From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 1 01:43:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:43:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Poul Anderson (1926-2001), seven times Hugo Award winner: "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become even more complicated." ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010: Allan Falk's motion on Law 20 was discussed next. Polisner thought that the proposal did not have much practical application. Falk said that the issue was the extent to which you are required to disclose the fact that you know partner had made a mistaken bid. Gerard suggested that Falk is asking the players to say what is in their hand rather than disclose their agreements. Falk feels that what is wrong with the current situation is that opponents are not being allowed insight into what is going on at the table. He would like to see the benefits of screens extended to non- screen situations. Richard Hills: Is Allan Falk's reference to "the benefits of screens" pointing to the fact that a player explains her own call to her screenmate, so if a player has misbid she gives MI to her screenmate which corresponds to her cards? Perhaps he is suggesting repeal of this Law 20 sentence: "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." and a hypothetical replacement by a new ACBL Law 20 sentence: "In the ACBL the Director shall instruct, at the start of the session, that all replies to questions (and also all Alerts) should be given by the player who made the call in question." It is true that such a proposal would simplify Allan Falk's perceived problem "that opponents are not being allowed insight into what is going on at the table". However, this solution to a complicated problem, when you look at it in the right way, would create an even more complicated problem. With players always explaining and Alerting their own calls, it is their partners who would benefit more than their opponents, since their partners would much more frequently sidestep disastrous bidding mis- understandings. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 1 02:16:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:16:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Kaplanatic ruling? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan: "A contract becomes ambitious only if declarer makes it. We have other words for it if it goes down...This contract went down only one. It was nearly ambitious." Matthias Berghaus: >>and, as far as the argument goes, he is right. More often >>than not there was a hesitation. The problem is that this >>says nothing about there _actually_ was one in the case >>under consideration. Alain Gottcheiner: >That's the same kind of statistical method that is used by >insurance companies. Now you could try changing that too :-\ Richard Hills: When you buy life insurance, the insurance company is betting that you will live to a ripe old age and pay them lots of premiums. If you die young, you win the bet. :-) Matthias Berghaus: >>I find that there is some truth in the theory mentioned >>above, but not enough to make a working hypothesis out of >>it. It biases one's judgement too much. Yes, often there >>was a hesitation, but in some cases most vehemently argued >>by the accusing side evidence could be garnered that there >>had been no break of tempo at all. Richard Hills: Plus the case under consideration was not the stereotypical alleged hesitation during the auction with an obvious bridge reason, but an unusual alleged hesitation during the play with zero bridge reasons. So another error perpetrated by the actual Director was comparing apples with oranges. Edgar Kaplan: "If you want to bid naturally and still sound modern, just say your bid shows the suit below the suit above the one you bid." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 1 03:15:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:15:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beacons of the future! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >ton: >interesting, my anti spam filter ignores thousands of blml >messages and puts this one in my anti spam map. Education in >the Netherlands nowadays is something rotten/sensual. Arthur Conan Doyle, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes: Holmes was sunk in profound thought, and hardly opened his mouth until we had passed Clapham Junction. "It's a very cheery thing to come into London by any of these lines which run high, and allow you to look down upon houses like this." I thought he was joking, for the view was sordid enough, but he soon explained himself. "Look at those big, isolated clumps of building rising up above the slates, like brick islands in a lead-coloured sea." "The board-schools." "Light-houses, my boy! Beacons of the future! Capsules with hundreds of bright little seeds in each, out of which will spring the wise, better England of the future." David Stevenson, 26th April 2005, about a beacon of the past: >>We used to have a wonderful Chief TD called Roy Higson, >>who did have a few personal tricks. One of his was that >>occasionally he would quote a Law by heart, but half way >>through he would say "Look, you won't trust me to get this >>right without the book. So I'll get it." >> >>He would come back with a Law book, and read it out, and it >>was always the same. So the players were very impressed. >> >>What was the trick? Well, he only knew two or three Laws >>by heart, so he only did this with the two or three Laws he >>knew. So when he told them other laws, which he did *not* >>know by heart, they believed him absolutely!!!! :)) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 1 06:29:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 14:29:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beacons of the future! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF Alerting Policy: " ... Full disclosure is vital ... expected to observe the spirit of the Laws as well as the letter ... Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the [WBF Alerting] Policy as well as the letter ... " ACBL Alert Procedures: " ... Bridge is not a game of secret messages; the auction belongs to everyone at the table ... The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question ... In all Alert situations, Tournament Directors should rule with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not simply by the letter ... " ABF Alerting Regulations: "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may not have secret agreements with partner ... Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can ... any inferences that can be drawn from partnership experience must be disclosed ... Directors are urged, when giving a ruling at the table, to consider whether the players have adhered to the principle of full disclosure ... " EBU Tangerine Book: " ... The Laws of Bridge require that your opponents are entitled to know about all your agreements, whether explicitly discussed or from partnership experience ... If you think your opponents will understand your partner's bid to mean something other than your methods dictate, alert it ... In a regular partnership you will acquire knowledge of partner's habits. Answers such as, "No agreement" or "Random" are then unlikely to be the full story ... make your description simple and clear ... " Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 1 09:44:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:44:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Kaplanatic ruling? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan: "In the old days, you had to grit your teeth and pass with the North hand. Now you can make a negative double with the result that you go down instead of the opponents." PO Sundelin: >I thought I knew.... >However, the TD I quoted said that normally when someone >claims tempo break there was one, Richard Hills: Correct. PO Sundelin: >and the case would be dealt with accordingly Richard Hills: Incorrect; the logical fallacy of proceeding from the general to the specific. If: (a) the offending player in a specific case is known to be without a beard, and (b) Richard Hills is normally the offending player, then (c) it would be ridiculous for the Director to rule that the ultra-frequent offender Richard Hills must also be the offending player in this specific case, since a simple Law 85 investigation by the Director would reveal that Richard's face features furbelows of fungus. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jun 1 12:26:15 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:26:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <4C039038.8050402@skynet.be> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> <82F6178B-E75C-42F5-B192-E7549C682F6E@btinternet.com> <4C039038.8050402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001cb0174$de22ae40$9a680ac0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Herman wrote: >> of course there is no problem with this: just apply the same formula >> with those weights at either end. Of course you'll then arrive at >> scores >> of -0.4, but no-one said there could be no negative scores, did they? ton: Don't frighten people too much, yes there are negative scores but not for players, the zero still is the bottom score as far as I understand this calculation. Take for example weight .5 for a not yet existing bottom score and .5 for the existing lowest score. This adds up to - .5 + .5 = 0. This seems fair when the TD awards two bottoms. The problem once again is the software which might have problems with negative numbers doing the calculation. Gordon Rainsford: > So I don't think Ton, you or I have any difference in our approaches > to this. ton: I thought that you wrote that new bottoms and tops couldn't be handled, that is why I reacted like this. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 1 15:47:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:47:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> References: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> Message-ID: <6317DC3D-9005-4D01-A6D4-43760342A455@starpower.net> On May 28, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > PO Sundelin schrieb: > >> I thought I knew.... >> However, the TD I quoted said that normally when someone claims >> tempo break there was one, > > and, as far as the argument goes, he is right. More often than not > there > was a hesitation. The problem is that this says nothing about there > _actually_ was one in the case under consideration. IME, players do not "invent" hesitations out of whole cloth. But they do often seem to think that L74C7 makes a violation of "varying the normal tempo of bidding or play" without the modifying clause. Thus they may (thinking it legitimate) claim to have taken a "false inference" from an opponent's hesitation even when it was (or should have been) entirely obvious to everyone at the table that the hesitator was merely distracted, or woolgathering, or asleep, and thus the tempo break carried no information content which might be considered "unathorized", "misleading" or whatever. A player who says "I didn't hesitate" is often telling the truth as he sees it; what he means is "...between when my attention returned to the table and when I acted". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 1 15:54:10 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:54:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang In-Reply-To: <4C0062A7.8060405@nhcc.net> References: <4C0062A7.8060405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <590F9552-49BA-45E8-A13F-B2552565E7E8@starpower.net> On May 28, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> Since Law 16A1(c) concludes with "but see B1 following", the >> specific Law 16B1 on Extraneous Information from Partner over- >> rides the more general Law 16A1(c) on Players' Use of >> Information. > > Everyone agrees on that. > > Where, exactly, does L16B1 say anything about concessions of tricks? It takes concessions of tricks into account with the words "as for example by". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 1 16:11:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:11:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP><4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9B13A2FE-BF65-4447-A6DB-BDA89573B6FC@starpower.net> On May 29, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ Blmlers may care to discuss whether, to be among "the class > of players in question" [Law 16B1(b)], a player must also, like the > player who made the call, consider the call made to be among the > logical alternatives. The problem under discussion, however, arises precisely because the player who made the call *does not* consider it to be among the LAs. He is, rather, deliberately choosing what he considers to be an *illogical* alternative, desperately hoping for an unlikely long shot to work out, with, if it does, L16B1(a) being inapplicable precisely because he did not "choose from among LAs". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 1 16:22:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:22:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <6317DC3D-9005-4D01-A6D4-43760342A455@starpower.net> References: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> <6317DC3D-9005-4D01-A6D4-43760342A455@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C05178E.5090806@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > IME, players do not "invent" hesitations out of whole cloth. But > they do often seem to think that L74C7 makes a violation of "varying > the normal tempo of bidding or play" without the modifying clause. > Thus they may (thinking it legitimate) claim to have taken a "false > inference" from an opponent's hesitation even when it was (or should > have been) entirely obvious to everyone at the table that the > hesitator was merely distracted, or woolgathering, or asleep, and > thus the tempo break carried no information content which might be > considered "unathorized", "misleading" or whatever. A player who > says "I didn't hesitate" is often telling the truth as he sees it; > what he means is "...between when my attention returned to the table > and when I acted". > > AG : first, we should remember that L73A disallows us to play with undue hesitation and that L74A tells us that being distracted is undue. Second, any departure from normal procedure that could have had decieving as its purpose could lead to score adjustment and penalties, even if in the actual case this wasn't the intent. For some reason, people more often claim having been distracted when holding xx than Qxx, which makes me suspicious. From this it seems right to deduce that, if the player was looking at a passing chick, and played at a normal tempo once the distracting effect vanished, he hasn't infracted L74C7, but is nevertheless subject to penalties. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 1 17:09:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:09:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <4C05178E.5090806@ulb.ac.be> References: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> <6317DC3D-9005-4D01-A6D4-43760342A455@starpower.net> <4C05178E.5090806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <810D7827-93B0-4BCA-8290-058D9F10CF56@starpower.net> On Jun 1, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> IME, players do not "invent" hesitations out of whole cloth. But >> they do often seem to think that L74C7 makes a violation of "varying >> the normal tempo of bidding or play" without the modifying clause. >> Thus they may (thinking it legitimate) claim to have taken a "false >> inference" from an opponent's hesitation even when it was (or should >> have been) entirely obvious to everyone at the table that the >> hesitator was merely distracted, or woolgathering, or asleep, and >> thus the tempo break carried no information content which might be >> considered "unathorized", "misleading" or whatever. A player who >> says "I didn't hesitate" is often telling the truth as he sees it; >> what he means is "...between when my attention returned to the table >> and when I acted". > > AG : first, we should remember that L73A disallows us to play with > undue > hesitation and that L74A tells us that being distracted is undue. > Second, any departure from normal procedure that could have had > decieving as its purpose could lead to score adjustment and penalties, > even if in the actual case this wasn't the intent. > > For some reason, people more often claim having been distracted when > holding xx than Qxx, which makes me suspicious. > > From this it seems right to deduce that, if the player was looking > at a > passing chick, and played at a normal tempo once the distracting > effect > vanished, he hasn't infracted L74C7, but is nevertheless subject to > penalties. Sure, you can penalize a player per L90 for falling asleep at the table, but that shouldn't entitle his opponents to any kind of redress. The parenthetical reference to singletons in L73D2 doesn't make it a per se violation to fall asleep with one. But some folks seem to feel entitled to an adjustment any time an opponent "hesitates" with a singleton, even if they are snoring audibly. The problem is that a literal reading of L73F requires the TD merely to "determine[] that an innocent player has drawn a false inference" -- a determination solely of that player's state of mind -- with no accompanying finding that it was reasonable for him to have done so. [My earlier post might have more usefully cited L73F than L74C7, although the principle is the same.] Perhaps this can be fixed in 2018, by changing "has drawn" to "has logically drawn", or changing "false inference" to "reasonable but false inference", or some such. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 1 17:58:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:58:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <810D7827-93B0-4BCA-8290-058D9F10CF56@starpower.net> References: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> <6317DC3D-9005-4D01-A6D4-43760342A455@starpower.net> <4C05178E.5090806@ulb.ac.be> <810D7827-93B0-4BCA-8290-058D9F10CF56@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C052E1E.7080502@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jun 1, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> IME, players do not "invent" hesitations out of whole cloth. But >>> they do often seem to think that L74C7 makes a violation of "varying >>> the normal tempo of bidding or play" without the modifying clause. >>> Thus they may (thinking it legitimate) claim to have taken a "false >>> inference" from an opponent's hesitation even when it was (or should >>> have been) entirely obvious to everyone at the table that the >>> hesitator was merely distracted, or woolgathering, or asleep, and >>> thus the tempo break carried no information content which might be >>> considered "unathorized", "misleading" or whatever. A player who >>> says "I didn't hesitate" is often telling the truth as he sees it; >>> what he means is "...between when my attention returned to the table >>> and when I acted". >>> >> AG : first, we should remember that L73A disallows us to play with >> undue >> hesitation and that L74A tells us that being distracted is undue. >> Second, any departure from normal procedure that could have had >> decieving as its purpose could lead to score adjustment and penalties, >> even if in the actual case this wasn't the intent. >> >> For some reason, people more often claim having been distracted when >> holding xx than Qxx, which makes me suspicious. >> >> From this it seems right to deduce that, if the player was looking >> at a >> passing chick, and played at a normal tempo once the distracting >> effect >> vanished, he hasn't infracted L74C7, but is nevertheless subject to >> penalties. >> > > Sure, you can penalize a player per L90 for falling asleep at the > table, but that shouldn't entitle his opponents to any kind of > redress. The parenthetical reference to singletons in L73D2 doesn't > make it a per se violation to fall asleep with one. But some folks > seem to feel entitled to an adjustment any time an opponent > "hesitates" with a singleton, even if they are snoring audibly. > So, if I realize I unduly hesitated in a situation where it can decieve, I can escape any penalty by simulating dizziness ? > The problem is that a literal reading of L73F requires the TD merely > to "determine[] that an innocent player has drawn a false inference" > -- a determination solely of that player's state of mind -- with no > accompanying finding that it was reasonable for him to have done so. That's probably wrong, we should indeed try finding whether the inference that was drawn was reasonable ; however, we're taking about the other side' rationality here. > > Perhaps this can be fixed in 2018, by changing "has drawn" to "has > logically drawn", or changing "false inference" to "reasonable but > false inference", or some such. > AG : I would welcome that, but once again it doesn't address the issue of how to determine why they hesitated, and what the default value should be. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 1 19:00:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:00:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <4C052E1E.7080502@ulb.ac.be> References: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> <6317DC3D-9005-4D01-A6D4-43760342A455@starpower.net> <4C05178E.5090806@ulb.ac.be> <810D7827-93B0-4BCA-8290-058D9F10CF56@starpower.net> <4C052E1E.7080502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Sure, you can penalize a player per L90 for falling asleep at the >> table, but that shouldn't entitle his opponents to any kind of >> redress. The parenthetical reference to singletons in L73D2 doesn't >> make it a per se violation to fall asleep with one. But some folks >> seem to feel entitled to an adjustment any time an opponent >> "hesitates" with a singleton, even if they are snoring audibly. > > So, if I realize I unduly hesitated in a situation where it can > decieve, > I can escape any penalty by simulating dizziness ? Sure, if it's timely (not just after the fact). If your simulation is good enough to convince everyone present when it occurred that your hesitation was purely the result of dizziness, and had nothing at all to do with your cards or the deal, why should the question of penalty even arise? Your opponents' potential inferences don't depend on whether your dizziness is genuine or convincingly simulated. >> The problem is that a literal reading of L73F requires the TD merely >> to "determine[] that an innocent player has drawn a false inference" >> -- a determination solely of that player's state of mind -- with no >> accompanying finding that it was reasonable for him to have done so. > > That's probably wrong, we should indeed try finding whether the > inference that was drawn was reasonable ; however, we're taking about > the other side' rationality here. I'm not. I'm talking about the "rationality" of the NO's claim to have "drawn a false inference". >> Perhaps this can be fixed in 2018, by changing "has drawn" to "has >> logically drawn", or changing "false inference" to "reasonable but >> false inference", or some such. > > AG : I would welcome that, but once again it doesn't address the issue > of how to determine why they hesitated, and what the default value > should be. That doesn't matter; L73F says "could have known", not "knew" or "suspected". The issue is the determination of why the hesitation, regardless of its cause, gave rise to an opponent's claimed "false inference". The problem is a tendency to read L73F as "he hesitated, he had a singleton, and I misguessed, so I get an adjustment, QED" (which appears to be what, arguably, occurred in the original thread case). It's not spelled out that there needs to be some logical connection between "he hesitated" and "I misguessed". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 1 19:44:23 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:44:23 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Beacons of the future! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <3B4BFF46524E4CCC8052195ECCB318CE@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > WBF Alerting Policy: > > " ... Full disclosure is vital ... expected to observe the > spirit of the Laws as well as the letter ... Nevertheless, > players must respect the spirit of the [WBF Alerting] Policy as > well as the letter ... " > > ACBL Alert Procedures: > > " ... Bridge is not a game of secret messages; the auction > belongs to everyone at the table ... The opponents need not ask > exactly the "right" question ... In all Alert situations, > Tournament Directors should rule with the spirit of the Alert > procedure in mind and not simply by the letter ... " > > ABF Alerting Regulations: > > "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you > may not have secret agreements with partner ... Your principle > should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much > as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can ... any inferences > that can be drawn from partnership experience must be disclosed > ... Directors are urged, when giving a ruling at the table, to > consider whether the players have adhered to the principle of > full disclosure ... " > > EBU Tangerine Book: > > " ... The Laws of Bridge require that your opponents are > entitled to know about all your agreements, whether explicitly > discussed or from partnership experience ... If you think your > opponents will understand your partner's bid to mean something > other than your methods dictate, alert it ... In a regular > partnership you will acquire knowledge of partner's habits. > Answers such as, "No agreement" or "Random" are then unlikely > to be the full story ... make your description simple and > clear ... " > As with Law 75C in the 1997 book, which said that inferences drawn from general knowledge and experience need not be disclosed, only *special* partnership agreements, L40B6(a) is continually ignored by the disclosure extremists: "...he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." In other words, you have to disclose special partnership agreements (defined as those coming from knowledge and experience and generally known to bridge players), but you don't have to teach bridge. I have a treasured postcard from Kaplan agreeing with that, but adding that if the opponent is inexperienced or a foreigner he hoped I would make an exception. Of course I would, but if the opponent has thousands of maserpoints and has been too lazy to learn what should be generally known, then no mercy. If an inference is drawn from knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players, then partnership experience does not make it disclosable. This applies even if the matter has been discussed by the partnership, as when a pro explains to a "student" some generally-known principle. However, when a generally-known inference is not universally accepted, disclosure is required. I passed a 1D opening the other day, and then doubled opener's 2D rebid for penalty. Partner rightly explained this as strictly penalty, because some modernists are playing it as either non-penalty or two-way (strong diamonds or very short, partner guesses). On the other hand the example I sent Kaplan was a 3S response to my 1C opening, not Alerted. The explanation I gave was merely "not conventional" because the questioner (and her partner) was a long-time Life Master who should have known what an unAlerted 3S bid meant. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 1 21:15:04 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:15:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <65486.20202.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2826C8AC163946F6A6FC60CE36BA2B80@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Grattan Endicott] > > +=+ Blmlers may care to discuss whether, to be among "the > class of players in question" [Law 16B1(b)], a player must > also, like the player who made the call, consider the call > made to be among the logical alternatives. > > [Nigel] > No. Of course not.... but, as well as listing logical alternatives, > a polled player should: > (1) Agree that the *previous* calls in this auction by this player > are reasonable. So that he is bidding on the same premises. > (2) Be asked which calls are suggested by the unauthorised > information > +=+ The call actually made is part of the given information. Whether that call is a black swan amomng white swans or a white swan among other white swans, the Director's aim is to determine whether that call was suggested by the extraneous information and, if so, whether among the other swans there is a call less suggested thereby - and then which call(s) among the logical alternatives to the call made is/are less suggested than any other. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jun 1 22:43:06 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:43:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <6317DC3D-9005-4D01-A6D4-43760342A455@starpower.net> References: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> <6317DC3D-9005-4D01-A6D4-43760342A455@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C0570DA.7040802@t-online.de> Eric Landau schrieb: > IME, players do not "invent" hesitations out of whole cloth. But > they do often seem to think that L74C7 makes a violation of "varying > the normal tempo of bidding or play" without the modifying clause. > Thus they may (thinking it legitimate) claim to have taken a "false > inference" from an opponent's hesitation even when it was (or should > have been) entirely obvious to everyone at the table that the > hesitator was merely distracted, or woolgathering, or asleep, and > thus the tempo break carried no information content which might be > considered "unathorized", "misleading" or whatever. A player who > says "I didn't hesitate" is often telling the truth as he sees it; > what he means is "...between when my attention returned to the table > and when I acted". Fair enough. Best regards Matthias > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 00:21:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:21:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Kaplanatic ruling? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >The problem is a tendency to read L73F as "he hesitated, he >had a singleton, and I misguessed, so I get an adjustment, >QED" (which appears to be what, arguably, occurred in the >original thread case). It's not spelled out that there needs >to be some logical connection between "he hesitated" and "I >misguessed". Edgar Kaplan: "I don't know what North was thinking of doing, but it's just as well he didn't." Richard Hills: The answer to Eric's problem is the Law 73F phrase "could have known, at the time of the action". If East could not have known, at the time of East hesitating with a singleton trump, that North would then think and play illogically, then there is not any Law 73F rectification via an adjusted score. Only if East could have known that North had a selection amongst logical alternatives, and that hesitating with his singleton "could work to his benefit" by suggesting to North the selection of the losing logical alternative, is there a Law 73F rectification. So hesitating with Jx of trumps in front of dummy's KTx of trumps cannot lead to a Law 73F rectification. But in a 1NT contract your hesitation with Qx in front of dummy's KJ might lead to a Law 73F rectification if you "could have known" that partner must hold the ace. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 00:53:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:53:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beacons of the future! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3B4BFF46524E4CCC8052195ECCB318CE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: George Orwell, 1984: "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." Marvin French: [snip] >you don't have to teach bridge. I have a treasured postcard >from Kaplan agreeing with that Richard Hills: A postcard from Edgar Kaplan is not a corporate decision of the WBF Laws Committee, so is therefore null and void. Marvin French: [snip] >On the other hand the example I sent Kaplan was a 3S response >to my 1C opening, not Alerted. The explanation I gave was >merely "not conventional" because the questioner (and her >partner) was a long-time Life Master who should have known >what an unAlerted 3S bid meant. Richard Hills: Even if, hypothetically, the postcard accurately paraphrased the WBF LC stance on the 1987 Lawbook, Edgar Kaplan's agreement with Marvin French's example is necessarily obsolete. The 2007 Law 20F, which Edgar Kaplan did not live to see, states: Law 20F1, second sentence: "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." Law 20F3: "Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply." Richard Hills: So since 2008 it matters not whether you are a long-time Life Master who "should" have known what a particular call in Marvin French's bidding system meant. Since 2008 Marvin French is required to give a complete explanation (including positive and negative inferences) in his answer to a question even if the long-time Life Master Meckwell is the questioner. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 02:06:49 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:06:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beacons of the future! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3B4BFF46524E4CCC8052195ECCB318CE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra (1925- ), American baseball player: "The future ain't what it used to be." Marvin French: > ... need not be disclosed, only *special* partnership >agreements, L40B6(a) is continually ignored by the disclosure >extremists: "...he need not disclose inferences drawn from >his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to >bridge players." ... Richard Hills, disclosure extremist: Marvin French has fundamentally misunderstood the distinction between "partnership understandings" and "special partnership understandings" delineated in the 2007 Law 40. The RA may "allow, disallow, or allow conditionally" any SPU. The RA is not permitted to prohibit use of an ordinary PU. But both SPUs and ordinary PUs must be disclosed. And an "inference" is not a "pre-existing explicit or implicit mutual partnership understanding". Pocket Oxford Dictionary: infer, v.t. Deduce, conclude One does not deduce one's partnership understandings; one agreed with partner one's partnership understandings. One can, however, deduce that, "In the long run it pays to avoid a sacrifice when vulnerable versus not vulnerable, so since partner bid a vul 5D over the other side's confidently bid not vul 4S, partner is likely to hold extreme shape and some hope of making the contract." Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra (1925- ), American baseball player: "It was deja vu all over again." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 06:37:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:37:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 11 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The Facts: The director was called immediately after the 4S bid and again after the play of the hand had been completed. N/S stated that they had system notes to verify that bidding over the double of 4D is suggested. However, they could not produce those notes. The Ruling: The director judged that the BIT demonstrably suggested bidding and that pass is a logical alternative [Law 16B1(a) and (b)]. Therefore, the contract was changed to 4D doubled by West with a result of making four assigned to both pairs (N/S minus 710 and E/W plus 710). Law 12C1(e). The Appeal: N/S appealed the director's decision. All four players attended a screening at which N/S, immediately after the session, showed the system notes to the screening director at an Internet site. The notes said that the double in this sequence "expects partner to bid". The screening director restored the table result of 4S by North making four for both sides. At this point, E/W said they would like to appeal. WBF Code of Practice, Appeal Example 12, WBF Comment: "This case from an ACBL tournament is included in order to make the point that with their extended powers it is appropriate for Directors to cure any obvious ills before the appeal committee becomes involved. If the Chief Director has guidelines which have not been followed in a ruling by one of his assistants, or in a ruling he has given, he has powers under Law 82C to put things right. Every opportunity should be taken to put a squeeze on the number of matters that come to committees." ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010: [snip] Issues discussed included: 1. Does 82C apply whether director makes an incorrect judgment or only when he errs in applying the Law? [snip] The consensus of the group was that an incorrect ruling refers to an error in applying the Laws, not poor judgment. [snip] Richard Hills: As this Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 11 demonstrates, the consensus of the ACBL LC is incomplete. Not only should Law 82C refer to an error by the Director in applying Law, but also Law 82C should refer to an error by the Director in determining the facts. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 07:31:00 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 15:31:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beacons of the future! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3B4BFF46524E4CCC8052195ECCB318CE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Kenneth Grahame (1859-1932), The Wind in the Willows: The clever men at Oxford Know all that is to be knowed. But they none of them know one half as much As intelligent Mr Toad! Marvin French: >.....if the opponent has thousands of masterpoints and has >been too lazy to learn what should be generally known, then >no mercy..... Richard Hills: No mercy? My opponents often have thousands of masterpoints and have been too lazy to learn the highly effective and highly efficient Symmetric Relay system, which is a system what should be generally known. :-) :-) Best wishes Intelligent Mr Toad -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 3 02:14:16 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:14:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <590F9552-49BA-45E8-A13F-B2552565E7E8@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eddie Kantar: "Bob Hamman is the best player in the country. Unfortunately most tournaments are held in the city." Law 16B1(a) - Extraneous Information from Partner "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by....." Steve Willner: >>>Where, exactly, does L16B1 say anything about concessions >>>of tricks? Eric Landau: >>It takes concessions of tricks into account with the words >>"as for example by". Grattan Endicott (parallel "ACBL Laws Commission" thread): >+=+ The call actually made is part of the given information. >Whether that call is a black swan among white swans or a >white swan among other white swans, the Director's aim is to >determine whether that call was suggested by the extraneous >information and, if so, whether among the other swans there >is a call less suggested thereby - and then which call(s) >among the logical alternatives to the call made is/are less >suggested than any other. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Likewise, whether knowledge that partner has successfully objected to your attempted concession is a black swan among white swans, or a white swan among other white swans, the Director's Law 68B2 aim is to determine whether a subsequent play of a card by you was suggested by the extraneous information and, if so, whether among the other swans there is a card less suggested thereby - and then which card(s) among the logical alternatives to the card played is/are less suggested than any other. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 3 03:15:39 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:15:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> >> Where, exactly, does L16B1 say anything about concessions of >> tricks? On 5/30/2010 7:00 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Ergo, the remark by partner declining your attempted concession > is now a Law 16B1 extraneous remark from partner, This is a different topic, though closely related. The original topic was the attempted concession itself. I take it Richard now agrees that the attempted concession is AI. > If you had not > interrupted play with your attempted concession, you would not > have gained new UI that partner thinks she holds (or thinks you > hold) at least one more winner. Also relevant is Law 73A1: You have (potentially) gained I. The question of whether it's UI is a topic for discussion. In practice, it will very seldom matter, but we ought to know for the rare cases when it does. > "Communication between partners during the auction and **play** > shall be effected only by means of calls and **plays**." A general Law, overridden here by the more specific L16A1c. (And if you applied L73A1 here, you would also have to apply it to many other types of cases.) > the > Director's Law 68B2 aim is to determine whether a subsequent > play of a card by you was suggested by the extraneous > information But so far, there's no citation that the information is extraneous. If it is, we all know what follows. Going to the actual argument that the objection to the concession is UI: > Law 68B2 states "**no concession** has occurred. As we've discussed before, this is very odd phrasing (as opposed to something like "the concession is cancelled"). I don't think we have any parallel elsewhere in the Laws. This strikes me as needing an official interpretation, but the idea that it makes a procedure authorized by Law suddenly UI seems, um..., not obvious. From Eric Landau: > [L16B1] takes concessions of tricks into account with the words "as for > example by". When examples are given, other things can be included, but they have to be of the same type as the examples given. In L16B1, all the examples are things that are deprecated, and furthermore, L16B1 explicitly applies only to information that is extraneous. If a concession is a procedure authorized by Law, it isn't extraneous. (I'm surprised to see Eric, of all people, making a circular argument. Until he weighed in, I thought the situation was completely clear, but now I'm worried.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 3 04:30:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:30:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nanny McPhee (2005 film): Mr Brown [voice over]: I was confident that there was nothing they could do to upset her. Nanny Whetstone: THEY'VE EATEN THE BABY! Mr Brown [voice over]: Except that. Law 16B1(a) - Extraneous Information from Partner: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Steve Willner: >>>Where, exactly, does L16B1 say anything about concessions >>>of tricks? Eric Landau: >>It takes concessions of tricks into account with the words >>"as for example by". Steve Willner: >When examples are given, other things can be included, but >they have to be of the same type as the examples given. In >L16B1, all the examples are things that are deprecated..... Richard Hills: Incorrect. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: deprecate, v.t. Advise the avoidance of Law 73D1, translated from Kaplanese into Willnerese: It is desirable, though not always deprecated, 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 deprecated as an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. Richard Hills: As the heading and the prologue of Law 16B1(a) specifically state, the types of examples given are not things that are deprecated, but rather the type of examples given fall into the category of Extraneous Information from Partner. Steve Willner: >If a concession is a procedure authorized by Law, it isn't >extraneous. Richard Hills: Obtuse. A question is a procedure authorized by Law 20F, and a question by partner is a Law 16B1(a) example of Extraneous Information from Partner. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 3 06:53:24 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:53:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: "My name is Nanny McPhee. Small c, big P." Richard Hills: >>Ergo, the remark by partner declining your attempted >>concession is now a Law 16B1 extraneous remark from partner, Steve Willner: >This is a different topic, though closely related. The >original topic was the attempted concession itself. I take >it Richard now agrees that the attempted concession is AI. Richard Hills: No. Defender A remarks: "I concede the rest of the tricks, I have nothing but worthless cards." [Defender A displays her remaining cards.] Defender B remarks: "I object to the concession, I still have a winner." [Defender B displays her remaining cards.] Both defenders have made a Law 16B1(a) "remark", so both defenders are in receipt of Extraneous Information from Partner due to the remarks. Furthermore, Law 68B2 concludes: "Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it." Best wishes Nanny McHHills (small c, big Hideous Hog) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 3 09:15:51 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:15:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove (on Maciej Bystry refuting Herman De Wael): "Nailing jelly to a wall." Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and **play** shall be effected only by means of calls and **plays**." Steve Willner, fallacy of accident: >A general Law, overridden here by the more specific L16A1c. Richard Hills, fallacy of Beacons of the Future: * Law 73A1 is a general Law. * General Laws are over-ridden by specific Laws. * Law 16A1(c) is a specific Law. * Therefore Law 16A1(c) necessarily over-rides Law 73A1. No, because -> Law 16A1(c) itself states that it is over-ridden by Law 16B1, and Law 16B1 is entitled Extraneous Information from Partner, and Law 73A1 prohibits use of Extraneous Information from Partner, and Law 73C advises how a player must do so: "...he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." How, then, are Laws 73A1 and 73C limited in their scope? Steve Willner, fallacy of the camel's nose: >(And if you applied L73A1 here, you would also have to apply >it to many other types of cases.) Richard Hills, fallacy of Beacons of the Future: Indeed, I apply Laws 73A1 and 73C to **all** relevant cases. Steve Willner, fallacy of the pot calling the kettle black: >(I'm surprised to see Eric, of all people, making a circular >argument..... Richard Hills, fallacy of the Beacons of the Future: One of the Beacons of the Future is that, as the ACBL puts it: " ... Bridge is not a game of secret messages ... " For many years this was contested by Herman De Wael (and, to a lesser extent, Steve Willner). But radical assertions need mountains of evidence. All that Herman De Wael could point to was a slight ambiguity in one Law which could be interpreted either way. Eventually the WBF Laws Committee officially resolved the ambiguity by upholding the traditional viewpoint. Another Beacon of the Future is that a decision by a defender to play a particular card should be informed only by partner's prior legal plays, partner's prior legal calls, and unprompted remembrance of prior system discussions (plus, of course, informed by anything that the declaring side has explained about their auction, and cards played so far by declarer). Steve Willner is radically asserting that this is not so. Such a radical assertion needs mountains of evidence. But all that Steve Willner can point to is the molehill of non- evidence that a non-exhaustive list of indicative examples in Law 16B1(a) fails to specifically mention an "attempted concession" -- but Law 16B1(a) does mention the "remark" which necessarily accompanies the attempted concession by the defender, and also the "remark" which necessarily accompanies the objection to the attempted concession by the defender's partner. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 3 14:38:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 08:38:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang In-Reply-To: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > From Eric Landau: > >> [L16B1] takes concessions of tricks into account with the words >> "as for >> example by". > > When examples are given, other things can be included, but they > have to > be of the same type as the examples given. In L16B1, all the examples > are things that are deprecated, and furthermore, L16B1 explicitly > applies only to information that is extraneous. If a concession is a > procedure authorized by Law, it isn't extraneous. (I'm surprised > to see > Eric, of all people, making a circular argument. Until he weighed > in, I > thought the situation was completely clear, but now I'm worried.) To avoid circularity, you can just count me among those who would treat an attempted concession as "a remark". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 3 15:17:17 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:17:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang > On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > From Eric Landau: > [L16B1] takes concessions of tricks into account with the words "as for example by". > {Steve Willner} When examples are given, other things can be included, but they have to be of the same type as the examples given. In L16B1, all the examples are things that are deprecated, and furthermore, L16B1 explicitly applies only to information that is extraneous. If a concession is a procedure authorized by Law, it isn't extraneous. (I'm surprised to see Eric, of all people, making a circular argument. Until he weighed in, I thought the situation was completely clear, but now I'm worried.) > {Eric} To avoid circularity, you can just count me among those who would treat an attempted concession as "a remark". > +=+ Turning to L68B2 I note the statement that "Unauthorized information may exist"". This does not limit itself to information passing in a single direction; the UI could derive from the action of either partner (but only if it "may suggest a call or play" (L16B1). I think it is clear enough that circumstances can exist in which an attempted concession may suggest a call or play to partner. One might say, perhaps, that such circumstances will arise only infrequently. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 3 23:16:26 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:16:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] day in the life In-Reply-To: References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> Message-ID: Called to the table by a very proper player who expects the same from the opps. P 3C P P 3S He explained that 3S was a funny bid and must have been based on a hesitation. "Was there a hesitation?" I ask. Not really. LHO paused for about 10 seconds following the 3C opening, which was accompanied by a stop card. He says LHO usually passes faster than that with nothing. "Call me back if you think you were damaged." I leave, wondering how he expects me to rule hesitation on an in-tempo bid. I get called back. The 3S bid worked out well and was based on KQJxx of spades and two outside jacks. He and his partner clsim that someone would have to be crazy to make that bid with that hand and no hesitation. But they both agree she was capable of that bad of bid. I think they have run out of legs to stand on. But I am fond of the advice that I don't have to rule right away. I tell them I will think about it. Finally I get a chance to consult with a good player. I desribe LHO by name and say that she waited 10 seconds before passing. He vounteers with complete confidence that that shows that she has something, she always passes quickly with nothing! And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an in tempo bid. (I actually gave a split score.) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 3 23:27:53 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:27:53 -0800 Subject: [BLML] day in the life References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net><01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <9FEABAAF45A94C4882B93A99E811240C@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Frick" > And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an in tempo > bid. (I > actually gave a split score.) A split score??? How is that possible? Just PR to keep everyone happy? Not good, Robert. There is the problem that people who pass fast with nothing and slow with something claim the latter is normal tempo. I don't know the answer to that, other than penalizing players who vary tempo over a skip bid in accordance with their strength. But TDS refuse to do that. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 00:30:18 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:30:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008): 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them, to the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Isaac Asimov (1920-1992): When the lay public rallies round to an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists, and supports that idea with great fervour and emotion, the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, right. Richard Hills: A prescient comment by Isaac Asimov, since the lay public has recently, with great fervour and emotion, rallied round this scientifically refuted tripartite idea: (a) global warming does not exist, and (b) if it does exist, it was not caused by humanity, and (c) if it was caused by humanity, there is nothing that humanity can do to fix it. The distinguished but elderly Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Turning to L68B2 I note the statement that >"Unauthorized information may exist"". This does not >limit itself to information passing in a single >direction; the UI could derive from the action of >either partner (but only if it "may suggest a call or >play" (L16B1). > I think it is clear enough that circumstances >can exist in which an attempted concession may suggest >a call or play to partner. One might say, perhaps, that >such circumstances will arise only infrequently. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: I have a minor quibble with Grattan's concluding sentence. I would argue that the circumstances are infrequent merely because concessions are infrequent. For example, in a matchpoint pairs event, Defender Q has gone into the tank, wondering whether to: (y) cash out, for -600 instead of -630, or (z) play partner for a significant card in an attempt to beat the contract, for either +100 (if partner holds the significant card) or -630 (if partner does not hold the significant card). Bored by what she considers to be Defender Q's time- wasting, Defender R concedes the rest of the tricks. So now Defender Q knows that logical alternative (y) is demonstrably suggested. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 4 00:42:27 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:42:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] day in the life In-Reply-To: References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301cb036e$0c55da30$25018e90$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Called to the table by a very proper player who expects the same from the opps. > > P 3C P P > 3S > > He explained that 3S was a funny bid and must have been based on a hesitation. > "Was there a hesitation?" I ask. Not really. LHO paused for about 10 seconds > following the 3C opening, which was accompanied by a stop card. He says LHO > usually passes faster than that with nothing. "Call me back if you think you were > damaged." I leave, wondering how he expects me to rule hesitation on an in-tempo > bid. > > I get called back. The 3S bid worked out well and was based on KQJxx of spades > and two outside jacks. He and his partner clsim that someone would have to be > crazy to make that bid with that hand and no hesitation. But they both agree she > was capable of that bad of bid. > > I think they have run out of legs to stand on. But I am fond of the advice that I > don't have to rule right away. I tell them I will think about it. > > Finally I get a chance to consult with a good player. I desribe LHO by name and > say that she waited 10 seconds before passing. He vounteers with complete > confidence that that shows that she has something, she always passes quickly > with nothing! > > And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an in tempo bid. (I actually gave > a split score.) I agree with Marvin that split score must have been a very bad ruling. You don't give the jurisdiction, but the way I see it the problem (regardless of jurisdiction) is not the hesitation in this situation, but the alleged fact that the player always passes quickly (after a skip bid?) with nothing. If that is true she is always giving UI by breaking tempo: Fast pass with nothing and obeying the STOP regulation with values. She should at least have received a warning. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 01:03:27 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:03:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] disDayIn the Loaf [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9FEABAAF45A94C4882B93A99E811240C@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Tony Stark: "I'll meet you at the Frug-a-go-go when I've finished with the cyclotron, baby." Robert Frick: [big snip] >>And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an in >>tempo bid. (I actually gave a split score.) Marvin French: >A split score??? How is that possible? > >Just PR to keep everyone happy? Not good, Robert. [small snip] Richard Hills: Yes, either Bob strives to be a Director applying the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, or Bob chooses to disDayIn use of his Loaf and instead lazily is a Director applying the Laws of Fricked Bridge. A basic duty of a Director is RTFLB. If Bob had been energetic enough to undertake that basic duty, he would have noticed that, when the Director has assessed the facts, there are some very limited Law 12 circumstances in which it is legal to split the score. But what Bob actually did was split the FACTS, and that is prohibited by Law 85. LAW 85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: A. Director's Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84. B. Facts Not Determined If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jeff.ford at gmail.com Fri Jun 4 01:24:35 2010 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 16:24:35 -0700 Subject: [BLML] day in the life In-Reply-To: <000301cb036e$0c55da30$25018e90$@no> References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> <000301cb036e$0c55da30$25018e90$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an in tempo bid. (I > actually gave >> a split score.) > > I agree with Marvin that split score must have been a very bad ruling. > > You don't give the jurisdiction, but the way I see it the problem > (regardless of jurisdiction) is not the hesitation in this situation, but > the alleged fact that the player always passes quickly (after a skip bid?) > with nothing. If that is true she is always giving UI by breaking tempo: > Fast pass with nothing and obeying the STOP regulation with values. She > should at least have received a warning. I'm not impressed that two people have said the ruling is wrong without it being given. