic tempo (which is why serious Duplicate Bridge tournaments are now contested behind screens), thus _unintentional_ twitches and pauses are inevitable. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) 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 Thu Jul 15 09:31:24 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:31:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 73D (was Is a sorted...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:01:28 -0400, wrote: > James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 183-184: > >> Berkeley political scientist Chandra Nemeth has shown >> in a host of studies of mock juries that the presence >> of a minority viewpoint, all by itself, makes a >> group's decisions more nuanced and its decision- >> making process more rigorous. This is true even when >> the minority viewpoint turns out to be ill-conceived. >> The confrontation with a dissenting view, logically >> enough, forces the majority to interrogate its own >> positions more seriously. >> >> This doesn't mean that the ideal jury will follow the >> plot of "Twelve Angry Men", where a single holdout >> convinces eleven men who are ready to convict that >> they're all wrong. But it does mean that having even >> a single different opinion can make a group wiser. > > Sven Pran correctly stated: > >>>> ... Deliberately creating extraneous information is >>>> a violation of law, ... 73A2 and 73D > > Robert Frick minority viewpoint: > >>> I think that if I have a difficult play to make, in >>> the bidding or play, that it is legal for me to think >>> about it. That's deliberately creating extraneous >>> information, right? > > Richard Hills nuanced response: > > Wrong. That is _unintentionally_ creating extraneous > information as an incidental byproduct of the difficult > play. "Bridge is a thinking game." > > Robert Frick minority viewpoint: > >> 73A2 says that calls and plays should be made without >> *undue* hesitation or haste. That's why I said that >> due hesitations apparently were legal. > > Richard Hills nuanced response: > > Yes and no. > > A "due" hesitation is not Lawful unless it also passes > the test of Law 73D1 to be "unintentional". > > Slightly off-topic -> An "unintentional" but "undue" > hesitation is also a Law 90B2 offence of "unduly slow > play". > > Robert Frick minority viewpoint: > >> 73D is even more strongly against your principle. "It >> is desirable, though not always required, for players >> to maintain steady tempo." Not required. ... > > Richard Hills nuanced response: > > A fallacious attempt to rebut Sven's principle that > _intentionally_ creating extraneous information is > necessarily unLawful. The "not required" phrase is in > Law 73D1 because it is physiologically impossible for > players to invariably call and play in robotic tempo > (which is why serious Duplicate Bridge tournaments are > now contested behind screens), thus _unintentional_ > twitches and pauses are inevitable. Hi Richard. Sometimes, in a competitive auction, I try to think what to do. I realize I am creating UI that I have extra values. And I decide it is more important for me to make a good decision about what to do than to (1) bid in tempo, (2) not create UI, and (3) leave my partner free to do whatever he wants. QED. Maybe you want to argue that I can't have the *goal* of creating UI. While I am knowingly creating UI, that is not my goal. I think that would be right. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 15 10:35:58 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:35:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <65B84A43C908445596665D018C7620FC@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > World Wide Words is copyright (c) Michael Quinion 2010. > All rights reserved. The Words website is at > http://www.worldwidewords.org . > > The Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, Illinois, had a > story on 10 June about road construction: "Typical > concerns have centered on trees and motorists using local > roads as a detour." Edward Floden remarked, "As everyone > knows, trees are poor drivers and move too slowly." > > William ("Kojak") Schoder: > > >Answer: NO > > > >Here we go again. We have an infraction which has a > >specific law --- number 56 --- which tells us to apply > >Law 54D when a defender leads out of turn at any time > >other than the opening lead > > [snip] > > >There are places that could/should/would make the laws > >better in expressing the intent of the lawmakers in > >clearer language and format. I can't find this as one of > >them. > > > >Bill Schoder, > > > >Tampa, Florida > > Richard Hills: > > As everyone knows, trees are poor Directors and move too > slowly to understand the Laws. My wooden understanding > of Law 54D is that it applies ONLY to the opening lead. > > 2007 Law 54D: > > "Declarer may require a defender to retract > his faced _opening_ lead out of turn. The > withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card > and Law 50D applies." > > As a pedantic nitpicker I argue that the 2018 Law 54D > should be expressed in clearer language and format, e.g. > > 2018 Law 54D: > > "Declarer may require a defender to retract > his faced opening lead out of turn (and, > indeed, declarer may require a defender to > retract a lead out of turn at tricks two to > thirteen). The withdrawn card becomes a > major penalty card and Law 50D applies." > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > 02 6223 8453 > richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ 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/20100715/c19bf99c/attachment.html From posundelin at yahoo.se Thu Jul 15 12:06:15 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:06:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Sorry_-_don=B4t_be?= In-Reply-To: <4C3DF1F7.6030601@aol.com> Message-ID: <896641.77160.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Oh, so it wasn?t just showing off? ?(deservedly). Ecellent German indeed! --- Den ons 2010-07-14 skrev Jeff Easterson : Fr?n: Jeff Easterson ?mne: [BLML] Sorry Till: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Datum: onsdag 14 juli 2010 19:20 Sorry about the posting yesterday in German. I meant to send it to the German forum and made a mistake (again).? JE _______________________________________________ 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/20100715/ec6278d4/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 15 16:08:39 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:08:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:23 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > My, My!!! Something I posted on June 21st is now making it to the > BLML. Somehow I wonder if the system could be updated to where it > accepts other than plain text. Hell, I'd even contribute to making > it so. No, please! Given the variety of systems and newsreaders out there -- and this is a genuinely international forum -- only posting in plain text can assure that everyone who wants to read the post without difficulty can do so. Don't let Bill Gates convince you that non-MS/Windows users don't count! > ----- Original Message ----- > > The "wooden understanding" of being able to interpret the laws by > removing > them from the game of bridge and disecting them is a highly > necessary part > of these kinds of arguments. Makes for nice pedantic postings, but > does > little to help the TDs use them correctly. In this case the single > word > 'see' in Law 56 to mean 'apply the rectifications of' is a small > step for > those sapient enough to take it. "See" and "But see" is used in > many other > places in these Laws, and I don't believe that TDs, including the > self-styled ones and pedants, have honest trouble with the meanings. "See Lx" should mean "apply Lx". "But see Lx" should mean "check Lx to see if it applies". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jul 15 16:34:39 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:34:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] formatting Message-ID: Sorry, I was mistaken about the format to use for messages. Hope this is the right way to do it. Kojak From posundelin at yahoo.se Tue Jul 20 09:31:41 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:31:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] A ganother gnu In-Reply-To: <4C3D7ADD.9060805@aol.com> Message-ID: <97770.51265.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Are panellists are on holiday or my email box on strike? Several days of silence is rare on BLML ? Your RHO opens 2D (weak). We are vulnerable, they are not. In your methods there is a deplorable lack of Leaping Michaels so you decide to bid 2H. LHO jumps (preemptive) to 4D followed by two passes back to you. Now what? ? 83 AKQ97 2 AQT62 ? What alternatives would you consider if A. partner passed in tempo B. partner clearly broke tempo ? The player level is "club". Does that make a difference? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100720/0b405328/attachment.html From james.boyce at oracle.com Tue Jul 20 09:31:57 2010 From: james.boyce at oracle.com (james.boyce at oracle.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Auto Reply: A ganother gnu Message-ID: Out of town Fri 16/Jul Return Mon 26/Jul From james.boyce at oracle.com Tue Jul 20 09:32:51 2010 From: james.boyce at oracle.com (james.boyce at oracle.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:32:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Auto Reply: Auto Reply: A ganother gnu Message-ID: Out of town Fri 16/Jul Return Mon 26/Jul From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 20 11:06:04 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:06:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A ganother gnu References: <97770.51265.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43F5F4B7542245EBAE5B15491B9759E6@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Out of town Fri 16/Jul Return Mon 26/Jul From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jul 20 11:23:23 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:23:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Auto Reply: Re: A ganother gnu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C456B0B.9070804@meteo.fr> james.boyce at oracle.com a ?crit : > Out of town Fri 16/Jul > Return Mon 26/Jul > > i am afraid we are going to be sent thousands of such messages following a wrong tuning of automatic holiday replies, leading to an infinite loop. can anybody stop the mechanism? jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From james.boyce at oracle.com Tue Jul 20 11:23:47 2010 From: james.boyce at oracle.com (james.boyce at oracle.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Auto Reply: Re: Auto Reply: Re: A ganother gnu Message-ID: Out of town Fri 16/Jul Return Mon 26/Jul From henk at ripe.net Tue Jul 20 11:30:35 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:30:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Auto Reply: Re: A ganother gnu In-Reply-To: <4C456B0B.9070804@meteo.fr> References: <4C456B0B.9070804@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4C456CBB.4070108@ripe.net> On 20/07/2010 11:23, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > james.boyce at oracle.com a ?crit : >> Out of town Fri 16/Jul >> Return Mon 26/Jul >> >> > i am afraid we are going to be sent thousands of such messages following > a wrong tuning of automatic holiday replies, leading to an infinite > loop. can anybody stop the mechanism? Yes ;-) I've switched off delivery of mail to this address, that should stop it. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 20 18:59:18 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:59:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A ganother gnu In-Reply-To: <97770.51265.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <97770.51265.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5824B73D-2B44-494F-84D5-7EC9829F0E79@starpower.net> On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:31 AM, PO Sundelin wrote: > Are panellists are on holiday or my email box on strike? Several > days of silence is rare on BLML > > Your RHO opens 2D (weak). We are vulnerable, they are not. > In your methods there is a deplorable lack of Leaping Michaels so > you decide to bid 2H. > LHO jumps (preemptive) to 4D followed by two passes back to you. > Now what? > > 83 > AKQ97 > 2 > AQT62 > > What alternatives would you consider if > A. partner passed in tempo I would either double or bid 4H, depending on circumstances and table feel. In an position calling for ultra-agressiveness I might even consider 5C. > B. partner clearly broke tempo I'd feel compelled to bid 4H. Partner strains to bid 4H on any excuse, so the most likely explanation for his huddle-then-pass is that he was thinking of doubling 4D, but didn't have enough and was counting on me to reopen with a double with extras. And in the unlikely event he was considering 4H, he has an easy conversion. IOW, double is the clear choice to cater to partner's huddle, so I will do something else. (I was never passing, and it's not clear that partner's huddle doesn't suggest pass over 4H, taking the plus if partner declined a marginal double.) > The player level is "club". Does that make a difference? It might matter if I knew that my partner was a duplicate novice who would be unlikely to contemplate doubling a partscore. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 20 19:29:12 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:29:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A ganother gnu References: <97770.51265.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <5824B73D-2B44-494F-84D5-7EC9829F0E79@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A ganother gnu > On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:31 AM, PO Sundelin wrote: > >> Are panellists are on holiday or my email box on strike? Several >> days of silence is rare on BLML >> >> Your RHO opens 2D (weak). We are vulnerable, they are not. >> In your methods there is a deplorable lack of Leaping Michaels so >> you decide to bid 2H. >> LHO jumps (preemptive) to 4D followed by two passes back to you. >> Now what? >> >> 83 >> AKQ97 >> 2 >> AQT62 >> >> What alternatives would you consider if >> A. partner passed in tempo > > I would either double or bid 4H, depending on circumstances and table > feel. In an position calling for ultra-agressiveness I might even > consider 5C. > >> B. partner clearly broke tempo > > I'd feel compelled to bid 4H. Partner strains to bid 4H on any > excuse, so the most likely explanation for his huddle-then-pass is > that he was thinking of doubling 4D, but didn't have enough and was > counting on me to reopen with a double with extras. And in the > unlikely event he was considering 4H, he has an easy conversion. > IOW, double is the clear choice to cater to partner's huddle, so I > will do something else. (I was never passing, and it's not clear > that partner's huddle doesn't suggest pass over 4H, taking the plus > if partner declined a marginal double.) > >> The player level is "club". Does that make a difference? > > It might matter if I knew that my partner was a duplicate novice who > would be unlikely to contemplate doubling a partscore. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > +=+ A double indicating a stronger Heart overcall than might be the case is an expert understanding. I prefer it to other actions but I still consider Pass a logical alternative (and especially so at club level). It is clear enough that partner's hesitation suggests action rather than passing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 21 01:34:32 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:34:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid Message-ID: Today S W N E 1H 2C P X West takes me aside and tells me that East meant her double as Rosencrantz (showing clubs). So, what are the lead penalties? We can imagine the situation where EW are on the same wavelength. Then the lead penalties should center around clubs? In fact, East meant her double as negative, showing spades. Ruling? It seems to me that there is a problem. L26 here requires knowing what suit or suits were shown by a bid. However, if the bid is inadmissable, or even insufficient, then technically it has no meaning. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Jul 21 04:45:27 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:45:27 +0800 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: Message-ID: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:34 AM Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > Today > > S W N E > 1H 2C P X > > > West takes me aside and tells me that East meant her double as Rosencrantz > (showing clubs). > > So, what are the lead penalties? > > We can imagine the situation where EW are on the same wavelength. Then the > lead penalties should center around clubs? > > In fact, East meant her double as negative, showing spades. > > Ruling? > > It seems to me that there is a problem. L26 here requires knowing what > suit or suits were shown by a bid. However, if the bid is inadmissable, or > even insufficient, then technically it has no meaning. In my opinion there is no problem. To me, the meaning of an insufficient or inadmissable call is truly known only to the caller and the other players may choose to guess the meaning at their own risk. Since no suit was specified by the call then L26 B applies The trail is shown below. LAW 19 - DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES A. Doubles 1. A player may double only the last preceding bid. That bid must have been made by an opponent; (snip) LAW 35 - INADMISSIBLE CALLS The following calls are inadmissible: 1. A double or redouble not permitted by Law 19. Law 36 applies. (Snip) LAW 36 - INADMISSIBLE DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES (snip) B. Offender's LHO does not Call before Rectification (snip) 1. any double or redouble not permitted by Law 19 is cancelled. 2. the offender must substitute a legal call, the auction continues, and the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. 3. Law 23 may apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply. LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LEAD RESTRICTIONS When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different* final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender: (snip) B. Other Withdrawn Calls For other withdrawn calls, declarer may prohibit offender's partner from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as offender's partner retains the lead. * (snip) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 21 18:45:14 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:45:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:45:27 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:34 AM > Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > >> Today >> >> S W N E >> 1H 2C P X >> >> >> West takes me aside and tells me that East meant her double as >> Rosencrantz >> (showing clubs). >> >> So, what are the lead penalties? >> >> We can imagine the situation where EW are on the same wavelength. Then >> the >> lead penalties should center around clubs? >> >> In fact, East meant her double as negative, showing spades. >> >> Ruling? >> >> It seems to me that there is a problem. L26 here requires knowing what >> suit or suits were shown by a bid. However, if the bid is inadmissable, >> or >> even insufficient, then technically it has no meaning. > > In my opinion there is no problem. To me, the meaning of an insufficient > or > inadmissable call is truly known only to the caller and the other players > may choose to guess the meaning at their own risk. Since no suit was > specified by the call then L26 B applies What do you mean by "no suit was specified by the call"? I understand the idea that if a bid is technically meaningless (insufficient or inadmissable) it doesn't have meaning. But no one is going to carry that all the way to the end. Is a suit specified in this sequence? 1H 1NT 1S Or 2NT P 2H > > The trail is shown below. > > LAW 19 - DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES > > A. Doubles > > 1. A player may double only the last preceding bid. That bid must have > been > made by an opponent; (snip) > > LAW 35 - INADMISSIBLE CALLS > > The following calls are inadmissible: > > 1. A double or redouble not permitted by Law 19. Law 36 applies. (Snip) > > LAW 36 - INADMISSIBLE DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES > > (snip) > > B. Offender's LHO does not Call before Rectification > > (snip) > > 1. any double or redouble not permitted by Law 19 is cancelled. > > 2. the offender must substitute a legal call, the auction continues, and > the > offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. > > 3. Law 23 may apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply. > > LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LEAD RESTRICTIONS > > When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different* > final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender: > > (snip) > > > B. Other Withdrawn Calls > > > For other withdrawn calls, declarer may prohibit offender's partner from > leading any one suit at his first turn to lead, including the opening > lead, > such > > prohibition to continue for as long as offender's partner retains the > lead. > > > > * (snip) > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- somepsychology.com From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Jul 22 05:22:09 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:22:09 +0800 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> Message-ID: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid (Snip) >> or >> inadmissable call is truly known only to the caller and the other players >> may choose to guess the meaning at their own risk. Since no suit was >> specified by the call then L26 B applies > > What do you mean by "no suit was specified by the call"? I understand the > idea that if a bid is technically meaningless (insufficient or > inadmissable) it doesn't have meaning. But no one is going to carry that > all the way to the end. > > Is a suit specified in this sequence? > 1H 1NT 1S > > Or > > 2NT P 2H When the insufficient bid is not accepted and I remove the offender from the table I find that about 15% of the time there has been an unintended call (a mechanical error or slip of the brain). This has often not been mentioned at the table because of an immediate call for the director and (a) the LOL is too embarassed to say anything or (b) the offender is obeying L9 B.2 so that she is not subject to law L9 C. Of these unintended calls about 1/3 do not specify the denomination that was intended. In your specific examples, offenders LHO could accept the IBs in my sessions at their own risk with about a 95% certainty that the denominations were as specified. If they choose not to accept then L25 A or L27 would apply. bill (snip) > -- > somepsychology.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 22 11:24:51 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:24:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: Message-ID: <12A87E2AAC6B431784FF4E2D24501C70@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:34 AM Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > Today > > S W N E > 1H 2C P X > > > West takes me aside and tells me that East meant > her double as Rosencrantz (showing clubs). > > So, what are the lead penalties? > > We can imagine the situation where EW are on the > same wavelength. Then the lead penalties should > center around clubs? > > In fact, East meant her double as negative, showing > spades. > > Ruling? > > It seems to me that there is a problem. L26 here > requires knowing what suit or suits were shown by > a bid. However, if the bid is inadmissible, or even > insufficient, then technically it has no meaning. > +=+ The double is inadmissible because it is factually a double of partner's bid. But we do not believe that the lady's intention was that, do we? We believe she was under the impression she was doubling a bid made by an opponent. Law 26 does not use the expression 'meaning'; it says "related to". My opinion is that the double is related to a holding in Spades (if the system card shows that a double of opponent's bid here would show Spades). We should not allow a player's confusion to obscure the intention of her call. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 22 11:48:49 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:48:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> Message-ID: <4C481401.8090307@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:45:27 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp > wrote: > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:34 AM >> Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid >> >> >> >>> Today >>> >>> S W N E >>> 1H 2C P X >>> >>> >>> West takes me aside and tells me that East meant her double as >>> Rosencrantz >>> (showing clubs). >>> >>> So, what are the lead penalties? >>> >>> We can imagine the situation where EW are on the same wavelength. Then >>> the >>> lead penalties should center around clubs? >>> >>> In fact, East meant her double as negative, showing spades. >>> >>> Ruling? >>> >>> It seems to me that there is a problem. L26 here requires knowing what >>> suit or suits were shown by a bid. However, if the bid is inadmissable, >>> or >>> even insufficient, then technically it has no meaning. >>> >> In my opinion there is no problem. To me, the meaning of an insufficient >> or >> inadmissable call is truly known only to the caller and the other players >> may choose to guess the meaning at their own risk. Since no suit was >> specified by the call then L26 B applies >> > > What do you mean by "no suit was specified by the call"? I understand the > idea that if a bid is technically meaningless (insufficient or > inadmissable) it doesn't have meaning. But no one is going to carry that > all the way to the end. > > Is a suit specified in this sequence? > 1H 1NT 1S > > Or > > 2NT P 2H > > > Good question In the second case, I would say there isn't, because unless the IBer exclaimed something, we can't know whether his intention was : - to open 2H (weak, H and a minor) - to answer 3H (or 2H to 1NT) (spades) - to answer to a 2C opening (hearts) - to answer to a 2D opening (neutral) - to answer a 1C opening (majors) - etc In the first case, in a natural system, his intention was most probably to show spades ; however, there are exceptions (they could be using Kokish inversion, or the intent of the player could have been to bid 2S while using transfers over their 1NT, or he could have wanted to pull something else etc) As a matter of fact, in many cases, one can't know which suit was specified by the IB (compare with BOOT, which will often be obvious). In that cas, there shouldn't be any penalty, but ISTM the rules say that ons should ask the player what he intended (therefore artificially creating UI), then findthe way to minimize the effect of this UI. Am I alone in thinking this is absurd ? Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 23 00:47:11 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:47:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:22:09 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:45 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > (Snip) > > >>> or >>> inadmissable call is truly known only to the caller and the other >>> players >>> may choose to guess the meaning at their own risk. Since no suit was >>> specified by the call then L26 B applies >> >> What do you mean by "no suit was specified by the call"? I understand >> the >> idea that if a bid is technically meaningless (insufficient or >> inadmissable) it doesn't have meaning. But no one is going to carry that >> all the way to the end. >> >> Is a suit specified in this sequence? >> 1H 1NT 1S >> >> Or >> >> 2NT P 2H > > When the insufficient bid is not accepted and I remove the offender from > the > table I find that about 15% of the time there has been an unintended > call (a > mechanical error or slip of the brain). This has often not been > mentioned at > the table because of an immediate call for the director and (a) the LOL > is > too embarassed to say anything or (b) the offender is obeying L9 B.2 so > that > she is not subject to law L9 C. > > Of these unintended calls about 1/3 do not specify the denomination that > was > intended. > > In your specific examples, offenders LHO could accept the IBs in my > sessions > at their own risk with about a 95% certainty that the denominations were > as > specified. > > If they choose not to accept then L25 A or L27 would apply. Yes, but what about L26? I believe you said that an insufficient bid could mean anything, so you would be applying the provision for withdrawn bid, no suit indicated. True? I just wondered if you would maintain this if the suit was really obvious. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Jul 23 04:47:37 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:47:37 +0800 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 6:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:22:09 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp > wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:45 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid >> (Snip) > > Yes, but what about L26? I believe you said that an insufficient bid could > mean anything, so you would be applying the provision for withdrawn bid, > no suit indicated. True? I just wondered if you would maintain this if the > suit was really obvious. I try to keep in mind Law 16 A. 1. (a), (b) and (c). I do not wish to give the other players information about a players hand to which they are not entitled. >>> Today (snip) >>> 1H 2C P X (snip) >>> In fact, East meant her double as negative, showing >>> spades. >>> >>> Ruling? >>> >>> It seems to me that there is a problem. L26 here >>> requires knowing what suit or suits were shown by >>> a bid. However, if the bid is inadmissible, or even >>> insufficient, then technically it has no meaning. > >>+=+ The double is inadmissible because it is factually >>a double of partner's bid. But we do not believe that >>the lady's intention was that, do we? We believe she >>was under the impression she was doubling a bid >>made by an opponent. Law 26 does not use the >>expression 'meaning'; it says "related to". My opinion >>is that the double is related to a holding in Spades >>(if the system card shows that a double of opponent's >>bid here would show Spades). We should not allow a >>player's confusion to obscure the intention of her call. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have pasted portions of the original post with Grattan's response because I think the response demonstrates "a suit that is really obvious" and also explains that the players are entitled to know this information (if it is a partnership agreement and it was the offenders intent) I apologise to Grattan if I have misrepresented his intentions bill > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 23 11:02:52 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:02:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> Message-ID: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 3:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 6:47 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:22:09 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp >> wrote: >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:45 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid >>> > (Snip) >> >> Yes, but what about L26? I believe you said that an insufficient bid >> could >> mean anything, so you would be applying the provision for withdrawn bid, >> no suit indicated. True? I just wondered if you would maintain this if >> the >> suit was really obvious. > > I try to keep in mind Law 16 A. 1. (a), (b) and (c). I do not wish to give > the other players information about a players hand to which they are not > entitled. > >>>> Today > > (snip) > >>>> 1H 2C P X > > (snip) > >>>> In fact, East meant her double as negative, showing >>>> spades. >>>> >>>> Ruling? >>>> >>>> It seems to me that there is a problem. L26 here >>>> requires knowing what suit or suits were shown by >>>> a bid. However, if the bid is inadmissible, or even >>>> insufficient, then technically it has no meaning. >> > >>>+=+ The double is inadmissible because it is factually >>>a double of partner's bid. But we do not believe that >>>the lady's intention was that, do we? We believe she >>>was under the impression she was doubling a bid >>>made by an opponent. Law 26 does not use the >>>expression 'meaning'; it says "related to". My opinion >>>is that the double is related to a holding in Spades >>>(if the system card shows that a double of opponent's >>>bid here would show Spades). We should not allow a >>>player's confusion to obscure the intention of her call. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I have pasted portions of the original post with Grattan's > response because I think the response demonstrates "a > suit that is really obvious" and also explains that the > players are entitled to know this information (if it is a > partnership agreement and it was the offenders intent) > > I apologise to Grattan if I have misrepresented his > intentions > > bill > +=+ My intention was simply to stop the discussion going off the rails because I saw references to the "meaning" of the call. So I drew attention to the actual wording of the Law in order that the discussion could be rebooted with reference to what the law actually says. My conditional interpretation that in the example the double relates to Spades is for the time being tentative. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 23 15:41:02 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> Message-ID: On Jul 22, 2010, at 6:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:22:09 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp > wrote: > >> From: "Robert Frick" >> >> (Snip) >> >>>> or >>>> inadmissable call is truly known only to the caller and the other >>>> players >>>> may choose to guess the meaning at their own risk. Since no suit >>>> was >>>> specified by the call then L26 B applies >>> >>> What do you mean by "no suit was specified by the call"? I >>> understand >>> the >>> idea that if a bid is technically meaningless (insufficient or >>> inadmissable) it doesn't have meaning. But no one is going to >>> carry that >>> all the way to the end. >>> >>> Is a suit specified in this sequence? >>> 1H 1NT 1S >>> >>> Or >>> >>> 2NT P 2H >> >> When the insufficient bid is not accepted and I remove the >> offender from >> the >> table I find that about 15% of the time there has been an unintended >> call (a >> mechanical error or slip of the brain). This has often not been >> mentioned at >> the table because of an immediate call for the director and (a) >> the LOL >> is >> too embarassed to say anything or (b) the offender is obeying L9 B. >> 2 so >> that >> she is not subject to law L9 C. >> >> Of these unintended calls about 1/3 do not specify the >> denomination that >> was >> intended. >> >> In your specific examples, offenders LHO could accept the IBs in my >> sessions >> at their own risk with about a 95% certainty that the >> denominations were >> as >> specified. >> >> If they choose not to accept then L25 A or L27 would apply. > > Yes, but what about L26? I believe you said that an insufficient > bid could > mean anything, so you would be applying the provision for withdrawn > bid, > no suit indicated. True? I just wondered if you would maintain this > if the > suit was really obvious. Numerous problems that arise when applying the laws on IBs or inadmissable doubles would evaporate if the offender were allowed/ required to reveal the (alternative) auction to which he thought he was bidding. This was already made manifest in our earlier discussions on how to apply L27B1. It is clear, however, that established jurisprudence does not permit this approach, although I can't find a specific passage in TFLB that precludes it (perhaps someone can point me to it?). Perhaps TPTB should consider it. In addition to vastly simplifying the handling of the infraction itself, it also avoids the not uncommon additional complexities that arise when the offender innocently but improperly reveals the information at the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 23 16:36:33 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:36:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> Message-ID: <189F1F658E0F42BEB1A8DDA105705302@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > Numerous problems that arise when applying the laws on IBs or inadmissable doubles would evaporate if the offender were allowed/required to reveal the (alternative) auction to which he thought he was bidding. This was already made manifest in our earlier discussions on how to apply L27B1. It is clear, however, that established jurisprudence does not permit this approach, although I can't find a specific passage in TFLB that precludes it (perhaps someone can point me to it?). Perhaps TPTB should consider it. In addition to vastly simplifying the handling of the infraction itself, it also avoids the not uncommon additional complexities that arise when the offender innocently but improperly reveals the information at the table. > +=+ Hi Eric, Can you help me with "established jurisprudence", something that I have not identified? Maybe it is an ACBL history? My own impression is that the Director needs to find out what the erring player thought he was doing in order to rule. I am seeking elucidation from experienced TDs of the way in which they handle such a situation. ~ G ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 23 16:43:50 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:43:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <189F1F658E0F42BEB1A8DDA105705302@Mildred> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <189F1F658E0F42BEB1A8DDA105705302@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C49AAA6.9050001@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:41 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > >> >> Numerous problems that arise when applying the > laws on IBs or inadmissable doubles would evaporate > if the offender were allowed/required to reveal the > (alternative) auction to which he thought he was bidding. > This was already made manifest in our earlier discussions > on how to apply L27B1. It is clear, however, that > established jurisprudence does not permit this approach, > although I can't find a specific passage in TFLB that > precludes it (perhaps someone can point me to it?). > Perhaps TPTB should consider it. In addition to vastly > simplifying the handling of the infraction itself, it also > avoids the not uncommon additional complexities that > arise when the offender innocently but improperly > reveals the information at the table. >> > +=+ Hi Eric, > Can you help me with "established jurisprudence", > something that I have not identified? Maybe it is an ACBL > history? > My own impression is that the Director needs to find > out what the erring player thought he was doing in order > to rule. I am seeking elucidation from experienced TDs > of the way in which they handle such a situation. > ~ G ~ +=+ Indeed the TD needs to learn what the player was thinking he was bidding on. And the ruling will depend on that knowledge. And a player who knows the lawbook can deduce from the ruling what the player was thinking - while another player cannot. Which leads any sensible person to conclude that the table ought to have the knowledge that the TD has learnt. So far, so good. Yet, when that conclusion is mentioned, many people stand on their hind feet and shout "no". That is the jurisprudence Eric is referring to. Perhaps it is time for the WBFLC to issue an interpretatino saying that indeed the table should be allowed to know what the TD has learnt. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jul 23 17:41:10 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:41:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 04:02 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > .................................................. > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill & Helen Kemp" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 3:47 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 6:47 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid >> >> >>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:22:09 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Robert Frick" >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:45 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid >>>> >> (Snip) >>> >>> Yes, but what about L26? I believe you said that an insufficient bid >>> could >>> mean anything, so you would be applying the provision for withdrawn bid, >>> no suit indicated. True? I just wondered if you would maintain this if >>> the >>> suit was really obvious. >> >> I try to keep in mind Law 16 A. 1. (a), (b) and (c). I do not wish to >> give >> the other players information about a players hand to which they are not >> entitled. >> >>>>> Today >> >> (snip) >> >>>>> 1H 2C P X >> >> (snip) >> >>>>> In fact, East meant her double as negative, showing >>>>> spades. >>>>> >>>>> Ruling? >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that there is a problem. L26 here >>>>> requires knowing what suit or suits were shown by >>>>> a bid. However, if the bid is inadmissible, or even >>>>> insufficient, then technically it has no meaning. >>> >> >>>>+=+ The double is inadmissible because it is factually >>>>a double of partner's bid. But we do not believe that >>>>the lady's intention was that, do we? We believe she >>>>was under the impression she was doubling a bid >>>>made by an opponent. Law 26 does not use the >>>>expression 'meaning'; it says "related to". My opinion >>>>is that the double is related to a holding in Spades >>>>(if the system card shows that a double of opponent's >>>>bid here would show Spades). We should not allow a >>>>player's confusion to obscure the intention of her call. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> I have pasted portions of the original post with Grattan's >> response because I think the response demonstrates "a >> suit that is really obvious" and also explains that the >> players are entitled to know this information (if it is a >> partnership agreement and it was the offenders intent) >> >> I apologise to Grattan if I have misrepresented his >> intentions >> >> bill >> > +=+ My intention was simply to stop the discussion going > off the rails because I saw references to the "meaning" of > the call. So I drew attention to the actual wording of the > Law in order that the discussion could be rebooted with > reference to what the law actually says. My conditional > interpretation that in the example the double relates to > Spades is for the time being tentative. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The abyss can be very deep between what an action conveys by agreement and what a player was thinking/believing at the time he took the action. And here is law that insists that the two be melded into one. Pitiful. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 23 18:26:32 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:26:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick .......... > The abyss can be very deep between what an action conveys by agreement and > what a player was thinking/believing at the time he took the action. And here is > law that insists that the two be melded into one. Pitiful. I simply don't understand why there should be so difficult for the Director when applying Law 26 to get established in a friendly conversation with the players at the table which of the alternatives Law 26A1, 26A2 or 26B to apply? (And in the case of Law 26A which suit or suits the withdrawn call specified.) Note that if the Director cannot satisfy himself in having the specified suit(s) established he will apply Law 26B which usually is the alternative that is least favorable for the offending side. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Jul 23 18:41:48 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:41:48 +0800 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <189F1F658E0F42BEB1A8DDA105705302@Mildred> <4C49AAA6.9050001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9C87CAE274244282AB9BD6373034CD72@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > Grattan wrote: >> >> From: "Eric Landau" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid >> >> >>> >>> Numerous problems that arise when applying the >> laws on IBs or inadmissable doubles would evaporate >> if the offender were allowed/required to reveal the >> (alternative) auction to which he thought he was bidding. >> This was already made manifest in our earlier discussions >> on how to apply L27B1. It is clear, however, that >> established jurisprudence does not permit this approach, >> although I can't find a specific passage in TFLB that >> precludes it (perhaps someone can point me to it?). >> Perhaps TPTB should consider it. In addition to vastly >> simplifying the handling of the infraction itself, it also >> avoids the not uncommon additional complexities that >> arise when the offender innocently but improperly >> reveals the information at the table. >>> >> +=+ Hi Eric, >> Can you help me with "established jurisprudence", >> something that I have not identified? Maybe it is an ACBL >> history? >> My own impression is that the Director needs to find >> out what the erring player thought he was doing in order >> to rule. I am seeking elucidation from experienced TDs >> of the way in which they handle such a situation. >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > Indeed the TD needs to learn what the player was thinking he was bidding > on. And the ruling will depend on that knowledge. And a player who knows > the lawbook can deduce from the ruling what the player was thinking - > while another player cannot. Which leads any sensible person to conclude > that the table ought to have the knowledge that the TD has learnt. So > far, so good. > > Yet, when that conclusion is mentioned, many people stand on their hind > feet and shout "no". That is the jurisprudence Eric is referring to. > Perhaps it is time for the WBFLC to issue an interpretatino saying that > indeed the table should be allowed to know what the TD has learnt. > As a director, I find myself in a less complicated position than those members of the list who believe the laws are inadequate. I am merely required to rule as they are now, considering clarifying minutes and supplementary regulations. From time to time I advise other directors in the tiny pool in Western Australia to rule as the laws are, not as they wish them to be. In 2017 I will rule according to the new set of laws that define the game of duplicate bridge. bill > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 23 21:56:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:56:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <189F1F658E0F42BEB1A8DDA105705302@Mildred> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <189F1F658E0F42BEB1A8DDA105705302@Mildred> Message-ID: <4252851D-D8FC-4FF8-BED5-E9B84A795D84@starpower.net> On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> Numerous problems that arise when applying the >> laws on IBs or inadmissable doubles would evaporate >> if the offender were allowed/required to reveal the >> (alternative) auction to which he thought he was bidding. >> This was already made manifest in our earlier discussions >> on how to apply L27B1. It is clear, however, that >> established jurisprudence does not permit this approach, >> although I can't find a specific passage in TFLB that >> precludes it (perhaps someone can point me to it?). >> Perhaps TPTB should consider it. In addition to vastly >> simplifying the handling of the infraction itself, it also >> avoids the not uncommon additional complexities that >> arise when the offender innocently but improperly >> reveals the information at the table. >>> > > > Can you help me with "established jurisprudence", > something that I have not identified? Maybe it is an ACBL > history? > My own impression is that the Director needs to find > out what the erring player thought he was doing in order > to rule. I am seeking elucidation from experienced TDs > of the way in which they handle such a situation. I may simply be wrong here, but "established jurisprudence" was what I took away from those earlier discussions on L27B1. As I recall, I was close to a minority of one in suggesting that the information in question be revealed to the table, and the suggestion that the TD ascertain the info without revealing it to the table was widely deprecated, by some who argued that the TD should make his own determination as to the likely meaning, by others who argued that all possible (or likely) meanings should be accounted for, and by some who deprecate the TD's "taking a player away from the table" as a fact-finding practice in general. I don't want to restart that discussion if we're just going to retrample well-trod ground, but is the interpretation question still open? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 24 06:22:15 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:22:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:26:32 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > .......... >> The abyss can be very deep between what an action conveys by agreement >> and >> what a player was thinking/believing at the time he took the action. >> And > here is >> law that insists that the two be melded into one. Pitiful. > > I simply don't understand why there should be so difficult for the > Director > when applying Law 26 to get established in a friendly conversation with > the > players at the table which of the alternatives Law 26A1, 26A2 or 26B to > apply? (And in the case of Law 26A which suit or suits the withdrawn call > specified.) > > Note that if the Director cannot satisfy himself in having the specified > suit(s) established he will apply Law 26B which usually is the > alternative > that is least favorable for the offending side. For my example from the table: 1H 2C P X You find out that the X was meant as a negative double, showing spades. Is that enough information for you to make a ruling? Or does it make a difference if the doubler's partner realized that? From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 24 08:14:36 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:14:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> Message-ID: <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sven Pran wrote: ......... > > I simply don't understand why there should be so difficult for the > > Director when applying Law 26 to get established in a friendly > > conversation with the players at the table which of the alternatives > > Law 26A1, 26A2 or 26B to apply? (And in the case of Law 26A which suit > > or suits the withdrawn call > > specified.) > > > > Note that if the Director cannot satisfy himself in having the > > specified > > suit(s) established he will apply Law 26B which usually is the > > alternative that is least favorable for the offending side. > > For my example from the table: > > 1H 2C P X > > You find out that the X was meant as a negative double, showing spades. Is that > enough information for you to make a ruling? Or does it make a difference if the > doubler's partner realized that? For simplicity let me assume that the dealer was West so that the doubler was South. 1: Immediate ruling Law 36: The double is inadmissible, South must substitute a legal call, the auction continues and North must pass whenever it is his turn to call. 2: Ruling at the end of the auction Law 26: Law 26 applies if East/West becomes the declaring side. If I become satisfied that the double referred to one or more particular suits (for instance that it was intended as a negative double) I shall apply Law 26A, otherwise I shall apply Law 26B. I shall not easily be satisfied, this will mainly depend on the impressions I get from the conversation with the players at the table when called after the irregularity together with the level of the players, to some degree even on the continued auction. (Also remember that the effect of Law 26A depends on what suits South eventually shows during the continued auction.) 3: Ruling at the end of the play Law 23: After the play is completed I may have to consider Law 23. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 24 17:44:09 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:44:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> Message-ID: It seems that L26 is ambiguous and interpreted in different ways. And people who apply L26 intuitively could not say a general principle that they follow. Long Story. L27A requires the director to decide if an insufficient bid is artificial or natural. In the 1997 laws: "If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional...." Technically, an insufficient bid is meaningless. It seemed obvious to me that people in fact interpreted this enigmatic law in different ways. For example.. 2S 2C Some people would go by intended meaning -- if 2Cl was meant to be natural, then the 3lC subsitution could be nonbarring; if it was meant to be artificial, then the 3 Cl subsitution barred partner. Some people went by possible meanings. Because one possible meaning was artificial, the 3Cl subsitution was barring. And I think the majority of directors probably used a fuzzy if-it-looks-like-it-could-be-artifical-to-me method. If they didn't notice that 2 CL could have been meant as an opening bid, then the 3 Cl subsitution could be nonbarring; if they realized that 2 Cl could have been meant as an opening bid, then 3 Cl was always barring. The problem of different applications came to a crashing head with the new L27B. IMO, the only intelligent way to interpret "meaning" in L27B is by intended meaning. There is nothing illogical about using "possible meanings", except the law becomes impossibly difficult to interpret and apply. And once 'intended meaning' is used for L27B, it pretty much has to be used for L27A. Which is what mostly happens now. L26 is similarly enigmatic -- it refers to the 'suits related to a call' when that call sometimes has no technical meaning -- insufficient bids and inadmissable calls. Given the current interpretation of L27, it is pretty logical to use 'intended meaning' to determine what suits an insufficient bid relates to. And once you have done that, then it becomes logical to also use 'intended meaning' for inadmissable calls. Grattan has done this, provisionally. But they we get to a ruling that I think no one would make at the table. 1He 2Cl P X The player meant the double as negative, showing spades. But using the (fuzzy intuitive) it-doesn't-suggest-any-suits-to-me principle, I would never have thought to apply L26A (call related to a specific suit) to it. The 2 Cl bidder was going to apply L26A, but that's because he thought he was on the same wavelength as his partner, that it was a Rosenkrantz double. I think as declarer I would have regretted my "not obvious to me" decision if I found out that both players were on the same wavelength. So. Summary? So far, 'intended meaning' is the only way I know of to actually state a principle how to apply L26. It probably does not correspond perfectly to how directors rule. People probably use some fuzzy intuitive principle. Like most fuzzy intuitive principles, it handles the obvious cases in a good way, but doesn't handle the in-the-middle cases. And of course it would be nice as director if the law was not fuzzy, because that leads to judgments and arguments and committees. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 24 18:04:25 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:04:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tough ruling? Message-ID: On the following auction, the 2 Di opening was alerted and explained as Flannery (showing hearts and spades). Then this explanation was almost immediatel corrected to being a weak 2 Di just showing Di. East claimed he did not hear the correction. West did hear the correction but said it was directed to him, which is to say, North was turned towards him when he made the correction. S W N E 2D P P 2H P P P East meant 2H as a cue bid, thinking South had shown 5 hearts; West took it as natural because he knew South had shown diamonds. I first ruled that the board was unplayable. I hardly ever do that, but this seemed like the right ruling here. True? I then gave EW an A+ and NS an A-. EW were happy but NS were very unhappy and threatened a committee (but did not carry though on that threat when I refused to back down; remember, split scores to make everyone happy are common here). South said they didn't do anything wrong. I claimed that the original explanation was wrong, making NS the offending side. They claimed that East wasn't paying attention. I found that likely. But I decided that when correcting a mistaken explanation, North had an obligation to make sure that both players were paying attention to the correction. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 24 18:25:33 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:25:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tough ruling? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000101cb2b4c$d7d65d50$878317f0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On the following auction, the 2 Di opening was alerted and explained as Flannery > (showing hearts and spades). Then this explanation was almost immediatel > corrected to being a weak 2 Di just showing Di. East claimed he did not hear the > correction. West did hear the correction but said it was directed to him, which is to > say, North was turned towards him when he made the correction. > > S W N E > 2D P P 2H > P P P > > East meant 2H as a cue bid, thinking South had shown 5 hearts; West took it as > natural because he knew South had shown diamonds. > > > I first ruled that the board was unplayable. I hardly ever do that, but this seemed > like the right ruling here. True? Absolutely not. The whole story "stinks", but one thing the Director should not do is rule the board unplayable. (Snip.....) Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Jul 24 18:56:54 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:56:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:26 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > .......... >> The abyss can be very deep between what an action conveys by agreement >> and >> what a player was thinking/believing at the time he took the action. And > here is >> law that insists that the two be melded into one. Pitiful. > > I simply don't understand why there should be so difficult for the > Director > when applying Law 26 to get established in a friendly conversation with > the > players at the table which of the alternatives Law 26A1, 26A2 or 26B to > apply? (And in the case of Law 26A which suit or suits the withdrawn call > specified.) > > Note that if the Director cannot satisfy himself in having the specified > suit(s) established he will apply Law 26B which usually is the alternative > that is least favorable for the offending side. Given first thought of the man who wrote the law was to ask the player what motivated him to do as he did is evidence that he had good reason for doing so. Even so, now we are in the territory of the ethics of believing he has been told the truth or has been told porkies. From that can arise some serious litigation surrounding breaches of ethics. This begs the question of the appropriateness of such a rule. The reason for lead penalties is to break the connection between the taking of extra turns and the cloud hanging over the remainder of the board. By breaking such connection both sides can act as though starting fresh and take care of business without further undue distraction. In other words the penalty fails if the penalty process causes more problems than it solves. And directly to the point of the penalty process causing more problems than it solves: where the process draws attention to a player what his partner's motivation was then L16 imposes upon him the option of being beheaded at his own hand or at the hand of the executioner- in addition to the detrimental effects of the penalty. As has been asserted by others the motivation of the player is germane to selecting the penalty to be applied to the partner. And just how is this motivation to be ascertained except by interrogation. And is it imaginable that the result of the interrogation not be believed in hindsight? I should think yes, it is possible in cases when the truth hasn't been told- and when it has been told. And what of the times when the accusation is made. It is wrong to do anything but resolve it forthwith since to delay clearing the name is to impose a far greater penalty- that of distraction from playing his best. And necessarily, to do so would bring the proceedings to a halt [to the detriment to the tournament] while a trial is held. The point is that both are unsatisfactory. This, in and of itself is sufficient cause to write some other criteria into law for assessing the penalty. regards roger peick From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 24 19:05:53 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:05:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> Message-ID: <4C4B1D71.7000609@nhcc.net> On 7/21/2010 12:45 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I understand the > idea that if a bid is technically meaningless (insufficient or > inadmissable) it doesn't have meaning. Perhaps the practical question is what evidence the Director should use to establish the meaning. Anyone have thoughts or recommendations? On 7/23/2010 9:41 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Numerous problems that arise when applying the laws on IBs or > inadmissable doubles would evaporate if the offender were allowed/ > required to reveal the (alternative) auction to which he thought he > was bidding. Yes, this is one obvious approach. Like Eric, I find nothing in the Laws forbidding it, but it does have some obvious disadvantages. Asking the offender's partner is also possible, though that comes with its own, different problems. On 7/24/2010 11:44 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > And of course it would be nice as director if the law was not fuzzy, Amen to that! From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 24 20:02:02 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 20:02:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> Message-ID: <000201cb2b5a$528a7dd0$f79f7970$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Roger > Pewick > Sent: 24. juli 2010 18:57 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Sven Pran" > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:26 > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > .......... > >> The abyss can be very deep between what an action conveys by > >> agreement and what a player was thinking/believing at the time he > >> took the action. And > > here is > >> law that insists that the two be melded into one. Pitiful. > > > > I simply don't understand why there should be so difficult for the > > Director when applying Law 26 to get established in a friendly > > conversation with the players at the table which of the alternatives > > Law 26A1, 26A2 or 26B to apply? (And in the case of Law 26A which suit > > or suits the withdrawn call > > specified.) > > > > Note that if the Director cannot satisfy himself in having the > > specified > > suit(s) established he will apply Law 26B which usually is the > > alternative that is least favorable for the offending side. > > Given first thought of the man who wrote the law was to ask the player what > motivated him to do as he did is evidence that he had good reason for doing so. > Even so, now we are in the territory of the ethics of believing he has been told the > truth or has been told porkies. From that can arise some serious litigation > surrounding breaches of ethics. > > This begs the question of the appropriateness of such a rule. > > The reason for lead penalties is to break the connection between the taking of > extra turns and the cloud hanging over the remainder of the board. By breaking > such connection both sides can act as though starting fresh and take care of > business without further undue distraction. In other words the penalty fails if the > penalty process causes more problems than it solves. > > And directly to the point of the penalty process causing more problems than it > solves: where the process draws attention to a player what his partner's motivation > was then L16 imposes upon him the option of being beheaded at his own hand or > at the hand of the executioner- in addition to the detrimental effects of the penalty. > > As has been asserted by others the motivation of the player is germane to > selecting the penalty to be applied to the partner. And just how is this motivation > to be ascertained except by interrogation. And is it imaginable that the result of > the interrogation not be believed in hindsight? I should think yes, it is possible in > cases when the truth hasn't been told- and when it has been told. And what of the > times when the accusation is made. It is wrong to do anything but resolve it > forthwith since to delay clearing the name is to impose a far greater penalty- that > of distraction from playing his best. And necessarily, to do so would bring the > proceedings to a halt [to the detriment to the tournament] while a trial is held. > > The point is that both are unsatisfactory. This, in and of itself is sufficient cause to > write some other criteria into law for assessing the penalty. > > regards > roger peick Even after reading the above several times I don't have the faintest idea of what you are trying to express. Out. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 24 20:08:11 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 20:08:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4B1D71.7000609@nhcc.net> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C4B1D71.7000609@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000301cb2b5b$2e4408a0$8acc19e0$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve > Willner > Sent: 24. juli 2010 19:06 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > On 7/21/2010 12:45 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > I understand the > > idea that if a bid is technically meaningless (insufficient or > > inadmissable) it doesn't have meaning. > > Perhaps the practical question is what evidence the Director should use to > establish the meaning. Anyone have thoughts or recommendations? > > On 7/23/2010 9:41 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Numerous problems that arise when applying the laws on IBs or > inadmissable > doubles would evaporate if the offender were allowed/ > required to reveal the > (alternative) auction to which he thought he > was bidding. > > Yes, this is one obvious approach. Like Eric, I find nothing in the Laws forbidding > it, but it does have some obvious disadvantages. Asking the offender's partner is > also possible, though that comes with its own, different problems. > > On 7/24/2010 11:44 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > > And of course it would be nice as director if the law was not fuzzy, > > Amen to that! Well, there are some basic principles for the laws on Bridge. These principles constitute a major part of Directors' training, and understanding them takes a Director a long way towards understanding and correctly applying the laws. If I am not much mistaken exactly the same applies to the penal code and the civil code legislation in almost any country in the world? Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 24 20:31:23 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:31:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000301cb2b5b$2e4408a0$8acc19e0$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C4B1D71.7000609@nhcc.net> <000301cb2b5b$2e4408a0$8acc19e0$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:08:11 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of > Steve >> Willner >> Sent: 24. juli 2010 19:06 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid >> >> On 7/21/2010 12:45 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> > I understand the >> > idea that if a bid is technically meaningless (insufficient or >> > inadmissable) it doesn't have meaning. >> >> Perhaps the practical question is what evidence the Director should use >> to >> establish the meaning. Anyone have thoughts or recommendations? >> >> On 7/23/2010 9:41 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> > Numerous problems that arise when applying the laws on IBs or > > inadmissable >> doubles would evaporate if the offender were allowed/ > required to > reveal the >> (alternative) auction to which he thought he > was bidding. >> >> Yes, this is one obvious approach. Like Eric, I find nothing in the >> Laws > forbidding >> it, but it does have some obvious disadvantages. Asking the offender's > partner is >> also possible, though that comes with its own, different problems. >> >> On 7/24/2010 11:44 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> > And of course it would be nice as director if the law was not fuzzy, >> >> Amen to that! > > Well, there are some basic principles for the laws on Bridge. These > principles constitute a major part of Directors' training, and > understanding > them takes a Director a long way towards understanding and correctly > applying the laws. And then dogmatism and blind belief can eliminate the remaining areas of fuzziness. But that doesn't work for everyone, and it leads to inconsistent rulings. Or help the people who have access only to the lawbook. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Jul 24 21:29:01 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:29:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000201cb2b5a$528a7dd0$f79f7970$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000201cb2b5a$528a7dd0$f79f7970$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 13:02 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Roger >> Pewick >> Sent: 24. juli 2010 18:57 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:26 >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid >> >> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >> > .......... >> >> The abyss can be very deep between what an action conveys by >> >> agreement and what a player was thinking/believing at the time he >> >> took the action. And >> > here is >> >> law that insists that the two be melded into one. Pitiful. >> > >> > I simply don't understand why there should be so difficult for the >> > Director when applying Law 26 to get established in a friendly >> > conversation with the players at the table which of the alternatives >> > Law 26A1, 26A2 or 26B to apply? (And in the case of Law 26A which suit >> > or suits the withdrawn call >> > specified.) >> > >> > Note that if the Director cannot satisfy himself in having the >> > specified >> > suit(s) established he will apply Law 26B which usually is the >> > alternative that is least favorable for the offending side. >> >> Given first thought of the man who wrote the law was to ask the player > what >> motivated him to do as he did is evidence that he had good reason for > doing so. >> Even so, now we are in the territory of the ethics of believing he has > been told the >> truth or has been told porkies. From that can arise some serious > litigation >> surrounding breaches of ethics. >> >> This begs the question of the appropriateness of such a rule. >> >> The reason for lead penalties is to break the connection between the > taking of >> extra turns and the cloud hanging over the remainder of the board. By > breaking >> such connection both sides can act as though starting fresh and take care > of >> business without further undue distraction. In other words the penalty > fails if the >> penalty process causes more problems than it solves. >> >> And directly to the point of the penalty process causing more problems > than it >> solves: where the process draws attention to a player what his partner's > motivation >> was then L16 imposes upon him the option of being beheaded at his own >> hand > or >> at the hand of the executioner- in addition to the detrimental effects of > the penalty. >> >> As has been asserted by others the motivation of the player is germane to >> selecting the penalty to be applied to the partner. And just how is this > motivation >> to be ascertained except by interrogation. And is it imaginable that the > result of >> the interrogation not be believed in hindsight? I should think yes, it >> is > possible in >> cases when the truth hasn't been told- and when it has been told. And > what of the >> times when the accusation is made. It is wrong to do anything but >> resolve > it >> forthwith since to delay clearing the name is to impose a far greater > penalty- that >> of distraction from playing his best. And necessarily, to do so would > bring the >> proceedings to a halt [to the detriment to the tournament] while a trial > is held. >> >> The point is that both are unsatisfactory. This, in and of itself is > sufficient cause to >> write some other criteria into law for assessing the penalty. >> >> regards >> roger peick > > Even after reading the above several times I don't have the faintest idea > of > what you are trying to express. For one thing, the opponent should have the option of condoning the second double without penalty. The loss suffered relating to the future OL consists of not what motivated evil doer to do what he did- but of the extra information conveyed by agreement less the mitigating information from later in the auction. regards roger pewick > Out. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Sun Jul 25 04:31:17 2010 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:31:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tough ruling? In-Reply-To: <000101cb2b4c$d7d65d50$878317f0$@no> References: <000101cb2b4c$d7d65d50$878317f0$@no> Message-ID: <6988100ECA8F46139FF4504506199733@mikePC> -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:25 PM To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] tough ruling? > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> On the following auction, the 2 Di opening was alerted and explained as > Flannery >> (showing hearts and spades). Then this explanation was almost immediatel >> corrected to being a weak 2 Di just showing Di. East claimed he did not > hear the >> correction. West did hear the correction but said it was directed to him, > which is to >> say, North was turned towards him when he made the correction. >> >> S W N E >> 2D P P 2H >> P P P >> >> East meant 2H as a cue bid, thinking South had shown 5 hearts; West took > it as >> natural because he knew South had shown diamonds. >> >> >> I first ruled that the board was unplayable. I hardly ever do that, but > this seemed >> like the right ruling here. True? > > Absolutely not. > > The whole story "stinks", but one thing the Director should not do is rule > the board unplayable. I don't think that the ruling is correct but Sven's response is not exactly helpful nor appropriate. In what sense does the story "stink"? It seems to me to be the sort of story I come across often - muddle heaped on confusion. When were you called Robert? When did you declare the board unplayable? Without the full story there is little hope that we can give definitive advice. You certainly should have allowed the hand to be declared in 2H - this might even be a favourable result for EW - in a Teams match EW's team mates may have an excellent result at the other table There was some bridge played here - South opened 2D - weak and natural - followed by two passes - not much else was proper bridge - but it's important for directors to recognise that we must start from the bridge that was played - NS may be on the way to a favourable or indeed unfavourable bridge result following South's opening. Only if we decide there are too many outcomes to quantify should we award an artificial score = even then 40% 60% may be inappropriate (Law 12 C 1 (d) and not 12 A 2 applies) . I think Robert is correct in his view that North has given Misinformation. Of course I would need to investigate and make a ruling, but it is North's responsibility to give correct information and especially if he started off by giving the incorrect information he must not just "transmit" he needs to ensure that his message is received and understood. East clearly has received MI. Given the correct information the TD must determine what East would have bid and make some judgment about the likely outcomes. In Europe and most of the world this would probably involve a weighted score (Law 12 C 1 (c) ), in the ACBL Law 12 C 1 (e) (i) and (ii) apply MIke Amos > > (Snip.....) > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Jul 25 05:19:48 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:19:48 +0800 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer><5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred><000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> Message-ID: <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > It seems that L26 is ambiguous and interpreted in different ways. And > people who apply L26 intuitively could not say a general principle that > they follow. > > > Long Story. L27A requires the director to decide if an insufficient bid is > artificial or natural. In the 1997 laws: "If both the insufficient bid and > the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional...." > Technically, an insufficient bid is meaningless. It seemed obvious to me > that people in fact interpreted this enigmatic law in different ways. For > example.. > > 2S 2C > > Some people would go by intended meaning -- if 2Cl was meant to be > natural, then the 3lC subsitution could be nonbarring; if it was meant to > be artificial, then the 3 Cl subsitution barred partner. Some people went > by possible meanings. Because one possible meaning was artificial, the 3Cl > subsitution was barring. And I think the majority of directors probably > used a fuzzy if-it-looks-like-it-could-be-artifical-to-me method. If they > didn't notice that 2 CL could have been meant as an opening bid, then the > 3 Cl subsitution could be nonbarring; if they realized that 2 Cl could > have been meant as an opening bid, then 3 Cl was always barring. > > The problem of different applications came to a crashing head with the new > L27B. IMO, the only intelligent way to interpret "meaning" in L27B is by > intended meaning. There is nothing illogical about using "possible > meanings", except the law becomes impossibly difficult to interpret and > apply. > > And once 'intended meaning' is used for L27B, it pretty much has to be > used for L27A. Which is what mostly happens now. > > L26 is similarly enigmatic -- it refers to the 'suits related to a call' > when that call sometimes has no technical meaning -- insufficient bids and > inadmissable calls. Given the current interpretation of L27, it is pretty > logical to use 'intended meaning' to determine what suits an insufficient > bid relates to. And once you have done that, then it becomes logical to > also use 'intended meaning' for inadmissable calls. Grattan has done this, > provisionally. > > But they we get to a ruling that I think no one would make at the table. > > 1He 2Cl P X > > The player meant the double as negative, showing spades. But using the > (fuzzy intuitive) it-doesn't-suggest-any-suits-to-me principle, I would > never have thought to apply L26A (call related to a specific suit) to it. > The 2 Cl bidder was going to apply L26A, but that's because he thought he > was on the same wavelength as his partner, that it was a Rosenkrantz > double. I think as declarer I would have regretted my "not obvious to me" > decision if I found out that both players were on the same wavelength. > > > So. Summary? So far, 'intended meaning' is the only way I know of to > actually state a principle how to apply L26. It probably does not > correspond perfectly to how directors rule. People probably use some fuzzy > intuitive principle. Like most fuzzy intuitive principles, it handles the > obvious cases in a good way, but doesn't handle the in-the-middle cases. > And of course it would be nice as director if the law was not fuzzy, > because that leads to judgments and arguments and committees. because my fuzziness generally produces poor rulings I prefer to collect evidence instead. :-) this is in keeping with L 85 Might I suggest as a practical technique that (a) You take the player who made the call away from the table to reduce UI . (b) Ask the player a general question e.g. "what happened?". You will probably receive answers such as " I didn't see the club bid" or "I was asleep and thought I was opening the auction" or " I meant to pass but the double was mixed in with the pass cards" or " my partner has given a wrong explanation" (c) follow this by specific questions as necessary e.g. "In this auction would 3C be artificial?", "If the auction had been 1S P 2C would the 2C be artificial?", " In your system would an opening bid of 2C be artificial?". (d) When you have sufficient information to rule, inform the player of her options, return to the table with her and invite her to correct her call. If, after this, an explanation is required at the table, you must be careful not to give the players information that they are not entitled to under L16 A. bill > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 25 08:29:48 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 02:29:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> Message-ID: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:19:48 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > >> It seems that L26 is ambiguous and interpreted in different ways. And >> people who apply L26 intuitively could not say a general principle that >> they follow. >> >> >> Long Story. L27A requires the director to decide if an insufficient bid >> is >> artificial or natural. In the 1997 laws: "If both the insufficient bid >> and >> the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional...." >> Technically, an insufficient bid is meaningless. It seemed obvious to me >> that people in fact interpreted this enigmatic law in different ways. >> For >> example.. >> >> 2S 2C >> >> Some people would go by intended meaning -- if 2Cl was meant to be >> natural, then the 3lC subsitution could be nonbarring; if it was meant >> to >> be artificial, then the 3 Cl subsitution barred partner. Some people >> went >> by possible meanings. Because one possible meaning was artificial, the >> 3Cl >> subsitution was barring. And I think the majority of directors probably >> used a fuzzy if-it-looks-like-it-could-be-artifical-to-me method. If >> they >> didn't notice that 2 CL could have been meant as an opening bid, then >> the >> 3 Cl subsitution could be nonbarring; if they realized that 2 Cl could >> have been meant as an opening bid, then 3 Cl was always barring. >> >> The problem of different applications came to a crashing head with the >> new >> L27B. IMO, the only intelligent way to interpret "meaning" in L27B is by >> intended meaning. There is nothing illogical about using "possible >> meanings", except the law becomes impossibly difficult to interpret and >> apply. >> >> And once 'intended meaning' is used for L27B, it pretty much has to be >> used for L27A. Which is what mostly happens now. >> >> L26 is similarly enigmatic -- it refers to the 'suits related to a call' >> when that call sometimes has no technical meaning -- insufficient bids >> and >> inadmissable calls. Given the current interpretation of L27, it is >> pretty >> logical to use 'intended meaning' to determine what suits an >> insufficient >> bid relates to. And once you have done that, then it becomes logical to >> also use 'intended meaning' for inadmissable calls. Grattan has done >> this, >> provisionally. >> >> But they we get to a ruling that I think no one would make at the table. >> >> 1He 2Cl P X >> >> The player meant the double as negative, showing spades. But using the >> (fuzzy intuitive) it-doesn't-suggest-any-suits-to-me principle, I would >> never have thought to apply L26A (call related to a specific suit) to >> it. >> The 2 Cl bidder was going to apply L26A, but that's because he thought >> he >> was on the same wavelength as his partner, that it was a Rosenkrantz >> double. I think as declarer I would have regretted my "not obvious to >> me" >> decision if I found out that both players were on the same wavelength. >> >> >> So. Summary? So far, 'intended meaning' is the only way I know of to >> actually state a principle how to apply L26. It probably does not >> correspond perfectly to how directors rule. People probably use some >> fuzzy >> intuitive principle. Like most fuzzy intuitive principles, it handles >> the >> obvious cases in a good way, but doesn't handle the in-the-middle cases. >> And of course it would be nice as director if the law was not fuzzy, >> because that leads to judgments and arguments and committees. > > because my fuzziness generally produces poor rulings I prefer to collect > evidence instead. :-) this is in keeping with L 85 > > Might I suggest as a practical technique that (a) You take the player who > made the call away from the table to reduce UI . (b) Ask the player a > general question e.g. "what happened?". You will probably receive answers > such as " I didn't see the club bid" or "I was asleep and thought I was > opening the auction" or " I meant to pass but the double was mixed in > with > the pass cards" or " my partner has given a wrong explanation" (c) > follow > this by specific questions as necessary e.g. "In this auction would 3C be > artificial?", "If the auction had been 1S P 2C would the 2C be > artificial?", Okay, suppose I do this. I found out that the double was meant as negative. > " In your system would an opening bid of 2C be artificial?". (d) When you > have sufficient information to rule, inform the player of her options, > return to the table with her and invite her to correct her call. This was an inadmissable double. 1H 2C P X > > If, after this, an explanation is required at the table, you must be > careful > not to give the players information that they are not entitled to under > L16 > A. Yes. But then what? Do I apply L26A or L26B (if the offending side defends)? What principle do I use to decide if a technically meaningless call referred to a suit? From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 25 11:04:14 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:04:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tough ruling? In-Reply-To: <6988100ECA8F46139FF4504506199733@mikePC> References: <000101cb2b4c$d7d65d50$878317f0$@no> <6988100ECA8F46139FF4504506199733@mikePC> Message-ID: <000001cb2bd8$5c7f2d80$157d8880$@no> On Behalf Of Mike Amos > Sent: 25. juli 2010 04:31 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] tough ruling? > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Sven Pran" > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:25 PM > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [BLML] tough ruling? > > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > >> On the following auction, the 2 Di opening was alerted and explained > >> as > > Flannery > >> (showing hearts and spades). Then this explanation was almost > >> immediatel corrected to being a weak 2 Di just showing Di. East > >> claimed he did not > > hear the > >> correction. West did hear the correction but said it was directed to > >> him, > > which is to > >> say, North was turned towards him when he made the correction. > >> > >> S W N E > >> 2D P P 2H > >> P P P > >> > >> East meant 2H as a cue bid, thinking South had shown 5 hearts; West > >> took > > it as > >> natural because he knew South had shown diamonds. > >> > >> > >> I first ruled that the board was unplayable. I hardly ever do that, > >> but > > this seemed > >> like the right ruling here. True? > > > > Absolutely not. > > > > The whole story "stinks", but one thing the Director should not do is > > rule the board unplayable. > > > I don't think that the ruling is correct but Sven's response is not exactly helpful nor > appropriate. In what sense does the story "stink"? North passed after explaining 2D as Flannery. This "stinks" unless he first corrected his explanation. And if he did correct his explanation before he passed then East's failure to get the correction "stinks". If we shall believe East, what can he have thought when North passed a Flannery 2D? The whole story "stinks". From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Jul 25 11:17:32 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:17:32 +0800 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer><5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred><000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:19:48 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp > wrote: > (snip) 7>> Might I suggest as a practical technique that (a) You take the player who >> made the call away from the table to reduce UI . (b) Ask the player a >> general question e.g. "what happened?". You will probably receive answers >> such as " I didn't see the club bid" or "I was asleep and thought I was >> opening the auction" or " I meant to pass but the double was mixed in >> with >> the pass cards" or " my partner has given a wrong explanation" (c) >> follow >> this by specific questions as necessary e.g. "In this auction would 3C be >> artificial?", "If the auction had been 1S P 2C would the 2C be >> artificial?", > > Okay, suppose I do this. I found out that the double was meant as > negative. > > > >> " In your system would an opening bid of 2C be artificial?". (d) When you >> have sufficient information to rule, inform the player of her options, >> return to the table with her and invite her to correct her call. > > > This was an inadmissable double. > > 1H 2C P X > > >> >> If, after this, an explanation is required at the table, you must be >> careful >> not to give the players information that they are not entitled to under >> L16 >> A. > > Yes. But then what? Do I apply L26A or L26B (if the offending side > defends)? What principle do I use to decide if a technically meaningless > call referred to a suit? Let us assume that you have determined by questions away from the table that in the auction W N E S 1H 2C P X (a) that South did not notice the 2C bid and (b) that the X was intended as a take out of Hearts perhaps primarily for spades then both return to the table. Then inform South (a) that the double is inadmissable and must be withdrawn (b) she may make any legal bid she wishes or she may pass (c) regardless of which action she chooses north must pass for the remainder of the auction (d) she remains in the auction for as long as it continues (e) if the opposition become the declaring side then there may be lead restrictions If EW become the declaring side and if (a) south bids spades in the ongoing auction then there will be no lead restrictions (b) south does not bid spades in the ongoing auction then the declarer may require or refuse a spade lead from north at his first turn to lead. bill > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 25 11:33:55 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:33:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> Message-ID: <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Sent: 25. juli 2010 08:30 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:19:48 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp > wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Robert Frick" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 11:44 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > > > > >> It seems that L26 is ambiguous and interpreted in different ways. And > >> people who apply L26 intuitively could not say a general principle that > >> they follow. > >> > >> > >> Long Story. L27A requires the director to decide if an insufficient bid > >> is > >> artificial or natural. In the 1997 laws: "If both the insufficient bid > >> and > >> the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional...." > >> Technically, an insufficient bid is meaningless. It seemed obvious to me > >> that people in fact interpreted this enigmatic law in different ways. > >> For > >> example.. > >> > >> 2S 2C > >> > >> Some people would go by intended meaning -- if 2Cl was meant to be > >> natural, then the 3lC subsitution could be nonbarring; if it was meant > >> to > >> be artificial, then the 3 Cl subsitution barred partner. Some people > >> went > >> by possible meanings. Because one possible meaning was artificial, the > >> 3Cl > >> subsitution was barring. And I think the majority of directors probably > >> used a fuzzy if-it-looks-like-it-could-be-artifical-to-me method. If > >> they > >> didn't notice that 2 CL could have been meant as an opening bid, then > >> the > >> 3 Cl subsitution could be nonbarring; if they realized that 2 Cl could > >> have been meant as an opening bid, then 3 Cl was always barring. > >> > >> The problem of different applications came to a crashing head with the > >> new > >> L27B. IMO, the only intelligent way to interpret "meaning" in L27B is by > >> intended meaning. There is nothing illogical about using "possible > >> meanings", except the law becomes impossibly difficult to interpret and > >> apply. > >> > >> And once 'intended meaning' is used for L27B, it pretty much has to be > >> used for L27A. Which is what mostly happens now. > >> > >> L26 is similarly enigmatic -- it refers to the 'suits related to a call' > >> when that call sometimes has no technical meaning -- insufficient bids > >> and > >> inadmissable calls. Given the current interpretation of L27, it is > >> pretty > >> logical to use 'intended meaning' to determine what suits an > >> insufficient > >> bid relates to. And once you have done that, then it becomes logical to > >> also use 'intended meaning' for inadmissable calls. Grattan has done > >> this, > >> provisionally. > >> > >> But they we get to a ruling that I think no one would make at the table. > >> > >> 1He 2Cl P X > >> > >> The player meant the double as negative, showing spades. But using the > >> (fuzzy intuitive) it-doesn't-suggest-any-suits-to-me principle, I would > >> never have thought to apply L26A (call related to a specific suit) to > >> it. > >> The 2 Cl bidder was going to apply L26A, but that's because he thought > >> he > >> was on the same wavelength as his partner, that it was a Rosenkrantz > >> double. I think as declarer I would have regretted my "not obvious to > >> me" > >> decision if I found out that both players were on the same wavelength. > >> > >> > >> So. Summary? So far, 'intended meaning' is the only way I know of to > >> actually state a principle how to apply L26. It probably does not > >> correspond perfectly to how directors rule. People probably use some > >> fuzzy > >> intuitive principle. Like most fuzzy intuitive principles, it handles > >> the > >> obvious cases in a good way, but doesn't handle the in-the-middle cases. > >> And of course it would be nice as director if the law was not fuzzy, > >> because that leads to judgments and arguments and committees. > > > > because my fuzziness generally produces poor rulings I prefer to collect > > evidence instead. :-) this is in keeping with L 85 > > > > Might I suggest as a practical technique that (a) You take the player who > > made the call away from the table to reduce UI . (b) Ask the player a > > general question e.g. "what happened?". You will probably receive answers > > such as " I didn't see the club bid" or "I was asleep and thought I was > > opening the auction" or " I meant to pass but the double was mixed in > > with > > the pass cards" or " my partner has given a wrong explanation" (c) > > follow > > this by specific questions as necessary e.g. "In this auction would 3C be > > artificial?", "If the auction had been 1S P 2C would the 2C be > > artificial?", > > Okay, suppose I do this. I found out that the double was meant as negative. > > > > > " In your system would an opening bid of 2C be artificial?". (d) When you > > have sufficient information to rule, inform the player of her options, > > return to the table with her and invite her to correct her call. > > > This was an inadmissable double. > > 1H 2C P X > > > > > > If, after this, an explanation is required at the table, you must be > > careful > > not to give the players information that they are not entitled to under > > L16 > > A. > > Yes. But then what? Do I apply L26A or L26B (if the offending side > defends)? What principle do I use to decide if a technically meaningless > call referred to a suit? If a technically meaningless call referred to a suit it did indeed so (the suit is the suit named in the bid) and you apply L26A. A technically meaningless call other than a bid naming one of the four suits cannot refer to any suit for the simple reason that it is technically meaningless. Why is this so difficult? An interesting question (if you had touched it) that is unanswered in the laws is: If the withdrawn call refers to a specific suit and in addition to an unspecified suit, for instance it refers to Spades and a minor, can declarer then at his own choice choose between L26A and L26B and either request a spade led (L26A) or specify a suit (among all four suits) and forbid this suit led (L26B)? From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 25 11:45:59 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:45:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer><5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred><000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> Message-ID: <000201cb2bde$302e35e0$908aa1a0$@no> > Let us assume that you have determined by questions away from the table that > in the auction > W N E S > 1H 2C P X .......... Why make the situation more difficult than it is? There is no cause for taking any player away from the table. When it comes to the play, if North/South is the defending side you allow declarer to name one of the four suits and forbid north from leading that suit at his first turn to lead and for as long as he retains the lead. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jul 25 11:45:41 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:45:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tough ruling? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26E73B4A-1E60-4C1C-9DF7-6CC5DDE701CC@btinternet.com> On 24 Jul 2010, at 17:04, Robert Frick wrote: > On the following auction, the 2 Di opening was alerted and > explained as > Flannery (showing hearts and spades). Then this explanation was almost > immediatel corrected to being a weak 2 Di just showing Di. East > claimed he > did not hear the correction. West did hear the correction but said > it was > directed to him, which is to say, North was turned towards him when he > made the correction. > > S W N E > 2D P P 2H > P P P > > East meant 2H as a cue bid, thinking South had shown 5 hearts; West > took > it as natural because he knew South had shown diamonds When did this all come to light? If before the opening lead had been faced, you could have given North back his final call. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jul 25 11:52:36 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:52:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tough ruling? In-Reply-To: <26E73B4A-1E60-4C1C-9DF7-6CC5DDE701CC@btinternet.com> References: <26E73B4A-1E60-4C1C-9DF7-6CC5DDE701CC@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <32FBCE62-C7E1-4A29-A1E2-9D0BA93EBD8E@btinternet.com> On 25 Jul 2010, at 10:45, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 24 Jul 2010, at 17:04, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On the following auction, the 2 Di opening was alerted and >> explained as >> Flannery (showing hearts and spades). Then this explanation was >> almost >> immediatel corrected to being a weak 2 Di just showing Di. East >> claimed he >> did not hear the correction. West did hear the correction but said >> it was >> directed to him, which is to say, North was turned towards him >> when he >> made the correction. >> >> S W N E >> 2D P P 2H >> P P P >> >> East meant 2H as a cue bid, thinking South had shown 5 hearts; West >> took >> it as natural because he knew South had shown diamonds > > When did this all come to light? If before the opening lead had been > faced, you could have given North back his final call. Sorry, I meant to say West. I was confused by the diagram not lining up. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jul 25 12:21:39 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:21:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> Message-ID: On 25 Jul 2010, at 10:33, Sven Pran wrote: > > An interesting question (if you had touched it) that is unanswered > in the > laws is: If the withdrawn call refers to a specific suit and in > addition to > an unspecified suit, for instance it refers to Spades and a minor, can > declarer then at his own choice choose between L26A and L26B and > either > request a spade led (L26A) or specify a suit (among all four suits) > and > forbid this suit led (L26B)? L26A says "if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit)" From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 25 12:42:48 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:42:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> Message-ID: <000601cb2be6$20436030$60ca2090$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > On 25 Jul 2010, at 10:33, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > An interesting question (if you had touched it) that is unanswered in > > the laws is: If the withdrawn call refers to a specific suit and in > > addition to an unspecified suit, for instance it refers to Spades and > > a minor, can declarer then at his own choice choose between L26A and > > L26B and either request a spade led (L26A) or specify a suit (among > > all four suits) and forbid this suit led (L26B)? > > L26A says "if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no > other suit)" Right you are! For once I just looked up our Norwegian translation instead of the original English text. I see now that we have lost that parenthesized clause in our translation. Thanks for calling my attention to this translation error (obviously unknown to you); it will be taken care of. Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 25 15:54:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:54:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:17:32 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 2:29 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:19:48 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp >> wrote: >> > > (snip) > > 7>> Might I suggest as a practical technique that (a) You take the player > who >>> made the call away from the table to reduce UI . (b) Ask the player a >>> general question e.g. "what happened?". You will probably receive >>> answers >>> such as " I didn't see the club bid" or "I was asleep and thought I was >>> opening the auction" or " I meant to pass but the double was mixed in >>> with >>> the pass cards" or " my partner has given a wrong explanation" (c) >>> follow >>> this by specific questions as necessary e.g. "In this auction would 3C >>> be >>> artificial?", "If the auction had been 1S P 2C would the 2C be >>> artificial?", >> >> Okay, suppose I do this. I found out that the double was meant as >> negative. >> >> >> >>> " In your system would an opening bid of 2C be artificial?". (d) When >>> you >>> have sufficient information to rule, inform the player of her options, >>> return to the table with her and invite her to correct her call. >> >> >> This was an inadmissable double. >> >> 1H 2C P X >> >> >>> >>> If, after this, an explanation is required at the table, you must be >>> careful >>> not to give the players information that they are not entitled to under >>> L16 >>> A. >> >> Yes. But then what? Do I apply L26A or L26B (if the offending side >> defends)? What principle do I use to decide if a technically meaningless >> call referred to a suit? > > Let us assume that you have determined by questions away from the table > that > in the auction > W N E S > 1H 2C P X > (a) that South did not notice the 2C bid > and > (b) that the X was intended as a take out of Hearts perhaps primarily > for > spades > then > both return to the table. Then inform South > (a) that the double is inadmissable and must be withdrawn > (b) she may make any legal bid she wishes or she may pass > (c) regardless of which action she chooses north must pass for the > remainder > of the auction > (d) she remains in the auction for as long as it continues > (e) if the opposition become the declaring side then there may be lead > restrictions > If EW become the declaring side and if > (a) south bids spades in the ongoing auction then there will be no lead > restrictions > (b) south does not bid spades in the ongoing auction then the declarer > may > require or refuse a spade lead from north at his first turn to lead. So you are suggesting the same principle as Grattan. I determine the intended meaning of the inadmissable call. If that indicates a suit (that has not been shown in the bidding), the lead restrictions in L26A2 apply to that suit (or suits). From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 25 16:01:55 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:01:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tough ruling? In-Reply-To: <32FBCE62-C7E1-4A29-A1E2-9D0BA93EBD8E@btinternet.com> References: <26E73B4A-1E60-4C1C-9DF7-6CC5DDE701CC@btinternet.com> <32FBCE62-C7E1-4A29-A1E2-9D0BA93EBD8E@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:52:36 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 25 Jul 2010, at 10:45, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> >> On 24 Jul 2010, at 17:04, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On the following auction, the 2 Di opening was alerted and >>> explained as >>> Flannery (showing hearts and spades). Then this explanation was >>> almost >>> immediatel corrected to being a weak 2 Di just showing Di. East >>> claimed he >>> did not hear the correction. West did hear the correction but said >>> it was >>> directed to him, which is to say, North was turned towards him >>> when he >>> made the correction. >>> >>> S W N E >>> 2D P P 2H >>> P P P >>> >>> East meant 2H as a cue bid, thinking South had shown 5 hearts; West >>> took >>> it as natural because he knew South had shown diamonds >> >> When did this all come to light? If before the opening lead had been >> faced, you could have given North back his final call. > > Sorry, I meant to say West. I was confused by the diagram not lining up. True? West's pass was not based on misinformation. Maybe I am being too picky and I should have let that happen. At the table, that didn't seem right. Maybe because East had already said that his bid was based on misinformation. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jul 25 17:07:15 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:07:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tough ruling? In-Reply-To: References: <26E73B4A-1E60-4C1C-9DF7-6CC5DDE701CC@btinternet.com> <32FBCE62-C7E1-4A29-A1E2-9D0BA93EBD8E@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <5237EACD-8F38-4A70-A9E5-D5278A2E0335@btinternet.com> On 25 Jul 2010, at 15:01, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:52:36 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> >> On 25 Jul 2010, at 10:45, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> >>> On 24 Jul 2010, at 17:04, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> On the following auction, the 2 Di opening was alerted and >>>> explained as >>>> Flannery (showing hearts and spades). Then this explanation was >>>> almost >>>> immediatel corrected to being a weak 2 Di just showing Di. East >>>> claimed he >>>> did not hear the correction. West did hear the correction but said >>>> it was >>>> directed to him, which is to say, North was turned towards him >>>> when he >>>> made the correction. >>>> >>>> S W N E >>>> 2D P P 2H >>>> P P P >>>> >>>> East meant 2H as a cue bid, thinking South had shown 5 hearts; West >>>> took >>>> it as natural because he knew South had shown diamonds >>> >>> When did this all come to light? If before the opening lead had been >>> faced, you could have given North back his final call. >> >> Sorry, I meant to say West. I was confused by the diagram not >> lining up. > > True? West's pass was not based on misinformation. That's true. West's pass was a consequence of the misinformation that had been given to East. I answered too early in the morning without checking the wording of L21B1a. But in that case, you just allow the play to continue and apply L21B3 if necessary. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 25 21:06:37 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:06:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> Message-ID: > > If a technically meaningless call referred to a suit it did indeed so > (the > suit is the suit named in the bid) and you apply L26A. > > A technically meaningless call other than a bid naming one of the four > suits > cannot refer to any suit for the simple reason that it is technically > meaningless. > > Why is this so difficult? It's not. It's pretty simple to apply, I just didn't know you were following this principle. The difficulty is all in my head. Did you see this example? 2NT P 2H The 2H is pretty obviously a Jacoby transfer,and it was even announced as such. But they player withdraws it, deciding to play in 2NT. Then the opps compete and win the contract. According to your principle, the bid suit is hearts so the lead restrictions apply hearts. Even though at least in this case everyone knew the player meant spades. That is why I thought people would pay attention to the meaning of the bid, even though it is technically meaningless. AND. >> Let us assume that you have determined by questions away from the table that >> in the auction >> W N E S >> 1H 2C P X .......... > Why make the situation more difficult than it is? There is no cause for > taking any player away from the table. > When it comes to the play, if North/South is the defending side you allow > declarer to name one of the four suits and forbid north from leading that > suit at his first turn to lead and for as long as he retains the lead. I have a problem saying that the double doesn't show a suit if everyone knew the double was negative showing spades. That didn't happen in this example. But what about 1C P 1H X X everyone guesses that this X was meant to be a support double in hearts. The opener decides to let the auction proceed, so he passes. Then later he bids hearts, but ends up on defense. Do you apply L26B allowing declarer to prohibit a heart lead because a X is technically meaningless when everyone at the table thought it meant hearts? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 25 22:49:15 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:49:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tough ruling? In-Reply-To: <6988100ECA8F46139FF4504506199733@mikePC> References: <000101cb2b4c$d7d65d50$878317f0$@no> <6988100ECA8F46139FF4504506199733@mikePC> Message-ID: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:31:17 -0400, Mike Amos wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Sven Pran" > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:25 PM > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [BLML] tough ruling? > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >>> On the following auction, the 2 Di opening was alerted and explained as >> Flannery >>> (showing hearts and spades). Then this explanation was almost >>> immediatel >>> corrected to being a weak 2 Di just showing Di. East claimed he did not >> hear the >>> correction. West did hear the correction but said it was directed to >>> him, >> which is to >>> say, North was turned towards him when he made the correction. >>> >>> S W N E >>> 2D P P 2H >>> P P P >>> >>> East meant 2H as a cue bid, thinking South had shown 5 hearts; West >>> took >> it as >>> natural because he knew South had shown diamonds. >>> >>> >>> I first ruled that the board was unplayable. I hardly ever do that, but >> this seemed >>> like the right ruling here. True? >> >> Absolutely not. >> >> The whole story "stinks", but one thing the Director should not do is >> rule >> the board unplayable. > > > I don't think that the ruling is correct but Sven's response is not > exactly > helpful nor appropriate. In what sense does the story "stink"? It > seems to > me to be the sort of story I come across often - muddle heaped on > confusion. > When were you called Robert? When did you declare the board unplayable? > Without the full story there is little hope that we can give definitive > advice. You certainly should have allowed the hand to be declared in 2H > - > this might even be a favourable result for EW - in a Teams match EW's > team > mates may have an excellent result at the other table > > There was some bridge played here - South opened 2D - weak and natural - > followed by two passes - not much else was proper bridge - but it's > important for directors to recognise that we must start from the bridge > that > was played - NS may be on the way to a favourable or indeed unfavourable > bridge result following South's opening. Only if we decide there are too > many outcomes to quantify should we award an artificial score = even then > 40% 60% may be inappropriate (Law 12 C 1 (d) and not 12 A 2 applies) . > I > think Robert is correct in his view that North has given > Misinformation. Of > course I would need to investigate and make a ruling, but it is North's > responsibility to give correct information and especially if he started > off > by giving the incorrect information he must not just "transmit" he needs > to > ensure that his message is received and understood. East clearly has > received MI. Given the correct information the TD must determine what > East > would have bid and make some judgment about the likely outcomes. In > Europe > and most of the world this would probably involve a weighted score (Law > 12 C > 1 (c) ), in the ACBL Law 12 C 1 (e) (i) and (ii) apply Hi Mike. I think you are right in your ruling -- the customary ruling is to allow them to play on then give them an A+ if they do worse than that. But I am not sure I can get to that ruling using the lawbook. I really didn't want to introduce a second thread about problems in the laws, but.... "The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board." I couldn't see any way to permit normal play. You are reading this law as not having the word normal: "... if no rectification can be made that will permit play of the board." I say that because you use the word "unplayable" One problem is that a board is always playable. A spectator knocks East's cards out of her hand and on the table, exposing them to everyone. They can still play the board. They can still get a result. Normal play of the hand is impossible; but play of the hand is possible. And of course "normal play" isn't right either. The opps bid to 6NT. A spectator knocks East's cards out of her hand on the table, exposing them to everyone. Normal play is still impossible. But if 6NT is a great contract that easily makes, we should not give declarer an A+. So I am guessing that we give an A+ when there is not enough done on the board to actually predict a good or bad score for either side. It seems to me that this board fell into that category. I could not predict the contract or the play, and so far the bidding had been uneventful. Your notion is that we always (true?) allow them to play the board and then give an A+ if the nonoffending side got worse than that. Before the auction starts, North accidentally pulls out Easts hand, looks at it, then puts it back. You are called. Do you really have them play out the board and then give EW an A+ if their score is worse than that? From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 25 23:14:50 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:14:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> Message-ID: <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > If a technically meaningless call referred to a suit it did indeed so > > (the suit is the suit named in the bid) and you apply L26A. > > > > A technically meaningless call other than a bid naming one of the four > > suits cannot refer to any suit for the simple reason that it is > > technically meaningless. > > > > Why is this so difficult? > > It's not. It's pretty simple to apply, I just didn't know you were following this > principle. The difficulty is all in my head. > > Did you see this example? > > 2NT P 2H > > The 2H is pretty obviously a Jacoby transfer,and it was even announced as such. > But they player withdraws it, deciding to play in 2NT. Then the opps compete and > win the contract. According to your principle, the bid suit is hearts so the lead > restrictions apply hearts. Even though at least in this case everyone knew the > player meant spades. Why are you so stubborn and keep on discussing the Pope's beard and angels on a pin? Can you not, or do you simply not want to see the difference between an artificial call with a clear reference to a suit and a technically meaningless call that doesn't name a suit? If the 2H bid is accepted as referring to spades (which in this example is obvious) then Law 26A applies and declarer may forbid (or request) a lead in spades. (He may not impose any restriction or request on any other suit) In a different situation the connection to spades may not be so obvious so then the Director will instead rule that the call referred to the named suit i.e. Hearts. And when the call did not apparently refer to one (or more) specified suits (only) then Law 26B applies and declarer is given the privilege to select any particular suit at his own choice and forbid a lead in that suit. ............. > > Why make the situation more difficult than it is? There is no cause > > for taking any player away from the table. > > > When it comes to the play, if North/South is the defending side you > > allow declarer to name one of the four suits and forbid north from > > leading that suit at his first turn to lead and for as long as he retains the lead. > > I have a problem saying that the double doesn't show a suit if everyone knew the > double was negative showing spades. That didn't happen in this example. But > what about > > 1C P 1H X > X > Why is this so obvious? First of all it is not obvious to me that this is a negative double, and second it is not obvious to me that a negative double refers to one particular suit and this suit only, so instead of limiting declarer to a restriction in spades only the Director should seriously consider using Law 26B and give declarer the choice of a suit he doesn't want led. > everyone guesses that this X was meant to be a support double in hearts. > The opener decides to let the auction proceed, so he passes. Then later he bids > hearts, but ends up on defense. Do you apply L26B allowing declarer to prohibit a > heart lead because a X is technically meaningless when everyone at the table > thought it meant hearts? Why spend any effort on this? If you rule Law 26A declarer may forbid (or request) a lead in hearts. If you use law 26B declarer may select any one of the four suits and forbid a lead in that. The only thing declarer may do with a Law 26A ruling that he cannot do with a Law 26B ruling is to REQUEST the lead of a heart. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 25 23:48:56 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:48:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:14:50 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> > If a technically meaningless call referred to a suit it did indeed so >> > (the suit is the suit named in the bid) and you apply L26A. >> > >> > A technically meaningless call other than a bid naming one of the four >> > suits cannot refer to any suit for the simple reason that it is >> > technically meaningless. >> > >> > Why is this so difficult? >> >> It's not. It's pretty simple to apply, I just didn't know you were > following this >> principle. The difficulty is all in my head. >> >> Did you see this example? >> >> 2NT P 2H >> >> The 2H is pretty obviously a Jacoby transfer,and it was even announced >> as > such. >> But they player withdraws it, deciding to play in 2NT. Then the opps > compete and >> win the contract. According to your principle, the bid suit is hearts so > the lead >> restrictions apply hearts. Even though at least in this case everyone >> knew > the >> player meant spades. > > Why are you so stubborn and keep on discussing the Pope's beard and > angels > on a pin? > > Can you not, or do you simply not want to see the difference between an > artificial call with a clear reference to a suit and a technically > meaningless call that doesn't name a suit? Perhaps I was paying too much attention to what you said. But i was just trying to understand your position. You said "If a technically meaningless call referred to a suit it did indeed so (the suit is the suit named in the bid) and you apply L26A. Anyway, what you now seem to be saying is that I go to the table, and if it is obvious to me that a call refers to a suit I apply L26A, and it looks meaningless to me I apply L26B. I would guess that corresponds to how directors rule. And it allows assigning a meaning to an inadmissable call, contrary to your previous post. It's just important that you are ruling on your judgment of the meaning of a technically meaningless bid or call. And that you are not following Grattan's provisional opinion, nor are you determining the meaning of an insufficient bid in the same way as is done for L27. > > If the 2H bid is accepted as referring to spades (which in this example > is > obvious) then Law 26A applies and declarer may forbid (or request) a > lead in > spades. (He may not impose any restriction or request on any other suit) > > In a different situation the connection to spades may not be so obvious > so > then the Director will instead rule that the call referred to the named > suit > i.e. Hearts. > > And when the call did not apparently refer to one (or more) specified > suits > (only) then Law 26B applies and declarer is given the privilege to select > any particular suit at his own choice and forbid a lead in that suit. > > ............. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Jul 26 03:46:58 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:46:58 +0800 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer><5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred><000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:17:32 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp > wrote: > >> (snip) >> > So you are suggesting the same principle as Grattan. I determine the > intended meaning of the inadmissable call. If that indicates a suit (that > has not been shown in the bidding), the lead restrictions in L26A2 apply > to that suit (or suits). Unfortunately I became lost and missed the fact that L16 A applies. I was woken up by Sven's post. So I go back to my paste of Grattans post. >>>+=+ The double is inadmissible because it is factually >>>a double of partner's bid. But we do not believe that >>>the lady's intention was that, do we? We believe she >>>was under the impression she was doubling a bid >>>made by an opponent. Law 26 does not use the >>>expression 'meaning'; it says "related to". My opinion >>>is that the double is related to a holding in Spades >>>(if the system card shows that a double of opponent's >>>bid here would show Spades). We should not allow a >>>player's confusion to obscure the intention of her call. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>I have pasted portions of the original post with Grattan's response >>because >>I think the response demonstrates "a suit that is really >>obvious" and also >>explains that the players are entitled to know this information (if it is >>a >>partnership agreement and it was the offenders intent) I say again IF IT IS A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT..... In the case of an insufficient or inadmissable call the other players do not KNOW they can only guess bill > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 26 04:04:54 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 04:04:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> Message-ID: <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ........... > It's just important that you are ruling on your judgment of the meaning of a > technically meaningless bid or call. And that you are not following Grattan's > provisional opinion, nor are you determining the meaning of an insufficient bid in > the same way as is done for L27. An necessary condition for allowing a correction of an insufficient bid under Law 27B1(b) is that the substituting call must have a meaning that is "fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid". This condition requires the Director to establish the "meaning" of the insufficient bid to such degree that he can feel sure the condition is met. His means for establishing such meanings (of the insufficient bid as well as the replacement call) is the available evidence on partnership agreements and definitely not the actual hands held by the players involved. No such technical requirement exists with Law 26. In the EBL commentary to the bridge laws (issued in 1992) Grattan indicates that the word "specified" in Law 26 is to be taken literally synonymous with "named", but he does not refuse the possibility that when a different understanding of the withdrawn call is incontrovertible then this incontrovertible specification of a suit (or suits) shall be understood rather than the suit named in the bid. At that time the question was considered a matter for the Director etc. to decide which (if any) suit was related to by a withdrawn call. My understanding as I have tried to express all the time is that if the withdrawn call is a bid then it relates to the suit named in that bid unless the Director is satisfied that it incontrovertibly relates to another suit (or suits) or alternatively does not relate to any specific suit at all.. So a Flannery 2D bid "relates" to Spades and Hearts. A support double relates to the supported trump suit. These calls therefore qualify for L26A with specified suits not being the suit (if any) named in the call. But a takeout double or a negative double does not (solely) relate to one (or two) specific suits. An ambiguous call (for instance 2C overcall showing either Diamonds or the two majors, or the multi 2D opening bid showing a weak major or a strong NT hand) does definitely not relate to specified suit(s). Such calls if withdrawn must therefore automatically be handled under law 26B. And a withdrawn illegal call that technically has no meaning can only relate to the named suit (if any) for the purpose of applying either Law 26A or 26B. (Note that this is different from the situation above where the withdrawn call is found to have an incontrovertible meaning.) It is impossible for the Director to interview the offender or his partner in order to establish a "meaning" and then make a corresponding ruling without creating so much extraneous information that it becomes next to impossible to obtain a "normal" result on the board. (Compare this to the unwritten rule that a Director should never look at a player's cards and then announce a ruling) Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 26 15:01:43 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:01:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:04:54 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ........... >> It's just important that you are ruling on your judgment of the meaning >> of > a >> technically meaningless bid or call. And that you are not following > Grattan's >> provisional opinion, nor are you determining the meaning of an > insufficient bid in >> the same way as is done for L27. > > An necessary condition for allowing a correction of an insufficient bid > under Law 27B1(b) is that the substituting call must have a meaning that > is > "fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid". > This > condition requires the Director to establish the "meaning" of the > insufficient bid to such degree that he can feel sure the condition is > met. > His means for establishing such meanings (of the insufficient bid as > well as > the replacement call) is the available evidence on partnership agreements > and definitely not the actual hands held by the players involved. > > No such technical requirement exists with Law 26. In the EBL commentary > to > the bridge laws (issued in 1992) Grattan indicates that the word > "specified" > in Law 26 is to be taken literally synonymous with "named", but he does > not > refuse the possibility that when a different understanding of the > withdrawn > call is incontrovertible then this incontrovertible specification of a > suit > (or suits) shall be understood rather than the suit named in the bid. At > that time the question was considered a matter for the Director etc. to > decide which (if any) suit was related to by a withdrawn call. > > My understanding as I have tried to express all the time is that if the > withdrawn call is a bid then it relates to the suit named in that bid > unless > the Director is satisfied that it incontrovertibly relates to another > suit > (or suits) or alternatively does not relate to any specific suit at all.. > > So a Flannery 2D bid "relates" to Spades and Hearts. A support double > relates to the supported trump suit. These calls therefore qualify for > L26A > with specified suits not being the suit (if any) named in the call. > > But a takeout double or a negative double does not (solely) relate to one > (or two) specific suits. An ambiguous call (for instance 2C overcall > showing > either Diamonds or the two majors, or the multi 2D opening bid showing a > weak major or a strong NT hand) does definitely not relate to specified > suit(s). Such calls if withdrawn must therefore automatically be handled > under law 26B. > > And a withdrawn illegal call that technically has no meaning can only > relate > to the named suit (if any) for the purpose of applying either Law 26A or > 26B. (Note that this is different from the situation above where the > withdrawn call is found to have an incontrovertible meaning.) It is > impossible for the Director to interview the offender or his partner in > order to establish a "meaning" and then make a corresponding ruling > without > creating so much extraneous information that it becomes next to > impossible > to obtain a "normal" result on the board. (Compare this to the unwritten > rule that a Director should never look at a player's cards and then > announce > a ruling) > > Sven Let me try to paraphrase this. We are concerned with determining the suit "related" to a call for L26 in the case of insufficient bids and inadmissable calls. You are suggesting that in the case of a suit bid, the "related" suit is the suit that was actually bid, unless a different meaning is incontrovertible. In the case of inadmissable doubles or redoubles, there is no "related" suit unless the call incontrovertibly referred to a suit (or suits). And that the intended meaning is not relevant. For example: 1S 2C P X There is no "related" suit (even though the doubler meant it as negative). 1S 2C 2C The "related" suit is clubs. 2NT P 2D The "related" suit is probably hearts, unless the director feels that the 2D bid in this situation does not incontroveribly show hearts, in which case the "related" suit is diamonds. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 26 15:23:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:23:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> Message-ID: <4C4D8C3D.9080704@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > the intended meaning is not relevant. > > AG : :we can't use this in the new rules. For purposes of using the "subset" allowances for bid substitution, we have to consider the possibility that any suit be "related" to the bid. > For example: > > > 1S 2C 2C > > The "related" suit is clubs. > > AG : if 1S p 2C is a transfer to diamonds (as in Monaco), or if the player mistook 2C for a double and was using Cappelletti (transfer), then the critical suit are diamonds, which means that a diamond bid will occasionnally be allowed while a club bid will not (unless, of course, 3C is rubensohl). > 2NT P 2D > > The "related" suit is probably hearts, unless the director feels that the > 2D bid in this situation does not incontroveribly show hearts, in which > case the "related" suit is diamonds. > > AG : do not agree. Il is possible that the critical suit be spades (in the Bergen system, where a 2D opening shows a prrempt in spades) or even clubs (in my own system, where a 2D response to 1C shows a strong club raise). In the former case, you could decide, after looking at their system, to allow a 3H transfer bid ; in the latter case, you might decide to allow a natural 4C bid. So there are only two possible interpretations of "related": a) "related" means" named" b) "related" means "linked by the system's specifications" The interpretation of "linked because it is linked in the TD's mind" doens't hold. (NB : sorry if I'm repeating somebody's argument or contradicting the wrong person. Just jumping in after a weak abroad) Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 26 15:38:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:38:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4D8C3D.9080704@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <4C4D8C3D.9080704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:23:09 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> the intended meaning is not relevant. >> >> > > AG : :we can't use this in the new rules. For purposes of using the > "subset" allowances for bid substitution, we have to consider the > possibility that any suit be "related" to the bid. > > >> For example: >> >> >> 1S 2C 2C >> >> The "related" suit is clubs. >> >> > AG : if 1S p 2C is a transfer to diamonds (as in Monaco), or if the > player mistook 2C for a double and was using Cappelletti (transfer), > then the critical suit are diamonds, which means that a diamond bid > will occasionnally be allowed while a club bid will not (unless, of > course, 3C is rubensohl). > >> 2NT P 2D >> >> The "related" suit is probably hearts, unless the director feels that >> the >> 2D bid in this situation does not incontroveribly show hearts, in which >> case the "related" suit is diamonds. >> >> > AG : do not agree. Il is possible that the critical suit be spades (in > the Bergen system, where a 2D opening shows a prrempt in spades) or even > clubs (in my own system, where a 2D response to 1C shows a strong club > raise). In the former case, you could decide, after looking at their > system, to allow a 3H transfer bid ; in the latter case, you might > decide to allow a natural 4C bid. > > So there are only two possible interpretations of "related": > > a) "related" means" named" > b) "related" means "linked by the system's specifications" I think you need to say what you mean by "linked". The problem of course is that according to anyone's system, an inadmissable bid or insufficient bid has no meaning. You can give them meaning by finding out what auction the bidder was imagining, which is to say, to find out the bidder's intended meaning. I believe this is the position Grattan has tenatively advocated. It fits with how we apply L27B1(b). But tell me what you were thinking. > > The interpretation of "linked because it is linked in the TD's mind" > doens't hold. > > > (NB : sorry if I'm repeating somebody's argument or contradicting the > wrong person. Just jumping in after a weak abroad) Hi Alain. I am just trying to clarify people's positions on this. So you are welcome to jump in (but it turns out this time you were addressing my paraphrase of Sven.) From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 26 16:43:41 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:43:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> Message-ID: <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............ > Let me try to paraphrase this. We are concerned with determining the suit > "related" to a call for L26 in the case of insufficient bids and inadmissable calls. > > You are suggesting that in the case of a suit bid, the "related" suit is the suit that > was actually bid, unless a different meaning is incontrovertible. In the case of > inadmissable doubles or redoubles, there is no "related" suit unless the call > incontrovertibly referred to a suit (or suits). > > And that the intended meaning is not relevant. > > For example: > > 1S 2C P X > > There is no "related" suit (even though the doubler meant it as negative) Agreed . > > 1S 2C 2C > > The "related" suit is clubs. Or "none" (artificial call not necessarily saying anything about clubs only) > > 2NT P 2D > > The "related" suit is probably hearts, unless the director feels that the 2D bid in > this situation does not incontroveribly show hearts, in which case the "related" suit > is diamonds. If their system includes transfers I would rule hearts, otherwise I would rule diamonds. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 26 17:34:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:34:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <4C4D8C3D.9080704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C4DAB03.8050304@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> So there are only two possible interpretations of "related": >> >> a) "related" means" named" >> b) "related" means "linked by the system's specifications" >> > > > I think you need to say what you mean by "linked". The problem of course > is that according to anyone's system, an inadmissable bid or insufficient > bid has no meaning. > > You can give them meaning by finding out what auction the bidder was > imagining, which is to say, to find out the bidder's intended meaning. I > believe this is the position Grattan has tenatively advocated. It fits > with how we apply L27B1(b). > > But tell me what you were thinking. > Yes, that's what I meant. And IMHO we should also use this for determining lead penalties. If my IB of 2S meant "clubs", why should lead penalties revolve around the spade suit ? (BTW, if one can't determine what my IB meant, why should there be any penalties, since no UI filtered ?) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 26 17:35:35 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:35:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> Message-ID: <4C4DAB47.8030109@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> 2NT P 2D >> >> The "related" suit is probably hearts, unless the director feels that the >> > 2D bid in > >> this situation does not incontroveribly show hearts, in which case the >> > "related" suit > >> is diamonds. >> > > If their system includes transfers I would rule hearts, otherwise I would > rule diamonds. > > AG : and if responder wasn't answering a NT bid at all ? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 26 17:43:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:43:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:43:41 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............ >> Let me try to paraphrase this. We are concerned with determining the >> suit >> "related" to a call for L26 in the case of insufficient bids and > inadmissable calls. >> >> You are suggesting that in the case of a suit bid, the "related" suit is > the suit that >> was actually bid, unless a different meaning is incontrovertible. In the > case of >> inadmissable doubles or redoubles, there is no "related" suit unless the > call >> incontrovertibly referred to a suit (or suits). >> >> And that the intended meaning is not relevant. >> >> For example: >> >> 1S 2C P X >> >> There is no "related" suit (even though the doubler meant it as >> negative) > > > Agreed > . >> >> 1S 2C 2C >> >> The "related" suit is clubs. > > Or "none" (artificial call not necessarily saying anything about clubs > only) It seems to me you are being inconsistent. My paraphrase, which you did not disagree with: "You are suggesting that in the case of a suit bid, the "related" suit is the suit that was actually bid, unless a different meaning is incontrovertible. (You had written: "And a withdrawn illegal call that technically has no meaning can only relate to the named suit (if any) for the purpose of applying either Law 26A or 26B. [Note that this is different from the situation above where the withdrawn call is found to have an incontrovertible meaning.] It is impossible for the Director to interview the offender or his partner in order to establish a "meaning" and then make a corresponding ruling without creating so much extraneous information that it becomes next to impossible to obtain a "normal" result on the board.") So I have no idea how you would get to any incontrovertible meaning for 2Cl on the above auction. I got the actual auction wrong. It was more like: P P 1S 2D 2C For purposes of L27B1(b), we find out that the 2C bid was meant to show spades and allow a nonbarring 3Di subsitution as having the same meaning. But you aren't going to use that evidence for L26 purposes, right? So how do you get to the 2C being incontrovertibly artificial and not showing a suit? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 26 17:55:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:55:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> Message-ID: <4C4DAFEF.5090601@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > I got the actual auction wrong. It was more like: > > P P 1S 2D > 2C > > For purposes of L27B1(b), we find out that the 2C bid was meant to show > spades and allow a nonbarring 3Di subsitution as having the same meaning. > But you aren't going to use that evidence for L26 purposes, right? AG : I, for one, would, as consistency is a big concern to me. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 26 18:09:16 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:09:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4DAFEF.5090601@ulb.ac.be> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4DAFEF.5090601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:55:27 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >> I got the actual auction wrong. It was more like: >> >> P P 1S 2D >> 2C >> >> For purposes of L27B1(b), we find out that the 2C bid was meant to show >> spades and allow a nonbarring 3Di subsitution as having the same >> meaning. >> But you aren't going to use that evidence for L26 purposes, right? > AG : I, for one, would, as consistency is a big concern to me. Hi Alain. Right, I think there tends to be a cascade. L27B1(b) asks director to determine the meaning of the bid, and the only reasonable thing is to find out the intended meaning of the bid. Then it makes sense, to be consistent, to base L27B1(a) on intended meaning. Even though many people did not in the 1997 laws. Then it makes sense to use the same method to determine the meaning of the bid for application of L26. Then it makes sense to use the same method for determining the meaning of inadmissable bids in L26. But I am not sure how many people have gotten this far in the cascade. Grattan tentatively has; Sven I am pretty sure has not, and he will have company. I haven't decided either, I think my only vote so far is for a clarification. The initial problem, an actual table call, was 1H 2C P X It seemed pretty naturally to me, at the time, to think of the double as being meaningless and not showing anything. But if you follow the cascade, you get to asking the doubler what her bid meant. She meant it as a negative double showing spades. If her partner thought her double showed spades, then asking her would have avoided egg on my face. But her partner thought her double showed clubs. So it is a little odd to consider spades the related suit. And awkward to tell the whole table that her bid meant spades. But I am guessing it is even harder to stop the cascade. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 26 22:33:43 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:33:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4DAB47.8030109@ulb.ac.be> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4DAB47.8030109@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000301cb2d01$d83c5180$88b4f480$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 26. juli 2010 17:36 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > >> 2NT P 2D > >> > >> The "related" suit is probably hearts, unless the director feels that > >> the > >> > > 2D bid in > > > >> this situation does not incontroveribly show hearts, in which case > >> the > >> > > "related" suit > > > >> is diamonds. > >> > > > > If their system includes transfers I would rule hearts, otherwise I > > would rule diamonds. > > > > > AG : and if responder wasn't answering a NT bid at all ? He was, even if he thought differently. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 26 22:39:14 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:39:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4DAFEF.5090601@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4DAFEF.5090601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000401cb2d02$9ded4bf0$d9c7e3d0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 26. juli 2010 17:55 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > Robert Frick a ?crit : > > > > I got the actual auction wrong. It was more like: > > > > P P 1S 2D > > 2C > > > > For purposes of L27B1(b), we find out that the 2C bid was meant to > > show spades and allow a nonbarring 3Di subsitution as having the same > meaning. > > But you aren't going to use that evidence for L26 purposes, right? > AG : I, for one, would, as consistency is a big concern to me. For the purpose of Law 27 I don't see how 2C could be meant to show spades and I don't see how every possible meaning of the 3D bid would be contained within the possible meanings of the 2C bid. For the purpose of Law 26 the 2c bid appears to relate to the club suit. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 26 22:43:35 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:43:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> Message-ID: <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:43:41 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > ............ > >> Let me try to paraphrase this. We are concerned with determining the > >> suit "related" to a call for L26 in the case of insufficient bids and > > inadmissable calls. > >> > >> You are suggesting that in the case of a suit bid, the "related" suit > >> is > > the suit that > >> was actually bid, unless a different meaning is incontrovertible. In > >> the > > case of > >> inadmissable doubles or redoubles, there is no "related" suit unless > >> the > > call > >> incontrovertibly referred to a suit (or suits). > >> > >> And that the intended meaning is not relevant. > >> > >> For example: > >> > >> 1S 2C P X > >> > >> There is no "related" suit (even though the doubler meant it as > >> negative) > > > > > > Agreed > > . > >> > >> 1S 2C 2C > >> > >> The "related" suit is clubs. > > > > Or "none" (artificial call not necessarily saying anything about clubs > > only) > > > It seems to me you are being inconsistent. My paraphrase, which you did > not disagree with: "You are suggesting that in the case of a suit bid, the > "related" suit is the suit that was actually bid, unless a different > meaning is incontrovertible. > > (You had written: "And a withdrawn illegal call that technically has no > meaning can only relate to the named suit (if any) for the purpose of > applying either Law 26A or 26B. [Note that this is different from the > situation above where the withdrawn call is found to have an > incontrovertible meaning.] It is impossible for the Director to interview > the offender or his partner in order to establish a "meaning" and then > make a corresponding ruling without creating so much extraneous > information that it becomes next to impossible to obtain a "normal" result > on the board.") > > So I have no idea how you would get to any incontrovertible meaning for > 2Cl on the above auction. > > I got the actual auction wrong. It was more like: > > P P 1S 2D > 2C > > For purposes of L27B1(b), we find out that the 2C bid was meant to show > spades and allow a nonbarring 3Di subsitution as having the same meaning. > But you aren't going to use that evidence for L26 purposes, right? So how > do you get to the 2C being incontrovertibly artificial and not showing a > suit? I don't see how the Director can find out that the 2C bid was meant to show spades and that the 3D bid cannot possibly show anything that was not also shown by the 2C bid. For L26 purposes it is not sufficient that the call shows spades, it must also NOT show any other (possibly undefined) suit! From brian at peacenik.net Mon Jul 26 23:16:01 2010 From: brian at peacenik.net (Brian Baresch) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> Message-ID: <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> >> P P 1S 2D >> 2C >> >> For purposes of L27B1(b), we find out that the 2C bid was meant to show >> spades and allow a nonbarring 3Di subsitution as having the same meaning. >> But you aren't going to use that evidence for L26 purposes, right? So how >> do you get to the 2C being incontrovertibly artificial and not showing a >> suit? > > I don't see how the Director can find out that the 2C bid was meant to show > spades and that the 3D bid cannot possibly show anything that was not also > shown by the 2C bid. 2C when available = Drury, 10-12 with spades Cuebid (3D) when 2C is not available = 10-12 with spades This seems entirely unremarkable, at least everywhere I've played. Brian Baresch Austin, Texas From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 00:29:31 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:29:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> Message-ID: <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> On Behalf Of Brian Baresch > > >> P P 1S 2D > >> 2C > >> > >> For purposes of L27B1(b), we find out that the 2C bid was meant to > >> show spades and allow a nonbarring 3Di subsitution as having the same > meaning. > >> But you aren't going to use that evidence for L26 purposes, right? So > >> how do you get to the 2C being incontrovertibly artificial and not > >> showing a suit? > > > > I don't see how the Director can find out that the 2C bid was meant to > > show spades and that the 3D bid cannot possibly show anything that was > > not also shown by the 2C bid. > > 2C when available = Drury, 10-12 with spades > > Cuebid (3D) when 2C is not available = 10-12 with spades > > This seems entirely unremarkable, at least everywhere I've played. So for the purpose of Law 27B1(b): There is absolutely no hand with which a player would bid 3D if 2C is available? And for the purpose of Law 26A: Drury 2C can never show or search for any other suit in addition to or instead of showing spades? If (and only if) the first statement is correct then 3D is an accepted replacement for the IB 2C in this position If (and only if) the second statement is correct then a withdrawn 2C call shall be considered being related to spade and to no other (unspecified) suit. So as you can see: The conditions for Law 26 and for Law 27 rulings are not the same, not even similar. From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Jul 27 01:13:22 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:13:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> Message-ID: <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> On 7/26/10 6:29 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Brian Baresch >>>> P P 1S 2D >>>> 2C >>>> >>>> For purposes of L27B1(b), we find out that the 2C bid was meant to >>>> show spades and allow a nonbarring 3Di subsitution as having the same >> meaning. >>>> But you aren't going to use that evidence for L26 purposes, right? So >>>> how do you get to the 2C being incontrovertibly artificial and not >>>> showing a suit? >>> I don't see how the Director can find out that the 2C bid was meant to >>> show spades and that the 3D bid cannot possibly show anything that was >>> not also shown by the 2C bid. >> 2C when available = Drury, 10-12 with spades >> >> Cuebid (3D) when 2C is not available = 10-12 with spades >> >> This seems entirely unremarkable, at least everywhere I've played. > So for the purpose of Law 27B1(b): There is absolutely no hand with which a > player would bid 3D if 2C is available? > > And for the purpose of Law 26A: Drury 2C can never show or search for any > other suit in addition to or instead of showing spades? > > If (and only if) the first statement is correct then 3D is an accepted > replacement for the IB 2C in this position This statement violates logic. My partner and I pay 2C as "fit Drury," and 3D as a mini-splinter raise...so 3D, while also an invitational raise, is more specific and not a subset of Drury (for us, and perhaps for others). I think you should be able to correct your false assertion here, given that you now know how some players bid. But absent this hint, how would you know how to rule correctly if you don't think it necessary to ask what 3D would mean? > If (and only if) the second statement is correct then a withdrawn 2C call > shall be considered being related to spade and to no other (unspecified) > suit. > > So as you can see: The conditions for Law 26 and for Law 27 rulings are not > the same, not even similar. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 27 03:31:44 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:31:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000301cb2b5b$2e4408a0$8acc19e0$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C4B1D71.7000609@nhcc.net> <000301cb2b5b$2e4408a0$8acc19e0$@no> Message-ID: <4C4E3700.7010200@nhcc.net> On 7/24/2010 2:08 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Well, there are some basic principles for the laws on Bridge. These > principles constitute a major part of Directors' training, What principles are relevant for deciding what evidence the Director uses in deciding the "meaning" or "related to" for an illegal call? And what evidence do these principles allow? Sven seems to be claiming that only the calls on the table and the various system cards (and possibly further information about systems) are admissible. Bill (and perhaps Grattan) are claiming that the player's intention is relevant. (The official EBU guidance for L27 agrees, I think.) Which is it, and why? And how, if at all, do we mitigate the obvious disadvantages of whichever choice is made? (Bill's approach keeps much of the explicit UI away from the table, but players who know the Laws will receive more information from his ruling than players who don't.) From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Jul 27 04:53:58 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:53:58 +0800 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C4B1D71.7000609@nhcc.net><000301cb2b5b$2e4408a0$8acc19e0$@no> <4C4E3700.7010200@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4FC8CDD7077741639CA0B28475C10B51@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > On 7/24/2010 2:08 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Well, there are some basic principles for the laws on Bridge. These >> principles constitute a major part of Directors' training, > > What principles are relevant for deciding what evidence the Director > uses in deciding the "meaning" or "related to" for an illegal call? And > what evidence do these principles allow? > > Sven seems to be claiming that only the calls on the table and the > various system cards (and possibly further information about systems) > are admissible. Bill (and perhaps Grattan) are claiming that the > player's intention is relevant. (The official EBU guidance for L27 > agrees, I think.) Which is it, and why? And how, if at all, do we > mitigate the obvious disadvantages of whichever choice is made? (Bill's > approach keeps much of the explicit UI away from the table, but players > who know the Laws will receive more information from his ruling than > players who don't.) The below are pasted from my posts of 23 Jul 2010 and indicate the intention of my posts as a whole. My emphasis "***" indicates what I believe have become the important parts of this initially simple debate. Sven is absolutely correct in his continued assertion that the director must not give the players information that is not available to them from L16A I apologise for my omission in the post that indicated otherwise ***I try to keep in mind Law 16 A. 1. (a), (b) and (c). I do not wish to give the other players information about a players hand to which they are not entitled.*** >>+=+ The double is inadmissible because it is factually >>a double of partner's bid. But we do not believe that >>the lady's intention was that, do we? We believe she >>was under the impression she was doubling a bid >>made by an opponent. Law 26 does not use the >>expression 'meaning'; it says "related to". My opinion >>is that the double is related to a holding in Spades >>***(if the system card shows that a double of opponent's >>bid here would show Spades).*** We should not allow a >>player's confusion to obscure the intention of her call. >>~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have pasted portions of the original post with Grattan's response because I think the response demonstrates "a suit that is really obvious" and also explains that the players are entitled to know this information*** (if it is a partnership agreement*** and it was the offenders intent). . bill > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 10:28:43 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:28:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Park ........ > > So for the purpose of Law 27B1(b): There is absolutely no hand with > > which a player would bid 3D if 2C is available? > > > > And for the purpose of Law 26A: Drury 2C can never show or search for > > any other suit in addition to or instead of showing spades? > > > > If (and only if) the first statement is correct then 3D is an accepted > > replacement for the IB 2C in this position > > This statement violates logic. My partner and I pay 2C as "fit Drury," > and 3D as a mini-splinter raise...so 3D, while also an invitational raise, is more > specific and not a subset of Drury (for us, and perhaps for others). I think you > should be able to correct your false assertion here, given that you now know how > some players bid. But absent this hint, how would you know how to rule correctly if > you don't think it necessary to ask what 3D would mean? The definition of a replacement call (3D) being more precise than an insufficient bid (2C) is that the "more precise" call must not include the possibility of any hand that would not have been shown with the insufficient bid had this bid been legal. So the moment you admit that the Drury 2C bid excludes hands that can bid 3D in this position you confirm that 3D is NOT a replacement call allowing opener to participate in the continued auction with any other call than pass. Another example to make this principle clear: In the auction: 1D - 1S - 1H (insufficient bid) there is (provided the partnership uses negative doubles) no hand with which opener's partner in this position doubles that he would bid anything but 1H had the intervening bid not been made. Therefore the negative double is accepted as the replacement call under Law 27B1(b) in this position. However, (assuming the relevant agreements): In the auction 2NT (20-21) - pass - 2C (Stayman) the "correct" Stayman bid 3C can be made with as little as 4 HCP while Stayman 2C over 1NT (15-17) requires at least 8 HCP so Stayman 3C over 2NT can be used with hands that would have passed (and not bid 2C) over 1NT. Therefore in this auction 3C is NOT accepted as a Law 27B1(b) correction of this insufficient bid: (This example is directly from WBFLC) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 27 14:36:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:36:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> Message-ID: <4C4ED2BA.9020800@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Robert Park > ........ > >>> So for the purpose of Law 27B1(b): There is absolutely no hand with >>> which a player would bid 3D if 2C is available? >>> >>> And for the purpose of Law 26A: Drury 2C can never show or search for >>> any other suit in addition to or instead of showing spades? >>> >>> If (and only if) the first statement is correct then 3D is an accepted >>> replacement for the IB 2C in this position >>> >> This statement violates logic. My partner and I pay 2C as "fit Drury," >> and 3D as a mini-splinter raise...so 3D, while also an invitational raise, >> > is more > >> specific and not a subset of Drury (for us, and perhaps for others). I >> > think you > >> should be able to correct your false assertion here, given that you now >> > know how > >> some players bid. But absent this hint, how would you know how to rule >> > correctly if > >> you don't think it necessary to ask what 3D would mean? >> > > The definition of a replacement call (3D) being more precise than an > insufficient bid (2C) is that the "more precise" call must not include the > possibility of any hand that would not have been shown with the insufficient > bid had this bid been legal. > > So the moment you admit that the Drury 2C bid excludes hands that can bid 3D > in this position you confirm that 3D is NOT a replacement call allowing > opener to participate in the continued auction with any other call than > pass. > AG : of course it's the contray. It's in case there are hands that bid 3D but not 2C that you'll disallow 3D. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 14:52:48 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:52:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4ED2BA.9020800@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> <4C4ED2BA.9020800! @ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001cb2d8a$9ec7ebb0$dc57c310$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 27. juli 2010 14:36 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > On Behalf Of Robert Park > > ........ > > > >>> So for the purpose of Law 27B1(b): There is absolutely no hand with > >>> which a player would bid 3D if 2C is available? > >>> > >>> And for the purpose of Law 26A: Drury 2C can never show or search > >>> for any other suit in addition to or instead of showing spades? > >>> > >>> If (and only if) the first statement is correct then 3D is an > >>> accepted replacement for the IB 2C in this position > >>> > >> This statement violates logic. My partner and I pay 2C as "fit Drury," > >> and 3D as a mini-splinter raise...so 3D, while also an invitational > >> raise, > >> > > is more > > > >> specific and not a subset of Drury (for us, and perhaps for others). > >> I > >> > > think you > > > >> should be able to correct your false assertion here, given that you > >> now > >> > > know how > > > >> some players bid. But absent this hint, how would you know how to > >> rule > >> > > correctly if > > > >> you don't think it necessary to ask what 3D would mean? > >> > > > > The definition of a replacement call (3D) being more precise than an > > insufficient bid (2C) is that the "more precise" call must not include > > the possibility of any hand that would not have been shown with the > > insufficient bid had this bid been legal. > > > > So the moment you admit that the Drury 2C bid excludes hands that can > > bid 3D in this position you confirm that 3D is NOT a replacement call > > allowing opener to participate in the continued auction with any other > > call than pass. > > > AG : of course it's the contray. It's in case there are hands that bid 3D but not 2C > that you'll disallow 3D. Of course. And I believe that is exactly what I said in a different way: I supposed "If the 2C bid excludes (some) hands that can bid 3D" is equivalent to "there are hands that bid 3D but not 2C"? If you understood me to mean "all" where I have added "(some)" above I fully understand and agree with your objection. And I do agree that this law is one of the more difficult laws in the book where it is very easy to go wrong. As you probably know the words even had to be changed from the first release just because the original text was not only but in fact directly wrong in this respect. I assume that my own feedback to WBFLC was one among several about this. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 27 16:20:20 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:20:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> Message-ID: <6065E56C-AC50-4991-8B37-0E653ED61F19@starpower.net> On Jul 24, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > As has been asserted by others the motivation of the player is > germane to > selecting the penalty to be applied to the partner. And just how > is this > motivation to be ascertained except by interrogation. And is it > imaginable > that the result of the interrogation not be believed in hindsight? > I should > think yes, it is possible in cases when the truth hasn't been told- > and when > it has been told. It isn't imaginable to me. Roger imagines a player who, confused about the auction, makes an inadmissable call thinking the auction has gone other than it did, but then, upon being asked by the TD what he was thinking, in a sudden fit of criminal rationality, consciously and deliberately claims falsely to have been confused into thinking there was some third auction, consistent with some alternative meaning of his action as well as his hand, which he knows will ultimately lead to a lesser penalty than the true facts would, and does this smoothly and bald-facedly enough to fool everyone present and get away with it. What I imagine is that those calculating deliberate cheats Roger keeps talking about, who can flat-out lie their way out of adjustments and be convincing about it, are clever enough to be plying their skills at the big-money poker table, not playing duplicate bridge for master points. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 27 16:48:10 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:48:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer><5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred><000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> Message-ID: On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > Might I suggest as a practical technique that (a) You take the > player who > made the call away from the table to reduce UI . (b) Ask the player a > general question e.g. "what happened?". You will probably receive > answers > such as " I didn't see the club bid" or "I was asleep and thought I > was > opening the auction" or " I meant to pass but the double was mixed > in with > the pass cards" or " my partner has given a wrong > explanation" (c) follow > this by specific questions as necessary e.g. "In this auction would > 3C be > artificial?", "If the auction had been 1S P 2C would the 2C be > artificial?", > " In your system would an opening bid of 2C be artificial?". (d) > When you > have sufficient information to rule, inform the player of her options, > return to the table with her and invite her to correct her call. > > If, after this, an explanation is required at the table, you must > be careful > not to give the players information that they are not entitled to > under L16 > A. If we could definitively determine what the "information that they are not entitled to under L16A" was, we could probably wrap up the entire discussion forthwith. L16A1(c), in particular, is less than entirely clear. A great deal can often be deduced about the offender's hand by considering an announced but unexplained ruling in light of the details of the applicable law. That is clearly "authorized", as it "aris[es] from the legal procedures...". But is it "entitled" information, or is it available only to those at the table who are sufficiently conversant with the lawbook to work it out for themselves? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 27 17:14:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:14:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> Message-ID: On Jul 26, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............ >> Let me try to paraphrase this. We are concerned with determining >> the suit >> "related" to a call for L26 in the case of insufficient bids and >> inadmissable calls. >> >> You are suggesting that in the case of a suit bid, the "related" >> suit is the suit that >> was actually bid, unless a different meaning is incontrovertible. >> In the case of >> inadmissable doubles or redoubles, there is no "related" suit >> unless the call >> incontrovertibly referred to a suit (or suits). >> >> And that the intended meaning is not relevant. >> >> For example: >> >> 1S 2C P X >> >> There is no "related" suit (even though the doubler meant it as >> negative) > > Agreed > . >> 1S 2C 2C >> >> The "related" suit is clubs. > > Or "none" (artificial call not necessarily saying anything about > clubs only) > >> 2NT P 2D >> >> The "related" suit is probably hearts, unless the director feels >> that the 2D bid in >> this situation does not incontroveribly show hearts, in which case >> the "related" suit >> is diamonds. > > If their system includes transfers I would rule hearts, otherwise I > would > rule diamonds. In my EHAA agreements, 1NT-P-2D shows diamonds, but 2NT-P-3D shows hearts. If Sven will neither ask me what I imagined the auction to have been nor look at my hand, I don't see how he can possibly come to a sensible ruling. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 27 17:24:24 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:24:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> Message-ID: <4C4EFA28.6030509@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 26, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> ............ >> >>> Let me try to paraphrase this. We are concerned with determining >>> the suit >>> "related" to a call for L26 in the case of insufficient bids and >>> inadmissable calls. >>> >>> You are suggesting that in the case of a suit bid, the "related" >>> suit is the suit that >>> was actually bid, unless a different meaning is incontrovertible. >>> In the case of >>> inadmissable doubles or redoubles, there is no "related" suit >>> unless the call >>> incontrovertibly referred to a suit (or suits). >>> >>> And that the intended meaning is not relevant. >>> >>> For example: >>> >>> 1S 2C P X >>> >>> There is no "related" suit (even though the doubler meant it as >>> negative) >>> >> Agreed >> . >> >>> 1S 2C 2C >>> >>> The "related" suit is clubs. >>> >> Or "none" (artificial call not necessarily saying anything about >> clubs only) >> >> >>> 2NT P 2D >>> >>> The "related" suit is probably hearts, unless the director feels >>> that the 2D bid in >>> this situation does not incontroveribly show hearts, in which case >>> the "related" suit >>> is diamonds. >>> >> If their system includes transfers I would rule hearts, otherwise I >> would >> rule diamonds. >> > > In my EHAA agreements, 1NT-P-2D shows diamonds, but 2NT-P-3D shows > hearts. If Sven will neither ask me what I imagined the auction to > have been nor look at my hand, I don't see how he can possibly come > to a sensible ruling. > > AG : this isn't EHAA-specific. In most systems, 2NT-3D shows hearts, while 1S-2D shows dismonds. And 2C-2D doesn't show any suit (in some partnerships, it doesn't show anything). Now you may pretend that it's more plausible to mistake 2NT for 1NT than for any other bid, but this doesn't fit with my experience. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 27 17:25:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:25:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000401cb2d02$9ded4bf0$d9c7e3d0$@no> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4DAFEF.5090601@ulb.ac.be> <000401cb2d02$9ded4bf0$d9c7e3d0$@no> Message-ID: <7DE74DE2-B899-4590-A84C-636A72DC94A1@starpower.net> On Jul 26, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >>> I got the actual auction wrong. It was more like: >>> >>> P P 1S 2D >>> 2C >>> >>> For purposes of L27B1(b), we find out that the 2C bid was meant to >>> show spades and allow a nonbarring 3Di subsitution as having the >>> same meaning. >>> But you aren't going to use that evidence for L26 purposes, right? >> >> AG : I, for one, would, as consistency is a big concern to me. > > For the purpose of Law 27 I don't see how 2C could be meant to show > spades > and I don't see how every possible meaning of the 3D bid would be > contained > within the possible meanings of the 2C bid. It is routine in North America to have agreements by which P-P-1S- P-2C and P-P-1S-2D-3D both show maximum or near-maximum passed-hand values with spade support. This is a particularly easy example of when to allow a previously unavailable penalty-free correction using L27B1(b). > For the purpose of Law 26 the 2c bid appears to relate to the club > suit. Why shouldn't the facts above be equally relevant for L26? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 27 18:01:33 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:01:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <6065E56C-AC50-4991-8B37-0E653ED61F19@starpower.net> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer><4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred><000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <6065E56C-AC50-4991-8B37-0E653ED61F19@starpower.net> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Landau" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 09:20 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > On Jul 24, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > >> As has been asserted by others the motivation of the player is >> germane to >> selecting the penalty to be applied to the partner. And just how >> is this >> motivation to be ascertained except by interrogation. And is it >> imaginable >> that the result of the interrogation not be believed in hindsight? >> I should >> think yes, it is possible in cases when the truth hasn't been told- >> and when >> it has been told. > It isn't imaginable to me. Well, it is imaginable to AG: > In my EHAA agreements, 1NT-P-2D shows diamonds, but 2NT-P-3D shows > hearts. If Sven will neither ask me what I imagined the auction to > have been nor look at my hand, I don't see how he can possibly come > to a sensible ruling. AG : this isn't EHAA-specific. In most systems, 2NT-3D shows hearts, while 1S-2D shows dismonds. And 2C-2D doesn't show any suit (in some partnerships, it doesn't show anything). Now you may pretend that it's more plausible to mistake 2NT for 1NT than for any other bid, but this doesn't fit with my experience. > Roger imagines a player who, confused > about the auction, makes an inadmissable call thinking the auction > has gone other than it did, but then, upon being asked by the TD what > he was thinking, in a sudden fit of criminal rationality, consciously > and deliberately claims falsely to have been confused into thinking > there was some third auction, consistent with some alternative > meaning of his action as well as his hand, which he knows will > ultimately lead to a lesser penalty than the true facts would, and > does this smoothly and bald-facedly enough to fool everyone present > and get away with it. > > What I imagine is that those calculating deliberate cheats Roger > keeps talking about, who can flat-out lie their way out of > adjustments and be convincing about it, are clever enough to be > plying their skills at the big-money poker table, not playing > duplicate bridge for master points. My primary position refers to the construction of rules that put pillars of the community in the situation of being accused of cheating despite not having done any cheating. This speaks to the principle that it is wrong headed to willfully excoriate the righteous in the name attempting to punish all cheaters. regards roger pewick > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 27 18:02:01 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:02:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000301cb2d01$d83c5180$88b4f480$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4DAB47.8030109@ulb.ac.be> <000301cb2d01$d83c5180$88b4f480$@no> Message-ID: On Jul 26, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >> >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> >>> >>> 2NT P 2D >>> >>> The "related" suit is probably hearts, unless the director feels >>> that >>> the 2D bid in this situation does not incontroveribly show >>> hearts, in which case the "related" suit is diamonds. >>> >>> If their system includes transfers I would rule hearts, otherwise I >>> would rule diamonds. >> >> AG : and if responder wasn't answering a NT bid at all ? > > He was, even if he thought differently. So even if he actually thought he was opening 2D in third seat, Sven will rule that he "incontrovertably" showed hearts! Well, I suppose if you refuse to ask him what he was thinking, and refuse to look at his hand, you're going to give a random ruling, in which case Sven's might be as good as any. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 18:26:01 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:26:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> Message-ID: <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............... > In my EHAA agreements, 1NT-P-2D shows diamonds, but 2NT-P-3D shows hearts. > If Sven will neither ask me what I imagined the auction to have been nor look at my > hand, I don't see how he can possibly come to a sensible ruling. Did I ever indicate that I would not establish the "meaning" of a call? But I shall never establish such meaning by looking at any hand (at least not until play has ended), nor shall I take a self-serving assertion for a fact without corroborating evidence. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 27 18:20:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:20:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000001cb2d8a$9ec7ebb0$dc57c310$@no> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> <4C4ED2BA.9020800! @ulb.ac.be> <000001cb2d8a$9ec7ebb0$dc57c310$@no> Message-ID: On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >> >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> >>> The definition of a replacement call (3D) being more precise than an >>> insufficient bid (2C) is that the "more precise" call must not >>> include >>> the possibility of any hand that would not have been shown with the >>> insufficient bid had this bid been legal. >>> >>> So the moment you admit that the Drury 2C bid excludes hands that >>> can >>> bid 3D in this position you confirm that 3D is NOT a replacement >>> call >>> allowing opener to participate in the continued auction with any >>> other >>> call than pass. >> >> AG : of course it's the contray. It's in case there are hands that >> bid 3D but not 2C >> that you'll disallow 3D. > > Of course. > And I believe that is exactly what I said in a different way: > > I supposed "If the 2C bid excludes (some) hands that can bid 3D" is > equivalent to "there are hands that bid 3D but not 2C"? > If you understood me to mean "all" where I have added "(some)" > above I fully > understand and agree with your objection. > > And I do agree that this law is one of the more difficult laws in > the book > where it is very easy to go wrong. As you probably know the words > even had > to be changed from the first release just because the original text > was not > only but in fact directly wrong in this respect. I assume that my own > feedback to WBFLC was one among several about this. It's really not that difficult at all. Consider the "regular" auction (here P-P-1S-2D-3D) and decide whether the offender's withdrawn call (here 2C) added any(*) information that wouldn't otherwise have been available. If the answer is no, the substitution is allowed without penalty. WTP? (*) There may be a problem interpreting "any", which, we are told, refers to the "defined" meaning of the call but not to its logical negative inferences (the latter term remaining undefined), but that's a whole separate issue. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 18:33:53 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:33:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <7DE74DE2-B899-4590-A84C-636A72DC94A1@starpower.net> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4DAFEF.5090601@ulb.ac.be> <000401cb2d02$9ded4bf0$d9c7e3d0$@no> <7DE74DE2-B899-4590-A84C-636A72DC94A1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000501cb2da9$80631090$812931b0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau .......... > It is routine in North America to have agreements by which P-P-1S- P-2C and P-P- > 1S-2D-3D both show maximum or near-maximum passed-hand values with spade > support. This is a particularly easy example of when to allow a previously > unavailable penalty-free correction using L27B1(b). > > > For the purpose of Law 26 the 2c bid appears to relate to the club > > suit. > > Why shouldn't the facts above be equally relevant for L26? OK. If these are agreed facts I agree. But for the application of Law 26 it is not sufficient that 2C shows spades, it must not indicate any probability of a (for the time being) unknown second suit. (And for the application of Law 27B1(b) it is necessary that the 3D bid cannot contain a hand that would have made the 2C bid unsuitable if legal.) Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 27 18:33:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:33:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4EFA28.6030509@ulb.ac.be> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4EFA28.6030509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <80452B90-99DA-492E-94D1-42E70084783E@starpower.net> On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> In my EHAA agreements, 1NT-P-2D shows diamonds, but 2NT-P-3D shows >> hearts. If Sven will neither ask me what I imagined the auction to >> have been nor look at my hand, I don't see how he can possibly come >> to a sensible ruling. > > AG : this isn't EHAA-specific. In most systems, 2NT-3D shows hearts, > while 1S-2D shows dismonds. And 2C-2D doesn't show any suit (in some > partnerships, it doesn't show anything). > > Now you may pretend that it's more plausible to mistake 2NT for 1NT > than > for any other bid, but this doesn't fit with my experience. In my experience, the most common explanation for an IB at the player's first chance to bid is that he mistakenly thought he was opening the bidding. Here, though, Sven is prepared to assume that he thought he was responding to NT, while Alain gives us still other possibilities. If we neither ask nor look at the player's hand, on what basis can any of us possibly argue that our guess is any better than anyone else's? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 18:46:36 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:46:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4DAB47.8030109@ulb.ac.be> <000301cb2d01$d83c5180$88b4f480$@no> Message-ID: <000601cb2dab$483bb080$d8b31180$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................. > So even if he actually thought he was opening 2D in third seat, Sven will rule that > he "incontrovertably" showed hearts! > > Well, I suppose if you refuse to ask him what he was thinking, and refuse to look at > his hand, you're going to give a random ruling, in which case Sven's might be as > good as any. Be careful now! First of all I never indicated unwillingness to clarify players' agreements, on the contrary I shall in these situation always do what I can to know exactly what relevant agreements exist in that partnership. However I am never going to let him tell his intention while his partner is listening. And if he claims he thought he was making an opening bid in 2D not showing diamonds he is very close to forcing his partner to pass for the rest of that auction, and if he becomes a defender have Law 26B, not 26A applied. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 27 18:52:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:52:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <80452B90-99DA-492E-94D1-42E70084783E@starpower.net> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4EFA28.6030509@ulb.ac.be> <80452B90-99DA-492E-94D1-42E70084783E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C4F0EB9.2060500@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> In my EHAA agreements, 1NT-P-2D shows diamonds, but 2NT-P-3D shows >>> hearts. If Sven will neither ask me what I imagined the auction to >>> have been nor look at my hand, I don't see how he can possibly come >>> to a sensible ruling. >>> >> AG : this isn't EHAA-specific. In most systems, 2NT-3D shows hearts, >> while 1S-2D shows dismonds. And 2C-2D doesn't show any suit (in some >> partnerships, it doesn't show anything). >> >> Now you may pretend that it's more plausible to mistake 2NT for 1NT >> than >> for any other bid, but this doesn't fit with my experience. >> > > In my experience, the most common explanation for an IB at the > player's first chance to bid is that he mistakenly thought he was > opening the bidding. > AG : indeed More generally, the most common explanation by far is that he didn't see the last bid, not that he saw it wrongly. In which case, ruling that the D bid shows hearts would correspond to a strange, albeit not impossible, system. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 19:00:36 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:00:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> <4C4ED2BA.9020800! ! @ulb.ac.be> <000001cb 2d8a$9ec7ebb0$dc57c310$@no> Message-ID: <000701cb2dad$3c0f0300$b42d0900$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > It's really not that difficult at all. > > Consider the "regular" auction (here P-P-1S-2D-3D) and decide whether the > offender's withdrawn call (here 2C) added any(*) information that wouldn't > otherwise have been available. If the answer is no, the substitution is allowed > without penalty. WTP? > > (*) There may be a problem interpreting "any", which, we are told, refers to the > "defined" meaning of the call but not to its logical negative inferences (the latter > term remaining undefined), but that's a whole separate issue. It is the substituting call that must not introduce possible hands that were not contained in the scope of the insufficient bid. Legally the insufficient bid is void and the substituted call is AI. If this legal call includes options that no longer are possible because the insufficient bid would have not been made with these options then the substituting call is "less precise" than the insufficient bid and therefore prevents an application of Law 27B1(b). On the contrary if the insufficient bid includes options that no longer are possible with the substituting call then the now void insufficient bid contains no information that modifies the information from the legal substituting call. Take the Stayman example where the insufficient 2C over 2NT promises 8+ HCP while the 3C bid over 2NT can be made with as little as 4 HCP. Because of the insufficient 2C bid the 2NT opener now knows that partner holds 8+ HCP and not just the 4+ HCP that his legal 3C bid promises. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 27 19:01:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:01:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000601cb2dab$483bb080$d8b31180$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4DAB47.8030109@ulb.ac.be> <000301cb2d01$d83c5180$88b4f480$@no> <000601cb2dab$483bb080$d8b31180$@no> Message-ID: <4C4F10DA.7080801@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ................. > >> So even if he actually thought he was opening 2D in third seat, Sven will >> > rule that > >> he "incontrovertably" showed hearts! >> >> Well, I suppose if you refuse to ask him what he was thinking, and refuse >> > to look at > >> his hand, you're going to give a random ruling, in which case Sven's might >> > be as > >> good as any. >> > > Be careful now! > > First of all I never indicated unwillingness to clarify players' agreements, > on the contrary I shall in these situation always do what I can to know > exactly what relevant agreements exist in that partnership. However I am > never going to let him tell his intention while his partner is listening. > > And if he claims he thought he was making an opening bid in 2D not showing > diamonds he is very close to forcing his partner to pass for the rest of > that auction AG : once again I don't understand you, or perhaps you don't understand yourself. If the 2D bid is Polish (any 55 but minors, 5-11 HCP), I'm going to accept a 4D response showing 55 majors and assets limited to game. (yes, I know some pairs who play both of those) So please judge every case on its merits and not on preconceptions, of which your last paragraph is one. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 27 19:34:28 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:34:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> Message-ID: On Jul 27, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> In my EHAA agreements, 1NT-P-2D shows diamonds, but 2NT-P-3D shows >> hearts. >> If Sven will neither ask me what I imagined the auction to have >> been nor look at my >> hand, I don't see how he can possibly come to a sensible ruling. > > Did I ever indicate that I would not establish the "meaning" of a > call? > > But I shall never establish such meaning by looking at any hand (at > least > not until play has ended), nor shall I take a self-serving > assertion for a > fact without corroborating evidence. So -- let's assume I play transfers over all NT openings -- Sven will decide that I have shown hearts, and rule accordingly. When I attempt to get the auction back on track, with my partner not barred, by asserting that I mistakenly thought I was the dealer, and actually held a weak two-bid in diamonds, Sven will reject that as a self- serving assertion. When I offer to provide all of the corroborating evidence he could possibly need to assure himself that I am telling the truth by showing him my hand, he will refuse to look at it, instead continuing to insist on ruling as though I had intended 2D to show hearts. When faced with the problem of deciding whether an infractor's self- serving assertion is true or false, and knowing that his hand will provide conclusive corroborating (or damning!) evidence one way or the other, it seems irrational to refuse to take a look. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 27 19:38:46 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:38:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000701cb2dad$3c0f0300$b42d0900$@no> References: <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> <4C4ED2BA.9020800! ! @ulb.ac.be> <000001cb 2d8a$9ec7ebb0$dc57c310$@no> <000701cb2dad$3c0f0300$b42d0900$@no> Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:00:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ............. >> It's really not that difficult at all. >> >> Consider the "regular" auction (here P-P-1S-2D-3D) and decide whether >> the >> offender's withdrawn call (here 2C) added any(*) information that >> wouldn't >> otherwise have been available. If the answer is no, the substitution is > allowed >> without penalty. WTP? >> >> (*) There may be a problem interpreting "any", which, we are told, >> refers > to the >> "defined" meaning of the call but not to its logical negative inferences > (the latter >> term remaining undefined), but that's a whole separate issue. > > It is the substituting call that must not introduce possible hands that > were > not contained in the scope of the insufficient bid. > > Legally the insufficient bid is void and the substituted call is AI. If > this > legal call includes options that no longer are possible because the > insufficient bid would have not been made with these options then the > substituting call is "less precise" than the insufficient bid and > therefore > prevents an application of Law 27B1(b). > > On the contrary if the insufficient bid includes options that no longer > are > possible with the substituting call then the now void insufficient bid > contains no information that modifies the information from the legal > substituting call. > > Take the Stayman example where the insufficient 2C over 2NT promises 8+ > HCP I don't know of any partnerships that have this agreement. I believe you mean that 2C over 1NT can promise 8 or more HCP. However, I do not think the director is allowed to make up a nonexistent 1NT bid. If the 2C bidder indicates that he thought he was bidding 2C over 1NT, then fine. But in my experience the 2Cl bid knew perfectly well that it was a 2NT bid, decided to use Stayman, then forgot and used the traditional 2Cl as Stayman. > while the 3C bid over 2NT can be made with as little as 4 HCP. > Because of the insufficient 2C bid the 2NT opener now knows that partner > holds 8+ HCP ????? How does he know this? > and not just the 4+ HCP that his legal 3C bid promises. > > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 20:11:13 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:11:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4F10DA.7080801@ulb.ac.be> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <4C4DAB47.8030109@ulb.ac.be> <000301cb2d01$d83c5180$88b4f480$@no> <000601cb2dab$483bb080$d8b31180$@no> <4C4F10DA.7080801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801cb2db7$1a02d750$4e0885f0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ......... > AG : once again I don't understand you, or perhaps you don't understand > yourself. > If the 2D bid is Polish (any 55 but minors, 5-11 HCP), I'm going to accept a 4D > response showing 55 majors and assets limited to game. > (yes, I know some pairs who play both of those) > > So please judge every case on its merits and not on preconceptions, of which > your last paragraph is one. OK. If the following partnership agreements are incontrovertible: 1: An opening bid of 2D in the actual position shows 5-5 in majors and from 5 to 11 HCP, AND 2: A skip bid of 4D directly over an opening bid 2NT shows 5-5 in majors and HCP range WITHIN the HCP range for the 2D opening bid (i.e. at least 5 HCP but not more than 11 HCP). And it appears likely that the offender indeed has intended an opening bid and not for instance a 2D bid over an opening in 1NT: Then, and only then shall I accept 4D as a substituting call over the insufficient bid in 2D and let the auction continue with no immediate rectification. (Be aware of Law 27D.) From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 20:27:23 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:27:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> Message-ID: <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............... > So -- let's assume I play transfers over all NT openings -- Sven will decide that I > have shown hearts, and rule accordingly. When I attempt to get the auction back > on track, with my partner not barred, by asserting that I mistakenly thought I was > the dealer, and actually held a weak two-bid in diamonds, Sven will reject that as a > self- serving assertion. When I offer to provide all of the corroborating evidence > he could possibly need to assure himself that I am telling the truth by showing him > my hand, he will refuse to look at it, instead continuing to insist on ruling as though > I had intended 2D to show hearts. > > When faced with the problem of deciding whether an infractor's self- serving > assertion is true or false, and knowing that his hand will provide conclusive > corroborating (or damning!) evidence one way or the other, it seems irrational to > refuse to take a look. The problem with this attitude is that your agreements are AI to your partner, but any fact that you have misbid is not. The 2D bid must be ruled upon primarily on its face value and your agreements and not on extraneous statements clarifying your intentions. Law 27B1(b) has been introduces to allow saving a board if possible after an irregularity provided this can be done without creating (extra) UI to partner. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 27 20:29:08 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:29:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> <4C4ED2BA.9020800! ! @ulb.ac.be> <000001cb 2d8a$9ec7ebb0$dc57c310$@no> <000701cb2dad$3c0f0300$b42d0900$@no> Message-ID: <000a01cb2db9$9aa93050$cffb90f0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > > while the 3C bid over 2NT can be made with as little as 4 HCP. > > Because of the insufficient 2C bid the 2NT opener now knows that > > partner holds 8+ HCP > > ????? How does he know this? >From the apparent use of 2C over 1NT > > > and not just the 4+ HCP that his legal 3C bid promises. > > > > Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 27 23:10:16 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:10:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no><000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> Message-ID: <861059B827324A05AE9BD6EF377D297C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > When faced with the problem of deciding whether an infractor's self-serving assertion is true or false, and knowing that his hand will provide conclusive corroborating (or damning!) evidence one way or the other, it seems irrational to refuse to take a look. > +=+ My, what a wonderful star-spangled thread this has developed into. Let me not strew it with clouds. However, Eric, those who oppose the suggestion that the Director look into the hand before he rules may obviously argue that he can defer doing so until the end of the play. They will observe how Law 85B and Law 12A3 allow of this option. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 28 10:24:17 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:24:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> Message-ID: <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Did I ever indicate that I would not establish the "meaning" of a call? > > But I shall never establish such meaning by looking at any hand (at least > not until play has ended), nor shall I take a self-serving assertion for a > fact without corroborating evidence. > I'm sorry Sven, but isn't this a contradiction? What other corroborating evidence can you possibly have except looking at the hand? I'm not saying that you should look at the hand - I wouldn't do it, for instance - but then you have no choice but to accept the statement by the player. Now I do agree that you do not ask for such a statement when partner can hear. But I am concerned that the important part of the statement "I thought I was ..." is so important for the ruling, that people in the know can deduce it from the ruling. Those people should not have the advantage, so I suggest telling the table what it was. Very often, the table will already know, or guess correctly. Then you can give your ruling from the basis of what they tell you. And yes, I do believe this is AI to partner as well. The penalty is usually based on him not being able to use that AI. > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3032 - Release Date: 07/27/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 28 11:20:38 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:20:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Did I ever indicate that I would not establish the "meaning" of a call? > > > > But I shall never establish such meaning by looking at any hand (at > > least not until play has ended), nor shall I take a self-serving > > assertion for a fact without corroborating evidence. > > > > I'm sorry Sven, but isn't this a contradiction? What other corroborating evidence > can you possibly have except looking at the hand? Something called system documentation, for example convention cards? > I'm not saying that you should look at the hand - I wouldn't do it, for instance - but > then you have no choice but to accept the statement by the player. Why not if such statement appears consistent with the partnership agreements already disclosed at the table? > > Now I do agree that you do not ask for such a statement when partner can hear. > But I am concerned that the important part of the statement "I thought I was ..." is > so important for the ruling, that people in the know can deduce it from the ruling. > Those people should not have the advantage, so I suggest telling the table what it > was. > Very often, the table will already know, or guess correctly. Then you can give your > ruling from the basis of what they tell you. Sure > And yes, I do believe this is AI to partner as well. The penalty is usually based on > him not being able to use that AI. ????? How can a player ever be restrained from using AI? Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 28 12:35:13 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:35:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no><4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> Message-ID: <44251356682D4563B827CF59E752FB67@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > >> And yes, I do believe this is AI to partner as well. The >> penalty is usually based on his not being able to use >> that AI. ????? How can a player ever be restrained from using AI? > Sven > +=+ Would not this be the situation if the player's actions are directed for him by law? For example, if a player is required by law to pass throughout the remainder of the auction he may have AI on which he would not choose judgementally to pass at some point but is prevented from making any other call by the restriction upon his actions. (I envisage that if not dummy he would then be able to use his AI during the play.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 28 13:01:02 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:01:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> Message-ID: <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> Sorry Sven, but you don't seem to grasp the problem here. Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> Did I ever indicate that I would not establish the "meaning" of a call? >>> >>> But I shall never establish such meaning by looking at any hand (at >>> least not until play has ended), nor shall I take a self-serving >>> assertion for a fact without corroborating evidence. >>> >> >> I'm sorry Sven, but isn't this a contradiction? What other corroborating > evidence >> can you possibly have except looking at the hand? > > Something called system documentation, for example convention cards? > But that is not the problem! The problem is the intention of the player. When he makes an insufficient bid of 2D over opponents 2NT, there is a difference between him thinking he was bidding without the 2NT (opening a Multi, for example), bidding over 1NT (intending to show transfer to hearts). or overcalling 3Di (natural) but mistakenly taking only 2D. Your ruling should be different on the one or the other. Of course you should not really trust any player, but I would not doubt a player who tells me he was thinking of showing hearts, when indeed he has them. And I don't need to check his hand to be able to trust him that he has hearts - I will see that after the hand. >> I'm not saying that you should look at the hand - I wouldn't do it, for > instance - but >> then you have no choice but to accept the statement by the player. > > Why not if such statement appears consistent with the partnership agreements > already disclosed at the table? > But does it conform to the hand - and thus the true intention of the player? >> >> Now I do agree that you do not ask for such a statement when partner can > hear. >> But I am concerned that the important part of the statement "I thought I > was ..." is >> so important for the ruling, that people in the know can deduce it from > the ruling. >> Those people should not have the advantage, so I suggest telling the table > what it >> was. >> Very often, the table will already know, or guess correctly. Then you can > give your >> ruling from the basis of what they tell you. > > Sure > >> And yes, I do believe this is AI to partner as well. The penalty is > usually based on >> him not being able to use that AI. > > ????? How can a player ever be restrained from using AI? > He cannot - but the penalty will prevent him from using it to his advantage. Say your partner bids 1He over opponents opening of 2Sp. He decides not to bid 3He. You are barred from bidding and from leading hearts - but is the 1He UI after that? > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3032 - Release Date: 07/27/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 28 13:47:11 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:47:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <44251356682D4563B827CF59E752FB67@Mildred> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no><4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <44251356682D4563B827CF59E752! FB67@Mildred> Message-ID: <000801cb2e4a$9e2c6bc0$da854340$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ............ > ????? How can a player ever be restrained from using AI? > > > Sven > > > +=+ Would not this be the situation if the player's > actions are directed for him by law? For example, if a player is required by law to > pass throughout the remainder of the auction he may have AI on which he would > not choose judgementally to pass at some point but is prevented from making any > other call by the restriction upon his actions. (I envisage that if not dummy he > would then be able to use his AI during the > play.) Splitting hairs really, but I don't see this as being restrained from using AI; I see it as being directed by law to take a particular action, this requirement having no relation whatsoever to the AI as such? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 28 14:00:16 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:00:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > > Something called system documentation, for example convention cards? > > > > But that is not the problem! The problem is the intention of the player. > When he makes an insufficient bid of 2D over opponents 2NT, there is a > difference between him thinking he was bidding without the 2NT (opening a Multi, > for example), bidding over 1NT (intending to show transfer to hearts). or > overcalling 3Di (natural) but mistakenly taking only 2D. > Your ruling should be different on the one or the other. > Of course you should not really trust any player, but I would not doubt a player > who tells me he was thinking of showing hearts, when indeed he has them. And I > don't need to check his hand to be able to trust him that he has hearts - I will see > that after the hand. Laws 26 and 27 are primarily concerned with the actions and not with the intentions of the player. In a separate post I wrote: Law 27B1(b) has been introduces to allow saving a board if possible after an irregularity provided this can be done without creating (extra) UI to partner. Only when an intention to refer to a suit different from the suit named in a bid is incontrovertible can such intention be the basis for ruling to what suit(s) a call refers. For a Director to announce (after looking at a player's cards) something like "it is clear to me that he was referring to hearts!" violates every rule I have in my mind about how the Director is to do his duty. Before 2007 this was never (?) any problem because a call that indicated something else than what was named in the call was automatically ruled "conventional" and the Director had no need to establish the intended meaning of the call. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 28 15:20:24 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:20:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> Message-ID: <73AA276A-67EC-4205-806E-752A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> When faced with the problem of deciding whether an infractor's >> self-serving >> assertion is true or false, and knowing that his hand will provide >> conclusive >> corroborating (or damning!) evidence one way or the other, it >> seems irrational to >> refuse to take a look. > > The problem with this attitude is that your agreements are AI to your > partner, but any fact that you have misbid is not. We're talking about inadmissable calls here, so that is completely irrelevant. Partnerships are not expected to have agreements as to the meaning of inadmissable calls -- indeed, in the ACBL it is illegal to have such agreements. Because an inadmissable call has no agreed meaning, it is a misbid by definition. Unlike the usual misbid, partner does not have the ability to pretend it was made in accordance with partnership agreements. That's why, for inadmissable bids, TFLB is forced to abandon the equity approach of L75 in favor of mechanical penalties. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 28 15:33:12 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:33:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C503198.2080701@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > But that is not the problem! The problem is the intention of the player. > When he makes an insufficient bid of 2D over opponents 2NT, there is a > difference between him thinking he was bidding without the 2NT (opening > a Multi, for example), bidding over 1NT (intending to show transfer to > hearts). or overcalling 3Di (natural) but mistakenly taking only 2D. > Your ruling should be different on the one or the other. > Of course you should not really trust any player, but I would not doubt > a player who tells me he was thinking of showing hearts, when indeed he > has them. And I don't need to check his hand to be able to trust him > that he has hearts - I will see that after the hand. > > AG : I agree with the basic principle, but there are difficult cases. Would you believe a player who told you he saw a 2C opening bid and was responding 2D ? (which, in some partnerships, is an automatic response) Or, more complex, say they play "gentse standard" and the bidding goes 3D p (stop)2S. The player wanted to open (12-14, strong 5-card suit), which would mean a 3S response (unlimited) would be disallowed. But he tells you he was responding to a nebulous 1D opening, in which case 2S shows a game- force, at least 5 cards and is unlimited. In that case you should allow the 3S response. How do you detect the lie ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 28 15:37:40 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:37:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <73AA276A-67EC-4205-806E-752A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73AA276A-67EC-4205-806E-752A8BF4CBEA@starpow er.net> Message-ID: <4C5032A4.7090703@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> >> >>> When faced with the problem of deciding whether an infractor's >>> self-serving >>> assertion is true or false, and knowing that his hand will provide >>> conclusive >>> corroborating (or damning!) evidence one way or the other, it >>> seems irrational to >>> refuse to take a look. >>> >> The problem with this attitude is that your agreements are AI to your >> partner, but any fact that you have misbid is not. >> > > We're talking about inadmissable calls here, so that is completely > irrelevant. Partnerships are not expected to have agreements as to > the meaning of inadmissable calls -- indeed, in the ACBL it is > illegal to have such agreements. Because an inadmissable call has no > agreed meaning, it is a misbid by definition. AG : I don't understand this. Do you mean that making a bid that has no agreed meaning in your system is misbidding ? In Deauville, we had the following bdding : 2D (Multi) - 5C (undiscussed). And this is in a solidly established partnership. Is that a misbid ? From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 28 15:44:49 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:44:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <73AA276A-67EC-4205-806E-752A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > >> When faced with the problem of deciding whether an infractor's > >> self-serving assertion is true or false, and knowing that his hand > >> will provide conclusive corroborating (or damning!) evidence one way > >> or the other, it seems irrational to refuse to take a look. > > > > The problem with this attitude is that your agreements are AI to your > > partner, but any fact that you have misbid is not. > > We're talking about inadmissable calls here, so that is completely irrelevant. > Partnerships are not expected to have agreements as to the meaning of > inadmissable calls -- indeed, in the ACBL it is illegal to have such agreements. > Because an inadmissable call has no agreed meaning, it is a misbid by definition. > Unlike the usual misbid, partner does not have the ability to pretend it was made in > accordance with partnership agreements. That's why, for inadmissable bids, > TFLB is forced to abandon the equity approach of L75 in favor of mechanical > penalties. According to your logic the Director must rule either: That the inadmissible bid referred to the suit named in the bid and use Law 26A, or: That the inadmissible call did not refer to any specified suit and use Law 26B. Again there is no need to interview the offender on his intention or to look at his cards. Sven From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Jul 28 14:59:34 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:59:34 +0300 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C503198.2080701@ulb.ac.be> References: <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <4C503198.2080701@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:33:12 +0300, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> But that is not the problem! The problem is the intention of the player. >> When he makes an insufficient bid of 2D over opponents 2NT, there is a >> difference between him thinking he was bidding without the 2NT (opening >> a Multi, for example), bidding over 1NT (intending to show transfer to >> hearts). or overcalling 3Di (natural) but mistakenly taking only 2D. >> Your ruling should be different on the one or the other. >> Of course you should not really trust any player, but I would not doubt >> a player who tells me he was thinking of showing hearts, when indeed he >> has them. And I don't need to check his hand to be able to trust him >> that he has hearts - I will see that after the hand. >> >> > AG : I agree with the basic principle, but there are difficult cases. > Would you believe a player who told you he saw a 2C opening bid and was > responding 2D ? (which, in some partnerships, is an automatic response) > > Or, more complex, say they play "gentse standard" and the bidding goes > 3D p (stop)2S. The player wanted to open (12-14, strong 5-card > suit), which would mean a 3S response (unlimited) would be disallowed. 2S seems natural, so 3S would be allowed under 27B1a. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 28 16:00:53 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:00:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <861059B827324A05AE9BD6EF377D297C@Mildred> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no><000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <861059B827324A05AE9BD6EF377D297C@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jul 27, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > When faced with the problem of deciding whether > an infractor's self-serving assertion is true or false, > and knowing that his hand will provide conclusive > corroborating (or damning!) evidence one way or > the other, it seems irrational to refuse to take a > look. > > +=+ My, what a wonderful star-spangled thread this > has developed into. Let me not strew it with clouds. > However, Eric, those who oppose the suggestion > that the Director look into the hand before he rules > may obviously argue that he can defer doing so until > the end of the play. They will observe how Law 85B > and Law 12A3 allow of this option. Do they? Given that TFLB does not expressly forbid looking at the infractor's hand, I would argue that if doing so is the only way the TD can "determine the facts to his satisfaction", L85 mandates that he look. L85A1 requires the TD to rule "in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect", not "...the evidence he chooses to collect". The option Grattan speaks of is available only if he "is unable to determine the facts" [L85B], not if he is able but declines to do so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 28 16:49:52 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:49:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> Message-ID: <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> On Jul 28, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> But that is not the problem! The problem is the intention of the >> player. >> When he makes an insufficient bid of 2D over opponents 2NT, there >> is a >> difference between him thinking he was bidding without the 2NT >> (opening a Multi, >> for example), bidding over 1NT (intending to show transfer to >> hearts). or >> overcalling 3Di (natural) but mistakenly taking only 2D. >> Your ruling should be different on the one or the other. > > Laws 26 and 27 are primarily concerned with the actions and not > with the > intentions of the player. > > In a separate post I wrote: > > Law 27B1(b) has been introduces to allow saving a board if possible > after an > irregularity provided this can be done without creating (extra) UI to > partner. > > Only when an intention to refer to a suit different from the suit > named in a > bid is incontrovertible can such intention be the basis for ruling > to what > suit(s) a call refers. For a Director to announce (after looking at a > player's cards) something like "it is clear to me that he was > referring to > hearts!" violates every rule I have in my mind about how the > Director is to > do his duty. South makes an insufficient bid, which he either is or is not permitted to correct without penalty. Consider four variations of this scenario: At tables #1 and #3, North, who knows and understands L27, can deduce from the nature of the permitted replacement call, or lack thereof, that South's IB must have been meant to shown hearts. At tables #2 and #4, North lacks sufficient knowledge of the laws to make this deduction. At tables #1 and #2, the TD is called immediately without problem, but at tables #3 and #4 South (improperly but innocently) blurts out a comment that clearly reveals to all that the IB was intended to show hearts before the TD can arrive. Which of these four Norths are allowed to use the information that South has hearts? And that's before we even get to East and West. ISTM that fairness (both actual and perceived), as well as simplicity and comprehensibility, require that the answer be either "none of them" or "all of them". And it can't be "none of them", because L16A1 (c) explicitly authorizes its use by North at table #1 ("information... arising from the legal procedures..."). That's why I argue that the info should be revealed and be usable by all. Except, of course, for those cases in which that would allow North to benefit unfairly from the infraction; fortunately, TFLB already handles those cases independently of the above considerations, by barring North from the bidding. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 28 16:59:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:59:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C5032A4.7090703@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73AA276A-67EC-4205-806E-752A8BF4CBEA@starpow er.net> <4C5032A4.7090703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <7A37CCF4-05F6-4DEC-9757-58D22E650E22@starpower.net> On Jul 28, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> We're talking about inadmissable calls here, so that is completely >> irrelevant. Partnerships are not expected to have agreements as to >> the meaning of inadmissable calls -- indeed, in the ACBL it is >> illegal to have such agreements. Because an inadmissable call has no >> agreed meaning, it is a misbid by definition. > > AG : I don't understand this. Do you mean that making a bid that > has no > agreed meaning in your system is misbidding ? No. I mean that making an inadmissable call (such as an insufficient bid or a double of your own side's contract) about which you have no agreement is misbidding. (If you do have an agreement, it's something else entirely.) > In Deauville, we had the following bdding : 2D (Multi) - 5C > (undiscussed). And this is in a solidly established partnership. Is > that > a misbid ? Presumably not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 28 17:20:39 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:20:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> Message-ID: On Jul 28, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >>> >>>> When faced with the problem of deciding whether an infractor's >>>> self-serving assertion is true or false, and knowing that his hand >>>> will provide conclusive corroborating (or damning!) evidence one >>>> way >>>> or the other, it seems irrational to refuse to take a look. >>> >>> The problem with this attitude is that your agreements are AI to >>> your >>> partner, but any fact that you have misbid is not. >> >> We're talking about inadmissable calls here, so that is completely >> irrelevant. >> Partnerships are not expected to have agreements as to the meaning of >> inadmissable calls -- indeed, in the ACBL it is illegal to have >> such agreements. >> Because an inadmissable call has no agreed meaning, it is a misbid >> by definition. >> Unlike the usual misbid, partner does not have the ability to >> pretend it was made in >> accordance with partnership agreements. That's why, for >> inadmissable bids, >> TFLB is forced to abandon the equity approach of L75 in favor of >> mechanical >> penalties. > > According to your logic the Director must rule either: > That the inadmissible bid referred to the suit named in the bid and > use Law > 26A, or: > That the inadmissible call did not refer to any specified suit and > use Law > 26B. That's silly. L26A applies when a suit or suits is "specified". Sven changes this to "named", which isn't even close to the same thing. If TPTB meant "named" they'd have written "named" (or "bid"). I would argue that we cannot make sense out of much of TFLB if we fail to recognize the distinction between them. But he is right that "the Director must rule"... > Again there is no need to interview the offender on his intention > or to look > at his cards. So how *does* he decide which of A or B to apply? Guess blindly? Flip a coin? Pray for an answer from God? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 28 18:08:18 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:08:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be>! <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0 $55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101cb2e6f$180ddb80$48299280$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > South makes an insufficient bid, which he either is or is not permitted to correct > without penalty. Consider four variations of this scenario: At tables #1 and #3, > North, who knows and understands L27, can deduce from the nature of the > permitted replacement call, or > lack thereof, that South's IB must have been meant to shown hearts. > At tables #2 and #4, North lacks sufficient knowledge of the laws to make this > deduction. At tables #1 and #2, the TD is called immediately without problem, but > at tables #3 and #4 South (improperly but innocently) blurts out a comment that > clearly reveals to all that the IB was intended to show hearts before the TD can > arrive. > > Which of these four Norths are allowed to use the information that South has > hearts? Whether or not South is permitted to correct his insufficient bid without rectification [Sic.!] does not in any way depend on what cards South actually holds. He may do so under: Law 27B1{a}: "if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director's opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial" Or under: Law 27B1{b}: "if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)". In both these situations there is a "safe-catch" in Law27D: "If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score." The Director has no cause for inspecting South's cards in order to make a ruling under Law 27B1, whether (a) or (b), and consequently North should not have received any information from the ruling that he would not have had absent the irregularity. If he afterwards is found to have had such information and the Director rules this to having been material the Director shall award an adjusted score. So frankly I cannot see that your case description above or the remainder of your post is much relevant. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 28 18:15:11 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:15:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! ! A276A-67EC-4205-806E- 75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> Message-ID: <000201cb2e70$0efc4620$2cf4d260$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............... > That's silly. L26A applies when a suit or suits is "specified". > Sven changes this to "named", which isn't even close to the same thing. If TPTB > meant "named" they'd have written "named" (or "bid"). I would argue that we > cannot make sense out of much of TFLB if we fail to recognize the distinction > between them. A bid "relates" to the suit named unless it is artificial and no call can be artificial without a partnership understanding to that effect. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 28 20:02:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:02:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000101cb2e6f$180ddb80$48299280$@no> References: <455A0E62F8254B268F33914148255F89@acer> <4C8AD67D722047169A5434DBF1E248F5@acer> <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be>! <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0 $55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> <000101cb2e6f$180ddb80$48299280$@no> Message-ID: <926D38B7-01F9-4C2D-98C6-C447A044891A@starpower.net> On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> South makes an insufficient bid, which he either is or is not >> permitted to correct >> without penalty. Consider four variations of this scenario: At >> tables #1 and #3, >> North, who knows and understands L27, can deduce from the nature >> of the >> permitted replacement call, or >> lack thereof, that South's IB must have been meant to shown hearts. >> At tables #2 and #4, North lacks sufficient knowledge of the laws >> to make this >> deduction. At tables #1 and #2, the TD is called immediately >> without problem, but >> at tables #3 and #4 South (improperly but innocently) blurts out a >> comment that >> clearly reveals to all that the IB was intended to show hearts >> before the TD can >> arrive. >> >> Which of these four Norths are allowed to use the information that >> South has >> hearts? > > Whether or not South is permitted to correct his insufficient bid > without > rectification [Sic.!] does not in any way depend on what cards South > actually holds. No, but it does depend on the "meaning" of South's call. As an inadmissable bid can have no objective "agreed" meaning, this must be determined subjectively, and the only person with the information to do so definitively is the person who made the call. > He may do so under: > Law 27B1{a}: "if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest > sufficient > bid in the same denomination and in the Director's opinion both the > insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not > artificial" > Or under: > Law 27B1{b}: "if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is > corrected with a > legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, > or a > more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning > being fully > contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)". I don't think the lawmakers intended the phrase "in the Director's opinion" to override the TD's obligation to either "ascertain[] the facts" [L85A2] or "base his view on... the weight of the evidence he is able to collect" [L85A1]. I think TDs are expected to ascertain whatever "facts" or "evidence" they can before they formulate their "opinion" as to which law applies. > In both these situations there is a "safe-catch" in > Law27D: "If following the application of B1 the Director judges at > the end > of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the > outcome of the board could well have been different and in > consequence the > non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an > adjusted > score." True, but irrelevant to the decision whether to apply (a) or (b) initially. > The Director has no cause for inspecting South's cards in order to > make a > ruling under Law 27B1, whether (a) or (b), and consequently North > should not > have received any information from the ruling that he would not > have had > absent the irregularity. If he afterwards is found to have had such > information and the Director rules this to having been material the > Director > shall award an adjusted score. IMO, the TD is obliged to do whatever he has to do in order to gather "the evidence he is able to collect", and, lacking any explicit prohibition in the laws, may not refuse to collect whatever evidence he is "able to". Moreover, it is incumbent upon him to select from among his potential "ruling[s] that will permit play to continue" the one that is least likely, in his opinion, to give rise to an adjustment of the at-the-table outcome. If, in order to do this, he must examine the infractor's hand, on what basis is he permitted to decide not to do so? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 29 00:17:05 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:17:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > On Jul 27, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Eric Landau" Given that TFLB does not expressly forbid looking at the infractor's hand, I would argue that if doing so is the only way the TD can "determine the facts to his satisfaction", L85 mandates that he look. L85A1 requires the TD to rule "in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect", not "...the evidence he chooses to collect". The option Grattan speaks of is available only if he "is unable to determine the facts" [L85B], not if he is able but declines to do so. > +=+ In this Eric you are begging the question. The meaning of 'able' is undefined and (see above) in the dictionary it is wide-ranging. What the Director is "able" to do is a function of the manner in which, by training and regime, he is required to perform his duties. We have two schools of thought here on the subject and what he is "able" to do in your concept, or the concept of the ambience in which you play, he is not "able" to do where the second concept prevails. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jul 29 03:16:36 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:16:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> References: <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000501cb2d03$37caa3d0$a75feb70$@no> <4C4DFB11.5040908@peacenik.net> <000601cb2d12$04e09740$0ea1c5c0$@no> <4C4E1692.30206@comcast.net> <000301cb2d65$b9fea010$2dfbe030$@no> Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:28:43 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Another example to make this principle clear: > > In the auction: 1D - 1S - 1H (insufficient bid) there is (provided the > partnership uses negative doubles) no hand with which opener's partner in > this position doubles that he would bid anything but 1H had the > intervening > bid not been made. Therefore the negative double is accepted as the > replacement call under Law 27B1(b) in this position. I didn't want to let this pass. As someone in blml noted, the 1H denies having 5 spades and 4 hearts, whilst the negative double does not. So on that small point, the meaning of the negative double is not contained within the meaning of a 1H response. But see below > > However, (assuming the relevant agreements): In the auction 2NT (20-21) > - pass - 2C > (Stayman) the "correct" Stayman bid 3C can be made with as little > as 4 HCP while Stayman 2C over 1NT (15-17) requires at least 8 HCP so > Stayman 3C over 2NT can be used with hands that would have passed (and > not > bid 2C) over 1NT. Therefore in this auction 3C is NOT accepted as a Law > 27B1(b) correction of this insufficient bid: (This example is directly > from > WBFLC) > (Assuming the insufficient bidder thought he was responding to 1NT.) I am not sure when you are pulling this WBFLC statement from. Ton's commentary? In 2008, the WBFLC suggested that the replacement bid doesn't have to be a strict subset of the hands consistent with the insufficient bid. My vague memory is that the ACBL (or someone?) used this exact auction to illustrate the leniency. IMO, if two bids are described as having the same meaning, that's good enough. I don't know of any better place to draw the line. "Law 27B ? Mr. Endicott?s statement on interpretation was adopted and agreed viz:? The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non?offending side has been damaged). From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 29 10:50:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:50:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> Message-ID: <4C5140DD.8090902@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > According to your logic the Director must rule either: > That the inadmissible bid referred to the suit named in the bid and use Law > 26A, or: > That the inadmissible call did not refer to any specified suit and use Law > 26B. > > Again there is no need to interview the offender on his intention or to look > at his cards. > > AG : but we all know there is a third case. Namely, that the inadmissible bid referred to a suit other than the one named (or perhaps two). Whether or not your interpretation of someone else's logic is correct, it would compel the TD to rule something that he, and every player at the table, knows is wrong. If that's whet the Rules say, we should hasten to change them. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 29 10:56:27 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:56:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C51423B.9020009@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 28, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> >> >>> But that is not the problem! The problem is the intention of the >>> player. >>> When he makes an insufficient bid of 2D over opponents 2NT, there >>> is a >>> difference between him thinking he was bidding without the 2NT >>> (opening a Multi, >>> for example), bidding over 1NT (intending to show transfer to >>> hearts). or >>> overcalling 3Di (natural) but mistakenly taking only 2D. >>> Your ruling should be different on the one or the other. >>> >> Laws 26 and 27 are primarily concerned with the actions and not >> with the >> intentions of the player. >> >> In a separate post I wrote: >> >> Law 27B1(b) has been introduces to allow saving a board if possible >> after an >> irregularity provided this can be done without creating (extra) UI to >> partner. >> >> Only when an intention to refer to a suit different from the suit >> named in a >> bid is incontrovertible can such intention be the basis for ruling >> to what >> suit(s) a call refers. For a Director to announce (after looking at a >> player's cards) something like "it is clear to me that he was >> referring to >> hearts!" violates every rule I have in my mind about how the >> Director is to >> do his duty. >> > > South makes an insufficient bid, which he either is or is not > permitted to correct without penalty. Consider four variations of > this scenario: At tables #1 and #3, North, who knows and understands > L27, can deduce from the nature of the permitted replacement call, or > lack thereof, that South's IB must have been meant to shown hearts. > At tables #2 and #4, North lacks sufficient knowledge of the laws to > make this deduction. At tables #1 and #2, the TD is called > immediately without problem, but at tables #3 and #4 South > (improperly but innocently) blurts out a comment that clearly reveals > to all that the IB was intended to show hearts before the TD can arrive. > > Which of these four Norths are allowed to use the information that > South has hearts? > > And that's before we even get to East and West. > > ISTM that fairness (both actual and perceived), as well as simplicity > and comprehensibility, require that the answer be either "none of > them" or "all of them". And it can't be "none of them", because L16A1 > (c) explicitly authorizes its use by North at table #1 > ("information... arising from the legal procedures..."). That's why > I argue that the info should be revealed and be usable by all. > AG : that would be fair indeed, but I wouldn't be shocked in any way if players with insufficient knowledge of the Laws (your players #2 and #4) would be put at a disadvantage by standard procedures, and that would be fair too. I've seen more than once players who didn't know they were allowed a replacement call under L25 (either part of it) and suffered from this. (yes, the TD should tell them, but players who mispulled or miscalled often don't call him because they think he can't do anything about it and fear giving out information). Best regards Alain. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 29 10:56:59 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <7A37CCF4-05F6-4DEC-9757-58D22E650E22@starpower.net> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73AA276A-67EC-4205-806E-752A8BF4CBEA@starpow er.net> <4C5032A4.7090703@ulb.ac.be> <7A37CCF4-05F6-4DEC-9757-58D22E650E22@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C51425B.1020401@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 28, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> We're talking about inadmissable calls here, so that is completely >>> irrelevant. Partnerships are not expected to have agreements as to >>> the meaning of inadmissable calls -- indeed, in the ACBL it is >>> illegal to have such agreements. Because an inadmissable call has no >>> agreed meaning, it is a misbid by definition. >>> >> AG : I don't understand this. Do you mean that making a bid that >> has no >> agreed meaning in your system is misbidding ? >> > > No. I mean that making an inadmissable call (such as an insufficient > bid or a double of your own side's contract) about which you have no > agreement is misbidding. (If you do have an agreement, it's > something else entirely.) > > >> In Deauville, we had the following bdding : 2D (Multi) - 5C >> (undiscussed). And this is in a solidly established partnership. Is >> that >> a misbid ? >> > > Presumably not. > > Whence your statement above is wrong. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 29 11:34:00 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:34:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C5140DD.8090902@ulb.ac.be> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> <4C5140DD.8090902@ulb.ac.b! e> Message-ID: <000301cb2f01$2d7b5000$8871f000$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain > Gottcheiner > Sent: 29. juli 2010 10:51 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > > > > According to your logic the Director must rule either: > > That the inadmissible bid referred to the suit named in the bid and > > use Law 26A, or: > > That the inadmissible call did not refer to any specified suit and use > > Law 26B. > > > > Again there is no need to interview the offender on his intention or > > to look at his cards. > > > > > AG : but we all know there is a third case. Namely, that the inadmissible bid > referred to a suit other than the one named (or perhaps two). > > Whether or not your interpretation of someone else's logic is correct, it would > compel the TD to rule something that he, and every player at the table, knows is > wrong. If that's whet the Rules say, we should hasten to change them. I am not the one who have asserted, and I would in fact never assert that an insufficient bid (or other illegal call) cannot have an incontrovertible meaning relating the call to specific suit or suits. My statement above was simply to show the consequence of such an assertion. But again: Such incontrovertible meaning must be derived from the partnership understandings and not from an inspection of the offender's cards. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 29 15:04:07 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:04:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <141FD610-DFF2-4902-9E26-BA4EEDB91CFB@starpower.net> On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Grattan wrote: > > Given that TFLB does not expressly forbid looking > at the infractor's hand, I would argue that if doing so > is the only way the TD can "determine the facts to > his satisfaction", L85 mandates that he look. L85A1 > requires the TD to rule "in accordance with the weight > of the evidence he is able to collect", not "...the > evidence he chooses to collect". The option Grattan > speaks of is available only if he "is unable to > determine the facts" [L85B], not if he is able but > declines to do so. > > +=+ In this Eric you are begging the question. The > meaning of 'able' is undefined and (see above) in > the dictionary it is wide-ranging. What the Director > is "able" to do is a function of the manner in which, > by training and regime, he is required to perform > his duties. We have two schools of thought here > on the subject and what he is "able" to do in your > concept, or the concept of the ambience in which > you play, he is not "able" to do where the second > concept prevails. I accept this as reflecting the current reality, but I would still appreciate someone pointing me to something -- anything -- in TFLB which might provide a legal justification for this "second concept". Obviously, some competent TDs are committed to the idea that they should never look at an infractor's hand in the course of making a ruling, and I hope to gain some insight as to where it came from. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 29 16:00:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:00:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C51423B.9020009@ulb.ac.be> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> <4C51423B.9020009@ulb.ac. be> Message-ID: <7AE0D6A9-6A6C-487B-985C-1158E767CCBB@starpower.net> On Jul 29, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> South makes an insufficient bid, which he either is or is not >> permitted to correct without penalty. Consider four variations of >> this scenario: At tables #1 and #3, North, who knows and understands >> L27, can deduce from the nature of the permitted replacement call, or >> lack thereof, that South's IB must have been meant to shown hearts. >> At tables #2 and #4, North lacks sufficient knowledge of the laws to >> make this deduction. At tables #1 and #2, the TD is called >> immediately without problem, but at tables #3 and #4 South >> (improperly but innocently) blurts out a comment that clearly reveals >> to all that the IB was intended to show hearts before the TD can >> arrive. >> >> Which of these four Norths are allowed to use the information that >> South has hearts? >> >> And that's before we even get to East and West. >> >> ISTM that fairness (both actual and perceived), as well as simplicity >> and comprehensibility, require that the answer be either "none of >> them" or "all of them". And it can't be "none of them", because >> L16A1 >> (c) explicitly authorizes its use by North at table #1 >> ("information... arising from the legal procedures..."). That's why >> I argue that the info should be revealed and be usable by all. > > AG : that would be fair indeed, but I wouldn't be shocked in any > way if > players with insufficient knowledge of the Laws (your players #2 > and #4) > would be put at a disadvantage by standard procedures, and that > would be > fair too. It might be "fair" in the sense of [AHD #8:] "free of favoritism or bias; impartial", but here I use "fair" in the sense of [AHD #9:] "just to all parties; equitable", which I think better reflects the objectives of the laws, which are supposed to be designed to "do equity". That, I would argue, requires the authorities (who are everyone from the drafting committee on down to the floor TD) to (try as best they can to) eliminate disparities in outcomes based on anything other than one's actions in the context of the game itself, which includes knowledge of the laws. As a practical matter, detailed knowledge of the laws will always give a player some measure of advantage at the table, but we make the game "fairer" by reducing that advantage rather than exacerbating it. Ideally, your results should depend on how well you bid and play, not how well you "lawyer". > I've seen more than once players who didn't know they were allowed a > replacement call under L25 (either part of it) and suffered from this. > (yes, the TD should tell them, but players who mispulled or miscalled > often don't call him because they think he can't do anything about it > and fear giving out information). These players were disadvantaged not by their ignorance of L25, but by their ignorance of the one "rule" that must be taught to every bridge player before they enter a duplicate contest for the first time: If anything at all out of order occurs, call the director. Or, perhaps, by their willful refusal to follow it, because they are not willing to trust the director to protect their rights if they do so, in which case I have very little sympathy for them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 29 16:25:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:25:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C51425B.1020401@ulb.ac.be> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73AA276A-67EC-4205-806E-752A8BF4CBEA@starpow er.net> <4C5032A4.7090703@ulb.ac.be> <7A37CCF4-05F6-4DEC-9757-58D22E650E22@starpower.net> <4C51425B.1020401@u lb.ac.be> Message-ID: <485A4F73-E439-45C6-90F8-5D9E393BD928@starpower.net> On Jul 29, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Jul 28, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>>> We're talking about inadmissable calls here, so that is completely >>>> irrelevant. Partnerships are not expected to have agreements as to >>>> the meaning of inadmissable calls -- indeed, in the ACBL it is >>>> illegal to have such agreements. Because an inadmissable call >>>> has no >>>> agreed meaning, it is a misbid by definition. >>> >>> AG : I don't understand this. Do you mean that making a bid that >>> has no >>> agreed meaning in your system is misbidding ? >> >> No. I mean that making an inadmissable call (such as an insufficient >> bid or a double of your own side's contract) about which you have no >> agreement is misbidding. (If you do have an agreement, it's >> something else entirely.) >> >>> In Deauville, we had the following bdding : 2D (Multi) - 5C >>> (undiscussed). And this is in a solidly established partnership. Is >>> that >>> a misbid ? >> >> Presumably not. > > Whence your statement above is wrong. Grammatical point taken. My third sentence should have read "can have" rather than "has". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 30 10:55:54 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:55:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <7AE0D6A9-6A6C-487B-985C-1158E767CCBB@starpower.net> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> <4C51423B.9020009@ulb.ac. be> <7AE0D6A9-6A6C-487B-985C-1158E767CCBB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C52939A.20204@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > It might be "fair" in the sense of [AHD #8:] "free of favoritism or > bias; impartial", but here I use "fair" in the sense of [AHD #9:] > "just to all parties; equitable", which I think better reflects the > objectives of the laws, which are supposed to be designed to "do > equity". That, I would argue, requires the authorities (who are > everyone from the drafting committee on down to the floor TD) to (try > as best they can to) eliminate disparities in outcomes based on > anything other than one's actions in the context of the game itself, > which includes knowledge of the laws. As a practical matter, > detailed knowledge of the laws will always give a player some measure > of advantage at the table, but we make the game "fairer" by reducing > that advantage rather than exacerbating it. AG : this is a respectable and coherent opinion, but I beg to differ. I want the players to know correct procedure and the most important points of laws, and one of the ways to encourage this is to avoid cocooning them too much. What would you think of a soccer player who wouldn't know the difference between direct and indirect free kicks ? Of a cricket player who wouldn't know which bowling irregularities allow him to go for more runs ? And please don't think bridge rules are su much intricated than other sports/games rules. It always seems so when you know them well. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 30 13:23:20 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:23:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000301cb2f01$2d7b5000$8871f000$@no> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> <4C5140DD.8090902@ulb.ac.b! e> <000301cb2f01$2d7b5000$8871f000 $@no> Message-ID: <4C52B628.1000007@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I am not the one who have asserted, and I would in fact never assert that an > insufficient bid (or other illegal call) cannot have an incontrovertible > meaning relating the call to specific suit or suits. My statement above was > simply to show the consequence of such an assertion. > > But again: Such incontrovertible meaning must be derived from the > partnership understandings and not from an inspection of the offender's > cards. > Well Sven, then again: you are wrong. The partnership understandings will teach you what 2D means in any of four possible circumstances. To know the "incontrovertible meaning" you must also know what circumstance there was. To do so, you must ask the offender what he thought he was bidding on. And to check whether or not he may be lying about that, you need to have a look at his cards. Now I agree with you that this does NOT mean that you have to check his hand at this precise moment. You can decide to believe him for the moment, reserving the right to punish him severely after the hand if it turns out he was lying. In other words: the SC is not enough to be basing your ruling on. You need at least to know the players intention, and other than getting him off the table and asking him, I don't see how you can learn what that intention was. Herman. > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3035 - Release Date: 07/28/10 19:38:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 30 16:02:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:02:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C52939A.20204@ulb.ac.be> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> <4C51423B.9020009@ulb.ac. be> <7AE0D6A9-6A6C-487B-985C-1158E767CCBB@starpower.net> <4C52939A.20204@u lb.ac.be> Message-ID: <51BC3CED-0643-4348-BBC1-33BB8FF7B318@starpower.net> On Jul 30, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> It might be "fair" in the sense of [AHD #8:] "free of favoritism or >> bias; impartial", but here I use "fair" in the sense of [AHD #9:] >> "just to all parties; equitable", which I think better reflects the >> objectives of the laws, which are supposed to be designed to "do >> equity". That, I would argue, requires the authorities (who are >> everyone from the drafting committee on down to the floor TD) to (try >> as best they can to) eliminate disparities in outcomes based on >> anything other than one's actions in the context of the game itself, >> which includes knowledge of the laws. As a practical matter, >> detailed knowledge of the laws will always give a player some measure >> of advantage at the table, but we make the game "fairer" by reducing >> that advantage rather than exacerbating it. > > AG : this is a respectable and coherent opinion, but I beg to > differ. I > want the players to know correct procedure and the most important > points > of laws, and one of the ways to encourage this is to avoid cocooning > them too much. To me, the single most attractive selling point for duplicate bridge as a hobby is that, event proliferation and master-point segregation notwithstanding, it is still one of very few games in which duffers like me, even just starting out, can test themselves against the best players in the world. This is, as I see it, much to be encouraged. To do that, it behooves us to try to limit the differences between top-class and ordinary players, between winners and losers, to that which is based on their abilities to bid, declare and defend, not to exacerbate them based on other, extraneous, factors, which includes their knowledge of the rules. As I said above, as a practical matter, the advantage conferred by such knowledge can never be entirely eliminated, thus anyone attempting to advance beyond the beginner stage still has plenty of incentive to educate themselves in correct procedure and the most important points of the law. There will always be situations in which a clever bridge-lawyer will find ways which would elude most of us to regain through the legal process what was lost at the table. I would prefer to see those opportunities minimized to the extent it is possible to do so. > What would you think of a soccer player who wouldn't know the > difference > between direct and indirect free kicks ? Of a cricket player who > wouldn't know which bowling irregularities allow him to go for more > runs ? The same, I suppose (not knowing these things myself), as I would think of a duplicate bridge player who didn't know the basic rules of bridge. "The basic rules of bridge", to me, are those rules that all forms of bridge -- duplicate, ladies' clubs' afternoon foursomes, serious money rubber, family kitchen table, beginners' classes with assisted play, commuter-train cut-around, whatever -- have in common. Sure, if you haven't already mastered the substance of, say, L1, or L4, or L44, you don't belong in a duplicate tournament. But TFLB isn't the Laws of Bridge, it's the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, and the vast majority of its content reflects the differences between duplicate bridge and other forms of the game. But in my ideal world, two teams of equal ability in bidding, declaring and defending would always be evenly matched, even if one were old duplicate hands thoroughly versed in the intracacies of TFLB, while the other were a foursome from the rubber club trying duplicate for the first time. > And please don't think bridge rules are su much intricated than other > sports/games rules. It always seems so when you know them well. As a fan of both NFL (American) football and Major League baseball, I would never, ever, make that mistake. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 30 16:57:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:57:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C52B628.1000007@skynet.be> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> <4C5140DD.8090902@ulb.ac.b! e> <000301cb2f01$2d7b5000$8871f000 $@no> <4C52B628.1000007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2BF0D0F8-A8F1-439B-8ECF-3E62DEFFEF26@starpower.net> On Jul 30, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> But again: Such incontrovertible meaning must be derived from the >> partnership understandings and not from an inspection of the >> offender's >> cards. > > > The partnership understandings will teach you what 2D means in any of > four possible circumstances. To know the "incontrovertible meaning" > you > must also know what circumstance there was. To do so, you must ask the > offender what he thought he was bidding on. And to check whether or > not > he may be lying about that, you need to have a look at his cards. There are two ways to handle the initial ruling: You ask the offender what happened, and then you either accept his statement at face value, or confirm it by checking his cards. What you must not do is reject his statement as self-serving and uncorroborated after he offers to corroborate it by showing you his cards and you refuse, on principle, to look at them. This is where I fear Sven's uncompromising principles may lead him. > Now I > agree with you that this does NOT mean that you have to check his hand > at this precise moment. You can decide to believe him for the moment, > reserving the right to punish him severely after the hand if it turns > out he was lying. When a TD is called to the table after an irregularity, it behooves him to try as hard as he can to make a ruling which minimizes the possibility that the eventual at-the-table outcome will need to be adjusted after the fact. I'd argue that his success at this is a, if not the, key metric of his effectiveness as a director. I am appalled at the notion that a competent director who is in a position to make a definitive ruling at the table based on evidence readily available would deliberately choose to ignore that evidence, potentially make a ruling that he otherwise would have known was wrong, choosing instead to wait until the mess has been made and the damage has been done before condescending to actually look at the evidence, and then try to clean up after the fact. Perhaps he can justify himself by citing some inviolable "principle" of bridge jurisprudence, but that won't be any consolation to the players involved beyond knowing that they were screwed out of a normal result "on principle". > In other words: the SC is not enough to be basing your ruling on. You > need at least to know the players intention, and other than getting > him > off the table and asking him, I don't see how you can learn what that > intention was. Not getting him off the table and asking him would work too. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 30 18:28:52 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:28:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <2BF0D0F8-A8F1-439B-8ECF-3E62DEFFEF26@starpower.net> References: <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> <4C5140DD.8090902@ulb.ac.b! e> <000301cb2f01$2d7b5000$8871f000 $@no> <4C52B628.1000007@skynet.be> <2BF0D0F8-A8F1-439B-8ECF-3E62DEFFEF26@starpower .net> Message-ID: <4C52FDC4.6070606@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 30, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Now I >> agree with you that this does NOT mean that you have to check his hand >> at this precise moment. You can decide to believe him for the moment, >> reserving the right to punish him severely after the hand if it turns >> out he was lying. > > When a TD is called to the table after an irregularity, it behooves > him to try as hard as he can to make a ruling which minimizes the > possibility that the eventual at-the-table outcome will need to be > adjusted after the fact. I'd argue that his success at this is a, if > not the, key metric of his effectiveness as a director. > > I am appalled at the notion that a competent director who is in a > position to make a definitive ruling at the table based on evidence > readily available would deliberately choose to ignore that evidence, > potentially make a ruling that he otherwise would have known was > wrong, choosing instead to wait until the mess has been made and the > damage has been done before condescending to actually look at the > evidence, and then try to clean up after the fact. Perhaps he can > justify himself by citing some inviolable "principle" of bridge > jurisprudence, but that won't be any consolation to the players > involved beyond knowing that they were screwed out of a normal result > "on principle". > I agree with you, Eric, but for two facts: a) I was trying to reconcile Sven's "absolutely no peeking in hand" principle with a sound (if perhaps not completely perfect) ruling. I too prefer not to look into hands if I don't have to - and I feel I don't have to, here. b) We are not talking about "creating a mess" here. We are talking about deliberate lying by a competitor who knows that as soon as I see his hand, he will be uncovered as a liar. I don't think I will ever meet such a person, and if I do, I don't mind having created a little "mess". >> In other words: the SC is not enough to be basing your ruling on. You >> need at least to know the players intention, and other than getting >> him >> off the table and asking him, I don't see how you can learn what that >> intention was. > > Not getting him off the table and asking him would work too. > It would, but I agree with Sven that it is better to do it off the table. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3037 - Release Date: 07/29/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 30 21:30:47 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:30:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <2BF0D0F8-A8F1-439B-8ECF-3E62DEFFEF26@starpower.net> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> <4C5140DD.8090902@ulb.ac.b! e> <000301cb2f01$2d7b5000$8871f00! 0 $@no> <4C52B628.10000 07@skynet.be> <2BF0D0F8-A8F1-439B-8ECF-3E62DEFFEF26@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601cb301d$b6bac770$24305650$@no> There was a (now) famous incident decades ago when a Director had to rule if a player would be allowed to bid 4H after his partner had hesitated (or some similar irregularity). The Director looked at the player's cards and announced: "In my opinion he has a very obvious 4H bid"! How do you like that? From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Jul 30 23:43:31 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:43:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... Message-ID: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> This happened during the club tournament: Bidding: N E S W 1NT Pass 1C West: "Director" South: "Whats up?" West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." 5 secs later TD arrives. TD: "what has happened?" West: "Insufficient bid." South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" Decision: Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the TD arrived. Laws 9B1(c) and 9B2 do not apply; the specific rule in 25 A overrules the general rules of LAW 9. South is allowed to correct his according to LAW 27. Since there is no bid containing the information of a 1 C opening North is forced to pass. Everything OK? Greetings, Volker From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 31 00:20:59 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:20:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:43 PM Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > This happened during the club tournament: > Bidding: > > N E S W > 1NT Pass 1C > > West: "Director" > South: "Whats up?" > West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." > 5 secs later TD arrives. > TD: "what has happened?" > West: "Insufficient bid." > South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" > > Decision: > Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt > to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the > TD arrived. > Laws 9B1(c) and 9B2 do not apply; the specific rule in 25 A overrules > the general rules of LAW 9. > South is allowed to correct his according to LAW 27. Since there is no > bid containing the information of a 1 C opening North is forced to pass. > > Everything OK? > > > Greetings, Volker > +=+ Please explain why not to allow a sufficient bid under Law 27B2. ~ G ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 31 00:29:42 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:29:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:43:31 -0400, Volker Walther wrote: > This happened during the club tournament: > Bidding: > > N E S W > 1NT Pass 1C > > West: "Director" > South: "Whats up?" > West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." > 5 secs later TD arrives. > TD: "what has happened?" > West: "Insufficient bid." > South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" > > Decision: > Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt > to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the > TD arrived. > Laws 9B1(c) and 9B2 do not apply; the specific rule in 25 A overrules > the general rules of LAW 9. > South is allowed to correct his according to LAW 27. Since there is no > bid containing the information of a 1 C opening North is forced to pass. > > Everything OK? No, there was no opening 1C bid, so that's not relevant. IMO, a 2C replacement will have the same meaning as the intended meaning of the 1C bid. L27B1(b) makes it nonbarring. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 31 01:03:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:03:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid References: <141FD610-DFF2-4902-9E26-BA4EEDB91CFB@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid > On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Grattan wrote: >> >> Given that TFLB does not expressly forbid looking >> at the infractor's hand, I would argue that if doing so >> is the only way the TD can "determine the facts to >> his satisfaction", L85 mandates that he look. L85A1 >> requires the TD to rule "in accordance with the weight >> of the evidence he is able to collect", not "...the >> evidence he chooses to collect". The option Grattan >> speaks of is available only if he "is unable to >> determine the facts" [L85B], not if he is able but >> declines to do so. >> >> +=+ In this Eric you are begging the question. The >> meaning of 'able' is undefined and (see above) in >> the dictionary it is wide-ranging. What the Director >> is "able" to do is a function of the manner in which, >> by training and regime, he is required to perform >> his duties. We have two schools of thought here >> on the subject and what he is "able" to do in your >> concept, or the concept of the ambience in which >> you play, he is not "able" to do where the second >> concept prevails. > > I accept this as reflecting the current reality, but > I would still appreciate someone pointing me to > something -- anything -- in TFLB which might provide > a legal justification for this "second concept". > > Obviously, some competent TDs are committed to > the idea that they should never look at an infractor's > hand in the course of making a ruling, and I hope to . gain some insight as to where it came from. > +=+ 1. Not necessarily "never". They may have been taught in RA seminars only to look in specific circumstances. 2. As to the position in law, I regard the law currently as neutral in the matter; "able" in Law 85A1 is not defined either way and case by case the Director's opportunity* to gather evidence from an inspection of a player's cards may or may not be denied him by the manner in which he is taught/required to proceed by the Regulating Authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* 'able' = having the necessary power, resources, skill, opportunity etc., to do something.] From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Jul 31 02:51:09 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:51:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> Message-ID: <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 08:20 AM 31/07/2010, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott**************************************************** >Skype directory: grattan.endicott >**************************************************** >" Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et >le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] >.................................................. >For words are The Word, and >The Word is God. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Volker Walther" >To: "blml" >Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:43 PM >Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > > > > This happened during the club tournament: > > Bidding: > > > > N E S W > > 1NT Pass 1C > > > > West: "Director" > > South: "Whats up?" > > West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." > > 5 secs later TD arrives. > > TD: "what has happened?" > > West: "Insufficient bid." > > South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" > > > > Decision: > > Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt > > to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the > > TD arrived. > > Laws 9B1(c) and 9B2 do not apply; the specific rule in 25 A overrules > > the general rules of LAW 9. > > South is allowed to correct his according to LAW 27. Since there is no > > bid containing the information of a 1 C opening North is forced to pass. > > > > Everything OK? > > I am going to allow 2C under L25A every day of the week. The player at no stage intended to pull 1C card, so I call that inadvertent mechanical error. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Jul 31 08:06:32 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:06:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Am 30.07.2010, 23:43 Uhr, schrieb Volker Walther : > This happened during the club tournament: > Bidding: > > N E S W > 1NT Pass 1C > > West: "Director" > South: "Whats up?" > West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." > 5 secs later TD arrives. > TD: "what has happened?" > West: "Insufficient bid." > South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" > > Decision: > Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt > to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the > TD arrived. To me, it is a clear 25A case. There was a pause, but not for thought - S has wanted to bid 2C all the time. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 31 08:32:44 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:32:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <000301cb307a$2fb9f310$8f2dd930$@no> On Behalf Of Volker Walther > This happened during the club tournament: > Bidding: > > N E S W > 1NT Pass 1C > > West: "Director" > South: "Whats up?" > West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." > 5 secs later TD arrives. > TD: "what has happened?" > West: "Insufficient bid." > South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" > > Decision: > Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt to > replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the TD arrived. > Laws 9B1(c) and 9B2 do not apply; the specific rule in 25 A overrules the general > rules of LAW 9. > South is allowed to correct his according to LAW 27. Since there is no bid > containing the information of a 1 C opening North is forced to pass. > > Everything OK? NO "Until his partner makes a call, ....." (Law 25A1). The pause for thought began not when he made his call but when he became aware of what he had done. : In this case he obviously became aware of his fault when West called for the director, after which "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification" (Law 9B2). Thus this time does not count as "pause for thought" even though South may have had plenty of time to consider his situation while waiting for the director. The director should simply have considered whether South intended to bid 1C when he did and quickly changed his mind when he discovered that partner had opened 1NT, or if his intention all the time was to bid 2C. Circumstances here indicate the latter so a Law 25A ruling had been correct. Sven From henk at ripe.net Sat Jul 31 09:52:53 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:52:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Moderator offline Message-ID: <4C53D655.5000505@ripe.net> Hi all, I'll be out of town from today until the 23rd, with little or no access to the Internet. The functionality of the BLML list is monitored, if no messages appear then the most likely cause is that nobody sent something. Administrative requests will be dealt with after I return. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 31 12:06:46 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:06:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 1:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > At 08:20 AM 31/07/2010, you wrote: > > >>Grattan Endicott>**************************************************** >>Skype directory: grattan.endicott >>**************************************************** >>" Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et >>le Verbe c'est Dieu." >> ('Les Contemplations'] >>.................................................. >>For words are The Word, and >>The Word is God. >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Volker Walther" >>To: "blml" >>Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:43 PM >>Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... >> >> >> > This happened during the club tournament: >> > Bidding: >> > >> > N E S W >> > 1NT Pass 1C >> > >> > West: "Director" >> > South: "Whats up?" >> > West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to >> > sort this out." >> > 5 secs later TD arrives. >> > TD: "what has happened?" >> > West: "Insufficient bid." >> > South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled >> > the wrong card" >> > >> > Decision: >> > Law 25A does not apply, because South did >> > not make any immediate attempt >> > to replace the unintended bid. There was a >> > pause for thought until the TD arrived. >> > Laws 9B1(c) and 9B2 do not apply; the specific >> > rule in 25 A overrules the general rules of LAW 9. >> > South is allowed to correct his according to >> > LAW 27. Since there is no bid containing the >> > information of a 1 C opening North is forced to >> > pass. >> > >> > Everything OK? >> > > > I am going to allow 2C under L25A every day of > the week. The player at no stage intended to > pull 1C card, so I call that inadvertent mechanical > error. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > +=+ I see that there is a general enthusiasm for allowing the replacement of the bidding card under Law 25A. I have a slight hesitancy about this, merely because I have not seen discussion of the alternative possibilities that (a) the player had seen the 1NT bid and intended all along to respond 2C, or (b) the player had not seen the 1NT bid, intended to open 1C, and rethought upon becoming aware of his error. I am a little sceptical of the probability that in reaching for the 2C card a player will extract the unadjacent 1C card instead. I do agree that the original presentation of the facts directs our attention to the wrong questions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Jul 31 12:24:17 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:24:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> Message-ID: <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single piece of card, right on the very edge of the box. It has a certain feel. Surely our hero must realise that he hasn't pulled the 2C block. LB >>> > This happened during the club tournament: >>> > Bidding: >>> > >>> > N E S W >>> > 1NT Pass 1C >>> > >>> > West: "Director" >>> > South: "Whats up?" >>> > West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to >>> > sort this out." >>> > 5 secs later TD arrives. >>> > TD: "what has happened?" >>> > West: "Insufficient bid." >>> > South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled >>> > the wrong card" >>> > >>> > Decision: >>> > Law 25A does not apply, because South did >>> > not make any immediate attempt >>> > to replace the unintended bid. There was a >>> > pause for thought until the TD arrived. >>> > Laws 9B1(c) and 9B2 do not apply; the specific >>> > rule in 25 A overrules the general rules of LAW 9. >>> > South is allowed to correct his according to >>> > LAW 27. Since there is no bid containing the >>> > information of a 1 C opening North is forced to >>> > pass. >>> > >>> > Everything OK? >>> > >> >> I am going to allow 2C under L25A every day of >> the week. The player at no stage intended to >> pull 1C card, so I call that inadvertent mechanical >> error. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tony (Sydney) >> > +=+ I see that there is a general enthusiasm for > allowing the replacement of the bidding card > under Law 25A. I have a slight hesitancy about > this, merely because I have not seen discussion > of the alternative possibilities that (a) the player > had seen the 1NT bid and intended all along to > respond 2C, or (b) the player had not seen the > 1NT bid, intended to open 1C, and rethought > upon becoming aware of his error. I am a little > sceptical of the probability that in reaching for > the 2C card a player will extract the unadjacent > 1C card instead. > I do agree that the original presentation of > the facts directs our attention to the wrong > questions. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 31 16:26:38 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:26:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:06:32 -0400, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Am 30.07.2010, 23:43 Uhr, schrieb Volker Walther : > >> This happened during the club tournament: >> Bidding: >> >> N E S W >> 1NT Pass 1C >> >> West: "Director" >> South: "Whats up?" >> West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." >> 5 secs later TD arrives. >> TD: "what has happened?" >> West: "Insufficient bid." >> South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" >> >> Decision: >> Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt >> to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the >> TD arrived. > > To me, it is a clear 25A case. > There was a pause, but not for thought - S has wanted to bid 2C all the > time. > Regards, > Petrus In my experience, "pause for thought" is used to say a bid was not inadvertent only when the director thinks the bid wasn't inadvertent. It is not applied to inadvertent bids. In this case, the director thinks the bid is inadvertant, hence he would not apply that section of the laws, thereby arriving at the desired ruling. So the law could be paraphrased as "no pause for thought to decide whether or not to change the bid". Or the phrase could simply be dropped from the laws. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 23 16:29:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:29:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <335A72CDADEF47DCBF5ADD71211483A6@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <335A72CDADEF47DCBF5ADD71211483A6@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C49A72F.5040208@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > < > +=+ No doubt it reflects the cynicism born of > many years listening to improbable assertions > made before appeals committees. However, > readers will have sensed my scepticism upon > hearing that a player who has a 1C bidding > card on the table tells me he thought he was > pulling out a 2C bid. > ~ G ~ +=+ > AG : Granted. And in the same way my relative forgiveness for mechanical errors, errors caused by unseen bids (not all errors lead to IBs, but try explaining there was no MI when it goes 1S Dbl 2D and you thereafter claim you didn't see the Dbl) and the like comes from my notorious clumsiness. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 23 16:29:59 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:29:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4C49A767.3070508@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Grattan wrote: > > >> From: "Robert Frick" >> >> >>> So the law could be paraphrased as "no pause >>> for thought to decide whether or not to change >>> the bid". Or the phrase could simply be dropped >>> from the laws. >>> >> +=+ It could perhaps be phrased "pause for >> reconsideration". +=+ >> > > The thread case suggests that the problem is that the word "pause" > doesn't reflect the actual intent of the law. Perhaps "without pause > for thought" should simply be changed to "without reconsideration". > > AG : good point. Reconsideration can be rather quick.