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the contract is rolled back to 3C, but the number of tricks is not obvious, and so the offending side gets the score for an unlikely but possible lesser number of tricks while the non-offending side gets the score for the more probable result. Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 02:40:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:40:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beacons of the future! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Another Beacon of the Future is that a decision by a defender >to play a particular card should be informed only by partner's >prior legal plays, partner's prior legal calls, and unprompted >remembrance of prior system discussions (plus, of course, >informed by anything that the declaring side has explained >about their auction, and cards played so far by declarer). Further fundamental principles, or Beacons of the Future, are: 1. The players' responsibility towards each other "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player". 2. The players' responsibility towards the Director "Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director." 3. The Director's responsibility towards the players "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity." 4. A player's responsibility to herself Strive to "obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards". 5. A player's responsibility to himself Have fun. Do not fret about your errors or partner's errors; it is only a game. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 03:42:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:42:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] disDayIn the Loaf [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edward Fitzgerald, The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (1879): A book of verses underneath the bough, A jug of wine, a loaf of bread - and Thou Beside me singing in the wilderness - Oh, wilderness were paradise enow! Robert Frick: >.....And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an >in tempo bid..... Richard Hills: Not a contradiction in terms. Rather, Bob is measuring "hesitation" by a yardstick, and then measuring "in tempo" by a metrestick. For example, for many people taking five seconds to call or play is in their normal tempo. But if I take a glacially slow time of five seconds to call or play, then I have hugely hesitated and my partner now has a restricted choice amongst his logical alternatives. Thus Law 73D "variations in tempo" are _not_ measured against some Platonic ideal metrestick; they are measured against the particular player's yardstick. Many years ago this auction occurred in an Aussie National -> WEST EAST 2NT 3NT (1) Pass (1) In tempo. What's the problem? East's yardstick was that of a very thoughtful player, so the footnote should have read -> (1) Much faster than East's normal glacially slow tempo. Since 3NT is a drop-dead signoff, what's the problem? Aha, therein lies the story. Just before the session, the super-scientific West had prevailed upon East to adopt -> (1) Promising a game-force with 5 spades and 4 hearts. West had a logical alternative to convert 3NT to 4S, which would fail by three vulnerable undertricks. Meanwhile, 3NT was cold. And East's much faster than glacially slow tempo demonstrably suggested to West that East had forgotten their new convention, which was in fact the case. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 4 03:48:19 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:48:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] day in the life In-Reply-To: <9FEABAAF45A94C4882B93A99E811240C@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> <9FEABAAF45A94C4882B93A99E811240C@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:27:53 -0400, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Robert Frick" > >> And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an in tempo >> bid. (I >> actually gave a split score.) > > A split score??? How is that possible? > > Just PR to keep everyone happy? Not good, Robert. > > There is the problem that people who pass fast with nothing and slow > with something claim the latter is normal tempo. I don't know the > answer to that, other than penalizing players who vary tempo over a > skip bid in accordance with their strength. But TDS refuse to do > that. The owners have explained to me, I think more than twice, the advantages of giving a split score (feel-good ruling). The owners are trying to make money, so their basic goal is to have happy customers. So giving split scores is a no-brainer to them. (And in a sense any need for an AC is my fault, because I could have just given a split score.) This is the world I live in. If I am not going to give a split score, I have to be able to defend that decision. Having lived in that world, I have grown fond of the split score. For example, if it is a use of hesitation, but the players are beginners and don't even know that they used the hesitation or that there is a rule against it, it is nice to let them slide with the score they "earned". The case today was close and I tried to consult with the owner on it, but then I ran out of time. I thought about trying to explain to the offending side why I was giving them a bottom. Would they understand the ruling? I don't think so. And I have been told that the Buddha said to err on the side of generosity. I had another pair today who, I am guessing, thought that if the complained long enough about one of my rulings that I would give them a split score. But not a chance of that happening with me. I was willing to explain ad infinitum why I gave the ruling I did. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jun 4 03:51:22 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:51:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang In-Reply-To: <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C085C1A.3030506@nhcc.net> On 6/3/2010 8:38 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > To avoid circularity, you can just count me among those who would > treat an attempted concession as "a remark". I understand your position (apparently shared by Grattan), but I don't understand how you derive it from the Laws as written. Everything I can see suggests the existence of a concession is AI. I was, I concede, mistaken about the nature of the examples in L16B1, but nevertheless neither "conceding tricks" nor anything related is among them. Conceding tricks seems to me quite different from "a remark." From: Grattan Endicott +=+ Turning to L68B2 I note the statement that > "Unauthorized information may exist"". This does > not limit itself to information passing in a single > direction; the UI could derive from the action of > either partner Yes, any extraneous remarks that come _along with_ either the concession or partner's objection are UI. It's the concession itself and the objection itself that are at issue. I see nothing in the Laws making them UI. On a related subject, I won't be responding to any further messages from Richard Hills. New BLML subscribers should be advised, and old ones will remember, that Mr. Hills' characterization of what others have written is often inaccurate. From jeff.ford at gmail.com Fri Jun 4 03:55:29 2010 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 18:55:29 -0700 Subject: [BLML] day in the life In-Reply-To: References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> <000301cb036e$0c55da30$25018e90$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jeff Ford wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >>> And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an in tempo bid. (I >> actually gave >>> a split score.) >> >> I agree with Marvin that split score must have been a very bad ruling. >> >> You don't give the jurisdiction, but the way I see it the problem >> (regardless of jurisdiction) is not the hesitation in this situation, but >> the alleged fact that the player always passes quickly (after a skip bid?) >> with nothing. If that is true she is always giving UI by breaking tempo: >> Fast pass with nothing and obeying the STOP regulation with values. She >> should at least have received a warning. > > I'm not impressed that two people have said the ruling is wrong > without it being given. ?It wouldn't surprise me at all if the > contract is rolled back to 3C, but the number of tricks is not > obvious, and so the offending side gets the score for an unlikely but > possible lesser number of tricks while the non-offending side gets the > score for the more probable result. Given the recent post, so much for assuming the best. -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 04:13:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:13:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills and Grattan Endicott [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Steve Willner: >I understand your position (apparently shared by Grattan), but >I don't understand how you derive it from the Laws as written. [snip] >On a related subject, I won't be responding to any further >messages from Richard Hills. New BLML subscribers should be >advised, and old ones will remember, that Mr. Hills' >characterization of what others have written is often >inaccurate. Richard Hills: If my assessment that Steve Willner's arguments were logically fallacious has caused personal offence to Steve Willner, then of course I apologise to Steve Willner. I merely note that anyone who argues that Grattan Endicott (and Eric Landau) has misinterpreted the Lawbook needs to build a very logically robust case. 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. Note: By my lights "intentionally obtuse" is an insult, but the single word "obtuse" is merely a statement of fact. If, however, Steve Willner deems "obtuse" to be an insult, then of course I withdraw that word and apologise for using it. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 06:07:13 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:07:13 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please Question 1 References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com><001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> Message-ID: This concerns my question 1, which is how other pairs are matchpointed against a weighted result From: "Herman De Wael" < > > Below is an example using European matchpointing (halve these > matchpoints for US style results) where a +420 result in the > initial > table is adjusted to 60% of +170 & 40% of +50 in the second table. > > > Frequency Result Matchpoints > 2 +420 9 > 1 +170 6 > 1 +140 4 > 1 +50 2 > 1 -100 0 > > Frequency Result Matchpoints > 1 +420 10 > 1.6 +170 7.4 > 1 +140 4.8 > 1.4 +50 2.4 > 1 -100 0 > > The NS pair in question will get 60% of 7.4 + 40% of 2.4 = 5.4 > matchpoints > As you see, the results of all the other pairs whose scores are > between or equal to the results used in the weighting, are also > affected, as they should be. This looks manual scoring for a 6-table Mitchell. I'd like to see how the computer handles this in a field of 39 pairs, three sections, across-the-field matchpointing. Along with the printout. How is it done? Manually? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 06:13:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:13:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] disDayIn the Loaf [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Yes, either Bob strives to be a Director applying the Laws >of Duplicate Bridge, or Bob chooses to disDayIn use of his >Loaf and instead lazily is a Director applying the Laws of >Fricked Bridge. Further information recently posted by Bob Frick reveals that I owe him an apology. The above paragraph should be changed to read: "Yes, either the Owner/Manager of Bob's bridge club asks the club's Directors to apply the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, or the Owner/Manager of Bob's bridge club pursues filthy lucre by asking the club's Directors to apply the Laws of Keeping- The-Customers-Happy Bridge." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 06:15:20 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:15:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please Question 1 References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><000c01cb0016$00f15e90$02d41bb0$@no> <003401cb0093$5bf58280$13e08780$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: My first question was how other pairs are matchpointed against a weighted result. > ton: > Assigning a total score you need a unique bridge result and as > soon as two > or more bridge results have to be considered the only correct way > of > calculating is taking the average of (i)mp's and not of total > points. And in a total point team of four contest? And in a Chicago game with duplicate bridge rules? (no matchpoints!) Averaging total points is perfectly correct. There is no need to translate into imps or matchpoints or victory points or whatever. Just compute the weighted point score, enter it, and let the computer do the rest! Nothing in the Laws dictates otherwise. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 06:31:58 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:31:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): "I have made this [letter] longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter." Richard Hills: Law 16B1(a) is a longer Law than usual because it contains a non-exhaustive list of indicative examples. However, to get a better vision of the forest without all those pesky trees getting in the way, deletion of the non-exhaustive list of indicative examples would leave the meaning of Law 16B1(a) logically unchanged. Law 16B1(a), shorter forest version: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 4 07:40:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 01:40:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] disDayIn the Loaf [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:13:31 -0400, wrote: >> Yes, either Bob strives to be a Director applying the Laws >> of Duplicate Bridge, or Bob chooses to disDayIn use of his >> Loaf and instead lazily is a Director applying the Laws of >> Fricked Bridge. > > Further information recently posted by Bob Frick reveals > that I owe him an apology. The above paragraph should be > changed to read: > > "Yes, either the Owner/Manager of Bob's bridge club asks the > club's Directors to apply the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, or > the Owner/Manager of Bob's bridge club pursues filthy lucre > by asking the club's Directors to apply the Laws of Keeping- > The-Customers-Happy Bridge." If the owner's only concern was to have happy bridge players, then (by the same logic) they would still be motivated to give split scores. I am not sure where that leaves us. If the owner is a philanthropic sadist? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 08:08:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:08:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sir Paul Hasluck, Foreign Minister (later Governor-General) on Sir William McMahon, Treasurer (later Prime Minister): "I confess to a dislike of McMahon. The longer one is associated with him the deeper the contempt for him grows and I find it hard to allow him any merit. Disloyal, devious, dishonest, untrustworthy, petty, cowardly - all these adjectives have been weighed by me and I could not in truth modify or reduce any one of them in its application to him." WEST EAST 1582 masterpoints 3137 masterpoints West made a descriptive Michaels Cue Bid which transferred captaincy of the auction to East. East elected to defend 3H undoubled. But East's pass of 3H was not in tempo. West then violated captaincy by bidding 3S. The Appeals Panel concluded: "The key factor for the panel was that all players polled would take action. Therefore, pass was not found to be a logical alternative and the table result was restored for both pairs." I confess to a dislike of violations of captaincy. But merely because obeying captaincy is _logical_ does not necessarily mean that obeying captaincy is a _logical alternative_ for an ACBL West who holds a mere 1582 ACBL masterpoints, given that an ACBL masterpoint has an inflated value comparable in worth to that of the Zimbabwean dollar. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jun 4 08:26:58 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:26:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please Question 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> <000c01cb0016$00f15e90$02d41bb0$@no> Message-ID: On 4 June 2010 06:15, Marvin French wrote: > My first question was how other pairs are matchpointed against a > weighted result. > >> ton: > >> Assigning a total score you need a unique bridge result and as >> soon as two >> or more bridge results have to be considered the only correct way >> of >> calculating is taking the average of ?(i)mp's and not of total >> points. > > And in a total point team of four contest? In a total point teams event, you do exactly as Marvin suggest. 50% of +600 + 50% of -100 adds up to a score of +250. > > And in a Chicago game with duplicate bridge rules? ?(no > matchpoints!) Just as above. > > Averaging total points is perfectly correct. There is no need to > translate into imps or matchpoints or victory points or whatever. But here Marvin go wrong. I don't know how to explain this, but to me it's just so plainly obvious. I tried once before, let me give two exapmles. IMPed teams. After a misexplanatinon, you end in 3NT going -1, scoring -100. With a correct explanation, you might have bid to a making 5C, scoring +600. The TD rules that with correct explanation you it's 50/50 between bidding 3NT and 5C. At the other table your opponents bid and made 5C. Doing it Marvins way, you would award a score of +250, giving you a net loss of -350, or a loss of 8 IMPs. Doing it the correct way, you award 50% of a push and 50% of -12 IMPs, giving you a net loss of 6 IMPs. The difference in IMPs between making 5C and going -1 in 3NT is 12 IMPs. Thus, doing it the correct way, you lose half of that IMP difference when the ruling is 50/50 for 3NT-1 and 5C making. Matchpoint pairs. Misexplanation again. You make 3NT for a score of +600. With correct explanation, you had a shot at 3NT+1 and a score of 630. The TD rules 2/3 3NT+1 and 1/3 3NT=. The rest of the field; 51 tables playing: One table 3NT+1 for a match point score of 100. One table 2NT+1 for a match point score of 0. The rest of the tables 3NT= for a match point score of 50. Marvins way: You assign a score of +620, and a match point score of 99. The correct way: you give 2/3 of 100 MP + 1/3 of 50 wich equals to a MP score of 83.3. Here it's even more evident that Marvin's way is wrong. His method gives a shared top, while the correct method gives a score at the logical point between the MP scores for +630 and +600. (In ACBL half all the MP scores.) > Just compute the weighted point score, enter it, and let the > computer do the rest! > > Nothing in the Laws dictates otherwise. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 4 08:29:34 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:29:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please Question 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com><001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001cb03af$4c733590$e559a0b0$@com> [MF] I'd like to see how the computer handles this in a field of 39 pairs, three sections [DALB] Perhaps with thirteen pairs in each section, though the better scoring programs will warn you against attempting this. [MF] across-the-field matchpointing. Along with the printout. How is it done? Manually? [DALB] No, Marvin. It is done electronically. It will reach the same result that you would, only faster. The processes by which various computers allow us to see and reply to your messages on BLML are more complex by several orders of magnitude than the process by which one computer can score a bridge tournament. Empirical evidence that the former processes work is self-contained in this message. Why, then, do you doubt that the latter processes also work? David Burn London, England From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jun 4 08:55:09 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 08:55:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] day in the life In-Reply-To: References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> <9FEABAAF45A94C4882B93A99E811240C@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C08A34D.2050705@aol.com> I agree with Sven. The problem is less with the hand under discussion than with previous actions (not waiting 10 seconds) by the player in question. If a player regularly (with "easy" hands) does not wait 10 seconds to bid after a skip bid this should be reported to the TD. (And apparently it was well known in your club.) The TD should warn her/him and threaten to penalise her/him if she/he continues to do so and if she/he does wait 10 seconds with a "difficult" hand, thus giving info (UI) to her/his partner. I have done this (the warning and in one fall a penalty/changed result) with some effect. Ciao, JE Am 04.06.2010 03:48, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:27:53 -0400, Marvin French > wrote: > >> >> From: "Robert Frick" >> >>> And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an in tempo >>> bid. (I >>> actually gave a split score.) >> >> A split score??? How is that possible? >> >> Just PR to keep everyone happy? Not good, Robert. >> >> There is the problem that people who pass fast with nothing and slow >> with something claim the latter is normal tempo. I don't know the >> answer to that, other than penalizing players who vary tempo over a >> skip bid in accordance with their strength. But TDS refuse to do >> that. > > The owners have explained to me, I think more than twice, the advantages > of giving a split score (feel-good ruling). The owners are trying to make > money, so their basic goal is to have happy customers. So giving split > scores is a no-brainer to them. (And in a sense any need for an AC is my > fault, because I could have just given a split score.) > > This is the world I live in. If I am not going to give a split score, I > have to be able to defend that decision. > > Having lived in that world, I have grown fond of the split score. For > example, if it is a use of hesitation, but the players are beginners and > don't even know that they used the hesitation or that there is a rule > against it, it is nice to let them slide with the score they "earned". The > case today was close and I tried to consult with the owner on it, but then > I ran out of time. I thought about trying to explain to the offending side > why I was giving them a bottom. Would they understand the ruling? I don't > think so. And I have been told that the Buddha said to err on the side of > generosity. > > I had another pair today who, I am guessing, thought that if the > complained long enough about one of my rulings that I would give them a > split score. But not a chance of that happening with me. I was willing to > explain ad infinitum why I gave the ruling I did. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jun 4 09:01:50 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:01:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] day in the life In-Reply-To: <4C08A34D.2050705@aol.com> References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> <9FEABAAF45A94C4882B93A99E811240C@MARVLAPTOP> <4C08A34D.2050705@aol.com> Message-ID: <4C08A4DE.80203@aol.com> Incidentally (another thread) this message was classified as "junk" (spam) by my server. My own posting! Having read Robert's later posting/explanation: he is in a difficult position since he probably wants to keep his job. The facts of life in capitalism. He can talk to the owner(s?) of the club but that will probably have little effect. Thus he is left with the choice of applying the rules or pleasing the owner(s?). Ciao, JE Am 04.06.2010 08:55, schrieb Jeff Easterson: > I agree with Sven. The problem is less with the hand under discussion > than with previous actions (not waiting 10 seconds) by the player in > question. If a player regularly (with "easy" hands) does not wait 10 > seconds to bid after a skip bid this should be reported to the TD. (And > apparently it was well known in your club.) The TD should warn her/him > and threaten to penalise her/him if she/he continues to do so and if > she/he does wait 10 seconds with a "difficult" hand, thus giving info > (UI) to her/his partner. I have done this (the warning and in one fall > a penalty/changed result) with some effect. Ciao, JE > > Am 04.06.2010 03:48, schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:27:53 -0400, Marvin French >> wrote: >> >>> >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> >>>> And so that is how I ended up ruling hesitation on an in tempo >>>> bid. (I >>>> actually gave a split score.) >>> >>> A split score??? How is that possible? >>> >>> Just PR to keep everyone happy? Not good, Robert. >>> >>> There is the problem that people who pass fast with nothing and slow >>> with something claim the latter is normal tempo. I don't know the >>> answer to that, other than penalizing players who vary tempo over a >>> skip bid in accordance with their strength. But TDS refuse to do >>> that. >> >> The owners have explained to me, I think more than twice, the advantages >> of giving a split score (feel-good ruling). The owners are trying to make >> money, so their basic goal is to have happy customers. So giving split >> scores is a no-brainer to them. (And in a sense any need for an AC is my >> fault, because I could have just given a split score.) >> >> This is the world I live in. If I am not going to give a split score, I >> have to be able to defend that decision. >> >> Having lived in that world, I have grown fond of the split score. For >> example, if it is a use of hesitation, but the players are beginners and >> don't even know that they used the hesitation or that there is a rule >> against it, it is nice to let them slide with the score they "earned". The >> case today was close and I tried to consult with the owner on it, but then >> I ran out of time. I thought about trying to explain to the offending side >> why I was giving them a bottom. Would they understand the ruling? I don't >> think so. And I have been told that the Buddha said to err on the side of >> generosity. >> >> I had another pair today who, I am guessing, thought that if the >> complained long enough about one of my rulings that I would give them a >> split score. But not a chance of that happening with me. I was willing to >> explain ad infinitum why I gave the ruling I did. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Jun 4 17:56:07 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:56:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Educate me please Question 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com><001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <823976.94923.qm@web86706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> You could download Jeff Smith's Pairs?Scorer (free from http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jasmith/) and do it yourself. ?-- Gordon Rainsford ----- Original Message ---- > From: Marvin French > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Friday, 4 June, 2010 5:07:13 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Educate me please Question 1 This looks manual scoring for a 6-table Mitchell. I'd? like to see how the computer handles this in a field of 39 pairs, three sections, across-the-field matchpointing.? Along with the printout. How is it done? Manually? Marv From jrhind at therock.bm Fri Jun 4 18:00:38 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:00:38 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Bidding Screens Message-ID: Hello folks, I am throwing this out there to see if anyone has information about where I might purchase some bidding screens. I am looking for about 8 as we want to use them for out teams trials in Bermuda. At present we have ones that we built but they are wooden, heavy and getting ricketty. I am sure that there must be companies in Europe who built units so if anyone can point me to a website or email address I will be very appreciative. Cheers, Jack From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 18:47:54 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:47:54 -0800 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 Message-ID: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> 1. Are the scores of other pairs in the fields affected by the weighted scores at one table? There seems to be a majority appropriately answering yes to this question. Thanks to all. Question 1 Sven: 1: If the Director assigns an adjusted score directly in MP, possibly after weighting several MP scores, there is no table score against which the other tables can be compared and scored. Thus the other tables are scored exactly as if the assigned score had been artificial, disregarding this table completely in the scoring of the other tables. Gordon: It's often done like this, but it's really not correct. and others (Ton, Herman) agree with Gordon. The weighted result should affect the matchpoints of other pairs. But how is this accomplished in a 39-table 3-section game? Is the computer program smart enough to do the job? Just put in multiple scores for the OS and NOS along with probabilities and let the program do the work? Or does someone sit for hours doing that task manually? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com ? ? ? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 19:12:57 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:12:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please Question 1 References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com><001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> <000001cb03af$4c733590$e559a0b0$@com> Message-ID: <05FDE1FA1F824D6584D4A206B55563AA@MARVLAPTOP> David Burn writes: > [MF] > > I'd like to see how the computer handles this in a field of 39 > pairs, three > sections > > [DALB] > > Perhaps with thirteen pairs in each section, though the better > scoring > programs will warn you against attempting this. Not understood. The better scoring programs have no difficulty with across-the-field matchpointing over three to a greater number of sections. After some complaints by those who had the highest score in their section and wanted to see a 1 by their name, the ACBL ranks players by sections in each session, separately for E-W and N-S, with overall ranking of all pairs in the final scores. Mitchell movements with no arrow switch are two-winner games, but the ACBL doesn't realize that.. > > [MF] > > across-the-field matchpointing. Along with the printout. How is it > done? > Manually? > > [DALB] > > No, Marvin. It is done electronically. It will reach the same > result that > you would, only faster. > > The processes by which various computers allow us to see and reply > to your > messages on BLML are more complex by several orders of magnitude > than the > process by which one computer can score a bridge tournament. > Empirical > evidence that the former processes work is self-contained in this > message. > Why, then, do you doubt that the latter processes also work? Please tell me where I can obtain such a program so I can see how it works myself. I want to input multiple scores for an OS/NOS table, with a probability assigned to each score. Alternatively, I would like to see a printout of the program that permits such inputs. Someone please e-mail me a copy of the computer's printout when weighted scores are included. Yes, the programming is easy to do, but do all contests in the EBU have such a program at their disposal (assuming they have a computer)? The White Book says all games in the EBU must use weighted scoring, no exceptions, so I would think the EBU would have a suitable computer progam on hand for the job. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 19:20:00 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:20:00 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please Question 1 References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP><001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no><83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com><001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> <823976.94923.qm@web86706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7AAD2B3C52434477B11AC4C75D3DEF56@MARVLAPTOP> Posted after my reply to David Burn, requesting info on a computer program. From: "Gordon Rainsford" You could download Jeff Smith's Pairs Scorer (free from http://homepages.nildrauhyyyyyyyyyyjy67m.co.uk/~jasmith/) and do it yourself. Cat entered some characters there! Thanks, Gordon, I'll certainly do that. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Jun 4 19:27:17 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:27:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] My question 1 In-Reply-To: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Here's a freqency table from a 4-section 52-table event into which I've put a weighted score of 20% of 690 50% of 590 30% of 420 Session 1 Section All Neuberg Top = 102 ============================== Board 1 NS EW Score Frq AJFrq MP MP ============================== 690 0.2 0.2 102.8 -0.8 590 2.5 2.5 100.1? 1.9 450?? 3???3? 94.6? 7.4 420 5.3 5.3? 86.3 15.7 230?? 1???1??? 80?? 22 200?? 7?? 7??? 72?? 30 170?? 9?? 9??? 56?? 46 150?? 5?? 5??? 42?? 60 140?? 6???6??? 31?? 71 120?? 4?? 4??? 21?? 81 100?? 2?? 2??? 15?? 87 -50?? 2?? 2??? 11?? 91 -100??3?? 3???? 6?? 96 -150? 2?? 2???? 1? 101 ?-- Gordon Rainsford ----- Original Message ---- > From: Marvin French > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Friday, 4 June, 2010 17:47:54 > Subject: [BLML] My question 1 > > 1. Are the scores of other pairs in the fields affected by the weighted > scores at one table? There seems to be a majority appropriately > answering? yes to this question. Thanks to all. Question > 1 Sven: 1: If the Director assigns an adjusted score directly in > MP, possibly after weighting several MP scores, there is no table > score against which the other tables can be compared and scored. Thus > the other tables are scored exactly as if the assigned score had > been artificial, disregarding this table completely in the scoring of > the other tables. Gordon: It's often done like this, but it's > really not correct. and others (Ton, Herman) agree with Gordon. The > weighted result should affect the matchpoints of other pairs. But how is > this accomplished in a 39-table 3-section game? Is the computer > program smart enough to do the job? Just put in multiple scores for the > OS and NOS along with probabilities and let the program do the > work? Or does someone sit for hours doing that task > manually? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, > CA www.marvinfrench.com ? ? ? _______________________________________________ Blml > mailing list > href="mailto:Blml at rtflb.org">Blml at rtflb.org > href="http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml" target=_blank > >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jun 4 20:11:03 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:11:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Bidding_Screens?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1OKbMF-20b4xE0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Hello Jack, the German Bridge Federation just bought 40 screens from a Polish supplier. They are the same screens WBF and EBL are using at the moment. We do like them. For further information contact Slawek Latala who is working for the Polish Federation: latala(at)pzbs.pl From: Jack Rhind > I am throwing this out there to see if anyone has information about > where I might purchase some bidding screens. I am looking for about 8 > as we want to use them for out teams trials in Bermuda. At present we > have ones that we built but they are wooden, heavy and getting > ricketty. I am sure that there must be companies in Europe who built > units so if anyone can point me to a website or email address I will > be very appreciative. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 4 20:28:18 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:28:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 In-Reply-To: <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 12:27 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] My question 1 > Here's a freqency table from a 4-section 52-table event into which I've > put a weighted score of > 20% of 690 > 50% of 590 > 30% of 420 > > Session 1 Section All > Neuberg Top = 102 > ============================== > Board 1 NS EW > Score Frq AJFrq MP MP > ============================== > 690 0.2 0.2 102.8 -0.8 > 590 2.5 2.5 100.1 1.9 > 450 3 3 94.6 7.4 > 420 5.3 5.3 86.3 15.7 > 230 1 1 80 22 > 200 7 7 72 30 > 170 9 9 56 46 > 150 5 5 42 60 > 140 6 6 31 71 > 120 4 4 21 81 > 100 2 2 15 87 > -50 2 2 11 91 > -100 3 3 6 96 > -150 2 2 1 101 > -- > Gordon Rainsford In a scoring method designed to produce a clear top in the form of a nice integer 102 it seems to me that there is something incongruous when the outcome is significantly greater than the prescribed top of 102. It also seems to me that Occam's razor would suggest that there is something dreadfully wrong with the method. Now, if it were me, I would compute the outcome via .2*690+.5*590+.3*420 arrive at 559, realize that there was a frequency of 1 and compute a score of 100 mp. regards roger pewick > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Marvin French >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Sent: Friday, 4 June, 2010 17:47:54 >> Subject: [BLML] My question 1 >> >> 1. Are the scores of other pairs in the fields affected by the > weighted >> scores at one table? > > There seems to be a majority appropriately >> answering yes to this > question. Thanks to all. > > Question >> 1 > Sven: > > 1: If the Director assigns an adjusted score directly in >> MP, > possibly after weighting several MP scores, there is no table >> score > against which the other tables can be compared and scored. Thus >> the > other tables are scored exactly as if the assigned score had >> been > artificial, disregarding this table completely in the scoring of >> the > other tables. > > Gordon: > > It's often done like this, but it's >> really not correct. > > and others (Ton, Herman) agree with Gordon. The >> weighted result > should affect the matchpoints of other pairs. But how is >> this > accomplished in a 39-table 3-section game? Is the computer >> program > smart enough to do the job? Just put in multiple scores for the >> OS > and NOS along with probabilities and let the program do the >> work? > > Or does someone sit for hours doing that task >> manually? > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, >> CA > www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 20:29:52 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:29:52 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please Question 1 References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP><001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no><83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com><001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> <823976.94923.qm@web86706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: "Gordon Rainsford" You could download Jeff Smith's Pairs Scorer (free from http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jasmith/) and do it yourself. -- Thank you, Gordon. I did so, and was unhappy to see no Help file telling me how to enter weighted scores. Easy to figure out, however, but evidently only five entries max. That's okay if all entries are +/- with the same probability, but assigning a different weight for each side could get problematical with multiple potential results. If I understand the inputs, anyway. I'm wondering what the program does with weighted inputs. I suspect it arrives at a single score in points for each side and uses that for matchpointing. If so, that is my method. I don't have the energy to input a sample game, so maybe Gordon will describe the effect of weighted scores in the final printout. I'm curious as to what the two pairs will see in the score column for their weighted board. Multiple scores with their probabilities or one averaged score? Disappointing to see no Web movement choice. Is the ACBL the only NBO where this valuable movement is used? For those unfamiliar with it, a Web uses two sets of preduplicated boards for a Mitchell-resembling movement. With 18 tables, instead of having 36 boards in play, pairs missing 10 boards, 12 top, the Web has just 26 boards in play, pairs play all boards, and 17 is top (hence you compare with all the competition in your field on every board). Even our local club uses this movement, and players love it. Also disappointing to see Butler as a scoring choice, also offered by ACBLScore. No reason for that inferior scoring method when a computer is available. For Cross-Imp scoring, I wonder if the divisor used for total IMPs is the number of results or the number of comparisons. I am unable to persuade the ACBL or Jeff Rubens of the Bridge World that the former (results) is correct. They think I'm crazy. Anyone who agrees with them, ask Herman for an explanation, not me. Anyway, Jeff Smith has produced a very nice program, much more user-friendly than ACBLScore. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 4 20:41:18 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:41:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 In-Reply-To: References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP><167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: computation error correction below -------------------------------------------------- From: "Roger Pewick" Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 13:28 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] My question 1 > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 12:27 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] My question 1 > >> Here's a freqency table from a 4-section 52-table event into which I've >> put a weighted score of >> 20% of 690 >> 50% of 590 >> 30% of 420 >> >> Session 1 Section All >> Neuberg Top = 102 >> ============================== >> Board 1 NS EW >> Score Frq AJFrq MP MP >> ============================== >> 690 0.2 0.2 102.8 -0.8 >> 590 2.5 2.5 100.1 1.9 >> 450 3 3 94.6 7.4 >> 420 5.3 5.3 86.3 15.7 >> 230 1 1 80 22 >> 200 7 7 72 30 >> 170 9 9 56 46 >> 150 5 5 42 60 >> 140 6 6 31 71 >> 120 4 4 21 81 >> 100 2 2 15 87 >> -50 2 2 11 91 >> -100 3 3 6 96 >> -150 2 2 1 101 >> -- >> Gordon Rainsford > > In a scoring method designed to produce a clear top in the form of a nice > integer 102 it seems to me that there is something incongruous when the > outcome is significantly greater than the prescribed top of 102. It also > seems to me that Occam's razor would suggest that there is something > dreadfully wrong with the method. > > Now, if it were me, I would compute the outcome via .2*690+.5*590+.3*420 > arrive at 559, realize that there was a frequency of 1 and compute a score > of 98 mp. > > regards > roger pewick > >> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Marvin French >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Sent: Friday, 4 June, 2010 17:47:54 >>> Subject: [BLML] My question 1 >>> >>> 1. Are the scores of other pairs in the fields affected by the >> weighted >>> scores at one table? >> >> There seems to be a majority appropriately >>> answering yes to this >> question. Thanks to all. >> >> Question >>> 1 >> Sven: >> >> 1: If the Director assigns an adjusted score directly in >>> MP, >> possibly after weighting several MP scores, there is no table >>> score >> against which the other tables can be compared and scored. Thus >>> the >> other tables are scored exactly as if the assigned score had >>> been >> artificial, disregarding this table completely in the scoring of >>> the >> other tables. >> >> Gordon: >> >> It's often done like this, but it's >>> really not correct. >> >> and others (Ton, Herman) agree with Gordon. The >>> weighted result >> should affect the matchpoints of other pairs. But how is >>> this >> accomplished in a 39-table 3-section game? Is the computer >>> program >> smart enough to do the job? Just put in multiple scores for the >>> OS >> and NOS along with probabilities and let the program do the >>> work? >> >> Or does someone sit for hours doing that task >>> manually? >> >> Marv >> Marvin L French >> San Diego, >>> CA >> www.marvinfrench.com From jrhind at therock.bm Fri Jun 4 21:01:59 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:01:59 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Bidding Screens In-Reply-To: <1OKbMF-20b4xE0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Thanks very much Peter. By any chance, do you have an email for Slawek? Jack On 6/4/10 3:11 PM, "Peter Eidt" wrote: > Hello Jack, > > the German Bridge Federation just bought 40 screens > from a Polish supplier. They are the same screens > WBF and EBL are using at the moment. We do like them. > > For further information contact Slawek Latala who is > working for the Polish Federation: latala(at)pzbs.pl > > > From: Jack Rhind >> I am throwing this out there to see if anyone has information about >> where I might purchase some bidding screens. I am looking for about 8 >> as we want to use them for out teams trials in Bermuda. At present we >> have ones that we built but they are wooden, heavy and getting >> ricketty. I am sure that there must be companies in Europe who built >> units so if anyone can point me to a website or email address I will >> be very appreciative. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 22:54:22 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:54:22 -0800 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 pursued References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <107FC2F79D04485DB257A57CD14286D8@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Gordon Rainsford" < Here's a freqency table from a 4-section 52-table event into which I've put a weighted score of 20% of 690 50% of 590 30% of 420 Session 1 Section All Neuberg Top = 102 ============================== Board 1 NS EW Score Frq AJFrq MP MP ============================== 690 0.2 0.2 102.8 -0.8 590 2.5 2.5 100.1 1.9 450 3 3 94.6 7.4 420 5.3 5.3 86.3 15.7 230 1 1 80 22 200 7 7 72 30 170 9 9 56 46 150 5 5 42 60 140 6 6 31 71 120 4 4 21 81 100 2 2 15 87 -50 2 2 11 91 -100 3 3 6 96 -150 2 2 1 101 -- Thank you, Gordon. I like the Neuberg scoring option, forgot to mention that. Not offered by ACBLScore. The above assumes balanced assignments. Is that traditional, or do the two sides sometimes get different probablilities? I would like to see the above adjustments with 50% of 590 for N-S and 40% for E-W, hence 30% of 420 for N-S and 40% for E-W. Also, what are the lowest and highest probabilities allowed? Is there a guideline for the range of a +/- probability, or different guidelines for the OS and the NOS? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 23:32:54 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:32:54 -0800 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP><167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <38CCC7AA615A4F038D7B6EA2AC052784@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Roger Pewick" >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Gordon Rainsford" >> >>> Here's a freqency table from a 4-section 52-table event into >>> which I've >>> put a weighted score of >>> 20% of 690 >>> 50% of 590 >>> 30% of 420 >>> >>> Session 1 Section All >>> Neuberg Top = 102 >>> ============================== >>> Board 1 NS EW >>> Score Frq AJFrq MP MP >>> ============================== >>> 690 0.2 0.2 102.8 -0.8 >>> 590 2.5 2.5 100.1 1.9 >>> 450 3 3 94.6 7.4 >>> 420 5.3 5.3 86.3 15.7 >>> 230 1 1 80 22 >>> 200 7 7 72 30 >>> 170 9 9 56 46 >>> 150 5 5 42 60 >>> 140 6 6 31 71 >>> 120 4 4 21 81 >>> 100 2 2 15 87 >>> -50 2 2 11 91 >>> -100 3 3 6 96 >>> -150 2 2 1 101 >>> -- >>> Gordon Rainsford >> >> In a scoring method designed to produce a clear top in the form >> of a nice >> integer 102 it seems to me that there is something incongruous >> when the >> outcome is significantly greater than the prescribed top of 102. Not really greater, when you sum the matchpoints for N-S on the board, weighted. Still, it does look strange. >> It also >> seems to me that Occam's razor would suggest that there is >> something >> dreadfully wrong with the method. >> >> Now, if it were me, I would compute the outcome via >> .2*690+.5*590+.3*420 >> arrive at 559, realize that there was a frequency of 1 and >> compute a score >> of 98 mp. Me too! There are three N-S results, each getting only a percentage, which when added up yield 96.5 matchpoints, reasonable but not sufficient. 559 is the weighted score you would earn in a Chicago game with duplicate bridge rules, and that is the score against which other scores should be compared in a matchpoint or IMP game. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 4 23:46:37 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:46:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bidding Screens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C09743D.6000304@t-online.de> Jack Rhind schrieb: > Thanks very much Peter. > By any chance, do you have an email for Slawek? > > Jack > > > > On 6/4/10 3:11 PM, "Peter Eidt" wrote: > >> Hello Jack, >> >> the German Bridge Federation just bought 40 screens >> from a Polish supplier. They are the same screens >> WBF and EBL are using at the moment. We do like them. >> >> For further information contact Slawek Latala who is >> working for the Polish Federation: latala(at)pzbs.pl >> Like he said: latala at pzbs.pl From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 4 23:59:07 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:59:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 pursued In-Reply-To: <107FC2F79D04485DB257A57CD14286D8@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <107FC2F79D04485DB257A57CD14286D8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C09772B.7080803@t-online.de> Marvin French schrieb: > From: "Gordon Rainsford" < > > Here's a freqency table from a 4-section 52-table event into which > I've put a weighted score of > 20% of 690 > 50% of 590 > 30% of 420 > > Session 1 Section All > Neuberg Top = 102 > ============================== > Board 1 NS EW > Score Frq AJFrq MP MP > ============================== > 690 0.2 0.2 102.8 -0.8 > 590 2.5 2.5 100.1 1.9 > 450 3 3 94.6 7.4 > 420 5.3 5.3 86.3 15.7 > 230 1 1 80 22 > 200 7 7 72 30 > 170 9 9 56 46 > 150 5 5 42 60 > 140 6 6 31 71 > 120 4 4 21 81 > 100 2 2 15 87 > -50 2 2 11 91 > -100 3 3 6 96 > -150 2 2 1 101 > -- > > Thank you, Gordon. I like the Neuberg scoring option, forgot to > mention that. Not offered by ACBLScore. > > The above assumes balanced assignments. Is that traditional, or do > the two sides sometimes get different probablilities? The idea is that the weighting should represent the "fair" score for both sides. Any bias towards an non-offending side (if any) already is in the percentages. > > I would like to see the above adjustments with 50% of 590 for N-S > and 40% for E-W, hence 30% of 420 for N-S and 40% for E-W. That is not the way it is done in the EBL. Appeals would take eons.... > > Also, what are the lowest and highest probabilities allowed? Is > there a guideline for the range of a +/- probability, or different > guidelines for the OS and the NOS? There is (to my knowledge) no guideline as to what probabiities are "allowed", but it is understood among EBL TDs that a weighted score should not consist of many parts, and the weights given should not be extremely high or low. I had an AC (in my federation, not in an EBL event) give me a weighted score made up out of 6 parts, two of rhem with a weight of 5%... This is, IMO, just plain silly. A weighted score should consist of two or three, maybe 4 in extreme cases, parts. Best regards Matthias > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jun 5 00:11:05 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:11:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 In-Reply-To: References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C0979F9.6050109@t-online.de> Roger Pewick schrieb: > Now, if it were me, I would compute the outcome via .2*690+.5*590+.3*420 > arrive at 559, realize that there was a frequency of 1 and compute a score > of 100 mp. > > regards > roger pewick > Let us say our frequency has only 1 score. Everyone scored 600 for 3NT vulnerable, just made. Except for one table, of course. Here the TD decided to give a weighted score. 50% of 600, 50% of 630. Now your method would give this pair a top, pretty much independent of the probabilities assigned, while the "European" method would give 50% of 100% and 50% of 50%, therefore 75%, which is what should happen. Other example: 25% of 630, 50% of 600, 25% of -100. "Our" method gives that pair 50% (25% of a clear top, 25% of a clear bottom, and 50% of an average score). Your method would give them a bottom, wouldn't it? That can't be right. Best regards Matthias From jrhind at therock.bm Sat Jun 5 02:53:50 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:53:50 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Bidding Screens In-Reply-To: <4C09743D.6000304@t-online.de> Message-ID: Thank you. I guess I missed the email address before. Jack On 6/4/10 6:46 PM, "Matthias Berghaus" wrote: > Jack Rhind schrieb: >> Thanks very much Peter. >> By any chance, do you have an email for Slawek? >> >> Jack >> >> >> >> On 6/4/10 3:11 PM, "Peter Eidt" wrote: >> >>> Hello Jack, >>> >>> the German Bridge Federation just bought 40 screens >>> from a Polish supplier. They are the same screens >>> WBF and EBL are using at the moment. We do like them. >>> >>> For further information contact Slawek Latala who is >>> working for the Polish Federation: latala(at)pzbs.pl >>> > > Like he said: > > latala at pzbs.pl > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jun 5 06:17:47 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 20:17:47 -0800 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0979F9.6050109@t-online.de> Message-ID: <74EF3050CA4C49BC8404462ED520AF28@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Matthias Berghaus" > Roger Pewick schrieb: > >> Now, if it were me, I would compute the outcome via >> .2*690+.5*590+.3*420 >> arrive at 559, realize that there was a frequency of 1 and >> compute a score >> of 100 mp. >> >> regards >> roger pewick >> > > Let us say our frequency has only 1 score. Everyone scored 600 for > 3NT > vulnerable, just made. Except for one table, of course. Here the > TD > decided to give a weighted score. 50% of 600, 50% of 630. Now your > method would give this pair a top, pretty much independent of the > probabilities assigned, A well-deserved top, with a 615 score, since they did better than anyone else. In matchpoint pairs a very small advantage over all others can be a top, nothing wrong with that. >while the "European" method would give 50% of > 100% and 50% of 50%, therefore 75%, which is what should happen. Matter of opinion I guess. So you base the adjusted score on what other pairs have done. > > Other example: 25% of 630, 50% of 600, 25% of -100. "Our" method > gives > that pair 50% (25% of a clear top, 25% of a clear bottom, and 50% > of an > average score). Your method would give them a bottom, wouldn't it? > That > can't be right. > Sounds right to me, except that I can't imagine such a combination of potential scores. Getting an overtrick in 3NT is not much of an accomplishment, but going down one in a cold game is a disaster. Bottom deserved, certainly not an average score.. Playing Chicago I would score 432.5, which looks right. Or perhaps it's total point team play and my opposite number scores 600. He has done better than I.and should gain on the deal. According to you it should be a push. I just can't find anything in the Laws that says my way is wrong or that yours is right, so I suppose it's a matter of taste. Matchpoints, IMPs and Victory Points are all artificial scores derived from real scores. Only real scores should be weighted. I'm reminded of Butler, in which an artificial score (the datum) is used for everyone to compare with. The right way is to compare real scores. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com . From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jun 5 08:05:05 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 22:05:05 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills > Law 16B1(a) is a longer Law than usual because it contains a > non-exhaustive list of indicative examples. However, to get > a better vision of the forest without all those pesky trees > getting in the way, deletion of the non-exhaustive list of > indicative examples would leave the meaning of Law 16B1(a) > logically unchanged. > > Law 16B1(a), shorter forest version: > > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may > not choose from among logical alternatives one that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous information." This doesn't cover cases in which the partnership system *requires* an action that is suggested by the UI. Shorter yet: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not take an action that could demonstrably have been prompted by it unless the partnership's system requires that action or no other action makes sense. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jun 5 08:17:27 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 22:17:27 -0800 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 pursued References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com><107FC2F79D04485DB257A57CD14286D8@MARVLAPTOP> <4C09772B.7080803@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4400B31BE2EE41F1B43DE2736F9602D7@MARVLAPTOP> Matthias Berghause wrote: > Marvin French schrieb: >> >> I would like to see the above adjustments with 50% of 590 for N-S >> and 40% for E-W, hence 30% of 420 for N-S and 40% for E-W. > > That is not the way it is done in the EBL. Appeals would take > eons.... > Another argument against weighted score adjustments. The traditional way to deal with infractions was to give the NOS considerable benefit of doubt ("Could this well have happened?") and the OS little benefit of doubt ("Was there more than a remote possibility of this happening?"). Then decide on a score for each side and assign it. No math, just common bridge sense. And simpler appeals. It is said that players like weighted score adjustments. Players also liked table result stands for the OS and Avg+ for the NOS. Didn't make it right. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From blml at arcor.de Sat Jun 5 09:22:50 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 09:22:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] My question 1 In-Reply-To: <4C0979F9.6050109@t-online.de> References: <4C0979F9.6050109@t-online.de> <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <24361573.1275722570220.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Matthias Berghaus > Roger Pewick schrieb: > > > Now, if it were me, I would compute the outcome via .2*690+.5*590+.3*420 > > arrive at 559, realize that there was a frequency of 1 and compute a score > > > of 100 mp. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > Let us say our frequency has only 1 score. Everyone scored 600 for 3NT > vulnerable, just made. Except for one table, of course. Here the TD > decided to give a weighted score. 50% of 600, 50% of 630. Now your > method would give this pair a top, pretty much independent of the > probabilities assigned, while the "European" method would give 50% of > 100% and 50% of 50%, therefore 75%, which is what should happen. > > Other example: 25% of 630, 50% of 600, 25% of -100. "Our" method gives > that pair 50% (25% of a clear top, 25% of a clear bottom, and 50% of an > average score). Your method would give them a bottom, wouldn't it? That > can't be right. I fear this is not the type of example Marv will understand. Here is mine: MPs, everybody plays in 3NT for 600. Except for one table, of course. Here, the TD decides to gives a weighted score: 90% for the NOS making 4H for 620, 10% 4H down one for -100. With Marv's method, the NOS side gets a dead bottom for reaching the superior (at MPs) 4H. Thomas Und was machen Sie heute abend? Alles Events Ihrer Gegend auf einen Blick im Arcor.de-Veranstaltungskalender: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.events From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jun 5 10:57:55 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:57:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> References: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C0A1193.3020500@skynet.be> how about this: Marvin French wrote: > Richard Hills > >> Law 16B1(a) is a longer Law than usual because it contains a >> non-exhaustive list of indicative examples. However, to get >> a better vision of the forest without all those pesky trees >> getting in the way, deletion of the non-exhaustive list of >> indicative examples would leave the meaning of Law 16B1(a) >> logically unchanged. >> >> Law 16B1(a), shorter forest version: >> >> "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >> information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may >> not choose from among logical alternatives one that could >> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> extraneous information." > > This doesn't cover cases in which the partnership system *requires* > an action that is suggested by the UI. > > Shorter yet: > > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not take an action > that could demonstrably have been prompted by it unless the > partnership's system requires that action or no other action makes > sense. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2918 - Release Date: 06/04/10 20:25:00 > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous inforation if there are other calls or plays, less suggested, that are logical alternatives ." -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jun 5 11:00:15 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:00:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 In-Reply-To: References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C0A121F.8000301@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > In a scoring method designed to produce a clear top in the form of a nice > integer 102 it seems to me that there is something incongruous when the > outcome is significantly greater than the prescribed top of 102. It also > seems to me that Occam's razor would suggest that there is something > dreadfully wrong with the method. > Why? It's not as if the speed of light has been surpassed. > Now, if it were me, I would compute the outcome via .2*690+.5*590+.3*420 > arrive at 559, realize that there was a frequency of 1 and compute a score > of 100 mp. > And you would be completely wrong, for all kands of reasons. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 5 13:27:35 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 12:27:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0A1193.3020500@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > how about this: > > Marvin French wrote: >> Richard Hills >> >>> Law 16B1(a) is a longer Law than usual because it contains a >>> non-exhaustive list of indicative examples. However, to get >>> a better vision of the forest without all those pesky trees >>> getting in the way, deletion of the non-exhaustive list of >>> indicative examples would leave the meaning of Law 16B1(a) >>> logically unchanged. >>> >>> Law 16B1(a), shorter forest version: >>> >>> "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >>> information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may >>> not choose from among logical alternatives one that could >>> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >>> extraneous information." >> >> This doesn't cover cases in which the partnership system *requires* >> an action that is suggested by the UI. >> >> Shorter yet: >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >> that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not take an action >> that could demonstrably have been prompted by it unless the >> partnership's system requires that action or no other action makes >> sense. >> >> Marv >> > > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not choose a call or > play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous inforation if there are other calls or plays, less suggested, > that are logical alternatives ." > +=+ All very interesting, but if successive drafting committees have wanted the list to be included it is to be assumed that they have a reason for it. However, I could envisage an arrangement by which the law is in two parts - viz. (i) the simple statement of the law, and (ii) "Among the ways in which unauthorised information can be communicated as in (i) the following are examples: etc. " ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 5 14:35:41 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:35:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0A1193.3020500@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:27:35 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " A sound Conservative government > ....... Tory men and Whig measures." > ['Coningsby' - Benjamin Disraeli] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 9:57 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> how about this: >> >> Marvin French wrote: >>> Richard Hills >>> >>>> Law 16B1(a) is a longer Law than usual because it contains a >>>> non-exhaustive list of indicative examples. However, to get >>>> a better vision of the forest without all those pesky trees >>>> getting in the way, deletion of the non-exhaustive list of >>>> indicative examples would leave the meaning of Law 16B1(a) >>>> logically unchanged. >>>> >>>> Law 16B1(a), shorter forest version: >>>> >>>> "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >>>> information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may >>>> not choose from among logical alternatives one that could >>>> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >>>> extraneous information." >>> >>> This doesn't cover cases in which the partnership system *requires* >>> an action that is suggested by the UI. >>> >>> Shorter yet: >>> >>> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >>> that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not take an action >>> that could demonstrably have been prompted by it unless the >>> partnership's system requires that action or no other action makes >>> sense. >>> >>> Marv >>> >> >> "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >> that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not choose a call or >> play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> extraneous inforation if there are other calls or plays, less suggested, >> that are logical alternatives ." >> > +=+ All very interesting, but if successive drafting committees have > wanted the list to be included it is to be assumed that they have a > reason for it. However, I could envisage an arrangement by which > the law is in two parts - viz. (i) the simple statement of the law, and > (ii) "Among the ways in which unauthorised information can be > communicated as in (i) the following are examples: etc. " > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ About those examples. I think that laws should be general and examples should be just examples. They shouldn't create law. Put another way, one should be consulting L16A1 to find out whether questions or replies to questions are extraneous information. (I feel the same way about L75.) The current L16A1(c) says that all information arising from legal procedures is AI (unless otherwise specified). It then refers to L16B1, which in fact provides crucial exceptions. So those are not just examples. (The fatal flaw of the existing L16A1 is that it does not differentiate information from partner versus information from the opponents; L16B1 partially corrects this problem.) L16A should define what is extraneous information and what is not. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 5 15:34:18 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 08:34:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 In-Reply-To: <4C0979F9.6050109@t-online.de> References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0979F9.6050109@t-online.de> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Matthias Berghaus" Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 17:11 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] My question 1 > Roger Pewick schrieb: > >> Now, if it were me, I would compute the outcome via .2*690+.5*590+.3*420 >> arrive at 559, realize that there was a frequency of 1 and compute a >> score >> of 100 mp. >> >> regards >> roger pewick >> > > Let us say our frequency has only 1 score. Everyone scored 600 for 3NT > vulnerable, just made. Except for one table, of course. Here the TD > decided to give a weighted score. 50% of 600, 50% of 630. Now your > method would give this pair a top, pretty much independent of the > probabilities assigned, while the "European" method would give 50% of > 100% and 50% of 50%, therefore 75%, which is what should happen. > > Other example: 25% of 630, 50% of 600, 25% of -100. "Our" method gives > that pair 50% (25% of a clear top, 25% of a clear bottom, and 50% of an > average score). Your method would give them a bottom, wouldn't it? That > can't be right. > > Best regards > Matthias Anyway, the because mp is not arithmetically linear the effect of weighting results rather than scores has the issues that have been pointed out. So, yes my response was a knee jerk response to matchpointing against an out of bounds top [as in a top that is contrary law78]. As for an appropriate metric [especially when calculating devices are not available] I suggest that n normative frequency tables are needed to calculate weighted mp where n=the number of adjusted results and thus the number of normative frequency tables. The metric works thus: 1. Calculate a normative frequency table for each adjusted result [that is, without the other adjusted results ] based on the standard top 2. calculate the weighted mp 3. produce the frequency table for the board noting the mp for the adjusted score [just as is done for an artificial score] I haven't taken the trouble to determine that the check total is necessarily different, not that it is wrong for it to be, but it is likely to be different. regards roger pewick From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jun 5 17:07:10 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:07:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 In-Reply-To: <74EF3050CA4C49BC8404462ED520AF28@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0979F9.6050109@t-online.de> <74EF3050CA4C49BC8404462ED520AF28@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C0A681E.8020906@nhcc.net> On 6/5/2010 12:17 AM, Marvin French wrote: > Getting an overtrick in 3NT is not much of an accomplishment, but > going down one in a cold game is a disaster. I think this is where Marv is going wrong. At total points, what he says is correct, but at matchpoints, the overtrick in 3NT is a huge achievement, and going down is just another bottom. The situation at IMPs is somewhat the same as at total points, but the exact odds differ. These considerations tell us immediately that computation of weighted scores has to depend on the form of scoring. FWIW, I agree with Herman and everyone else about the proper computation. There's no problem with it, even if for some reason it had to be done manually. Before computers, we could all matchpoint a board in half a minute or so. (The pros could do it much faster.) Matchpointing with weighted scores would take longer but no more than a couple of minutes, less with a bit of practice, and of course with a computer, there's no problem at all. Computational complexity is no argument against weighted scores. There is, of course, room to disagree about the merit of weighted scores in the first place. As we have seen, different RAs reach different conclusions on that. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jun 5 17:17:48 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:17:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13thMarch 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4ED70E857209453DB47D4B48A0FF41B0@MARVLAPTOP> References: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> <4ED70E857209453DB47D4B48A0FF41B0@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C0A6A9C.8010209@nhcc.net> On 5/29/2010 10:00 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Geez, it's so simple. If it appears that you may have taken > advantage of UI the score will be adjusted if the opponents are > damaged. Unless, of course, you can show that no other action than > the one taken makes sense. Yes, this is what everyone wants. Unfortunately, it's not exactly what L16B1a actually says. One way to work around the language problem is to define the action taken as a LA, as the ACBL LC has done. From: Herman De Wael > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not choose a call or > play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous inforation if there are other calls or plays, less suggested, > that are logical alternatives ." This looks good to me. To answer Marv's other concern, the definition of LA includes reference to the system being played. Passing a bid that's forcing _in your system_ will seldom be a LA, even if the bid is non-forcing for most other people. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 5 17:46:32 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 In-Reply-To: <74EF3050CA4C49BC8404462ED520AF28@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com><4C0979F9.6050109@t-online.de> <74EF3050CA4C49BC8404462ED520AF28@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <707ECFB4E91846BCB8C88E0DBC9B303E@erdos> "Marvin French" writes: > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > >> Let us say our frequency has only 1 score. Everyone scored 600 for >> 3NT >> vulnerable, just made. Except for one table, of course. Here the >> TD >> decided to give a weighted score. 50% of 600, 50% of 630. Now your >> method would give this pair a top, pretty much independent of the >> probabilities assigned, > > A well-deserved top, with a 615 score, since they did better than > anyone else. In matchpoint pairs a very small advantage over all > others can be a top, nothing wrong with that. And here are two similar examples in which the adjustment does not redress the damage. In both cases, the issue is that the percentage weighting is compared to a score in a differend contract. N-S were misinformed, and as a result, wound up in 6C making for +1370 rather than 6S. There is a difficult-to-find defense which beats 6S; the TD rules that E-W would find the defense 10% of the time. If he rules 10% of -100 and 90% of +1430 and converts that to points, the adjusted score is +1277 and N-S were not damaged. But with most of the field in slam, N-S would surely prefer to be in 6S making 90% of the time than in 6C making 100% of the time, so they should receive redress for the damage. N-S made a call suggested by UI, and as a result, wound up in 6C making for +1370 rather than 6S. There is a difficult-to-find defense which beats 6S; the TD rules than E-W would find the defense 10% of the time. If he rules 10% of -100 and 90% of +1430 and converts that to +1277, N-S lose to everyone making either slam, and E-W get a top; the whole point of the weighted scores is to avoid giving E-W a top when it was not likely that they would find the defense for a top at the table. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Jun 5 23:53:48 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:53:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0A1193.3020500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001cb04f9$93f7ced0$bbe76c70$@com> [GE] +=+ All very interesting, but if successive drafting committees have wanted the list to be included it is to be assumed that they have a reason for it. However, I could envisage an arrangement by which the law is in two parts - viz. (i) the simple statement of the law, and (ii) "Among the ways in which unauthorised information can be communicated as in (i) the following are examples: etc." [DALB] On another forum I suggested this form of words: "...the player may not choose any action suggested by the extraneous information, unless there is no logical alternative to the chosen action." When it was argued that: [SP] The word "demonstrably" implies that there must be some substance in the alleged suggestion of the chosen action. The word "could" reduces the requirement for a proof to showing a likely possibility. These two words are both essential. [DALB] I remarked somewhat irascibly that: Neither of the words "could" and "demonstrably" is even useful, let alone essential. We begin with the proposition "X is suggested". We strengthen this to "X is demonstrably suggested", and then weaken it again to "X could demonstrably be suggested". In so doing we accomplish precisely nothing, except to ensure that we follow standard legal practice in not using one word when three will do. To answer Grattan's point directly: I see no reason why "extraneous information" and "logical alternative" should not appear in the Definitions section of the Laws. That at least might focus the minds of the Lawmakers and of the constabulary in terms, respectively, of providing and following useful guidance - this "include but are not limited to" business is hopeless. David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 6 00:32:16 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:32:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores. Message-ID: <97D1D40185564D0FACECB3ECD3042EC5@Mildred> Grattan Endicott<2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0A1193.3020500@skynet.be> <000001cb04f9$93f7ced0$bbe76c70$@com> Message-ID: <96939F2BC6524397AF522C685679D5F0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > To answer Grattan's point directly: I see no reason why "extraneous information" and "logical alternative" should not appear in the Definitions section of the Laws. That at least might focus the minds of the Lawmakers and of the constabulary in terms, respectively, of providing and following useful guidance - this "include but are not limited to" business is hopeless. > +=+ The definitions were hard labour for the committee. My original draft list of definitions was a long one. Early in the discussions on the definitions it was decided not to list in the Definitions any definition that the committee had decided to incorporate into the corpus of the Laws. There followed a heavy programme of striking out any other definition where reference to a dictionary was thought to suffice and any definitions where it appeared to the committee that the meaning was self-evident from the context of the relevant law. I concede that my long list was ambitious to assist international uniformity in the treatment of the laws and it could be that this objective was not endorsed with equal fervour on all sides. We have to live in this world. My enthusiasm for finding fresh wording at nearly every point in the law book was certainly not widely shared. As it is I adopt a simple stance that the law is what is written and while it may call for interpretation it requires no defence of its derivation. Some background may be filled in from the enquiry and response copied below. ~ G ~ +=+ ...................................................................................... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laurie Kelso" Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:50 AM Subject: Re: Confidential : WBF Draft Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hello Grattan > > I have been perusing the comparative Draft Laws documents posted on > Ecats. The formatting certainly makes it relatively easy to note and > appreciate the differences and proposed changes with reference to the > current 1997 Laws. > > May I however be permitted to suggest that a further embellishment > would be to also post the 'definitions' section. This would then aid > the reader's understanding of new terms (such as 'rectification') > plus those currently used terms whose defined meanings may have > been modified. > > Regards > Laurie Kelso > (Australia) < from Grattan Endicott ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ Hi Laurie, Whilst I understand that the addition would be very useful I am not in a position to do this just now. The Definitions have had some attention but are not in an agreed form for publication (even privately) to NBOs etc. In fact the drafting subcommittee will be spending its time on these intra-committee during the period when NBOs are absorbing the draft laws. We decided to put Definitions on one side in order to have the draft laws themselves ready for December release in confidence to NBOs. As you peruse the drafts if you have a question please ask. Concerning 'rectification', the main decision was that 'penalty' should be reserved for Law 90 and Law 91 sanctions; another word was then needed for all other measures described as 'penalty' in 1997; thus 'rectification' refers to these with the inclusion of any other provisions specified in the laws for the remedy of irregularities but not marked in 1997 as '(penalty)'. It is not wholly new. There is a definition of it in the 1997 book, with 'rectify' appearing in 81C6, but we are likely to modify the definition in line with changed usage. Regards ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 6 04:24:19 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 18:24:19 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Reno LC minute 13 March Message-ID: <77B18CEAB6794DB29A8CB8B0D5E8BBED@MARVLAPTOP> Quote from the subject minute: Chip Martel brought up the issue of what constitutes a logical alternative. Suppose someone with UI makes a call that is not considered to be a logical alternative but that works out for the offenders (e.g. in a competitive auction N makes a slow double of 4S; South now bids 6C making when 5C and Pass are considered to be his logicalalternatives. Have we the right to penalize this? Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a logical alternative with respect to application of law 16B1. Seconded by Wildavsky. Motion carried. Reading L16B1(a), a logical alternative (LA) to an illegal action must be taken if there is one. What is a logical alternative? That is defined in L16B1(b). Players do not decide what are logical alternatives, that is done by the TD/AC in accordance with L16B1(b). If there is more than one LA, the player may not choose from the set one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. If the lawmakers didn't intend to restrict a player to LAs as defined by L16B1(b), they would have written "may not choose an action..." without any reference to logicality. They did not want a player, as in the example, to avoid getting a score adjustment by acting in some strange way UI creates a constrained environment from which a partner must not stray. To believe that he/she can escape from UI by taking some illogical alternative boggles the mind. As so often, some BLMLers and the ACBLLC are taking the sense of a word in the Laws according to its ordinary meaning when its legal meaning has been defined differently. That 6C bid may be logical (it made, after all), but according to L16B1(b) it is not logical in the view of the Laws and is therefore illegal. "Have we the right to penalize this?" Chip doesn't realize that adjusting the score is a rectification, not a penalty. The answer is yes. In his example, a slow double suggests that it should not be passed. It therefore must be passed unless passing is illogical. Moreover, if the slow double suggests one logical alternative over another, the latter action must be taken. However, the ACBLLC has declared its right to write new laws or modify existing ones, so the motion passed must be accepted. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 6 05:14:59 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:14:59 -0800 Subject: [BLML] My question 1 References: <8D1428CC139743DEAD4A03B693B3824B@MARVLAPTOP> <167789.16549.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0979F9.6050109@t-online.de><74EF3050CA4C49BC8404462ED520AF28@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0A681E.8020906@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <88B1C7D956064D22AB362B65B2798796@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Steve Willner" Marvin French wrote: >> Getting an overtrick in 3NT is not much of an accomplishment, but >> going down one in a cold game is a disaster. > > I think this is where Marv is going wrong. At total points, what > he > says is correct, but at matchpoints, the overtrick in 3NT is a > huge > achievement, and going down is just another bottom. I know that. I meant card-playing ability, not matchpoints. We don't know the hypothetical deal on which the weighted results were based, I was just guessing. In this case an overtrick might have been easy and going down might have been hard, we don't know. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 6 06:10:08 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:10:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores. References: <97D1D40185564D0FACECB3ECD3042EC5@Mildred> Message-ID: <8835A876FD5746A8BC6F61790BABA589@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > > Sven wrote: "if the Director assigned a total score, possibly > after weighting several alternative total scores then the result > would be a total score, probably fictitious (like 235), and > this total score could be used when calculating MP scores > at all tables. Not that I recommend this procedure, but it is > mathematically absolutely possible." > > +=+ I do not think 'mathematically' adds anything to the > statement. The procedure is possible. However, I have > never known of an experienced Director who thought it > an appropriate method, nor of regulations requiring it be > done in that way. The law, of course, makes no provision > as to the method of calculating weighted scores, so the > Tournament Organizer may regulate the procedure (see > Law 78D) and in the absence of such regulation the > Director has a Law 81B1 responsibility. > The 97 Laws said that score adjustments may be assigned in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. The former accommodated those who did manual scoring, when redoing all the results manually would be too burdensome. Like Butler, it was the wrong way but the only way without a computer. I suspect the old-timer "experienced directors" used to assign score adjustments in matchpoints and just got used to that method. Some habits are hard to change. *I* have never known an experienced director who would do it "that way." Those I know think it's weird. I resent those who say my way is wrong when it is perfectly legal. Oddity: The ACBLLC voted that no "Tournament Organizer" entity is recognized, so Law 80B Tournament Organizer does not apply in ACBL-land. Okay, I'm out of here. Don't know why I came in. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jun 6 14:32:35 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:32:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cb04f9$93f7ced0$bbe76c70$@com> References: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0A1193.3020500@skynet.be> <000001cb04f9$93f7ced0$bbe76c70$@com> Message-ID: <511588.46003.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [DALB] On another forum I suggested this form of words: "...the player may not choose any action suggested by the extraneous information, unless there is no logical alternative to the chosen action." To answer Grattan's point directly: I see no reason why "extraneous information" and "logical alternative" should not appear in the Definitions section of the Laws. That at least might focus the minds of the Lawmakers and of the constabulary in terms, respectively, of providing and following useful guidance - this "include but are not limited to" business is hopeless. [Nigel] Agree with David. This would be clear and simple. It encapsulates the *intention* of the current laws. Unfortunately, TFLB says something else. 95% of disputes, in BLML and other discussion groups, seem to focus on the interpretion of about 5% if the rules. Law-makers should immediately clarify and simplify these few rules; and republish them, in place in a web-edition of the law book. Subsidiary jurisdictions would mirror it. Decades of experience prove that minuting interpretations doesn't work. Minutes are read by few directors and understood by fewer. It's OK to wait 10+ years between major changes to the rules but not for minor corrections. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jun 6 14:43:22 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:43:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Example rulings Message-ID: <213751.5252.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> At one stage it was rumoured that Ton would collect example rulings to clarify the rules. If he hasn't finished, here are some suggestions: Concentrate mainly on *borderline* rulings (eg if the 9 were an 8 that would change the ruling). This is a good way to hone directors' judgement. Inconsistent rulings are righly regarded as unfair. Include the examples, in place, in the law book (not as an appendix). The WBF should officially review major event appeals before they are published to provide further case law. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 6 15:35:30 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:35:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores - the effect on a field? In-Reply-To: <8835A876FD5746A8BC6F61790BABA589@MARVLAPTOP> References: <97D1D40185564D0FACECB3ECD3042EC5@Mildred> <8835A876FD5746A8BC6F61790BABA589@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001001cb057d$22ef2560$68cd7020$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin French > The 97 Laws said that score adjustments may be assigned in matchpoints or by > altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. The former accommodated > those who did manual scoring, when redoing all the results manually would be too > burdensome. Like Butler, it was the wrong way but the only way without a > computer. I suspect the old-timer "experienced directors" used to assign score > adjustments in matchpoints and just got used to that method. Some habits are > hard to change. What exactly shall be the consequences for a field on the existence of an assigned score? Say that we have a field of 16 tables. In the normal situation we have 16 (total point) results from which we calculate the scores for each table. Case 1: If the Director awards an artificial adjusted score to replace one of these table scores the consequence is that there are only 15 results left for which to calculate the scores. I shall assume that the consequence nowadays normally is to apply Neuberg's formula and normalize these scores for a field of 16 results. No problem so far. Case 2: Say that the Director awards an adjusted score by altering a table result, for instance from 3NT-1 to 3NT=. No problem, the result awarded will just be entered into the calculation of scores for every table. Case 3: Now say that the Director awards an adjusted score directly as a weighted score calculated from two existing results. As an example assume that 3NT-1 would give -5 MP and that 3NT= would give +7 MP. With equal weights this would give a score of +1 MP. So far so good, but what is the effect on the other 15 scores in the field? Shall they be "normalized" to a field of 16 results (using Neuberg's) just as in case 1, or shall the adjusted score somehow "participate" in the calculation of the other 15 scores like in case 2, and if so how? The following two cases are relevant (only) when the answer to case 3 is that the adjusted score shall somehow "participate" in the calculation of the other 15 scores: Case 4: Consider the situation where the two results to be weighted are an absolute top (+15) and an absolute bottom (-15) and/or when the weights are not equal (50% each). Case 5: Reconsider case 1: Should the reasonable consequence be that we shall not use Neuberg's in this case, but rather adjust the other 15 scores from the existence of the adjusted score in the set of scores? Example: Say that the artificial adjusted score is 50% for both sides. A consequence would be to increase all 15 other scores above average and decrease those below average with just 1 MP due to the existence of this artificial adjusted score? Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Jun 6 16:20:42 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 16:20:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Weighted_scores_-_the_effect_on_a_field=3F?= In-Reply-To: <001001cb057d$22ef2560$68cd7020$@no> References: <001001cb057d$22ef2560$68cd7020$@no> Message-ID: <1OLGiQ-1e0ruy0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> "Of Course" there is a big YES to case 3. The weighted score has to have effect on the scores of the other tables. The respective fraction of the weighted score has direct impact in the MP (= comparison) of the other scores. And this is how it works: Say the other 15 scores lead to the following frequency table (I take the "European Matchpoint Scale, which is 2 MP for a better score and 1 MP for an equal score) Freq...MP (NS)....Score .....MP (EW) ..1.............28........+800................0 ..2.............25........+430................3 ..6.............17........+400..............11 ..1.............10.........+130.............18 ..1...............8.........+100.............20 ..2...............5...............-50..........23 ..2...............1............-140...........27 You may score MP with the help of the frequency table by using the following algorithm: For NS start a the bottom and start with -1 as the initialization of MP. Now add the frequency of the last row to MP to get the MPs for the last score. Here it is -1 + 2 = 1 (these are the NS MP for -140). Now for every following row up add MP plus frequency (last calculated row) plus frequency (next row) to get the MP of the next row up. In our table MP (-50) = 1 + 2 + 2 = 5 MP (+100) = 5 + 2 + 1 = 8 MP (+130) = 8 + 1 + 1 = 10 MP (+400) = 10 + 1 + 6 = 17 MP (+430) = 17 + 6 + 2 = 25 MP (+800) = 25 + 2 + 1 = 28 As a probe add the frequency of the topscore to the MP of the topscore and hope to get (Top + 1) here: 28 + 1 = 29 = Top + 1. probe ok! Now the weighted Score (50% of +400 plus 50% of -50) is added to the frequency table by adding .5 to eaqch the respective rows, giving: Freq...MP (NS)....Score .....MP (EW) ..1..........................+800................ ..2..........................+430................ ..6.5.......................+400.............. ..1...........................+130............. ..1...........................+100............. ..2.5.............................-50.......... ..2..............................-140........... Using the same algorithm as above we get (with the new Top of 30) MP (-140) = -1 + 2 = 1 MP (-50) = 1 + 2 + 2.5 = 5.5 MP (+100) = 5.5 + 2.5 + 1 = 9 MP (+130) = 9 + 1 + 1 = 11 MP (+400) = 11 + 1 + 6.5 = 18.5 MP (+430) = 18.5 + 6.5 + 2 = 27 MP (+800) = 27 + 2 + 1 = 30 probe: 30 + 1 = 31 = Top + 1 ... ok! @case 4: it works the same way @ case 5: No, because artificial score are what they are called ... artificial. They can't be compared with the scores that are obtained through normal play. From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Marvin French > > The 97 Laws said that score adjustments may be assigned in > > matchpoints or > by > > altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. The former > accommodated > > those who did manual scoring, when redoing all the results manually > > would > be too > > burdensome. Like Butler, it was the wrong way but the only way > > without a computer. I suspect the old-timer "experienced directors" > > used to assign > score > > adjustments in matchpoints and just got used to that method. Some > > habits > are > > hard to change. > > What exactly shall be the consequences for a field on the existence of > an assigned score? > > Say that we have a field of 16 tables. In the normal situation we have > 16 (total point) results from which we calculate the scores for each > table. > > Case 1: If the Director awards an artificial adjusted score to replace > one of these table scores the consequence is that there are only 15 > results left for which to calculate the scores. I shall assume that > the consequence nowadays normally is to apply Neuberg's formula and > normalize these scores for a field of 16 results. No problem so far. > > Case 2: Say that the Director awards an adjusted score by altering a > table result, for instance from 3NT-1 to 3NT=. No problem, the result > awarded will just be entered into the calculation of scores for every > table. > > Case 3: Now say that the Director awards an adjusted score directly as > a weighted score calculated from two existing results. As an example > assume that 3NT-1 would give -5 MP and that 3NT= would give +7 MP. > With equal weights this would give a score of +1 MP. So far so good, > but what is the effect on the other 15 scores in the field? Shall they > be "normalized" to a field of 16 results (using Neuberg's) just as in > case 1, or shall the adjusted score somehow "participate" in the > calculation of the other 15 scores like in case 2, and if so how? > > The following two cases are relevant (only) when the answer to case 3 > is that the adjusted score shall somehow "participate" in the > calculation of the other 15 scores: > > Case 4: Consider the situation where the two results to be weighted > are an absolute top (+15) and an absolute bottom (-15) and/or when the > weights are not equal (50% each). > > Case 5: Reconsider case 1: Should the reasonable consequence be that > we shall not use Neuberg's in this case, but rather adjust the other > 15 scores from the existence of the adjusted score in the set of > scores? Example: Say that the artificial adjusted score is 50% for > both sides. A consequence would be to increase all 15 other scores > above average and decrease those below average with just 1 MP due to > the existence of this artificial adjusted score? > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 6 16:40:03 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 16:40:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores - the effect on a field? In-Reply-To: <001001cb057d$22ef2560$68cd7020$@no> References: <97D1D40185564D0FACECB3ECD3042EC5@Mildred> <8835A876FD5746A8BC6F61790BABA589@MARVLAPTOP> <001001cb057d$22ef2560$68cd7020$@no> Message-ID: <4C0BB343.6080800@skynet.be> Hello Sven, First, allow me to explain something to people not used to negative matchpoints: Sven was not talking IMPs here, but really Matchpoints, used in the Norwegian way, plus or minus to average. (incidentally, a nice system, since it does away with the awkward -0.5 in Ton's formula - instead it is just -10.5 when the normal "bottom" would be -10) Sven Pran wrote: > > What exactly shall be the consequences for a field on the existence of an > assigned score? > > Say that we have a field of 16 tables. In the normal situation we have 16 > (total point) results from which we calculate the scores for each table. > > Case 1: If the Director awards an artificial adjusted score to replace one > of these table scores the consequence is that there are only 15 results left > for which to calculate the scores. I shall assume that the consequence > nowadays normally is to apply Neuberg's formula and normalize these scores > for a field of 16 results. No problem so far. > indeed no problem. > Case 2: Say that the Director awards an adjusted score by altering a table > result, for instance from 3NT-1 to 3NT=. No problem, the result awarded will > just be entered into the calculation of scores for every table. > indeed no problem. > Case 3: Now say that the Director awards an adjusted score directly as a > weighted score calculated from two existing results. As an example assume > that 3NT-1 would give -5 MP and that 3NT= would give +7 MP. With equal > weights this would give a score of +1 MP. So far so good, but what is the > effect on the other 15 scores in the field? Shall they be "normalized" to a > field of 16 results (using Neuberg's) just as in case 1, or shall the > adjusted score somehow "participate" in the calculation of the other 15 > scores like in case 2, and if so how? > I believe that the frequency of both results should be adjusted with the half score. In your example, an original 3NT-1 is changed to 50% of 3NT-1 and 50% of 3NT+1. The frequency of 3NT-1 is diminished by half (and therefore its points as well, to -5.5) and the frequency of 3NT+1 is upped a half, (to +7.5). The score for the table in question is half that sum, again +1. Incidentally, you have -5 and +7, that means that there are must be 1 result in between (2NT+1) and 10 results in 3NT= and -1, with three below and two above. > The following two cases are relevant (only) when the answer to case 3 is > that the adjusted score shall somehow "participate" in the calculation of > the other 15 scores: > > Case 4: Consider the situation where the two results to be weighted are an > absolute top (+15) and an absolute bottom (-15) and/or when the weights are > not equal (50% each). > no problem, I should think. These both get a half frequency, the others are in between. Especially in Norwegian method that does not change anything. In European method, all scores start with a half more than normal - 0.5 for the next bottom and so on. > Case 5: Reconsider case 1: Should the reasonable consequence be that we > shall not use Neuberg's in this case, but rather adjust the other 15 scores > from the existence of the adjusted score in the set of scores? Example: Say > that the artificial adjusted score is 50% for both sides. A consequence > would be to increase all 15 other scores above average and decrease those > below average with just 1 MP due to the existence of this artificial > adjusted score? > Sven touches on something interesting here. Allow me to explain in European method. 16 tables, so the bottom is 0 and the top is 30. If we drop one score, there are 15 scores left. Neuberging makes the top 29.93 and the bottom 0.07, with all the others in between. Now if we drop the missing table back in, while saying we cannot establish any result, what we are actually saying is that we believe the chance it will be a score somewhere is the same as the frequency of those scores in the field. So there is a 1/15 chance the score will equal the bottom one, 1/15 for the second bottom, and so on. If we calculate that, then the frequency of the bottom score is now 1.07, and it's score should become 0.07. So the two methods are indeed equal. Which is why, if there has been some significant play on the board, we should not give artificial scores, but rather weighted ones. Allow me to explain. A pair reaches 3NT, and then gets a mistaken explanation about the lead. Declare goes one down, but the TD decides he cannot find out what the play would be in 3NT with correct play. he should however give a weighted score of 3NT-1 and = (and +1), rather than an artificial score - just in case someone was in 6ClX-4. He does not deserve the Neuberg award of 0.07 for the adjusted score, since the adjustment could never affect his bottom. Herman. > Regards Sven > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 03:23:51 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:23:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <96939F2BC6524397AF522C685679D5F0@Mildred> Message-ID: David Burn: >> ..... To answer Grattan's point directly: I see no reason >>why "extraneous information" ..... should not appear in the >>Definitions section of the Laws. That at least might focus >>the minds of the Lawmakers and of the constabulary in terms >> ..... of providing ..... useful guidance - this "include >>but are not limited to" business is hopeless. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ The definitions were hard labour for the committee. My >original draft list of definitions was a long one. Early in >the discussions on the definitions it was decided not to >list in the Definitions any definition that the committee >had decided to incorporate into the corpus of the Laws ..... 2018 Definition of Extraneous Information from Partner: Information a player receives from partner between deals (so- called "post-mortems") is not extraneous, but a post-mortem may be an infraction of conduct and etiquette (Law 74A2) and/ or an infraction of unnecessarily slow play (Law 90B2) and/or an infraction of overheard discussion (Law 90B3). Timely actions from partner to prevent irregularities (Laws 9A3, 42, 43 and 65A3) do not create extraneous information. Calls and plays by partner during the auction and play are not extraneous information (Law 73A1). All other information a player receives from partner is extraneous and thus defined as Unauthorized Information q.v., and the player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information" (Law 73C). Richard Hills: My experience at the table has been that, of the changes between the 1997 Lawbook and the 2007 Lawbook, the Law change which has been of most profound interest to players (as opposed to the nit-picking profound interests of nerdish blmlers such as myself) is the new 2007 Law 65A3: "Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Jun 7 04:01:33 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:01:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C0C52FD.4080604@comcast.net> On 6/6/10 9:23 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > David Burn: > > >>> ..... To answer Grattan's point directly: I see no reason >>> why "extraneous information" ..... should not appear in the >>> Definitions section of the Laws. That at least might focus >>> the minds of the Lawmakers and of the constabulary in terms >>> ..... of providing ..... useful guidance - this "include >>> but are not limited to" business is hopeless. >>> > Grattan Endicott: > > >> +=+ The definitions were hard labour for the committee. My >> original draft list of definitions was a long one. Early in >> the discussions on the definitions it was decided not to >> list in the Definitions any definition that the committee >> had decided to incorporate into the corpus of the Laws ..... >> > 2018 Definition of Extraneous Information from Partner: > > Information a player receives from partner between deals (so- > called "post-mortems") is not extraneous, but a post-mortem > may be an infraction of conduct and etiquette (Law 74A2) and/ > or an infraction of unnecessarily slow play (Law 90B2) and/or > an infraction of overheard discussion (Law 90B3). > > Timely actions from partner to prevent irregularities (Laws > 9A3, 42, 43 and 65A3) do not create extraneous information. > > Calls and plays by partner during the auction and play are > not extraneous information (Law 73A1). > > All other information a player receives from partner is > extraneous and thus defined as Unauthorized Information q.v., > and the player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage > from that unauthorized information" (Law 73C). > "All" is a rather broad term. What about not accepting a bid out of turn? Is that now UI? What about a dropped or otherwise exposed card that then becomes a penalty card? > Richard Hills: > > My experience at the table has been that, of the changes > between the 1997 Lawbook and the 2007 Lawbook, the Law > change which has been of most profound interest to players > (as opposed to the nit-picking profound interests of nerdish > blmlers such as myself) is the new 2007 Law 65A3: > > "Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is > pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention > to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the > right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If > done later Law 16B may apply." > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section& DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 04:25:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 12:25:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C0C52FD.4080604@comcast.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>All other information a player receives from partner is >>extraneous and thus defined as Unauthorized Information q.v., >>and the player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage >>from that unauthorized information" (Law 73C). Robert Park: >"All" is a rather broad term. What about not accepting a bid >out of turn? Is that now UI? What about a dropped or otherwise >exposed card that then becomes a penalty card? Richard Hills: Whoops. I saw the forest but forgot a vital tree. Add this paragraph to my snipped definition -> "Information received from partner is not extraneous if arising from a withdrawn action (by either side) when the other side is the only offending side (Law 16D1)." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 07:38:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:38:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sophia Morrison, Manx Fairy Tales (1911): "What are thou blowing on thee fingem for?" said the Fynoderee. "To put them in heat," said the Farmer. At supper that night the Farmer's porridge was hot and he blew on it. "What are thou doing that for?" said the Fynoderee. "Isn't it hot enough for thee?' "It's too hot, it is; I'm blowing on it to cool it," said the Farmer. "I don't like thee at all, boy," said the Fynoderee, "for thou can blow hot and blow cold with one breath." Grattan Endicott on Law 16B1(a), blowing hot: >+=+ All very interesting, but if successive drafting >committees have wanted the list to be included it is to be >assumed that they have a reason for it. [snip] Richard Hills on Law 74B1, blowing cold: All very interesting, but if successive drafting committees have wanted the list to be deleted it is to be assumed that they have a reason for it. 1975 Lawbook, what would later become Law 74B1 (not any Law numbers designated for the Proprieties until 1987), with a list of two indicative examples included: "As a matter of courtesy, a player should refrain from: Paying insufficient attention to the game (as when a player obviously takes no interest in his hand, or frequently requests a review of the auction)." 1997 and 2007 Lawbooks, Law 74B1, with the list deleted: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: paying insufficient attention to the game." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 08:07:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:07:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Blurb on the cover of Robert Bloch's novel Psycho II: "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the shower." Marvin French: >...unless the partnership's system requires that action... Richard Hills: I disagree. Law 16B1(b) contains a reference to "using the methods of the partnership", which is a lesser benchmark than "the partnership's methods are sacrosanct". In an old Bridge World article, Larry Cohen provided excellent advice on UI situations. On one hand in the article, Larry retold the story of the time he was on lead against 7NT with a yarborough. Cohen-Berkowitz have an agreement that the partner of the opening leader will double 7NT with the ace of spades, but pass otherwise. Holding the wrong ace, David Berkowitz passed in tempo. The Berkowitz-Cohen partnership system now required the action of a non-spade opening lead from Larry Cohen. But, because Cohen had not been awakened by UI from a hesitation, Cohen forgot their agreement, found a spade lead, so lost a grand slam swing. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 7 15:27:23 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:27:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills In-Reply-To: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> References: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <40D79342-6D7C-4932-A33E-D84D1732B6C4@starpower.net> On Jun 5, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Marvin French wrote: > Richard Hills > >> Law 16B1(a) is a longer Law than usual because it contains a >> non-exhaustive list of indicative examples. However, to get >> a better vision of the forest without all those pesky trees >> getting in the way, deletion of the non-exhaustive list of >> indicative examples would leave the meaning of Law 16B1(a) >> logically unchanged. >> >> Law 16B1(a), shorter forest version: >> >> "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >> information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may >> not choose from among logical alternatives one that could >> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> extraneous information." > > This doesn't cover cases in which the partnership system *requires* > an action that is suggested by the UI. Sure it does. Are we not in agreement that what constitutes a "logical alternative" is determined within the context of the partnership's methods? > Shorter yet: > > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not take an action > that could demonstrably have been prompted by it unless the > partnership's system requires that action or no other action makes > sense. Doesn't "the partnership's system requires that action" mean that "no other action makes sense" perforce? Not that I have any objection to redundant wording if it aids comprehension, but I don't see Marvin's text as saying anything that Richard's doesn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 7 15:49:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:49:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13thMarch 2010 In-Reply-To: <4C0A6A9C.8010209@nhcc.net> References: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> <4ED70E857209453DB47D4B48A0FF41B0@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0A6A9C.8010209@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6915B1FC-61B0-45EB-9DC4-29479DD9AEFD@starpower.net> On Jun 5, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 5/29/2010 10:00 PM, Marvin French wrote: > >> Geez, it's so simple. If it appears that you may have taken >> advantage of UI the score will be adjusted if the opponents are >> damaged. Unless, of course, you can show that no other action than >> the one taken makes sense. > > Yes, this is what everyone wants. Unfortunately, it's not exactly > what > L16B1a actually says. One way to work around the language problem > is to > define the action taken as a LA, as the ACBL LC has done. I'd replace (perhaps by one of those infamous "rewording minutes" a la the claim footnote) "choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another" [L16B1(a)] with "choose an action that could have demonstrably have been suggested over some logical alternatve action". Which is what the authors of L16 seem to have meant to say in the first place. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 7 20:01:20 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:01:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Grattan Endicott and Richard Hills References: <2676A3F6C07A432884BD281EDBF7F2E0@MARVLAPTOP> <40D79342-6D7C-4932-A33E-D84D1732B6C4@starpower.net> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau" Marvin French wrote: > >> Richard Hills >> >>> Law 16B1(a), shorter forest version: >>> "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >>> information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may >>> not choose from among logical alternatives one that could >>> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >>> extraneous information." >> >> This doesn't cover cases in which the partnership system >> *requires* >> an action that is suggested by the UI. > > Sure it does. Are we not in agreement that what constitutes a > "logical alternative" is determined within the context of the > partnership's methods? > >> Shorter yet: >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >> information >> that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not take an >> action >> that could demonstrably have been prompted by it unless the >> partnership's system requires that action or no other action >> makes >> sense. > > Doesn't "the partnership's system requires that action" mean that > "no > other action makes sense" perforce? Not that I have any objection > to > redundant wording if it aids comprehension, but I don't see > Marvin's > text as saying anything that Richard's doesn't. > And it's not shorter. I should have omitted "unless the partnership's system requirest that action" and then it would have been shorter and more clear. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 8 02:34:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:34:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Director's conclusion on logical alternatives: "The director judged that West bid her hand when she bid 2H and that, if East couldn't bid over 3H, that pass by West was a logical alternative." The Appeals Panel's conclusion on logical alternatives: "The key factor for the panel was that all players polled would take action. Therefore, pass was not found to be a logical alternative and the table result was restored for both pairs." The WBF Code of Practice conclusion on judgement: "It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in a judgemental matter, having consulted appropriately, that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. The desire is that the Director shall not rule automatically in favour of the non-offending side when he is in no doubt that a true judgement requires him to rule otherwise." The WBF has a sensible policy that the Director should strive to get the ruling right the first time. So the WBF policy is that the Director should poll peers of the player in question to assist the Director in accurately determining logical alternatives. Meanwhile, it seems that ACBL policy (at least at their NABCs) is that polling of peers is a tool used only by Appeals Committees and Panels. This ACBL policy necessarily creates more miscarriages of justice, due to some unjustly ruled against contestants deciding that it is not worth the effort to appeal when they could instead be visiting one of Reno's famous casinos. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From brian at peacenik.net Tue Jun 8 03:50:43 2010 From: brian at peacenik.net (Brian Baresch) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:50:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C0DA1F3.1090402@peacenik.net> > Meanwhile, it seems that ACBL policy (at least at their > NABCs) is that polling of peers is a tool used only by > Appeals Committees and Panels. I'm not in a position to speak to policy, but in a UI ruling at a recent regional, Rick Beye (one of the ACBL's best IMHO) polled several players as to (a) whether they would take action with the hand in question and, having found none who would, (b) what they would lead against the NOS' hypothetical contract, since one lead would beat it and others would not. The result of all this was a well-considered score adjustment. Brian Baresch Austin, Texas, USA I finally reached the end of the rainbow and all I found was a pot of unicorn poo. --Doctor Wu From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 8 04:05:06 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 03:05:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> <4B9D44C7.20209@nhcc.net> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net><000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <45335373EDAC45DB9585BDBD8ED416AB@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Someone wrote - > Personally, I find the "Rubens school" looking better and better as this > discussion goes on, but I suppose we'll have to wait until at least 2018 > for it to be adopted. > +=+ But does it not beg a question if, except by invitation or appointment, an entity from Zone 2 (where I gather the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 do not apply) feels justified in seeking to be involved in matters affecting the laws that are to apply elsewhere? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 8 06:21:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:21:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45335373EDAC45DB9585BDBD8ED416AB@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: +=+ But does it not beg a question if, except by invitation or appointment, an entity from Zone 2 (where I gather the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 do not apply) feels justified in seeking to be involved in matters affecting the laws that are to apply elsewhere? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Wikipedia: The Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL) divides Bosnia and Herzegovina into two entities, the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The total length of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line is 1,080?km. Dayton marked the first occasion when three-dimensional satellite image technology and digital cartography was used to determine and delineate boundaries in an official treaty. Richard Hills: If you want to understand the mind of an entity, listen to its jokes. I recently read "Have I Got A Story For You", an anthology of American bridge anecdotes. This helped me understand the vast cultural differences between the Republika Amerika and the Federation of Tasmania and Canberra. But the IEBL (sorry, ACBL) should strive to avoid unilaterally imposing its Duplicate Bridge culture upon other entities. This would lead to the end of international competitions - the ACBL would split Duplicate Bridge into two distinct mind games, as happened when Rugby separated into the two distinct physical games of Rugby Union and Rugby League. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 8 07:13:04 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:13:04 -0800 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> <4B9D44C7.20209@nhcc.net> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net><000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no><4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <45335373EDAC45DB9585BDBD8ED416AB@Mildred> Message-ID: <06194BCE7A0B44CB873AE4A898C2B65C@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" >> > Someone wrote - >> Personally, I find the "Rubens school" looking better and better >> as this >> discussion goes on, but I suppose we'll have to wait until at >> least 2018 >> for it to be adopted. >> > +=+ But does it not beg a question if, except by invitation or > appointment, > an entity from Zone 2 (where I gather the Laws of Duplicate Bridge > 2007 > do not apply) feels justified in seeking to be involved in matters > affecting > the laws that are to apply elsewhere? Zone 2 should not be represented on the Drafting Committee for the 2018 Laws, since they did not accept the output of the 2007 Laws Drafting Committee and created their own version dated 2008. It isn't as if they have expertise that is lacking in the rest of the WBF. What question was begged? It suggests a question, if that's what you mean. :-)) Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From geller at nifty.com Tue Jun 8 07:31:22 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:31:22 +0900 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <45335373EDAC45DB9585BDBD8ED416AB@Mildred> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> <4B9D44C7.20209@nhcc.net> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net><000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <45335373EDAC45DB9585BDBD8ED416AB@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C0DD5AA.70200@nifty.com> Grattan wrote: > Someone wrote - >> Personally, I find the "Rubens school" looking better and better as this >> discussion goes on, but I suppose we'll have to wait until at least 2018 >> for it to be adopted. >> > +=+ But does it not beg a question if, except by invitation or appointment, > an entity from Zone 2 (where I gather the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 > do not apply) feels justified in seeking to be involved in matters affecting > the laws that are to apply elsewhere? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The ACBL's position is clearly stated on its website in the rules and regulations regarding the ACBL Laws Commission (excerpts below) http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%203-%20Section%20h.pdf A.The Laws of Duplicate Bridge as reviewed and promulgated by the ACBL Laws Commission and published and copyrighted by ACBL are accepted with the following elections: B. The Laws of Duplicate Bridge as accepted and approved in A above go into effect for ACBL sanctioned events on September 8, 2008. Thus it is the ACBL's position that the Laws as promulgated in ACBL-land are promulgated by the ACBL Laws Commission, not by the WBF. The ACBL thus implicitly is taking the position that the WBF-promulgated laws are strictly advisory, and the ACBL is free to amend /edit them in promulgating its version of the Laws for ACBL-land. The WBF seems not to be paying heed to this seeming defiance of its authority..... -Bob From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 8 08:32:03 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 22:32:03 -0800 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> <4B9D44C7.20209@nhcc.net> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net><000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net><45335373EDAC45DB9585BDBD8ED416AB@Mildred> <4C0DD5AA.70200@nifty.com> Message-ID: <6A7DA898830A4A17BA963DDEFE9EC1CA@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Geller" > > The ACBL's position is clearly stated on its website in the rules > and > regulations regarding the ACBL Laws Commission (excerpts below) > A.The Laws of Duplicate Bridge as reviewed and promulgated by the > ACBL > Laws Commission and published and copyrighted by ACBL are accepted > with > the following elections: > > > B. The Laws of Duplicate Bridge as accepted and approved in A > above go > into effect for ACBL sanctioned events on September 8, 2008. > > Thus it is the ACBL's position that the Laws as promulgated in > ACBL-land > are promulgated by the ACBL Laws Commission, not by the WBF. The > ACBL > thus implicitly is taking the position that the WBF-promulgated > laws are > strictly advisory, and the ACBL is free to amend /edit them in > promulgating its version of the Laws for ACBL-land. > > The WBF seems not to be paying heed to this seeming defiance of > its > authority..... > They don't want to offend the money bags. Actually the WBF has no authority over the ACBL. The ACBL is an organization independent of the WBF since 2001 and can do whatever it wishes. What happened in 2001? The United States Bridge Federation was formed to replace the ACBL as a National Bridge Organization in the WBF, making the ACBL independent. The WBF has authority over the USBF, whose only role is to name teams for USA participation in international events run by the WBF. Americans in the ACBL automatically become non-voting members of the USBF, which siphons dues from the ACBL.to the WBF. It's all very complicated. WBF Laws and regulations are supposed to be used in USBF competitions to determine USA representation in WBF events. But they are not, as those competitions are run in the same way as ACBL events. Except for the system cards that disclose partnership agreements, I believe. I think these are a WBF design. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From geller at nifty.com Tue Jun 8 09:17:14 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:17:14 +0900 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <6A7DA898830A4A17BA963DDEFE9EC1CA@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> <4B9D44C7.20209@nhcc.net> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net><000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net><45335373EDAC45DB9585BDBD8ED416AB@Mildred> <4C0DD5AA.70200@nifty.com> <6A7DA898830A4A17BA963DDEFE9EC1CA@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C0DEE7A.3020608@nifty.com> Actually, the present situation is even more blatantly illegal than I thought (or than Marvin states). Please take a look at the WBF bylaws: http://www.worldbridge.org/administration/constitution/by-laws.asp 2a1 states that a national organization (ie., the USBF) must "be the sole national organization controlling Contract Bridge in its country. As the USBF is a member of the WBF, this means that they have asserted to the WBF that they (the USBF) are the "sole national organization controlling Contract Bridge in" the USA. That being the case, assuming the USBF has not made a false statement to the WBF, any tourney run by the ACBL in the United States must be approved by the USBF. Furthermore, the same article of the bylaws states that national organizations must "play bridge according to the current International Codes." Thus if the ACBL is NOT "play[ing] bridge according to the current International Codes," and the USBF does not call the ACBL to account, the USBF is in default on its obligations to the WBF, and should be disciplined (i.e., suspended, until it forces the ACBL to comply with the international code). The 1997 laws and 2007 laws contain a large number of elections to statisfy the ACBL (mostly). That being the case, it is hard to believe that the ACBL won't comply with the international codes that were drafted to satisfy its wishes. I don't think that it is healthy for intl bridge for the WBF to allow this situation to persist. Surely reasonable people could work out some sort of compromise without the WBF having to actually take drastic measures, but the WBF is simply ignoring this. The WBF president ought to write to the USBF president to ask whether the USBF is actually "the sole national organization controlling Contract Bridge in its country." If so, the USBF should be asked to live up to its obligations to force bridge in the US to follow the intl code. If not, then the USBF is not in fulfillment of its obligations as a WBF member, and should be told to clean up its act. -Bob Marvin French wrote: > They don't want to offend the money bags. > > Actually the WBF has no authority over the ACBL. The ACBL is an > organization independent of the WBF since 2001 and can do whatever > it wishes. What happened in 2001? The United States Bridge > Federation was formed to replace the ACBL as a National Bridge > Organization in the WBF, making the ACBL independent. The WBF has > authority over the USBF, whose only role is to name teams for USA > participation in international events run by the WBF. Americans in > the ACBL automatically become non-voting members of the USBF, which > siphons dues from the ACBL.to the WBF. It's all very complicated. > > WBF Laws and regulations are supposed to be used in USBF > competitions to determine USA representation in WBF events. But they > are not, as those competitions are run in the same way as ACBL > events. Except for the system cards that disclose partnership > agreements, I believe. I think these are a WBF design. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jun 8 12:00:26 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:00:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4C0DD5AA.70200@nifty.com> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> <4B9D44C7.20209@nhcc.net> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net><000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <45335373EDAC45DB9585BDBD8ED416AB@Mildred> <4C0DD5AA.70200@nifty.com> Message-ID: <712126.30171.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Bob Geller] The ACBL's position is clearly stated on its website in the rules and regulations regarding the ACBL Laws Commission (excerpts below) http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%203-%20Section%20h.pdf A.The Laws of Duplicate Bridge as reviewed and promulgated by the ACBL Laws Commission and published and copyrighted by ACBL are accepted with the following elections: [SNIP] [Nigel] IMO we suffer from a Tower of Babel. Partly this is due to the power-hungry chauvinism of the ACBL and other jurisdictions. IMO, however, the main blame lies with the WBF for - Publishing incomplete rules and - Its declared policy of *encouraging* local jurisdictions to fill the resulting gaps with their own interpretations, variations, and regulations. The WBF should publish *complete* and *universal* rules. The WBF can't stop a bolshy local jurisdiction imposing an idiosyncratic variant but it can ask that the "Fairy" version not be called "Duplicate Bridge". From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 8 12:41:49 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:41:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <6188DFC89B85483BA3E8EDE4807A16BD@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > " some unjustly ruled against contestants deciding > that it is not worth the effort to appeal when they > could instead be visiting one of Reno's famous casinos". > +=+ Ah, so much is lacking in my education. I associate Reno with 'quickie' divorces but the fame of its casinos has not reached me. ~ G ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Tue Jun 8 13:22:36 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 20:22:36 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6188DFC89B85483BA3E8EDE4807A16BD@Mildred> References: <6188DFC89B85483BA3E8EDE4807A16BD@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C0E27FC.5060602@nifty.com> A highway map of the western US will show you that the distance from Las Vegas to LA on I-15 is about the same as from Reno to the SF BAy area on I-80, and both Nevada cities serve a similar function to the corresponding California communities. -Bob Grattan ????????: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " A sound Conservative government > ....... Tory men and Whig measures." > ['Coningsby' - Benjamin Disraeli] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:34 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> " some unjustly ruled against contestants deciding >> that it is not worth the effort to appeal when they >> could instead be visiting one of Reno's famous casinos". >> > > +=+ Ah, so much is lacking in my education. I associate > Reno with 'quickie' divorces but the fame of its casinos has > not reached me. ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 8 19:19:30 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:19:30 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <6188DFC89B85483BA3E8EDE4807A16BD@Mildred> <4C0E27FC.5060602@nifty.com> Message-ID: <10F7D529D51E4E2B81EE6F5026803DDB@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Geller" >> Grattan Endicott >> >>> " some unjustly ruled against contestants deciding >>> that it is not worth the effort to appeal when they >>> could instead be visiting one of Reno's famous casinos". >>> >> >> +=+ Ah, so much is lacking in my education. I associate >> Reno with 'quickie' divorces but the fame of its casinos has >> not reached me. ~ G ~ +=+ >> Nor me. I played Twenty-One (aka Blackjack) professionally in Reno and Las Vegas from 1975 to 1990 and the only Reno casino that might be well-known (but not famous) is the Cal-Neva, where locals used to go for the cheap food and $1 Twenty-One. I went there often because they accepted Canadian dollars (worth 80 cents at the time) at a par with US dollars. It was a dump compared to the casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, which indeed had (and has) many famous casinos. A great Reno hotel-casino is the El Dorado, which has grown spectacularly over the years. Great because of its wonderful restaurants, not for its casino. The host hotel for the NABC (which has changed its name so many times I have lost track) has a quite ordinary casino, in which the rare single-deck game pays only 6-5 for a natural (aka a Blackjack) instead of 3-2. If I remember, the difference is about 3% in the house's favor, but typically ignorant gamblers think 6-5 is better than 3-2. In all my years of Reno 21 play, that is the only casino that kicked me out after recognizing I was a "card counter." Just once, when I got careless, and in those days it was safe to return on a different shift. A truly famous Reno casino that had closed when I started Reno play was the Horseshoe, now a pawn shop, trinket shop, and small slot parlor. At least they kept the Horseshoe sign up. When it was going strong as a casino, it was justly very popular. The owner (I forget his name, Papa something) would visit the 21 tables to deal and cause the house to lose, delighting the patrons. As was typical in Reno, the 21 dealers were all women and the game was single deck dealt deep, a pleasure for card counters. The Horseshoe dealers got to keep their "tokes" (tips) instead of having to share as in most casinos. Consequently the dealers were all extremely pleasant. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 9 01:58:13 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:58:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C0DEE7A.3020608@nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >.....Surely reasonable people could work out some sort of >compromise..... Richard Hills: When the 1997 Lawbook was in effect, different revoke Laws applied in ACBL and WBF events; this difference meant that an ACBL expert playing in an international championship received an unexpected and devastating rectification when she followed the habit of a lifetime and asked, "No hippogriffs, partner?" So the reasonable people (representing the ACBL and other entities) of the 2007 Drafting Committee negotiated a compromise set of revoke Laws, with the useful by-product of simplifying revoke rectifications and also clarifying revoke ambiguities. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 9 03:45:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:45:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <712126.30171.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 8th June 2010: >.....IMO, however, the main blame lies with the WBF for >- Publishing incomplete rules..... John (MadDog) Probst, 5th March 2008: in my local East London argot "imzer'nallnus'zimmerertu" I use the apostrophe to indicate the glottal stop which can be pronounced as a very short neutral 'e' rough de-elision "him means her and all and us means him or her too" it is of course completely unambiguous, though translating the other laws to East London is going to be hard work. I should be able to get the whole oeuvre onto two sides of a sheet of A4 in 10 point. It'll keep Nigel happy anyway :) 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 9 11:15:38 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:15:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > .......................... > So the reasonable people (representing the ACBL and other > entities) of the 2007 Drafting Committee negotiated a > compromise set of revoke Laws, with the useful by-product > of simplifying revoke rectifications and also clarifying > revoke ambiguities. > +=+ Understandable but a little misleading. In fact each member of the Drafting Committee was appointed in his* own right. They were not 'representatives'. Some such phrase as ''deriving from' or 'associated with' should be substituted for 'representing'. ~ G ~ +=+ [* the masculine includes...... :-).] From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 9 12:54:45 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:54:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Proof of existence In-Reply-To: <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> References: <4C07023B.8000204@nhcc.net> <01924FBC-38A4-4293-AA33-61C15EFFADFC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C0F72F5.4060207@ulb.ac.be> This guy exists, I met him. Remember the thread from last year, about reasons for making an IB ? One of those reasons, not remembering suit order ... was a joke ? Monday evening, a small club in Flanders (to Herman, who knows the surroundings : bij Jan Kadodder). 1NT p 2C X 3D X 3NT X p p p The contract couldn't win, but I had some problems counting declarer's hand. Some play 3D as showing both majors and a maximum, and responder's 3433 didn't falsify this. Asking dummy what 3D meant would have been useless : his confusion on the second round of bidding told me he didn't know. Two down anyway. Dialogue after the deal : - but what was the meaning of 3D ? - I have neither hearts nor spades. - what would 2D have meant, then ? - but really, I may not bid 2D. Partner has bid as high as 2C !! Best regards Alain From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 9 17:46:57 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 07:46:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: From: "Grattan" > >> Richard Hills: >> >> .......................... >> So the reasonable people (representing the ACBL and other >> entities) of the 2007 Drafting Committee negotiated a >> compromise set of revoke Laws, with the useful by-product >> of simplifying revoke rectifications and also clarifying >> revoke ambiguities. >> > +=+ Understandable but a little misleading. In fact each > member of the Drafting Committee was appointed in his* > own right. They were not 'representatives'. Some such > phrase as ''deriving from' or 'associated with' should be > substituted for 'representing'. > > [* the masculine includes...... :-).] Well, that's news. So the ACBL had nothing to do with naming people to the DC? Not so shocking now that they did not accept the 2007 Laws and wrote their own 2008 Laws. I kept saying the ACBL was well-represented on the DC and should have accepted its results, but that was evidently wrong. It wasn't represented at all. Please tell us the name of the dictator who made the appointments. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From geller at nifty.com Wed Jun 9 18:25:48 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:25:48 +0900 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C0FC08C.6030308@nifty.com> I think Grattan just meant the members nominated by the ACBL served as individuals, rather than as official representatives of the ACBL. -Bob (2010/06/10 0:46), Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Grattan" >> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> .......................... >>> So the reasonable people (representing the ACBL and other >>> entities) of the 2007 Drafting Committee negotiated a >>> compromise set of revoke Laws, with the useful by-product >>> of simplifying revoke rectifications and also clarifying >>> revoke ambiguities. >>> >> +=+ Understandable but a little misleading. In fact each >> member of the Drafting Committee was appointed in his* >> own right. They were not 'representatives'. Some such >> phrase as ''deriving from' or 'associated with' should be >> substituted for 'representing'. >> >> [* the masculine includes...... :-).] > > Well, that's news. So the ACBL had nothing to do with naming people > to the DC? Not so shocking now that they did not accept the 2007 > Laws and wrote their own 2008 Laws. I kept saying the ACBL was > well-represented on the DC and should have accepted its results, but > that was evidently wrong. It wasn't represented at all. > > Please tell us the name of the dictator who made the appointments. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 9 18:50:10 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:50:10 -0800 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4C0FC08C.6030308@nifty.com> Message-ID: <4DEB0A367DCD4B4C98FA683F299F9E8B@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Geller" >I think Grattan just meant the members nominated by the ACBL served >as > individuals, rather than as official representatives of the ACBL. > -Bob Perhaps, but zones *should* be sending official representatives who are responsible to the zones for what they do, and whose work the zones will accept graciously. Sending people out on their own with no responsibility other than to themselves is not the way to do things. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 9 20:15:51 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:15:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? correction References: <4C0FC08C.6030308@nifty.com> <4DEB0A367DCD4B4C98FA683F299F9E8B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: > From: "Robert Geller" > >>I think Grattan just meant the members nominated by the ACBL >>served >>as >> individuals, rather than as official representatives of the ACBL. >> -Bob > > Perhaps, but zones *should* be sending official representatives > who > are responsible to the zones for what they do, and whose work the > zones will accept graciously. Sending people out on their own with > no responsibility other than to themselves is not the way to do > things. I should not use the word "zone" because zones are not members of the WBF, comprising only Bridge Federations, so it's the USBF who should nominate people for the DC. Since those so nominated are independent of the ACBL (in theory) they do not have any obligation to serve the ACBL's interests and the ACBL has no obligation to honor their work. I seem to remember instances in which the ACBL intruded its opinions into the DC's efforts (e.g., vetoing the XA document). If so, it should have been told to bug off. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 9 22:16:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:16:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4C0FC08C.6030308@nifty.com> References: <4C0FC08C.6030308@nifty.com> Message-ID: <15589345-8BBB-4A9D-922A-D6655F625BE5@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > I think Grattan just meant the members nominated by the ACBL served as > individuals, rather than as official representatives of the ACBL. I don't think an organization (per se) can "nominate" someone to represent them "unofficially". But I suppose an organization that insists that undisclaimed statements by their own officials in their own "official publication" are "unofficial" needn't be constrained by the English language. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 10 00:41:13 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:41:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 9th June 2010: +=+ Understandable but a little misleading. In fact each member of the Drafting Committee was appointed in his* own right. They were not 'representatives'. Some such phrase as 'deriving from' or 'associated with' should be substituted for 'representing'. ~ G ~ +=+ [* the masculine includes...... :-).] Edmund Burke, 3rd November 1774: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 10 01:21:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 00:21:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4C0FC08C.6030308@nifty.com> <15589345-8BBB-4A9D-922A-D6655F625BE5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <40E1044D539F4187B287B09E2228A09D@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > >> I think Grattan just meant the members nominated by >> the ACBL served as individuals, rather than as official >> representatives of the ACBL. > (Eric) I don't think an organization (per se) can "nominate" someone to represent them "unofficially". But I suppose an organization that insists that undisclaimed statements by their own officials in their own "official publication" are "unofficial" needn't be constrained by the English language. > +=+ For the record, the members in question were appointed by the President and I am personally aware that he did not take advice from any Zone in making his selections. His action under the provisions of the Constitution of the WBF will have been confirmed subsequently by the Executive - I do not have the documentation by me. [Extract from WBF Constitution : "The members of all committees shall be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Executive."] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. I am a little unsure as to the precise intention of 'undisclaimed' which I presume to be less rare in the US extension of negativity in the English language than it is here. p.p.s But I am struck with the nicety of language in the quoted extract from the Constitution, referring as it does to the generic 'committees' rather than the specific 'Committees' (among which some of those designated in the By-Laws have constraints upon membership). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 10 02:34:52 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:34:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4C0FC08C.6030308@nifty.com> <4DEB0A367DCD4B4C98FA683F299F9E8B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] "zones *should* be sending official representatives who are responsible to the zones for what they do, and whose work the zones will accept graciously. Sending people out on their own with no responsibility other than to themselves is not the way to do things" > Marv > +=+ I hope my post a little earlier has cleared up what I meant. I respect the above as Marv's opinion. But, of course, it is not the position under the WBF Constitution and By-Laws. The WBF Laws Committee, for example, is required to include members (of the Committee) 'representing* at least three Zones'. That is to say *any* three Zones. Membership of the WBF is conditional upon assent to the provisions of its Constitution and By-Laws. It may be that as I am advised the ACBL has in some way two identities, only one of which stands part of Zone 2 of the WBF. That is a complex matter and outwith the scope of my judgement. A Zone is a limb of the WBF and has in part; through representation on the Executive Council, responsibility for the nature of the WBF Constitution. Membership is for NBOs. The responsibility of the Drafting Committee is to those who establish it. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* the meaning of 'representing' may require clarification - it could mean 'drawn from' or it could mean 'sent to the WBF as representatives'.] From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 10 03:10:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:10:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Recursive (was Re:) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Christian Morgenstern (translated by Max Knight), The Picket Fence: One time there was a picket fence with space to gaze from hence to thence. An architect who saw this sight approached it suddenly one night, removed the spaces from the fence, and built of them a residence. The picket fence stood there dumbfounded with pickets wholly unsurrounded, a view so loathesome and obscene, the Senate had to intervene. The architect, however, flew to Afri- or Americoo. Richard Hills: Not only is Morgenstern's poem about the picket fence, but also the poem echoes the nature of a picket fence, with a space between each rhyming couplet. (Lewis Carroll used the same technique less subtly in "The Mouse's Tale".) Pocket Oxford Dictionary: offence, n. transgression, misdemeanour, illegal act Richard Hills: Law 90B contains a non-exhaustive list of eight indicative examples of what constitutes an "offence", but with Law 90B also containing this caveat: "(but the offences are not limited to these)". So the gafiated blmler David Stevenson once gave this recursive (paraphrased) definition: "An offence is whatever offends the Director", with David Stevenson arguing that since the standard word "infraction" was not used, a 100% non-offending side could still receive a Procedural Penalty. 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 geller at nifty.com Thu Jun 10 03:14:54 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:14:54 +0900 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C0FC08C.6030308@nifty.com> <4DEB0A367DCD4B4C98FA683F299F9E8B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C103C8E.1040900@nifty.com> (2010/06/10 9:34), Grattan wrote: > Membership of the WBF is conditional > upon assent to the provisions of its Constitution and > By-Laws. > > It may be that as I am advised the ACBL > has in some way two identities, only one of which stands > part of Zone 2 of the WBF. This may have been a possible interpretation before the creation of the USBF, but is now clearly incorrect if the WBF bylaws are taken as read. The USBF is (per the WBF bylaws) the sole authority over contract bridge in the USA. If this is not the case then the USBF is in violation of its obligations to the WBF. > That is a complex matter > and outwith the scope of my judgement. This is really a simple matter. The USBF was never intended by anyone to actually function as "the sole authority over contract bridge in the USA" but was just thrown together as part of the effort to get bridge into the Olympics. Assuming this was desirable, the WBF should have rewritten its bylaws at the time of admission of the USBF to indicate that a national organization could pass on all or part of its obligations (including that to run all competitions in accord with the international code), provided that the zonal authority confirmed its acceptance of these obligations. The fact that the WBF failed to do this is what led to the present "lawless" state of affairs in North American bridge. -Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 10 03:59:16 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:59:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C103C8E.1040900@nifty.com> Message-ID: Parkinson's Law http://www.berglas.org/Articles/parkinsons_law.pdf Factor I. An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals and Factor II. Officials make work for each other. Grattan Endicott >>.....That is a complex matter and outwith the scope of my >>judgement..... Robert Geller: >This is really a simple matter..... Richard Hills: No. In accordance with Parkinson's Law, bureaucrats on one committee are reluctant to take orders from bureaucrats on another committee. The minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission record their rejection of a decision by the ACBL Competition and Conventions Committee. Plus I even heard a rumour that briefly the WBF Laws Committee had a minor disagreement with the WBF Drafting Committee, despite their memberships overlapping. Of course, this rumour may not be true, since my "characterization of what others have written is often inaccurate". 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 geller at nifty.com Thu Jun 10 05:24:45 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:24:45 +0900 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C105AFD.80904@nifty.com> (2010/06/10 10:59), richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Geller: > >> This is really a simple matter..... > > Richard Hills: > > No. By selective editing of my comment Richard Hills has removed the context. What I claimed in my previous mail to be a simple matter (and continue to do so) was the status of the USBF and ACBL, as per the WBF bylaws. The USBF is the sole authority over contract bridge in the USA. Any events run by the ACBL must be approved by the USBF, and must be run according to the international code, or the USBF is in default of its obligations to the WBF as a national federation. > -Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 10 06:45:49 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:45:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C105AFD.80904@nifty.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>No. Robert Geller: >By selective editing of my comment Richard Hills has removed >the context. What I claimed in my previous mail to be a >simple matter (and continue to do so) Richard Hills: No, I continue to argue this is not a simple matter. Robert Geller: >was the status of the USBF and ACBL, as per the WBF bylaws. >The USBF is the sole authority over contract bridge in the >USA. Richard Hills: No, I continue to argue this is not a simple matter. Robert Geller: >Any events run by the ACBL must be approved by the USBF, Richard Hills: No, I continue to argue this is not a simple matter. Robert Geller: >and must be run according to the international code, or the >USBF is in default of its obligations to the WBF as a >national federation. > >deleted> Richard Hills: My point was one of practicality, not legality. Robert Geller's argument may or may not be legally correct. But even if Bob's argument is 100% legally correct, it does not matter. The WBF Executive Committee is not collectively foolish, thus would never-ever attempt to impose its collective will upon the ACBL Board of Directors. The first thing that an outraged ACBL Board of Directors is certain to do in response to such a hypothetical trampling on what it believes is its prerogatives would be to disaffiliate from the WBF. What's the problem? What's the real world, not the blml Ivory Tower? 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 geller at nifty.com Thu Jun 10 07:40:12 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:40:12 +0900 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C107ABC.1070706@nifty.com> (2010/06/10 13:45), richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The WBF Executive Committee is not collectively foolish, > thus would never-ever attempt to impose its collective will > upon the ACBL Board of Directors. The first thing that an > outraged ACBL Board of Directors is certain to do in > response to such a hypothetical trampling on what it > believes is its prerogatives would be to disaffiliate from > the WBF. > > What's the problem? > What's the real world, not the blml Ivory Tower? The problem is that when the USBF was (hastily) admitted to the WBF as (notionally) the offical representative federation of the USA (which Richard Hills and I both agree is not actually the case), the allegedly practically minded WBF Executive Committee should have rewritten their bylaws to reflect the actual situation, namely that the USBF exists only to send USA teams to world events, and that the ACBL in all other respects serves as both the zone and de facto national federation, **and thereby assumes all rights and obligations of federations in other zones (other than those specifically reserved to the USBF), including, but not limited to, the obligation to strictly observe the international code.** Had this been confirmed, then the ACBL would have taken more seriously the drafting/approval of the intl code (which might have led to even more heated debate over the drafting of the 2007 Laws), but would then not arbitrarily have rewritten the Laws after their adoption by the WBF. By taking the allegedly practical step of ignoring this issue the WBF Exec Comm managed to create an unnecessary big mess, the Bridge of Babel, so to speak. At least FIFA, for all its faults has created a separate law-making body for the rules of football (soccer), thereby guaranteeing global uniformity (whatever the problems of the interpretation of the offside rule....). Sometimes revising the bylaws to reflect the actual situation is the practical step in the long run. As it is now, the duties and obligations of the ACBL vis-a-vis the WBF are completely fuzzed up, a situation which serves nobody's long term interests. -Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 10 08:29:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:29:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C107ABC.1070706@nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller: [lots of snipping] >As it is now, the duties and obligations of the ACBL vis-a-vis >the WBF are completely fuzzed up, Richard Hills: Agreed. Even the careful legal analysis of Marvin French and Robert Geller does not necessarily apply. It seems to me that the problem is more basic and of longer standing, to wit a fundamental inconsistency between the ACBL Constitution and the WBF Constitution. As the ACBL (in collaboration with other entities) created the WBF in 1958, a sea-lawyer could argue that when the two Constitutions are inconsistent then the ACBL Constitution prevails. Robert Geller: >a situation which serves nobody's long term interests. Richard Hills: Disagree. While fundamental Laws of Duplicate Bridge must be uniform across the world, non-fundamental default Laws may be amended to suit the taste of local entities, whether those entities are the very large Republika Amerika or the very small Federation of Tasmania and Canberra. The problem was that sections of Law 12 (including determining Ave+ at matchpoint pairs) were accidentally tuned into being fundamental Laws, when those sections should have been tuned into being amendable non-fundamental default Laws, a problem that will no doubt be fixed in 2018. Robert Geller: [lots of snipping] >Had this been confirmed, then the ACBL would have taken more >seriously the drafting/approval of the intl code (which might >have led to even more heated debate over the drafting of the >2007 Laws), Richard Hills: As a semi-official observer with a ringside seat I find it hard to believe that the debate could have been _more_ heated. There were zillions of drafts, re-drafts and re-re-drafts of the current Lawbook before comments were invited from NBOs in December 2006. And, in response to the multitudinous NBO comments, there were megaparsecs of drafts, re-drafts and re- re-drafts between December 2006 and October 2007. (And even then the Drafting Committee had to ex post facto rewrite the Insufficient Bid Law 27.) Robert Geller: >but would then not arbitrarily have rewritten the Laws after >their adoption by the WBF. [lots of snipping] Richard Hills: Disagree; I would instead argue the Aussie cliche: "Politics is people." Chip Martel, Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission, was a member of the 1997 Drafting Committee, but not a member of the 2007 Drafting Committee. Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission, rose to prominence as a bureaucrat (Adam was already prominent as a world-class expert) after the members of the Drafting Committee were selected. If Adam had been a member of the Drafting Committee and so therefore involved in the debates of the Drafting Committee throughout, Adam may well have been able to persuade the other Drafting Committee members of the merits of Adam's Law 12C1(e)(ii) hobbyhorse. 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 geller at nifty.com Thu Jun 10 11:11:13 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:11:13 +0900 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C10AC31.3080004@nifty.com> (2010/06/10 15:29), richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > As a semi-official observer with a ringside seat I find it > hard to believe that the debate could have been _more_ heated. Yes, but if at the end of the day the final result was not agreed in advance to be binding on the ACBL then it didn't mean anything as far as getting a uniform global code. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 10 21:50:08 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:50:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 2:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Plus I even heard a rumour that > briefly the WBF Laws Committee had a minor > disagreement with the WBF Drafting Committee, > despite their memberships overlapping. > > Of course, this rumour may not be true, since my > "characterization of what others have written is often > inaccurate". < > +=+ A puzzling rumour for which I recollect no justification. Matters were discussed, subsequently the Drafting Committee made such adjustments as seemed to it appropriate. I would not characterize the process as one of disagreement, more one of exploration. And we contained the oil within pipes that did not fracture. ~ G ~ +=+ From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Jun 13 08:20:41 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:20:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] serious error? Message-ID: board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players 762 K7542 9 KT73 KJ854 QT9 Q JT9 Q652 AJT4 A94 865 A3 A864 K873 QJ2 N E S W P P 1D 1S x 1NT 2H P P 2S P P 3H P P 3S ..P P 4H AP BIT after 3H opening lead: small spade The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when D9 was lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up discards. How do you rule (in zone 1)? Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From blml at arcor.de Sun Jun 13 09:28:10 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:28:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27815003.1276414090708.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Petrus Schuster OSB > board 13 / both vul / N > matchpoints > intermediate players > > 762 > K7542 > 9 > KT73 > > KJ854 QT9 > Q JT9 > Q652 AJT4 > A94 865 > > A3 > A864 > K873 > QJ2 > > > N E S W > > P P 1D 1S > x 1NT 2H P > P 2S P P > 3H P P 3S > ..P P 4H AP > > BIT after 3H > > opening lead: small spade > > The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when D9 was > lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up discards. > > How do you rule (in zone 1)? This is not a serious error. Not even close. When the singleton is led from dummy, you cannot tank for a minute trying to figure out whether to rise with the ace or not. You have to play smooth to not give away the position. Thomas -- WM 2010: Top News, Spielpl?ne, Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, was der Fan sonst noch braucht, gibt?s im Sport-Channel auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010 From henk at ripe.net Sun Jun 13 09:58:26 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:58:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C148FA2.4000800@ripe.net> On 13/06/2010 08:20, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > board 13 / both vul / N > matchpoints > intermediate players > > 762 > K7542 > 9 > KT73 > > KJ854 QT9 > Q JT9 > Q652 AJT4 > A94 865 > > A3 > A864 > K873 > QJ2 > > > N E S W > > P P 1D 1S > x 1NT 2H P > P 2S P P > 3H P P 3S > ..P P 4H AP > > BIT after 3H > > opening lead: small spade > > The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when D9 was > lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up discards. > > How do you rule (in zone 1)? Not even close to a serious error. 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Jun 13 11:39:37 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:39:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: <4C148FA2.4000800@ripe.net> References: <4C148FA2.4000800@ripe.net> Message-ID: <201006130939.o5D9dhEi018265@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:58 PM 13/06/2010, you wrote: >On 13/06/2010 08:20, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > > board 13 / both vul / N > > matchpoints > > intermediate players > > > > 762 > > K7542 > > 9 > > KT73 > > > > KJ854 QT9 > > Q JT9 > > Q652 AJT4 > > A94 865 > > > > A3 > > A864 > > K873 > > QJ2 > > > > > > N E S W > > > > P P 1D 1S > > x 1NT 2H P > > P 2S P P > > 3H P P 3S > > ..P P 4H AP > > > > BIT after 3H > > > > opening lead: small spade > > > > The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when D9 was > > lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up discards. > > > > How do you rule (in zone 1)? > >Not even close to a serious error. > >Henk I presume you mean not even close to a 4H bid after partner's hesitation? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 13 12:10:15 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:10:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C14AE87.9070503@skynet.be> as an -at best- intermediate player myself, I also never know when to cover a singleton with the ace and when not. JT should provide a clue that it can't be right to duck, but I don't consider this a serious error. 3S whatever for both sides (I assume that pass is considered a LA) Herman. Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > board 13 / both vul / N > matchpoints > intermediate players > > 762 > K7542 > 9 > KT73 > > KJ854 QT9 > Q JT9 > Q652 AJT4 > A94 865 > > A3 > A864 > K873 > QJ2 > > > N E S W > > P P 1D 1S > x 1NT 2H P > P 2S P P > 3H P P 3S > ..P P 4H AP > > BIT after 3H > > opening lead: small spade > > The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when D9 was > lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up discards. > > How do you rule (in zone 1)? > > Regards, > Petrus > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2933 - Release Date: 06/12/10 20:35:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 13 14:08:42 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:08:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 01:20 To: Subject: [BLML] serious error? > board 13 / both vul / N > matchpoints > intermediate players > > 762 > K7542 > 9 > KT73 > > KJ854 QT9 > Q JT9 > Q652 AJT4 > A94 865 > > A3 > A864 > K873 > QJ2 > > > N E S W > > P P 1D 1S > x 1NT 2H P > P 2S P P > 3H P P 3S > ..P P 4H AP > > BIT after 3H > > opening lead: small spade > > The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when D9 was > lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up discards. > > How do you rule (in zone 1)? > > Regards, > Petrus What is curious is the serious error perpetrated by 3S considering DA,SA,DK,D ruff, HK, D ruff, with two clubs still to come. By all accounts EW ought to be -800, if not -300- instead of -140 they would have had after a pass. However, N comes to the rescue with 4H which if nothing else is an infraction of L16 and has an expected outcome of -100 or -200 thereby changing EW from a position of super bottom to high plus. As such, the connection to damage having been broken during the auction there is no consideration during the play for breaking connection to damage. regards roger pewick From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 13 14:41:17 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:41:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: correction- S -------------------------------------------------- From: "Roger Pewick" Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 07:08 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] serious error? > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" > Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 01:20 > To: > Subject: [BLML] serious error? > >> board 13 / both vul / N >> matchpoints >> intermediate players >> >> 762 >> K7542 >> 9 >> KT73 >> >> KJ854 QT9 >> Q JT9 >> Q652 AJT4 >> A94 865 >> >> A3 >> A864 >> K873 >> QJ2 >> >> >> N E S W >> >> P P 1D 1S >> x 1NT 2H P >> P 2S P P >> 3H P P 3S >> ..P P 4H AP >> >> BIT after 3H >> >> opening lead: small spade >> >> The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when D9 was >> lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up discards. >> >> How do you rule (in zone 1)? >> >> Regards, >> Petrus > > What is curious is the serious error perpetrated by 3S considering > DA,SA,DK,D ruff, HK, D ruff, with two clubs still to come. By all > accounts > EW ought to be -800, if not -300- instead of -140 they would have had > after > a pass. However, S comes to the rescue with 4H which if nothing else is > an > infraction of L16 and has an expected outcome of -100 or -200 thereby > changing EW from a position of super bottom to high plus. As such, the > connection to damage having been broken during the auction there is no > consideration during the play for breaking connection to damage. > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jun 13 17:09:08 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <549388.65162.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Petrus Schuster] board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players .............762 .............K7542 .............9 .............KT73 KJ854.................QT9 Q.....................JT9 Q652..................AJT4 A94...................865 .............A3 .............A864 .............K873 .............QJ2 N E S W P ?P?? 1D? 1S x???1NT 2H? P P???2S? P???P 3H? P???P???3S ..P P???4H? AP BIT after 3H Opening lead: small spade, The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when D9 was?lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up discards. How do you rule (in zone 1)? [Nigel] The director should rule ... - Pass is a LA for North. - 4H (more successful) is suggested by South's BIT. - East's failure to rise with DA was an error. - But it wasn't sufficiently serious to reduce EW redress. - 3S-1 on a H lead. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Sun Jun 13 17:20:43 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:20:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: <549388.65162.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <549388.65162.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C14F74B.2020800@gmail.com> On 6/13/2010 11:09 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Petrus Schuster] > board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players > .............762 > .............K7542 > .............9 > .............KT73 > KJ854.................QT9 > Q.....................JT9 > Q652..................AJT4 > A94...................865 > .............A3 > .............A864 > .............K873 > .............QJ2 > N E S W > P P 1D 1S > x 1NT 2H P > P 2S P P > 3H P P 3S > ..P P 4H AP > BIT after 3H > Opening lead: small spade, The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when D9 was lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up discards. How do you rule (in zone 1)? > > [Nigel] > The director should rule ... > - Pass is a LA for North. > - 4H (more successful) is suggested by South's BIT. > - East's failure to rise with DA was an error. > - But it wasn't sufficiently serious to reduce EW redress. > - 3S-1 on a H lead. > _______________________________________________ > > Let's modify the auction a bit... [Petrus Schuster] board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players .............762 .............K7542 .............9 .............KT73 KJ854.................QT9 Q.....................JT9 Q652..................AJT4 A94...................865 .............A3 .............A864 .............K873 .............QJ2 N E S W P P 1D 1S x 1NT 2H P P 2S P P 3H P P 3S ..P P X AP BIT after 3H Opening lead: D9. The play goes as Roger Pewick suggested, with a result of NS +800. As TD you now have to rule on the S double. What's your ruling? Hirsch From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jun 13 17:38:06 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: <4C14F74B.2020800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <225657.43836.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Hirsch Davis] Let's modify the auction a bit... [Petrus Schuster] board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players .............762 .............K7542 .............9 .............KT73 KJ854.................QT9 Q.....................JT9 Q652..................AJT4 A94...................865 .............A3 .............A864 .............K873 .............QJ2 N???E???S???W P???P???1D? 1S x???1NT 2H? P P???2S? P???P 3H? P???P???3S ..P P???X? AP BIT after 3H Opening lead: D9. The play goes as Roger Pewick suggested, with a result of NS +800. As TD you now have to rule on the S double. What's your ruling? [Nige1] IMO, X and 4H are *both* suggested by the North's hesitation. Pass (not suggested) is a less successful alternative. East's error was not egregious. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Jun 13 19:34:06 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:34:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: <4C14F74B.2020800@gmail.com> References: <549388.65162.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C14F74B.2020800@gmail.com> Message-ID: Am 13.06.2010, 17:20 Uhr, schrieb Hirsch Davis : > On 6/13/2010 11:09 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> [Petrus Schuster] >> board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players >> .............762 >> .............K7542 >> .............9 >> .............KT73 >> KJ854.................QT9 >> Q.....................JT9 >> Q652..................AJT4 >> A94...................865 >> .............A3 >> .............A864 >> .............K873 >> .............QJ2 >> N E S W >> P P 1D 1S >> x 1NT 2H P >> P 2S P P >> 3H P P 3S >> ..P P 4H AP >> BIT after 3H >> Opening lead: small spade, The contract made when East failed to put up >> his diamond ace when D9 was lead from dummy. He explained that he was >> afraid of setting up discards. How do you rule (in zone 1)? >> >> [Nigel] >> The director should rule ... >> - Pass is a LA for North. >> - 4H (more successful) is suggested by South's BIT. >> - East's failure to rise with DA was an error. >> - But it wasn't sufficiently serious to reduce EW redress. >> - 3S-1 on a H lead. >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > > Let's modify the auction a bit... > > [Petrus Schuster] > board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players > .............762 > .............K7542 > .............9 > .............KT73 > KJ854.................QT9 > Q.....................JT9 > Q652..................AJT4 > A94...................865 > .............A3 > .............A864 > .............K873 > .............QJ2 > N E S W > P P 1D 1S > x 1NT 2H P > P 2S P P > 3H P P 3S > ..P P X AP > > BIT after 3H > > Opening lead: D9. The play goes as Roger Pewick suggested, with a result > of NS +800. As TD you now have to rule on the S double. What's your > ruling? > For a good player, double seems clear-cut at matchpoints both vul. as 3H had been bid to make. But NS were not up to such considerations. Therefore, I adjusted to 3S-2 undoubled (the diamond lead is obvious after the 1D opening). But then again, as the damage was not caused by the infraction ... Regards, Petrus From posundelin at yahoo.se Sun Jun 13 22:10:40 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:10:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <365290.60541.qm@web23708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Have I missed something? When did declarer play the diamond from dummy? ?How much did East know at this crucial moment? Nobody seems to take any interest in how the play had gone. Let us say that West has won the club ace and that two rounds of trumps have clarified to East that he has a trump trick....Then clearly East?s error was egregious. ? Even if declarer has entered dummy at trick two, and played a diamond at trick three?it should be obvious to East that his partner must have the club ace both for his bidding and to have a chance to beat the contract.?OK,?perhaps "intermediate" players might let it through - beginners wouldn?t ever, nor would good ones. ? Did the TD find out if South?s peers would ever pass at matchpoints?? Is pass really a LA? ? Am I asking too much? ? ? ? ? --- Den s?n 2010-06-13 skrev Petrus Schuster OSB : Fr?n: Petrus Schuster OSB ?mne: Re: [BLML] serious error? Till: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Datum: s?ndag 13 juni 2010 19:34 Am 13.06.2010, 17:20 Uhr, schrieb Hirsch Davis : > On 6/13/2010 11:09 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> [Petrus Schuster] >> board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players >> .............762 >> .............K7542 >> .............9 >> .............KT73 >> KJ854.................QT9 >> Q.....................JT9 >> Q652..................AJT4 >> A94...................865 >> .............A3 >> .............A864 >> .............K873 >> .............QJ2 >> N???E???S???W >> P???P???1D? 1S >> x???1NT 2H? P >> P???2S? P???P >> 3H? P???P???3S >> ..P P???4H? AP >> BIT after 3H >> Opening lead: small spade, The contract made when East failed to put up? >> his diamond ace when D9 was lead from dummy. He explained that he was? >> afraid of setting up discards. How do you rule (in zone 1)? >> >> [Nigel] >> The director should rule ... >> - Pass is a LA for North. >> - 4H (more successful) is suggested by South's BIT. >> - East's failure to rise with DA was an error. >> - But it wasn't sufficiently serious to reduce EW redress. >> - 3S-1 on a H lead. >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > > Let's modify the auction a bit... > > [Petrus Schuster] > board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players > .............762 > .............K7542 > .............9 > .............KT73 > KJ854.................QT9 > Q.....................JT9 > Q652..................AJT4 > A94...................865 > .............A3 > .............A864 > .............K873 > .............QJ2 > N???E???S???W > P???P???1D? 1S > x???1NT 2H? P > P???2S? P???P > 3H? P???P???3S > ..P P???X? AP > > BIT after 3H > > Opening lead: D9. The play goes as Roger Pewick suggested, with a result? > of NS +800. As TD you now have to rule on the S double. What's your? > ruling? > For a good player, double seems clear-cut at matchpoints both vul. as 3H? had been bid to make. But NS were not up to such considerations. Therefore, I adjusted to 3S-2 undoubled (the diamond lead is obvious after? the 1D opening). But then again, as the damage was not caused by the infraction ... Regards, Petrus _______________________________________________ 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/20100613/c3cd4c17/attachment-0001.html From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Mon Jun 14 01:05:54 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:05:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: <365290.60541.qm@web23708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <365290.60541.qm@web23708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C156452.6020606@gmail.com> On 6/13/2010 4:10 PM, PO Sundelin wrote: > Have I missed something? > *When* did declarer play the diamond from dummy? How much did East > know at this crucial moment? > Nobody seems to take any interest in how the play had gone. > Let us say that West has won the club ace and that two rounds of > trumps have clarified to East that he has a trump trick....Then > clearly East?s error was egregious. > Even if declarer has entered dummy at trick two, and played a diamond > at trick three it should be obvious to East that his partner must have > the club ace both for his bidding and to have a chance to beat the > contract. OK, perhaps "intermediate" players might let it through - > beginners wouldn?t ever, nor would good ones. > Did the TD find out if South?s peers would ever pass at matchpoints? > Is pass really a LA? > Am I asking too much? > You haven't missed anything that I can see. There was a hesitation at the table. S snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by calling 4H instead of the automatic double. E handed most of it back by not taking the DA when he could. I'm still unclear as to how the hesitation might have suggested a 4H call. If anything, it suggests a reopening double, which I'd still let stand as I see no other LA at matchpoints. If I'm not adjusting the double, I'm certainly not adjusting 4H unless someone call tell me how the hesitation suggests that call over double. Where's the infraction? N-S got to an inferior contract and E forgot to set it. None of that seems to call for an adjustment. Hirsch > --- Den *s?n 2010-06-13 skrev Petrus Schuster OSB > //*: > > > Fr?n: Petrus Schuster OSB > ?mne: Re: [BLML] serious error? > Till: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Datum: s?ndag 13 juni 2010 19:34 > > Am 13.06.2010, 17:20 Uhr, schrieb Hirsch Davis > >: > > > On 6/13/2010 11:09 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Petrus Schuster] > >> board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players > >> .............762 > >> .............K7542 > >> .............9 > >> .............KT73 > >> KJ854.................QT9 > >> Q.....................JT9 > >> Q652..................AJT4 > >> A94...................865 > >> .............A3 > >> .............A864 > >> .............K873 > >> .............QJ2 > >> N E S W > >> P P 1D 1S > >> x 1NT 2H P > >> P 2S P P > >> 3H P P 3S > >> ..P P 4H AP > >> BIT after 3H > >> Opening lead: small spade, The contract made when East failed > to put up > >> his diamond ace when D9 was lead from dummy. He explained that > he was > >> afraid of setting up discards. How do you rule (in zone 1)? > >> > >> [Nigel] > >> The director should rule ... > >> - Pass is a LA for North. > >> - 4H (more successful) is suggested by South's BIT. > >> - East's failure to rise with DA was an error. > >> - But it wasn't sufficiently serious to reduce EW redress. > >> - 3S-1 on a H lead. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> > > > > Let's modify the auction a bit... > > > > [Petrus Schuster] > > board 13 / both vul / N matchpoints intermediate players > > .............762 > > .............K7542 > > .............9 > > .............KT73 > > KJ854.................QT9 > > Q.....................JT9 > > Q652..................AJT4 > > A94...................865 > > .............A3 > > .............A864 > > .............K873 > > .............QJ2 > > N E S W > > P P 1D 1S > > x 1NT 2H P > > P 2S P P > > 3H P P 3S > > ..P P X AP > > > > BIT after 3H > > > > Opening lead: D9. The play goes as Roger Pewick suggested, with > a result > > of NS +800. As TD you now have to rule on the S double. What's your > > ruling? > > > > For a good player, double seems clear-cut at matchpoints both vul. > as 3H > had been bid to make. > But NS were not up to such considerations. > Therefore, I adjusted to 3S-2 undoubled (the diamond lead is > obvious after > the 1D opening). > But then again, as the damage was not caused by the infraction ... > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Jun 14 09:06:47 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:06:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: <365290.60541.qm@web23708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <365290.60541.qm@web23708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Am 13.06.2010, 22:10 Uhr, schrieb PO Sundelin : > Have I missed something? > When did declarer play the diamond from dummy? How much did East know > at this crucial moment? > Nobody seems to take any interest in how the play had gone. > Let us say that West has won the club ace and that two rounds of trumps > have clarified to East that he has a trump trick....Then clearly East?s > error was egregious. > Even if declarer has entered dummy at trick two, and played a diamond > at trick three it should be obvious to East that his partner must have > the club ace both for his bidding and to have a chance to beat the > contract. OK, perhaps "intermediate" players might let it through - > beginners wouldn?t ever, nor would good ones. > Did the TD find out if South?s peers would ever pass at matchpoints? > Is pass really a LA? > Am I asking too much? > of course not. The play went as you surmised. As you said, the crucial question is whether PASS is a LA for the class of South. NS were two elderly gentlemen unknown to me which shows they do not regularly attend the major tournaments. On the other hand, they were playing in this event (a regional pairs championship with nationwide scoring, away from their hometown) so they would not be absolute beginners. From their behavior at the table, I take them to be regulars at their club with little experience beyond that. I have learned that it is impossible to poll the peers of such players. They will invariably tell you what they did on this hand, or give their opinion with perfect hindsight from their knowledge of the complete layout. The closest I can get to a polling of peers is asking bridge teachers - but there was none present at the event. Now to me, PASS over 3S is always a LA for a player who was willing to sell out at 3H and who is not good enough to reason that, at matchpoints, he would have to double 3S for +200 as +100 will be a poor score anyway. As to whether the BIT suggests 4H rather than DBL, I have found that players of this calibre rarely double without a trump stack - but I may of course be wrong here. So: What do you do? FTR, the (nationwide) frequencies were: 1100 1 192 620 1 190 500 2 187 400 1 184 300 8 175 200 15 152 170 5 132 140 15 112 100 21 76 -80 1 54 -100 11 42 -110 11 20 -140 4 5 -300 1 0 Regards, Petrus From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 14 15:30:41 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:30:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 13, 2010, at 2:20 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > board 13 / both vul / N > matchpoints > intermediate players > > 762 > K7542 > 9 > KT73 > > KJ854 QT9 > Q JT9 > Q652 AJT4 > A94 865 > > A3 > A864 > K873 > QJ2 > > > N E S W > > P P 1D 1S > x 1NT 2H P > P 2S P P > 3H P P 3S > ..P P 4H AP > > BIT after 3H > > opening lead: small spade > > The contract made when East failed to put up his diamond ace when > D9 was > lead from dummy. He explained that he was afraid of setting up > discards. > > How do you rule (in zone 1)? I'll let others discuss whether North's huddle "demonstrably suggested" South's 4H bid. But if the question is whether East's defense merits denial of redress for "serious error", the answer is absolutely not. In Edgar Kaplan's words, this requires an action that is patently "ridiculous" or "absurd". Even if ducking the DA is a 100% nullo play, the fact that it takes some analysis to establish so precludes finding that "the connection" (between the infraction and the subsequent damage) was "broken" by the error. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 14 15:59:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:59:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: <365290.60541.qm@web23708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <365290.60541.qm@web23708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 13, 2010, at 4:10 PM, PO Sundelin wrote: > Have I missed something? I'd say you've overlooked the legislative history and reams of discussion that led to the formulation of L12C1(b). > When did declarer play the diamond from dummy? How much did East > know at this crucial moment? > Nobody seems to take any interest in how the play had gone. > Let us say that West has won the club ace and that two rounds of > trumps have clarified to East that he has a trump trick....Then > clearly East?s error was egregious. > > Even if declarer has entered dummy at trick two, and played a > diamond at trick three it should be obvious to East that his > partner must have the club ace both for his bidding and to have a > chance to beat the contract. OK, perhaps "intermediate" players > might let it through - beginners wouldn?t ever, nor would good ones. Just because it *should* be "obvious" to East that West must have the CA -- even if, and I don't believe it, it "should be obvious" in the space of time it takes to follow to the D9 without breaking tempo -- there's just no way the failure to take such an inference can rise to the level of denial of redress. Perhaps a player of P.O.'s calibre needs no more than a second or two to (mentally review the auction and) work out that South can't possibly hold something like, say, Axx/Axxx/KQxx/xx, but calling East's failure to do so -- in real time -- an egregious error is, IMHO, an egregious error. > >> .............762 > >> .............K7542 > >> .............9 > >> .............KT73 > >> KJ854.................QT9 > >> Q.....................JT9 > >> Q652..................AJT4 > >> A94...................865 > >> .............A3 > >> .............A864 > >> .............K873 > >> .............QJ2 Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jun 15 02:02:00 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] serious error? Message-ID: <889348.71583.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Petrus Schuster OSB] FTR, the (nationwide) frequencies were: 1100? 1 192 ? 620? 1 190 ? 500? 2 187 ? 400? 1 184 ? 300? 8 175 ? 200 15 152 ? 170? 5 132 ? 140 15 112 ? 100 21? 76 ? -80? 1? 54 -100 11? 42 -110 11? 20 -140? 4???5 -300? 1???0 [Nigel] Petrus says it's almost impossible to poll peers of the biter's partner. In such circumstances, why shouldn't the director use events at other tables, as a clue to what are logical alternatives and what is suggested: -- Actual auctions, if possible -- failing that, travellers. Some directors may object to the idea of crude facts detracting from their judgement; but many players would welcome the introduction of objective data; even if such revelations further reduce PO Sundelin's opinion of ordinary players. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 15 04:15:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:15:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Dragnet (1987 film): Sergeant Joe Friday: Ah, sure, but just like every other foaming, rabid psycho in this city with a foolproof plan, you've forgotten you're facing the single finest fighting force ever assembled. Reverend Jonathan Whirley: The Israelis? Nigel Guthrie: >...failing that, travellers. Some directors may object to the >idea of crude facts detracting from their judgement; but many >players would welcome the introduction of objective data... Richard Hills: No, to crudely use travellers is to introduce misleading data. Say a Director peruses the travellers and notices that North- South have uniformly made seven tricks in 3NT for -100. A Guthraeli Director applies Law 12 automatically, thus awarding the non-offending North-South at his table a score of 3NT -100 to replace the illegal East-West score of 2S +110. A Stevensonian Director applies Law 12 carefully, first assessing all the facts. And only then does he award the non- offending North-South at his table a score of 3NT +430. Why the difference? The Stevensonian Director notices that the unusual methods of the particular North-South at his table mean that the normal declarer and dummy would be interchanged in 3NT, so thus preventing Kx of spades from being led through at trick one and ten easy tricks therefore being cold. What's the problem? The Guthraelis? Best wishes Sergeant Joe Hills, "Ma'am, what is the approximate dry weight of the average Madagascan fruit tree bat?" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 15 06:53:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:53:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] serious error? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <365290.60541.qm@web23708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: S.J. Simon, "Why You Lose at Bridge", page 39: "For instance, if dummy, armed with plentiful trumps, plays a singleton through your Ace - do you always play your Ace? If you do, you will be wrong most of the time." PO Sundelin: >Have I missed something? [snip] >Even if declarer has entered dummy at trick two, and played a >diamond at trick three it should be obvious to East that his >partner must have the club ace both for his bidding and to >have a chance to beat the contract. [snip] Richard Hills: What I think PO has missed is that his idea of a sensible vulnerable overcall is not everyone's idea of a sensible vulnerable overcall, so East may have been well aware that West's overcall did not guarantee West held the ace of clubs. What I think PO has missed is that at matchpoint pairs it is not always necessary to beat the contract. If East rising with the ace of diamonds gives declarer two discards with the king and queen of diamonds and thus a score of +650 N/S, then this may be a bottom for East. If East ducks the ace of diamonds and thus a score of +620 N/S, then this may be an average for East. On the other hand, it is difficult to construct a hand where ducking the ace of diamonds is necessarily better than winning the ace of diamonds immediately. The best I could do was this example: .............762 .............K7542 .............9 .............KT73 KJ8543................QT9 Q.....................JT9 653...................AJT4 QJ9...................865 .............A .............A864 .............KQ872 .............A42 in which a mediocre (intermediate) declarer easily scores +650 if East hops with the ace of diamonds. If East ducks the ace of diamonds declarer should break even by again scoring +650, but for this alternative defence a mediocre (intermediate) declarer has more chance of mangling the play and losing trump control. 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 Tue Jun 15 08:44:04 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:44:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] {BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: "The Egregious has landed." Matchpoint pairs 5 Dlr: West AKQT7 Vul: Both AQ3 KQT3 96 AK732 432 J9 87 T652 987654 A2 QJT84 865 KJ94 J WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1H 1S Pass Pass X Pass Pass (1) 2C 2H Pass Pass Pass (1) Circa 1 minute 51 seconds tank by West. North, paying insufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) asked no- one in particular if the auction had finished. East replied, loudly and emphatically, "Absolutely not!" East led the ace of clubs but failed to switch to a top spade at trick two, so North-South scored +230. How would you rule? Which (if any) of North, South, East and West would you, as a professional, be willing to have as a paying client? 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 posundelin at yahoo.se Tue Jun 15 11:07:12 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:07:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] serious error? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <85370.72005.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Den tis 2010-06-15 skrev richard.hills at immi.gov.au : PO Sundelin: >Have I missed something? [snip] >Even if declarer has entered dummy at trick two, and played a >diamond at trick three it should be obvious to East that his >partner must have the club ace both for his bidding and to >have a chance to beat the contract. [snip] Richard Hills: What I think PO has missed is that his idea of a sensible vulnerable overcall ... What I think PO has missed is that at matchpoint pairs it is not always necessary to beat the contract.? If East rising with the ace of diamonds gives declarer two discards with the king and queen of diamonds and thus a score of +650 N/S, then this may be a bottom for East.? If East ducks the ace of diamonds and thus a score of +620 N/S, then this may be an average for East. On the other hand, it is difficult to construct a hand where ducking the ace of diamonds is necessarily better than winning the ace of diamonds immediately.? The best I could do was this example: .............762 .............K7542 .............9 .............KT73 KJ8543................QT9 Q.....................JT9 653...................AJT4 QJ9...................865 .............A .............A864 .............KQ872 .............A42 in which a mediocre (intermediate) declarer easily scores +650 if East hops with the ace of diamonds.? If East ducks the ace of diamonds declarer should break even by again scoring +650, but for this alternative defence a mediocre (intermediate) declarer has more chance of mangling the play and losing trump control. ? ? ? What I think Richard Hills - otherwise so observant - has missed is that there was more bidding after the spade overcall; West not only overcalled but bid again, that West?s lead (even for intermediate pairs) should have shown his length in spades, thus making it clear to East that defenders have a spade trick in which case there is no eleventh trick unless possibly after a diamond duck, but might well be a tenth if he ducks. ? But the silliest part: In his efforts to construct a possible South hand Richard not only failed miserably to prove his point that the DA might cost a trick - in his example there are eleven tricks whether East ducks or not - but no South with the suggested hand would have bid only 2 hearts AND passed 2 spades. ? The points I was trying to make (at least Petrus understood and commented on them) were how does a TD establish what is an LA for the actual class of players, which alternative bids may be forced upon him if the one he chose is denied, and in order to judge?potential "egregiousness" one needs to know all circumstances, player level, system, all play details. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100615/ad1756f2/attachment-0001.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 15 13:21:44 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:21:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] serious error? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <85370.72005.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <85370.72005.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: PO Sundelin Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 04:07 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] serious error? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] --- Den tis 2010-06-15 skrev richard.hills at immi.gov.au : PO Sundelin: >Have I missed something? [snip] >Even if declarer has entered dummy at trick two, and played a >diamond at trick three it should be obvious to East that his >partner must have the club ace both for his bidding and to >have a chance to beat the contract. [snip] Richard Hills: What I think PO has missed is that his idea of a sensible vulnerable overcall ... What I think PO has missed is that at matchpoint pairs it is not always necessary to beat the contract. If East rising with the ace of diamonds gives declarer two discards with the king and queen of diamonds and thus a score of +650 N/S, then this may be a bottom for East. If East ducks the ace of diamonds and thus a score of +620 N/S, then this may be an average for East. On the other hand, it is difficult to construct a hand where ducking the ace of diamonds is necessarily better than winning the ace of diamonds immediately. The best I could do was this example: .............762 .............K7542 .............9 .............KT73 KJ8543................QT9 Q.....................JT9 653...................AJT4 QJ9...................865 .............A .............A864 .............KQ872 .............A42 in which a mediocre (intermediate) declarer easily scores +650 if East hops with the ace of diamonds. If East ducks the ace of diamonds declarer should break even by again scoring +650, but for this alternative defence a mediocre (intermediate) declarer has more chance of mangling the play and losing trump control. What I think Richard Hills - otherwise so observant - has missed is that there was more bidding after the spade overcall; West not only overcalled but bid again, that West?s lead (even for intermediate pairs) should have shown his length in spades, thus making it clear to East that defenders have a spade trick in which case there is no eleventh trick unless possibly after a diamond duck, but might well be a tenth if he ducks. But the silliest part: In his efforts to construct a possible South hand Richard not only failed miserably to prove his point that the DA might cost a trick - in his example there are eleven tricks whether East ducks or not - but no South with the suggested hand would have bid only 2 hearts AND passed 2 spades. The points I was trying to make (at least Petrus understood and commented on them) were how does a TD establish what is an LA for the actual class of players, which alternative bids may be forced upon him if the one he chose is denied, and in order to judge potential "egregiousness" one needs to know all circumstances, player level, system, all play details. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20100615/a8d192fb/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 15 13:39:40 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:39:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] {BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C17667C.2010408@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > "The Egregious has landed." > > Matchpoint pairs 5 > Dlr: West AKQT7 > Vul: Both AQ3 > KQT3 > 96 AK732 > 432 J9 > 87 T652 > 987654 A2 > QJT84 > 865 > KJ94 > J > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1H 1S Pass > Pass X Pass Pass > > (1) > > 2C 2H Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Circa 1 minute 51 seconds tank by West. North, paying > insufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) asked no- > one in particular if the auction had finished. East > replied, loudly and emphatically, "Absolutely not!" > So you mean that perhaps East has let partner know that he wanted him to take out. How could East be thinking that way ? Assuming such things were allowed, would you suggest this to partner, whose tempo is more compatible with 1435 than with this pattern ? Would he want partner to go for 1100 rather than 800, just for fun ? So let's discard the idea of illicit communication. Now, was West influenced by the remark ? (UI) North's bid is horrid - so bad that I would count it as self-inflicted damage. Notice that, even after West's (possibly influenced) bailout, NS should have no problem in scoring 800 (forget about the precise defense for 1100), which is as much as they'd score in 1SX. Whence the cause for NS's bottom isn't the -possible- irregularity. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Tue Jun 15 14:01:34 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:01:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] {BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28428871.1276603294462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > "The Egregious has landed." > > Matchpoint pairs 5 > Dlr: West AKQT7 > Vul: Both AQ3 > KQT3 > 96 AK732 > 432 J9 > 87 T652 > 987654 A2 > QJT84 > 865 > KJ94 > J > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1H 1S Pass > Pass X Pass Pass > > (1) > > 2C 2H Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Circa 1 minute 51 seconds tank by West. North, paying > insufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) asked no- > one in particular if the auction had finished. East > replied, loudly and emphatically, "Absolutely not!" > > East led the ace of clubs but failed to switch to a top > spade at trick two, so North-South scored +230. > > How would you rule? > > Which (if any) of North, South, East and West would you, as > a professional, be willing to have as a paying client? I don't see the problem. West tanked, but given the penalty pass of 1SX I don't think bidding 3C or 2S is an LA for E. I see no reason to change the table score. Thomas -- WM 2010: Top News, Spielpl?ne, Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, was der Fan sonst noch braucht, gibt?s im Sport-Channel auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010 From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 15 14:17:47 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:17:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] serious error? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <85370.72005.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <85370.72005.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I would suggest that PO had hit upon the nub [of the difficulty] except that he has not. But within the outer fringes of the rings, that he is. The difficulty actually is for the player- how is he to know the right thing to do since as PO puts it: " how does a TD establish what is an LA "? Which begs the relevant questions- As it is so difficult for the TD, why should the player be expected to predict what the TD rules? And it being difficult for the TD and for all intents and purposes impossible for the player, isn't it the wrong standard? regards roger pewick From: PO Sundelin Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 04:07 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] serious error? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] --- Den tis 2010-06-15 skrev richard.hills at immi.gov.au : PO Sundelin: >Have I missed something? [snip] >Even if declarer has entered dummy at trick two, and played a >diamond at trick three it should be obvious to East that his >partner must have the club ace both for his bidding and to >have a chance to beat the contract. [snip] Richard Hills: What I think PO has missed is that his idea of a sensible vulnerable overcall ... What I think PO has missed is that at matchpoint pairs it is not always necessary to beat the contract. If East rising with the ace of diamonds gives declarer two discards with the king and queen of diamonds and thus a score of +650 N/S, then this may be a bottom for East. If East ducks the ace of diamonds and thus a score of +620 N/S, then this may be an average for East. On the other hand, it is difficult to construct a hand where ducking the ace of diamonds is necessarily better than winning the ace of diamonds immediately. The best I could do was this example: .............762 .............K7542 .............9 .............KT73 KJ8543................QT9 Q.....................JT9 653...................AJT4 QJ9...................865 .............A .............A864 .............KQ872 .............A42 in which a mediocre (intermediate) declarer easily scores +650 if East hops with the ace of diamonds. If East ducks the ace of diamonds declarer should break even by again scoring +650, but for this alternative defence a mediocre (intermediate) declarer has more chance of mangling the play and losing trump control. What I think Richard Hills - otherwise so observant - has missed is that there was more bidding after the spade overcall; West not only overcalled but bid again, that West?s lead (even for intermediate pairs) should have shown his length in spades, thus making it clear to East that defenders have a spade trick in which case there is no eleventh trick unless possibly after a diamond duck, but might well be a tenth if he ducks. But the silliest part: In his efforts to construct a possible South hand Richard not only failed miserably to prove his point that the DA might cost a trick - in his example there are eleven tricks whether East ducks or not - but no South with the suggested hand would have bid only 2 hearts AND passed 2 spades. The points I was trying to make (at least Petrus understood and commented on them) were how does a TD establish what is an LA for the actual class of players, which alternative bids may be forced upon him if the one he chose is denied, and in order to judge potential "egregiousness" one needs to know all circumstances, player level, system, all play details. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 15 21:41:55 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:41:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:15 AM Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sergeant Joe Hills, "Ma'am, what is the approximate > dry weight of the average Madagascan fruit tree bat?" > +=+ I am struggling with the thought that the average Madagascan fruit tree bat has a specific weight, not an approximate weight. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 16 00:17:50 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:17:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <239736.21182.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Sergeant Joe Hills, "Ma'am, what is the approximate dry weight of the average Madagascan fruit tree bat?" Grattan Endicott] +=+ I am struggling with the thought that the average Madagascan fruit tree bat has a specific weight, not an approximate weight. [Nigel] Perhaps, but, as in other fields, we have to be satisfied with an approximation, at best. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 16 00:53:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:53:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <28428871.1276603294462.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: "The Egregious has landed." Matchpoint pairs 5 Dlr: West AKQT7 Vul: Both AQ3 KQT3 96 AK732 432 J9 87 T652 987654 A2 QJT84 865 KJ94 J WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1H 1S Pass Pass X Pass Pass (1) 2C 2H Pass Pass Pass (1) Circa 1 minute 51 seconds tank by West. North, paying insufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) asked no- one in particular if the auction had finished. East replied, loudly and emphatically, "Absolutely not!" East led the ace of clubs but failed to switch to a top spade at trick two, so North-South scored +230. How would you rule? Which (if any) of North, South, East and West would you, as a professional, be willing to have as a paying client? Thomas Dehn: >I don't see the problem. West tanked, but given the >penalty pass of 1Sx I don't think bidding 3C or 2S is an >LA for E. > >I see no reason to change the table score. Richard Hills: Thomas may not see the problem, but a Director of Kojak's calibre may see beyond the obvious break in tempo by West to the more subtle Law 73C "undue emphasis" by East. Alain Gottcheiner: >So you mean that perhaps East has let partner know that >he wanted him to take out. > >How could East be thinking that way? Richard Hills: In my opinion, "Absolutely not!" demonstrably suggests to West that East is not happy at the prospect of declaring 1Sx, perhaps due to East holding only five spades with no pips. Sure enough, East holds only five spades with no pips. Alain Gottcheiner: >Now, was West influenced by the remark? (UI) Richard Hills: If I was West, I would deem running from 1Sx to 2C to be the only logical alternative. But the circa 1 minute 51 seconds pause by the actual West is overwhelming evidence that for the class of player of the actual West a Pass of 1Sx is also a logical alternative. Alain Gottcheiner: >North's bid is horrid - so bad that I would count it as >self-inflicted damage. Richard Hills: Correct, North's 2H rebid was egregious. But, however, North's 2H rebid was not unLawful, so I would accept North as a paying client, but not East nor West. Alain Gottcheiner: >Notice that, even after West's (possibly influenced) >bailout, NS should have no problem in scoring 800 >(forget about the precise defense for 1100), which is >as much as they'd score in 1Sx. > >Whence the cause for NS's bottom isn't the -possible- >irregularity. Richard Hills: Incomplete. North-South may deserve a poor score due to the egregious 2H rebid by North, but that does not imply that East-West deserve the corresponding good score. Alain may not see the problem, but a Director of Ton's calibre may split the score pursuant to Law 12C1(b): "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self- inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land (1922): O the moon shone bright on Mrs Porter And on her daughter They wash their feet in soda water. 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 Wed Jun 16 01:44:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:44:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe: Their songs are on the whole very simple and mostly follow the familiar theme of boy-being meets girl-being beneath a silvery moon, which then explodes for no adequately explored reason. Roger Pewick: >I would suggest that PO had hit upon the nub [of the >difficulty] except that he has not. But within the outer >fringes of the rings, that he is. The difficulty actually >is for the player- how is he to know the right thing to do >since as PO puts it: " how does a TD establish what is an >LA "? > >Which begs the relevant questions- As it is so difficult >for the TD, why should the player be expected to predict >what the TD rules? And it being difficult for the TD and >for all intents and purposes impossible for the player, >isn't it the wrong standard? Richard Hills: I disagree. In my extensive experience as an Australian semi-expert, it has always for all intents and purposes been possible for me to very easily select a Lawful logical alternative. My regular partner, Hashmat Ali, is a thoughtful player, causing him "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made" (Law 73D1). Even so, I have not personally received an adverse* Law 16B ruling this millennium. What is my technique? An old chess habit; use the thinking time of my opponent to think myself. So when my third opponent, Hashmat Ali, starts thinking about a call (or defensive play) I also start thinking about alternatives to my pre-planned call (or my pre-planned defensive play). Therefore I often have selected a call (or defensive play) which I would never have chosen in the absence of UI from partner, as required by Law 73C. Best wishes Richard Hills, space oddity * Possibly because Canberra semi-expert players are less litigious than players in The Rest Of The World. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 16 02:47:38 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:47:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe: > > Their songs are on the whole very simple and mostly follow > the familiar theme of boy-being meets girl-being beneath a > silvery moon, which then explodes for no adequately > explored reason. > > Roger Pewick: > >>I would suggest that PO had hit upon the nub [of the >>difficulty] except that he has not. But within the outer >>fringes of the rings, that he is. The difficulty actually >>is for the player- how is he to know the right thing to do >>since as PO puts it: " how does a TD establish what is an >>LA "? >> >>Which begs the relevant questions- As it is so difficult >>for the TD, why should the player be expected to predict >>what the TD rules? And it being difficult for the TD and >>for all intents and purposes impossible for the player, >>isn't it the wrong standard? > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree. > > In my extensive experience as an Australian semi-expert, > it has always for all intents and purposes been possible > for me to very easily select a Lawful logical alternative. > > My regular partner, Hashmat Ali, is a thoughtful player, > causing him "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in > which a call or play is made" (Law 73D1). > > Even so, I have not personally received an adverse* Law 16B > ruling this millennium. > > What is my technique? > > An old chess habit; use the thinking time of my opponent to > think myself. So when my third opponent, Hashmat Ali, > starts thinking about a call (or defensive play) I also > start thinking about alternatives to my pre-planned call > (or my pre-planned defensive play). Therefore I often have > selected a call (or defensive play) which I would never > have chosen in the absence of UI from partner, as required > by Law 73C. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, space oddity > > * Possibly because Canberra semi-expert players are less > litigious than players in The Rest Of The World. > +=+ The Rest of the World is sleep, is it not? +=+ From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jun 16 06:09:13 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:09:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201006160409.o5G49WCh002976@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 09:44 AM 16/06/2010, you wrote: >Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe: > >Their songs are on the whole very simple and mostly follow >the familiar theme of boy-being meets girl-being beneath a >silvery moon, which then explodes for no adequately >explored reason. > >Roger Pewick: > > >I would suggest that PO had hit upon the nub [of the > >difficulty] except that he has not. But within the outer > >fringes of the rings, that he is. The difficulty actually > >is for the player- how is he to know the right thing to do > >since as PO puts it: " how does a TD establish what is an > >LA "? > > > >Which begs the relevant questions- As it is so difficult > >for the TD, why should the player be expected to predict > >what the TD rules? And it being difficult for the TD and > >for all intents and purposes impossible for the player, > >isn't it the wrong standard? > >Richard Hills: > >I disagree. > >In my extensive experience as an Australian semi-expert, >it has always for all intents and purposes been possible >for me to very easily select a Lawful logical alternative. > >My regular partner, Hashmat Ali, is a thoughtful player, >causing him "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in >which a call or play is made" (Law 73D1). > >Even so, I have not personally received an adverse* Law 16B >ruling this millennium. > >What is my technique? > >An old chess habit; use the thinking time of my opponent to >think myself. So when my third opponent, Hashmat Ali, >starts thinking about a call (or defensive play) I also >start thinking about alternatives to my pre-planned call >(or my pre-planned defensive play). Therefore I often have >selected a call (or defensive play) which I would never >have chosen in the absence of UI from partner, as required >by Law 73C. One wonders parenthetically whether Hashmat Ali has ever been led to think "Curses, I have spend more time than I needed to over my last bid or play, now I know that my CHO may well depart from the script. Perhaps I should alert my other two opponents?" Cheers Tony (Sydney) From thegruffle at mac.com Wed Jun 16 08:49:34 2010 From: thegruffle at mac.com (Griff Ware) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:49:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What counts as a "statement as to the order in which cards will be played" Message-ID: <6FD9D388-E3D2-4CFB-B08C-8040D703C519@mac.com> Hi all, I'm new to the blml, so sorry if this topic has been covered before. Last night the following situation arose, with Hearts as trumps, the D7 the only Diamond left unplayed and declarer on lead: Declarer Ax 7 7 - West East Kxx Q (Irrelevant) - - Dummy Qxx - - x During the previous play, declarer had led a spade from dummy to the SJ in hand which had held the trick. In the above position, he erroneously believed that the H7 was the only outstanding trump, and claimed saying "I have the two red sevens, and the ace of spades, and unless the king drops, which I doubt, I will lose one spade trick." Does the spoken order in which he named the tricks he thought he had available to cash constitute a statement as to the order in which cards will be played? If so, no matter the order in which he tries to play the two red sevens, West will be forced to win the HQ and be endplayed into giving declarer an extra trick in Spades (I believe it is clear that in this situation he will be allowed to take the finesse after affecting the surprise endplay). If not, we must rule that declarer plays the SA prior to the H7 and so will lose two more tricks rather than one, correct? Declarer was adamant that his intention had been to play the red sevens prior to the SA. Regards, Griff Ware Canberra, Australia From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 16 10:29:28 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:29:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] serious error? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <85370.72005.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C188B68.3000703@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > I would suggest that PO had hit upon the nub [of the difficulty] except that > he has not. But within the outer fringes of the rings, that he is. The > difficulty actually is for the player- how is he to know the right thing to > do since as PO puts it: " how does a TD establish what is an LA "? > > Which begs the relevant questions- As it is so difficult for the TD, why > should the player be expected to predict what the TD rules? And it being > difficult for the TD and for all intents and purposes impossible for the > player, isn't it the wrong standard? > I don't think it is. It is, indeed, difficult for a player who is in the possesion of UI, to determine whether some non-suggested action will be judged a LA. Which is why we never blame a player for selecting the suggested action anyway - provided it is not blatant. When a player tells the TD: "I realized that X was suggested by UI, so I looked at Y, and I thought that few people would do this, and so I did X anyway", then the TD will never ever rule more harshly against that player than turning back some result if he judges that Y was a LA after all. Herman. > regards > roger pewick > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 16 10:31:20 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:31:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C188BD8.2080702@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " We can't ignore the fact that > most of the times the final pass > is not put on the tray." > Indeed we should not ignore it. > We should draw attention to any > applicable regulations. > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:15 AM > Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> Sergeant Joe Hills, "Ma'am, what is the approximate >> dry weight of the average Madagascan fruit tree bat?" >> > +=+ I am struggling with the thought that the average > Madagascan fruit tree bat has a specific weight, not > an approximate weight. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ No Grattan, there is no such thing as an average bat - so it cannot have a specific weight. "The average human has one testicle and one breast" -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 16 10:40:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:40:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What counts as a "statement as to the order in which cards will be played" In-Reply-To: <6FD9D388-E3D2-4CFB-B08C-8040D703C519@mac.com> References: <6FD9D388-E3D2-4CFB-B08C-8040D703C519@mac.com> Message-ID: <4C188E10.2000002@skynet.be> Hello Griff, welcome to blml! Griff Ware wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm new to the blml, so sorry if this topic has been covered before. > even topics that have been covered before may well be interesting. > Last night the following situation arose, with Hearts as trumps, the > D7 the only Diamond left unplayed and declarer on lead: > > Declarer > Ax > 7 > 7 > - > West East > Kxx > Q (Irrelevant) > - > - > Dummy > Qxx > - > - > x > > > During the previous play, declarer had led a spade from dummy to the > SJ in hand which had held the trick. > > In the above position, he erroneously believed that the H7 was the > only outstanding trump, and claimed saying "I have the two red sevens, > and the ace of spades, and unless the king drops, which I doubt, I > will lose one spade trick." > > Does the spoken order in which he named the tricks he thought he had > available to cash constitute a statement as to the order in which > cards will be played? No it does not. He has stated tricks he proposes to make, but not the order in which he proposes to make them. Some orders are not normal, though. > If so, no matter the order in which he tries to > play the two red sevens, West will be forced to win the HQ and be > endplayed into giving declarer an extra trick in Spades (I believe it > is clear that in this situation he will be allowed to take the finesse > after affecting the surprise endplay). That is indeed rather clear, but unimportant. > If not, we must rule that > declarer plays the SA prior to the H7 and so will lose two more tricks > rather than one, correct? > Correct. Playing the SA before the D7 is not just as normal as the reverse. It is, in some areas, the only normal line in this case: Spade A, Spade to the K, ruff, diamond seven, beer. > Declarer was adamant that his intention had been to play the red > sevens prior to the SA. > Unimportant, since he did not envisage the need for some endplay. Another unimportant issue here is that according to some people, playing the last trump at some earlier stage than the final trick is not normal. But playing the SA certainly is. Herman. > Regards, > > Griff Ware > Canberra, > Australia > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2938 - Release Date: 06/14/10 20:35:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 16 10:56:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:56:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What counts as a "statement as to the order in which cards will be played" References: <6FD9D388-E3D2-4CFB-B08C-8040D703C519@mac.com> Message-ID: <8ECAD3A4C0BA4F999C85AF3ECE7313CD@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:49 AM Subject: [BLML] What counts as a "statement as to the order in which cards will be played" > Hi all, > > I'm new to the blml, so sorry if this topic has been covered before. > > Last night the following situation arose, with Hearts as trumps, the > D7 the only Diamond left unplayed and declarer on lead: > > Declarer > Ax > 7 > 7 > - > West East > Kxx > Q (Irrelevant) > - > - > Dummy > Qxx > - > - > x > > > During the previous play, declarer had led a spade from dummy to the > SJ in hand which had held the trick. > > In the above position, he erroneously believed that the H7 was the > only outstanding trump, and claimed saying "I have the two red sevens, > and the ace of spades, and unless the king drops, which I doubt, I > will lose one spade trick." > > Does the spoken order in which he named the tricks he thought he had > available to cash constitute a statement as to the order in which > cards will be played? If so, no matter the order in which he tries to > play the two red sevens, West will be forced to win the HQ and be > endplayed into giving declarer an extra trick in Spades (I believe it > is clear that in this situation he will be allowed to take the finesse > after affecting the surprise endplay). If not, we must rule that > declarer plays the SA prior to the H7 and so will lose two more tricks > rather than one, correct? > > Declarer was adamant that his intention had been to play the red > sevens prior to the SA. > > Regards, > > Griff Ware > Canberra, > Australia > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 16 11:07:43 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:07:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4C188BD8.2080702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6F256A94AE7D4FD28DB238E01997915E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:15 AM >> Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> >>> Sergeant Joe Hills, "Ma'am, what is the approximate >>> dry weight of the average Madagascan fruit tree bat?" >>> >> +=+ I am struggling with the thought that the average >> Madagascan fruit tree bat has a specific weight, not >> an approximate weight. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > No Grattan, there is no such thing as an average bat - so it > cannot have a specific weight. > > "The average human has one testicle and one breast" > +=+ If we line the fruit bats all up in their thousands in order from the lightest to the heaviest is not one of them the median bat? (And how many of them can dance on the point of a needle?) ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 16 11:10:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:10:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] serious error? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <85370.72005.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C188B68.3000703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1CCD6D953F344A99A9120732BE336B37@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] serious error? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Roger Pewick wrote: >> I would suggest that PO had hit upon the nub [of the difficulty] except >> that >> he has not. But within the outer fringes of the rings, that he is. The >> difficulty actually is for the player- how is he to know the right thing >> to >> do since as PO puts it: " how does a TD establish what is an LA "? >> >> Which begs the relevant questions- As it is so difficult for the TD, why >> should the player be expected to predict what the TD rules? And it being >> difficult for the TD and for all intents and purposes impossible for the >> player, isn't it the wrong standard? >> > > I don't think it is. It is, indeed, difficult for a player who is in the > possesion of UI, to determine whether some non-suggested action will be > judged a LA. Which is why we never blame a player for selecting the > suggested action anyway - provided it is not blatant. When a player > tells the TD: "I realized that X was suggested by UI, so I looked at Y, > and I thought that few people would do this, and so I did X anyway", > then the TD will never ever rule more harshly against that player than > turning back some result if he judges that Y was a LA after all. > > Herman. > +=+ When peer players are polled they seem to have little difficulty about whether 'x' is a logical alternative. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 16 11:50:39 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:50:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] {BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <163596.72179.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Pass? ? ? 1H? ? ? ?1S? ? ? ? Pass Pass? ? ? X? ? ? Pass? ? ? Pass ..2C(1)? ?2H? ? ? ?All Pass (1) Circa 1 minute 51 seconds tank by West.? North, paying insufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) asked no-one in particular if the auction had finished.? East replied, loudly and emphatically, "Absolutely not!" East led the ace of clubs but failed to switch to a top spade at trick two, so North-South scored +230. A. How would you rule? B. Which (if any) of North, South, East and West would you, as a professional, be willing to have as a paying client? [Nigel] East might claim that North's question justified his UI but West is still bound to choose a logical alternative, not so suggested, if there is one. A poll might reveal whether pass is a logical alternative for West's peers. North's mistake isn't egregious, unless he is PO Sundelin :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 16 12:52:26 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:52:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C188BD8.2080702@skynet.be> References: <4C188BD8.2080702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C18ACEA.3090506@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > No Grattan, there is no such thing as an average bat - so it cannot have > a specific weight. > Herman, we both know that bat weight is of some importance. And although there is no such thing as an average bat, there is such a thing as a batting average. > "The average human has one testicle and one breast" > > Strange as it might be, this is statistically correct. Nobody said that the average has to correspond to some observed value. (e.g. the average number of tricks made by declarer on this deal is 8,3) In the same way, it is correct to state that 99% (or perhaps more) of human beings have more legs than the average. The French might refer to the satiric novel "Un certain Monsieur Blot", where Blot won the prize for the average French citizen, having mentioned he had 2,5 children (counting his not-yet-born child as one half). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 16 13:03:19 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:03:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] {BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <163596.72179.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <163596.72179.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C18AF77.6050507@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > Pass 1H 1S Pass > Pass X Pass Pass > ..2C(1) 2H All Pass > (1) Circa 1 minute 51 seconds tank by West. North, > paying insufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) > asked no-one in particular if the auction had finished. > East replied, loudly and emphatically, "Absolutely > not!" East led the ace of clubs but failed to switch to a top > spade at trick two, so North-South scored +230. > A. How would you rule? > B. Which (if any) of North, South, East and West would you, > as a professional, be willing to have as a paying client? > AG : I forgot answering to B. South could have bid 3H over 2H. But passing isn't a serious mistake by a client. I wouldn't like to have North as a partner, even though I agree that weak players shouldn't double, because I don't want my partners to hide behind some irregularity to justify their self-inflicted bottom. If you tell me E is a client, then his irregularity is minor and BTW I wouldn't be the one to take 111 seconds before deciding to take out or not. If West is the client, that's a horse of another color, but I still can't believe that East attempted to let West (the client) know that he'd gladly let him play in a 5-2 club fit one level higher, so I still rule no communication (but UI). Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 16 13:40:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:40:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What counts as a "statement as to the order in which cards will be played" In-Reply-To: <6FD9D388-E3D2-4CFB-B08C-8040D703C519@mac.com> References: <6FD9D388-E3D2-4CFB-B08C-8040D703C519@mac.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:49:34 -0400, Griff Ware wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm new to the blml, so sorry if this topic has been covered before. Not that I know of. Welcome. > > Last night the following situation arose, with Hearts as trumps, the > D7 the only Diamond left unplayed and declarer on lead: > > Declarer > Ax > 7 > 7 > - > West East > Kxx > Q (Irrelevant) > - > - > Dummy > Qxx > - > - > x > > > During the previous play, declarer had led a spade from dummy to the > SJ in hand which had held the trick. > > In the above position, he erroneously believed that the H7 was the > only outstanding trump, and claimed saying "I have the two red sevens, > and the ace of spades, and unless the king drops, which I doubt, I > will lose one spade trick." > > Does the spoken order in which he named the tricks he thought he had > available to cash constitute a statement as to the order in which > cards will be played? If so, no matter the order in which he tries to > play the two red sevens, West will be forced to win the HQ and be > endplayed into giving declarer an extra trick in Spades (I believe it > is clear that in this situation he will be allowed to take the finesse > after affecting the surprise endplay). If not, we must rule that > declarer plays the SA prior to the H7 and so will lose two more tricks > rather than one, correct? > > Declarer was adamant that his intention had been to play the red > sevens prior to the SA. > > Regards, I agree with Herman that stating one's winners is not the same as saying the order of play. I never mean it that way -- I am just stating winners, not calculating the optimal order for playing the winners. I am sure we can find unproblematic claims where a declarer specifies the winners but they actually could not be won in the order the suits were specified. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 16 13:57:24 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:57:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4C188BD8.2080702@skynet.be> <4C18ACEA.3090506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2862C15B45014FC08FAC1930B507F1A2@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > No Grattan, there is no such thing as an average bat - so it cannot have > a specific weight. > Herman, we both know that bat weight is of some importance. And although there is no such thing as an average bat, there is such a thing as a batting average. > "The average human has one testicle and one breast" > > Strange as it might be, this is statistically correct. Nobody said that the average has to correspond to some observed value. (e.g. the average number of tricks made by declarer on this deal is 8,3) In the same way, it is correct to state that 99% (or perhaps more) of human beings have more legs than the average. The French might refer to the satiric novel "Un certain Monsieur Blot", where Blot won the prize for the average French citizen, having mentioned he had 2,5 children (counting his not-yet-born child as one half). Best regards Alain < +=+ One of the meanings of 'average', as an adjective, is 'mediocre'. Perhaps the bat in question was a mediocre bat, like the one I held responsible for my low score in a cricket match, although that was evidently an unfruitful bat. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at peacenik.net Wed Jun 16 18:09:43 2010 From: brian at peacenik.net (Brian Baresch) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:09:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C18ACEA.3090506@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C188BD8.2080702@skynet.be> <4C18ACEA.3090506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C18F747.5040606@peacenik.net> > Strange as it might be, this is statistically correct. Nobody said that > the average has to correspond to some observed value. > (e.g. the average number of tricks made by declarer on this deal is 8,3) > In the same way, it is correct to state that 99% (or perhaps more) of > human beings have more legs than the average. > > The French might refer to the satiric novel "Un certain Monsieur Blot", > where Blot won the prize for the average French citizen, having > mentioned he had 2,5 children (counting his not-yet-born child as one half). Then there was the youth who noted that his family had 2.5 children, as he had a brother and a half-sister. Brian Baresch Austin, Texas From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Wed Jun 16 19:29:17 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:29:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C18ACEA.3090506@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C188BD8.2080702@skynet.be> <4C18ACEA.3090506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C1909ED.70602@gmail.com> On 6/16/2010 6:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > "The average human has one testicle and one breast" >> >> > Strange as it might be, this is statistically correct. Nobody said that > the average has to correspond to some observed value. > (e.g. the average number of tricks made by declarer on this deal is 8,3) > In the same way, it is correct to state that 99% (or perhaps more) of > human beings have more legs than the average. > > No, it's not statistically correct. To get overly simplistic (not to mention completely off-topic)... The "average" is a measure of central tendency. It can be determined either parametrically (the mean) or non-parametrically (median or mode). The mean suggests that the average human is something that does not normally occur naturally in nature. The median or mode suggests that the average human has two breast and no testicles. Since neither of these is an accurate reflection of the species, we try something that should have been done prior to any calculation and look at the underlying distribution of breasts and testicles among humans. These turn out to be bimodal curves, with large peaks at 0 or 2, and much smaller frequencies of occurrence at 1 and 3 or more (due to surgeries, accidents, and the occasional mutatation. Since a bimodal curve does not approximate a normal distribution, we can rule out using the mean. Further, the bimodal nature of the underlying curves suggest that any measure of central tendency would be incorrect. The average human is either male or female, with very little ground in between. However, we also note that the correlation between breasts and testicles in humans approaches -1. Accordingly, it would be statistically correct to say that the average human has either two breasts and no testicles or no breasts and two testicals. Hirsch From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 16 19:52:02 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:52:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4C188BD8.2080702@skynet.be><4C18ACEA.3090506@ulb.ac.be> <4C1909ED.70602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <41F7BE9430F7495D8C80EA408E85495B@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 6/16/2010 6:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > "The average human has one testicle and one breast" >> > Strange as it might be, this is statistically correct. < +=+ I might question that. What is the proportion of females to males in the human population? And how about castration and mastectomy? Moreover, I hear of some bridge players said to have "lost their..... " - but that is for another day perhaps. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 17 00:51:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:51:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Extract from a Poul Anderson science-fiction story: "He swept the room with the eyes of a trapped animal." Comment by Brian Aldiss, science-fiction writer and critic: "A gnu broom sweeps clean?" Herman De Wael: [big snip] >we never blame a player for selecting the suggested action >anyway - provided it is not blatant. [big snip] Richard Hills: Ground Control to Major Herman - the word "blatant" does not appear in the Lawbook. If a player "intentionally" infracts Law 16B / Law 73C, then that is two infractions, with an additional "must not" infraction of Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." with the Introduction defining: "...'must' do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, 'must not' is the strongest prohibition...". If, however, a player "unintentionally" infracts Law 16B / Law 73, that infraction is still a violation of correct procedure, so the Director may and sometimes (not "never") should award a Law 90 Procedural Penalty. But for an intentional "must not" infraction of Law, the more appropriate remedy would be a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 17 01:57:41 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:57:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <928053502525443D98523CCC6361E497@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Ground Control to Major Herman - the word > "blatant" does not appear in the Lawbook. > +=+ Originally the 'blatant beast' was a thousand-tongued monster*. More recently 'blatant' has been corrupted to mean 'open and unashamed'. You'd have thought there'd be a place for it in bridge law. Must try harder. ~ G ~ +=+ [* Edmund Spenser, 'The Faerie Queene'.] From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 17 03:56:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:56:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201006160409.o5G49WCh002976@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: John Walcott, I.F. Stone Medal acceptance speech: [snip] >Does the truth lie halfway between say, slavery and >abolition, or between segregation and civil rights, or >between communism and democracy? If you quote Dietrich >Bonhoeffer or Winston Churchill, in other words, must you >then give equal time and credence to Hitler and Joseph >Goebbels? If you write an article that's critical of John >McCain, are you then obligated to devote an identical number >of words to criticism of Barack Obama, and vice versa? Richard Hills: If a blmler wrote a post that's critical of Steve Willner, is that blmler then obligated to devote an identical number of words to criticism of Grattan Endicott, and vice versa? John Walcott, I.F. Stone Medal acceptance speech: [snip] >"Journalists live in the reality-based world," a White >House official told Ron Suskind, writing for The New York >Times Magazine back in the headier days of 2004. "The world >doesn't really work that way any more. We're an empire now, >and when we act, we create our own reality." > >I respectfully disagree. > >The Church was wrong, and Copernicus and Galileo were right. > >There is not one truth for Fox News and another for The >Nation. Fair is not always balanced, and balanced is not >always fair. Richard Hills: If a blmler wrote a post that was totally unfair to Steve Willner, to the point of ridicule, that post may well be beyond the limits of courtesy mandated by Henk Uijterwaal (the blml Moderator), and therefore an apology may be required and given. But that does not necessarily imply that that post did not provide a balanced assessment of the facts. John Walcott, I.F. Stone Medal acceptance speech: [snip] >Or, as the French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau said >when he was asked what he thought historians might say >about the First World War: "They will not say that Belgium >invaded Germany." [snip] Richard Hills: They will not say that Law 68B2 lacks this phrase, "Unauthorized information may exist". 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 Jun 17 05:18:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:18:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <928053502525443D98523CCC6361E497@Mildred> Message-ID: >>Ground Control to Major Herman - the word "blatant" does >>not appear in the Lawbook. >+=+ Originally the 'blatant beast' was a thousand-tongued >monster*. More recently 'blatant' has been corrupted to >mean 'open and unashamed'. You'd have thought there'd >be a place for it in bridge law. Must try harder. > ~ G ~ +=+ >[* Edmund Spenser, 'The Faerie Queene'.] Paraphrased Preface to the Laws: "The Drafting Committee also acknowledges with gratitude the blatant contributions of Anna Gudge, Richard Hills and Rick Assad. The Code, however, would not have been produced without the dedication and blatantly hard work of its thousand-tongued Co-ordinator, Grattan Endicott." 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 Jun 17 05:52:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:52:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201006160409.o5G49WCh002976@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Blurb for Robert Bloch's novel "The Opener of the Way": The publishers regret to announce that there is no blurb to inform prospective readers about the contents of "The Opener of the Way". Unfortunately the person designated to write the blurb was found dead after reading the book, having apparently suffered some mysterious kind of severe shock ... Tony Musgrove: >One wonders parenthetically whether Hashmat Ali has ever >been led to think "Curses, I have spend more time than I >needed to over my last bid or play, now I know that my >CHO may well depart from the script. Perhaps I should >alert my other two opponents?" > >Cheers > >Tony (Sydney) Richard Hills: Is the fact that CHO obeys the Laws much more frequently than the typical CHO obeys the Laws necessarily an explicit or implicit partnership understanding? For example, if declarer knows that one defender must have revoked, is declarer entitled to know which defender is more likely to have perpetrated the revoke? 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 17 09:20:11 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:20:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "Just the facts, ma'am." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C1909ED.70602@gmail.com> References: <4C188BD8.2080702@skynet.be> <4C18ACEA.3090506@ulb.ac.be> <4C1909ED.70602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C19CCAB.3000801@ulb.ac.be> Hirsch Davis a ?crit : > On 6/16/2010 6:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> "The average human has one testicle and one breast" >> >>> >>> >> Strange as it might be, this is statistically correct. Nobody said that >> the average has to correspond to some observed value. >> (e.g. the average number of tricks made by declarer on this deal is 8,3) >> In the same way, it is correct to state that 99% (or perhaps more) of >> human beings have more legs than the average. >> >> >> > > No, it's not statistically correct. To get overly simplistic (not to > mention completely off-topic)... > > The "average" is a measure of central tendency. It can be determined > either parametrically (the mean) or non-parametrically (median or > mode). The mean suggests that the average human is something that does > not normally occur naturally in nature. The median or mode suggests that > the average human has two breast and no testicles. Since neither of > these is an accurate reflection of the species, we try something that > should have been done prior to any calculation and look at the > underlying distribution of breasts and testicles among humans. AG : I'm sorry, Sir. The fact that a tool isn't the right one for the situation could mean that you have to use another, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Would you say that, because your hammer can't cut fabric, you in fact have two hammers ? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 17 12:41:59 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:41:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>Ground Control to Major Herman - the word "blatant" does >>>not appear in the Lawbook. > >>+=+ Originally the 'blatant beast' was a thousand-tongued >>monster*. More recently 'blatant' has been corrupted to >>mean 'open and unashamed'. You'd have thought there'd >>be a place for it in bridge law. Must try harder. >> ~ G ~ +=+ >>[* Edmund Spenser, 'The Faerie Queene'.] > > Paraphrased Preface to the Laws: > > "The Drafting Committee also acknowledges with gratitude > the blatant contributions of Anna Gudge, Richard Hills and > Rick Assad. The Code, however, would not have been > produced without the dedication and blatantly hard work of > its thousand-tongued Co-ordinator, Grattan Endicott." > +=+ monstrous +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 18 01:25:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:25:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "Houston, Tranquility Base here." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Peter Bowler, The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: "Like all algophobes, I have never been able to transcend dental medication." Richard Hills asked: >For example, if declarer knows that one defender must have >revoked, is declarer entitled to know which defender is more >likely to have perpetrated the revoke? Richard Hills answers: Law 40A1(a) states that partnership understandings are about "methods". Later on, Law 40B2(a) implicitly defines a method to be "the meaning of a call or play". Ergo, partner's (Madagascan fruit tree) batting average in following suit is not a partnership understanding, so one does not need to disclose the frequency of CHO's revokes to declarer. More interesting is the question of CHO's batting average being AI or UI. A common situation would be when one is defending, and one knows that either CHO or RHO has committed an unestablished revoke. A Law 61B3 question is the winning action if CHO has revoked.* But if it is RHO who has perpetrated the unestablished revoke, the winning action is to keep schtum and let the revoke become established. Does Law 16A (use at own risk) or Law 16B (choose the contra- indicated logical alternative) apply to CHO's revoke habits? Best wishes to Richard Hills From Richard Hills * Yes, as Herman De Wael has previously noted, there are rare exceptions when the tricks lost by a non-established revoke's penalty card are greater than the tricks lost by an established revoke. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 18 05:51:15 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:51:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Leading question Message-ID: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> At trick six, West leads a club when it was South's (declarer's) turn to lead. Assuming (what is true) that South may accept the lead out of turn, may he compel East to play his highest or lowest club to the trick? Show your working, with particular reference to Law 57 or to anything else that you know. David Burn London, England -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100618/a466f799/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jun 18 07:17:35 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:17:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> Message-ID: <08734A02EA41448AABEA0A9F7F38E15E@erdos> If declarer accepts the lead out of turn, then Law 53 applies and it becomes a correct lead, so there can be no penalty/rectification. If declarer does not accept the lead out of turn, then Law 56 applies, In either case, another law specifically governs the situation and does not refer to an additional penalty/rectification, so Law 57 does not apply, and East can play anything he wants to the trick. Similarly, if West leads to the next trick before East has played to the current trick, Law 57 explicitly applies and thus Law 53 cannot apply; declarer cannot accept West's lead out of turn (although the penalty card must be led in turn if West wins the trick). ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Cc: Max Bavin Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:51 PM Subject: [BLML] Leading question At trick six, West leads a club when it was South's (declarer's) turn to lead. Assuming (what is true) that South may accept the lead out of turn, may he compel East to play his highest or lowest club to the trick? Show your working, with particular reference to Law 57 or to anything else that you know. David Burn London, England ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100618/17a18e4d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 18 07:27:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:27:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> Message-ID: DALB scenario: >At trick six, West leads a club when it was South's >(declarer's) turn to lead. RJBH: To avoid any possibility of ambiguity in this scenario, I will eggsuckingly translate "South's (declarer's) turn to lead" to "South's (declarer's) turn to play the first card to trick six". Christopher Isherwood (1904-1986), English novelist: The common cormorant (or shag) Lays eggs inside a paper bag, You follow the idea, no doubt? It's to keep the lightning out. But what these unobservant birds Have never thought of, is that herds Of wandering bears might come with buns And steal the bags to hold the crumbs. DALB question (with RJBH eggsucking modifications): >Assuming (what is true) that South may accept the lead >out of turn, [if South does so] may he [then] compel East >to play his highest or lowest club to the trick? RJBH: No. DALB: >Show your working, with particular reference to Law 57 or >to anything else that you know. RJBH: The Law 57A1 "highest card" rectification or the Law 57A2 "lowest card" rectification require one of two Law 57A criteria to operate, either: "When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick ... " which does not apply since East has already played to trick five, or "When a defender ... plays out of turn before his partner has played ... " But South has accepted West's LOOT under Law 53A: "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead ... " A correct lead is no longer an out of turn lead, so Law 57A is no longer applicable. Best wishes RJBH, the common Secretary Bird (or pedant) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 18 07:49:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:49:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <08734A02EA41448AABEA0A9F7F38E15E@erdos> Message-ID: David Burn: >>At trick six, West leads a club when it was South's >>(declarer's) turn to lead. ... David Grabiner: > ... If declarer does not accept the lead out of turn, then >Law 56 applies ... Richard Hills: David G is incorrect. Law 56 "See Law 54D." 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." Richard Hills: So Law 56 only applies to a trick one defender's lead out of turn, but the scenario specified by David B was a trick six defender's lead out of turn. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 18 11:29:34 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:29:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Leading question References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> Message-ID: <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> Message-ID: <001801cb0ecd$2ce17a10$86a46e30$@no> A recent and ongoing discussion on BBO: Bridge Base Forums (under the continuation of IBLF). Regards Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Grattan Sent: 18. juni 2010 11:30 To: dalburn at btopenworld.com; 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Cc: Max Bavin Subject: Re: [BLML] Leading question Grattan Endicott Burn To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Cc: Max Bavin ; Grattan Endicott Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:51 AM Subject: Leading question At trick six, West leads a club when it was South's (declarer's) turn to lead. Assuming (what is true) that South may accept the lead out of turn, may he compel East to play his highest or lowest club to the trick? Show your working, with particular reference to Law 57 or to anything else that you know. David Burn London, England -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100618/8ad38ccd/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 18 12:30:35 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:30:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C1B4ACB.4010204@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. > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ The conditions for invoking Law 57 are not > present. Law 53A applies. This law tells us that > the accepted lead is treated as a correct lead. No > rectification follows upon making a correct lead. > However, since David is knowledgeable in > bridge law why does he ask? What is the catch? Looks like some AC member mentioned L57 in this context to back up some ruling (whether right or wrong in itself) and he's looking after many contrary opinions. You can add mine, anyway : as soon as you've paid the prescribed penalty, you're free to act. When declarer accepted your LOOT, he thought this was the adequate penalty among those available to him, and, as Grattan reminds us, there is no additional penalty. With OLOOTs, the principle is the same, although possible decisions by declarer are a bit broader. (yes, forcing this LOOT to be treated as a correct lead might be penalizing) Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 18 13:11:51 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:11:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> <4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain > Gottcheiner > Sent: 18. juni 2010 12:31 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: Max Bavin > Subject: Re: [BLML] Leading question > > 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. > > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > +=+ The conditions for invoking Law 57 are not > > present. Law 53A applies. This law tells us that the accepted lead is > > treated as a correct lead. No rectification follows upon making a > > correct lead. > > However, since David is knowledgeable in bridge law why does he > > ask? What is the catch? > Looks like some AC member mentioned L57 in this context to back up some ruling > (whether right or wrong in itself) and he's looking after many contrary opinions. > > You can add mine, anyway : as soon as you've paid the prescribed penalty, you're > free to act. When declarer accepted your LOOT, he thought this was the > adequate penalty among those available to him, and, as Grattan reminds us, > there is no additional penalty. > > With OLOOTs, the principle is the same, although possible decisions by declarer > are a bit broader. The original post was about a card exposed during the auction by the player that eventually became presumed declarer's LHO. David's opinion (strangely enough) seems to be that L57 applies when this penalty card is eventually (per force) led to trick 1 because it (originally) was a card led out of turn before the offender's partner had played to the trick! I hope we shall avoid the same lengthy (and meaningless) discussion here that so far has been ongoing on BBO.forums Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 18 13:21:25 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:21:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> <4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be> <002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no> Message-ID: <4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > The original post was about a card exposed during the auction by the player > that eventually became presumed declarer's LHO. > > David's opinion (strangely enough) seems to be that L57 applies when this > penalty card is eventually (per force) led to trick 1 because it > (originally) was a card led out of turn before the offender's partner had > played to the trick! > > AG : in this case we can simply falsify it by focusing on the words "the trck", which obviously mean that the card was played in the course of some trick (albeit not at the right time). This isn't the case, because playing period hasn't begun, end of the problem. (and that's also why OLOOTs have to be treated separately, since playing period only begins *after* the lead). Best regards Alain From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Fri Jun 18 13:23:18 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 07:23:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> Message-ID: <1276860198.27812.1380735017@webmail.messagingengine.com> > At trick six, West leads a club when it was South's (declarer's) turn to > lead. > > Assuming (what is true) that South may accept the lead out of turn, may > he > compel East to play his highest or lowest club to the trick? > > Show your working, with particular reference to Law 57 or to anything > else > that you know. According to Law 53A, accepting the out-of-turn lead renders it correct, and therefore there is (or seems to me to be) no basis for requiring anything of East other than to follow suit. David From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 18 13:55:38 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:55:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> <4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be> <002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no> <4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com> [AG] AG : in this case we can simply falsify it by focusing on the words "the trick", which obviously mean that the card was played in the course of some trick (albeit not at the right time). This isn't the case, because playing period hasn't begun, end of the problem. (and that's also why OLOOTs have to be treated separately, since playing period only begins *after* the lead). [DALB] Unfortunately, the words "the trick" do not appear in this part of Law 57: When a defender ... plays out of turn before his partner has played ... Doubtless it was intended that they should. But they don't. David Burn London, England From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Fri Jun 18 14:09:15 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:09:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> <4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be> <002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no><4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be> <003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com> Message-ID: <1276862955.2391.1380741115@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:55 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: > > Unfortunately, the words "the trick" do not appear in this part of Law > 57: > > When a defender ... plays out of turn before his partner has played ... > > Doubtless it was intended that they should. But they don't. They don't have to. The Definitions section says that a play is the contribution of a card to a trick. David From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 18 14:14:34 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:14:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> <4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be> <002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no> <4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be> <003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com> Message-ID: <4C1B632A.8040403@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [AG] > > AG : in this case we can simply falsify it by focusing on the words "the > trick", which obviously mean that the card was played in the course of some > trick (albeit not at the right time). This isn't the case, because playing > period hasn't begun, end of the problem. (and that's also why OLOOTs have > to be treated separately, since playing period only begins *after* the > lead). > > [DALB] > > Unfortunately, the words "the trick" do not appear in this part of Law 57: > > When a defender ... plays out of turn before his partner has played ... > > AG : IMHO this solves the problem too, because the card wasn't played, only exposed A card can only be played during the play period. A strong hint to that : it isn't said the opening lead (which is put on the table before the play period begins) is "played", but "faced". From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 18 14:23:42 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:23:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <4C1B632A.8040403@ulb.ac.be> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> <4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be> <002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no> <4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be> <003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com> <4C1B632A.8040403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003f01cb0ee1$174b4370$45e1ca50$@com> [AG] AG : IMHO this solves the problem too, because the card wasn't played, only exposed. A card can only be played during the play period. [DALB] Then why does Law 24 refer to "card exposed *or led* ? And why does it contain these words: "If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led..." Clearly, the authors of Law 24 intended to distinguish among a card accidentally dropped and a card deliberately led. But a "lead" is "the first card played to a trick" per the Definitions, so of course a card can be "led" and therefore "played" during the auction. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 18 14:24:46 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:24:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <4C1B632A.8040403@ulb.ac.be> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> <4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be> <002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no> <4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be> <003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com> <4C1B632A.8040403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002701cb0ee1$3ddd39d0$b997ad70$@no> Oh dear, Here we go! 8-( From schoderb at msn.com Fri Jun 18 16:51:23 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:51:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> Message-ID: Answer: NO Here we go again. We have an infraction which has a specfic 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 -- a specfic condition of Mr. Burns' posting, and clearly only during play since the opening lead has its own laws. It states what to do when the declarer does NOT accept such a lead out of turn. Why would we now go on a hunt for trouble by referring to Law 57 which is specfic to having a defender play to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick (obviously not yet quitted for it to be called 'current') and which treats with a premature action? 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Cc: "Max Bavin" Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:51 PM Subject: [BLML] Leading question > At trick six, West leads a club when it was South's (declarer's) turn to > lead. > > > > Assuming (what is true) that South may accept the lead out of turn, may he > compel East to play his highest or lowest club to the trick? > > > > Show your working, with particular reference to Law 57 or to anything else > that you know. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 18 18:37:44 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:37:44 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Leading question References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> Message-ID: From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" < > Here we go again. We have an infraction which has a specfic > aw --- number 56 --- which tells us to apply Law 54D when a > defender leads out of turn at any time other than the opening lead Therefore L56 should say "Apply Law 54D," since that is evidently the intent. "See" may be interpreted as saying that this law refers only to an opening lead, the subject of L54D. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jun 19 00:51:53 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:51:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inedit Message-ID: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> With screens, East and North on the same screen side. After a few rounds of bidding East bids 3NT. (He would be the declarer in NT.) The tray is pushed to the other side and returns without the bidding cards of South and West who had removed their bidding cards. Uncertain if they believed that there had been three passes or if they assumed North would pass. Either not noticed by North and East or ignored. North then doubled. While East considered what he would do, the door of the screen was opened and the "opening lead" (by West) and the "dummy" (of South) were on the table. What do you do as TD? Ciao, JE From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 19 02:38:22 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:38:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inedit In-Reply-To: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> References: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001cb0f47$b9faff00$2df0fd00$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff > Easterson > Sent: 19. juni 2010 00:52 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] inedit > > With screens, East and North on the same screen side. After a few rounds of > bidding East bids 3NT. (He would be the declarer in NT.) The tray is pushed to > the other side and returns without the bidding cards of South and West who had > removed their bidding cards. Uncertain if they believed that there had been three > passes or if they assumed North would pass. Either not noticed by North and East > or ignored. North then doubled. While East considered what he would do, the > door of the screen was opened and the "opening lead" (by West) and the > "dummy" (of > South) were on the table. What do you do as TD? North and East both (probably) violated screen regulations by "accepting" the tray pushed across with the bid cards for South and West removed before the auction was completed. If South and West did not notice the last bid by East (3NT) and thought that the auction was completed with their own final passes they still violated both Laws and (probably) screen regulations by removing their completing passes before pushing the tray across. The only way South and West could legally remove their bid cards and West open the door is when the last of the concluding three passes in the auction was made by either North or East. However, there is no way West could be the defender to make the opening lead and at the same time South be the Dummy. There are so many irregularities here (with both sides at fault) that my choice is either to cancel the board completely (with A- to both sides), or to rule Law 24: West has exposed one card and South has exposed all his thirteen cards during the auction. But the whole story is so incredible that I really wonder if it is a fiction? If it is real I wonder how much alcohol the players had consumed before this happened. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 19 04:41:40 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:41:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] inedit In-Reply-To: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> References: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Easterson" Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 17:51 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] inedit > With screens, East and North on the same screen side. After a few > rounds of bidding East bids 3NT. (He would be the declarer in NT.) The > tray is pushed to the other side and returns without the bidding cards > of South and West who had removed their bidding cards. Uncertain if > they believed that there had been three passes or if they assumed North > would pass. Either not noticed by North and East or ignored. North > then doubled. While East considered what he would do, the door of the > screen was opened and the "opening lead" (by West) and the "dummy" (of > South) were on the table. What do you do as TD? > > Ciao, JE The picking up of bidding cards and exposure of cards by SW during the auction were at their own misunderstanding without recourse [L21]. That SW at their respective turns did not elect to bid, double, nor redouble [the law definition of pass] are thereby deemed to have passed at those turns when the bidding tray was passed. The exposing of the cards was during the auction and as both sides are offending information from all the cards is UI to both sides. L24 Since it would have been mentioned if W's card was an honor there is no further auction penalty upon [L24A] E, but N must pass [L24C/L23] at his next turn. The auction continues from E. Presumably EW becomes declarer [so W's card is returned to hand without additional penalty] and declarer will be able to select which PC to play to each trick until there is one PC and has PC options when it the partner's turn to lead.. L50/51 regards roger pewick From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jun 19 10:24:34 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:24:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inedit correction Message-ID: <4C1C7EC2.9020101@aol.com> Sorry, there was a typo in the original posting. It was, naturally, South who led and West who put his cards (as dummy) on the table. Not that it changes anything; most readers seem to have not noticed the typo. JE From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Sat Jun 19 12:12:09 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:12:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inedit correction In-Reply-To: <4C1C7EC2.9020101@aol.com> References: <4C1C7EC2.9020101@aol.com> Message-ID: <89E04EA47B1E4BF7A7E136C7F0F82442@PCdeOlivier> hello, funny and easy one : L24 S & W have exposed cards during bidding, so they must stay and are UI for respective partner, E& N must pass one time, so East pass South can bid, West can bid, if one bid, North must pass one time, afterwitch, everybody can bid, if W & S passes, so they play 3NTX South on lead has a penalty card, must play ot (cannot change to the "asked" suit if so) West is dummy, ruling is over, L23 is still on, but i can't see the use, Vive le Mexique :) Exit Domenech Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 10:24 AM Subject: [BLML] inedit correction > > Sorry, there was a typo in the original posting. It was, naturally, > South who led and West who put his cards (as dummy) on the table. Not > that it changes anything; most readers seem to have not noticed the > typo. JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Jun 19 12:14:30 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:14:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <1276862955.2391.1380741115@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com> <270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred> <4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be> <002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no><4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be> <003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com> <1276862955.2391.1380741115@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On 18 Jun 2010, at 13:09, David Babcock wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:55 +0100, "David Burn" > > wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, the words "the trick" do not appear in this part of >> Law >> 57: >> >> When a defender ... plays out of turn before his partner has >> played ... >> >> Doubtless it was intended that they should. But they don't. > > They don't have to. The Definitions section says that a play is the > contribution of a card to a trick. ..." including the first card, which is the lead." From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 19 12:58:41 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:58:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inedit In-Reply-To: References: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001cb0f9e$627a1b10$276e5130$@no> I received the typo correction directly from Jeff. With this correction I maintain that North and East have violated laws and regulation by "accepting" the emptied tray pushed over. They should have called the Director immediately and in such a way that South and West were prevented from any further action (i.e. opening the door and proceeding to the play period). Aside from that I completely agree with Roger: It should now be possible to rescue the board using Law 24 with a rather strange consequence: As the door should not have been opened there should be no reason to force North and/or East to pass one round because they have not seen the exposed cards. The only effect of the irregularity should then be possible UI considerations on West and South during the continued auction, and Law 24 consequences during the play unless one of them eventually becomes Dummy. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Roger > Pewick > Sent: 19. juni 2010 04:42 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] inedit > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 17:51 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: [BLML] inedit > > > With screens, East and North on the same screen side. After a few > > rounds of bidding East bids 3NT. (He would be the declarer in NT.) > > The tray is pushed to the other side and returns without the bidding > > cards of South and West who had removed their bidding cards. > > Uncertain if they believed that there had been three passes or if they > > assumed North would pass. Either not noticed by North and East or > > ignored. North then doubled. While East considered what he would do, > > the door of the screen was opened and the "opening lead" (by West) and > > the "dummy" (of > > South) were on the table. What do you do as TD? > > > > Ciao, JE > > The picking up of bidding cards and exposure of cards by SW during the auction > were at their own misunderstanding without recourse [L21]. That SW at their > respective turns did not elect to bid, double, nor redouble [the law definition of > pass] are thereby deemed to have passed at those turns when the bidding tray > was passed. > > The exposing of the cards was during the auction and as both sides are offending > information from all the cards is UI to both sides. L24 > > Since it would have been mentioned if W's card was an honor there is no further > auction penalty upon [L24A] E, but N must pass [L24C/L23] at his next turn. > > The auction continues from E. Presumably EW becomes declarer [so W's card is > returned to hand without additional penalty] and declarer will be able to select > which PC to play to each trick until there is one PC and has PC options when it the > partner's turn to lead.. L50/51 > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 19 12:59:15 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:59:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com><270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred><4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be><002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no><4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be><003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com><1276862955.2391.1380741115@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 05:14 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Leading question > > On 18 Jun 2010, at 13:09, David Babcock wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:55 +0100, "David Burn" >> >> wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately, the words "the trick" do not appear in this part of >>> Law >>> 57: >>> >>> When a defender ... plays out of turn before his partner has >>> played ... >>> >>> Doubtless it was intended that they should. But they don't. >> >> They don't have to. The Definitions section says that a play is the >> contribution of a card to a trick. > > ..." including the first card, which is the lead." N deals and the auction proceeds P-P-P at which point E produces the DJ. The DJ remains face up and W must pass, ending the auction and the cards are returned to the board. As the DJ was the highest card played to the trick therefore EW score +50 for taking one trick [L44F] in a pass out auction and NS -50. regards roger pewick From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sat Jun 19 14:17:06 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:17:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com><270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred><4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be><002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no><4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be><003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com><1276862955.2391.1380741115@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1276949826.20998.1380880637@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:14 +0100, "Gordon Rainsford" wrote: > > > > The Definitions section says that a play is the > > contribution of a card to a trick. > > ..." including the first card, which is the lead." *to the trick*, surely. Can a trick sensibly be considered to be in progress before the play period has begun? David From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 19 14:28:04 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:28:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: <1276949826.20998.1380880637@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com><270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred><4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be><002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no><4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be><003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com><1276862955.2391.1380741115@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1276949826.20998.1380880637@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000001cb0faa$de122860$9a367920$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David > Babcock > Sent: 19. juni 2010 14:17 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Leading question > > > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:14 +0100, "Gordon Rainsford" > wrote: > > > > > > The Definitions section says that a play is the contribution of a > > > card to a trick. > > > > ..." including the first card, which is the lead." > > *to the trick*, surely. Can a trick sensibly be considered to be in progress before > the play period has begun? > > David Neither sensibly nor technically. The word "led" in Laws 24 and 50 serves to differentiate between accidentally dropped and intentionally "led" Sven From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sat Jun 19 14:34:08 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:34:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Leading question In-Reply-To: References: <001201cb0e99$80892d90$819b88b0$@com><270540676DA74E40928B9D5800BA4D9C@Mildred><4C1B4ACB.4010204@ulb.ac.be><002601cb0ed7$0da81d70$28f85850$@no><4C1B56B5.3060503@ulb.ac.be><003b01cb0edd$2ba66ec0$82f34c40$@com><1276862955.2391.1380741115@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1276950848.22485.1380882109@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:59 -0500, "Roger Pewick" wrote: > > N deals and the auction proceeds P-P-P at which point E produces the DJ. > The DJ remains face up and W must pass, ending the auction and the cards > are > returned to the board. As the DJ was the highest card played to the > trick > therefore EW score +50 for taking one trick [L44F] in a pass out auction > and NS -50. an energetic effort in a noble cause, but the scoring table says "if the contract is not fulfilled", and there is no contract. David From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jun 19 18:26:57 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:26:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] inedit In-Reply-To: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> References: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> Message-ID: <4C1CEFD1.6050808@nhcc.net> On 6/18/2010 6:51 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > While East considered what he would do, the door of the > screen was opened and the "opening lead" and the "dummy" > were on the table. Just a question about screen regulations: is the above normal? I'd expect the screen to be opened when the opening lead is face down and the dummy not yet exposed. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Sat Jun 19 18:41:59 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:41:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inedit In-Reply-To: <4C1CEFD1.6050808@nhcc.net> References: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> <4C1CEFD1.6050808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <80BC9E4CDE7D4377A4A5EC0C08FA2D1B@PCdeOlivier> Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] inedit > > On 6/18/2010 6:51 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> While East considered what he would do, the door of the >> screen was opened and the "opening lead" and the "dummy" >> were on the table. > > Just a question about screen regulations: is the above normal? I'd > expect the screen to be opened when the opening lead is face down and > the dummy not yet exposed. this is common "real life" not against regulation but not the recommanded way Olivix > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 19 22:29:04 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:29:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inedit References: <4C1BF889.1030705@aol.com> <4C1CEFD1.6050808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] inedit > On 6/18/2010 6:51 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> While East considered what he would do, the door of the >> screen was opened and the "opening lead" and the "dummy" >> were on the table. > > Just a question about screen regulations: is the above normal? I'd > expect the screen to be opened when the opening lead is face down and > the dummy not yet exposed. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 20 09:03:14 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:03:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] funny one Message-ID: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> I Played in a pub drive yesterday - great fun! Of course there are not enough TDs to go around, so we have to help out where we can. I have just played the last board in the tournament (going for the zero in -1400 when I could have let them play in 2D for -130 and a top for us) and am collecting all the bidding boxes and the like. One table is still playing. They call me for an insufficient bid: 1Di-1Cl. I ask what they play and it's strong club. So there's no way out: partner will have to pass. He bids 2NT instead and plays there. Two minutes later they call again. No one had noticed, but dummy had started with 12 cards, and declarer with 14 (hence the strong club, ...). Remember it's the last round of a pub drive ... So I rule 40-60. Declarer tells me I should punish the people who misboarded the hands. I say that I only have to do that if their mistake makes the award of an adjusted score necessary - which this isn't, since they should have counted their cards ... Only then do I realize this was our -1400... (it was also our last round in a pub drive, after all ...) So by misboarding we had turned our zero into 0.06! Should I have insisted on the subtraction of 0.06 from our final total? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jun 20 09:30:08 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:30:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201cb104a$6a0492a0$3e0db7e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Herman: They call me for an insufficient bid: 1Di-1Cl. I ask what they play and it's strong club. So there's no way out: partner will have to pass. ton: Why? If for example 2NT now in their system shows a strong balanced hand bidding could continue normally isn't it? Oh, now I see he replaced his 1C for 2NT. Well.... ton From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 20 10:43:04 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:43:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <001201cb104a$6a0492a0$3e0db7e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> <001201cb104a$6a0492a0$3e0db7e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4C1DD498.4090209@skynet.be> Of course I did ask if they have a strong bid now - they only had a double showing 13+. ton wrote: > Herman: > They call me for an insufficient bid: 1Di-1Cl. I ask what > they play and it's strong club. So there's no way out: partner will have > to pass. > > ton: > Why? If for example 2NT now in their system shows a strong balanced hand > bidding could continue normally isn't it? > > Oh, now I see he replaced his 1C for 2NT. Well.... > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2950 - Release Date: 06/19/10 19:50:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jun 20 12:19:20 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:19:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <4C1DD498.4090209@skynet.be> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> <001201cb104a$6a0492a0$3e0db7e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C1DD498.4090209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601cb1062$0d420120$27c60360$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: Of course you handled this well, but the description was not that clear. Let us continue this case, what if 1NT now shows 15+ -18 balanced? Should we be softyish? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Herman De Wael Verzonden: zondag 20 juni 2010 10:43 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] funny one Of course I did ask if they have a strong bid now - they only had a double showing 13+. ton wrote: > Herman: > They call me for an insufficient bid: 1Di-1Cl. I ask what > they play and it's strong club. So there's no way out: partner will have > to pass. > > ton: > Why? If for example 2NT now in their system shows a strong balanced hand > bidding could continue normally isn't it? > > Oh, now I see he replaced his 1C for 2NT. Well.... > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2950 - Release Date: 06/19/10 19:50:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 20 12:39:31 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:39:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny one References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be><001201cb104a$6a0492a0$3e0db7e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C1DD498.4090209@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] funny one > Of course I did ask if they have a strong bid now - they only had a > double showing 13+. > > ton wrote: >> Herman: >> They call me for an insufficient bid: 1Di-1Cl. I ask what >> they play and it's strong club. So there's no way out: partner will have >> to pass. >> >> ton: >> Why? If for example 2NT now in their system shows a strong balanced hand >> bidding could continue normally isn't it? >> >> Oh, now I see he replaced his 1C for 2NT. Well.... >> >> ton >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2950 - Release Date: 06/19/10 >> 19:50:00 >> > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 20 13:13:05 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:13:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <000601cb1062$0d420120$27c60360$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> <001201cb104a$6a0492a0$3e0db7e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C1DD498.4090209@skynet.be> <000601cb1062$0d420120$27c60360$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4C1DF7C1.7000701@skynet.be> ton wrote: > ton: > > Of course you handled this well, but the description was not that clear. > Let us continue this case, what if 1NT now shows 15+ -18 balanced? > Should we be softyish? > maybe we should - 15 is almost 16. Although ... most belgians play that 1Cl shows 17+, or 16(15) with distribution. in that case, the 15 and 16 of the 1NT drop and offender has shown 17-18 rather than 15-18 and that may well be too big a "softyish". > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Herman De > Wael > Verzonden: zondag 20 juni 2010 10:43 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] funny one > > Of course I did ask if they have a strong bid now - they only had a > double showing 13+. > > ton wrote: >> Herman: >> They call me for an insufficient bid: 1Di-1Cl. I ask what >> they play and it's strong club. So there's no way out: partner will have >> to pass. >> >> ton: >> Why? If for example 2NT now in their system shows a strong balanced hand >> bidding could continue normally isn't it? >> >> Oh, now I see he replaced his 1C for 2NT. Well.... >> >> ton >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2950 - Release Date: 06/19/10 > 19:50:00 >> > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2950 - Release Date: 06/19/10 19:50:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jun 20 15:57:32 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:57:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4E7FDE4A2F9148159060DF7C07FA4F66@erdos> L23 says that an adjusted score is awarded "if the offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side". If you misboard after a bad result in a KO, this law would apply. However, I wouldn't apply it here. The reason you get 0.06, not zero, for a bottom on a board with one artificial score is that 0.06 is your expected score on that board, given that the table with the artificial score could have tied you. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 3:03 AM Subject: [BLML] funny one >I Played in a pub drive yesterday - great fun! > > Of course there are not enough TDs to go around, so we have to help out > where we can. > > I have just played the last board in the tournament (going for the zero > in -1400 when I could have let them play in 2D for -130 and a top for > us) and am collecting all the bidding boxes and the like. One table is > still playing. They call me for an insufficient bid: 1Di-1Cl. I ask what > they play and it's strong club. So there's no way out: partner will have > to pass. He bids 2NT instead and plays there. Two minutes later they > call again. No one had noticed, but dummy had started with 12 cards, and > declarer with 14 (hence the strong club, ...). Remember it's the last > round of a pub drive ... > So I rule 40-60. > Declarer tells me I should punish the people who misboarded the hands. I > say that I only have to do that if their mistake makes the award of an > adjusted score necessary - which this isn't, since they should have > counted their cards ... > > Only then do I realize this was our -1400... (it was also our last round > in a pub drive, after all ...) > So by misboarding we had turned our zero into 0.06! > Should I have insisted on the subtraction of 0.06 from our final total? > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 20 16:43:10 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:43:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <4E7FDE4A2F9148159060DF7C07FA4F66@erdos> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> <4E7FDE4A2F9148159060DF7C07FA4F66@erdos> Message-ID: <000301cb1086$e7fb76b0$b7f26410$@no> On Behalf Of David Grabiner > L23 says that an adjusted score is awarded "if the offender could have been > aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending > side". If you misboard after a bad result in a KO, this law would apply. > > However, I wouldn't apply it here. The reason you get 0.06, not zero, for a bottom > on a board with one artificial score is that 0.06 is your expected score on that > board, given that the table with the artificial score could have tied you. Or received an even worse result on the board! Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 21 01:00:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:00:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 21 01:21:16 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:21:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French, pedant: >Therefore L56 should say "Apply Law 54D," since that is >evidently the intent. "See" may be interpreted as saying >that this law refers only to an opening lead, the subject >of L54D. Richard Hills, ultra-pedant: Therefore Law 56 should say, "Apply Law 54D, mutatis mutandis," since that is evidently the intent. A mere "Apply" without the "mutatis mutandis" may be interpreted as saying that this Law 56 refers only to an opening lead, the subject of Law 54D. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: _mutatis mutandis_ adv., with due alteration of details (in applying analogies &c.). [L _muto_ change] 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jun 21 03:03:08 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:03:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <492094.92891.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Nigel Guthrie] Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and gentlemen. [Richard Hills] Yes and no.? I have often asserted that the most important Law in the Lawbook is Law 74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. But Law 74A2 does not preclude me from exercising my legal right to preempt, whether or not my preempting "annoys" an opponent. Likewise, bridge players are not expected to obey unwritten Laws. [Nigel Guthrie] Social sanctions are enough. [Richard Hills] No, any social sanctions upon a player who "infracted" a non- existent unwritten Law are completely unethical. WBF Code of Practice, page 6, "Ethics": A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens. [Nige2] Once again, Richard demonstrates his tailoring skills. He finds some old thread and with diligent snipping, fashions what appears to be a sow's ear out of a silk purse. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 21 04:07:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 03:07:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <955BB9A9038E4043B2E9A1EA9F4AEE5C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Marvin French, pedant: > >>Therefore L56 should say "Apply Law 54D," since that is >>evidently the intent. "See" may be interpreted as saying >>that this law refers only to an opening lead, the subject >>of L54D. > > Richard Hills, ultra-pedant: > > Therefore Law 56 should say, "Apply Law 54D, mutatis > mutandis," since that is evidently the intent. A mere > "Apply" without the "mutatis mutandis" may be interpreted > as saying that this Law 56 refers only to an opening lead, > the subject of Law 54D. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > _mutatis mutandis_ adv., with due alteration of details > (in applying analogies &c.). [L _muto_ change] > +=+ Off to Ostend now for the European Championships. We say 'But see' when we are pointing to an exception to the law we are looking at. 'And see' points to an extension of the subject. Saying merely 'see.....' points to something which may apply given the circumstances for its application. Back July 5. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 21 04:29:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:29:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <492094.92891.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >>>Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >>>gentlemen. Richard Hills, 6th April 2010: >>Yes and no. I have often asserted that the most important >>Law in the Lawbook is Law 74A2: >> >> A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that >> might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player >> or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. >> >>But Law 74A2 does not preclude me from exercising my legal >>right to preempt, whether or not my preempting "annoys" an >>opponent. >> >>Likewise, bridge players are not expected to obey unwritten >>Laws. Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >>>Social sanctions are enough. Richard Hills, 6th April 2010: >>No, any social sanctions upon a player who "infracted" a >>non-existent unwritten Law are completely unethical. >> >>WBF Code of Practice, page 6, "Ethics": >> >> A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics >> where a player is in breach of the provisions of the >> laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed >> to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. >> This does not preclude encouragement of a generous >> attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of >> information behind screens. Nigel Guthrie, 21st June 2010: >Once again, Richard demonstrates his tailoring skills. He >finds some old thread Richard Hills, 21st June 2010: No, as the above dates show, it is Nigel Guthrie who is finally replying to some old thread, while my quoted post was contemporaneous in a then-new thread. Nigel Guthrie, 21st June 2010: >and with diligent snipping, fashions what appears to be a >sow's ear out of a silk purse. Richard Hills, 21st June 2010: Okay, unsnipping the relevant penultimate paragraph -> Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: [two paragraphs snipped, but reproduced later in this post] >>>In practice, no problems arise when a handicapped person >>>suffers a mechanical error that is obviously due to >>>disability. Opponents do not call attention to the >>>irregularity. If the "offender" insists on calling the >>>director, then the "victims" ask the director to waive >>>the penalty. Directors are happy to oblige. >>> >>>Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >>>gentlemen. They need no new laws or stretched >>>"interpretations" of existing laws to cope with this >>>kind of thing. Social sanctions are enough. Law 81C5: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." Richard Hills, 21st June 2010: The late and great Frank Vine also had a hang-up on what "ladies and gentlemen" meant, conflating pleasantness and courtesy at the table (required by Law 74A2) with waiving of revoke rectifications (_not_ required by Law 81C5). Indeed, Frank Vine went further, arguing that his waivers of rectification were not based on merit, but rather based on whether he liked his opponents. I am routinely pleasant and courteous to all my opponents, handicapped or otherwise. This, in my opinion, is the limit of what "ladies and gentlemen" means for me. To avoid making invidious Frank Vine-like decisions (Is my opponent sufficiently likable? Is my opponent sufficiently handicapped?) I only request a Law 81C5 rectification when my side has partially caused the other side's infraction. And I have not been socially sanctioned by other Aussie bridge players. Perhaps because most Aussie players are willing to pay the rectification for their carelessness, even if their carelessness is partially caused by a handicap (for what it is worth, I am a handicapped player myself, with my disability raised in passing by the other side at an appeal this January). Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: [outstanding two paragraphs] >>>Weeks ago, in a national EBU event, my LHO led a plain >>>suit and dummy and RHO followed. Holding the ace and >>>five small trumps, I mistakenly ruffed with the ace. >>>When I noticed what I'd done, I called the director. In >>>context, it was obvious to all that my action was >>>inadvertent -- a mechanical error. Having ascertained >>>the facts, ("Did your card touch the table? "Yes"), the >>>director ruled that the ace was a played card. Correctly >>>in my opinion. >>> >>>Similarly, few people expose more than one card, *on >>>purpose*. Nevertheless, IMO, you do need sanctions >>>against carelessness. 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jun 21 08:56:07 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:56:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <420296.83690.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills, 21st June 2010] No, as the above dates show, it is Nigel Guthrie who is finally replying to some old thread, while my quoted post was contemporaneous in a then-new thread. [Nigel] In that case, Sorry Richard :( Must be a mixup in my inbox :( From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 21 13:12:49 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:12:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <000601cb1062$0d420120$27c60360$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> <001201cb104a$6a0492a0$3e0db7e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C1DD498.4090209@skynet.be> <000601cb1062$0d420120$27c60360$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4C1F4931.9020705@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > ton: > > Of course you handled this well, but the description was not that clear. > Let us continue this case, what if 1NT now shows 15+ -18 balanced? > Should we be softyish? > AG : depends on how strong is strong. Many strong clubbers don't open 1C on less than 17 when balanced. From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jun 21 13:21:36 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:21:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 > From blml at arcor.de Mon Jun 21 14:50:42 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:50:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <126527.1277124642797.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > I Played in a pub drive yesterday - great fun! > > Of course there are not enough TDs to go around, so we have to help out > where we can. > > I have just played the last board in the tournament (going for the zero > in -1400 when I could have let them play in 2D for -130 and a top for > us) and am collecting all the bidding boxes and the like. One table is > still playing. They call me for an insufficient bid: 1Di-1Cl. I ask what > they play and it's strong club. So there's no way out: partner will have > to pass. He bids 2NT instead and plays there. Two minutes later they > call again. No one had noticed, but dummy had started with 12 cards, and > declarer with 14 (hence the strong club, ...). Remember it's the last > round of a pub drive ... > So I rule 40-60. > Declarer tells me I should punish the people who misboarded the hands. I > say that I only have to do that if their mistake makes the award of an > adjusted score necessary - which this isn't, since they should have > counted their cards ... > > Only then do I realize this was our -1400... (it was also our last round > in a pub drive, after all ...) > So by misboarding we had turned our zero into 0.06! > Should I have insisted on the subtraction of 0.06 from our final total? No. You should have insisted on being fined 20% of a top, resp. whatever the standard penalty is for misboarding. The penalty for misboarding o should not depend on your score of the board (except in extreme cases where the TD assumes that an attempt was made to deliberatelz destroy the board) o should not depend on when the misboarding is noticed I furthermore think that the player might have failed to understand your "his partner must pass" ruling. There is little point in bidding 2NT in such a situation, one would normally bid either 1NT or 3NT. Thomas -- WM 2010: Top News, Spielpl?ne, Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, was der Fan sonst noch braucht, gibt?s im Sport-Channel auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 21 16:49:02 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:49:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <000601cb1062$0d420120$27c60360$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> <001201cb104a$6a0492a0$3e0db7e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C1DD498.4090209@skynet.be> <000601cb1062$0d420120$27c60360$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 06:19:20 -0400, ton wrote: > ton: > > Of course you handled this well, but the description was not that clear. > Let us continue this case, what if 1NT now shows 15+ -18 balanced? > Should we be softyish? > > ton In the examples I have seen where one might not want to be completely strict on the application of L27B1(B), the discrepancy is not easy to find. For example: 1D P 1H: shows four or more hearts and 6+ HCP 1D 1S X: shows four or more hearts and 6+ HCP. One has to dig into the system to realize that the first bid would not be made with 5 spades and the second bid would. Similarly 1NT P 2C: asks for a four-card major 2NT P 3C: asks for a four-card major That seems very different from 1C: 16+ HCP 1D 1NT: 15-18 HCP What I am trying to say is that if you decide just to be "soft" in the application of L27B1 and accept things like the last situation, there is no way of defining the line between soft and too soft. That fuzzy boundary can lead to arguments and difficulties. Instead it might be useful to define the line as accepting bids as being the same (or more precise) when they would be described as the same (or more precise). Then I think you get what you want and you have an easier line to define. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 21 17:21:07 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:21:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] On a clear day you can see threw the clearest law Message-ID: During a tournament this weekend- 'Director!' 'THere's been an established revoke.' 'offender didn't win the trick, but won a trick with a card he could have played- that is a two trick transf.....' 'please read the law' 'you are wrong' 'I want the law read' 'you are wrong'.. ...'you are wrong'... ...'you are wrong'... ...'you are wrong'... Four minutes later.... 'you are wrong....L64 says.....' '...L64 says......' 'But, but, but- there is equity...' four minutes later... declarer awarded the rest. elapsed time: ten minutes regards roger pewick From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 21 18:56:43 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:56:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] funny one In-Reply-To: <126527.1277124642797.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <4C1DBD32.8090601@skynet.be> <126527.1277124642797.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C1F99CB.7050703@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I Played in a pub drive yesterday - great fun! >> >> Of course there are not enough TDs to go around, so we have to help out >> where we can. >> >> I have just played the last board in the tournament (going for the zero >> in -1400 when I could have let them play in 2D for -130 and a top for >> us) and am collecting all the bidding boxes and the like. One table is >> still playing. They call me for an insufficient bid: 1Di-1Cl. I ask what >> they play and it's strong club. So there's no way out: partner will have >> to pass. He bids 2NT instead and plays there. Two minutes later they >> call again. No one had noticed, but dummy had started with 12 cards, and >> declarer with 14 (hence the strong club, ...). Remember it's the last >> round of a pub drive ... >> So I rule 40-60. >> Declarer tells me I should punish the people who misboarded the hands. I >> say that I only have to do that if their mistake makes the award of an >> adjusted score necessary - which this isn't, since they should have >> counted their cards ... >> >> Only then do I realize this was our -1400... (it was also our last round >> in a pub drive, after all ...) >> So by misboarding we had turned our zero into 0.06! >> Should I have insisted on the subtraction of 0.06 from our final total? >> > > > No. You should have insisted on being fined 20% of a top, resp. > whatever the standard penalty is for misboarding. > > The penalty for misboarding > o should not depend on your score of the board (except in extreme > cases where the TD assumes that an attempt was made to > deliberatelz destroy the board) > o should not depend on when the misboarding is noticed > > > I furthermore think that the player might have failed to understand > your "his partner must pass" ruling. There is little point > in bidding 2NT in such a situation, one would normally > bid either 1NT or 3NT. > > But surely, if their 2NT overcall (whatever it means) always shows a strong hand, of a type which isn't excluded from their 1C opening, then TNFLB allows them to bid further without any penalty (the classical inclusion criterion). So, one should first check what 2NT means (1), then check whether this is a 1C opener in their system (2). Say they play 2NT overcall showing a strong hand with a strong minor and stoppers, something like Ax-xx-KQx-AKJxxx. (I give this example because teammates of mine do. Their two-suiters are Roman) If such hands are opened 1C in their system, which should be the case, then the player would have every reason to bid 2NT, and could feel swindled when Herman told them partner had to pass. So, Herman, tell us : did you ask those two questions ? Best regards Alain From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 21 23:31:01 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:31:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appeal from USA Team Trials Message-ID: Page 3 here: http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news4.pdf -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jun 22 01:10:37 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:10:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inedit part 2 Message-ID: <4C1FF16D.6090007@aol.com> Assuming we rule according to ?24 (the consensus opinion) there are then 14 exposed cards. (The "opening lead" of South and the hand of West which has been tabled.) East must pass (only once) (?24C), South and West may bid freely and North must pass (only once) when it is next his turn to bis (?24B). Scenario 1: South passes and West bids (for example 4 clubs). Later, when the TD examines West's hand he is convinced that West would always pass in a normal auction (and a poll of his peers confirms thus 100%). He has bid to keep the auction open. There was some delay on the North/East screen side before the screen was opened and he apparently believed that his partner might have wanted to bid. Note that his bid is relatively "safe". North must pass (?24B) as must East and if West doubles East can then bid when the auction comes around to him again. 3NTx falls 5 tricks (-1400) so 4cl. undoubled is better and if South doubles it East can better place the contract and even doubled would not go for -1400. Question: is this action by South kosher? Do you allow it? Scenario 2: West ends up playing as declarer (contract irrelevant). North and South now know all 52 cards since the West hand has been exposed and the East hand is now dummy. What now? Can the hand be played? Scenario 3: North (or South) ends up as declarer. He also knows all 52 cards since he sees his hand, the dummy and West's hand has been exposed. What now? Can the hand be played? Ciao, JE From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jun 22 02:26:08 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:26:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Appeal from USA Team Trials In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <97229.71124.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Adam Wildavsky] http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news4.pdf [Nigel] It is not clear which of EW misexplained the EW methods. But NS were damaged. The TD and AC got it wrong. Even if NS dug their own grave, EW should still be penalized. But the NS errors aren't eggregious, so they deserve redress. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 22 05:11:59 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:11:59 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Appeal from USA Team Trials References: Message-ID: <0F157616B12148F9B0575797C92D044E@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Wildavsky" Page 3 here: http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news4.pdf Note that there was no consideration given to any weighting of potential results. Contrary to WBF requirements, the Trials are run under the ACBL's version of the Laws. Result stands for both sides is obviously right, however. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 22 08:06:25 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:06:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inedit part 2 In-Reply-To: <4C1FF16D.6090007@aol.com> References: <4C1FF16D.6090007@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001cb11d1$0c977280$25c65780$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Assuming we rule according to ?24 (the consensus opinion) there are then > 14 exposed cards. (The "opening lead" of South and the hand of West which has > been tabled.) East must pass (only once) (?24C), South and West may bid freely > and North must pass (only once) when it is next his turn to bis (?24B). > > Scenario 1: South passes and West bids (for example 4 clubs). Later, when the > TD examines West's hand he is convinced that West would always pass in a > normal auction (and a poll of his peers confirms thus 100%). > He has bid to keep the auction open. There was some delay on the North/East > screen side before the screen was opened and he apparently believed that his > partner might have wanted to bid. Note that his bid is relatively "safe". North must > pass (?24B) as must East and if West doubles East can then bid when the auction > comes around to him again. > 3NTx falls 5 tricks (-1400) so 4cl. undoubled is better and if South doubles it East > can better place the contract and even doubled would not go for -1400. Question: > is this action by South kosher? Do you allow it? I don't get what you try to express here. Are you ignoring the irregularities by North and East as they bid on in spite of the bid cards from South and West had been removed from the tray? Anyway, as you ask if we allow a 4C bid by West the answer is: Sure we allow it unless there is some specific reason why we should not. Do you claim that West is restrained by UI, and in case what UI? The knowledge that partner and/or an opponent must pass is AI to all players! > Scenario 2: West ends up playing as declarer (contract irrelevant). > North and South now know all 52 cards since the West hand has been exposed > and the East hand is now dummy. What now? Can the hand be played? > > Scenario 3: North (or South) ends up as declarer. He also knows all 52 cards > since he sees his hand, the dummy and West's hand has been exposed. What > now? Can the hand be played? To both questions: Why should it not be played? Laws 50 and 51 are very clear on how the situation shall be handled. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 22 08:57:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:57:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Leading question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Schoder: [snip] >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 In a sense Kojak is correct, since that drivel was an attempt at self-deprecating humour; as a low-level Club Director I woodenly misinterpreted the intent of Law 56 (although I now stand corrected, boughing to Grattan's superior parsing of the English language). 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 olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Jun 22 10:03:42 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:03:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inedit part 2 In-Reply-To: <4C1FF16D.6090007@aol.com> References: <4C1FF16D.6090007@aol.com> Message-ID: <4728E58490574FCFA4C0298E1350A03B@PCdeOlivier> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 1:10 AM Subject: [BLML] inedit part 2 Assuming we rule according to ?24 (the consensus opinion) there are then 14 exposed cards. (The "opening lead" of South and the hand of West which has been tabled.) East must pass (only once) (?24C), South and West may bid freely and North must pass (only once) when it is next his turn to bis (?24B). Scenario 1: South passes and West bids (for example 4 clubs). Later, when the TD examines West's hand he is convinced that West would always pass in a normal auction (and a poll of his peers confirms thus 100%). He has bid to keep the auction open. There was some delay on the North/East screen side before the screen was opened and he apparently believed that his partner might have wanted to bid. Note that his bid is relatively "safe". North must pass (?24B) as must East and if West doubles East can then bid when the auction comes around to him again. 3NTx falls 5 tricks (-1400) so 4cl. undoubled is better and if South doubles it East can better place the contract and even doubled would not go for -1400. Question: is this action by South kosher? Do you allow it? OB Yes, there is an infraction, you have a "penalty" you pay it then you live with it and are allowed to know the penalty and be clever to avoid a greater desaster ... Scenario 2: West ends up playing as declarer (contract irrelevant). North and South now know all 52 cards since the West hand has been exposed and the East hand is now dummy. What now? Can the hand be played? OB Yes, there is an infraction, you have a "penalty" you pay it then you live with it and any information is now autorized unless a Law says not whitch is not the case here and some more : the defender has penalty(ies) card(s)! Scenario 3: North (or South) ends up as declarer. He also knows all 52 cards since he sees his hand, the dummy and West's hand has been exposed. What now? Can the hand be played? OB Exactly the same ... Olivier Beauvillain, ready to follow Oostende, starting tomorrow, on BBO, with a cheers to the TD's ... hoping to see you somwhere sometime Ciao, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From gampas at aol.com Tue Jun 22 11:18:54 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:18:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Appeal from USA Team Trials In-Reply-To: <97229.71124.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CCE003124453B5-1A9C-2F2@webmail-d048.sysops.aol.com> [Nigel] It is not clear which of EW misexplained the EW methods. But NS were damaged. The TD and AC got it wrong. Even if NS dug their own grave, EW should still be penalized. But the NS errors aren't eggregious, so they deserve redress. [Lamford] The Law says we assume misexplanation rather than misbid, but I agree with the AC that it is obvious by the time South doubles 5H that East does not have a WJS (he would pass 5Dx). I agree with the AC that the bad result is not caused by the misinformation, which is a different issue to deciding whether the double is WoG. It does seem that E/W merit some penalty however, and a small PP would be my choice. From blml at arcor.de Tue Jun 22 16:26:54 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:26:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] inedit part 2 In-Reply-To: <4C1FF16D.6090007@aol.com> References: <4C1FF16D.6090007@aol.com> Message-ID: <15794110.1277216814211.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Scenario 2: West ends up playing as declarer (contract irrelevant). > North and South now know all 52 cards since the West hand has been > exposed and the East hand is now dummy. What now? Can the hand be played? > > Scenario 3: North (or South) ends up as declarer. He also knows all 52 > cards since he sees his hand, the dummy and West's hand has been > exposed. What now? Can the hand be played? Yes to both. That's what W gets for exposing his hand during the auction. He should be glad that he didn't end up with 13 penalty cards. Thomas -- WM 2010: Top News, Spielpl?ne, Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, was der Fan sonst noch braucht, gibt?s im Sport-Channel auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010 From blml at arcor.de Tue Jun 22 16:57:30 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:57:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Appeal from USA Team Trials Message-ID: <17589080.1277218650164.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Adam Wildavsky] > http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news4.pdf > > [Nigel] > It is not clear which of EW misexplained the EW methods. But NS were > damaged. The TD and AC got it wrong. Even if NS dug their own grave, EW > should still be penalized. But the NS errors aren't eggregious, so they > deserve redress. Getting a bad result after some infraction does not automatically entitle a pair to redress. In this particular case, when 5H was doubled, both N and S must have known that 3D was not a weak jump shift. The MI simply no longer applies at the critical junction. S should have asked for additional explanations when E took out 5DX to 5H. No redress for N/S. There also is that little point that W's explanation might have been the correct one. Thomas -- WM 2010: Top News, Spielpl?ne, Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, was der Fan sonst noch braucht, gibt?s im Sport-Channel auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010 From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Jun 22 19:02:08 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:02:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A1l Message-ID: <18F872989906453294FAC215BA606F3D@PCdeOlivier> Hello, L9A1 says that : "unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attenion to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call" does anyone has an exemple of a Law prohibiting this? and a lilve example? Thanks, Olivier Beauvillain __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100622/b8ec11bf/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 22 19:27:11 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:27:11 -0800 Subject: [BLML] A1l References: <18F872989906453294FAC215BA606F3D@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: Olivier Beauvillain wrote: >L9A1 says that : "unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attenion to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call" >does anyone has an exemple of a Law prohibiting this? and a lilve example? Well, you obviously may not call attention to partner's failure to Alert a call by you. I'm too lazy to seek other examples. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 23 00:06:58 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:06:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeal from USA Team Trials In-Reply-To: <17589080.1277218650164.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <17589080.1277218650164.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000901cb1257$3c3879e0$b4a96da0$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Thomas Dehn > Sent: 22. juni 2010 16:58 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal from USA Team Trials > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > [Adam Wildavsky] > > http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news4.pdf > > > > [Nigel] > > It is not clear which of EW misexplained the EW methods. But NS were > > damaged. The TD and AC got it wrong. Even if NS dug their own grave, > > EW should still be penalized. But the NS errors aren't eggregious, so > > they deserve redress. > > Getting a bad result after some infraction does not automatically entitle a pair to > redress. In this particular case, when 5H was doubled, both N and S must have > known that 3D was not a weak jump shift. The MI simply no longer applies at the > critical junction. > > S should have asked for additional explanations when E took out 5DX to 5H. No > redress for N/S. > > There also is that little point that W's explanation might have been the correct one. Another reference: http://bridgewinners.com/chicago-trials has surfaced revealing that the information given by West to South was correct and that East actually both misbid and misexplained his bid to North. Consequently South was not misinformed. Has South paid sufficient attention to the fact that East pulled the 5D bid to 5H he might probably have understood what was going on, but he had anyway nobody to blame other than himself for the bad result on the board. I would say that the AC made a correct ruling. Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Jun 23 00:23:22 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:23:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?A1l?= In-Reply-To: <18F872989906453294FAC215BA606F3D@PCdeOlivier> References: <18F872989906453294FAC215BA606F3D@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <1ORBsI-0iULaa0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> see Law 20 F5a From: "olivier.beauvillain" > ? ? ? ?Hello, ? L9A1 says that : "unless prohibited by Law, any player > may draw ?attenion to an irregularity during the auction period, > whether or not it is his ?turn to call" ? does anyone has an exemple > of a Law prohibiting ?this? and a lilve example? ? Thanks, Olivier > Beauvillain From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 23 02:08:26 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:08:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Appeal from USA Team Trials In-Reply-To: <17589080.1277218650164.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <17589080.1277218650164.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C21507A.6060006@nhcc.net> On 6/22/2010 10:57 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Getting a bad result after some infraction does > not automatically entitle a pair to redress. I trust everyone agrees with this. > In this > particular case, when 5H was doubled, both N and S must have known > that 3D was not a weak jump shift. If this is true, why shouldn't East have known it? In which case L75B would seem relevant. > There also is that little point that W's explanation might > have been the correct one. [as later turns out to be correct, we are told] So North was misinformed by East. Why isn't this relevant? From: "Marvin French" > Note that there was no consideration given to any weighting of > potential results. Contrary to WBF requirements, the Trials are run > under the ACBL's version of the Laws. Are RA and Zonal options disallowed in trials? > Result stands for both sides is obviously right, however. Not so obvious to me. The AC found a 10-25% chance NS would have gone right with a correct explanation. At the low end of this range, "result stands" is fine. At the high end, a split score should be given ("at all probable" but not "likely"). There is now no fixed value for the dividing line, but I can't imagine it isn't somewhere within the 10-25% range. From: "Sven Pran" > Has South paid sufficient attention to the fact that East pulled the 5D bid > to 5H he might probably have understood what was going on, but he had anyway > nobody to blame other than himself for the bad result on the board. If South was informed correctly, the question becomes what North would have done with correct information. Unless you think South's bidding was a "serious error," but even if so, you still would adjust the EW score if the relevant conditions are met. I can't imagine that failing to diagnose a gross misbid or psych is really a serious error within the meaning of L12C1b, but of course I don't play at the relevant level. From blml at arcor.de Wed Jun 23 05:16:45 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:16:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Appeal from USA Team Trials In-Reply-To: <4C21507A.6060006@nhcc.net> References: <4C21507A.6060006@nhcc.net> <17589080.1277218650164.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <3481210.1277263005182.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Steve Willner wrote: > On 6/22/2010 10:57 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Getting a bad result after some infraction does > > not automatically entitle a pair to redress. > > I trust everyone agrees with this. > > > In this > > particular case, when 5H was doubled, both N and S must have known > > that 3D was not a weak jump shift. > > If this is true, why shouldn't East have known it? In which case L75B > would seem relevant. > > > There also is that little point that W's explanation might > > have been the correct one. > [as later turns out to be correct, we are told] > > So North was misinformed by East. Why isn't this relevant? >From the writeup, the complaint by N/S was that S claimed if he had received the same information as N, he would not have doubled 5H. For that angle, it is relevant that S actually received correct information, not whether N received correct information. Steve is correct that the effect of the misinformation received by N must be reviewed. In this particular case, I don't deem it "at all likely" that the final contract would not have been 5HX if N had received the correct information. Thomas -- WM 2010: Top News, Spielpl?ne, Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, was der Fan sonst noch braucht, gibt?s im Sport-Channel auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010 From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Wed Jun 23 14:11:47 2010 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:11:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] in Oostende Message-ID: Herman is in Oostence, but you may have gathered that. I have set up this address to keep in touch with blml. Herman. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100623/16afe3bd/attachment.html From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Wed Jun 23 14:18:00 2010 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:18:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] funny one Message-ID: Thomas Dehn wrote: > No. You should have insisted on being fined 20% of a top, resp. > whatever the standard penalty is for misboarding. > The standard penalty for misboarding in Belgium is 0%. And don't forget that there is only a legal requirement to award a PP for those infractions that render the awarding of an artificial score at another table unavoidable. The ArtAS was avoidable, they only needed to have counted their cards. > The penalty for misboarding > o should not depend on your score of the board (except in extreme > cases where the TD assumes that an attempt was made to > deliberatelz destroy the board) > o should not depend on when the misboarding is noticed > True. > > I furthermore think that the player might have failed to understand > your "his partner must pass" ruling. There is little point > in bidding 2NT in such a situation, one would normally > bid either 1NT or 3NT. > I am quite certain he understood. His partner also told him he should have bid 3NT. > Alain Gottscheiner already replied: But surely, if their 2NT overcall (whatever it means) always shows a strong hand, of a type which isn't excluded from their 1C opening, then TNFLB allows them to bid further without any penalty (the classical inclusion criterion). So, one should first check what 2NT means (1), then check whether this is a 1C opener in their system (2). I did that. I asked if they had any strong bid available. They did not suggest 2NT. Offender quite clearly bid 2NT because that was the level he wanted to play at - not because it showed anything. Say they play 2NT overcall showing a strong hand with a strong minor and stoppers, something like Ax-xx-KQx-AKJxxx. (I give this example because teammates of mine do. Their two-suiters are Roman) If such hands are opened 1C in their system, which should be the case, then the player would have every reason to bid 2NT, and could feel swindled when Herman told them partner had to pass. So, Herman, tell us : did you ask those two questions ? Yes, but in the other order. Best regards Alain Herman. From henk at ripe.net Wed Jun 23 14:34:00 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:34:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] in Oostende In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C21FF38.8030304@ripe.net> On 23/06/2010 14:11, Herman De Wael wrote: > Herman is in Oostence, but you may have gathered that. > I have set up this address to keep in touch with blml. > Herman. Herman, I understood from the Dutch news that there was already a problem with the CoC (see http://www.imp-bridge.nl/manasite/mas/imp/index/20957.htm). Any comments/insights on that? I'll be there for the last weekend. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 25 04:21:55 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:21:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy Message-ID: Dummy put down her cards with the king of clubs missing. It showed up about trick 5 and the opps claimed they were damaged. I did my normal "everyone is responsible for the dummy" routine, but then I checked the rules. "Dummy spreads his hand in front of him" So hiding a card seems to be an irregularity. Then 12A1, I may award an adjusted score when I judge that the laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. So should I be protecting the defenders for any damage caused by a hidden card in dummy? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jun 25 05:00:35 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:00:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51C144473C46478982041909BA72D256@erdos> In theory, everyone is responsible for the dummy, but you should still restore equity under L12A1 because dummy did commit an irregularity. If defenders were damaged by dummy's missing card (say, because West led a club and East played the ace rather than the queen), they should get the trick back. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:21 PM Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy > Dummy put down her cards with the king of clubs missing. It showed up > about trick 5 and the opps claimed they were damaged. > > I did my normal "everyone is responsible for the dummy" routine, but then > I checked the rules. > > "Dummy spreads his hand in front of him" So hiding a card seems to be an > irregularity. Then 12A1, I may award an adjusted score when I judge that > the laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the > particular type of violation committed by an opponent. > > So should I be protecting the defenders for any damage caused by a hidden > card in dummy? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 25 05:52:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:52:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51C144473C46478982041909BA72D256@erdos> Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World July 1993: "The Laws should really allow a player who has made a penalty double to look at his cards again, then undouble." Robert Frick: >> ... I did my normal "everyone is responsible for the >>dummy" routine, but then I checked the rules. ... David Grabiner: >In theory, everyone is responsible for the dummy ... Richard Hills: What theory? "The Laws should really allow everyone to be responsible for dummy, permitting a defender to vote that dummy's queen of diamonds should be played instead of dummy's ace of diamonds." Only if the Laws say so is then "everyone" responsible for dummy. And the current Laws do not say so. Both Robert and David referred to -> Law 41D - Dummy's Hand After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. So both Robert and David correctly concluded that a 12- card dummy hand was an infraction by the dummy player, _not_ an infraction by "everyone". Note that the final sentence of Law 41D means that a revoking card played from dummy's hand is an infraction by declarer, _not_ an infraction by "everyone". The popular myth that "everyone" is responsible for the dummy is due to a misinterpretation of -> Law 64B3 - Procedure After Establishment of a Revoke - No Rectification There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 26 16:13:05 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:13:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Playing in the Goldman pairs, my partner decided to attack clubs in a 3NT contract. 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. So the opponents were damaged by the hidden card in dummy. I am pretty sure the correct ruling should be "rub-of-the-green". The opps wouldn't have done anything different had they seen the hidden card. It caused my partner to take a suboptimal play. BUT... I thought rub-of-the-green lucky results were normally protected only by L12B2: "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." In this situation, there is no rectification provided in the laws. So L12B2 doesn't apply? Instead, we were using "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." My the relevant definition for "indemnity" in my dictionary seems to be "reimbursement for loss or damage" So I seem to be getting that, according the the Laws, the opps are protected against all damage caused by a hidden card in dummy. Which I am guessing is not the correct ruling to make. Bob On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:52:38 -0400, wrote: > Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World July 1993: > > "The Laws should really allow a player who has made a > penalty double to look at his cards again, then undouble." > > Robert Frick: > >>> ... I did my normal "everyone is responsible for the >>> dummy" routine, but then I checked the rules. ... > > David Grabiner: > >> In theory, everyone is responsible for the dummy ... > > Richard Hills: > > What theory? > > "The Laws should really allow everyone to be responsible > for dummy, permitting a defender to vote that dummy's > queen of diamonds should be played instead of dummy's > ace of diamonds." > > Only if the Laws say so is then "everyone" responsible for > dummy. And the current Laws do not say so. > > Both Robert and David referred to -> > > Law 41D - Dummy's Hand > > After the opening lead is faced, dummy > spreads his hand in front of him on the > table, face up, sorted into suits, the > cards in order of rank with lowest > ranking cards towards declarer, and in > columns pointing lengthwise towards > declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy's > right. Declarer plays both his hand and > that of dummy. > > So both Robert and David correctly concluded that a 12- > card dummy hand was an infraction by the dummy player, > _not_ an infraction by "everyone". > > Note that the final sentence of Law 41D means that a > revoking card played from dummy's hand is an infraction > by declarer, _not_ an infraction by "everyone". > > The popular myth that "everyone" is responsible for the > dummy is due to a misinterpretation of -> > > Law 64B3 - Procedure After Establishment > of a Revoke - No Rectification > > There is no rectification as in A > following an established revoke: > if the revoke was made in failing to > play any card faced on the table or > belonging to a hand faced on the table, > including a card from dummy's hand. > > > 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 -- somepsychology.com From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sat Jun 26 17:22:20 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:22:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1277565740.19359.1382015643@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:13 -0400, "Robert Frick" wrote: > > Playing in the Goldman pairs ACBL-land > So I seem to be getting that, according the the Laws, the opps are > protected against all damage caused by a hidden card in dummy. Which I am > guessing is not the correct ruling to make. ACBL's _Duplicate Decisions_ says, on p. 14: "If one of dummy's card is obscured, as by being stuck behind another, and the discrepancy goes unnoticed for some time, and its absence is found to have damaged the defenders, an adjusted score (Law 12) may be in order..." So, we know that *at least some* consequences of a hidden card in dummy may be addressed via Law 12. David From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 28 05:49:23 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:49:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] USA Team Trials Appeal #2 Message-ID: The write-up is on page 3 here, but some info is missing: http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news5.pdf Here's the context: W?alerted S that his bid was Michaels' and?E alerted N that it?was T/O. The OL was the C3 to the K and W returned the D9 won in dummy whereupon?the S8 was led from dummy. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 28 08:12:38 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:12:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points Message-ID: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the penalty points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to the finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and get a 100% carryover of their result against the other 8 of their group. Effectively the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 teams. Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the regulations. A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your views about which regulation would have been best/fairest. 1) All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final 2) All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final 3) All penalties from matches that are carried over are remembered at the final 4) Other? Should there perhaps be a difference based on the reason for the penalty? Hans van Staveren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100628/688c2426/attachment.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jun 28 08:31:32 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:31:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Carryover_of_penalty_points?= In-Reply-To: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: <1OT7sT-1BBCyG0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Hi Hans, From: "Hans van Staveren" > There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the > penalty points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. > > First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. > > In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to > the finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and > get a 100% carryover of their result against the other 8 of their > group. Effectively the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 > teams. > > Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the > regulations. A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your > views about which regulation would have been best/fairest. > > 1)????? All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final > > 2)????? All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final > > 3)????? All penalties from matches that are carried over are > remembered at the final > > 4)????? Other? My vote would be: Either 2) or 3) with 2) being my favourite. A. Not carrying forward would be unfair in regard to the matches of the "final" - which is _not_ a real final. Penalties in those matches _will_ have impact on the final score. B. Why should a penalty for e. g. playing slow against Cyprus (no offence intended) treated different than a slow play penalty against Iceland ? > Should there perhaps be a difference based on the reason for the > penalty? No, why should a team have a penalty erased for e. g. carrying a mobile phone into the playing area? An offence that has nothing to do with playing bridge - but with obeying (or not obeying) to the rules of the game. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Jun 28 08:34:25 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:34:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: Am 28.06.2010, 08:12 Uhr, schrieb Hans van Staveren : > There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the > penalty > points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. > > > First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. > > > In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to the > finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and get a > 100% > carryover of their result against the other 8 of their group. Effectively > the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 teams. > > > Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the > regulations. > A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your views about which > regulation would have been best/fairest. > > > 1) All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final > > 2) All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final > > 3) All penalties from matches that are carried over are remembered > at > the final > > 4) Other? > > > Should there perhaps be a difference based on the reason for the penalty? > Count me for option 2. Penalties have nothing to do with the result of a particular match which rules out option 3. When a breach of law or regulation has made it necessary to award a penalty, it should, for its effect on the final rankings, make no difference what has happened and when. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From henk at ripe.net Mon Jun 28 09:35:34 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:35:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: <4C2850C6.4060304@ripe.net> On 28/06/2010 08:12, Hans van Staveren wrote: > There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the > penalty points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. > > First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. > > In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to the > finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and get a > 100% carryover of their result against the other 8 of their group. > Effectively the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 teams. > > Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the > regulations. A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your > views about which regulation would have been best/fairest. > > 1) All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final > 2) All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final > 3) All penalties from matches that are carried over are remembered at > the final > 4) Other? I'd go for (2): you get a penalty, you keep it. I don't feel strongly about this, I can live with (1), (3) or something else as well. However, what really irritates is the fact that this wasn't discussed before the event and a decision had to be taken in the middle of an event. A slow play penalty is very common in these events and one has to decide what to do with them _before_ the start of the event. If this was known, everybody would have accepted it and we'd be done with this. Now, whatever decision is made, it will sound as arbitrary and favoring one team or the other. And on a related note, the situation around the England-Sweden match is also interesting. Sweden and England played in the same direction at both tables on Friday. The match was initially scored as 12-12 but they could replay it _without penalties_ on Saturday. Why is that and again, why isn't this discussed in the CoC? Playing in the same direction isn't that unusual either. 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jun 28 10:46:18 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:46:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: <623798.49673.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> IMO the only legal or sensible option is 2) All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100628/ef33a954/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jun 28 11:54:28 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:54:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: <4C287154.5030109@meteo.fr> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the penalty > points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. > > > > First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. > > > > In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to the > finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and get a 100% > carryover of their result against the other 8 of their group. Effectively > the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 teams. > > > > Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the regulations. > A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your views about which > regulation would have been best/fairest. > > > > 1) All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final > > 2) All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final > > 3) All penalties from matches that are carried over are remembered at > the final > > 4) Other? 3) seems obvious for me. > > > Should there perhaps be a difference based on the reason for the penalty? penalties related to some match should be included in the score of the match. general penalties not related to any particular match should be remembered... imho. jpr > > > > Hans van Staveren _______________________________________________ -- _______________________________________________ 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jun 28 13:05:52 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:05:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: On 28 June 2010 08:12, Hans van Staveren wrote: > There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the penalty > points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. > > > > First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. > > > > In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to the > finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and get a 100% > carryover of their result against the other 8 of their group. Effectively > the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 teams. > > > > Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the regulations. > A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your views about which > regulation would have been best/fairest. > > > > 1)????? All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final > > 2)????? All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final > > 3)????? All penalties from matches that are carried over are remembered at > the final > > 4)????? Other? 3) seems logical to me. The final round robin consist of the matches between the 18 teams qualifying for the second stage. Those are the 8 matches versus teams qualifying from you group at the first stage, and the matches at the second stage versus teams qualifying from the other group. A slow play penalty is a part of the match result. Thus, a slow play penalty versus a non-qualifier, affects the result of the first stage round robin, and will impact your placing in the qualifier. But it should not have any impact on the final result. A slow play penalty versis a qualifying team is part of the result of a match that counts in the final, and should therefor be carried over to the final. Of course, this should be part of the CoC decided prior to the start of the tournament. I find it pretty strange that this has been overlooked. > > > > Should there perhaps be a difference based on the reason for the penalty? > > > > Hans van Staveren > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Jun 28 19:23:27 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:23:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: Am 28.06.2010, 13:05 Uhr, schrieb Harald Skj?ran : > > 3) seems logical to me. The final round robin consist of the matches > between the 18 teams qualifying for the second stage. Those are the 8 > matches versus teams qualifying from you group at the first stage, and > the matches at the second stage versus teams qualifying from the other > group. > > A slow play penalty is a part of the match result. > > Thus, a slow play penalty versus a non-qualifier, affects the result > of the first stage round robin, and will impact your placing in the > qualifier. But it should not have any impact on the final result. > > A slow play penalty versis a qualifying team is part of the result of > a match that counts in the final, and should therefor be carried over > to the final. > But what if it is not a slow play penalty but rather one for having your mobile ringing or leaving the closed room without seeking permission? Why should it matter for the final result whom you were playing when you did that? Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jun 28 21:39:28 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: <466465.52280.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Default regulations should be part of the law-book not delegated to local jurisdictions, and certainly not to conditions of contest, even EBL or WBF Coc. Then Coc omissions like those that are the subject of this threas would have a less devastating effect. Also players would benefit from a more level playing field. IMO... 1. Unless there are relevant rules, if scores are carried forward, then penalties are part of those scores, so they should be carried forward too, and they should count the same whether against an eliminated team or not. Otherwise, you could argue (for instance) that a revoke against an eliminated team should not affect your carry-forward. 2. Unless there are specific rules about two teams playing a match with a pair from the same team sitting NS in both roons, same way, you should apply the *nearest* relevant rules, which seem to specify a 12-12 draw. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 28 22:02:10 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:02:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: <00d501cb16fc$cb5e36b0$621aa410$@nl> I agree of course that the CoC should have made this clear. Decision by the way was number 3, which seems fair for at least this penalty. The interesting part is that there is a fundamental decision here, that TD's often take ad hoc. Suppose you have a match ending in 15-15, and you give both teams 1VP penalty(say for slow play). The standard way almost everyone administers this is to put in a result of 14-14. My point is that this suggests that the penalty is part of the match result, and although it might be, more often it is not. In which case the result should be given as 15-15, and some other way should be found to tell teams they have a penalty. I have a strong suspicion that the available options in the scoring program drive this behavior, while actually of course the program should do what the TD wants. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: maandag 28 juni 2010 8:13 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the penalty points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to the finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and get a 100% carryover of their result against the other 8 of their group. Effectively the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 teams. Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the regulations. A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your views about which regulation would have been best/fairest. 1) All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final 2) All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final 3) All penalties from matches that are carried over are remembered at the final 4) Other? Should there perhaps be a difference based on the reason for the penalty? Hans van Staveren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100628/d8c3714a/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Mon Jun 28 22:18:05 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:18:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <00d501cb16fc$cb5e36b0$621aa410$@nl> References: <00d501cb16fc$cb5e36b0$621aa410$@nl> <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: <33318347.1277756285670.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Hans van Staveren > I agree of course that the CoC should have made this clear. Decision by the > way was number 3, which seems fair for at least this penalty. > > > The interesting part is that there is a fundamental decision here, that > TD's > often take ad hoc. Suppose you have a match ending in 15-15, and you give > both teams 1VP penalty(say for slow play). The standard way almost everyone > administers this is to put in a result of 14-14. > > > > My point is that this suggests that the penalty is part of the match > result, and although it might be, more often it is not. In which case the result > should be given as 15-15, and some other way should be found to tell teams > they have a penalty. I think there are at least two types of penalties a) Those that relate to the match. Say, penalties for slow play in a match. Those penalties should be part of the score for the match b) Penalties not related to a match. Any decent scoring program should support both. Thomas -- WM 2010: Top News, Spielpl?ne, Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, was der Fan sonst noch braucht, gibt?s im Sport-Channel auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010 From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 28 23:14:57 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:14:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: I take note that there are two RR, the first containing wheat and chafe and the second containing just wheat. And supposedly there is some participation qualification so there is the matter of seating of pairs solely against wheat as distinct from wheat and chafe. I can be persuaded that the two fields are different enough that the carry-overs are not comparable. As you appear to have described- there are three [There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups] groups of 20 reduced to three groups of nine that are in the final. This is confusing because you say also that that the final is a RR of 18 teams. And I gather that during the final that when teams rematch their previous scores carryover. My impression is that because the fields are different they face different choices and it seems to me that having only some matchups in the final be affected by rematch carry-over distorts the contest playing field. I should think that there are better ways to combine fields. which is not to say that you can't design any playing field you wish, but, I'll point out that some people believe that what you set out to accomplish is important; so, if what you want is make team administration a prime activity [ie a distraction] this is a technique that could do it. as for the issue of penalty metrics, should not that which is within the match stay within the match; and that which is outside the match be dealt with explicitly and exhaustively within the CoC? I feel fairly certain about one thing- that it's not cricket to make it up as you go along. regards roger pewick From: Hans van Staveren Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 01:12 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the penalty points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to the finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and get a 100% carryover of their result against the other 8 of their group. Effectively the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 teams. Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the regulations. A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your views about which regulation would have been best/fairest. 1) All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final 2) All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final 3) All penalties from matches that are carried over are remembered at the final 4) Other? Should there perhaps be a difference based on the reason for the penalty? Hans van Staveren From blml at arcor.de Mon Jun 28 23:24:09 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:24:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: <13179551.1277760249858.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> You misunderstand the scoring method. TWO groups of nineteen teams. Teams, not pairs. IMPs, converted into VPs. Within each group, the first nine advance to the final round. 2x9=18. The games those played against each other will not be repeated in the final. There is no rematch, and no carry-over. If you lose 12-18 against Italy, and both you and Italy advance to the final round, then your score against Italy in the final round is 12-18. Thomas Roger Pewick wrote: > I take note that there are two RR, the first containing wheat and chafe and > the second containing just wheat. And supposedly there is some > participation qualification so there is the matter of seating of pairs > solely against wheat as distinct from wheat and chafe. I can be persuaded > that the two fields are different enough that the carry-overs are not > comparable. > > As you appear to have described- there are three [There they will play the 9 > > teams > of the other groups] groups of 20 reduced to three groups of nine that are > in the final. This is confusing because you say also that that the final > is > a RR of 18 teams. > > And I gather that during the final that when teams rematch their previous > scores carryover. > > My impression is that because the fields are different they face different > choices and it seems to me that having only some matchups in the final be > affected by rematch carry-over distorts the contest playing field. I should > > think that there are better ways to combine fields. which is not to say > that you can't design any playing field you wish, but, I'll point out that > some people believe that what you set out to accomplish is important; so, if > > what you want is make team administration a prime activity [ie a > distraction] this is a technique that could do it. > > as for the issue of penalty metrics, should not that which is within the > match stay within the match; and that which is outside the match be dealt > with explicitly and exhaustively within the CoC? I feel fairly certain > about one thing- that it's not cricket to make it up as you go along. > > regards > roger pewick > > From: Hans van Staveren > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 01:12 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points > > > There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the > penalty > points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. > > First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. > > In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to the > finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and get a > 100% > carryover of their result against the other 8 of their group. Effectively > the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 teams. > > Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the regulations. > A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your views about which > regulation would have been best/fairest. > > 1) All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final > 2) All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final > 3) All penalties from matches that are carried over are remembered at > the final > 4) Other? > > Should there perhaps be a difference based on the reason for the penalty? > > Hans van Staveren > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- WM 2010: Top News, Spielpl?ne, Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, was der Fan sonst noch braucht, gibt?s im Sport-Channel auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 29 01:24:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:24:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: [very big snip] >be dealt with explicitly and exhaustively within the CoC? Richard Hills: I agree that the CoC should explicitly and exhaustively define carryover of penalty points. This very issue caused a debacle some years ago in the Final of the Australian Team Trials when the two teams were exactly tied according to one interpretation of the carryover rules, but not tied according to the other interpretation. Eventually Solomon's baby was cut in half by a decision to replay the entire 64-board Final, but with neither team having a carryover. Roger Pewick: >I feel fairly certain about one thing- that it's not cricket >to make it up as you go along. Don Bradman (1908-2001), Test cricket batting average 99.94: "When you play Test cricket you don't give an Englishman an inch. Play it tough, all the way. Grind them into the dust." Richard Hills: Duplicate Bridge is not cricket, and the 2007 Laws have a special contingency to solve this sort of problem. It is true that Law 78D requires a Tournament Organizer to "publish Conditions of Contest in **advance** of a tournament or contest". But the Director now has a special ex post facto power which is not time limited by the word "advance". Law 81B1, second sentence: "He [the Director] has powers to remedy **any** omissions of the Tournament Organizer." 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 Tue Jun 29 04:38:56 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:38:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C295CC0.2080006@nhcc.net> On 6/24/2010 9:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > So should I be protecting the defenders for any damage caused by a hidden > card in dummy? If my memory is correct -- not to be assumed! -- this was almost one of the first questions ever discussed on BLML. The belief then and since has been that dummy has departed from proper procedure, and defenders are to be protected via L12A1. What's interesting to me is the (near?) unanimous agreement on this type of case. Nobody (on BLML or other people I respect) suggests that defenders should have protected themselves or should have found the correct defense even after the irregularity. Contrast this with MI cases, where very often the NOS is deprived of redress because their subsequent decisions may have been, on close examination, less than optimum. Or worse, as in the USBF trials case 1, because "despite the incorrect explanations," they should have known something was wrong. > So I seem to be getting that, according the the Laws, the opps are > protected against all damage caused by a hidden card in dummy. Which I am > guessing is not the correct ruling to make. Why the latter guess? The first sentence seems right to me, no matter how the damage occurred. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Cambridge, MA 02138 USA From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 29 07:10:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:10:52 +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. ... Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed).When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. * as, for example, by partner?s enforced pass." Richard Hills: Since Robert Frick could not have been aware, at the time Bob mis-sorted dummy, that an anti-percentage finesse by Bob's partner could well damage the non-offending side, as Director I would rule that the table score stood. http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/11/ dont-flame-me-bro.html Olo Hooro, 12th June 2008, commenting on Michael Marshall's 19th November 2007 New Scientist article about trolling -> >Did most everyone forget that a great deal of the internet >goons that are out there tend to have been the geeks and >throwbacks in high school that had their own lunch table set >aside for Magic tournaments? [snip] >An overwhelming percentage of the goons I've met in person, >be they male or female, tends to have moderate to severe >social problems, extreme self-worth/self-image issues. [snip] >I'm guilty of trolling/flaming in several instances, but >those are in social arenas like fandoms and other random >subcultures. [snip] >typical pack behaviour inherent in humans. The louder you >are, the more you thrash around, the more you make >incoherent ape-noises at an opponent, the more attention >(and sometimes admiration) you get. To people who grew up >being outcasts that were shoved in lockers and trashcans on >a regular basis, that kind of admiration, however false, is >like being on a 24/7 heroin drip that never runs dry. Best wishes Richard Hills, geek and primary school outcast -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Jun 29 08:42:01 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:42:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?hidden_card_in_dummy_=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL?= =?iso-8859-15?q?=5D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > 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. ... > > Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage: > > "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could > have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this > could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require > the auction and play to continue (if not completed).When the > play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score > if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage > through the irregularity*. > * as, for example, by partner?s enforced pass." > > Richard Hills: > > Since Robert Frick could not have been aware, at the time Bob > mis-sorted dummy, that an anti-percentage finesse by Bob's > partner could well damage the non-offending side, as Director > I would rule that the table score stood. [snip] I don't agree with this approach - though with the outcome. Law 12 A1 applies (only) when no other law "provides indemnity to a non-offending contestant ...". 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. 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). From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jun 29 09:00:50 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:00:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: On 28 June 2010 19:23, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Am 28.06.2010, 13:05 Uhr, schrieb Harald Skj?ran > : > > >> >> 3) seems logical to me. The final round robin consist of the matches >> between the 18 teams qualifying for the second stage. Those are the 8 >> matches versus teams qualifying from you group at the first stage, and >> the matches at the second stage versus teams qualifying from the other >> group. >> >> A slow play penalty is a part of the match result. >> >> Thus, a slow play penalty versus a non-qualifier, affects the result >> of the first stage round robin, and will impact your placing in the >> qualifier. But it should not have any impact on the final result. >> >> A slow play penalty versis a qualifying team is part of the result of >> a match that counts in the final, and should therefor be carried over >> to the final. >> > But what if it is not a slow play penalty but rather one for having your > mobile ringing or leaving the closed room without seeking permission? Why > should it matter for the final result whom you were playing when you did > that? Slow play means that you get more time for a particular match, thereby giving your team more time to find the best play(s) in this particular match. The penalty for this should IMO be linked to the particular match result. And thus be carried forward only if the match result is carried forward. The offences you descrive above is of another category. They've got nothing at all to do with the result of any match, but are disciplinary penalties awarded your team. And should therefore be carried forward. As a matter of fact, I believe that for this kind of penalties (not slow play), only half the penalties should be carried forward to the final RR. > > Regards, > Petrus > -- > Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From geller at nifty.com Tue Jun 29 09:03:55 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:03:55 +0900 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C299ADB.1000409@nifty.com> Does the ruling depend on whether the aggrieved and allegedly damaged defender is Mrs. Guggeheim (of S.J. Simon's "Why You Lose at Bridge") or a super-expert (a Meckwell, if you will) who might reasonably have been expected to have counted the cards in the dummy, noted that there were only 12, and deliberately chosen not to call this fact to the declarer's attention)? Just sayin'. -Bob (2010/06/29 15:42), Peter Eidt wrote: > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> 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. ... >> >> Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage: >> >> "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could >> have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this >> could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require >> the auction and play to continue (if not completed).When the >> play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score >> if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage >> through the irregularity*. >> * as, for example, by partner?s enforced pass." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Since Robert Frick could not have been aware, at the time Bob >> mis-sorted dummy, that an anti-percentage finesse by Bob's >> partner could well damage the non-offending side, as Director >> I would rule that the table score stood. > [snip] > > I don't agree with this approach - though with the outcome. > > Law 12 A1 applies (only) when no other law "provides > indemnity to a non-offending contestant ...". > > 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. > > 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). > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Jun 29 10:41:35 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:41:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points In-Reply-To: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> References: <009301cb1688$e8adf8f0$ba09ead0$@nl> Message-ID: <857C11B480D74DE29307941B99FF9476@PCdeOlivier> hello, il like a mixt-up, say 4) with : keep PP related to play against Q opponents, like slow play, misexplanation suppress them when opponents didn't Q because they affects directly the match keep all PP agains the Tournament, like bringing a telephone, late arrival at the table because they didn't affect the match but affect the Tournament witch is still on, So what did you rule? Best regards, Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: Hans van Staveren To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:12 AM Subject: [BLML] Carryover of penalty points There is currently some noise in Oostende about the carryover of the penalty points the Netherlands and Russia had for slow play. First let us not discuss the penalty itself. It is there. In Oostende after 19 rounds the top 9 teams of each group advance to the finals. There they will play the 9 teams of the other groups, and get a 100% carryover of their result against the other 8 of their group. Effectively the final is thus a complete round robin of 18 teams. Now it seems the carryover of penalties was not clear from the regulations. A decision has been taken, but I am interested in your views about which regulation would have been best/fairest. 1) All penalties are forgotten at the beginning of the final 2) All penalties are remembered at the beginning of the final 3) All penalties from matches that are carried over are remembered at the final 4) Other? Should there perhaps be a difference based on the reason for the penalty? Hans van Staveren __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100629/b9b1ed47/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Jun 29 16:22:05 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:22:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] USA Team Trials Appeal #2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > The write-up is on page 3 here, but some info is missing: > > ?http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news5.pdf > > Here's the context: > > W?alerted S that his bid was Michaels' and?E alerted N that it?was T/O. > > The OL was the C3 to the K and W returned the D9 won in dummy > whereupon?the S8 was led from dummy. A revised write-up appears on page 5 here: http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news6.pdf -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 29 17:49:55 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:49:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] USA Team Trials Appeal #2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C2A1623.5090205@ulb.ac.be> Adam Wildavsky a ?crit : > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> The write-up is on page 3 here, but some info is missing: >> >> http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news5.pdf >> >> Here's the context: >> >> W alerted S that his bid was Michaels' and E alerted N that it was T/O. >> >> The OL was the C3 to the K and W returned the D9 won in dummy >> whereupon the S8 was led from dummy. >> > > A revised write-up appears on page 5 here: > > http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news6.pdf > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > AG : I didn't follow this from start, but ISTM that the explanation doesn't change much. With T/O, West probably has S/A and will give partner a ruff (West's expected hand : Axxx-x-xxx-AKxxx). With Michaels, see what happens. No difference. The probability of a Heart void in West's hand is similar with both explanations. Whence all that analysis (which seems right) isn't even necessary. NS were unlucky that East doubled on a misunderstanding, but you're allowed to be lucky. Best regards Alain From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jun 29 19:50:58 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:50:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] USA Team Trials Appeal #2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19364.17244.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Adam Wildavsky] http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news6.pdf [Nigel] IMO the director and committee got it wrong and the AWMW added insult to injury. Declarer's misplay was susbsequent to the NS misinformation but also *consequent*. Declarer would play differently and more successfully with correct information. The misinformation caused him direct harm. Declarer's play was deemed "obscure" by three of declarer's peers (a small sample) -- but not "egregious". Even if NS receive no redress, EW should still incur a procedural penalty, so the appeal was justified. Yet another case of reward the law-breaker and punish the victim. From blml at arcor.de Tue Jun 29 22:20:09 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:20:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] USA Team Trials Appeal #2 Message-ID: <16060372.1277842809995.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Adam Wildavsky] > http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news6.pdf > > > [Nigel] > IMO the director and committee got it wrong and the AWMW added insult to > injury. Declarer's misplay was susbsequent to the NS misinformation but also > *consequent*. Declarer would play differently and more successfully with > correct information. The misinformation caused him direct harm. Declarer's > play was deemed "obscure" by three of declarer's peers (a small sample) -- > but not "egregious". Even if NS receive no redress, EW should still incur a > procedural penalty, so the appeal was justified. Yet another case of reward > the law-breaker and punish the victim. Disagree. Declarer's obscure play was caused by the double, and by his own train of thought, rather than by the misinformation. The misinformation is not what made declarer think that there is no diamond ruff. The misinformation is not what made declarer think that, if W has the SA, W would likely be asleep if a small S is played towards dummy. The penalty double is what made a 5-0 trump split so likely that declarer thought he cannot afford to play one round of trumps. The misinformation in no way indicates that the C A is with E. N has a strong NT, E holds xxxx,QJxxx,x,Axx and leads a small C against 3HX. Suuuuuuure :->. There simply is no causation between the MI and declarer's line of play. Thomas -- WM 2010: Top News, Spielpl?ne, Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, was der Fan sonst noch braucht, gibt?s im Sport-Channel auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 30 01:15:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:15:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C299ADB.1000409@nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >Does the ruling depend on whether the aggrieved and allegedly >damaged defender is Mrs. Guggenheim (of S.J. Simon's "Why You >Lose at Bridge") or a super-expert (a Meckwell, if you will) >who might reasonably have been expected to have counted the >cards in the dummy, noted that there were only 12, and >deliberately chosen not to call this fact to the declarer's >attention)? Just sayin'. > >-Bob Law 12A1: "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." Pocket Oxford Dictionary: indemnity, n. compensation, esp. sum exacted by victorious belligerent Richard Hills: In the stem case described by Robert Frick, the violation of the 12-card dummy did not in itself need compensation to be provided to the non-offending belligerent. Rather, it was the subsequent error by the offending declarer which so- called "damaged" the non-offending belligerent. Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations, page 73: Stephen Colbert, (1964 - ), American satirist "Truth that comes from the gut, not books." definition of "truthiness"; the word was later picked by the American Dialect Society for their Word of the Year 2005 and voted Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year for 2006 The Colbert Report, 17th October 2005 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 Wed Jun 30 09:58:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:58:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Aussie kibitzers rule OK [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: ABF National Authority 27 January 2006: 7. Control of Spectators A question was raised as to whether a player had a right to object to any and all spectators (to bar kibitzers). It was noted that the National Authority had considered the application of the laws regarding players' rights to object to particular spectators in 2003. Law 76 states that a spectator must not in any way disturb a player. A player has a right to ask a director to request a spectator to leave the table where the particular spectator is disturbing the player. If a group of spectators are all indulging in behaviour that disturbs the player, if for example the spectators were commenting in any fashion on the person of the player or on the play then the player may ask that each of the offending spectators be removed. A player may not ban spectators generally. ABF National Authority 20 November 2003: 1. Reference re Spectator Control The first item considered had been put forward in a letter received in March 2003. The letter reported an incident that may have occurred at the table in these terms: The session is only into its second or third table when a non-player pulls up a chair behind North and becomes a spectator. Over the next two or three tables - and there are four boards a table - the spectator maintains his/her silence throughout the auction and play but, after each board has been played, advises at least one player - and sometimes two - what he/she should have done. Neither North nor East nor West is obviously disturbed by the spectator's presence and behaviour, but South feels his/her concentration waning and politely asks the spectator to leave the table. The spectator refuses and the director is called. The director suggests to the spectator that it is common sense and courtesy that the spectator leave the table but the spectator insists that there is nothing in the most recent rules (1997) which requires him/her to withdraw. The director retires, and the spectator takes a stand "on principle" and remains in his/her position for much of the session. The National Authority referred first to the provisions in Law 76.3, which relevantly reads: "During the round a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player)". The term "round" is defined in Chapter I Definitions as "A part of a session played without progression of players." The National Authority noted that on the account given the spectator in question was in breach of Law 76.3 in "after each board has been played, advising at least one player and sometimes two what he/she should have done". In the words of the law this constitutes offering "remarks of any kind" during the round. The letter also posed the following questions: a. whether any player can require a spectator to withdraw from the vicinity of the table The National Authority noted that Law 76.4 provides that: "A spectator must not in any way disturb a player". The National Authority was of the view that where the presence of a spectator or of a particular spectator at the table disturbs a player, the law confers a right on the player to request the spectator to withdraw from the vicinity of the table. The spectator's mere presence may be disturbing in a number of ways, for example because of a personal relationship with a player or because of a perfume the player is wearing, regardless of the behaviour of the spectator. b. as a corollary, whether a player has the right to refuse to continue to play while the spectator remains at the table The National Authority noted that Law 81 Part C provides that "The director's duties and powers normally include the following: 3. to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to contestants. 4. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game." The National Authority was of the view that any suggested right of a player to refuse to continue to play while the spectator remains at the table could not be maintained in the light of this part of the laws. The player's proper course of action is to call the director's attention to the fact that the spectator's presence is disturbing the player and to request the director to take appropriate action. The director's appropriate action in these circumstances is to request the spectator to withdraw. c. whether a spectator can under some circumstances refuse to withdraw from the table It follows from Law 76.4 and Law 81.C.4 that a spectator cannot within the terms of the laws of bridge refuse to withdraw from the table. d. whether a director has the right to insist that a spectator leave the table, regardless of whether the spectator has infringed the rules regarding spectators It follows from Law 76.4 and Law 81.C.4 that the director has the right to direct the spectator to leave the table regardless of the behaviour of the spectator. It is not, however, within the legal power of the director to enforce such a direction in the face of recalcitrance on the part of the spectator. Given a refusal by the spectator to comply with a lawful order of the director to leave the table, the director's recourse is to send for the police. [Note - The above two decisions by the ABF National Authority were made under the 1997 Lawbook. However, the rewritten Law 76 in the 2007 Lawbook confirmed the broad powers of the Director and/or of the Tournament Organizer.] ABF Tournament Regulations 1 June 2008: 20. SPECTATORS AND CAPTAINS 20.1 Rights and obligations of spectators 20.1.1 Spectators are allowed to watch play in the open room(s) but shall not move from table to table. There shall be no spectators in the closed room(s) unless specifically permitted by the Tournament Organiser, e.g. to allow for press coverage. Spectators must be seated and should refrain from looking into more than one hand or moving round the table during the bidding or play. Spectators must observe the regulations relating to dress, etiquette, smoking, alcohol and mobile phones (sections 16 through 19 of these Regulations). Spectators must remain silent unless spoken to by a player or an official. Players should not converse with spectators. When screens are in use, spectators may not sit so that they can see both sides of the screen. 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. 20.2 A captain may watch play in the closed room but only the table at which his/her team is playing. He/she is not entitled to leave the closed room while the match is still in play except as approved by the Director. 20.3 No persons other than players, captains, working officials or directors are entitled to access to the closed room except at the express request of the Director. 20.4 Except as noted in (a) through (f) of this paragraph 20.4, a non-playing captain, or a playing captain who is not playing, may not converse with members of the team (or their opponents) once any player has withdrawn a hand from the board on the table and until all the hands have again been replaced. However, he may intervene for the following purposes: (a) To protect the rights of his/her team if he/she believes them to be jeopardised in any way (b) To require that a Director be called to the table (c) To intimate the intention to make an appeal on behalf of the team in reference to any matter (d) To curtail unnecessary discussions (e) To restrain misbehaviour on the part of any member of his/her team (f) To decline to allow a pair or his/her team to lodge an appeal. 20.5 A playing member, except a playing captain who is not playing, may not watch at any table where his/her own team is playing, even when the member is not playing the stanza. A player, having completed play in a session, may not watch at any table where the boards in play include those that the player has previously played. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 30 15:15:20 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:15:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <4C295CC0.2080006@nhcc.net> References: <4C295CC0.2080006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:38:56 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> So I seem to be getting that, according the the Laws, the opps are >> protected against all damage caused by a hidden card in dummy. Which I >> am >> guessing is not the correct ruling to make. > > Why the latter guess? The first sentence seems right to me, no matter > how the damage occurred. Hi Steve. You snipped the context? There seems to be good agreement about what to do when a card is hidden, causing the defense to take a different line of play, which then damages them. (Rectify for damage) But what about when DECLARER takes a different (suboptimal) line of play that by rub-of-the-green luck turns out to damage the defenders? If there is any consensus on table ruling, it seems to be that declarer keeps the good result. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 30 15:43:07 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:43:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] hidden card in dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OTUWA-0LfHua0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:42:01 -0400, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> 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. ... >> >> Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage: >> >> "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could >> have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this >> could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require >> the auction and play to continue (if not completed).When the >> play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score >> if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage >> through the irregularity*. >> * as, for example, by partner?s enforced pass." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Since Robert Frick could not have been aware, at the time Bob >> mis-sorted dummy, that an anti-percentage finesse by Bob's >> partner could well damage the non-offending side, as Director >> I would rule that the table score stood. > [snip] > > I don't agree with this approach - though with the outcome. > > Law 12 A1 applies (only) when no other law "provides > indemnity to a non-offending contestant ...". > > 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. > > 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). > You are just making up things that don't appear in the laws. Right? Normally 1. There is a prescribed "rectification" for an irregularity. 2. The prescribed rectification often leads to the offending side having to use a suboptimal line of play (opening bid out of turn) or the nonoffending side being allowed choices that give them an advantage (lead out of turn). 3. Which means by luck (rub-of-the-green) or an unlucky choice, the offending side could gain from the irregularity in the end. 4. This gain is protected by L12B1. In the case of a hidden card in dummy. 1. There is no prescribed rectification. (Add to 2017?) 2. We get back on track by L12A1, leading to a rectification when the defense would have done something different. 3. The fact that declarer does not see the card can lead to suboptimal play which might work. 4. Logically, reasonably, we expect that the lucky suboptimal play which happens to work is not adjusted for. BUT, there is no legal justification I can find for Step #4. Because L12B1 doesn't kick in. 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. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 30 16:32:57 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:32:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] USA Team Trials Appeal #2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> The write-up is on page 3 here, but some info is missing: >> >> http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news5.pdf >> >> Here's the context: >> >> W alerted S that his bid was Michaels' and E alerted N that it was >> T/O. >> >> The OL was the C3 to the K and W returned the D9 won in dummy >> whereupon the S8 was led from dummy. > > A revised write-up appears on page 5 here: > > http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news6.pdf This committee may have accidentally stumbled into a correct outcome in this case, but their reasoning was egregious. The critical question -- was there (originally) a connection between the infraction and the damage? -- was not addressed. The relevant "bridge judgment" before them was to evaluate North's contention that he would have played the hand differently with correct information. Instead they assumed the connection, and went directly to the question of whether the assumed connection had subsequently been "broken" by a L12C1(b) "serious error", where we have been repeatedly told that "serious" is subject to a rather high standard, approximating "egregious". Here they went off the rails. To justify their finding of "serious error", they needed multiple paragraphs of detailed analysis including two enumerations of cases. The complexity of the analysis by itself patently refutes the notion that declarer's play even approached the "egregious". Someone needs to explain to these folks that there is quite a good deal of space between "strongly disagree[ing] with declarer's play" and a finding of serious error. You don't throw L12C1(b) into the mix just because the committee has convinced itself that they would have played the hand better than the appellant did. In short, the "contention" that the appellants have a "responsibity to have done a minimum amount of analysis to support" is that they would have played differently (for a better result) with correct information, not that they actually played the hand at least as well as the committee members would have without it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 30 16:50:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:50:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] USA Team Trials Appeal #2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C2B59A1.5090007@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > This committee may have accidentally stumbled into a correct outcome > in this case, but their reasoning was egregious. The critical > question -- was there (originally) a connection between the > infraction and the damage? -- was not addressed. The relevant > "bridge judgment" before them was to evaluate North's contention that > he would have played the hand differently with correct information. > Instead they assumed the connection, and went directly to the > question of whether the assumed connection had subsequently been > "broken" by a L12C1(b) "serious error", where we have been repeatedly > told that "serious" is subject to a rather high standard, > approximating "egregious". Here they went off the rails. AG : fully agree. The main reason for the line of play was the panic caused by East's double, which isn't an infraction but rather a lucky strike originating from EW's misunderstanding. And we can see that the (assumed) misinformation wasn't the cause of the infraction, because the main difference isn't whether there is a singleton diamond, but rather who holds it, so the ruff is there in both cases. 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. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 30 16:50:48 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] USA Team Trials Appeal #2 In-Reply-To: <16060372.1277842809995.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <16060372.1277842809995.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Adam Wildavsky] >> http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news6.pdf >> >> [Nigel] >> IMO the director and committee got it wrong and the AWMW added >> insult to >> injury. Declarer's misplay was susbsequent to the NS >> misinformation but also >> *consequent*. Declarer would play differently and more >> successfully with >> correct information. The misinformation caused him direct harm. >> Declarer's >> play was deemed "obscure" by three of declarer's peers (a small >> sample) -- >> but not "egregious". Even if NS receive no redress, EW should >> still incur a >> procedural penalty, so the appeal was justified. Yet another case >> of reward >> the law-breaker and punish the victim. > > Disagree. Declarer's obscure play was caused by the double, and > by his own train of thought, rather than by the misinformation. > > The misinformation is not what made declarer think that there is no > diamond ruff. > The misinformation is not what made declarer think that, if W has > the SA, W would > likely be asleep if a small S is played towards dummy. > The penalty double is what made a 5-0 trump split so likely that > declarer > thought he cannot afford to play one round of trumps. > The misinformation in no way indicates that the C A is with E. N has > a strong NT, E holds xxxx,QJxxx,x,Axx > and leads a small C against 3HX. Suuuuuuure :->. > > There simply is no causation between the MI and declarer's line of > play. Thanks to Thomas for reinforcing the point of my previous post. Whether or not you agree with his conclusion, he asks the right question and makes the relevant judgments pertinent to its answer. The committee appears to have blown right by this critical analysis and gone directly to L12C1(b) la-la land. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 30 17:19:50 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:19:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Aussie kibitzers rule OK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:58 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > ABF National Authority 27 January 2006: > > 7. Control of Spectators > > A question was raised as to whether a player had a right to > object to any and all spectators (to bar kibitzers). It was > noted that the National Authority had considered the > application of the laws regarding players' rights to object > to particular spectators in 2003. > > Law 76 states that a spectator must not in any way disturb > a player. A player has a right to ask a director to request > a spectator to leave the table where the particular > spectator is disturbing the player. If a group of > spectators are all indulging in behaviour that disturbs the > player, if for example the spectators were commenting in > any fashion on the person of the player or on the play then > the player may ask that each of the offending spectators be > removed. A player may not ban spectators generally. > > ABF Tournament Regulations 1 June 2008: > > 20. SPECTATORS AND CAPTAINS > > 20.1 Rights and obligations of spectators > > 20.1.1 Spectators are allowed to watch play in the open > room(s) but shall not move from table to table. There shall > be no spectators in the closed room(s) unless specifically > permitted by the Tournament Organiser, e.g. to allow for > press coverage. Spectators must be seated and should > refrain from looking into more than one hand or moving > round the table during the bidding or play. Spectators must > observe the regulations relating to dress, etiquette, > smoking, alcohol and mobile phones (sections 16 through 19 > of these Regulations). Spectators must remain silent unless > spoken to by a player or an official. Players should not > converse with spectators. When screens are in use, > spectators may not sit so that they can see both sides of > the screen. > > 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. I find this change in the ABF's approach extremely ill-advised. It sounds like if someone wishes to "disturb" a player sufficiently to adversely affect that player's results, they can easily and effectively do so without violating paragraph 20.1.1 above. 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? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net