From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 1 00:55:32 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:55:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> Message-ID: <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > If your opponents bid to 6NT doubled and you, on lead, have two aces, would it occur to you that you had been damaged? I venture to suggest that most people would answer that question in the negative. For whatever reason, though, you underlead one of those aces, and now you have been damaged - but by what? By the infraction? - no, for that handed you plus 200 and plus 13 IMPs. By your own clumsiness? - yes, I would say so. > > I would adjust the score thus (assuming 690 at the other table): East-West's team score 0 IMPs; North-South's team lose 14 IMPs; net result 7 IMPs to East-West's team. That minus 1680 at the table where the infraction occurred was purely self-inflicted damage by South due to a serious error. > +=+ Question to DALB. David can you help clarify my mind ? I am struggling with the thought that having arrived in the small slam off two Aces the side that has infracted has gained no advantage through its infraction. On what basis do we give it +690 ? Why do we not award it -100 ? Is that not the score "that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only" ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 1 00:57:31 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:57:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Fw: L12C1(b) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Man's 'progress' is but a gradual discovery > that his questions have no meaning." > [Antoine de Saint-Exupery] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 12:31 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > >> If your opponents bid to 6NT doubled and you, on lead, have > two aces, would it occur to you that you had been damaged? I > venture to suggest that most people would answer that question > in the negative. For whatever reason, though, you underlead one > of those aces, and now you have been damaged - but by what? > By the infraction? - no, for that handed you plus 200 and plus > 13 IMPs. By your own clumsiness? - yes, I would say so. >> >> I would adjust the score thus (assuming 690 at the other table): > East-West's team score 0 IMPs; North-South's team lose 14 IMPs; > net result 7 IMPs to East-West's team. That minus 1680 at the > table where the infraction occurred was purely self-inflicted damage > by South due to a serious error. >> > +=+ Question to DALB. > David can you help clarify my mind ? > I am struggling with the thought that having arrived in the > small slam off two Aces the side that has infracted has gained > no advantage through its infraction. On what basis do we give > it +690 ? Why do we not award it -100 ? Is that not the > score "that it would have been allotted as the consequence of > its infraction only" ? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ Correction: for -100 read -200 +=+> From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 1 01:48:50 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:48:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fowler, "Modern English Usage": _Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'. The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. *Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is necessary because without it murders would increase, and that democracy must be the best form of government because the majority are always right. Nigel Guthrie: >>>But why should there be rules that make the director penalize >>>the victim of an infraction? Harald Skj?ran: >>There's not, this is twisting reality. >> >>What the rules say is that a victim of an infraction only gets >>redress for damage resulting from the infraction. But has the >>responsibility for self-inflected damage which isn't related >>to the infraction. Which obviously (IMO) is the correct >>approach. Nigel Guthrie: >Why keep unnecessary rules Richard Hills: Petitio principii. No way is Law 12 unnecessary; it is a big improvement on the bad old days of the 1940s, when a Director could arbitrarily assign any score that she chose. Nigel Guthrie: >that few directors and even fewer players understand, Richard Hills: Petitio principii. FEW Directors??? Harald Skj?ran for one is well aware that self-inflicted damage is in fact self-inflicted damage. Many players would have no difficulty grasping the concept that self-inflicted damage is in fact self-inflicted damage. Only reality twisters using weasel words would argue that self- inflicted damage is not self-inflicted damage. Nigel Guthrie: >that favour experts over ordinary players, Richard Hills: Petitio principii. The Lawbook as a whole favours ordinary players over experts. And Law 12C1(b) in particular favours ordinary players over Meckwell. For almost any error by Meckwell would be considered a "serious error". But for an ordinary player an error needs to be a revoke or similar before it counts as a "serious error". Nigel Guthrie: >and that lead to contentious and inconsistent rulings? Grattan Endicott (17th February 2010): >.....Judgemental rulings are difficult since the rules can do >no more than establish a floor* on which to base them. In this >area the game has been devised as a game of complexity and like >many players I would never have taken it up were it otherwise. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard Hills | O | X | ? ----------- | X | ? | X ----------- | ? | O | X -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Mar 1 02:19:53 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:19:53 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8B1639.6000500@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] Petitio principii. No way is Law 12 unnecessary; it is a big improvement on the bad old days of the 1940s, when a Director could arbitrarily assign any score that she chose. [Nige2] Richard shreds another straw-man. I argue The rules that punish "egregious errors", "wild and gambling" actions and "double-shots" by the victims of an infraction are unnecessary. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Mar 1 02:33:34 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:33:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8B196E.1050302@yahoo.co.uk> [Nige1] ... that few directors and even fewer players understand, [Richard Hills] Petitio principii. FEW Directors??? Harald Skj?ran for one is well aware that self-inflicted damage is in fact self-inflicted damage. Many players would have no difficulty grasping the concept that self-inflicted damage is in fact self-inflicted damage. Only reality twisters using weasel words would argue that self- inflicted damage is not self-inflicted damage. [Nige2] Reduction ad absurdum :) If Richard is right and directors understand these rules then you would expect them to agree on what they mean. BLML threads ad nauseam demonstrate that they don't Another Richard straw-man :) I argued that the damage to the victims of an infraction caused by these rules is not "self-inflicted". From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Mar 1 02:47:46 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:47:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8B1CC2.3080701@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] ... and that lead to contentious and inconsistent rulings? [Grattan Endicott] .....Judgemental rulings are difficult since the rules can do no more than establish a floor* on which to base them. In this area the game has been devised as a game of complexity and like many players I would never have taken it up were it otherwise. [Richard Hills] | O | X | ? ----------- | X | ? | X ----------- | ? | O | X [Nige1] I agree with Richard that we're arguing in circles. For example, I have answered this criticism several times before. In summary: Chess and Go are complex games with simple rules. Bridge rules can be simplified and made more objective to increase the enjoyment of the players, especially new players, without detracting from the the nature of the game. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 1 04:36:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:36:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B8B1CC2.3080701@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Richard Hills: The story goes that Mahatma Gandhi was visiting London for an Imperial Conference on the future of India. A reporter asked him what he thought of Western civilisation. Gandhi replied: "That would be a good idea." Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >In summary: > >Chess and Go are complex games with simple rules. Richard Hills: This assertion is at least partially incorrect. While social chess played amongst family members may have relatively simple rules, this is not a perfect analogy. Rather, the analogy to Duplicate Bridge is Tournament Chess, and Tournament Chess is a very complex game with slightly complex rules. For example, the complex Swiss system for pairing contestants originated in Tournament Chess and was only later borrowed by Duplicate Bridge. Nigel Guthrie >Bridge rules can be simplified and made more objective Richard Hills: No, while it "would be a good idea" for the Duplicate Bridge Laws to be rewritten into English, no matter what language is used matters for judgement remain matters for judgement. Nigel Guthrie: >to increase the enjoyment of the players, especially new >players, John (MadDog) Probst, 7th July 2004, increasing enjoyment: >>I'd write you up in the psyche book, I think. There is no >>basis at all for a PP but I'd do a DP ruling. My ruling is >>as follows: >> >>"The 2S bidder is to buy his partner a drink for the >>lunatic balancing action. The 2D bidder is to buy the 2S >>bidder a drink for letting him back into the auction. RJH is >>to buy his partner a drink as the stress of playing with RJH >>is clearly sending the man demented. The partner of the 2S >>bidder is to buy the TD a drink because it's all his fault >>(a general catch-all, where DP's are concerned). The TD is >>to buy RJH a drink for providing the best entertainment of >>the evening. The rest of the room is to stop giggling or >>I'll issue some more DP's." >> >>I tell you DP's can be exacted in any form, they're far >>better than PP's. I charge a pint of bitter to people who >>throw their bidding box on the floor, gravely citing 91 as >>my justification. Nigel Guthrie: >without detracting from the nature of the game. Richard Hills: No, each and every one of the various major rewrites of the Laws that Nigel Guthrie has advocated over the past decade would each and every one of them detract from the nature of the game. Tournament Chess is a very complex game requiring slightly complex rules, but Duplicate Bridge is an ultra-complex game requiring very complex rules. The BoardGameGeek website http://www.boardgamegeek.com/ reviews and discusses boardgames and card games of strategy. Bridge has a mediocre ranking of 127th place (but to place this in context, Tic-Tac-Toe is in 5962nd place) on BoardGameGeek. I have played a significant number of the higher ranking games, and those I have played are ALL inherently less complex than Bridge. (a) The other games are almost all played solo, while Bridge uses a partnership of two. (b) The other games usually provide almost perfectly even information to players, while Bridge partners have disjunct information unless and until one becomes dummy. (c) And the other games usually permit free communication between potential allies, while Bridge partners must restrict their communication to pre-arranged codes such as Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request). Best wishes Richard Hills | O | X | ? ----------- | X | ? | X ----------- | ? | O | X -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Mon Mar 1 10:03:02 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:03:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> > If your opponents bid to 6NT doubled and you, on lead, have two aces, would it occur to you that you had been damaged? I venture to suggest that most people would answer that question in the negative. For whatever reason, though, you underlead one of those aces, and now you have been damaged - but by what? By the infraction? - no, for that handed you plus 200 and plus 13 IMPs. By your own clumsiness? - yes, I would say so. > > I would adjust the score thus (assuming 690 at the other table): East-West's team score 0 IMPs; North-South's team lose 14 IMPs; net result 7 IMPs to East-West's team. That minus 1680 at the table where the infraction occurred was purely self-inflicted damage by South due to a serious error. > +=+ Question to DALB. David can you help clarify my mind ? I am struggling with the thought that having arrived in the small slam off two Aces the side that has infracted has gained no advantage through its infraction. On what basis do we give it +690 ? Why do we not award it -100 ? Is that not the score "that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only" ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: This was a subject in one of my lectures in Sanremo. And it has been triggered by a discussion in the laws committee in Sao Paulo. The acbl (still) has the phrase 'had the irregularity not occurred' as a criterion for the adjusted score for both (non) offending sides. But the default position hasn't. I was TD in Tel Aviv last week and the following case happened. A side bid to 4S after a hesitation (other side had bid 4H) and the opponents went to a wild 5H, being doubled, which went one off. 4S would have been one off also. My ruling was non-offenders splitting the damage in consequent and subsequent (compensation for the difference between 4H made and 4S - 1) and the offending side got 4S - 1. First ruling like this in my life, I liked it but the offenders didn't. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 1 10:06:37 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:06:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <24C3634D1E2741ADBF935DE936F75167@Mildred> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <24C3634D1E2741ADBF935DE936F75167@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101cab91e$80495f10$80dc1d30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: David must have mixed up our approach with penalty and rectification. I consider such mistake as a rare irregularity from his side, not an infraction. ton In passing, it has just occurred to me that L12B may be the only passage in the 2007 Laws where "infraction" has not been replaced by "irregularity". Were the weasels on vacation? > +=+ Not weaselly understood. Does David suggest that 'infraction' in such Laws as 73D, 72B, 55C, 39, 38D, 27D, 16B3, is in some way of a different texture from the word 'infraction' as used in Law 12C1(b)? The definitions clarify that 'irregularity' has a meaning drawn more widely than the meaning of 'infraction'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Mar 1 12:34:43 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:34:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8BA653.9010401@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] .. without detracting from the nature of the game. [Richard Hills] No, each and every one of the various major rewrites of the Laws that Nigel Guthrie has advocated over the past decade would each and every one of them detract from the nature of the game. [Nige1] I feel that that Richard is expressing an *opinion* rather than stating a fact. A game is its rules. Hence a rule simplification slightly alters its nature. Obviously, I advocate rule changes that I think would make Bridge more fun, especially for new players. But many others have advocated sensible simplifications. Surely some of them are worth more sympathetic consideration. A potential advantage of simpler rules is that directors and players might be able to understand them. Currently, it appears that not even those who wrote them, understand them. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 1 12:53:33 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:53:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <003401cab935$d2202e10$76608a30$@com> [TK] I was TD in Tel Aviv last week and the following case happened. A side bid to 4S after a hesitation (other side had bid 4H) and the opponents went to a wild 5H, being doubled, which went one off. 4S would have been one off also. [DALB] They must play some pretty tight bridge in Tel Aviv, if bidding something that goes one down is regarded as "wild". I have been struck by a thought: if a pair goes to the wrong table in a matchpoint event and gets a top, its opponents keep their bottom. Why does this happen, given that Law 12B says: Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. Had the errant pair not committed the infraction of going to the wrong table, the innocent side at that table would not have received a bottom. Surely this is "damage" within the meaning of the Act, and surely redress is due. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 1 13:26:50 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:26:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <003401cab935$d2202e10$76608a30$@com> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <003401cab935$d2202e10$76608a30$@com> Message-ID: <000801cab93a$78931fb0$69b95f10$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn ........... > I have been struck by a thought: if a pair goes to the wrong table in a matchpoint > event and gets a top, its opponents keep their bottom. Why does this happen, > given that Law 12B says: > > Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table > result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not > occurred. > > Had the errant pair not committed the infraction of going to the wrong table, the > innocent side at that table would not have received a bottom. > Surely this is "damage" within the meaning of the Act, and surely redress is due. How can you tell what results they would have received against the correct opponents? I still remember a round robin barometer event in our club, must have been some 30 years ago, when the absolute bottom ranked pair in our club received the top result in the round playing two boards against one of the best pairs. They did for instance not bid a "cold" game with 28 HCP and a 4-4 major suit split between them, only that it was impossible to make more than 9 tricks (and impossible for the defence to make less than 4) as the cards lay. Their opponents laughed and said: "We couldn't do anything!" From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 1 15:35:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:35:37 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > >> If your opponents bid to 6NT doubled and you, on lead, have > two aces, would it occur to you that you had been damaged? I > venture to suggest that most people would answer that question > in the negative. For whatever reason, though, you underlead one > of those aces, and now you have been damaged - but by what? > By the infraction? - no, for that handed you plus 200 and plus > 13 IMPs. By your own clumsiness? - yes, I would say so. >> >> I would adjust the score thus (assuming 690 at the other table): > East-West's team score 0 IMPs; North-South's team lose 14 IMPs; > net result 7 IMPs to East-West's team. That minus 1680 at the > table where the infraction occurred was purely self-inflicted damage > by South due to a serious error. >> > +=+ Question to DALB. > David can you help clarify my mind ? > I am struggling with the thought that having arrived in the > small slam off two Aces the side that has infracted has gained > no advantage through its infraction. On what basis do we give > it +690 ? Why do we not award it -100 ? Is that not the > score "that it would have been allotted as the consequence of > its infraction only" ? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ton: > > This was a subject in one of my lectures in Sanremo. And it has been > triggered by a discussion in the laws committee in Sao Paulo. The acbl > (still) has the phrase 'had the irregularity not occurred' as a criterion > for the adjusted score for both (non) offending sides. But the default > position hasn't. > +=+ An interesting opinion. It seems to imply that the statement in Law 12C1(e) may be attached to adjustments made under Law 12 generally where the Regulating Authority has not replaced the method in 12C1(c) with that in 12C1(e). There are questions attaching to such an implication. This is why I approached the subject via the statement about the objective of the adjustment set forth in Law 12B1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 1 16:34:20 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:34:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B8BA653.9010401@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B8BA653.9010401@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <000601cab954$aaa2fc40$ffe8f4c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Nigel wrote: A potential advantage of simpler rules is that directors and players might be able to understand them. Currently, it appears that not even those who wrote them, understand them. ton: As usual this statement is so absolute that it has to be rejected. Yes, for may be two issues in the laws we could have done better, but generally spoken we understand them. The fact that blml does not, is not really relevant. After a week of intensive TD work my main relief has to do with the revoke law. Very easy to handle and every player seems to be satisfied with it. Also the offenders. ton From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 1 18:09:52 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:09:52 -0600 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <003401cab935$d2202e10$76608a30$@com> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred><000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <003401cab935$d2202e10$76608a30$@com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "David Burn" Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 05:53 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > [TK] > > I was TD in Tel Aviv last week and the following case happened. A side bid > to 4S after a hesitation (other side had bid 4H) and the opponents went to > a > wild 5H, being doubled, which went one off. 4S would have been one off > also. > > [DALB] > > They must play some pretty tight bridge in Tel Aviv, if bidding something > that goes one down is regarded as "wild". > > I have been struck by a thought: if a pair goes to the wrong table in a > matchpoint event and gets a top, its opponents keep their bottom. Why does > this happen, given that Law 12B says: > > Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a > table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the > infraction not occurred. > > Had the errant pair not committed the infraction of going to the wrong > table, the innocent side at that table would not have received a bottom. > Surely this is "damage" within the meaning of the Act, and surely redress > is > due. > > David Burn > London, England Consider the problem of subtracting 6 oranges from one apple. Is there any doubt that such exercise is meaningless? And what does it have to do with this discussion? I have never been able to make sense of the Lillie minute or its subsequent renditions. In order to do the calculus presupposes that constructs from dissimilar universes are the same- the universe of hypothetical expectations and the universe of outcomes. However, supposing that different things are the same or stating that they are the same does not make them so. An expectation is predicated upon uncertainty which is very much distinct and different from an actual outcome which has no uncertainty. The metric supplied by the minute is that damage is when the expectation minus the outcome is less than zero. But expectations are not the same as outcomes and there is no reconciliation that can make them so. And thus such calculation is meaningless- as the calculation of subtracting 6 oranges from one apple will change the number of apples. regards roger pewick From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Mar 1 18:11:59 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:11:59 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred><000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <003401cab935$d2202e10$76608a30$@com> Message-ID: <32F176854A7347C1AA15AF823EC6CBED@MARVLAPTOP> From: "David Burn" > I have been struck by a thought: if a pair goes to the wrong table > in a > matchpoint event and gets a top, its opponents keep their bottom. > Why does > this happen, given that Law 12B says: > > Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side > obtains a > table result less favourable than would have been the expectation > had the > infraction not occurred. > > Had the errant pair not committed the infraction of going to the > wrong > table, the innocent side at that table would not have received a > bottom. > Surely this is "damage" within the meaning of the Act, and surely > redress is > due. Isn't that an irregularity rather than an infraction? The definition of damage applies to an "infraction." (L12B1). Whatever, the non-offenders might have had the top, so it's rub of the green, but a PP for the errant pair unless the TD did not announce the movement clearly (L5B). Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com . From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 1 18:52:04 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:52:04 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> [GE] I am struggling with the thought that having arrived in the small slam off two Aces the side that has infracted has gained no advantage through its infraction. On what basis do we give it +690 ? Why do we not award it -200 ? Is that not the score "that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only" ? [DALB] The notion has been expressed elsewhere (by Craig, if I recall - I do not have my home mailbox available here) that the offending side can consider itself lucky to go plus on the deal through (in effect) having its infraction annulled. Perhaps it is time to examine the notions of cause and effect as they apply to Law 12, especially in view of another troubling scenario that occurs to me. North opens 1NT (15-17) East passes and South has a balanced 14 points. Distracted by a flying cow, he passes instead of finding the raise to 3NT located at every other table. The defence cashes the first five spade tricks, and North-South record plus 120 for a top. It is an infraction to pay insufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1). But for this infraction, East-West would not have received a bottom. Are they entitled to redress under the by now oft-repeated Law 12B1, which for those with short attention spans runs as follows: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." I cannot imagine any Director actually adjusting the score in these circumstances, and yet I cannot see any alternative to so doing under the interpretation of "cause" that Craig would have me adopt. Had South not committed the infraction of paying insufficient attention, the contract would not be 1NT, just as in the original example the contract would not be 6NT but for an infraction of Law 16. Yet in the one case the notion seems to be that the innocent side should not receive redress, but in the other case that it should. It is not good enough to say vaguely that offences against L16 are "more serious than" or "in another category from" offences against L74 (or L8A, in the case of a pair going to the wrong table and doing some damage there to an innocent side). Certainly we may feel that a pair against whom UI has been used are more grievously wronged than a pair against whom Meckwell have just sat down by mistake - damage in the former case has been wilfully inflicted, damage in the latter case not. But we cannot allow our feelings to determine our rulings: as L12 is currently constituted, redress is due for both infractions or for neither. There is no such thing as "rub of the green" at bridge, even though many eminent people who should know better think that there is. What is to be done? Well, what does it mean to say that an innocent side has suffered damage "because of an infraction"? In English, when we say that X has caused Y (so that Y has happened "because of" X) we may mean one of two things, and it is because we do not know which meaning is intended by the word "because" in L12 that confusion arises. We classify these meanings of "X causes Y" thus: [M1] When X occurs, Y must inevitably occur; or [M2] Y need not occur when X occurs, but Y cannot occur unless X occurs first. M2 is closer to what we feel is meant when we say that "Y happens because of X", and M2 is the interpretation that Craig uses in constructing his chain of reasoning: because of an infraction (illegal selection from among LAs, contrary to L16), East-West reached 6NT; North-South permitted 6NT to make, so they received a worse score than they would have done had the contract not been 6NT; damage to North-South exists because of the infraction. Ton, I imagine, would agree with Craig and perform some numerological wizardry before adjusting on the basis that damage had happened because of the infraction. But they would not adjust the score in this case, even though from the point of view of L12 the cases are exactly the same: because of an infraction (paying insufficient attention to the game, contrary to L74), North-South reached 1NT; everyone else failed in 3NT, so East-West received a worse score than they would have done had the contract not been 1NT; damage to East-West exists because of the infraction. Now, Craig and Ton are acting in accordance with some principle of "natural justice" or "common sense" that "feels right" to them - but legally they cannot act as they do, since it is hopelessly inconsistent. I would adjust the score in neither case, since my view is that "because" in L12 should be read in the sense of M1 above; that is, one adjusts only if the damage was an inevitable consequence of the infraction, rather than merely a development that happened to occur but need not have done. As I have said, however, one cannot consistently - or legally - adjust in one case but not the other; if you believe in M2 rather than M1, you must adjust in both. The wording of L12C1(b) to which Grattan refers is a total shambles and says more or less the opposite of what was intended, but no one seems to have noticed this. What is intended is that a side who, say, uses UI to score 1440 is, as a consequence of having committed an infraction, allotted (by which is meant "awarded") a score of 690. If the defenders had cashed out against 6NT doubled the offenders would indeed have been minus 200, but they would not have been "allotted" that score - they would simply have incurred it in the normal course of events. Because one occasionally speaks of the normal course of events as constituting one's "lot" in life, it is possible to confuse what the Director awards you with what the Fates allot you as your score on a board, and I think that is what Grattan has done here. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 1 19:15:43 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:15:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <32F176854A7347C1AA15AF823EC6CBED@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred><000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <003401cab935$d2202e10$76608a30$@com> <32F176854A7347C1AA15AF823EC6CBED@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001701cab96b$34e766a0$9eb633e0$@com> [MF] Isn't that [going to the wrong table] an irregularity rather than an infraction? The definition of damage applies to an "infraction [DALB] All infractions are irregularities; only some irregularities are infractions. But any breach of Lawful regulation is an infraction (per the Definitions), and going to the wrong table is (almost certainly) such a breach. I observe in passing that in addition to an irregularity and an infraction, it is also possible to commit an "offence" (Law 90). David Burn London, Enlgand From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 1 21:57:15 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:57:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> Message-ID: <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> On Mar 1, 2010, at 12:52 PM, David Burn wrote: > The notion has been expressed elsewhere (by Craig, if I recall - I > do not > have my home mailbox available here) that the offending side can > consider > itself lucky to go plus on the deal through (in effect) having its > infraction annulled. Perhaps it is time to examine the notions of > cause and > effect as they apply to Law 12, especially in view of another > troubling > scenario that occurs to me. > > North opens 1NT (15-17) East passes and South has a balanced 14 > points. > Distracted by a flying cow, he passes instead of finding the raise > to 3NT > located at every other table. The defence cashes the first five spade > tricks, and North-South record plus 120 for a top. > > It is an infraction to pay insufficient attention to the game (Law > 74B1). > But for this infraction, East-West would not have received a > bottom. Are > they entitled to redress under the by now oft-repeated Law 12B1, > which for > those with short attention spans runs as follows: > > "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- > offending > side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side > through its > infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side > obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the > expectation > had the infraction not occurred." > > I cannot imagine any Director actually adjusting the score in these > circumstances, and yet I cannot see any alternative to so doing > under the > interpretation of "cause" that Craig would have me adopt. Had South > not > committed the infraction of paying insufficient attention, the > contract > would not be 1NT, just as in the original example the contract > would not be > 6NT but for an infraction of Law 16. Yet in the one case the notion > seems to > be that the innocent side should not receive redress, but in the > other case > that it should. > > It is not good enough to say vaguely that offences against L16 are > "more > serious than" or "in another category from" offences against L74 > (or L8A, in > the case of a pair going to the wrong table and doing some damage > there to > an innocent side). Certainly we may feel that a pair against whom > UI has > been used are more grievously wronged than a pair against whom > Meckwell have > just sat down by mistake - damage in the former case has been wilfully > inflicted, damage in the latter case not. But we cannot allow our > feelings > to determine our rulings: as L12 is currently constituted, redress > is due > for both infractions or for neither. There is no such thing as "rub > of the > green" at bridge, even though many eminent people who should know > better > think that there is. > > What is to be done? Well, what does it mean to say that an innocent > side has > suffered damage "because of an infraction"? In English, when we say > that X > has caused Y (so that Y has happened "because of" X) we may mean > one of two > things, and it is because we do not know which meaning is intended > by the > word "because" in L12 that confusion arises. We classify these > meanings of > "X causes Y" thus: > > [M1] When X occurs, Y must inevitably occur; or > > [M2] Y need not occur when X occurs, but Y cannot occur unless X > occurs > first. > > M2 is closer to what we feel is meant when we say that "Y happens > because of > X", and M2 is the interpretation that Craig uses in constructing > his chain > of reasoning: > > because of an infraction (illegal selection from among LAs, > contrary to > L16), East-West reached 6NT; > North-South permitted 6NT to make, so they received a worse score > than they > would have done had the contract not been 6NT; > damage to North-South exists because of the infraction. > > Ton, I imagine, would agree with Craig and perform some numerological > wizardry before adjusting on the basis that damage had happened > because of > the infraction. But they would not adjust the score in this case, even > though from the point of view of L12 the cases are exactly the same: > > because of an infraction (paying insufficient attention to the game, > contrary to L74), North-South reached 1NT; > everyone else failed in 3NT, so East-West received a worse score > than they > would have done had the contract not been 1NT; > damage to East-West exists because of the infraction. > > Now, Craig and Ton are acting in accordance with some principle of > "natural > justice" or "common sense" that "feels right" to them - but legally > they > cannot act as they do, since it is hopelessly inconsistent. I would > adjust > the score in neither case, since my view is that "because" in L12 > should be > read in the sense of M1 above; that is, one adjusts only if the > damage was > an inevitable consequence of the infraction, rather than merely a > development that happened to occur but need not have done. As I > have said, > however, one cannot consistently - or legally - adjust in one case > but not > the other; if you believe in M2 rather than M1, you must adjust in > both. > > The wording of L12C1(b) to which Grattan refers is a total shambles > and says > more or less the opposite of what was intended, but no one seems to > have > noticed this. What is intended is that a side who, say, uses UI to > score > 1440 is, as a consequence of having committed an infraction, > allotted (by > which is meant "awarded") a score of 690. If the defenders had > cashed out > against 6NT doubled the offenders would indeed have been minus 200, > but they > would not have been "allotted" that score - they would simply have > incurred > it in the normal course of events. Because one occasionally speaks > of the > normal course of events as constituting one's "lot" in life, it is > possible > to confuse what the Director awards you with what the Fates allot > you as > your score on a board, and I think that is what Grattan has done here. I don't think this example works. "A player should refrain from paying insufficient attention to the game" [L74B1], and "'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized" [Introduction]. In real life, and, ISTM, consistently with the above, L74B1 is invoked only for a pattern of deliberate or repeated violations. A player who is momentarily distracted -- which happens to all of us all the time, if not by a flying cow -- does not infract L74B1. Were we to hold that he did, we would spend little time doing anything other than making L74B1 rulings. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 1 22:05:20 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:05:20 -0600 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > I don't think this example works. ?"A player should refrain from > paying insufficient attention to the game" [L74B1], and "'should' do > (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's > rights but not often penalized" [Introduction]. ?In real life, and, > ISTM, consistently with the above, L74B1 is invoked only for a > pattern of deliberate or repeated violations. ?A player who is > momentarily distracted -- which happens to all of us all the time, if > not by a flying cow -- does not infract L74B1. ?Were we to hold that > he did, we would spend little time doing anything other than making > L74B1 rulings. > How about if the pass was due to an enforced pass rather than a flying cow? Would that fix the example for you? Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 1 22:48:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:48:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> I don't think this example works. "A player should refrain from >> paying insufficient attention to the game" [L74B1], and "'should' do >> (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's >> rights but not often penalized" [Introduction]. In real life, and, >> ISTM, consistently with the above, L74B1 is invoked only for a >> pattern of deliberate or repeated violations. A player who is >> momentarily distracted -- which happens to all of us all the time, if >> not by a flying cow -- does not infract L74B1. Were we to hold that >> he did, we would spend little time doing anything other than making >> L74B1 rulings. > > How about if the pass was due to an enforced pass rather than a flying > cow? Would that fix the example for you? Wouldn't an enforced pass be subject to L12B2? I think we need to distinguish between the consequences of an irregularity and the consequences of an automatic (i.e. specified by law, as opposed to determined by principles of equity) rectification of an irregularity. Passing when required by law to do so is not in itself an irregularity. That gets well beyond my point in reply to David, which was that becoming momentarily distracted by a flying cow simply does not violate L74B1. To provide an equity adjustment in such cases would be rather similar to doing so for a bad score resulting from an opponent's misplay, citing L72A (failing to attempt to obtain a higher score). IMHO, simply playing bad bridge, unless one does so intentionally, can never rise to the level of an infraction of law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 1 23:11:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:11:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601cab954$aaa2fc40$ffe8f4c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, 8th July 2006: Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of law, even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the law is frequently broken. Most of the time breaking the law won't matter. Driving on the left in Calais doesn't really matter much unless I have an accident, would be a good example. (Being the sort of person I am, I did drive on the left for a fair bit yesterday) So when it comes to the interpretation of an irregularity of some sort one must go back to the Law even if people think that the law is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the law is in force here and today. regards John Nigel Guthrie: >>A potential advantage of simpler rules is that directors and >>players might be able to understand them. Currently, it >>appears that not even those who wrote them, understand them. Ton Kooijman: >As usual this statement is so absolute that it has to be >rejected. Yes, for may be two issues in the laws we could >have done better, but generally spoken we understand them. >The fact that blml does not, is not really relevant. Richard Hills: Plus Nigel's argument for fundamental changes to the nature of the game is fallacious. A few ambiguities in the 2007 Lawbook does not necessarily suggest any fundamental changes to the intended meanings of the 2007 Laws in 2018; it merely suggests that the 2018 Lawbook should be written unambiguously in plain English (and for that I recommend that David Burn be co-opted to the 2018 Drafting Committee). The only justification for any major change in 2018 is a Law, when its intended meaning is correctly understood, having an unintended consequence. For example, Law 27 (Insufficient Bid) when implemented as intended has the consequence of delaying the game more than other mechanical rulings, due to being partly a mechanical ruling and partly a judgemental ruling. For what it is worth, my preferred 2018 version of Law 27 would be wholly judgemental, reading: "An insufficient bid may be accepted by LHO. If not, the insufficient bid is replaced by any legal call. The replaced insufficient bid is AI to the NOS and UI to the OS. The TD may adjust the score at the end of play if she believes that the NOS were damaged by the OS selecting a demonstrably suggested logical alternative (see Law 16B)." Ton Kooijman: >After a week of intensive TD work my main relief has to do >with the revoke law. Very easy to handle and every player >seems to be satisfied with it. Also the offenders. Richard Hills: Yes, the 2007 change to the revoke Laws was just such a simplifying change to the Lawbook that Nigel Guthrie claims to support. But Nigel Guthrie opposed this change. Why? Duplicate Laws 2007, Introduction, first two sentences: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged." Duplicate Laws 1975, Scope, first and third sentences: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy whenever a player accidentally, carelessly or inadvertently disturbs the proper course of the game, or gains an unintentional but nevertheless unfair advantage. ..... The Laws are not designed to prevent dishonourable practices, but rather to redress damage inadvertently done." Richard Hills: >>>No, each and every one of the various major rewrites of >>>the Laws that Nigel Guthrie has advocated over the past >>>decade would each and every one of them detract from the >>>nature of the game. Nigel Guthrie: >>I feel that Richard is expressing an *opinion* rather >>than stating a fact. Richard Hills: An opinion supported by glaciers of evidence (e.g. that global warming has an anthropic cause) is a fact. Nigel Guthrie: >A game is its rules. Hence a rule simplification slightly >alters its nature. Richard Hills: So why did Nigel Guthrie oppose the slight simplification of the revoke Laws in the 2007 Lawbook? Because Nigel Guthrie opposes the fundamental philosophy of "provide an adequate remedy", which has been part of the Lawbook for at least thirty-five years. Instead Nigel Guthrie wants the-powers-that-be to undertake a 180 degree U-turn in 2018, replacing the current "primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities" with the hypothetical "primarily designed as severe punishment for irregularities, so as to deter future irregularities" which would have the hypothetical unintended consequence "so as to deter many (such as Richard Hills) from continuing to play the game". Best wishes Richard Hills | O | X | ? ----------- | X | ? | X ----------- | ? | O | X -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Mar 2 00:28:05 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:28:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601cab954$aaa2fc40$ffe8f4c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4B8BA653.9010401@yahoo.co.uk> <000601cab954$aaa2fc40$ffe8f4c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4B8C4D85.7060106@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] A potential advantage of simpler rules is that directors and players might be able to understand them. Currently, it appears that not even those who wrote them, understand them. [ton] As usual this statement is so absolute that it has to be rejected. Yes, for may be two issues in the laws we could have done better, but generally spoken we understand them. The fact that blml does not, is not really relevant. After a week of intensive TD work my main relief has to do with the revoke law. Very easy to handle and every player seems to be satisfied with it. Also the offenders. [Nige1] Law-breakers sometimes get away with revokes, unnoticed, causing considerable damage to their victims. Hence, I agree with Ton that the offender is satisfied with the new law. It provides an incentive to the revoker. Victims worry that deterrence and redress are derisory. Furthermore, the rule that a defender is permitted to ask his partner "having none" is a dangerous exception to the idea that players may convey information to their partners only by the calls they make and cards they play. As players have pointed out, here and in other fora, this law facilitates the transmission and use of unauthorised information, perhaps unconsciously, with little prospect of detection. Finally, I pity the predicament of ordinary players, when BLMLers, who closely study the laws, don't understand them. So I do think it is relevant. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 2 01:30:09 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:30:09 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> [EL] Wouldn't an enforced pass be subject to L12B2 [DALB] I believe that an enforced pass is covered by L23, since there appears a footnote: 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 ^7. ^7 as, for example, by partner's enforced pass. Of course the question remains: what does "through" (a synonym for the previously discussed "because of") mean in this context? If an enforced pass leads to a pair missing a 95% slam that fails and is bid at every other relevant table, have the opponents been damaged "through the irregularity" or because of sheer bad luck? In the first case redress is due, in the second it is not (or may not be). [EL] That gets well beyond my point in reply to David, which was that becoming momentarily distracted by a flying cow simply does not violate L74B1. [DALB] Certainly one can take that view, and in practice I imagine that most Directors do in fact take something resembling that view. As I say, I do not believe that anyone would actually be given redress if she called the Director and said "My opponent passed a balanced 25 count because he was paying insufficient attention to the game, and we were damaged as a result because everyone else opened his cards and went down in game, so we would like an adjusted score under L12C1." I assert, however, that nothing in the Laws justifies this view, whereas there is plenty in the Laws that vitiates it. Moreover, to reply directly to Eric's point, it may be that the passer of the 25 count has been drinking solidly throughout the session and is now, in effect, bidding at random in direct violation of any number of Laws - but that does not matter. It would be faintly absurd to say "Well, the first time he made some random bid and got a good result we did not adjust the score, because a single instance is not a violation of Law, but this time we will adjust the score, because a repeat occurrence is a violation of Law." Redress must be given (or not given) consistently in respect of any irregularity, infraction, offence or whatever else you want to call it, otherwise the game becomes unfair. David Burn London, England From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 2 09:21:08 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:21:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000601cab954$aaa2fc40$ffe8f4c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <003201cab9e1$50906160$f1b12420$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Richard Hills suggests an improvement: "An insufficient bid may be accepted by LHO. If not, the insufficient bid is replaced by any legal call. The replaced insufficient bid is AI to the NOS and UI to the OS. The TD may adjust the score at the end of play if she believes that the NOS were damaged by the OS selecting a demonstrably suggested logical alternative (see Law 16B)." ton: This is a nice example. The drafting committee has of course discussed this possible change, but did reject it. Why? Two reasons. 1) Insufficient bids occur frequently and on all levels. So adopting this approach means confronting the inexperienced club TD with UI cases which are difficult to handle, taking a lot of time. 2) Our impression was that this approach creates an even more restrictive choice of actions for the offender. In the bidding logical alternatives are easy available. Dear Richard, we did not consider this idea to be an improvement. ton From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 2 11:10:43 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:10:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> Message-ID: <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com> As chance would have it, last night I was reading some issues of the Bridge World from 1983, and I came across an article by Edgar Kaplan in the June issue that gave a further example of damage that might or might not have occurred "because of" an infraction: North opens 1NT, then accidentally drops the ace of spades face up on the table. South, who would normally bid game, is barred from the auction, and declarer makes the same seven tricks as everyone else for a top. "No adjustment", says Kaplan, "dropping the ace of spades did not *necessarily* damage the opponents; it just happened to." Of course, the 1975 Laws that were in operation at that time contained a rather simpler version of L12 than the 2007 Laws do. In order to justify the view that only damage that will *necessarily* damage the non-offenders is subject to what in those days was called "penalty", Kaplan relies on L23 - which then as now applied only to enforced passes, and said: When the penalty for an irregularity [sic], under this or any other Law, would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, and when the Director deems that this pass will necessarily damage the innocent side, the Director may [...] award an adjusted score." In those days L23 was headed "Card Exposed or Led during the Auction", and related only to that irregularity and to any other that enforced a pass on the offender's partner. Nowadays Law 23 is considerably wider in application, and says: "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." In effect, the word "necessarily" has been replaced by the (meaningless) word "well", and this has changed the complexion of the Law entirely, although this was probably not intended. In order to assess whether a side has been "well damaged" (whatever that means), one can resort only to the present L12, which as we all know by now says: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." In 1975, then, the intention was to give redress only for damage that was the inevitable result of an infraction (M1 of "because" in my earlier post). Damage that just happened to occur but need not have done (M2) was not redressed. The words of the 1975 Laws justified this (perfectly reasonable) approach, which is no doubt why many people still believe that the approach is legal. But the words of the 2007 Laws do not justify this approach, which is not legal. David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 2 11:22:50 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:22:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> Message-ID: <0DFF8AFD7AD9447A8BF83C6F5FA48958@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > > It is an infraction to pay insufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1). > But for this infraction, East-West would not have received a bottom. Are > they entitled to redress under the by now oft-repeated Law 12B1, which for > those with short attention spans runs as follows: > +=+ There is no evaluation of what is 'sufficient' attention. Furthermore the laws appear ambivalent on the subject - juxtaposing 'infraction' and 'as a matter of courtesy', expressing the law as a double negative and then remarking that even if it is an infraction it is unlikely to be punished. One could phrase this law perhaps to say that it is a matter of courtesy not to allow one's concentration to be disturbed by a flying cow, or be it an elderly lady spectator whose chair collapses. Does this mean that our attention to the game is 'insufficient' if we are distracted by such an occurrence ? Called upon to judge, a Director might well decide not. Ah, 'offence', yes indeed, another case for a dictionary definition: "a violation or breach of a law or rule". In Law 90 'offence(s)' is linked to irregularities more widely than is 'offender' or 'offending side' in such laws as 12B, 16B3, and the like (where the word is linked to 'infraction'); however, I am inclined to reflect some more upon the use of the word in Laws 13B and 17D, while the use of 'offender' in Law 23 links with no doubt at all to any irregularity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ['sufficient' (dictionaries): adequate, adequate for the purpose] From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 2 13:26:34 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:26:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com> Message-ID: <28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > In effect, the word "necessarily" has been replaced by the (meaningless) word "well", and this has changed the complexion of the Law entirely, although this was probably not intended. In order to assess whether a side has been "well damaged" (whatever that means), one can resort only to the present L12, which as we all know by now says: > +=+ I am greatly surprised that David should describe as 'meaningless' a word which has a definition in the dictionary*. It is shown as having the same effect as 'indeed' when used with 'could'. Turning to an earlier page we find that the use of 'indeed' in a like context is as an 'intensifier'. It calls for a higher probability than does an unqualified 'could'. It is not an outside possibility, not an unlikely outcome. The bar is raised. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [*In the dictionary consulted, among twentyfive defined uses of 'well' it is the tenth listed.] From tsvecfob at iol.ie Tue Mar 2 14:57:23 2010 From: tsvecfob at iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:57:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> Message-ID: Teams, Dealer North, E/W Vul. W N E S 4S X P 5C P P X P(H) P 5D X P P P Result: 5DX-1 (+100 N/S) 5CX would be -3 (+500 N/S) East holds: S. Void H. KQ863 D. AJ10864 C. A6 Comments please? Fearghal From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 2 15:18:21 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:18:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > Teams, Dealer North, E/W Vul. > W N E S > 4S X P > 5C P P X > P(H) P 5D X > P P P > > Result: 5DX-1 (+100 N/S) > > 5CX would be -3 (+500 N/S) > > East holds: > S. Void > H. KQ863 > D. AJ10864 > C. A6 > > Comments please? I'd like to talk to the players, but I'm inclined to adjust. I wouldn't have passed over 5C, but for a player who would have, and did, passing again over 5CX seems like an LA to changing his mind and bidding 5D now. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 2 15:26:29 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:26:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On 2 March 2010 14:57, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > Teams, Dealer North, E/W Vul. > W ? ? N ? ? E ? ? S > ? ? ? ?4S ? ?X ? ? P > 5C ? ?P ? ? P ? ? X > P(H) P ? ? 5D ? X > P ? ? ?P ? ? P > > Result: 5DX-1 (+100 N/S) > > 5CX would be -3 (+500 N/S) > > East holds: > S. ?Void > H. ?KQ863 > D. ?AJ10864 > C. ?A6 > > Comments please? I haven't got a clue regarding easts knowledge and level of play. I don't think I know a single player who would double 4S with this hand or..... pass 5C. A normal actions would be 4NT followed by 5D over a preference to 5C. I think it would be hard to poll a group of peers for the player involved. I can't imagine many players passing 5Cx with here, though. But none of them would ever be in this position. Anyway, I think I'd allow 5D. Passing 5Cx seems really far out to me, although it's possible that it's the winning action. But going down in 5Cx when there might be a slam in a red suit looks awful. > Fearghal > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 2 15:45:40 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:45:40 -0000 Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com><4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:57 PM Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? > Teams, Dealer North, E/W Vul. > W N E S > 4S X P > 5C P P X > P(H) P 5D X > P P P > > Result: 5DX-1 (+100 N/S) > > 5CX would be -3 (+500 N/S) > > East holds: > S. Void > H. KQ863 > D. AJ10864 > C. A6 > > Comments please? > Fearghal > [Grattan] If West is purely single-suited in Clubs he has nothing to think about. The hesitation strongly suggests other values or perhaps a secondary holding. This helps a decision by East to remove the contract to diamonds. Pass is a logical alternative with A x in partner's suit, in my opinion, and the 5D bid could have been suggested by information from the slow pass. From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Mar 2 16:12:15 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:12:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com><4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B8D2ACF.7060800@comcast.net> On 3/2/10 9:45 AM, Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Every physician almost hath his > favourite disease." > ~ Henry Fielding . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:57 PM > Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? > > > >> Teams, Dealer North, E/W Vul. >> W N E S >> 4S X P >> 5C P P X >> P(H) P 5D X >> P P P >> >> Result: 5DX-1 (+100 N/S) >> >> 5CX would be -3 (+500 N/S) >> >> East holds: >> S. Void >> H. KQ863 >> D. AJ10864 >> C. A6 >> >> Comments please? >> Fearghal >> >> > [Grattan] > If West is purely single-suited in Clubs he has > nothing to think about. The hesitation strongly > suggests other values or perhaps a secondary > holding. This helps a decision by East to > remove the contract to diamonds. Pass is a > logical alternative with A x in partner's suit, > in my opinion, and the 5D bid could have > been suggested by information from the slow > pass. > > Grattan... You say "could have been suggested." Is this standard now to be equated to "could demonstrably have been suggested over another?" Or are you ambivalent about the ruling here? --Bob Park From blml at arcor.de Tue Mar 2 18:06:00 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:06:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <28917648.1267549560196.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau > On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > > Teams, Dealer North, E/W Vul. > > W N E S > > 4S X P > > 5C P P X > > P(H) P 5D X > > P P P > > > > Result: 5DX-1 (+100 N/S) > > > > 5CX would be -3 (+500 N/S) > > > > East holds: > > S. Void > > H. KQ863 > > D. AJ10864 > > C. A6 > > > > Comments please? > > I'd like to talk to the players, but I'm inclined to adjust. I > wouldn't have passed over 5C, but for a player who would have, and > did, passing again over 5CX seems like an LA to changing his mind and > bidding 5D now. Agree with Eric. E passed 5C. Thus passing 5CX seems to be an LA for him. Thomas Tolle Dekollet?s oder scharfe Tatoos? Vote jetzt ... oder mach selbst mit und zeige Deine Schokoladenseite bei Topp oder Hopp von Arcor: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.toh From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 2 18:18:43 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:18:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com><4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <4B8D2ACF.7060800@comcast.net> Message-ID: <97659CB3F6204DFEB7FF738ED84E2E93@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] LA for this East? > On 3/2/10 9:45 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> Skype directory: grattan.endicott >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> "Every physician almost hath his >> favourite disease." >> ~ Henry Fielding . >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:57 PM >> Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? >> >> >> >>> Teams, Dealer North, E/W Vul. >>> W N E S >>> 4S X P >>> 5C P P X >>> P(H) P 5D X >>> P P P >>> >>> Result: 5DX-1 (+100 N/S) >>> >>> 5CX would be -3 (+500 N/S) >>> >>> East holds: >>> S. Void >>> H. KQ863 >>> D. AJ10864 >>> C. A6 >>> >>> Comments please? >>> Fearghal >>> >>> >> [Grattan] >> If West is purely single-suited in Clubs he has >> nothing to think about. The hesitation strongly >> suggests other values or perhaps a secondary >> holding. This helps a decision by East to >> remove the contract to diamonds. Pass is a >> logical alternative with A x in partner's suit, >> in my opinion, and the 5D bid could have >> been suggested by information from the slow >> pass. >> >> > Grattan... You say "could have been suggested." Is > this standard now to be equated to "could demonstrably > have been suggested over another?" Or are you ambivalent about the ruling here? > > --Bob Park > +=+ I am quoting the criterion from Law 16B3 which establishes the basis on which the Director is summoned. I have stopped short of suggesting what the ruling should be, not from ambivalence but because my purpose is to assist perception of the issues. There is cause to summon the Director. He must rule whether the hesitation has "demonstrably suggested" the 5D bid and whether there is a logical alternative - i.e. 'Pass' - less suggested by the information from the hesitation. Had West passed smoothly East would be free to decide what to do. As it is he is embarrassed by West's failure to do so and it is unlawful for him to select an action that could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative action by information from the breach in tempo. Has he done so ? Well, as Director I would consider it a matter of bridge judgement. Consultation with players would be appropriate and unless they are overwhelmingly of the opinion that the 5D bid is the only action to be contemplated I would exercise doubt in favour of the non- offending side per Law 84D. If I am not able to consult players my default position would be to rule against the presumptive offender. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 2 19:33:29 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:33:29 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601cab954$aaa2fc40$ffe8f4c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <003201cab9e1$50906160$f1b12420$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <0E852CE4B52A4419AF4788B1CD493C65@MARVLAPTOP> From: "ton" > Richard Hills suggests an improvement: > > > "An insufficient bid may be accepted by LHO. If not, the > insufficient bid is replaced by any legal call. The replaced > insufficient bid is AI to the NOS and UI to the OS. The TD > may adjust the score at the end of play if she believes that > the NOS were damaged by the OS selecting a demonstrably > suggested logical alternative (see Law 16B)." > > > ton: > > This is a nice example. The drafting committee has of course > discussed this > possible change, but did reject it. > Why? Two reasons. > 1) Insufficient bids occur frequently and on all levels. So > adopting this > approach means confronting the inexperienced club TD with UI cases > which are > difficult to handle, taking a lot of time. > 2) Our impression was that this approach creates an even more > restrictive > choice of actions for the offender. In the bidding logical > alternatives are > easy available. > You want easy? Try this: The TD warns that any replacement bid or pass (a double or redouble becomes a pass) that quite possibly *could* provide useful UI bars partner for the rest of the auction, and lead penalties would apply to partner (lead a specified suit unless no suit was named, or don't lead a specified suit). We played under a similar law from 1932 until 1975, when namby-pambyism invaded the Laws and made the TD's job more difficult (damage assessment). Simplicity in the Laws means tough laws. Why should the game of bridge be different from other games? Touch the net, lose the point; move the ball, lose a stroke; false start, five-yard penalty; touch a piece, move it; etc. Teach the neophytes that rules must be obeyed, so stop crying. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at tameware.com Tue Mar 2 21:05:29 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:05:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd41003021205p73a59eb0u372888a264db6382@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM, I wrote: > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanDiego2009.html > > If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case > number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or > Non-NABC+ case. > > Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they > have not yet been written! Comments are now posted. Unfortunately no combined PDF is available, only individual files. If someone combines them I'll be happy to pass the result on to the ACBL for posting. I found these commands useful for downloading the cases without having to click on each one. I haven't tried them on Windows! curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-17]-NABC+.pdf' curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-04]-Non-NABC+.pdf curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[06-14]-Non-NABC+.pdf curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/Final-Comments.pdf -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 2 21:23:41 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:23:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41003021205p73a59eb0u372888a264db6382@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41003021205p73a59eb0u372888a264db6382@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2 March 2010 21:05, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM, I wrote: >> >> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanDiego2009.html >> >> If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case >> number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or >> Non-NABC+ case. >> >> Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they >> have not yet been written! > > Comments are now posted. Unfortunately no combined PDF is available, > only individual files. If someone combines them I'll be happy to pass > the result on to the ACBL for posting. > > I found these commands useful for downloading the cases without having > to click on each one. I haven't tried them on Windows! > > ?curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-17]-NABC+.pdf' > ?curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-04]-Non-NABC+.pdf > ?curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[06-14]-Non-NABC+.pdf > ?curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/Final-Comments.pdf > > -- > Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Try www.pdfonline.com It allows free merging of PDFs. The drawback is that you have to combine only two files at a time. Hopefully this will be improved in due time. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From adam at tameware.com Tue Mar 2 23:21:19 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:21:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41003021205p73a59eb0u372888a264db6382@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41003021205p73a59eb0u372888a264db6382@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd41003021421p2e805c2fn8dba5f0c3f9081c@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:05 PM, I wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM, I wrote: > > > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanDiego2009.html > > > > If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case > > number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or > > Non-NABC+ case. > > > > Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they > > have not yet been written! > > Comments are now posted. Unfortunately no combined PDF is available, > only individual files. If someone combines them I'll be happy to pass > the result on to the ACBL for posting. > > I found these commands useful for downloading the cases without having > to click on each one. I haven't tried them on Windows! > > ?curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-17]-NABC+.pdf' > ?curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-04]-Non-NABC+.pdf > ?curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[06-14]-Non-NABC+.pdf > ?curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/Final-Comments.pdf Steve Wilner kindly prepared a combined PDF. I've forwarded it to the ACBL. They're moving their office, so it might take longer than usual before it's posted. AW From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 2 23:30:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:30:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0E852CE4B52A4419AF4788B1CD493C65@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007 film): Dolores Umbridge: Pardon me, Professor, but what exactly are you insinuating? Minerva McGonagall: I am merely requesting that when it comes to my students you conform to the prescribed disciplinary practices. Dolores Umbridge: So silly of me, but it sounds as if you're questioning my authority in my own classroom, Minerva. Minerva McGonagall: Not at all, Dolores, merely your medieval methods. Marvin French: [snip] >Simplicity in the Laws means tough laws. Why should the game >of bridge be different from other games? [snip] >touch a piece, move it; etc. Teach the neophytes that rules >must be obeyed, so stop crying. Richard Hills: Touch a piece and move it is a rule of Tournament Chess. And that tough rule is routinely obeyed because it is a punishment which fits the crime. But Tournament Chess used to have the medieval rule that if the touched piece had no legal move, then a move with the king had to be made instead. So in an international tournament the players commenced with one of the standard chess openings, the Centre-Counter Defence. 1 e4 d5 2 exd Qxd5 3 ? The next textbook move was 3 Nc3, but White accidentally touched the adjacent bishop instead, which had no legal move. Therefore, under the Tournament Chess rule then in force, White was compelled to move his King. 3 Ke2 Qe4 checkmate Ergo, teaching the neophytes that they must not cry has no relevance to the question, "Is this rule effective, and does the punishment fit the crime?" Since 1948 the Tournament Chess rules have permitted a dithering chess player to touch pieces which have no legal move without any penalty (apart from time lost on that player's chess clock). So the rules of other games do not always impose medieval penalties upon their players for the sake of simplicity. Blmlers who have the time and inclination to compare the rules of Duplicate Bridge with the rules of other games of strategy can visit: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame Best wishes Richard Hills | O | X | ? ----------- | X | ? | X ----------- | ? | O | X W.S. Gilbert, "The Mikado", slightly modified: My object all sublime I shall achieve in time-- To let the punishment fit the crime-- The punishment fit the crime; And make each prisoner pent Unwillingly represent A source of innocent merriment! Of innocent merriment! All prosy dull blml sinners, Who chatter and bleat and bore, Are sent to hear sermons From mystical Hermans Who preach from ten till four. The pluperfect quack who wearies With tales of new Laws cures, His teeth, I've enacted, Shall all be extracted By terrified amateurs. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Mar 3 01:21:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:21:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 23 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: David Burn: >.....Kaplan relies on L23 - which then as now applied only >to enforced passes..... Richard Hills: Then (1975 Lawbook), yes. Now (2007 Lawbook), not necessarily. 2007 Law 23, conclusion: "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." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 3 03:04:50 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 02:04:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 23 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001caba75$e8887f40$b9997dc0$@com> [DALB] Kaplan relies on L23 - which then as now applied only to enforced passes..... [RJH] Then (1975 Lawbook), yes. Now (2007 Lawbook), not necessarily. [DALB] Indeed. The word "as" should have been replaced by the word "unlike", a fact that occurred to me some few seconds after I had pressed the "Send" button. I have been reproaching myself bitterly for this all day, but I consoled myself with the thought that if you bury an error deep enough, no one will notice - hence the present Law 12. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 3 03:51:20 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 02:51:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com><4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <000001cab91e$004b9030$00e2b090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101caba7c$67590a00$360b1e00$@com> [FB] Comments please? [DALB] If you're going to double 4S with None KQ863 AJ10864 A6 and then sit for partner's 5C, you are the kind of player for whom it will be hard to find enough similar players to constitute a "class" within the meaning of Law 16. Still, I guess it is possible to have this hand and to double 4S hoping that partner will have the grace to bid a red suit, or 4NT with two places to play, and to decide in advance to take your medicine if he bids 5C. Perhaps "using the methods of the partnership", an immediate 4NT by you would unequivocally be minors (or Blackwood - where is HdW these days, I wonder); perhaps also to double 4S then remove 5C to 5D would show a massive one-suiter with diamonds, or a more massive red two-suiter than you have). If that is why you did what you did, then you may also have decided in advance that you would cease to take your medicine if an opponent were to double the dosage. If you presented sufficient evidence that these were your actual methods, I might (as a TD or AC member) believe you. Failing that, though, in such a case you are in my view compelled to curse your partner for pausing over 5C doubled but to pass it out; after all, if you sat for 5C undoubled, what has changed your mind apart from the unauthorised suggestion that partner isn't happy with the contract either? He presumably knew you could have this hand, and yet he bid 5C and not 4NT. One could argue, I suppose, that partner's slow pass may have been made because he was thinking of redoubling, so that the tempo does not "demonstrably suggest" anything to you and you can bid what you like; but that way madness lies. Score adjusted to EW -800. Costs to be paid by Fearghal for not knowing that when a vulnerable pair goes down one doubled the penalty is 200, and that down three doubled is not 500. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 3 04:55:51 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 03:55:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com> <28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> Message-ID: <000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com> [GE] I am greatly surprised that David should describe as 'meaningless' a word which has a definition in the dictionary. It is shown as having the same effect as 'indeed' when used with 'could'. Turning to an earlier page we find that the use of 'indeed' in a like context is as an 'intensifier'. It calls for a higher probability than does an unqualified 'could'. It is not an outside possibility, not an unlikely outcome. The bar is raised. [DALB] It's all right, Grattan - I know what "well" means in English. But how would it be translated into German, or Spanish, or Japanese? The immense difficulty I have with the administration of the Laws of bridge is that the Laws that matter are full of "intensifiers" and "likelihoods" and "raised bars". How intense? How likely? How high? Increasingly in other sports, and despite well-intended and well-argued positions to the contrary, it is becoming accepted that objectivity (assisted by technology) should prevail. Did the football cross the goal line? Would the cricket ball have hit the stumps? No need to wonder any more; no need to rely on the subjective judgement of an individual - just find out what did happen, or what would have happened, then decide. The upshot of this is what to me is the most desirable objective of any regulatory system whatsoever, that: Given the same set of circumstances in which a decision is required, the same decision will be given by any official from the highest to the lowest, from the most to the least competent. Does this happen in bridge? Does it [expletive deleted]. Why not? See above paragraph beginning "The immense..." David Burn London, England From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 3 06:47:24 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:47:24 -0800 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com><694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com><694eadd41003021205p73a59eb0u372888a264db6382@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41003021421p2e805c2fn8dba5f0c3f9081c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6142002B373C48398F3803F142E62897@MARVLAPTOP> Adam Wildavsky wrote: >Steve Wilner kindly prepared a combined PDF. I've forwarded it to >the ACBL. They're moving their office, so it might take longer than usual before it's posted. Good for Steve, saving me the trouble. Anyone who can create a pdf file with Adobe Acrobat can combine numerous files with the same program. Acrobat is pretty neat, in that it becomes available in a word processing program either as a "printer" or a "publish to" destination (pdf file). To combine multiple pdf files, you open the program's executable file, a shortcut to it right there on your desktop, and tell it the files you want to combine. Whoever is publishing those cases as pdf files on acbl.org could combine them in about 10 minutes with their Acrobat program, WTP? The lengthy instructions for filling out the ACBL convention card, entitled Conventional Wisdom, are contained in 24 well-done pdf files, one of which is published each month in the ACBL Bulletin, repeating after 24 months. My club's TD wanted to have them in a three-ring notebook for his neophytes to consult, but didn't want to download and print out 24 separate files. So I combined them into one pdf file, printed it out, put it in a notebook, and gave it to him. If anyone else wants one, just download it from my web site's Bridge Laws and Regulations page. You won't find it on acbl.org because they refuse to do the combining for no good reason. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 3 10:07:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:07:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8E26D8.10405@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Blmlers who have the time and inclination to compare the rules > of Duplicate Bridge with the rules of other games of strategy > can visit: > http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame > > I'm a games geek myself, and a fan of BGG. Some games have 1000+ threads about games whose rules are loosely written. Usually, this is a consequence of trying to make them readable in less than one hour. Try, for example, 7 Ages, a 30+ - hour game with a 15-page booklet and umpteen pages of solved (or unsolved) questions. Some games try to consider all possible moves. The rules for Advanced Squad Leader are very precise and need nearly no FAQ ; but they consist of 300+ small-font, oversized pages, as you need to rule what happens when paratroops land in a bamboo field (or cactus patch or coconut grove or ...), when a shell goes through the cooling grid of a tank, when a scout is lost in sewers, when your bazooka's recoil hits an inside wall or when a tank-hunting dog turns against friendly armor.. What situation is best is left to you to decide. I can offer information about another important mind game : duplicate Scrabble. Its rules are incredibly harsh ; if your K looks like a X, even though there is not X in the letters at your disposal, you score 0. Yet Scrabble players consider those rules as fair. Why ? Because they feel that, if they were more lenient, different umpires would not give the same ruling about similar cases, ad they see it as worse. BTA Scrabble is felt as a balder game than bridge, and this goes with no-interpretation rules. Bridge is stamped with relativity ; this is the cause of its biggest problems : Lake Woebegone effect and difficult umpiring. Best regards Alain. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Mar 3 10:09:42 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:09:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com> <28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> <000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com> Message-ID: <001501cabab1$43989010$cac9b030$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> [DALB] The immense difficulty I have with the administration of the Laws of bridge is that the Laws that matter are full of "intensifiers" and "likelihoods" and "raised bars". How intense? How likely? How high? ton: I am surprised, how immense is this difficulty? And why don't we play bridge with a ball and a whistle? ton From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 3 10:38:30 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:38:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The word "well" References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com><28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> <000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com> Message-ID: <50CD83A542774DEF8A6AFCC35695CBDE@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 4:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > [GE] > > I am greatly surprised that David should describe as 'meaningless' a word > which has a definition in the dictionary. It is shown as having the same > effect as 'indeed' when used with 'could'. Turning to an earlier page we > find that the use of 'indeed' in a like context is as an 'intensifier'. It > calls for a higher probability than does an unqualified 'could'. It is not > an outside possibility, not an unlikely outcome. The bar is raised. > > [DALB] > > It's all right, Grattan - I know what "well" means in English. But how > would > it be translated into German, or Spanish, or Japanese? > > The immense difficulty I have with the administration of the Laws of > bridge > is that the Laws that matter are full of "intensifiers" and "likelihoods" > and "raised bars". How intense? How likely? How high? I o to sie rozchodzi. I was on the team that did the translation of the 2007 Laws to Polish and those intensifiers were really killing us. The problem with them is that intensifiers are one of the toughest words to translate from one language to another. All languages have them but usually their "intensity levels" don't match. You can always find some stronger ones and some weaker ones but it is usually very hard to find the _exact_ translation - think about how you would translate the same German sentence with and without "doch" to English and you will know what I mean. If one were translating literature it wouldn't be a big problem. But the translation of a legal document is another story. You have to be precise especially during translation of the most crucial laws of the game. I remember that we really struggled with all those "wells". The word "well" appears in this sense in L16B2 ("damage could well result"), L21B1(a) ("the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by"), L23 ("this could well damage the nonoffending side"), L27D ("the outcome of the board could well have been different"), L83 ("could well be in order"). The problem was that even though I managed to find an equivalent form in Polish ("spokojnie mogl wplynac na decyzje" = "could well influence the decision") it is a form far too colloquial to have a place in an official document. Other intensifiers were either too strong or too weak so we decided to translate these laws as if they didn't contain the word "well" at all. I must say that in the main we considered the word "well" to be a mere stylistic ornament, we had no clue that it was put in there as a key factor and a subtle way to "raise the bar" in rulings concerning possible damage. So I'm afraid that to the Polish TDs (or least those who don't speak English or don't bother to consult the English text of the Laws) the key point of this discussion would be lost in translation forever. I take full responsibility for that althought I must admit that if the Laws Committee wanted to "raise the bar" there were other (much more explicit) ways of doing it. I wonder how this "well" stuff was translated to other languages. Anyone can help? >From what I can tell the French version chose to ignore "well", too ("qu?elle pourrait l?ser le camp non fautif", "qu?undommage pourrait en r?sulter") even though in French conveniently there is a word "bien" that is used in almost the same sense so one might perhaps try "pourrait bien l?ser" or "dommage pourrait bien en r?sulter" The Russian translation attempts to translate "well" as "??????" in L23, L21, and L27 (although I don't consider it a good one - it is definitely too strong for my taste, it sounds like "could totally have influenced the decision" which is not the same, though I'm not a Russian native speaker) but again ignores "well" in L16B2. So I guess it is possible that the rest of the world is unaware that "the bar has been raised". Koinrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Masz pytania, watpliwosci? Zapytaj wrozke >>> http://link.interia.pl/f25f4 From geller at nifty.com Wed Mar 3 10:39:07 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:39:07 +0900 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <001501cabab1$43989010$cac9b030$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com> <28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> <000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com> <001501cabab1$43989010$cac9b030$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4B8E2E3B.50408@nifty.com> There still is immense controversy over whether in the final match two days ago for the UK League Cup (between Aston Villa and Man U) the ref was correct in awarding a penalty kick to Aston Villa for a foul by the ManU defender Vidic, while not showing Vidic a red card or even a yellow card. So it's not as if bridge is the only game with controversy over the letter versus the spirit of the rules. Evenm games with a ball and whistle have some problems of the same sort..... -Bob ton ????????: > [DALB] > > The immense difficulty I have with the administration of the Laws of bridge > is that the Laws that matter are full of "intensifiers" and "likelihoods" > and "raised bars". How intense? How likely? How high? > > > ton: > > I am surprised, how immense is this difficulty? > > And why don't we play bridge with a ball and a whistle? > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 3 11:33:21 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:33:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <4B8E2E3B.50408@nifty.com> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com> <28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> <000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com> <001501cabab1$43989010$cac9b030$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B8E2E3B.50408@nifty.com> Message-ID: <4B8E3AF1.4010605@ulb.ac.be> >> [DALB] >> >> The immense difficulty I have with the administration of the Laws of bridge >> is that the Laws that matter are full of "intensifiers" and "likelihoods" >> and "raised bars". How intense? How likely? How high? >> >> Indeed a big problem between English and French. I would usually translate "probable" by "possible" and "likely" by "probable", which isn't at all intuitive. A British friend tried to teach me the subtle shades between "fairly, pretty, rather, quite". Suffices to say that most dictionaries give the same French translation for the first three. As a matter of fact, English is pretty (or rather ?) rich in such intensifiers, whence most translations would be imperfect. That's why we tried to quantify "at all probable" and other things. IMOBO fixed percentages would pretty much (see the point ?) have a place in TFLB. Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 3 12:00:40 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:00:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) In-Reply-To: <4B8E2E3B.50408@nifty.com> References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com> <28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> <000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com> <4B8E2E3B.50408@nifty.com> Message-ID: On 3 March 2010 10:39, Robert Geller wrote: > There still is immense controversy over whether in the final match two > days ago for the UK League Cup (between Aston Villa and Man U) Please don't use the expression 'ManU' about my favourite team. It's an expression used by fans of other teams to talk about the team in a very negative way (similar to the word manure.....). Please use Manchester United, or, preferably, United. > the ref > was correct in awarding a penalty kick to Aston Villa for a foul by the > ManU defender Vidic, while not showing Vidic a red card or even a yellow > card. > > So it's not as if bridge is the only game with controversy over the > letter versus the spirit of the rules. ?Evenm games with a ball and > whistle have some problems of the same sort..... > > -Bob > > ton ????????: >> ?[DALB] >> >> The immense difficulty I have with the administration of the Laws of bridge >> is that the Laws that matter are full of "intensifiers" and "likelihoods" >> and "raised bars". How intense? How likely? How high? >> >> >> ton: >> >> I am surprised, how immense is this difficulty? >> >> And why don't we play bridge with a ball and a whistle? >> >> ton >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 3 11:03:42 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:03:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 23 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001caba75$e8887f40$b9997dc0$@com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 2:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 23 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [DALB] > > Kaplan relies on L23 - which then as now applied only to enforced > passes..... > > [RJH] > > Then (1975 Lawbook), yes. > Now (2007 Lawbook), not necessarily. > > [DALB] > > Indeed. The word "as" should have been replaced by the word "unlike", a > fact > that occurred to me some few seconds after I had pressed the "Send" > button. > I have been reproaching myself bitterly for this all day, but I consoled > myself with the thought that if you bury an error deep enough, no one will > notice - hence the present Law 12. > +=+ You may be comforted, David, by the diligence with which your fans read your words. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 3 12:33:43 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:33:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com> <28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> <000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com><001501cabab1$43989010$cac9b030$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B8E2E3B.50408@nifty.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > There still is immense controversy over whether in the final match two > days ago for the UK League Cup (between Aston Villa and Man U) the ref > was correct in awarding a penalty kick to Aston Villa for a foul by the > ManU defender Vidic, while not showing Vidic a red card or even a yellow > card. > > So it's not as if bridge is the only game with controversy over the > letter versus the spirit of the rules. Evenm games with a ball and > whistle have some problems of the same sort..... > > -Bob > > ton ????????: >> [DALB] >> >> The immense difficulty I have with the administration of the Laws of >> bridge >> is that the Laws that matter are full of "intensifiers" and "likelihoods" >> and "raised bars". How intense? How likely? How high? >> >> >> ton: >> I am surprised, how immense is this difficulty? >> And why don't we play bridge with a ball and a whistle? >> >> +=+ Ton should rest assured that there are players of bridge who play it with a ball and a whistle. And, be it understood that the ref in the Carling Cup final was exercising *judgement* as to whether the foul was committed on an opponent when he was in a goal-scoring situation. I doubt that a yellow card could have been awarded - it was either a plain, ordinary foul or one adjudged to fit the aforesaid condition. Red or green, no amber.in my opinion. In the meantime, I have at least three other thoughts: Any authority producing a commentary on the laws or other guidance for Directors could indeed introduce remarks upon the influence of 'well' in such phraseology as "could well have done", "may well have done" etc. It was perhaps an oversight not to have included a comment on the use of 'could well', 'may well', or the like, in the section of the Introduction that deals with 'must', 'should' etc. 'Could' without 'well' would encompass any possibility at all except, perhaps, the bizarre. One intends to exclude also the highly improbable. When translations were being done one member of a translation team did consult me about the effect of 'well'. It was remiss of me if I did not circulate my reply among other translators of whom I was aware. One may wonder, indeed one may well wonder, how closely the Zone 2 understanding of the words corresponds to the English understanding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 3 12:53:12 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:53:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP><001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com><4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net><2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com><000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com><000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com><28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred><000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com> <4B8E2E3B.50408@nifty.com> Message-ID: <22875EFAF1A548869E46BD7A682A4698@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) > On 3 March 2010 10:39, Robert Geller wrote: >> There still is immense controversy over whether in the final match two >> days ago for the UK League Cup (between Aston Villa and Man U) > > Please don't use the expression 'ManU' about my favourite team. It's > an expression used by fans of other teams to talk about the team in a > very negative way (similar to the word manure.....). > Please use Manchester United, or, preferably, United. > >> the ref >> was correct in awarding a penalty kick to Aston Villa for a foul by the >> ManU defender Vidic, while not showing Vidic a red card or even a yellow >> card. >> >> So it's not as if bridge is the only game with controversy over the >> letter versus the spirit of the rules. Even games with a ball and >> whistle have some problems of the same sort..... >> +=+ The position was that the referee had to exercise judgement instantaneously. Thus his task was much more onerous than the task of the bridge TD with time to reflect and consult on matters of judgement. With hindsight, due reflection and the assistance of technology, the majority of pundits are now of the opinion that a red card would have been right. Bridge pundits are sometimes known make the same judgements without such aids and opportunities, and to an extent when deprived of a complete awareness of the facts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 3 19:03:08 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:03:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) References: <8DA3847F92A243BE88DE7922A5959218@MARVLAPTOP> <4B886776.7010705@yahoo.co.uk> <4B89A81F.5070009@yahoo.co.uk> <001601cab80d$595f8bc0$0c1ea340$@com> <4401938F9F584F5B8C0CBF477D9E027E@Mildred> <001101cab967$e83bbe80$b8b33b80$@com> <4810BA92-5F21-465C-BD95-657B89330A2E@starpower.net> <2b1e598b1003011305m65a8d731h9c4d5c253365f447@mail.gmail.com> <000001cab99f$8455e200$8d01a600$@com> <000401cab9f0$9ec9b7f0$dc5d27d0$@com> <28C9AB9CC5D444FB9364740A29F5A525@Mildred> <000201caba85$6aba6e60$402f4b20$@com><001501cabab1$43989010$cac9b030$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4B8E2E3B.50408@nifty.com> Message-ID: From: "Grattan" > When translations were being done one member of a translation > team did consult me about the effect of 'well'. It was remiss of > me if > I did not circulate my reply among other translators of whom I was > aware. One may wonder, indeed one may well wonder, how > closely the Zone 2 understanding of the words corresponds to the > English understanding. An appropriate concern, considering that the words of L12B1 and L12C1(b) will be on the agenda of the ACBL LC at the Reno NABC next week, as they wrestle with the problem of understanding them. Rather than copy the WBF Laws verbatim (while adding extra language), Zone 2 should have hired an English-to-American translator to make the Laws understandable before they approved them. Then, as is their right (legally but not sensibly), they could have modified the Laws to accord with their preferences. As it is, they will be straining to find "interpretations" that will do that job. The Reno meeting should be interesting, look for the results in the minutes published on acbl.org. (and on BLML by Richard Hills, no doubt). Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Mar 3 18:54:37 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:54:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd41003021205p73a59eb0u372888a264db6382@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41003021205p73a59eb0u372888a264db6382@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B8EA25D.2020200@aol.com> See your email below for the 4 parts I mentioned. Each one starting with curl (whatever that means) -O. I assumed they were the commentary and tried to access them (clicking each curl -O on), without success. Access denied. JE Adam Wildavsky schrieb: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM, I wrote: >> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanDiego2009.html >> >> If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case >> number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or >> Non-NABC+ case. >> >> Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they >> have not yet been written! > > Comments are now posted. Unfortunately no combined PDF is available, > only individual files. If someone combines them I'll be happy to pass > the result on to the ACBL for posting. > > I found these commands useful for downloading the cases without having > to click on each one. I haven't tried them on Windows! > > curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-17]-NABC+.pdf' > curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-04]-Non-NABC+.pdf > curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[06-14]-Non-NABC+.pdf > curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/Final-Comments.pdf > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at tameware.com Wed Mar 3 19:45:18 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:45:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] San Diego Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <4B8EA25D.2020200@aol.com> References: <694eadd41001211621o645ba43asfa5055946f7af97c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211622n6803d668s99e787788dfbc7af@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41001211655l52913270ue8be7ad183cab697@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd41003021205p73a59eb0u372888a264db6382@mail.gmail.com> <4B8EA25D.2020200@aol.com> Message-ID: <694eadd41003031045o7fc0ad2cs2c5aae53c6de0e70@mail.gmail.com> They're not clickable. Your email program is trying to be helpful by making them active. I should have been explicit -- they're intended for users of the Mac, Unix, or Linux command-line. They might also work in the DOS window on Windows, if you download the curl program. On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > See your email below for the 4 parts I mentioned. Each one starting > with curl (whatever that means) -O. I assumed they were the commentary > and tried to access them (clicking each curl -O on), without success. > Access denied. JE > > Adam Wildavsky schrieb: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM, I wrote: > >> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanDiego2009.html > >> > >> If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case > >> number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or > >> Non-NABC+ case. > >> > >> Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they > >> have not yet been written! > > > > Comments are now posted. Unfortunately no combined PDF is available, > > only individual files. If someone combines them I'll be happy to pass > > the result on to the ACBL for posting. > > > > I found these commands useful for downloading the cases without having > > to click on each one. I haven't tried them on Windows! > > > > curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-17]-NABC+.pdf' > > curl -O > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[01-04]-Non-NABC+.pdf > > curl -O > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/[06-14]-Non-NABC+.pdf > > curl -O http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanDiego2009/Final-Comments.pdf > > > > -- > > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100303/516bd5f7/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 3 23:46:15 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:46:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B8E26D8.10405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Stephen Pile, discussing his The Book of Heroic Failures: "The Book is one of the least successful books ever issued in the USA, I don't think it has reached double figures there as yet and long may that remain the case." Alain Gottcheiner: >...or when a tank-hunting dog turns against friendly armor... Richard Hills: Yes, in The Book of Heroic Failures Stephen Pile revealed the cunning plan of the Soviet Union's Army which used Pavlovian training upon dogs that caused those dogs to associate food with tanks. When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the Red Army cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war with bombs strapped to their backs. But unfortunately the dogs were intelligent enough to notice the difference between German tanks (no food) and Soviet tanks (food!), thus the Soviet tank-hunting dogs caused an entire Red Army division to retreat. Ton Kooijman >...So adopting this approach means confronting the inexperienced >club TD with UI cases which are difficult to handle, taking a >lot of time... Preface to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, fourth paragraph: "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. In addition, the Appeals process has been improved considerably by the introduction of the 'Code of Practice for Appeals Committees', to which attention is drawn." Richard Hills: The Drafting Committee cannot have it both ways; either Directors have a marked increase in expertise and experience, or some Directors will always remain inherently inexperienced. And even if, for the sake of argument, one assumes that club TDs will always remain inherently inexperienced, then the 2007 Law 27 is a Heroic Failure. The inexperienced club TD is faced with cases which are difficult to handle, taking a lot of time. The Zone 7 official guidance to TDs on Law 27 takes up two A4 pages, including seven indicative examples, and even the Zone 7 Law 27 Summary is complex. Summary: Most insufficient bids arise either from a failure to observe the call of RHO or a general confusion about the current level of the auction. Therefore in applying Law 27 the Director should proceed as follows: 1) Remove the offender from the table and determine his original intent and the specific meaning of the intended call. 2) Verify the general methods of the partnership and if necessary consult the offender's system card or any other system notes. 3) Determine the possible replacement calls available and their meaning. 4) Return to the table and explain all the options to the players (including that LHO has the option of accepting the insufficient bid as per Law 27A). 5) Allow the (fully informed) player to select a replacement call and then, based upon the investigations detailed in steps (1-3), apply either Law 27B1 or Law 27B2. 6) If Law 27B1 was applied, the non-offending side are informed of their right to recall the director at the end of play if they believe the outcome of the board would have been different without the assistance of the insufficient 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 nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Mar 4 00:02:15 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:02:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] NABC15 Sand Diego Message-ID: <4B8EEA77.3030902@virginmedia.com> Thanks Adam but I wish people would post web content in HTML pdf files are bulky and awkward, slow to download and read, and difficult to quote. Reisinger. BAM teams. 2nd Q. Board 17. Vul none. North deals East holds S: 6 5 2 H: K J T D: K 9 8 6 C: K 9 3 (1S) _P (1N) _P (2S) _P (3N) _P (3S) AP The Facts: The director was called after the play of the hand was completed: 1N = Forcing by agreement. North tapped the Alert strip but did not say ?Forcing? aloud. At the end of the auction, East asked if the 1NT was forcing. North heard the question as ?Was 3NT forcing?? and answered, ?No.? East led the D8 and claimed (allowing declarer to make 11 tricks) but claimed he would have led a trump had he known 1NT was forcing. The Ruling: The director judged that the auction demonstrated that South had at least some additional values, therefore there was not sufficient correlation to adjust the result. The Appeal: E/W appealed the director?s decision and were the only players to attend the hearing. E/W confirmed the director?s finding of the facts. East didn?t think that N/S had a spade fit. The Decision: The committee found that there was misinformation. The proper method of Alerting or Announcing is a verbal assertion combined with a tap of the Alert strip. However, the misinformation ought to have had little impact on East?s interpretation of the auction, which was consistent with what the defense should expect from the South hand. If East had a concern over the bidding, he could have asked what kind of hand would bid that way before he made the opening lead The committee admonished N/S for not following proper ACBL Alert procedures. N/S did not fulfill their obligation to make sure that East understood that 1NT was forcing before the opening lead was made. However, the infraction was not one that warranted a procedural penalty. The committee judged that it was not likely that East would have found a better lead and followed it up with a successful defense had he been properly informed, so it assigned to E/W the score for 4S by North making five, E/W minus 450. It judged that 10 tricks were at all probable had correct information had been provided, however, so the committee assigned N/S a score of 4S by North making four, N/S plus 420, per law 12C1(e). The Committee: Aaron Silverstein (Chair), Steve Garner, Robb Gordon, Ed Lazarus (Scribe) and Howard Weinstein. [Nigel] The commentators unanimously agreeid with the director and committee that the East-West should keep their poor score. IMO the director should have asked East why the forcing or non-forcing nature of 1N would change his lead; but if East's explanation could be genuine (even if it isn't sensible), I think the director should rule 4S= for both sides. It's hard to understand what more East could have done in the face of North-South's persistent disclosure violations. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Mar 4 00:28:48 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:28:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego Message-ID: <4B8EF0B0.6010606@virginmedia.com> IMO the director got this right and the committee got it wrong. Wolff castigated the non-offenders for misdefending 3N, and opined that, as a consequence, they deserved no redress. "Appellants would be reminded that in order to seek redress it would be a good idea to come into committee with "clean hands", rather than face the music of not having defeated 3NT." This casts light on two recent BLML controversies ... [1] Plays, obvious in hind-sight, are harder to find at the table. Given East's hand as a defensive problem, I would have failed; and I wouldn't be surprised if some experts would fail as well. [2] Wolff is right, however, that the rule about "egregious error" deters victims (especially ordinary players) from reporting infractions; and further increases the law-breaker's profits. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Mar 4 01:48:18 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:48:18 -0800 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego References: <4B8EF0B0.6010606@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <4276D0232E9C4DA18B7B6A5A3FB9E09D@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > IMO the director got this right and the committee got it wrong. > Wolff > castigated the non-offenders for misdefending 3N, and opined that, > as a > consequence, they deserved no redress. "Appellants would be > reminded > that in order to seek redress it would be a good idea to come into > committee with "clean hands", rather than face the music of not > having > defeated 3NT." Such baloney should be a bar to Wolff's participation in the official comments. Someone might take him seriously. > > This casts light on two recent BLML controversies ... > [1] Plays, obvious in hind-sight, are harder to find at the table. > Given > East's hand as a defensive problem, I would have failed; and I > wouldn't > be surprised if some experts would fail as well. > [2] Wolff is right, however, that the rule about "egregious error" > deters victims (especially ordinary players) from reporting > infractions; > and further increases the law-breaker's profits. Not understood. If an infraction of this sort is reported, the NOS can only gain from a ruling/decision, not lose. Rigal: The play in 3S is likely but not by any means sure to lead to down one--the defenders have to be a little careful. There might be a case for a less favorable result for N/S than plus 50. Since when does an estimated result for the NOS have to be "sure"? It doesn't even have to be likely (>50%?), just the most favorable result that was likely (at least 33%, according to the ACBL LC). Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Mar 4 03:56:12 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:56:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego In-Reply-To: <4276D0232E9C4DA18B7B6A5A3FB9E09D@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4B8EF0B0.6010606@virginmedia.com> <4276D0232E9C4DA18B7B6A5A3FB9E09D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4B8F214C.2020106@yahoo.co.uk> [Marvin French] Not understood. If an infraction of this sort is reported, the NOS can only gain from a ruling/decision, not lose. [Nigel] Under "equity" law, victims who report an infraction sometimes gain only enemies but they may waste time and endure hassle. Furthermore, rules about "protecting yourself", "double-shots", "egregious errors", and "wild and gambling actions" mean that insult is often added to injury. e.g. [Wolff] "Appellants would be reminded that in order to seek redress it would be a good idea to come into committee with "clean hands", rather than face the music of not having defeated 3NT." From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 4 15:29:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:29:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego In-Reply-To: <4B8EF0B0.6010606@virginmedia.com> References: <4B8EF0B0.6010606@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: On Mar 3, 2010, at 6:28 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > IMO the director got this right and the committee got it wrong. Wolff > castigated the non-offenders for misdefending 3N, and opined that, > as a > consequence, they deserved no redress. "Appellants would be reminded > that in order to seek redress it would be a good idea to come into > committee with "clean hands", rather than face the music of not having > defeated 3NT." > > This casts light on two recent BLML controversies ... > [1] Plays, obvious in hind-sight, are harder to find at the table. > Given > East's hand as a defensive problem, I would have failed; and I > wouldn't > be surprised if some experts would fail as well. > [2] Wolff is right, however, that the rule about "egregious error" > deters victims (especially ordinary players) from reporting > infractions; > and further increases the law-breaker's profits. Mr. Wolff, to put it politely, may be a bit past his prime. He has gained something of a reputation for rather insistently interpreting and applying the laws as he wishes they were -- far more punitive (see "convention disruption") -- rather than as they are. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Mar 4 18:21:58 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:21:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8FEC36.10509@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Ton Kooijman > >> ...So adopting this approach means confronting the inexperienced >> club TD with UI cases which are difficult to handle, taking a >> lot of time... > > Preface to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, fourth paragraph: > > "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise > and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new > Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. In > addition, the Appeals process has been improved considerably by > the introduction of the 'Code of Practice for Appeals > Committees', to which attention is drawn." > > Richard Hills: > > The Drafting Committee cannot have it both ways; either Directors > have a marked increase in expertise and experience, or some > Directors will always remain inherently inexperienced. Speaking for the European - and of course the German scene - I discern said marked increase among _qualified_ TDs, while a newbie TD must - by definition - lack experience, and with directing experience is the name of the game. It's quite likely that I teach more beginners TD courses in Germany than anyone else, so I have some ides what I speak of. Grattan always maintains that the word is spreading, but it does so slooooowly, because what we need are young people who learn fast, and we only rarely get them. > > And even if, for the sake of argument, one assumes that club TDs > will always remain inherently inexperienced, then the 2007 Law 27 > is a Heroic Failure. Possibly. On the other hand, while directing in two fairly weak clubs in my hometown, I never had to use any of the new parts of L27, because these people do not have alternative calls with similar meanings in their arsenal. > > The inexperienced club TD is faced with cases which are difficult > to handle, taking a lot of time. The inexperienced TD should work in an environment where he is up to the tasks set by the participants. If no such environment is there (for example because the level of play at the club is pretty high, usually leading to some complex TD cases) he should be carefully tutored until he is up to the task. We should care for those beginners, by all means, and the laws should be worded in a way to make their life as easy as possible, but L27 is IMO not a problem on the grass roots level. My concern lies with the intermediate level, where people often play conventions they don't fully understand, change the system at the drop of a hat, and often hoist themselves by their own petard. If this is met by a TD who is new to this kind of mess, then the fun begins.... There is no real solution to this, and there never wil be one, because sometimes you have to drop someone into cold water and see whether he swims or not. Book knowledge is one thing, but experience (even bad experiences) cannot be replaced. History has shown that humans do not learn from the errors of others. We can be happy if we learn from our own errors. Best regards Matthias From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 4 19:34:28 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:34:28 -0800 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:28:48 GMT." <4B8EF0B0.6010606@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <201003041834.KAA29652@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > IMO the director got this right and the committee got it wrong. Wolff > castigated the non-offenders for misdefending 3N, and opined that, as a > consequence, they deserved no redress. "Appellants would be reminded > that in order to seek redress it would be a good idea to come into > committee with "clean hands", rather than face the music of not having > defeated 3NT." To be fair, it should be pointed out that the committee's reasoning had nothing to do with the non-offenders' possible misdefense. The way you juxtaposed your sentences could give the wrong impression. > This casts light on two recent BLML controversies ... > [1] Plays, obvious in hind-sight, are harder to find at the table. Given > East's hand as a defensive problem, I would have failed; and I wouldn't > be surprised if some experts would fail as well. Unfortunately, the report makes no mention of the spot cards played to trick 1. I'd want to see those before trying to judge whether the error was "egregious" (actually, a "serious error" as the Laws say). Actually, the report doesn't seem to say anything about the actual defense. It looks to me that the only realistic chance to make a difference would be a diamond shift, however, and perhaps this particular East should have found it. But I wouldn't want to call this a "serious error" for most players. Now that I think of it, it seems a bit odd that the report contains comments by Wolff implicitly castigating the defenders their misdefense, while at the same time the report says nothing about the actual defense except for the opening lead. Was it a mistake to use the phrase "serious error" in the Laws? The previous Laws said nothing about self-inflicted damage, and WBFLC interpretations used the phrase "wild, gambling, or irrational" when discussing when an error would cause damage to be ruled as self-inflicted. Judging whether an action is "irrational" seems to be more clear-cut than judging whether it's a "serious error". (Not that it would have affected this case, which was decided on other grounds.) -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Mar 4 21:21:07 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:21:07 -0800 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego References: <201003041834.KAA29652@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: From: "Adam Beneschan" > Was it a mistake to use the phrase "serious error" in the Laws? > The > previous Laws said nothing about self-inflicted damage, and WBFLC > interpretations used the phrase "wild, gambling, or irrational" > when > discussing when an error would cause damage to be ruled as > self-inflicted. Judging whether an action is "irrational" seems > to be > more clear-cut than judging whether it's a "serious error". (Not > that > it would have affected this case, which was decided on other > grounds.) > We discussed this matter on BLML often in the past. I maintained that a revoke is an irrational play, but Grattan disagreed, saying (if memory serves) it isn't. Everyone floundered around trying to pin down the word "irrational," defining it in different ways. Replacing "irrational" with "serious error" was probably an attempt to end that discussion (e.g., a revoke is certainly a serious error), but the discussion has not gone away. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 4 21:36:22 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:36:22 -0800 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:21:07 PST." Message-ID: <201003042036.MAA30764@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > > Was it a mistake to use the phrase "serious error" in the Laws? > > The > > previous Laws said nothing about self-inflicted damage, and WBFLC > > interpretations used the phrase "wild, gambling, or irrational" > > when > > discussing when an error would cause damage to be ruled as > > self-inflicted. Judging whether an action is "irrational" seems > > to be > > more clear-cut than judging whether it's a "serious error". (Not > > that > > it would have affected this case, which was decided on other > > grounds.) > > > We discussed this matter on BLML often in the past. I maintained > that a revoke is an irrational play, but Grattan disagreed, saying > (if memory serves) it isn't. Everyone floundered around trying to > pin down the word "irrational," defining it in different ways. > Replacing "irrational" with "serious error" was probably an attempt > to end that discussion (e.g., a revoke is certainly a serious > error), but the discussion has not gone away. Ah, I see. The line is still fuzzy---it's just moved to a different place now. Thanks for the explanation. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 4 22:25:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 16:25:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego In-Reply-To: <201003041834.KAA29652@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201003041834.KAA29652@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <93FEFB33-E37F-4AED-B06E-6248B71E72FF@starpower.net> On Mar 4, 2010, at 1:34 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Nigel wrote: > >> IMO the director got this right and the committee got it wrong. Wolff >> castigated the non-offenders for misdefending 3N, and opined that, >> as a >> consequence, they deserved no redress. "Appellants would be reminded >> that in order to seek redress it would be a good idea to come into >> committee with "clean hands", rather than face the music of not >> having >> defeated 3NT." > > To be fair, it should be pointed out that the committee's reasoning > had nothing to do with the non-offenders' possible misdefense. The > way you juxtaposed your sentences could give the wrong impression. > >> This casts light on two recent BLML controversies ... >> [1] Plays, obvious in hind-sight, are harder to find at the table. >> Given >> East's hand as a defensive problem, I would have failed; and I >> wouldn't >> be surprised if some experts would fail as well. > > Unfortunately, the report makes no mention of the spot cards played to > trick 1. I'd want to see those before trying to judge whether the > error was "egregious" (actually, a "serious error" as the Laws say). > Actually, the report doesn't seem to say anything about the actual > defense. It looks to me that the only realistic chance to make a > difference would be a diamond shift, however, and perhaps this > particular East should have found it. But I wouldn't want to call > this a "serious error" for most players. > > Now that I think of it, it seems a bit odd that the report contains > comments by Wolff implicitly castigating the defenders their > misdefense, while at the same time the report says nothing about the > actual defense except for the opening lead. > > Was it a mistake to use the phrase "serious error" in the Laws? The > previous Laws said nothing about self-inflicted damage, and WBFLC > interpretations used the phrase "wild, gambling, or irrational" when > discussing when an error would cause damage to be ruled as > self-inflicted. Judging whether an action is "irrational" seems to be > more clear-cut than judging whether it's a "serious error". (Not that > it would have affected this case, which was decided on other grounds.) The use of the phrase "serious error" in L12 may have been a serious error. I'm not at all fluent in British English, but in American English the "seriousness" of an error is normally measured not by the degree of its erroneousness, but rather by the severity of its consequences (so that a particular defensive error might be called "serious" if it let 6S through, but not if gave the second overtrick in 4S). Edgar Kaplan used the totally unambiguous "egregious" (for which AHD's definition in full is "Outstandingly bad; blatant; outrageous"); I can't speculate on what caused our authors to think a better word was needed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Mar 4 22:29:24 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:29:24 -0800 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego References: <201003042036.MAA30764@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <83FFB66FAF364DDCAA3778440D8B500A@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Marv wrote: > >> > >> We discussed this matter on BLML often in the past. I maintained >> that a revoke is an irrational play, but Grattan disagreed, >> saying >> (if memory serves) it isn't. Everyone floundered around trying to >> pin down the word "irrational," defining it in different ways. >> Replacing "irrational" with "serious error" was probably an >> attempt >> to end that discussion (e.g., a revoke is certainly a serious >> error), but the discussion has not gone away. > > Ah, I see. The line is still fuzzy---it's just moved to a > different > place now. Thanks for the explanation. > I would bet that the majority of serious errors by the NOS are committed after an opponent's UI forces them to an uncomfortable level. Eliminating such serious error from an OS score adjustment per L12C1(b) therefore seems reasonable, even though the ACBL doesn't accept that (yet). That brings up another reason for not dealing with the UI at the time it's created. Waiting until the end of play per L16B3 doesn't intrude into the auction and play periods where it can disturb a player's powers of concentration.. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com , From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 4 22:52:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:52:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Lone wereWolff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Mr. Wolff, to put it politely, may be a bit past his prime. >He has gained something of a reputation for rather insistently >interpreting and applying the laws as he wishes they were -- >far more punitive (see "convention disruption") -- rather than >as they are. Richard Hills: I disagree. I believe that Bobby Wolff is still in his prime, as he showed by again qualifying for the Bermuda Bowl a few years ago as a team-mate of blmler Adam Wildavsky. The problem, rather, is celebrity by association. Many assume that the son of a capable President will also be a capable President. In one case this was true; President John Quincy Adams was just as capable as his father, President John Adams. Indeed, John Quincy Adams proved even more capable after leaving the White House; he returned to Congress and vigorously campaigned against slavery, sowing the seeds for the eventual Emancipation Proclamation. But in the other case it proved to be false. And many assume that someone who has the skills to win numerous Bermuda Bowls also has the very different skills to be an effective Chair of an Appeals Committee. It ain't necessarily so. It ain't necessarily so. The rulings that you're liable, To read from Wolff of the ACBL, They ain't necessarily so. 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 Mar 4 23:04:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:04:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <93FEFB33-E37F-4AED-B06E-6248B71E72FF@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >...Edgar Kaplan used the totally unambiguous "egregious"... Richard Hills: Also P.T. Barnum used the totally unambiguous sign "This way to the Egress -->" Customers expecting to see some sort of exotic bird instead found themselves outside on the street, so had to pay a second fee to re-enter. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 4 23:14:28 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:14:28 -0800 Subject: [BLML] The Lone wereWolff In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:52:35 +1100." Message-ID: <201003042214.OAA31880@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > The problem, rather, is celebrity by association. Many assume > that the son of a capable President will also be a capable > President. In one case this was true; President John Quincy > Adams was just as capable as his father, President John Adams. > Indeed, John Quincy Adams proved even more capable after > leaving the White House; he returned to Congress and vigorously > campaigned against slavery, sowing the seeds for the eventual > Emancipation Proclamation. Well, if you're going to count what they did outside their presidency in determining whether they were capable Presidents, keep in mind the father's role in getting my nation started. Not exactly an insignificant achievement. As for the son's success at being President, Wikipedia says: "But like his father he lacked political sense and an ability to command public support, and his contentious spirit spelled defeat for him personally and for many of his policies."... "The Adams administration recorded no major legislative, diplomatic, military or administrative achievements." So I suppose one could say you're correct in that John Quincy Adams was just as [in]capable as his father, in their roles as President, but then neither one really fits into the second sentence that I quoted. Historians may differ on this. I don't think it's clear-cut, certainly not as clear-cut as saying, for instance, that "Lincoln was a more capable President than James Buchanan". -- Adam From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 5 00:24:36 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:24:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The Lone wereWolff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:52 PM Subject: [BLML] The Lone wereWolff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > The problem, rather, is celebrity by association. Many assume > that the son of a capable President will also be a capable > President. In one case this was true; President John Quincy > Adams was just as capable as his father, President John Adams. > Indeed, John Quincy Adams proved even more capable after > leaving the White House; he returned to Congress and vigorously > campaigned against slavery, sowing the seeds for the eventual > Emancipation Proclamation. << +=+ One of my favourite films is Spielberg's 'Amistad' in which Anthony Hopkins portrays John Quincy Adams and I was introduced to the talents of Djimon Hounsou. +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 5 01:05:55 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 00:05:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego In-Reply-To: <93FEFB33-E37F-4AED-B06E-6248B71E72FF@starpower.net> References: <201003041834.KAA29652@mailhub.irvine.com> <93FEFB33-E37F-4AED-B06E-6248B71E72FF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401cabbf7$a0bce290$e236a7b0$@com> [EL] The use of the phrase "serious error" in L12 may have been a serious error. I'm not at all fluent in British English, but in American English the "seriousness" of an error is normally measured not by the degree of its erroneousness, but rather by the severity of its consequences (so that a particular defensive error might be called "serious" if it let 6S through, but not if gave the second overtrick in 4S). [DALB] This interpretation of the word "serious" is the one I would (as a speaker of British English) certainly consider to be appropriate in this context, though the word itself seems to me to be (wrongly) used in its colloquial sense merely as a synonym for "very", and thus to be another of those "intensifiers" that cause so many difficulties. The Laws and Ethics Committee of the English Bridge Union recently issued some guidance as to what is to be regarded as a "serious error" within the meaning of L12. This may be found as Appendix A of the relevant Minutes here: http://tinyurl.com/yfplfgw [EL] Edgar Kaplan used the totally unambiguous "egregious" (for which AHD's definition in full is "Outstandingly bad; blatant; outrageous"); I can't speculate on what caused our authors to think a better word was needed. [DALB] "egregious" (from the Latin "e[x]" meaning "out" and "grex/gregis" meaning "flock") is one of those curious words whose meaning has changed completely with the passage of time. Originally it was not a pejorative term at all but a term of praise; as recently as 1855, Thackeray could write: "When he wanted to draw [...] some one splendid and egregious, it was [Robert] Clive [of India] he took for a model." By then, however, the word had for some time been used to mean "outstandingly bad" as well as "outstandingly good"; Shakespeare's otherwise not terribly remarkable play Cymbeline contains the splendid lines: Italian fiend! Ay me, most credulous fool, Egregious murderer, thief, any thing That's due to all the villains past, in being, To come! and Milton wrote of "Egregious Liars and Impostors". Nowadays the term is almost universally used to mean what the AHD says it means - but "totally unambiguous"? Well, not to classical scholars, but they doubtless have no business playing bridge anyway. David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 5 01:20:29 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 00:20:29 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The Lone wereWolff References: <201003042214.OAA31880@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Lone wereWolff > > So I suppose one could say you're correct in that John Quincy Adams > was just as [in]capable as his father, in their roles as President, > but then neither one really fits into the second sentence that I > quoted. Historians may differ on this. I don't think it's clear-cut, > certainly not as clear-cut as saying, for instance, that "Lincoln was > a more capable President than James Buchanan". > +=+ I can offer the example of William Pitt the Younger who was a cold fish but intellectually brilliant. His father was warmer but his results as British Prime Minister gained less applause. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 5 01:28:41 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 00:28:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego References: <201003041834.KAA29652@mailhub.irvine.com><93FEFB33-E37F-4AED-B06E-6248B71E72FF@starpower.net> <000401cabbf7$a0bce290$e236a7b0$@com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego > Shakespeare's otherwise not terribly remarkable play Cymbeline < +=+.... or perhaps remarkably terrible.... but the Bard's less significant dramas do contain some gems of language. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 5 01:55:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:55:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] LA for this East? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <97659CB3F6204DFEB7FF738ED84E2E93@Mildred> Message-ID: Sir Humphrey Appleby: "The identity of the official whose alleged responsibility for this hypothetical oversight has been the subject of recent discussion, is not shrouded in quite such impenetrable obscurity as certain previous disclosures may have led you to assume, but not to put too fine a point on it, the individual in question is, it may surprise you to learn, one whom your present interlocutor is in the habit of defining by means of the perpendicular pronoun." Law 84D - Rulings on Agreed Facts - Director's Option: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side....." Grattan Endicott: [big snip] >I would exercise doubt in favour of the non-offending side per >Law 84D. Richard Hills: But what is in doubt is whether there is one non-offending side, or whether there are two non-offending sides. With this fundamental fact in dispute, an immediate ruling under Law 84D is illegal; first there must be recourse to Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) and only after that may Law 84D be used. Grattan Endicott: >If I am not able to consult players my default position would >be to rule against the presumptive offender. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 85B - Rulings on Disputed Facts - 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." Richard Hills: "Makes a ruling that will permit play to continue" is not identical in meaning to "rule against the presumptive offender", but since Grattan used the perpendicular pronoun he is no doubt merely expressing a personal opinion. 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 Mar 5 07:37:16 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:37:16 -0800 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego References: <201003041834.KAA29652@mailhub.irvine.com><93FEFB33-E37F-4AED-B06E-6248B71E72FF@starpower.net><000401cabbf7$a0bce290$e236a7b0$@com> Message-ID: <4654390E403F4D85B26D2D80F72F0EA6@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > From: "David Burn" < >> > Shakespeare's otherwise not terribly remarkable play > Cymbeline > < > +=+.... or perhaps remarkably terrible.... but the Bard's > less significant dramas do contain some gems of language. +=+ > A few examples from Cymbeline, one of his late plays (1609 or 1610): Fortune brings in some boats that are not steered. Pleasure and peace breeds cowards. Who is't can read a woman? As chaste as unsunned snow. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 5 07:39:49 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:39:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000601cab954$aaa2fc40$ffe8f4c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <000501cabc2e$a7754b40$f65fe1c0$@com> [RJH] A few ambiguities in the 2007 Lawbook does not necessarily suggest any fundamental changes to the intended meanings of the 2007 Laws in 2018; it merely suggests that the 2018 Lawbook should be written unambiguously in plain English (and for that I recommend that David Burn be co-opted to the 2018 Drafting Committee). [DALB] Oh, you don't want me - I don't speak plain English, though I have in cases of dire necessity been able to make myself understood in parts of the Midlands. The chap you want is Konrad Ciborowski, who poignantly wrote in fluent English: "The problem was that even though I managed to find an equivalent form in Polish ("spokojnie mogl wplynac na decyzje" = "could well influence the decision") it is a form far too colloquial to have a place in an official document. Other intensifiers were either too strong or too weak so we decided to translate these laws as if they didn't contain the word "well" at all. "I must say that in the main we considered the word "well" to be a mere stylistic ornament, we had no clue that it was put in there as a key factor and a subtle way to "raise the bar" in rulings concerning possible damage. "So I'm afraid that to the Polish TDs (or least those who don't speak English or don't bother to consult the English text of the Laws) the key point of this discussion would be lost in translation forever. I take full responsibility for that although I must admit that if the Laws Committee wanted to "raise the bar" there were other (much more explicit) ways of doing it." Amen, as Kojak would say, to that. There are explicit ways of stating the Law, but if the Law is not stated in those ways, every single one of its administrators will appear thus: Though our mental equipment may be slight And we barely distinguish left from right, We are quite prepared to fight For our principles, Though none of us knows so far What they really are. Noel Coward, The Stately Homes of England David Burn London, (but not a resident of one of the Stately Homes of) England From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Mar 5 08:48:34 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:48:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B8FEC36.10509@t-online.de> References: <4B8FEC36.10509@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000c01cabc38$428d08d0$c7a71a70$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Richard: > The Drafting Committee cannot have it both ways; either Directors > have a marked increase in expertise and experience, or some > Directors will always remain inherently inexperienced. ton: This statement with 'or' used in the exclusive way, proves that it seems more important to contradict than to strive for a constructive discussion. ton From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 5 15:04:17 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:04:17 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601cab954$aaa2fc40$ffe8f4c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000501cabc2e$a7754b40$f65fe1c0$@com> Message-ID: <8340BDE68B22478B8F036B7E94AE4E7F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 6:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Amen, as Kojak would say, to that. There are explicit ways of stating > the Law, but if the Law is not stated in those ways, every single one > of its administrators will appear thus: > > Though our mental equipment may be slight > And we barely distinguish left from right, > We are quite prepared to fight > For our principles, > Though none of us knows so far > What they really are. > +=+ It did not occur to me, and still does not, that someone translating English to another language, and finding an expression of which (s)he was unsure, would not either (a) consult a dictionary or (b) enquire of source. What I underestimate, perhaps, is the degree of confidence that translators have in their command of the language from which they are translating. Merely to cast the use of a word aside as adding nothing useful or significant to the meaning strikes me as, er, what shall I say ? a trifle unwise? Well, that's genteel anyway. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 5 15:49:20 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:49:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] NABC01 San Diego In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <361CE7A1-88BC-478B-8A20-CAD16FD8368C@starpower.net> On Mar 4, 2010, at 5:04 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> ...Edgar Kaplan used the totally unambiguous "egregious"... > > Richard Hills: > > Also P.T. Barnum used the totally unambiguous sign > > "This way to the Egress -->" > > Customers expecting to see some sort of exotic bird instead > found themselves outside on the street, so had to pay a > second fee to re-enter. P.T. Barnum was well-known for regularly referring to his paying customers as "suckers". One hopes the WBFLC does not share his attitude. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Mar 6 00:46:34 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:46:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure Message-ID: <4B9197DA.2080006@comcast.net> Suppose North opens with an ambiguous bid...say something like a mini-Roman or Mexican 2D...and East hand doubles. N-S now have methods that vary, depending on the meaning of the double, so South asks for an explanation. West replies: "I don't know...your guess is as good as mine." N-S now guess wrong and miss a good contract they might well reach had they received a correct explanation. Question: Does Law 40.B.4 apply? Law 40.B.6(b)? I.e., is there damage here that entitles the NOS to an adjusted score? If so, to how high a level of call (in other situations) would this kind of "failure to provide disclosure" apply? Or does it at some point become a "rub of the green," as (for example) it would with a misbid? --Bob Park From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Mar 6 01:05:24 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:05:24 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure References: <4B9197DA.2080006@comcast.net> Message-ID: From: "Robert Park" > Suppose North opens with an ambiguous bid...say something like a > mini-Roman or Mexican 2D...and East hand doubles. N-S now have > methods > that vary, depending on the meaning of the double, so South asks > for an > explanation. West replies: "I don't know...your guess is as good > as > mine." N-S now guess wrong and miss a good contract they might > well > reach had they received a correct explanation. > > Question: Does Law 40.B.4 apply? Law 40.B.6(b)? I.e., is there > damage > here that entitles the NOS to an adjusted score? > > If so, to how high a level of call (in other situations) would > this kind > of "failure to provide disclosure" apply? Or does it at some point > become a "rub of the green," as (for example) it would with a > misbid? > No one is going to agree with me on this, except maybe Herman. If West is going to make a call based on a guess of the meaning, then he/she should confidently state the meaning without showing any doubt (which is UI to East). If it turns out that the assumed meaning is correct, no harm no foul because the partnership has an agreement, even if not discussed. If it turns out to be incorrect, then there is both misinformation and UI, possibly damaging to the other side. If West is not going to make a call based on a guess of the meaning, then "no agreement" is acceptable, but East must not use that statement (which is UI) to his side's advantage. For instance, if the double is meant to show diamonds, East may not bid diamonds later without good values for the bid. If the UI is not used to advantage, then it is rub of the green for N/S. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at irvine.com Sat Mar 6 01:05:43 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:05:43 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:46:34 EST." <4B9197DA.2080006@comcast.net> Message-ID: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Park wrote: > Suppose North opens with an ambiguous bid...say something like a > mini-Roman or Mexican 2D...and East hand doubles. N-S now have methods > that vary, depending on the meaning of the double, so South asks for an > explanation. West replies: "I don't know...your guess is as good as > mine." N-S now guess wrong and miss a good contract they might well > reach had they received a correct explanation. Why do you assume they didn't receive a correct explanation? If they don't have an agreement, then the fact that they don't have an agreement is a correct explanation (and "your guess is as good as mine" is essentially the same thing). Obviously N-S need to discuss this and decide what methods to adopt over an undiscussed double. -- Adam From RCraigH at aol.com Sat Mar 6 01:29:21 2010 From: RCraigH at aol.com (RCraigH at aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:29:21 EST Subject: [BLML] How much redress? Message-ID: <2f7d7.1b71b133.38c2fbe1@aol.com> Suppose South bids 3NT all pass, at which point South points out that his partner had failed to alert 3NT as gambling, based upon a seven card solid (AKQxxxx) minor and no outside A or K. So the failure to alert is established misinformation. Assuming there has been no unauthorized information given through hesitations, Should the director 1) Require the hand to be played and adjusted if, double dummy, the opponents were "damaged?" A) If so, how does one determine if the correct bids leading to the best contract would actually have been reached? B) If, for example, the best result is for the adversaries to bid a suit at the four level, going down one, is the hindsight approach allow the gambling 3NT's partner to double? Then 4H doubled would be down 200, as opposed to 100, and the resulting matchpoints or IMPs would be affected. 2) Rewind the auction to West, the bidder's LHO? 3) Rewind the auction to East, then to West? Suppose option (1) were the ruling. Then, after the fact, would it be appropriate to assume that LHO would have bid 4H on xx QJ9xxxx Kx xx, in order to rule 4H down 1? Craig Hemphill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100306/22c9bbd6/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 6 02:33:08 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 02:33:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How much redress? In-Reply-To: <2f7d7.1b71b133.38c2fbe1@aol.com> References: <2f7d7.1b71b133.38c2fbe1@aol.com> Message-ID: <001601cabccc$fa4e34a0$eeea9de0$@no> On Behalf Of RCraigH at aol.com >Suppose South bids 3NT all pass, at which point South points out that his partner >had failed to alert 3NT as gambling, based upon a seven card solid (AKQxxxx) minor >and no outside A or K. ? >So the failure to alert is established misinformation. ? >Assuming there has been no unauthorized information given through hesitations, ? >Should the director ? >1)? Require the hand to be played and adjusted if, double dummy, the opponents were "damaged?" >????A)? If so, how does one determine if the correct bids leading to the best contract would actually have been reached? >????B)? If, for example, the best result is for the adversaries to bid a suit at the four level, going down one, is the hindsight > approach allow the gambling >3NT's partner to double?? Then 4H doubled would be down 200, as opposed to 100, > and the resulting matchpoints or IMPs would be affected. ? >2)? Rewind the auction to West, the bidder's LHO? ? >3)? Rewind the auction to East, then to West? ? ? >Suppose option (1) were the ruling.? Then, after the fact, would it be appropriate to assume that LHO >would have bid 4H on xx QJ9xxxx Kx xx, in order to rule 4H down 1? ? >Craig Hemphill (HTML formatting converted to plain text - never use HTML or RTF on BLML) The Director may never rewind the auction to a call earlier than the last call made by the non-offending side (see Law 21B1a) which means that East is the only player that may be allowed to change a call, and he may only change his closing pass to the (different) call he would have made in the original auction given correct information at the time. Then when play is completed the Director should judge if East and/or West can be heard with a claim that they would have called differently at any of their earlier calls during the auction and if as a consequence they have been damaged by the misinformation. The damage to be rectified in case is the difference between their expected result without the irregularity and the result they actually received on the board. Regards Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Mar 6 04:17:39 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:17:39 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure References: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <341646FCAA9941FFBA9A3D02D62914A6@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Beneschan" > Robert Park wrote: > >> Suppose North opens with an ambiguous bid...say something like a >> mini-Roman or Mexican 2D...and East hand doubles. N-S now have >> methods >> that vary, depending on the meaning of the double, so South asks >> for an >> explanation. West replies: "I don't know...your guess is as good >> as >> mine." N-S now guess wrong and miss a good contract they might >> well >> reach had they received a correct explanation. > > Why do you assume they didn't receive a correct explanation? If > they > don't have an agreement, then the fact that they don't have an > agreement is a correct explanation (and "your guess is as good as > mine" is essentially the same thing). Obviously N-S need to > discuss > this and decide what methods to adopt over an undiscussed double. The problem is that West has told East that he doesn't understand his double. That is unacceptable UI, which East had better not use to advantage This is a very bad thing, that a player can say "don't know" when he is pretty sure. Then if the opponents go wrong, he/she will say, "I said I didn't know, don't blame me. I just happened to guess right." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Mar 6 14:39:44 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:39:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure In-Reply-To: <341646FCAA9941FFBA9A3D02D62914A6@MARVLAPTOP> References: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> <341646FCAA9941FFBA9A3D02D62914A6@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4B925B20.7070704@comcast.net> On 3/5/10 10:17 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > >> Robert Park wrote: >> >> >>> Suppose North opens with an ambiguous bid...say something like a >>> mini-Roman or Mexican 2D...and East hand doubles. N-S now have >>> methods >>> that vary, depending on the meaning of the double, so South asks >>> for an >>> explanation. West replies: "I don't know...your guess is as good >>> as >>> mine." N-S now guess wrong and miss a good contract they might >>> well >>> reach had they received a correct explanation. >>> >> Why do you assume they didn't receive a correct explanation? If >> they >> don't have an agreement, then the fact that they don't have an >> agreement is a correct explanation (and "your guess is as good as >> mine" is essentially the same thing). Obviously N-S need to >> discuss >> this and decide what methods to adopt over an undiscussed double. >> > The problem is that West has told East that he doesn't understand > his double. That is unacceptable UI, which East had better not use > to advantage > > This is a very bad thing, that a player can say "don't know" when he > is pretty sure. Then if the opponents go wrong, he/she will say, "I > said I didn't know, don't blame me. I just happened to guess right." > > Marv > Another problem is that the NOS has been put at a disadvantage in much the same way, ITSM, that would occur after a failure to alert. Should opponents gain advantage through having undefined actions? If so, how far does that privilege extend? What about "all actions undefined," so that everything is a crapshoot? Or are they permitted to have only certain actions undefined? Where are the boundaries? --Bob Park From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 6 15:25:57 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:25:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure In-Reply-To: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:05:43 -0500, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Robert Park wrote: > >> Suppose North opens with an ambiguous bid...say something like a >> mini-Roman or Mexican 2D...and East hand doubles. N-S now have methods >> that vary, depending on the meaning of the double, so South asks for an >> explanation. West replies: "I don't know...your guess is as good as >> mine." N-S now guess wrong and miss a good contract they might well >> reach had they received a correct explanation. > > Why do you assume they didn't receive a correct explanation? If they > don't have an agreement, then the fact that they don't have an > agreement is a correct explanation (and "your guess is as good as > mine" is essentially the same thing). Obviously N-S need to discuss > this and decide what methods to adopt over an undiscussed double. While West doesn't know the meaning of the double, that doesn't mean they don't have an agreement. Maybe West forgot. Or there was some relevant discussion but West hasn't recalled that yet. Meanwhile, East almost certainly thinks that his double is defined. On a practical level, send West away from the table and have East explain the bid to the opps. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Mar 6 20:44:39 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:44:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How much redress? In-Reply-To: <001601cabccc$fa4e34a0$eeea9de0$@no> References: <2f7d7.1b71b133.38c2fbe1@aol.com> <001601cabccc$fa4e34a0$eeea9de0$@no> Message-ID: <4B92B0A7.1050903@nhcc.net> On 3/5/2010 8:33 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > The Director may never rewind the auction to a call earlier than the last > call made by the non-offending side (see Law 21B1a) which means that East is > the only player that may be allowed to change a call, and he may only change > his closing pass to the (different) call he would have made in the original > auction given correct information at the time. In other words, East has correct information and can do whatever he thinks will give the best result. He should assume West's pass was the normal call. > Then when play is completed the Director should judge if East and/or West > can be heard with a claim that they would have called differently at any of Generally only West. East had correct information when he had to make his decision. You would look at East's calls if there were earlier ones affected by the MI. > The damage to be rectified in case is the difference between their expected > result without the irregularity and the result they actually received on the > board. In general, when giving an adjusted score, you try to guess what would have happened if the irregularity (the MI in this case) had not occurred. You resolve doubtful points in favor of the NOS (non- offending side), but you don't go so far as to give them double-dummy results that are highly unlikely to be found in actual play. Outside North America, you can give a weighted average of several different possibilities. All this is covered by Law 12C, but terms such as "likely" and "at all probable" need some interpretation, which has been discussed here in the past. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 6 23:47:38 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 22:47:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure References: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <0277F60A2B5F4752B88B19287DE02D13@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure > > Robert Park wrote: > >> Suppose North opens with an ambiguous bid...say something like a >> mini-Roman or Mexican 2D...and East hand doubles. N-S now have methods >> that vary, depending on the meaning of the double, so South asks for an >> explanation. West replies: "I don't know...your guess is as good as >> mine." N-S now guess wrong and miss a good contract they might well >> reach had they received a correct explanation. > > Why do you assume they didn't receive a correct explanation? If they > don't have an agreement, then the fact that they don't have an > agreement is a correct explanation (and "your guess is as good as > mine" is essentially the same thing). Obviously N-S need to discuss > this and decide what methods to adopt over an undiscussed double. > > -- Adam ....................................................................................................... +=+ I am inclined to ask about prior disclosure - Law 40A1(b). What are the relevant regulations? Was the fact made known that there is no agreement about the meaning of a double in this position, or does the Regulating Authority not require that it should be? My mind is that the random meaning of the double in this situation is a treatment calling for defensive preparation (counteraction) by the opponents. As such it must be fully disclosed on the system card where the WBF Systems Policy is adopted - see Section 5 which specifies where on the System Card it must be shown. (I have not checked it but I have no doubt the EBL Systems Policy requires the same.). So I think it important to know what the system regulations are when these circumstances come to the Director's attention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Mar 8 07:15:52 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 22:15:52 -0800 Subject: [BLML] test Message-ID: Just testing, ignore please From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 8 11:02:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:02:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] test References: Message-ID: <7FC624E0AD954611A54DBF2A36FE7C7A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 6:15 AM Subject: [BLML] test > Just testing, ignore please > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 8 11:02:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:02:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] test References: Message-ID: <37A869FC07D84EDFA8AFE68BF3E16F00@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 6:15 AM Subject: [BLML] test > Just testing, ignore please > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 8 15:42:07 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:42:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure In-Reply-To: <4B9197DA.2080006@comcast.net> References: <4B9197DA.2080006@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Robert Park wrote: > Suppose North opens with an ambiguous bid...say something like a > mini-Roman or Mexican 2D...and East hand doubles. N-S now have methods > that vary, depending on the meaning of the double, so South asks > for an > explanation. West replies: "I don't know...your guess is as good as > mine." N-S now guess wrong and miss a good contract they might well > reach had they received a correct explanation. Don't write the conclusion into the premise. The first question to ask is whether "I don't know... your guess is as good as mine" *was* a correct explanation. > Question: Does Law 40.B.4 apply? Law 40.B.6(b)? I.e., is there damage > here that entitles the NOS to an adjusted score? Yes, provided that E-W really do have a partnership agreement about East's double. Otherwise, there's no infraction. > If so, to how high a level of call (in other situations) would this > kind > of "failure to provide disclosure" apply? Or does it at some point > become a "rub of the green," as (for example) it would with a misbid? Up to the level at which E-W's actions are no longer defined by partnership agreement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 8 16:01:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:01:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure In-Reply-To: <4B925B20.7070704@comcast.net> References: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> <341646FCAA9941FFBA9A3D02D62914A6@MARVLAPTOP> <4B925B20.7070704@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Robert Park wrote: > Should opponents gain advantage through having undefined actions? > If so, > how far does that privilege extend? What about "all actions > undefined," > so that everything is a crapshoot? Or are they permitted to have only > certain actions undefined? Where are the boundaries? Wherever your RA chooses to put them (L40B2(a)). Uncertainty is a valid tactic in defining calls. Compleletely undefined calls (e.g. opening "bar bids") merely extend the principle behind CRASH or ferts. Personally, I see no reason why they should be considered anything but legitimate and permissible, but feel obliged to note that the ACBL disagrees with me. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 8 16:09:13 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:09:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <4B9197DA.2080006@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4B951319.5060508@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Robert Park wrote: > > >> Suppose North opens with an ambiguous bid...say something like a >> mini-Roman or Mexican 2D...and East hand doubles. N-S now have methods >> that vary, depending on the meaning of the double, so South asks >> for an >> explanation. West replies: "I don't know...your guess is as good as >> mine." N-S now guess wrong and miss a good contract they might well >> reach had they received a correct explanation. >> > > Don't write the conclusion into the premise. The first question to > ask is whether "I don't know... your guess is as good as mine" *was* > a correct explanation. > AG : agree. However, while it is reasonably easy to show an agreement does exist (just show them the relevant part of your system notes), it is really difficult to prove you don't have any agreement. Elements related to the meaning of the bid may lie hidden anywhere in the system notes, especially about doubles, as many pairs have meta-agreements. Now, in this peculiar case, NS have indeed been damaged, not by the fact that they didn't got the right answer, but by the fact that they recieved no answer. There should be something written (or to write) about it. There arer three ways to deal with such cases : 1) saying that any pair which has bids whose meaning differ according to the maening of a fairly common call should have a "default value" for such cases 2) saying that in such cases one is allowed to request an answer neverthemess and base one's continuations upon that answer, but without any right to claim MI if it appears that there was indeed no agreement. 3) saying that in this case the person who made the bid is requested to write the meaning of one's call and show it to both opponennts. Since I don't see either of those mentions, the case can't be adjudicated. I strogly urge the authorities to decide.This occurrence isn't that uncommon. My preference goes to 3). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 8 16:24:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:24:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> <341646FCAA9941FFBA9A3D02D62914A6@MARVLAPTOP> <4B925B20.7070704@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4B951697.7020103@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Robert Park wrote: > > >> Should opponents gain advantage through having undefined actions? >> If so, >> how far does that privilege extend? What about "all actions >> undefined," >> so that everything is a crapshoot? Or are they permitted to have only >> certain actions undefined? Where are the boundaries? >> > > Wherever your RA chooses to put them (L40B2(a)). > > Uncertainty is a valid tactic in defining calls. Compleletely > undefined calls (e.g. opening "bar bids") merely extend the principle > behind CRASH or ferts. Personally, I see no reason why they should > be considered anything but legitimate and permissible, but feel > obliged to note that the ACBL disagrees with me. > > AG : but there is a fundamental difference between a) undefined, i.e. "not in our agreements" b) agrred upon as "can be anything" (which will usually not be truly anything) c) impossible in your system b) can be legislated against, L40 says so and I regret it as much as Eric does ; to legislate against a) is impossible. As about c) ... that's perhaps the case when "your guess is as good as mine" should be allowed. Remember that case ? LHO : 1NT - RHO : 2C - LHO : 3NT. You ask them and they answer they play 3-step Stayman, as many in Brussels do. Can't happen ? Shouldn't happen ? Happened ! (LHO had miscounted his HCP ; other explanations are possible, e.g. he mispulled 1NT in lieu of 2NT) To answer Robert, it is obvious that you're allowed not to know what your bids will mean in really intricated cases where opponents' bidding is truly uncommon. Do you know what your bids mean after 2D p p X 2H, 2D being Wagner and 2H showing hearts and secondary clubs ? (I play this, but of course we won't have any problem understanding eachother thereafter) There must be boundaries. Perhaps those of plausibility ? Best regards Alain From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Mar 8 21:00:17 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:00:17 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure In-Reply-To: <0277F60A2B5F4752B88B19287DE02D13@Mildred> References: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> <0277F60A2B5F4752B88B19287DE02D13@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B955751.2050102@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] My mind is that the random meaning of the double in this situation is a treatment calling for defensive preparation (counteraction) by the opponents. As such it must be fully disclosed on the system card where the WBF Systems Policy is adopted - see Section 5 which specifies where on the System Card it must be shown. (I have not checked it but I have no doubt the EBL Systems Policy requires the same.). [Nigel] I agree with Grattan that this should be normal rule. Hence, before he doubles, the doubler must believe that his partner can systemically interpret it correctly (perhaps an implicit understanding). Therefore, when the doubler's partner says he does not know the meaning, the director should ask him to leave the table and ask the doubler, himself, to explain its meaning. Unfortunately, this may not always help opponents. It is legitimate to agree a *two-way* meaning for a call (eg "Penalty *or* Take-out"). The caller's partner is meant to *guess* which meaning, depending on the contents of his own hand. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 8 23:08:50 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:08:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weasel Words (was L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01cabc38$428d08d0$c7a71a70$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>>The Drafting Committee cannot have it both ways; either >>>Directors have a marked increase in expertise and experience, >>>or some Directors will always remain inherently inexperienced. [snip] Ton Kooijman: >>This statement with 'or' used in the exclusive way, proves that >>it seems more important to contradict than to strive for a >>constructive discussion. Apocryphal 18th century repartee: Earl of Sandwich: 'Pon my soul, Wilkes, I don't know whether you'll die on the gallows or of the pox. John Wilkes: That depends, my Lord, whether I first embrace your Lordship's principles, or your Lordship's mistresses. Matthias Berghaus: [snip] >The inexperienced TD should work in an environment where he is >up to the tasks set by the participants. If no such environment >is there (for example because the level of play at the club is >pretty high, usually leading to some complex TD cases) he should >be carefully tutored until he is up to the task. Richard Hills: The semi-experienced Director of the South Canberra Bridge Club has chosen to be an autodidact. He often attends the Canberra Bridge Club on one of its "big" nights (many national champions and international representatives competing), not as a player, but rather as an observer of the Director of the Canberra Bridge Club in action. As the Director of the Canberra Bridge Club is also Chief Director of Australia, the Director of the South Canberra Bridge Club is getting first-class observational tuition. Matthias Berghaus: >We should care for those beginners, by all means, and the laws >should be worded in a way to make their life as easy as >possible, but L27 is IMO not a problem on the grass roots level. Richard Hills: As Robert Frick has often observed, nothing is a problem on the grass roots level; the Director can simply make up an illegal ruling which the Director thinks will keep everyone happy. The only problem for such a grass roots Director occurs when one of the players is a Little Old Lady Sea Lawyer (Secretary Bird); in a recent thread Grattan related the story of how a grass roots Director was disconcerted when a Little Old Lady demanded the several 60% scores that she was entitled to under Law 12C2(a). Matthias Berghaus: >My concern lies with the intermediate level, where people often >play conventions they don't fully understand, change the system >at the drop of a hat, and often hoist themselves by their own >petard. If this is met by a TD who is new to this kind of mess, >then the fun begins.... [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, it is at that intermediate level where a few Law 27 rulings can slooow down the entire session as the intermediate Director grapples with determining whether an insufficient bid happens to be "incontrovertibly not artificial". Socrates might question whether an insufficient bid can be incontrovertibly anything, since Socrates might question whether an illegal call is permitted to have a pre-existing mutual partnership meaning. Ergo, I am not contradicting for the sake of contradicting; I am striving for a constructive discussion by suggesting that the entire philosophy of "more precise meaning" in the 2007 Law 27 is Socratically invalid. I suggest that the 2018 Law 27 be revamped to provide a new technical procedure which no longer mandates the 2007 slooow procedure of the Director taking the insufficient bidder away from the table for an extensive interrogation. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 8 23:14:14 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:14:14 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure References: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com><0277F60A2B5F4752B88B19287DE02D13@Mildred> <4B955751.2050102@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <8D7B6F97D4764CE583489C2ECF1040A2@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure > [Grattan] > My mind is that the random meaning of the double in this situation is a > treatment calling for defensive preparation (counteraction) by the > opponents. As such it must be fully disclosed on the system card where > the WBF Systems Policy is adopted - see Section 5 which specifies where > on the System Card it must be shown. (I have not checked it but I have > no doubt the EBL Systems Policy requires the same.). > > [Nigel] > I agree with Grattan that this should be normal rule. > > Hence, before he doubles, the doubler must believe that his partner can > systemically interpret it correctly (perhaps an implicit understanding). > Therefore, when the doubler's partner says he does not know the meaning, > the director should ask him to leave the table and ask the doubler, > himself, to explain its meaning. > > Unfortunately, this may not always help opponents. It is legitimate to > agree a *two-way* meaning for a call (eg "Penalty *or* Take-out"). The > caller's partner is meant to *guess* which meaning, depending on the > contents of his own hand. > +=+ However, before such a situation arises the opponents will have had the opportunity to agree what the meanings of their calls will be. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 9 00:25:53 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:25:53 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Oscars References: Message-ID: Richard, The success of UP on Oscar night was gratifying, I'm sure you agree. When the best foreign language films were presented as nominations, with Secreto do Sus Ojos winning, I began to think about how many foreign films have been wonderful in my experience. Most don't get the publicity they deserve in the USA, so I have no doubt missed a bunch of good ones. Now I have found a wonderful source of information on Wikipedia. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Foreign_Language_Film Every nominee since 1947, with winners highlighted. They include name used in the nomination, original title, originating country, director(s), and language(s). I printed it out on three-hole paper and put it in a note book. I'll be going through this for a long time. Thursday I leave for the Reno NABC, returning the following Thursday rather then staying to the end. We have an opera to see, and two kittens to worry about. It's a 10-hour drive that we like, having taken it annually for 19 years to attend the Reno Xmas Regional (skipped this year because of the NABC). That regional at one time was the greatest one of all because it was the last chance for top players to advance in the masterpoint rankings for the year. Everyone was there. Then Kansas started up a Xmas regional, followed by many others over the years, and the Reno regional is now a pathetic shell of what it once was, sparsely attended only by westerners. The ACBL has pretty well succeeded in ruining the game for me, with its proliferation of sectional and regional championships. At one time the San Diego Sectional was an important tournament, with all the LA experts attending. Now it's like a club game because there are so many sectionals between here and LA, with five per year in San Diego County alone. In the old days we had Men's Pairs, Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, BAM pairs, Masters' Pairs, and Open Pairs, all multi-session. Now it's all KO events (lotsa masterpoints), bracketed according to team masterpoint totals, and "stratified" side pair games in which those with fewer masterpoints get inflated masterpoints for doing well in their "strat." Masterpoint inflation has ruined the game for those of us who enjoy good competition in pair events. I hope things are better other there. Marv From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Mar 9 02:44:50 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:44:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Oscars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B95A812.1050102@yahoo.co.uk> UK Bridge players are lucky. Although we do have bracketed one-day Swiss events (derided by top players as selling master-points on the open market). Otherwise, we have a wide choice of leagues, knock-outs, double-eliminations, imp pairs, MP pairs, and week-end Swiss events. Scotland even has a prestige Individual (The Benjamin). We also have separate junior, university, open, mixed and uni-sex events. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 9 03:55:04 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:55:04 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Oscars References: Message-ID: <7FE3A3647D9145C3ACDE9C19A91F210D@MARVLAPTOP> Whoops, this was meant to be private. No harm done, I hope - Marv > Richard, > > The success of UP on Oscar night was gratifying, I'm sure you > agree. > > When the best foreign language films were presented as > nominations, > with Secreto do Sus Ojos winning, I began to think about how many > foreign films have been wonderful in my experience. Most don't get > the publicity they deserve in the USA, so I have no doubt missed a > bunch of good ones. > > Now I have found a wonderful source of information on Wikipedia. > It's at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Foreign_Language_Film > > Every nominee since 1947, with winners highlighted. They include > name used in the nomination, original title, originating country, > director(s), and language(s). > > I printed it out on three-hole paper and put it in a note book. > I'll > be going through this for a long time. > > Thursday I leave for the Reno NABC, returning the following > Thursday > rather then staying to the end. We have an opera to see, and two > kittens to worry about. It's a 10-hour drive that we like, having > taken it annually for 19 years to attend the Reno Xmas Regional > (skipped this year because of the NABC). > > That regional at one time was the greatest one of all because it > was > the last chance for top players to advance in the masterpoint > rankings for the year. Everyone was there. Then Kansas started up > a > Xmas regional, followed by many others over the years, and the > Reno > regional is now a pathetic shell of what it once was, sparsely > attended only by westerners. The ACBL has pretty well succeeded in > ruining the game for me, with its proliferation of sectional and > regional championships. At one time the San Diego Sectional was an > important tournament, with all the LA experts attending. Now it's > like a club game because there are so many sectionals between here > and LA, with five per year in San Diego County alone. > > In the old days we had Men's Pairs, Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, > BAM > pairs, Masters' Pairs, and Open Pairs, all multi-session. Now it's > all KO events (lotsa masterpoints), bracketed according to team > masterpoint totals, and "stratified" side pair games in which > those > with fewer masterpoints get inflated masterpoints for doing well > in > their "strat." Masterpoint inflation has ruined the game for those > of us who enjoy good competition in pair events. I hope things are > better other there. > > Marv > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 04:13:30 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:13:30 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Oscars In-Reply-To: <7FE3A3647D9145C3ACDE9C19A91F210D@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7FE3A3647D9145C3ACDE9C19A91F210D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b1003081913icf02a82k7dba2e1cf81ac7@mail.gmail.com> I have watched at most 3 seconds of Oscar coverage on TV in my life. Not sure what they are for. Films of the last year, perhaps? ?Should I care? Regards, Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 9 04:23:00 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:23:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Oscars [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: >The success of UP on Oscar night was gratifying, I'm sure you >agree. Richard Hills: There was a total lack of surprise in Up winning the best animated feature Oscar, given that Up was 25 imps ahead with one board to play. I was, however, gratified that Up's score also won the Oscar, since part of the huge emotional impact of the mostly wordless prologue was caused by Up's non-experimental tonal score. Richard Herring (1967 - ): "I never used to like that experimental atonal stuff until someone locked me up in a room and played it at me for several days, but I get it now, although my psychiatrist says I've got Stockhausen syndrome." Marvin French: [snip] >This is a very bad thing, that a player can say "don't know" when >he is pretty sure. Then if the opponents go wrong, he/she will say, >"I said I didn't know, don't blame me. I just happened to guess >right." ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. ***When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to the opponents.*** Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised information to partner. Nigel Guthrie: >UK Bridge players are lucky. Although we do have bracketed one-day >Swiss events (derided by top players as selling master-points on the >open market). Richard Hills: Canberra bridge players are lucky, since the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge is always held in our Bush Capital. At the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge there is a more substantive Swiss teams event for novices - eight rounds of 20-board matches played over three days. Nigel Guthrie: >Otherwise, we have a wide choice of leagues, knock-outs, double- >eliminations, imp pairs, MP pairs, and week-end Swiss events. Richard Hills: Canberra bridge players are lucky, since the majority of the Canberra Bridge Club's "big evenings" events (Tuesday and Thursday nights) are imp pairs or imp teams, and the field in such events is challenging, packed with Aussie national champions and/or Aussie international representatives. 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 Mar 9 05:51:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:51:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >On a practical level, send West away from the table and have East >explain the bid to the opps. Richard Hills: On a Lawful level, send West away from the table and have East explain the pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership meaning of East's call to the opponents. If it is "No Agreement", then it is unLawful for the Director to coerce East into revealing her unilateral intentions when she made the call. Law 75C, second sentence (rotated 90 degrees): "Here there is no infraction of Law, since North-South did receive an accurate description of the East-West agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the East hand." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Mar 9 09:46:51 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:46:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B960AFB.70504@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] On a Lawful level, send West away from the table and have East explain the pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership meaning of East's call to the opponents. If it is "No Agreement", then it is unLawful for the Director to coerce East into revealing her unilateral intentions when she made the call. [Law 75C, second sentence (rotated 90 degrees)] "Here there is no infraction of Law, since North-South did receive an accurate description of the East-West agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the East hand." [Nigel] If the regulations forbid "random" calls, then the player must intend the call to mean something, that he thinks his partner should be able to interpret, perhaps based on other agreements, or general system philosophy. That is, the call accords with on an implicit agreement, which should be divulged. I concede that, when an opponent asks about the call, the caller may belatedly realize that his initial reasoning was mistaken and, here, there can be no implicit agreement whatsoever. And, of course, The rules don't ask a player to describe his hand, just his partnership understanding. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 9 12:01:20 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:01:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Oscars [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <90FA676228BE4C2F8A881A10DCA21C9D@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 3:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Oscars [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > There was a total lack of surprise in Up winning the best > animated feature Oscar, given that Up was 25 imps ahead with one > board to play. > > I was, however, gratified that Up's score also won the Oscar, since > part of the huge emotional impact of the mostly wordless prologue > was caused by Up's non-experimental tonal score. > +=+ Before the evening began I had the feeling that the media had been outside the committee room with stethoscopes on the wall, since of course, there could not possibly have been a leak. Certainly I had more than a premonition that Up would walk away with the boodle. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 9 13:02:56 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:02:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure In-Reply-To: <4B955751.2050102@yahoo.co.uk> References: <201003060006.QAA13561@mailhub.irvine.com> <0277F60A2B5F4752B88B19287DE02D13@Mildred> <4B955751.2050102@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B9638F0.9000902@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > Hence, before he doubles, the doubler must believe that his partner can > systemically interpret it correctly (perhaps an implicit understanding). > Therefore, when the doubler's partner says he does not know the meaning, > the director should ask him to leave the table and ask the doubler, > himself, to explain its meaning. > > Unfortunately, this may not always help opponents. It is legitimate to > agree a *two-way* meaning for a call (eg "Penalty *or* Take-out"). The > caller's partner is meant to *guess* which meaning, depending on the > contents of his own hand. > Agree with the procedure (or with written explanation). Don't agree with "unfortunately". This is part of the game. Many conventions, including Multi itself, were designed in order to increase ambiguity in opponents' bidding. BTW, the right defense against random overcalls is the random reopening double. This is also very efficient as a counterpsyche over strong 2-bids : 2C 2S p p X pass is automatic with anything else than : a) a fair 6-card suit b) a balanced hand with exactly 1 trick in spades X is automatic The overcaller will have to bail out and tell us his story. In particular, opener won't feel it difficult to convince partner that he truly holds spades. Best regards Alain. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 9 13:39:24 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:39:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? Message-ID: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you open 2D. Your partner bids 2NT, asking. three different scenarios: 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. Partner bids 4He. You pass, OK? 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has misunderstood, so you don't. You must pass, OK? 3) You reply 3He They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? comments? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 9 14:35:24 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:35:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001cabf8d$5fc0df50$1f429df0$@no> On Behalf Of > Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you open 2D. > Your partner bids 2NT, asking. > three different scenarios: > 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. > Partner bids 4He. > You pass, OK? Sure, partner has taken control of the auction. (He probably holds a bag full of hearts.) > 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. That is not how I know multi. My responses are 3C/3D = hearts/spades minimum, 3H/3S = hearts/spades maximum. What do you answer with hearts and maximum? But we leave that; let 3H show spades and maximum. > They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has > misunderstood, so you don't. > You must pass, OK? Sure, same as above. > 3) You reply 3He > They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider correcting to 4Sp. > He may well have forgotten the convention. > But you have UI: he has remembered the convention. > Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? > comments? You must of course pass, same as above. Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:52:21 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:52:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 9 March 2010 13:39, Herman De Wael wrote: > Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you > open 2D. > Your partner bids 2NT, asking. > three different scenarios: > 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. > Partner bids 4He. > You pass, OK? Depends upon the rest of my agreements. I play a direct jump to 4M over Multi as to play - never to be corrected. Then partner won't take this route to play in 4H. Then I'd assume this was a cuebid for spades, though it's pretty seldom that the Multi opener will provide controls in both minors (and at least one 1st round contol even), to make slam possible... Anyway, I don't think this applies here. Partner want's to play in 4H, and I'll let him. > 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. > They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has > misunderstood, so you don't. > You must pass, OK? As above. > 3) You reply 3He > They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider > correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. > But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. > Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? > comments? Ehh. With pass being the only possible call by agreement, how could the possesion of UI make any difference whatsoever? > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 9 14:54:11 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:54:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B965303.7090907@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you > open 2D. > Your partner bids 2NT, asking. > three different scenarios: > 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. > Partner bids 4He. > You pass, OK? > 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. > They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has > misunderstood, so you don't. > You must pass, OK? > 3) You reply 3He > They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider > correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. > But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. > Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? > comments? > Comment #1 : use screens. Comment #2 : you should always assume that partner had remembered the system, so this UI has equivalent AI, whence no problem IMHO. I think that pulling would be making the unilateral and unjustified assumption that partner doesn't know the system. I would never do that. Whence partner's explanation is irrelevant. Consider it from the other side of the table : x AKJxxxx AQxx x Partner opens 2D, Multi. A 4H bid would be "pass/correct", so you relay with 2NT, hear partner's expected 3H response and bid 4H (also, you might consider bidding only 3H if partner showed a minimum). Now partner, an experienced back-seat driver, pulls to 4S. Comments ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 9 15:04:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:04:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000001cabf8d$5fc0df50$1f429df0$@no> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000001cabf8d$5fc0df50$1f429df0$@no> Message-ID: <4B965589.8050704@ulb.ac.be> > My responses are 3C/3D = hearts/spades minimum, 3H/3S = hearts/spades > maximum. > What do you answer with hearts and maximum? > 3S. It allows playing from the right side as often as possible (well, not in this case) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 15:09:01 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:09:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B965589.8050704@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000001cabf8d$5fc0df50$1f429df0$@no> <4B965589.8050704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 9 March 2010 15:04, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> My responses are 3C/3D = hearts/spades minimum, 3H/3S = hearts/spades >> maximum. >> What do you answer with hearts and maximum? >> > 3S. It allows playing from the right side as often as possible (well, > not in this case) > I prefer these responses to 2D-2NT: 3C = any max W2M => 3D ask and then 3H = S and 3S = H 3D = min with H, 3H from responder might be raised with max of min 3H = min with S, 3S from responder might be raised with max of min Thus we always have the strong hand declare in partscore or game, opener might have to declare if we go on to slam. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 9 15:16:37 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:16:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:39 PM Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you open 2D. Your partner bids 2NT, asking. three different scenarios: 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. Partner bids 4He. You pass, OK? 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has misunderstood, so you don't. You must pass, OK? 3) You reply 3He They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? comments? -- [KC] This is a well-known problem, I once described a case on BLML (http://tiny.pl/hgt5l) of a deal from the Polish First Division where a pair got involved in a long, convoluted relay auction and at the very last moment one of them refused to believed that his partner did indeed have what he bid. They were on the same wavelength all along but, after so many rounds of bidding, one of them finally doubted that and they ended up in a disastrous contract. Without screens all necessary bids would have been alerted and both partner would have rested assured that the wheels hadn't yet come off. In my eyes without screens the problem is unsolvable in any practical manner. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprawdz warunki na drogach! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f259f From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Mar 9 15:24:51 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:24:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:39:24 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you > open 2D. > Your partner bids 2NT, asking. > three different scenarios: > 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. > Partner bids 4He. > You pass, OK? > 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. > They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has > misunderstood, so you don't. > You must pass, OK? > 3) You reply 3He > They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider > correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. > But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. Surely this is AI as per L16A1c - "arising from the legal procedures". Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From henk at ripe.net Tue Mar 9 15:34:48 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:34:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> On 09/03/2010 13:39, Herman De Wael wrote: > Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you > open 2D. > Your partner bids 2NT, asking. > three different scenarios: > 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. > Partner bids 4He. > You pass, OK? > 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. > They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has > misunderstood, so you don't. > You must pass, OK? > 3) You reply 3He > They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider > correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. > But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. > Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? > comments? If your agreement is that 4H/S after 2D-2N;3H is to play, then pass is your only LA. More general: I don't see how one can play bridge if a correct explanation would be UI, you can now never pass the final contract anymore. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From henk at ripe.net Tue Mar 9 15:38:54 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:38:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000001cabf8d$5fc0df50$1f429df0$@no> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000001cabf8d$5fc0df50$1f429df0$@no> Message-ID: <4B965D7E.1010000@ripe.net> On 09/03/2010 14:35, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of >> Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you open > 2D. >> Your partner bids 2NT, asking. >> three different scenarios: >> 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. >> Partner bids 4He. >> You pass, OK? > > Sure, partner has taken control of the auction. (He probably holds a bag > full of hearts.) > >> 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. > > That is not how I know multi. > My responses are 3C/3D = hearts/spades minimum, 3H/3S = hearts/spades > maximum. > What do you answer with hearts and maximum? 3S: 2D-2N;3C(D) : Not a maximum with H(S). 2D-2N;3C-3D : Reconsider (3H=really min, 4H=some extras) 2D-2N;3H(S) : Maximum with S(H). There are some extension to this method: 2D-4C: Please transfer into your long suit 2D-4D: Please bid your long suit 2D-4H/S: To play, even if this isn't your minor. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 9 15:41:22 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:41:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B965E12.9070806@skynet.be> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >> But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. > > Surely this is AI as per L16A1c - "arising from the legal procedures". > So it is when he misexplains! still legal procedures. And if you don't call that the legal procedures, then what when you have forgotten and his explanation is the correct one - still AI because of arising from legal procedures? Sorry Petrus, wrong argument! > Regards, > Petrus > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2731 - Release Date: 03/08/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 9 15:42:22 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:42:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > More general: I don't see how one can play bridge if a correct explanation > would be UI, you can now never pass the final contract anymore. > I agree, but where does it say this in the laws? Grattan, notebook? Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 9 16:02:55 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:02:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > >> More general: I don't see how one can play bridge if a correct explanation >> would be UI, you can now never pass the final contract anymore. >> >> > > I agree, but where does it say this in the laws? > AG : nowhere. A wide majority of us consider it evident, whence unneeded. If YHS, nitpicker of all nitpickers, sees no harm in it ... About your next-to-last remark : do you call giving MI 'legal' or did I misunderstand something ? Anyway : misexplaining = departure from normal procedure ; explaining correctly = no departure from correct procedure. I don't see what's wrong with treating them differently. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 9 16:24:45 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:24:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Anyway : misexplaining = departure from normal procedure ; explaining > correctly = no departure from correct procedure. I don't see what's > wrong with treating them differently. I see nothing wrong with it either, except for one remark: the explaining correctly has to be combined with bidding correctly. A correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! What we needis an understanding that a correct explanation of a correct bid is AI. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2731 - Release Date: 03/08/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Mar 9 16:26:05 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:26:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: Excuse me Herman, is "your" partner remembering the system so rare that when you know about that it is UI??? Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:39 PM Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you open 2D. Your partner bids 2NT, asking. three different scenarios: 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. Partner bids 4He. You pass, OK? 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has misunderstood, so you don't. You must pass, OK? 3) You reply 3He They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? comments? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 9 16:53:43 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:53:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B966F07.7010308@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Anyway : misexplaining = departure from normal procedure ; explaining >> correctly = no departure from correct procedure. I don't see what's >> wrong with treating them differently. >> > > I see nothing wrong with it either, except for one remark: the > explaining correctly has to be combined with bidding correctly. A > correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! > > What we needis an understanding that a correct explanation of a correct > bid is AI. > AG : I don't need it. As a matter of fact, if it was UI, there would still be no problem, because we have an understanding that when UI is identical to AI, that information can be used. And the parts of your system that you know are AI. BTW, this is also true of correct explanations of misbids, when AI is available, and even occasionally of misexplanations. 1NT pass 2H pass pass double Assume partner has explained 2H as natural, which it is (no infraction) but you thought it was a transfer (erring is no infraction) ; you know RHO is about to pass the TO double. You are allowed to bid 2S. And the bidding is so strange that partner may understand it. Even if you were right and partner misexplained, you're allowed to do so. (the impact of MI on their bidding is another story) (assume your partner isn't the kind of guy to open a psychic 1NT with a weak 55 in the rounded suits) Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 9 17:38:07 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:38:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:39:24 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you > open 2D. > Your partner bids 2NT, asking. > three different scenarios: ............................................................ > 3) You reply 3He > They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider > correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. > But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. Surely this is AI as per L16A1c - "arising from the legal procedures". +=+ 16A1(c) contains the caveat "but see B1 following" - the word 'but' introduces an exception and in B1 we find that "a reply to a question" is one such exception. The other matter on which I would remark is that a player is entitled to know his partnership agreements and is entitled, indeed expected, to act upon the belief that his partner is acting upon those agreements. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Mar 9 17:49:39 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:49:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> [Herman] Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you open 2D. Your partner bids 2NT, asking. three different scenarios: 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. Partner bids 4He. You pass, OK? 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has misunderstood, so you don't. You must pass, OK? 3) You reply 3He. They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? comments? [Nige1] I agree with Herman that Bridge Rules should carefully distinguish two quite different kinds of UI: [A] Illegal. e.g. when partner breaks tempo or gives a wrong explanation. You should lean over backwards to avoid taking advantage. [B] Legal. e.g. when partner gives a correct systemic explanation. Provided that this confirms what you already know, you can just make the bid you were going to make, anyway. In this latter case, opponents asking should not inhibit you in any way. I suppose a rule-maker could argue that partner's explanation may be of use to opponents but had no information value for you. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 9 18:08:16 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:08:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B968080.6000609@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Herman] > Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you > open 2D. Your partner bids 2NT, asking. three different scenarios: > 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. Partner bids 4He. You pass, OK? > 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. They ask partner and he explains > "hearts, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you > have UI that he has misunderstood, so you don't. You must pass, OK? > 3) You reply 3He. They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". He > bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider correcting > to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. But yo?u have UI: he > has remembered the convention. Should you now not correct anyway, > because you have UI suggesting to pass? comments? > > [Nige1] > I agree with Herman that Bridge Rules should carefully distinguish two > quite different kinds of UI: > [A] Illegal. e.g. when partner breaks tempo or gives a wrong > explanation. You should lean over backwards to avoid taking advantage. > Is breaking tempo illegal ? I thought there was a consensus on the opposite. BTW, UI is legal if and only if it coincides with AI, so, while we would perhaps avoid having to argue if it were written, it would be a comment rather than a law. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 9 21:15:34 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:15:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:39:24 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you > open 2D. > Your partner bids 2NT, asking. > three different scenarios: > 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. > Partner bids 4He. > You pass, OK? > 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. > They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has > misunderstood, so you don't. > You must pass, OK? > 3) You reply 3He > They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider > correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. > But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. > Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to > pass? > comments? Law 16B states that unexpected alerts (or failures to alert) are UI. If all alerts (or failures to alert) were UI, Law 16B would not be written that way. Put another way, by Gricean principles of communication, Law 16B says that expected alerts (and failures to alert) are not UI. In his essay on ethics, Michael Rosenberg made the same point as Konrad -- (1) that the expected alerts and failures to alert are occasionally useful information, and (2) regulation would be impossible if they were UI. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 9 21:18:38 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:18:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B965303.7090907@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965303.7090907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:54:11 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Comment #2 : you should always assume that partner had remembered the > system.... As far as I can tell, directors here sometimes rule this way but it has no basis in any law. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 9 22:21:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:21:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Failure to provide disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B960AFB.70504@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington, page 19: Umpire 1: I call 'em the way I sees 'em! Umpire 2: I call 'em the way they are! Umpire 3: They ain't nothing until I calls 'em! Nigel Guthrie: >If the regulations forbid "random" calls, Richard Hills: Regulations cannot do that; they can merely prohibit those _intentionally_ "random" calls (e.g. _intentionally_ opening 7NT as dealer with a yarborough) which are contrary to the Law 72A criterion "chief object is to obtain a higher score". Nigel Guthrie: >then the player must intend the call to mean something, that he >thinks his partner should be able to interpret..... Richard Hills: The word "must" is incorrect; "may" would be le mot juste. It is possible that the player may deem it more advantageous for all three opponents to misinterpret her call, a right that she has under Law 40A3: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." 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 Mar 9 22:43:48 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:43:48 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games References: Message-ID: >From Richard Hills > Canberra bridge players are lucky, since the majority of the > Canberra > Bridge Club's "big evenings" events (Tuesday and Thursday nights) > are > imp pairs or imp teams, and the field in such events is > challenging, > packed with Aussie national champions and/or Aussie international > representatives. > Lucky indeed. Residing in San Diego, California and necessarily confined to North American travel, I get to play in pair games with strong fields just three times a year, at the NABCs. My favorite pair event, the National Men's Pairs, is no longer held. It was converted to an open pair championship (now called the Silodor Pairs) in 1992, played concurrently with the National Women's Pairs. If I remember right the change was made because the men's game provided qualification points for representing the USA in WBF competition, while the women's game did not. Naturally the top women players complained, so the Men's Pairs was changed to an open game. That reason is no longer in force, with the Trials used to qualify people, but the change was never reversed. I think I know why, but had better not say it. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 9 23:30:16 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:30:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: >.....My favorite pair event, the National Men's Pairs, is no >longer held. It was converted to an open pair championship (now >called the Silodor Pairs) in 1992, played concurrently with the >National Women's Pairs.....the change was never reversed. I think >I know why, but had better not say it. Richard Hills: About thirty years ago, two top-class English experts (who were marriage partners as well as bridge partners) decided to visit an ACBL National. They were very disappointed at the large number of parallel Men's and Women's events, which left their mixed partnership with very few interesting events to play in. Shortly thereafter a disgruntled ACBL mixed partnership launched a lawsuit against the ACBL. The ACBL lawyers negotiated a suitable settlement of the lawsuit, which included transformation of major NABC Men's Pairs to Open Pairs. In an executive (secret) session of the ACBL Board of Directors, they rejected the settlement. But immediately after, when the ACBL Board of Directors resumed its openly minuted session, it chose to transform major NABC Men's Pairs into Open Pairs for what it claimed were reasons entirely unaffected by the lawsuit. :-) :-) 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 Mar 10 00:16:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:16:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use off-topic bidding theory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cabf8d$5fc0df50$1f429df0$@no> Message-ID: Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington, page 41: "sound science" for, well, "science" (the folks at Philip Morris are responsible for coining this one, which contains the hidden supposition that there are all kinds of sciences to choose from, including, say, unsound science -- you know, the one that insists there is a connection between smoking and cancer). Sven Pran: >That is not how I know multi. > >My responses are 3C/3D = hearts/spades minimum, > 3H/3S = hearts/spades maximum. Richard Hills: Yes, that is the multi method I prefer when I play the Dorothy Acol system. But most Canberra experts recommend and use this method of responses to a 2NT enquiry: 3C/3D = hearts/spades maximum, 3H/3S = hearts/spades minimum. Their reasoning is that a contract of 6H or 6S is more likely to be reached opposite a maximum weak two, and in slam it is often vital for the very big hand to be declarer to protect tenaces. My reasoning is that slams are too rare to worry about, so it is more useful opposite a minimum weak two for the slightly big hand to be declarer in 3H or 3S to protect tenaces. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 10 00:24:13 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:24:13 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Undiscussed or unknown References: Message-ID: <3E04342FD4AF4898A841E6935D4B69BF@MARVLAPTOP> > > Marvin French: > > [snip] > >>This is a very bad thing, that a player can say "don't know" when >>he is pretty sure. Then if the opponents go wrong, he/she will >>say, >>"I said I didn't know, don't blame me. I just happened to guess >>right." > > ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: > If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, > you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for example), and not > attempt to offer a possible explanation. ***When, however, as a > result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a > cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that > information shall be given to the opponents.*** Where a call is > undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as "I take it to > mean..." or "I'm treating it as...". Such a response is improper > as > it gives unauthorised information to partner. > Very good. The "cogent view" should be expressed confidently with no trace of doubt, which would be UI. I go further than this, however. If a player is going to take an action based on an absolute guess, having no "cogent view," then that meaning should be provided confidently. If it's right, all is well. If not, the opponents can get redress. When the meaning would have no effect on his/her actions, whatever the meaning, then "undiscussed" is appropriate. The ACBL Alert Procedure is not up to the ABF standard: Page 1 says only Players who remember that a call requires an Alert but cannot remember the meaning must still Alert. No instructions about what to do when the Alerted call is questioned. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 10 00:26:23 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:26:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001cabfdf$ef05afe0$cd110fa0$@com> [HdW] Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you open 2D. Your partner bids 2NT, asking. three different scenarios: 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. Partner bids 4He. You pass, OK? [DALB] Assuming that 4H is to play facing a weak two bid in spades, then I pass. If 4H were a slam try agreeing spades I would not pass; if it offered a choice of major-suit games I might not pass. 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting [DALB] Assuming that 4H is to play facing a weak two bid in spades, then I pass - of course I don't consider correcting. If 4H were a slam try agreeing spades I would not pass; if it offered a choice of major-suit games I might not pass. [HdW] but you have UI that he has misunderstood, so you don't. [DALB] What UI? Either 4H is to play facing spades in this auction or it is not; perhaps we play that 2D-4H is pass-or-correct, and (or) perhaps we play that if partner is strong with such as 2-6 or 2-7 in the majors he bids 2NT, then 4H. I am aware, having given some of the other replies in this thread a cursory glance, that other contributors have weighed in with information about how they play responses to a Multi. These are of almost no interest (and at least half of them are insane), but in any case they do not matter. The sequence 2D-2NT-X-4H [where X shows spades] is either defined in our methods or it is not. If we really are "playing Multi" then I assume that it is, but from the way Herman has phrased the question I gather I am supposed to assume that it is not. [HdW] You must pass, OK? No - I could legally make any bid from 4S to 7NT, for the auction is not yet over. But if partner's sequence showed hearts and disinterest in spades then I would pass; if it did not then I would (or might) not. 3) You reply 3He. They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider correcting to 4Sp. [DALB] Why should I do anything so absurd? If I agreed to play a Multi, I would know how partner treated hands that wanted to play in 4H facing a weak two in spades. If partner followed a sequence that showed he wanted to do that, then I would let him play there; if he followed some other sequence, I would not pass him out in a cue bid (nor necessarily in a "choice-of-games bid" if that was how we had agreed to play - maybe he is 2-6 or 2-7 in the majors with a good hand, and I would then bid 4S with 6-1 or 6-0 in the majors but not otherwise). [HdW] He may well have forgotten the convention. But you have UI: he has remembered the convention. Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? [DALB] No. If the sequence 2D-2NT-X-4H [where X shows spades] really is not defined in our methods, then I am a free agent in that I am permitted to guess what partner intends by it, and whatever I do is not in violation of Law. If on the other hand it is defined in our methods, then I will bid in accordance with our methods, and any such action is also not in violation of Law. Of course, I will carefully consider what "our methods", both implicit and explicit, might be before I act (paying, for I am only human, some attention to the fact that I can probably take at least as many tricks in a 3-2 trump fit as Herman can take in a 6-4). [HdW] comments? [DALB] If this is, as I assume, some question about whether "expected alerts" or "expected explanations" may be AI while their "unexpected" counterparts are not, then I maintain my previous position: all alerts and explanations are UI, as is anything except information deriving from legal calls and plays. You are not allowed to know that your partner has remembered the system any more than you are allowed to know that he has forgotten it; you are supposed to proceed as if deaf and blind to anything the man across the table does, unless he makes a call or plays a card. Of course, if you can infer anything at all from anything else he does, you must carefully avoid taking advantage (Law 73). Whoever it was who put the word "unexpected" into L16B should be boiled alive, unless that would wake him up. David Burn London, England From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 10 00:55:45 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:55:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> <000001cabfdf$ef05afe0$cd110fa0$@com> Message-ID: <4473123343EE4BE387050638F9B710F7@sfora4869e47f1> > > [DALB] > > If this is, as I assume, some question about whether "expected alerts" or > "expected explanations" may be AI while their "unexpected" counterparts > are > not, then I maintain my previous position: all alerts and explanations are > UI, as is anything except information deriving from legal calls and plays. > You are not allowed to know that your partner has remembered the system > any > more than you are allowed to know that he has forgotten it; you are > supposed > to proceed as if deaf and blind to anything the man across the table does, > unless he makes a call or plays a card. Of course, if you can infer > anything > at all from anything else he does, you must carefully avoid taking > advantage > (Law 73). Whoever it was who put the word "unexpected" into L16B should be > boiled alive, unless that would wake him up. > > David Burn > London, England > The problem with this approach is that it is impossible to enforce - and every law that is impossible to enforce is, per se, a bad law. Situations in which your partner's _expected_ alert (or lack thereof) helps you are impossible to detect for anyone else (as opposed to unexpected alerts or non-alerts). Let's say your partner opens 1NT and RHO doubles. You don't remember whether you agreed to play "system on" or "system off" in this position. You have no idea, you forgot - it is a 50-50 guess for you. You decide to place your bets on the "system on" version and bid 2D holding long hearts. Let's say that this is even what you really have in the system. Now partner alerts 2D so from now on you know 100% that you are on the same wavelength - he took it as a transfer. So if now your LHO bids 2S and it is passed back to you, you can safely re-open with 3D holding, say, 5H-4D. Behind screens you would be afraid to bid 3D on the next round fearing that maybe your 2D bid was already natural so now partner will take 3D as a 6-carder and won't convert to 3H. Maybe you'd bid 3H (with 5H-3D) to clarify things, maybe you would pass 2S. But now that partner has alerted 2D you know that he took 2D as transfer so bidding 3D now is safe. Did you use UI from partner's alert? You sure as hell did and you know it. But how is the TD to know that an adjustment is in order? You bid 2D as a transfer, it was alerted and explained as a transfer, your hand matchers the explanation, partner's bidding matches the explanation, your system card says it is a transfer so what's the problem, huh? Somebody who remembers his system would bid identically with your cards. I firmly believe that only a fool passes a law that he cannot enforce. That's why I think information from "expected" alerts (or non-alerts) should be authorized. Otherwise ethical players will suffer and villains get a free ticket to cheat. And it violates the fundamental principle that the rules of a game should make nefarious conduct unprofitable. And please don't tell me that "yes, sometimes cheating goes undetected but..." because in case of taking advantage of "expected" alerts cheating will _always_ go undetected - in every single case. So this is a different kettle of fish then revokes, hesitations or the like. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------------------------------------------- Szukasz pracy? Sprawd?? oferty na praca.interia.pl! http://link.interia.pl/f2610 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 10 02:04:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:04:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ 16A1(c) contains the caveat "but see B1 following" - the >>word 'but' introduces an exception and in B1 we find that "a >>reply to a question" is one such exception. >> The other matter on which I would remark is that a player >>is entitled to know his partnership agreements and is entitled, >>indeed expected, to act upon the belief that his partner is >>acting upon those agreements. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: But a player is NOT entitled to be reminded of her agreements if she had temporarily forgotten them. Law 40C3(a) and Law 73C. Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >But now that partner has alerted 2D you know that he took 2D as >transfer so bidding 3D now is safe. > >Did you use UI from partner's alert? You sure as hell did and >you know it. But how is the TD to know that an adjustment is in >order? Richard Hills: At my table an adjustment would not be in order, since I would eschew bidding the unLawful demonstrably suggested logical alternative of 3D. What's the problem? Konrad Ciborowski: >You bid 2D as a transfer, it was alerted and explained as a >transfer, your hand matches the explanation, partner's bidding >matches the explanation, your system card says it is a transfer >so what's the problem, huh? Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861), The Latest Decalogue: Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat, When it's so lucrative to cheat. Konrad Ciborowski: >Somebody who remembers his system would bid identically with >your cards. > >I firmly believe that only a fool passes a law that he cannot >enforce. Richard Hills: A few years ago I foolishly argued on blml that it was impossible to enforce Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." because of the word "knowingly". I was quickly corrected by the much more experienced Director Ton Kooijman, who observed that when he discovered an expert player who had prima facie infracted Law 79A2, Ton then extensively publicly interrogated the expert at the table, until the expert was forced either to admit that he had infracted Law 79A2, or (the option that the expert actually chose) to admit that he was a complete idiot and could not count to thirteen. Konrad Ciborowski: >in case of taking advantage of "expected" alerts cheating will >_always_ go undetected - in every single case. Richard Hills: For the sake of argument, let us assume that this assertion is true. The problem is not unethical actions, but rather ch**t*ng players. As Agatha Christie put it, "Murder is a habit". If a player successfully ch**ts once, they will try a different type of ch**t*ng later, get caught, then suspended for ten years. But I believe the assertion is false. As John (MadDog) Probst argued, the cumulative evidence of many deals provide a recognisable pattern when comparing the results of an ethical player to the results of a ch**t. Konrad Ciborowski: >Otherwise ethical players will suffer and villains get a free >ticket to cheat. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950): You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?" Richard Hills: Why not let ethical players get fewer victories than they deserve? Is not this what happens when a sponsor hires an all- expert team and therefore propels your amateur team into second place? And is not the pleasure of a double squeeze greater than the displeasure of being robbed of 19.59 masterpoints by a ch**t*ng opponent? Especially when you know that masterpoints are meaningless, and that your ch**t*ng opponent will eventually get a ten year suspension? What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 10 02:30:15 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:30:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4473123343EE4BE387050638F9B710F7@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> <000001cabfdf$ef05afe0$cd110fa0$@com> <4473123343EE4BE387050638F9B710F7@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <000101cabff1$3c594f70$b50bee50$@com> [KC] I firmly believe that only a fool passes a law that he cannot enforce. [DALB] Konrad's example (quite a good one) has been snipped here; it should be studied before reading what follows. The point is this: the Laws of bridge are not in principle unenforceable, only in practice. In principle, one imagines this paradigm. [A] an umpire sits at every table (just as in most sports, the umpire is or is assumed to be omnipresent on the field of play, and is the sole arbiter and enforcer of the Laws - of course, the umpire may have any number of assistants, both human and mechanical, to aid his determinations); [B] when a player makes a call or play, the meaning of that call or play is known to the umpire (if the player himself is not certain of the meaning of the call or play per his system, this fact is also known to the umpire, who has at his disposal: the ability to ask any player what he is doing, and complete information regarding partnership methods - explicit or implicit - and partnership history regarding success or failure when it comes to recalling those methods); [C] no information from questions, answers, mannerisms, variations in tempo or the like is ever transmitted between members of a partnership. Now, the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge assume that this paradigm is a reality. Of course, the WBFLC know that it is not a reality, and they make Laws to address those realities that fall short of the ideal. But again, they are not necessarily foolish in principle; since they cannot supply an umpire at every table, they do what they can to write into the Laws what the players themselves are responsible for doing. By and large, what the WBFLC do works well and is continually being improved in respect of play at the highest level (they impose screens, and regulations regarding permitted methods and disclosure, and require umpires to consult players before giving judgement-based rulings - they have even, as Ton remarks, simplified the revoke Law so that it now requires merely an MSc rather than a PhD to understand). It works abysmally at levels below the highest, but this is because the practical problems are overwhelming, not because the rules are in principle foolish. At high levels one can more or less safely assume that the Laws are [a] understood and [b] enforced, because [c] the players have sufficient experience with the way they are supposed to work, and many of them know enough to be "self-policing" anyway. At low levels this is not the case, because [a] the language in which the Laws are written makes some of them incomprehensible; [b] there are not enough people to do the enforcing even if the would-be enforcers knew what they were supposed to enforce, which they do not; and [c] the players don't have a clue what their responsibilities are. What is to be done? I wish I knew, but I am powerfully reminded of the words of Lord Justice Maule to a man tried before him for bigamy who pleaded that it would have been too difficult for him to obtain a divorce from his first wife. At the risk of emulating RJH, I quote in full: "I will tell you what you ought to have done; and if you say you did not know, I must tell you that the Law conclusively presumes that you did. You ought to have instructed your attorney to bring an action against the hawker for criminal conversation with your wife. That would have cost you about ?100 [this was in 1882, when ?100 was quite a lot of money and divorce was not the customary practice that it is nowadays]. When you had recovered substantial damages against the hawker, you should have instructed your proctor to sue in the ecclesiastical courts for a divorce a mensa atque thoro. That would have cost you ?200 or ?300 more. When you had obtained a divorce a mensa atque thoro, you would have to appear by counsel before the House of Lords for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The Bill might have been opposed in all its stages in both Houses of Parliament, and altogether you would have to spend about ?1000 or ?1200. You will probably tell me that you never had a thousand farthings of your own in the world - but, prisoner, that makes no difference. Sitting here as a British judge, it is my duty to tell you that this is not a country in which there is one Law for the rich and another for the poor." David Burn London, England From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 10 05:50:38 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:50:38 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <68C9CCACA0604137A204E1B573251248@MARVLAPTOP> > Richard Hills: > > About thirty years ago, two top-class English experts (who were > marriage partners as well as bridge partners) decided to visit an > ACBL National. They were very disappointed at the large number > of parallel Men's and Women's events, which left their mixed > partnership with very few interesting events to play in. The "large number" was three, two at one NABC, one at another, and none at a third. > > Shortly thereafter a disgruntled ACBL mixed partnership launched a > lawsuit against the ACBL. The ACBL lawyers negotiated a suitable > settlement of the lawsuit, which included transformation of major > NABC Men's Pairs to Open Pairs. In an executive (secret) session > of the ACBL Board of Directors, they rejected the settlement. But > immediately after, when the ACBL Board of Directors resumed its > openly minuted session, it chose to transform major NABC Men's > Pairs into Open Pairs for what it claimed were reasons entirely > unaffected by the lawsuit. :-) :-) Thanks, Richard. The mixed pair consisted of Robert and Jill Blanchard, who in 1984 sued the ACBL, claiming that gender-based events violated California law. Five years later the suit was dismissed, but the ACBL's insurance carrier paid $15,000 toward the couple's legal expenses. Beginning in 1990, three nationally-rated events formerly restricted to men were changed to open events, partly in response to the Blanchards' complaints, but there was a more important reason. The nationally-rated men's events qualified successful players for WBF competition, while the women's events did not. That was unfair to women experts, who complained loudly. They could have granted qualification rights to the women's events, but that was not politically possible. They made things even by declaring that the men's events at NABCs would become open to women so they could play in them and share in the qualification process. Not long after that (1994) a separate Team Trials became the path to WBF play. That left no reason not to reinstate the men's competitions at NABCs, but that wasn't done. Note that events for men only are not barred by the ACBL. They are perfectly okay in any tournament: NABC, Regional, or Sectional.. All the Tournament Manager has to do is put them in the tournament schedule. No one seems to be aware of that. Ask almost any ACBL player why the women have events while the men do not, and they will say that men's events are forbidden by the ACBL. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 10 06:46:13 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:46:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <68C9CCACA0604137A204E1B573251248@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >Ask almost any ACBL player why the women have events while the >men do not, and they will say that men's events are forbidden by >the ACBL. Richard Hills: Ask almost any Richard Hills why the only Aussie national men's event is a Mickey Mouse one-day matchpoint pairs, and Richard will reply that for the past half-dozen years he has been an incumbent Australian Men's Team Champion. Only three teams entered on the last occasion that it was held, with my winning team shooting fish in a barrel, thus scoring 150 vps out of a possible 150 vps. At the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge, attendance at the once prestigious Women's Teams Championship is also in decline. Because the Senior Teams Championship is held in parallel, senior women have a choice of events, and it appears that they overwhelmingly prefer senior men as partners and/or opponents. At the other major Aussie national championship, the Gold Coast Congress, the popularity of its teams segment increased dramatically once the organisers decided to divide the teams into entirely separate Open and Seniors fields, competing for entirely separate finals and prizes (including flighted prizes). 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 rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 10 08:22:31 2010 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:22:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01cac022$72ade320$5809a960$@nl> Herman, It is funny that you bring this up now. Last Monday evening I was playing a team-match and the bidding went: 2D (A) pass 2NT (A) pass 3D (A) pass 4H pass pass pass At this point my partner, who was to lead and wondering what was going on, asked for an explanation. The 4H-bidder explained that 3D showed bad spades, where the 3D bidder explained that his partner now should have a massive hand with hearts, which was confirmed immediately by the presumed declarer (as he was allowed to do at this point, wasn't he?). The only reason for him to inquire his partner about the holding was to be sure he would not have either six hearts or a maximum hand, to establish whether slam would be likely. The 2D bidder held AQTxxx Kxx xx xx, with his partner holding Kx AQJTxx Axx Kx. We were able to pick up the first club-trick, but that was all, so slam was on anyway. Our opponents had a small conversation at the end of play about the 3D-bid; the guy with the hearts suggested that 3H (yes - good spades!) would have better described his partners holding - after which they might have had some problems to reach 6H as it would not have been easy for them to a) discover that hearts should be played and b) that the king of hearts was the fifth key card, not the king of spades. Where is the problem (where it should be noted that 4S would have brought 12 tricks as well!!) ??? My point is that a partnership should always be allowed to trust each other, so should not incorporate the possibility that partner has forgotten a convention in its decisions. Thus the fact that a confirmation through a *solicited* explanation that partner indeed did not forget the convention should not be regarded to be UI (whereas the opposite, your scenario 2, would be UI!). The alternative - partner voluntary and without question of the opponents explaining at the time of his 4H bid that he knows that his partner holds spades - is a somewhat different story, however. But even then I don't believe that we can rule that his partner should be supposed to be in doubt whether 4H is a cue or to play and consequently is supposed to choose the wrong option (cue) so that bidding should go on to at least 5H.... Rob -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: 09 March 2010 13:39 To: blml Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you open 2D. Your partner bids 2NT, asking. three different scenarios: 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. Partner bids 4He. You pass, OK? 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has misunderstood, so you don't. You must pass, OK? 3) You reply 3He They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. But you have UI: he has remembered the convention. Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? comments? -- 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 Wed Mar 10 08:58:11 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:58:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B966F07.7010308@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> <4B966F07.7010308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B975113.7070502@skynet.be> Bad example, Alain. In your case, the non-alert is certainly UI to you. You may be excused for bidding 2S, but that is because you have no LA, not no UI. Herman. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Anyway : misexplaining = departure from normal procedure ; explaining >>> correctly = no departure from correct procedure. I don't see what's >>> wrong with treating them differently. >>> >> >> I see nothing wrong with it either, except for one remark: the >> explaining correctly has to be combined with bidding correctly. A >> correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! >> >> What we needis an understanding that a correct explanation of a correct >> bid is AI. >> > AG : I don't need it. As a matter of fact, if it was UI, there would > still be no problem, because we have an understanding that when UI is > identical to AI, that information can be used. And the parts of your > system that you know are AI. > BTW, this is also true of correct explanations of misbids, when AI is > available, and even occasionally of misexplanations. > > 1NT pass 2H pass > pass double > > Assume partner has explained 2H as natural, which it is (no infraction) > but you thought it was a transfer (erring is no infraction) ; you know > RHO is about to pass the TO double. You are allowed to bid 2S. > And the bidding is so strange that partner may understand it. Even if > you were right and partner misexplained, you're allowed to do so. (the > impact of MI on their bidding is another story) > (assume your partner isn't the kind of guy to open a psychic 1NT with a > weak 55 in the rounded suits) > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2731 - Release Date: 03/08/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 10 08:59:56 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:59:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B97517C.50205@skynet.be> No Olivier, my point is that when he tells you he remembers it, that telling is UI. And if it is even reasonably likely that he forgets part of your system, catering for forgetting may be a LA. And we all know that UI + LA = AS. Herman. olivier.beauvillain wrote: > Excuse me Herman, > is "your" partner remembering the system so rare that when you know about > that it is UI??? > Olivier Beauvillain > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:39 PM > Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > > > > Suppose you are playing multi, you have a weak two in spades, and you > open 2D. > Your partner bids 2NT, asking. > three different scenarios: > 1) You reply 3Di: spades, minimum. > Partner bids 4He. > You pass, OK? > 2) You reply 3He: spades, maximum. > They ask partner and he explains "hearts, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely you consider correcting, but you have UI that he has > misunderstood, so you don't. > You must pass, OK? > 3) You reply 3He > They ask partner and he explains "spades, maximum". > He bids 4He. Surely, without any explanation, you may consider > correcting to 4Sp. He may well have forgotten the convention. > But yo?u have UI: he has remembered the convention. > Should you now not correct anyway, because you have UI suggesting to pass? > comments? > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2731 - Release Date: 03/08/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 10 09:01:32 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:01:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B9751DC.4080801@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Nige1] > I agree with Herman that Bridge Rules should carefully distinguish two > quite different kinds of UI: > [A] Illegal. e.g. when partner breaks tempo or gives a wrong > explanation. You should lean over backwards to avoid taking advantage. > [B] Legal. e.g. when partner gives a correct systemic explanation. > Provided that this confirms what you already know, you can just make the > bid you were going to make, anyway. In this latter case, opponents > asking should not inhibit you in any way. I suppose a rule-maker could > argue that partner's explanation may be of use to opponents but had no > information value for you. A law-maker might so argue, but should he then not also law-make it thus? I read nothing in the laws supporting our view. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2731 - Release Date: 03/08/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 10 09:03:37 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:03:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000001cabfdf$ef05afe0$cd110fa0$@com> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> <000001cabfdf$ef05afe0$cd110fa0$@com> Message-ID: <4B975259.9010902@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > I am aware, having given some of the other replies in this thread a cursory > glance, that other contributors have weighed in with information about how > they play responses to a Multi. These are of almost no interest (and at > least half of them are insane), but in any case they do not matter. The > sequence 2D-2NT-X-4H [where X shows spades] is either defined in our methods > or it is not. If we really are "playing Multi" then I assume that it is, but > from the way Herman has phrased the question I gather I am supposed to > assume that it is not. > Assume that you are, and that a direct 4H is correctible, and this sequence is not. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 10 09:42:13 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:42:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >>>+=+ 16A1(c) contains the caveat "but see B1 following" - the >>>word 'but' introduces an exception and in B1 we find that "a >>>reply to a question" is one such exception. >>> The other matter on which I would remark is that a player >>>is entitled to know his partnership agreements and is entitled, >>>indeed expected, to act upon the belief that his partner is >>>acting upon those agreements. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > But a player is NOT entitled to be reminded of her agreements if > she had temporarily forgotten them. Law 40C3(a) and Law 73C. > > Konrad Ciborowski: > > [snip] > >>But now that partner has alerted 2D you know that he took 2D as >>transfer so bidding 3D now is safe. >> >>Did you use UI from partner's alert? You sure as hell did and >>you know it. But how is the TD to know that an adjustment is in >>order? > > Richard Hills: > > At my table an adjustment would not be in order, since I would > eschew bidding the unLawful demonstrably suggested logical > alternative of 3D. What's the problem? > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >>You bid 2D as a transfer, it was alerted and explained as a >>transfer, your hand matches the explanation, partner's bidding >>matches the explanation, your system card says it is a transfer >>so what's the problem, huh? > > Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861), The Latest Decalogue: > > Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat, > When it's so lucrative to cheat. > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >>Somebody who remembers his system would bid identically with >>your cards. >> >>I firmly believe that only a fool passes a law that he cannot >>enforce. > > Richard Hills: > > A few years ago I foolishly argued on blml that it was impossible > to enforce Law 79A2: > > "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a > trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick > that his opponents could not lose." > > because of the word "knowingly". I was quickly corrected by the > much more experienced Director Ton Kooijman, who observed that > when he discovered an expert player who had prima facie infracted > Law 79A2, Ton then extensively publicly interrogated the expert > at the table, until the expert was forced either to admit that he > had infracted Law 79A2, or (the option that the expert actually > chose) to admit that he was a complete idiot and could not count > to thirteen. > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >>in case of taking advantage of "expected" alerts cheating will >>_always_ go undetected - in every single case. > > Richard Hills: > > For the sake of argument, let us assume that this assertion is > true. The problem is not unethical actions, but rather ch**t*ng > players. As Agatha Christie put it, "Murder is a habit". If a > player successfully ch**ts once, they will try a different type > of ch**t*ng later, get caught, then suspended for ten years. > I can prove you wrong. Just put a pair behind screens and you'll see what will happen. I saw it many times as in Poland bridge is played with screens even at the very, very low levels. When screens were first introduced in the Polish Third Division then suddenly bids asking for kings started to become the final contracts. It proves that people do need and do take advantage of the reassuring fact that partner's alert confirms that they are still on the same wavelength. These people never intend to cheat intentionally. This was exactly what Michael Rosenberg was talking about in his essay. A player bids 3NT intending to ask for shortness. Partner alerts it and bids 4C showing shortness in clubs. So the player in question bids 5C (on xxx) asking "is your club shortness a void?". It never even occurs to this player that without the certainty of having seen the alert of 3NT (behind screens, for instance) he might perhaps be scared to death to bid 5C on three small fearing that partner didn't take 3NT as a relay (yeah, it's in the system but does this idiot remember?). Maybe he bid 4C naturally and now might pass 5C? I would say that at the lower levels of bridge this kind of cheating (without the players even realising it) is going on all the time. > But I believe the assertion is false. As John (MadDog) Probst > argued, the cumulative evidence of many deals There will be no "many deals". Your LHO opens 1NT. Your RHO bids 2H which is alerted and explained as a transfer to spades. The bidding continues. Your RHO turns out to have long spades, the hands match the explanations. Would you even consider calling the TD? How can you know whether they needed the information from the alert or simply remembered their system all the time? When they themselves sometimes don't know it? The infraction of taking advantage of "expected" alerts is, _by definition_, undetectable. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wygraj z armia wampirow! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f23a0 From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 10 10:41:05 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:41:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <001b01cac022$72ade320$5809a960$@nl> Message-ID: <759C555CEDEB4ECDBFF0A3B3C7660AA5@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > Herman, > > It is funny that you bring this up now. Last Monday evening I was playing > a > team-match and the bidding went: > > 2D (A) pass 2NT (A) pass > 3D (A) pass 4H pass > pass pass > > At this point my partner, who was to lead and wondering what was going on, > asked for an explanation. The 4H-bidder explained that 3D showed bad > spades, > where the 3D bidder explained that his partner now should have a massive > hand with hearts, which was confirmed immediately by the presumed declarer > (as he was allowed to do at this point, wasn't he?). The only reason for > him > to inquire his partner about the holding was to be sure he would not have > either six hearts or a maximum hand, to establish whether slam would be > likely. > > The 2D bidder held AQTxxx Kxx xx xx, with his partner holding Kx AQJTxx > Axx > Kx. We were able to pick up the first club-trick, but that was all, so > slam > was on anyway. > > Our opponents had a small conversation at the end of play about the > 3D-bid; > the guy with the hearts suggested that 3H (yes - good spades!) would have > better described his partners holding - after which they might have had > some > problems to reach 6H as it would not have been easy for them to a) > discover > that hearts should be played and b) that the king of hearts was the fifth > key card, not the king of spades. > > Where is the problem (where it should be noted that 4S would have brought > 12 > tricks as well!!) ??? > My point is that a partnership should always be allowed to trust each > other, > so should not incorporate the possibility that partner has forgotten a > convention in its decisions. Thus the fact that a confirmation through a > *solicited* explanation that partner indeed did not forget the convention > should not be regarded to be UI (whereas the opposite, your scenario 2, > would be UI!). > > The alternative - partner voluntary and without question of the opponents > explaining at the time of his 4H bid that he knows that his partner holds > spades - is a somewhat different story, however. But even then I don't > believe that we can rule that his partner should be supposed to be in > doubt > whether 4H is a cue or to play and consequently is supposed to choose the > wrong option (cue) so that bidding should go on to at least 5H.... > > Rob > +=+ Having gained this experience in future the holder of K x x in Hearts might revalue his hand. The HK is a massive card. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 10 10:35:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:35:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9751DC.4080801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2CC43D9B90CD4748ACB8D54F7775C3D7@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >> [Nige1] I agree with Herman that Bridge Rules should carefully distinguish two quite different kinds of UI: [A] Illegal. e.g. when partner breaks tempo or gives a wrong explanation. You should lean over backwards to avoid taking advantage. [B] Legal. e.g. when partner gives a correct systemic explanation. Provided that this confirms what you already know, you can just make the bid you were going to make, anyway. In this latter case, opponents asking should not inhibit you in any way. I suppose a rule-maker could argue that partner's explanation may be of use to opponents but had no information value for you. > > [Herman] A law-maker might so argue, but should he then not also law-make it thus? I read nothing in the laws supporting our view. > +=+ Not of this world. Surreal. To act in accordance with one's partnership understandings, and to give opponents correct explanations of them, involves no infraction of law. The requirements are expanded in Law 75. Deviation from one's partnership understandings must meet the conditions in Law 40C. See Law 72B1. See also the first statement in the 'Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge'. The concept of "legal UI" has an ethereal quality. So say 'Legal UI' is in fact AI, is it not? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 10 10:48:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:48:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965303.7090907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B976B09.2050809@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:54:11 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > >> Comment #2 : you should always assume that partner had remembered the >> system.... >> > > As far as I can tell, directors here sometimes rule this way but it has no > basis in any law. > No intention of ruling in that way ; "you should" addresses partnership virtues. Pulling out partner's decision because you're short in his suit, while you know that he knows that you are, because perhaps he might have forgotten his system, is abominable. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Mar 10 10:57:06 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:57:06 +0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1> References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> [Konrad Ciborowski] I can prove you wrong. Just put a pair behind screens and you'll see what will happen. I saw it many times as in Poland bridge is played with screens even at the very, very low levels. When screens were first introduced in the Polish Third Division then suddenly bids asking for kings started to become the final contracts. It proves that people do need and do take advantage of the reassuring fact that partner's alert confirms that they are still on the same wavelength. These people never intend to cheat intentionally. This was exactly what Michael Rosenberg was talking about in his essay. A player bids 3NT intending to ask for shortness. Partner alerts it and bids 4C showing shortness in clubs. So the player in question bids 5C (on xxx) asking "is your club shortness a void?". It never even occurs to this player that without the certainty of having seen the alert of 3NT (behind screens, for instance) he might perhaps be scared to death to bid 5C on three small fearing that partner didn't take 3NT as a relay (yeah, it's in the system but does this idiot remember?). Maybe he bid 4C naturally and now might pass 5C? I would say that at the lower levels of bridge this kind of cheating (without the players even realising it) is going on all the time. [Nigel] Konrad is right a usual. When alerting was introduced, the frequency and severity of bidding misunderstandings dropped. This happened at all levels. Hence, it seems that, unless there are screens, experts are as adept at rationalisation as ordinary players. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 10 11:18:30 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:18:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1> <4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Konrad Ciborowski] > I can prove you wrong. Just put a pair behind screens and you'll see > what will happen. I saw it many times as in Poland bridge is played with > screens even at the very, very low levels. When screens were first > introduced in the Polish Third Division then suddenly bids asking for > kings started to become the final contracts. It proves that people do > need and do take advantage of the reassuring fact that partner's alert > confirms that they are still on the same wavelength. > These people never intend to cheat intentionally. This was exactly what > Michael Rosenberg was talking about in his essay. A player bids 3NT > intending to ask for shortness. Partner alerts it and bids 4C showing > shortness in clubs. So the player in question bids 5C (on xxx) asking > "is your club shortness a void?". It never even occurs to this player > that without the certainty of having seen the alert of 3NT (behind > screens, for instance) he might perhaps be scared to death to bid 5C on > three small fearing that partner didn't take 3NT as a relay (yeah, it's > in the system but does this idiot remember?). Maybe he bid 4C naturally > and now might pass 5C? > I would say that at the lower levels of bridge this kind of cheating > (without the players even realising it) is going on all the time. > AG : since such accidents will essentially happen in slam bidding, the present rule that one shan't alert above 3NT (except, in some countries, opening bids) seems to care for many such problems. The Rosenberg case is uncommon, as 3NT asking for singleton usually happens after a major-suit raise, making the problem of risking a final contract of 5C marginal. Legislating that partner's (correct) alert or non-alert is UI, will disallow every player to put faith in partner's bidding. Isn't the price a bit high ? In said Multi sequence, they could compel you to end in a grotesque 4S after having bid perfectly to your best contract of 4H. I'd venture that it would mean the end of the game of bridge. Best regards Alain, who hasn't played in a cue-bid, even behind screens, since 7 years. PS : you can always ask your opponents not to alert, if they are the kind Konrad describes. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 10 11:54:19 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:54:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be> References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1> <4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 10 March 2010 11:18, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [snipped] > > PS : you can always ask your opponents not to alert, Where can you do this??? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 10 12:09:01 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:09:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1><4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >The Rosenberg case is uncommon, as 3NT asking for singleton usually >happens after a major-suit raise, making the problem of risking a final >contract of 5C marginal. The very example came from me, not from Rosenberg. I was just trying to make a point and didn't work hard to make it very realistic. If you want a more realistic one - many pairs are now trying to play transfers over opponents' T/O double. And, as always with a new toy, there is some uncertainty (does he remember? do I remember?). Frequently that first alert from partner is critical - "Oh, good, he remembered! I'm on safe ground!". Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------- Atrakcyjne mieszkania i dzia??ki. Sprawd?? oferty! http://link.interia.pl/f260b From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 10 12:23:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:23:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1> <4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B97814D.8020607@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > On 10 March 2010 11:18, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > [snipped] > >> PS : you can always ask your opponents not to alert, >> > > Where can you do this??? > > In my country, at least, you may request opponents not to alert. It was also possible in the US several years ago, can anybody confirm whether it's still the case. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 10 12:34:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:34:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1><4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B9783CD.7080007@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > >> The Rosenberg case is uncommon, as 3NT asking for singleton usually >> happens after a major-suit raise, making the problem of risking a final >> contract of 5C marginal. >> > > The very example came from me, not from Rosenberg. > I was just trying to make a point and didn't work hard > to make it very realistic. > > If you want a more realistic one - many pairs > are now trying to play transfers over opponents' T/O double. > And, as always with a new toy, there is some uncertainty > (does he remember? do I remember?). > Frequently that first alert from partner is critical - > "Oh, good, he remembered! I'm on safe ground!". > Indeed, but cases like these, where there can only be one artificial meaning, are scarce. (a friend of mine recently listed 11 different meanings for 1NT-X-2C by checking the convention cards of the 26 pairs playing in Belgian Top division. And he didn't count mine, because I play lower) The Shadoks (cartoon antiheroes from French TV in the Sixties) said : "when there is no solution, there is no problem) What solution do you suggest ? (apart from screens, of course. Notice that, in my country, there are screens down to 4th tier, which is way lower than you 3rd division) Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 10 12:47:23 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:47:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1><4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be> <4B9783CD.7080007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AAF1437BBB54DB0AD8A2436D3F15145@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >What solution do you suggest ? Make information from "expected" alerts (or non-alerts) authorized as the lesser of evils. It is impossible, by definition, to detect this particular violation (I explained why in earlier posts). Having partner leave the table after every single bid made by anyone simply isn't practical. So if it cannot be policed - we have to allow it. >(apart from screens, of course. Notice >that, in my country, there are screens down to 4th tier, which is way >lower than you 3rd division) I'm not so sure it is de facto lower. The league structure in Poland is absolutely insane. First Division - 16 teams, Second Division - 4 x 16 teams, Third Division = 16 groups of 12-21 teams. It is inflated beyond belief. We have more teams in the Second Division alone than France in the first three divisions combined (and we have fewer players!). About 80% or more of Polish players play at least in the Third Division, if you play in the Fourth Division (Fifth Division exists in only two regions and curiously Warsaw or Krak?w aren't one of them, though they have screens in the Fourth Division in Warsaw) it normally means you can barely follow suit. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------- Atrakcyjne mieszkania i dzia??ki. Sprawd?? oferty! http://link.interia.pl/f260b From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 10 13:21:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:21:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AAF1437BBB54DB0AD8A2436D3F15145@sfora4869e47f1> References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1><4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be> <4B9783CD.7080007@ulb.ac.be> <4AAF1437BBB54DB0AD8A2436D3F15145@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B978EB5.80704@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > >> What solution do you suggest ? >> > > Make information from "expected" alerts (or non-alerts) > authorized as the lesser of evils. > > It is impossible, by definition, to detect this particular violation > (I explained why in earlier posts). > Having partner leave the table after every > single bid made by anyone simply isn't practical. > > So if it cannot be policed - we have to allow it. > I came to the same conclusion. And I claimed the damage is rather moderate. > We have more teams in the Second Division alone than > France in the first three divisions combined (and > we have fewer players!). > Indeed . But a team from French Third Division would usually dispose of a team from Belgian First Division (second tier). I noticed that the average level of Belgian bridge isn't bad (as compared to e.g. France), especially in the bidding, but we lack "subtop" players.. > About 80% or more of Polish players play at least > in the Third Division, if you play in the Fourth Division > (Fifth Division exists in only two regions and curiously Warsaw > or Krak?w aren't one of them, though they have screens > in the Fourth Division in Warsaw) it normally means > you can barely follow suit. > > Strange thing. We have about the same phenomenon : 6th tier exists in many parts of the country, and 7th in some, but even 6th tier is disappearing in Brussels. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 10 13:42:44 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:42:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <2CC43D9B90CD4748ACB8D54F7775C3D7@Mildred> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9751DC.4080801@skynet.be> <2CC43D9B90CD4748ACB8D54F7775C3D7@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B9793C4.8040004@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> >> [Herman] > A law-maker might so argue, but should he then not > also law-make it thus? I read nothing in the laws > supporting our view. >> > +=+ Not of this world. Surreal. To act in accordance > with one's partnership understandings, and to give > opponents correct explanations of them, involves no > infraction of law. The requirements are expanded in > Law 75. Deviation from one's partnership understandings > must meet the conditions in Law 40C. > See Law 72B1. See also the first statement in the > 'Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge'. > The concept of "legal UI" has an ethereal quality. So > say 'Legal UI' is in fact AI, is it not? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan has, yet again, missed the point. A correct explanation is UI to a player who has previously misbid, OK? There is no infraction of any law (neither the misbid not the correct explanation are wrong). And yet, the misbidder is barred by the UI of "waking up". Now, that same correct explanation must also be UI to a player who has correctly bid, must it not? I agree that this UI should not lead to restrictions on the partner, but then the laws should indicate something like that. Compare it to an alert: the laws correctly speak of an "unexpected" alert. An alert can be unexpected in two ways: either because the alerter is wrong, or because the bidder has misbid. Both types are counted as UI. Maybe the laws should include a sentence that an "expected" explanation is not considered UI. At present I find no such sentence in the laws. Maybe surreal, indeed, but quite real as well. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 10 14:08:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:08:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9793C4.8040004@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B967C23.9040703@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9751DC.4080801@skynet.be> <2CC43D9B90CD4748ACB8D54F7775C3D7@Mildred> <4B9793C4.8040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B9799BE.4070300@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Grattan wrote: > >>> [Herman] >>> >> A law-maker might so argue, but should he then not >> also law-make it thus? I read nothing in the laws >> supporting our view. >> >> +=+ Not of this world. Surreal. To act in accordance >> with one's partnership understandings, and to give >> opponents correct explanations of them, involves no >> infraction of law. The requirements are expanded in >> Law 75. Deviation from one's partnership understandings >> must meet the conditions in Law 40C. >> See Law 72B1. See also the first statement in the >> 'Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge'. >> The concept of "legal UI" has an ethereal quality. So >> say 'Legal UI' is in fact AI, is it not? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > > > Grattan has, yet again, missed the point. > A correct explanation is UI to a player who has previously misbid, OK? > There is no infraction of any law (neither the misbid not the correct > explanation are wrong). And yet, the misbidder is barred by the UI of > "waking up". > Now, that same correct explanation must also be UI to a player who has > correctly bid, must it not? > Up to now, you're right. And now you've missed the point, as you say. When AI = UI, there is no restriction in using it. And there is official jurisprudency saying that IIRC. In some situations, UI of the "bidder has misbid" type, and occasionally wrong explanations will be backed by AI . For example, if partner passes your "forcing bid", whoever is right according to your system, the UI that a wheel has gone loose is backed by plain AI. When the explanation is correct and matches your interpretation of the bid, this will be the case almost systematically, because your system is AI and the fact that partner deserves your confidence is, too. Am I wrong into interpreting that you consider your partners don't deserve it ? One more point : when, in Konrad's case, the new use of transfers : when my partners don't alert, it's more often because hey forgot their duty than because they forgot their system. Whence, when partner doesn't alert, I don't feel any less "on firm ground". Whence the alert doesn't change anything (and BTW they could well aleert to say "nonforcing" rather than "artificial"). Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 10 14:45:35 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:45:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33BDAA1C-2457-459B-98F3-6EFC8185222E@starpower.net> On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> From Richard Hills >> >> Canberra bridge players are lucky, since the majority of the >> Canberra >> Bridge Club's "big evenings" events (Tuesday and Thursday nights) >> are >> imp pairs or imp teams, and the field in such events is >> challenging, >> packed with Aussie national champions and/or Aussie international >> representatives. > > Lucky indeed. Residing in San Diego, California and necessarily > confined to North American travel, I get to play in pair games with > strong fields just three times a year, at the NABCs. My favorite > pair event, the National Men's Pairs, is no longer held. It was > converted to an open pair championship (now called the Silodor > Pairs) in 1992, played concurrently with the National Women's Pairs. Come to Washington DC, Marv. We run a weekly unit game with a total of about 60-70 tables, including a two-section "A/X" game. Lower- level games are available for players with up to 2,000 master points, and the A/X field typically attracts most of a large coterie of national and international caliber players who reside in the area (Sontag, Robinson, Boyd, Palmer, and many more). You need to play in the top events at the NABCs to find a stronger field. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Mar 10 19:52:42 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:52:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AAF1437BBB54DB0AD8A2436D3F15145@sfora4869e47f1> References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1><4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be> <4B9783CD.7080007@ulb.ac.be> <4AAF1437BBB54DB0AD8A2436D3F15145@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B97EA7A.6080506@yahoo.co.uk> [Konrad Ciborowski] Make information from "expected" alerts (or non-alerts) authorized as the lesser of evils. [Nigel] I agree that is a good solution. Especially, if you also have the option to stop opponents alerting From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 10 21:33:14 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:33:14 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games References: <33BDAA1C-2457-459B-98F3-6EFC8185222E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2EEEE3A8E13C449E9F046199B4FB25F8@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" Marv wrote: >> >> Lucky indeed. Residing in San Diego, California and necessarily >> confined to North American travel, I get to play in pair games >> with >> strong fields just three times a year, at the NABCs. My favorite >> pair event, the National Men's Pairs, is no longer held. It was >> converted to an open pair championship (now called the Silodor >> Pairs) in 1992, played concurrently with the National Women's >> Pairs. > > Come to Washington DC, Marv. We run a weekly unit game with a > total > of about 60-70 tables, including a two-section "A/X" game. Lower- > level games are available for players with up to 2,000 master > points, > and the A/X field typically attracts most of a large coterie of > national and international caliber players who reside in the area > (Sontag, Robinson, Boyd, Palmer, and many more). You need to play > in > the top events at the NABCs to find a stronger field. How many tables typically in the A/X game? I hope you run a Web movement with 14+ in each section, so that there are only 26 boards in play and pairs compare with everyone in their direction. Pre-duplicated boards of course. Don't brag about this game if you play 34 boards with 12 top, boards not preduplicated. I would love to play in this game weekly, but it's a little far from San Diego, which my wife refuses to leave. San Diego's only big club, Adventures in Bridge, started up a Wed night "Masters" game a number of years ago. Supposedly all the top San Diegans would attend, but that didn't work out, despite a rather low masterpoint barrier (2000). Working people didn't want to play Wed evenings and we were lucky to get seven tables. The club owner changed it to a stratified game, open to all, which resulted in a weak club-typical game. He had to do this because the concurrent game for those without 2000 points became objectionally strong for the 199ers. Players do not like competing against their betters these days. Now the only decent club game is a Saturday Barometer. Most of the better players participate, and it is a very fair game because pairs play all 27 boards and compare with everyone in their direction. Typically only 14 tables, however. Roger Doughman and I won three weeks in a row a few years ago, so the game's title is now French-Dough Stratified Pairs Barometer Game. Roger doesn't want to play with me anymore because he hates four-card majors and I refuse to play five-card majors (been there, done that). While on that subject, some subscribers may be interested to know of an experiment that Roger Zelmer and I will conduct in two NABC+ events at the Reno NABC. He is a Precision player who had been having a hard time with my system and its many conventions that he doesn't play. The experiment is that we will play a "Few-Convention" system with a very few easy conventions. Weak notrumps, strong two bids, no Stayman, no Jacoby bids, no negative doubles, 4NT natural, etc. etc. A secondary aim is to demonstrate that a multitude of conventions are not needed to do well in a pair game if you play your cards well. We tried it out in a recent sectional pair game here (34 tables) and beat all the top pairs except one. They were second overall, we were sixth. Herb Sinnen and I did this one Wed night in the Masters game, when we both forgot our convention cards. We played zero conventions just for fun, ending up second overall. Eric, I have an uncle who lives within Metro reach of DC. Maybe Alice and I will visit him this year and play in your fine game. What is the day, time, and location? Nearest Metro stop? Does the club have a web site? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 10 22:40:14 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:40:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games In-Reply-To: <2EEEE3A8E13C449E9F046199B4FB25F8@MARVLAPTOP> References: <33BDAA1C-2457-459B-98F3-6EFC8185222E@starpower.net> <2EEEE3A8E13C449E9F046199B4FB25F8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: I don't know if anyone but Marv is interested in this, but I'm posting to the list just in case. On Mar 10, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> Come to Washington DC, Marv. We run a weekly unit game with a >> total >> of about 60-70 tables, including a two-section "A/X" game. Lower- >> level games are available for players with up to 2,000 master >> points, >> and the A/X field typically attracts most of a large coterie of >> national and international caliber players who reside in the area >> (Sontag, Robinson, Boyd, Palmer, and many more). You need to play >> in >> the top events at the NABCs to find a stronger field. > > How many tables typically in the A/X game? Usually about 20 or so. > I hope you run a Web > movement with 14+ in each section, so that there are only 26 boards > in play and pairs compare with everyone in their direction. I'm sure they would with enough tables; webs are in routine use in major events at our sectionals. They don't seem to run webs in the B/ C/D game, though (that's usually a 23 top). > Pre-duplicated boards of course. Don't brag about this game if you > play 34 boards with 12 top, boards not preduplicated. Boards are mechanically duplicated before the game starts, not just across sections, but across all the "big room" events (A/X, B/C/D and NonLM), and scoring is ATF. [Stuff about Marv's San Diego game snipped.] > Eric, I have an uncle who lives within Metro reach of DC. Maybe > Alice and I will visit him this year and play in your fine game. > What is the day, time, and location? Nearest Metro stop? Does the > club have a web site? Thursdays at 7:30 PM (sharp) at Congregation Ohr Kodesh, 8300 Meadowbrook Lane in Chevy Chase (at intersection of East-West Highway and Beach Drive). A bit of a walk from Silver Spring Metro (maybe two miles), but we have a carpool coordinator for those who need rides (name and number on request). Also not just a partnership coordinator (ditto), but a guaranteed partner program, so singles can show up without notice and be sure of a game. Refreshments are plentiful, although not quite as tasty as they used to be, as we are now (since about two months ago) playing in a kosher venue. Details at www.districtsix.org/WBL/WBLhome.aspx. Do we get to brag now? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From tedying at yahoo.com Wed Mar 10 23:10:15 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:10:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games In-Reply-To: <2EEEE3A8E13C449E9F046199B4FB25F8@MARVLAPTOP> References: <33BDAA1C-2457-459B-98F3-6EFC8185222E@starpower.net> <2EEEE3A8E13C449E9F046199B4FB25F8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <549563.5170.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> As I have been on staff for this game for close to 20 years, have been one of the most involved with this game for most of that time and was the chief director for 5 years of this game (up until a year ago) and am still on the directing staff, I can answer some of your questions. We typically have between 21 and 27 tables in our A/X game. Most weeks we run a web movement (the current chief director is better than I am at webs). I usually run two sections but I tailor the sections to minimize the number of boards in play and for comparison. For example, with 23 tables, I'll run 9 and 14 and have 27 and 28 boards in play in the two sections. I cross matchpoint across both sections to ensure that the whole field is still comparing on each board. I try not to have more than 28 boards in play in any given section. We always plays 24 boards on Thursday nights. One of the reasons I tend not to run a web is that we often have players or pairs that come in late. With a web, unless you are running a half table web movement (with a sitout instead of a bump), you cannot add a late pair into the movement. I like to allow everyone to play and unfortunately we play on Thursday nights in a town which reportedly has the second worst traffic and commute in the nation. We always duplicate all boards (we have six boxes of boards duplicated each week). We also seed the field for approximately the top 12-16 pairs. Our seeding committee is headed by a top player who actually watches the trends from all sectionals, district GNT/NAP games, regionals and our own unit game to compose the list of seeds and confers with the directors on a regular basis to tweak our seeding methods. We treat the unit game like a regular sectional tournament. In fact, most of our staff (we have two or three directors on duty each week) have trained with our tournament staff at sectionals. And we have some of the best teaching directors in the ACBL based here in DC. For information, this game is the unit game for Unit 147, the Washington Bridge League. You can find information on our web-site at www.washingtonbridgeleague.org. Game is Thursday evening at 7:30 PM in Silver Spring. We just moved the location about six weeks ago and it is about 2 miles from the Silver Spring Metro station...too long to walk, but there are taxis there and also bus service runs from the Silver Spring metro to a stop very close to the Synagogue where we play. You can find a map and directions to the game on the web-site. We would love to have you join us anytime you come to visit. -Ted Ying. ________________________________ From: Marvin French To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 3:33:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Good Pair Games From: "Eric Landau" Marv wrote: >> >> Lucky indeed. Residing in San Diego, California and necessarily >> confined to North American travel, I get to play in pair games >> with >> strong fields just three times a year, at the NABCs. My favorite >> pair event, the National Men's Pairs, is no longer held. It was >> converted to an open pair championship (now called the Silodor >> Pairs) in 1992, played concurrently with the National Women's >> Pairs. > > Come to Washington DC, Marv. We run a weekly unit game with a > total > of about 60-70 tables, including a two-section "A/X" game. Lower- > level games are available for players with up to 2,000 master > points, > and the A/X field typically attracts most of a large coterie of > national and international caliber players who reside in the area > (Sontag, Robinson, Boyd, Palmer, and many more). You need to play > in > the top events at the NABCs to find a stronger field. How many tables typically in the A/X game? I hope you run a Web movement with 14+ in each section, so that there are only 26 boards in play and pairs compare with everyone in their direction. Pre-duplicated boards of course. Don't brag about this game if you play 34 boards with 12 top, boards not preduplicated. I would love to play in this game weekly, but it's a little far from San Diego, which my wife refuses to leave. San Diego's only big club, Adventures in Bridge, started up a Wed night "Masters" game a number of years ago. Supposedly all the top San Diegans would attend, but that didn't work out, despite a rather low masterpoint barrier (2000). Working people didn't want to play Wed evenings and we were lucky to get seven tables. The club owner changed it to a stratified game, open to all, which resulted in a weak club-typical game. He had to do this because the concurrent game for those without 2000 points became objectionally strong for the 199ers. Players do not like competing against their betters these days. Now the only decent club game is a Saturday Barometer. Most of the better players participate, and it is a very fair game because pairs play all 27 boards and compare with everyone in their direction. Typically only 14 tables, however. Roger Doughman and I won three weeks in a row a few years ago, so the game's title is now French-Dough Stratified Pairs Barometer Game. Roger doesn't want to play with me anymore because he hates four-card majors and I refuse to play five-card majors (been there, done that). While on that subject, some subscribers may be interested to know of an experiment that Roger Zelmer and I will conduct in two NABC+ events at the Reno NABC. He is a Precision player who had been having a hard time with my system and its many conventions that he doesn't play. The experiment is that we will play a "Few-Convention" system with a very few easy conventions. Weak notrumps, strong two bids, no Stayman, no Jacoby bids, no negative doubles, 4NT natural, etc. etc. A secondary aim is to demonstrate that a multitude of conventions are not needed to do well in a pair game if you play your cards well. We tried it out in a recent sectional pair game here (34 tables) and beat all the top pairs except one. They were second overall, we were sixth. Herb Sinnen and I did this one Wed night in the Masters game, when we both forgot our convention cards. We played zero conventions just for fun, ending up second overall. Eric, I have an uncle who lives within Metro reach of DC. Maybe Alice and I will visit him this year and play in your fine game. What is the day, time, and location? Nearest Metro stop? Does the club have a web site? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100310/9de2e8d4/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 10 23:11:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:11:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B9793C4.8040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Not of this world. Surreal. To act in accordance >>with one's partnership understandings, and to give >>opponents correct explanations of them, involves no >>infraction of law. The requirements are expanded in >>Law 75. Deviation from one's partnership understandings >>must meet the conditions in Law 40C. >> See Law 72B1. See also the first statement in the >>'Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge'. >>The concept of "legal UI" has an ethereal quality. So >>say 'Legal UI' is in fact AI, is it not? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892): "Science moves, but slowly slowly, creeping on from point to point." Herman De Wael: >Grattan has, yet again, missed the point. Richard Hills: Herman has, yet again, missed the point. Herman De Wael: [snip] >Maybe the laws should include a sentence that an >"expected" explanation is not considered UI. At present I >find no such sentence in the laws. Maybe surreal, indeed, >but quite real as well. Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." Richard Hills: Law 40C3(a) does "preclude" a player being reminded of her methods which she has temporarily forgotten. But not any Law does "preclude" a player from using her very well remembered methods after receiving some tautologically redundant information from partner about her methods. Of course, if the player's _partner_ has a Law 40C1 habit of misbidding, which creates a two-way implicit mutual partnership understanding, then any alert / non-alert from the player's _partner_ may be UI in so far as it indicates the _partner's_ current Law 40C1 belief. Which is why the ABF defines these commonly misunderstood calls as "self-alerting": Double = negative or penalty? Redouble = SOS or to play? Cuebid = natural or artificial? 1NT - 2C = Simple Stayman or Extended Stayman? 4C = natural or Gerber? 4NT = minors or Blackwood? 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 Mar 10 23:16:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:16:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <549563.5170.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ted Ying: [big snip] >I cross matchpoint across both sections [big snip] Richard Hills: Perhaps occasionally, for variety, Ted could cross-imp across both sections. >From my parochial Aussie perspective, ACBL-land has too many strong matchpoint pairs events, and not enough strong imp pairs events. 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 tedying at yahoo.com Thu Mar 11 00:04:42 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:04:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <789512.40007.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I would like that as well, but for some reason, when I meet with the annual scheduling committee, they try to minimize those games. The players in our general area just like matchpoints and the committee hasn't been convinced to run those games more than once or twice a year. Most recently, they've fallen off of our schedule completely and hey appear on Friday nights at two of our four sectional tournaments, (the other two of which are Barometer pairs). -Ted. ________________________________ From: "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 5:16:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Good Pair Games [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Ted Ying: [big snip] >I cross matchpoint across both sections [big snip] Richard Hills: Perhaps occasionally, for variety, Ted could cross-imp across both sections. >From my parochial Aussie perspective, ACBL-land has too many strong matchpoint pairs events, and not enough strong imp pairs events. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 11 00:50:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:50:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >I can prove you wrong. Just put a pair behind screens and >you'll see what will happen. I saw it many times as in Poland >bridge is played with screens even at the very, very low >levels. > >When screens were first introduced in the Polish Third >Division then suddenly bids asking for kings started to >become the final contracts. Richard Hills: Ah, yes. In my youth in Hobart the opponents' auctions often proceeded: 4C (slooow, therefore Gerber) - 4H (slooow, therefore one ace) then 5C (slooow, therefore Gerber for kings) or 5C (vry qck, therefore signoff) It is unfortunate that most bridge lessons for complete beginners contain little or nothing on the topic of bridge ethics. Anne Jones, 30th May 2006: >>Reminds me of the hand that I played in 1978 with a wise old >>bird in a cut in rubber. I led my singleton and he switched. >>What a pratt, I had my trump out ready to ruff !!!! We lost >>the rubber and he moved on. >> >>He explained to me in the bar after why he had done that, at >>considerable cost to himself I hasten to add. >> >>Probably the reason I am now a TD and the chair of Wales >>L&EC. 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 Thu Mar 11 01:06:03 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:06:03 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Good Pair Games References: <33BDAA1C-2457-459B-98F3-6EFC8185222E@starpower.net><2EEEE3A8E13C449E9F046199B4FB25F8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <0C2E3F9DE45248ED80AA9F137241EECB@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > > Boards are mechanically duplicated before the game starts, not > just > across sections, but across all the "big room" events (A/X, B/C/D > and > NonLM), and scoring is ATF. > Thursdays at 7:30 PM (sharp) at Congregation Ohr Kodesh, 8300 > Meadowbrook Lane in Chevy Chase (at intersection of East-West > Highway > and Beach Drive). A bit of a walk from Silver Spring Metro (maybe > two miles), but we have a carpool coordinator for those who need > rides (name and number on request). Also not just a partnership > coordinator (ditto), but a guaranteed partner program, so singles > can > show up without notice and be sure of a game. Refreshments are > plentiful, although not quite as tasty as they used to be, as we > are > now (since about two months ago) playing in a kosher venue. > Details at www.districtsix.org/WBL/WBLhome.aspx. > > Do we get to brag now? Absolutely. I had heard that DC is the best place for bridge in the USA, and this is confirmation. Marv From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 04:54:17 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:54:17 -0600 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AAF1437BBB54DB0AD8A2436D3F15145@sfora4869e47f1> References: <24EAA0E46CF1448DA16ADA771968BA3C@sfora4869e47f1><4B976CF2.6010102@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9771F6.7010405@ulb.ac.be><4B9783CD.7080007@ulb.ac.be> <4AAF1437BBB54DB0AD8A2436D3F15145@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 05:47 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > >>What solution do you suggest ? > > Make information from "expected" alerts (or non-alerts) > authorized as the lesser of evils. > > It is impossible, by definition, to detect this particular violation > (I explained why in earlier posts). > Having partner leave the table after every > single bid made by anyone simply isn't practical. > > So if it cannot be policed - we have to allow it. > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland This conversation is flummery. The law makes it clear that Alert regulations are legal only for screens. The solution is to get rid of alerts in face to face. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 11 06:11:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:11:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882): "The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons." Roger Pewick: >This conversation is flummery. > >The law makes it clear that Alert regulations are legal only >for screens. > >The solution is to get rid of alerts in face to face. Law 40B2(a), second sentence: "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 08:22:06 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:22:06 -0600 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 23:11 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882): > > "The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our > spoons." > > Roger Pewick: > >>This conversation is flummery. >> >>The law makes it clear that Alert regulations are legal only >>for screens. >> >>The solution is to get rid of alerts in face to face. > > Law 40B2(a), second sentence: > > "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures > and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 But Richard Hills is being totally non responsive to the assertion that the law does not legalize alerts in face to face. If he would care to quote some passage of law that does legalize such a thing I will quickly dispatch it. regards roger pewick From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 11 08:33:18 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:33:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 March 2010 08:22, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 23:11 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? ? ?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882): >> >> "The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our >> spoons." >> >> Roger Pewick: >> >>>This conversation is flummery. >>> >>>The law makes it clear that Alert regulations are legal only >>>for screens. >>> >>>The solution is to get rid of alerts in face to face. >> >> Law 40B2(a), second sentence: >> >> "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures >> and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > > But Richard Hills is being totally non responsive to the assertion that the > law does not legalize alerts in face to face. ?If he would care to quote > some passage of law that does legalize such a thing I will quickly dispatch > it. > Richard did so just above. The law authorizes RA's to prescribe alterting procedures, as you're well aware of. And there's nothing in the law that say this only applies to play with screens (or online play). So it's not Richard who's got to rationalize his view on this topic. > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 11 09:11:36 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:11:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > >> Grattan has, yet again, missed the point. > > Richard Hills: > > Herman has, yet again, missed the point. > Richard has, yet again, missed the point. > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >> Maybe the laws should include a sentence that an >> "expected" explanation is not considered UI. At present I >> find no such sentence in the laws. Maybe surreal, indeed, >> but quite real as well. > > Law 16A1(d): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information that the player possessed before he took > his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not > preclude his use of this information." > notice the "and"? > Richard Hills: > > Law 40C3(a) does "preclude" a player being reminded of her > methods which she has temporarily forgotten. But not any > Law does "preclude" a player from using her very well > remembered methods after receiving some tautologically > redundant information from partner about her methods. > No? How about L16? I don't really read L40C3(a) as precluding the reminding of a forgotten method - but it may well be used. But clearly L16 will be used in the same way. And L16 does not say anything about previously remembered methods. To use the rule on "aids of memory" to say that an alert is a precluded method when he hasn't remembered, but is not precluded when he has remembered is a twist of logic so quaint as to be able to be found only in Richard's tortuous mind. Really Richard, you might do better in agreeing with me once. Just once. The laws are not clear enough on something the whole world agrees upon: that the explanation of a previously remembered method should not be UI. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 11 10:28:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:28:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be> References: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > To use the rule on "aids of memory" to say that an alert is a precluded > method when he hasn't remembered, but is not precluded when he has > remembered is a twist of logic so quaint as to be able to be found only > in Richard's tortuous mind. > Perhaps I can explain, as I'm familiar with tortuous minds :-P An alert isn't precluded when one hasn't remembered. Using it as an information source might well be deemed precluded. The logic behind making a difference between "remembered" and "not remembered" is, at the very least, consistent with jurisprudency that when UI = AI there is no restriction. Now call me a tortuous mind ; I'm quite capable of considering it a compliment O:-) Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 11 12:16:50 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:16:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be> <4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B98D122.3070606@skynet.be> Alain, from one tortuous mind to another: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> To use the rule on "aids of memory" to say that an alert is a precluded >> method when he hasn't remembered, but is not precluded when he has >> remembered is a twist of logic so quaint as to be able to be found only >> in Richard's tortuous mind. >> > Perhaps I can explain, as I'm familiar with tortuous minds :-P > > An alert isn't precluded when one hasn't remembered. > Using it as an information source might well be deemed precluded. > Where does it say that in the lawbook? > The logic behind making a difference between "remembered" and "not > remembered" is, at the very least, consistent with jurisprudency that > when UI = AI there is no restriction. > Yes, it is logical, yes it is consistent with jurisprudence, but is it right in the legal sense? I don't think so - and the laws should be adapted to make it so. > Now call me a tortuous mind ; I'm quite capable of considering it a > compliment O:-) > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 11 12:22:13 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:22:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be><4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be> <4B98D122.3070606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <30C3D96852F24138A4BE4053A9E770AE@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > Using [alert] as an information source might well be deemed precluded. > >Where does it say that in the lawbook? How about 73B1? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------- Atrakcyjne mieszkania i dzia??ki. Sprawd?? oferty! http://link.interia.pl/f260b From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 11 12:53:44 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:53:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B98D122.3070606@skynet.be> References: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be> <4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be> <4B98D122.3070606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B98D9C8.6050604@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain, from one tortuous mind to another: > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> To use the rule on "aids of memory" to say that an alert is a precluded >>> method when he hasn't remembered, but is not precluded when he has >>> remembered is a twist of logic so quaint as to be able to be found only >>> in Richard's tortuous mind. >>> >>> >> Perhaps I can explain, as I'm familiar with tortuous minds :-P >> >> An alert isn't precluded when one hasn't remembered. >> Using it as an information source might well be deemed precluded. >> >> > > Where does it say that in the lawbook? > > Illegal information sources are described. Exception probat regulam in casis non exceptibus. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 11 13:00:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:00:37 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> Law 40B2(a), second sentence: >>> >>> "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures >>> and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." >>> >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >> >> But Richard Hills is being totally non responsive to the assertion that >> the >> law does not legalize alerts in face to face. If he would care to quote >> some passage of law that does legalize such a thing I will quickly >> dispatch >> it. >> > Richard did so just above. The law authorizes RA's to prescribe > alterting procedures, as you're well aware of. > And there's nothing in the law that say this only applies to play with > screens (or online play). > > So it's not Richard who's got to rationalize his view on this topic. > +=+ I am puzzled by the difficulty Roger has in accepting that the quoted text authorizes what Richard and Harald say it authorizes. It seems to be a plain statement. What is the problem? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 11 13:05:04 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:05:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <30C3D96852F24138A4BE4053A9E770AE@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be><4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be> <4B98D122.3070606@skynet.be> <30C3D96852F24138A4BE4053A9E770AE@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B98DC70.9020901@skynet.be> wrong snipping, Konrad. You're right here, but my question was more about the previous sentence in Alain's post. Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > > >> Using [alert] as an information source might well be deemed precluded. >> >> Where does it say that in the lawbook? > > How about 73B1? > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Atrakcyjne mieszkania i dzia??ki. Sprawd?? oferty! > http://link.interia.pl/f260b > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2735 - Release Date: 03/10/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 11 13:07:12 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:07:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B98D9C8.6050604@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be> <4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be> <4B98D122.3070606@skynet.be> <4B98D9C8.6050604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B98DCF0.9080105@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain, from one tortuous mind to another: >> >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>>> To use the rule on "aids of memory" to say that an alert is a precluded >>>> method when he hasn't remembered, but is not precluded when he has >>>> remembered is a twist of logic so quaint as to be able to be found only >>>> in Richard's tortuous mind. >>>> >>>> >>> Perhaps I can explain, as I'm familiar with tortuous minds :-P >>> >>> An alert isn't precluded when one hasn't remembered. >>> Using it as an information source might well be deemed precluded. >>> >>> >> >> Where does it say that in the lawbook? >> >> > Illegal information sources are described. Exception probat regulam in > casis non exceptibus. Indeed they are. Now tell me where, in that description, a difference is made between an explanation by partner that is yes/no the same as the meaning one had already given to one's own bidding before hearing the explanation. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2735 - Release Date: 03/10/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 11 13:08:22 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:08:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be><4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be><4B98D122.3070606@skynet.be> <30C3D96852F24138A4BE4053A9E770AE@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > Using [alert] as an information source might well be deemed precluded. > >Where does it say that in the lawbook? How about 73B1? +=+ Also 73A1. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 11 14:11:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:11:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B98DCF0.9080105@skynet.be> References: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be> <4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be> <4B98D122.3070606@skynet.be> <4B98D9C8.6050604@ulb.ac.be> <4B98DCF0.9080105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B98EBFA.7030307@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> Alain, from one tortuous mind to another: >>> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>>>> To use the rule on "aids of memory" to say that an alert is a precluded >>>>> method when he hasn't remembered, but is not precluded when he has >>>>> remembered is a twist of logic so quaint as to be able to be found only >>>>> in Richard's tortuous mind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Perhaps I can explain, as I'm familiar with tortuous minds :-P >>>> >>>> An alert isn't precluded when one hasn't remembered. >>>> Using it as an information source might well be deemed precluded. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Where does it say that in the lawbook? >>> >>> >>> >> Illegal information sources are described. Exception probat regulam in >> casis non exceptibus. >> > > Indeed they are. Now tell me where, in that description, a difference is > made between an explanation by partner that is yes/no the same as the > meaning one had already given to one's own bidding before hearing the > explanation. > > > What was known before arriving at the table (e g one's system) is AI. L7 IIRC but I don't have TFLB here. From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Thu Mar 11 16:07:07 2010 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:07:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> Where can I find more information on the "web movements" mentioned recently in the thread "Good Pair Games"? -- Peter Smulders From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Mar 11 17:36:01 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:36:01 +0800 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Every physician almost hath his > favourite disease." > ~ Henry Fielding . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:33 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>>> >>>> Law 40B2(a), second sentence: >>>> >>>> "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures >>>> and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >>> >>> But Richard Hills is being totally non responsive to the assertion that >>> the >>> law does not legalize alerts in face to face. If he would care to quote >>> some passage of law that does legalize such a thing I will quickly >>> dispatch >>> it. >>> >> Richard did so just above. The law authorizes RA's to prescribe >> alterting procedures, as you're well aware of. >> And there's nothing in the law that say this only applies to play with >> screens (or online play). >> >> So it's not Richard who's got to rationalize his view on this topic. >> > +=+ I am puzzled by the difficulty Roger has in accepting > that the quoted text authorizes what Richard and Harald > say it authorizes. It seems to be a plain statement. What > is the problem? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Roger may wish to go to the definitions for the meaning of alert within the game: "Alert ? A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation." bill > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Mar 11 18:22:46 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:22:46 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> Hi Peter I have copied the director instructions for a 10 table web mitchell from Jeanie - the movement wizard, below. Directors instructions and movement description This field is, broken down into two groups of tables for the purpose of board moving, and stay as one group for the purpose of moving the pairs. An odd number of sets of boards is required. The tables are numbered from 1 to 2N and there must be 2 copies of each board in play. Tables 1 to N/2 play the first set of boards and tables N/2+1 to 2N play the second set of boards. In the first group of tables the first board set goes on table 1, the second on 2, etc., with the excess sets on a relay table at the end. In the second set of tables the highest numbered set goes on table 2N, set 1 goes on table 2N-l, set 2 goes on table 2N-2, etc., with the excess again on a relay table. For example with 7 sets of boards and 10 tables the following arrangement can be made: Tables: 1 2 3 4 5 Boards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tables: 6 7 8 9 10 Boards: 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 In the first group, the boards move down one table at each change so that tables 1 through 5 play the boards in ascending order. In the second group the boards move down one table also, but tables 6 through 10 play the boards in descending order. The E-W pairs always move up 1 table ignoring any sectional boundaries and irrespective of the number of tables (never skip). All players play all boards in this event but all N-S's do not meet all E-W's. The movement software is free and is available for downloading from http://www.asecomputing.com/ bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Smulders" To: Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:07 PM Subject: [BLML] Web Movements > Where can I find more information on the "web movements" mentioned > recently in the thread "Good Pair Games"? > -- > Peter Smulders > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20100311/88b1a6e5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 11 22:26:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:26:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Agreeing with Herman just once [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Herman De Wael, March 2010: [big snip] >>Really Richard, you might do better in agreeing with me once. >>Just once. Herman De Wael, February 2010: >To rule that a claim is correct despite it being wrong at first >glance is very common. If there is a small trump out, for >example, and the only way that trump can make a trick is by >ruffing something, when there is always - in any line - an >overruff possible, means that the trump will not make any trick >and the claim will count for the full number of asked tricks. Richard Hills, February 2010: I agree 100% (not merely 63%) with Herman De Wael's accurate paraphrase of the essence of Law 70C3: "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. ...... and 2. ...... and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 11 22:40:07 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:40:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Agreeing with Herman just twice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael, 11th March 2010: [big snip] >>Really Richard, you might do better in agreeing with me once. >>Just once. * * * Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) 4S(3) Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) (1) 21-22 balanced (2) Intended as an opening bid of a weak 2 in hearts - TD summoned - TD determines that a sufficient bid of 3H would be a transfer to spades - so TD rules that North must pass for the rest of the auction and South can correct their insufficient bid to any call that they want. (3) Confused by the mention of a transfer to spades, South inadvertently corrects to 4S with their weak 2 in hearts. (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. (5) In tempo pass in accordance with Law 28A - RHO Required to Pass. (6) South now wishes to invoke Law 25A - Immediate Correction of Inadvertency - which South is entitled to do if North has not yet passed. How do you rule? Herman De Wael, 8th March 2005: >Easy - North has not yet passed! > >East has passed, and this pass is not considered out of turn, >but that does not mean North has also passed. > >North is required to pass, and he must do so. But he hasn't >(yet). [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 00:00:07 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:07 -0600 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 06:00 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Every physician almost hath his > favourite disease." > ~ Henry Fielding . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:33 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>>> >>>> Law 40B2(a), second sentence: >>>> >>>> "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures >>>> and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >>> >>> But Richard Hills is being totally non responsive to the assertion that >>> the >>> law does not legalize alerts in face to face. If he would care to quote >>> some passage of law that does legalize such a thing I will quickly >>> dispatch >>> it. >>> >> Richard did so just above. The law authorizes RA's to prescribe >> alterting procedures, as you're well aware of. >> And there's nothing in the law that say this only applies to play with >> screens (or online play). >> >> So it's not Richard who's got to rationalize his view on this topic. >> > +=+ I am puzzled by the difficulty Roger has in accepting > that the quoted text authorizes what Richard and Harald > say it authorizes. It seems to be a plain statement. What > is the problem? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Earlier this morning Richard Hills quoted law that he purported provides for face to face alerts. I observe that it is an interesting feat for a law [that if anything lays the foundation that prohibits such alerts] be asserted provides for them and so I challenged him to produce law that does provide for such alerts- and that when he does I would dispatch such notions. In issuing that challenge I was confident that if there exists a person that could succeed it would be him. However, in issuing that challenge I also was confident that there is no way to succeed because the law is emphatic on the matter. The notable absence of comment by RH suggests that either he is sleeping on it or that he has not yet found such a passage. The suggestion that L40 provides for face to face alert regulations continues to persist. The notion that alerts are illegal is derived from the facts that alerts are a matter of regulation and the law permits only regulations if they are not in conflict with law. As such, face to face alerts [henceforth, alerts] are unequivocally forbidden by law. L80B2f The Tournament Organizer?s powers and duties include: to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. A sufficient condition prohibiting alerts is that they are in conflict with law. Therefore a crucial question is whether alerts are in conflict with law; the answer is an unqualified yes: Alerts are a system of communication where their presence and absence communicates bridge information [such as what page of the partnership?s methods the player is (or is not) on ] other than by call or play. The law specifically prohibits communication between partners other than by call or play: L73B1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them. As the partner of the source of such communication is necessarily present he therefore receives, and by the statement of law is commanded to receive, the communication: L20F5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation ?.. ?Mistaken explanation? here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) The player MUST [emphasis mine] call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, In other words, because of the expectation requiring this law be satisfied the player is compelled to exert the effort to receive the communication and process it; otherwise the consequence is that this would be in conflict with both natural law and bridge law as he cannot know that an infraction has occurred and he therefore will necessarily fail to satisfy the command of L20F5b. Alerts, being a prearranged system of communication other than by call or play between partners are by law worse than cheating: L73B2. The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 12 01:18:15 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:18:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Prerau, Saving the Daylight, page 120: "Although only standard time was legal in Connecticut, several localities used DST illicitly. But in 1927 the citizens of the village of Hazardville stepped well beyond state regulations by utilizing _three_ time systems: The churches and the stores in Hazardville followed daylight saving time, and farmers in the outlying districts, and farmers in the outlying districts generally stuck to standard time. In addition, Hazardville came up with a third time, dubbed "half-time" -- one-half hour advanced. The town's mills adopted half-time as a compromise, since the mills dealt with both farmers and villagers, and then Hazardville had three times in simultaneous operation. One observer commented that those who attempted to keep themselves in conformity with the three different Hazardville times had little time for anything else." Roger Pewick: >.....The notable absence of comment by RH suggests that either >he is sleeping on it or that he has not yet found such a >passage...... Richard Hills: The first option is correct, since Tony Musgrove and myself are the only active blmlers keeping ourselves in conformity with Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time. (In winter Australia has three time zones, but in our summer Australia has five time zones.) Roger Pewick: >...A sufficient condition prohibiting alerts is that they are >in conflict with law... Richard Hills: Agreed. And a sufficient condition permitting an alert system is that it is permitted by law, in this case Law 40B2(a). The problem is a conflict between Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays." on the one hand, and between Laws 20F and 40B2 on the other hand. The Lawmakers could have made a crystal clear clarification for Roger by adding this cross-reference to the end of Law 73A1: "(but see Laws 20F and 40B2)" since the word "but" means that Laws 20F and 40B2 over-ride Law 73A1 to the extent of any inconsistency. "But" the Lawmakers were faced with a dilemma. They could either insert zillions of cross-references into The Fabulous Law Book to gratify blml sesquipedalian pedants (such as Roger and Me). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_and_Me Or the Lawmakers could keep cross-references to the necessary minimum to avoid confusing the very many grass-roots non- pedantic Directors. Introduction, fifth paragraph, second sentence: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, ***nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference***." WBF Laws Committee, Tuesday 8th September 2009, item 3: "The committee was told of experience of a situation where a player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards originally. The Director would have liked to redeal the board. ***Referring again to the principle that a specific law over- rides a general law***, the committee agreed that Law 13 must be applied and, if the board cannot be corrected and played normally, an adjusted score awarded." Richard Hills: Law 40B2(a) specifically authorises the creation of alerting procedures, so despite the omission of a cross-reference in Law 73A1, Law 40B2(a) over-rides the more general Law 73A1. "Sesquipedalian" spell checked. Best witches 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 01:55:52 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:55:52 -0600 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 18:18 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > David Prerau, Saving the Daylight, page 120: > > "Although only standard time was legal in Connecticut, several > localities used DST illicitly. But in 1927 the citizens of the > village of Hazardville stepped well beyond state regulations by > utilizing _three_ time systems: The churches and the stores in > Hazardville followed daylight saving time, and farmers in the > outlying districts, and farmers in the outlying districts > generally stuck to standard time. In addition, Hazardville > came up with a third time, dubbed "half-time" -- one-half hour > advanced. The town's mills adopted half-time as a compromise, > since the mills dealt with both farmers and villagers, and then > Hazardville had three times in simultaneous operation. One > observer commented that those who attempted to keep themselves > in conformity with the three different Hazardville times had > little time for anything else." > > Roger Pewick: > >>.....The notable absence of comment by RH suggests that either >>he is sleeping on it or that he has not yet found such a >>passage...... > > Richard Hills: > > The first option is correct, since Tony Musgrove and myself are > the only active blmlers keeping ourselves in conformity with > Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time. (In winter Australia > has three time zones, but in our summer Australia has five time > zones.) > > Roger Pewick: > >>...A sufficient condition prohibiting alerts is that they are >>in conflict with law... > > Richard Hills: > > Agreed. And a sufficient condition permitting an alert system > is that it is permitted by law, in this case Law 40B2(a). The provision permitting alert regulation exists. Such provision does not extend to mandate. The task before any entity desiring to construct alert regulations is to do it in such a way that no conflict arises with L73B1- or any other law. No entity has ever done so. This can be explained due to its impossibility. regards roger pewick > The problem is a conflict between Law 73A1: > > "Communication between partners during the auction and play > shall be effected only by means of calls and plays." > > on the one hand, and between Laws 20F and 40B2 on the other > hand. > > The Lawmakers could have made a crystal clear clarification for > Roger by adding this cross-reference to the end of Law 73A1: > > "(but see Laws 20F and 40B2)" > > since the word "but" means that Laws 20F and 40B2 over-ride Law > 73A1 to the extent of any inconsistency. > > "But" the Lawmakers were faced with a dilemma. They could > either insert zillions of cross-references into The Fabulous > Law Book to gratify blml sesquipedalian pedants (such as Roger > and Me). > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_and_Me > > Or the Lawmakers could keep cross-references to the necessary > minimum to avoid confusing the very many grass-roots non- > pedantic Directors. > > Introduction, fifth paragraph, second sentence: > > "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any > law, ***nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference***." > > WBF Laws Committee, Tuesday 8th September 2009, item 3: > > "The committee was told of experience of a situation where a > player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards > originally. The Director would have liked to redeal the board. > ***Referring again to the principle that a specific law over- > rides a general law***, the committee agreed that Law 13 must be > applied and, if the board cannot be corrected and played > normally, an adjusted score awarded." > > Richard Hills: > > Law 40B2(a) specifically authorises the creation of alerting > procedures, so despite the omission of a cross-reference in Law > 73A1, Law 40B2(a) over-rides the more general Law 73A1. > > "Sesquipedalian" spell checked. > > Best witches > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 12 04:08:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:08:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." Roger Pewick: >The provision permitting alert regulation exists. Richard Hills: Yes. Roger Pewick: >Such provision does not extend to mandate. Richard Hills: The word used in the second sentence of Law 40B2(a) is "may", which is defined in the Introduction as "failure to do it is not wrong". Thus a Regulating Authority is not _compelled_ to create alerting procedures, but the RA has an untrammelled _right_ to create alerting procedures. Roger Pewick: >The task before any entity desiring to construct alert >regulations is to do it in such a way that no conflict >arises with L73B1 - or any other law. Richard Hills: No, the task before the Roger Pewick entity is to reread the quoted WBF LC minute in my previous post on the parallel thread. (I have started this new thread since I doubt many blmlers will be interested in meta-theory pasquinades of constitutional law.) And the task before the Roger Pewick entity is to realise that for the purposes of Duplicate Bridge jurisprudence any regulation made pursuant to and fully consistent with a very particular and very specific Law -- for example, a regulation made pursuant to and fully consistent with the very particular and very specific Law 93C3(b): "With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.* * The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action." -- has the same status as its parent Law unless and until the regulation contravenes a criterion of the parent Law. For example, a Law 93C3(b) English Bridge Union regulation could be invalidated if their national Parliament at Westminster passed an Act requiring greater amounts of due process in the appeal procedures of non-profit organisations. 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 Mar 12 06:02:27 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:02:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Agreeing with Herman just thrice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski, 7th September 2005: >>>.....I think we got to the point where one might reproduce one >>>the David Burn's wonderful contributions when someone made some >>>obviously light-hearted statement and was severely reprimanded >>>by David Stevenson. David Burn countered with: >>> >>> "These are known as jokes. Of course such frivolity has >>> little place on an august mailing list as this one but >>> I am sure our contributor will soon see the error of >>> his ways under your helpful guidance." >>> >>>We are about to become a very august mailing list..... Adam Beneschan, 7th September 2005: >>That would be a shame, especially since we are seven days into >>September. It would feel like a missed opportunity. Herman De Wael, 8th September 2005: >now that deserves a rofl Richard Hills, 12th March 2010: I agree 99% with Herman. My 1% quibble is that acronyms can be fun for those who know what they mean. My very favourite acronym is the recursive TLA = Three Letter Acronym. But acronyms you do not know can be as irritating as a well-known blmler constantly concluding his posts with "What's the problem?" So as a style guide I suggest that non-bridge acronyms and "What's the problem?" be thrown into the same rubbish bin. For those blmlers who are not hep to the jive of internet acronyms, ro(t)fl = rolling on (the) floor laughing. What's the problem? Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 12 10:54:09 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:54:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B9A0F41.3000809@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > The first option is correct, since Tony Musgrove and myself are > the only active blmlers keeping ourselves in conformity with > Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time. (In winter Australia > has three time zones, but in our summer Australia has five time > zones.) > Does that still include the special time zone on the southern coast of Western Australia? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 12 10:57:31 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:57:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B98EBFA.7030307@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B98A5B8.4010306@skynet.be> <4B98B7C4.1040105@ulb.ac.be> <4B98D122.3070606@skynet.be> <4B98D9C8.6050604@ulb.ac.be> <4B98DCF0.9080105@skynet.be> <4B98EBFA.7030307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B9A100B.4050506@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > What was known before arriving at the table (e g one's system) is AI. L7 > IIRC but I don't have TFLB here. > L16A1d you mean. OK, I can grant you that. Maybe this is the solution. Grattan, can you confirm that this is the Lawmakers intention? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Mar 12 11:38:26 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:38:26 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> Message-ID: <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:22, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > Hi Peter > I have copied the director instructions for a 10 table web mitchell > from Jeanie - the movement wizard, below. The Jeanie movements only list web movements for even numbers of tables. I also found some other information on the web - Marvin's article at http://www.marvinfrench.com/p1/bridgetopics/ fairness.pdf and Bridgeguys at http://www.bridgeguys.com/WGlossary/GlossW.html Marvin's article suggests that it is possible (though perhaps not easy) to run a web movement for an odd number of tables. How is this done? Since Marvin was talking in his post here about web movements being used by clubs in their regular games, presumably they must be able to handle any number of tables. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100312/d347b037/attachment-0001.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Mar 12 11:45:27 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:45:27 +0800 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B9A0F41.3000809@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> The first option is correct, since Tony Musgrove and myself are >> the only active blmlers keeping ourselves in conformity with >> Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time. (In winter Australia >> has three time zones, but in our summer Australia has five time >> zones.) >> > > Does that still include the special time zone on the southern coast of > Western Australia? Bill Kemp No Extract from Wikipedia a.. One of the most unusual time zones is the Australian Central Western Time zone (CWST), which is a small strip of Western Australia from the border of South Australia west to 125.5?E, just before Caiguna. It is 8? hours ahead of UTC (UTC+8:45) and covers an area of about 35,000 km2, larger than Belgium, but has a population of about 200. Although unofficial, it is universally respected in the area-without it, the time gap in standard time at 129?E (the WA/SA border) would be 1.5 hours. See Time in Australia. > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Mar 12 12:51:23 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:51:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B9A2ABB.8060102@yahoo.co.uk> [Law 40B2(a)] The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods. [Law 73A1] Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays. [Nige1] Richard is right that Law 40B2 permits alerting and Roger is right that that other laws restrict alerting to certain contexts (eg when screens are in use). As Roger says, according to the letter of other laws, Alerting is illegal in ordinary face-to-face Bridge. That Alerting is permitted is another contradiction in the application of the laws. Richard demonstrates that from such a contradiction, you can derive any absurdity. Simpler rules would lead to fewer contradictions. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 12 16:36:29 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:36:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B9A5F7D.2010004@ulb.ac.be> Roger Pewick a ?crit : > > The notion that alerts are illegal is derived from the facts that alerts are > a matter of regulation and the law permits only regulations if they are not > in conflict with law. As such, face to face alerts [henceforth, alerts] are > unequivocally forbidden by law. > So, they are illegal because they are regulated, and they aren't regulated, because they are illegal. Do you shave yourself ? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 12 16:56:47 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:56:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> On Mar 11, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > From: "Grattan" > >> +=+ I am puzzled by the difficulty Roger has in accepting >> that the quoted text authorizes what Richard and Harald >> say it authorizes. It seems to be a plain statement. What >> is the problem? > > Earlier this morning Richard Hills quoted law that he purported > provides for > face to face alerts. I observe that it is an interesting feat for > a law > [that if anything lays the foundation that prohibits such alerts] be > asserted provides for them and so I challenged him to produce law > that does > provide for such alerts- and that when he does I would dispatch such > notions. In issuing that challenge I was confident that if there > exists a > person that could succeed it would be him. However, in issuing that > challenge I also was confident that there is no way to succeed > because the > law is emphatic on the matter. The notable absence of comment by RH > suggests > that either he is sleeping on it or that he has not yet found such a > passage. > > The suggestion that L40 provides for face to face alert regulations > continues to persist. > > The notion that alerts are illegal is derived from the facts that > alerts are > a matter of regulation and the law permits only regulations if they > are not > in conflict with law. As such, face to face alerts [henceforth, > alerts] are > unequivocally forbidden by law. > > L80B2f The Tournament Organizer?s powers and duties include: to > announce > regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. > > A sufficient condition prohibiting alerts is that they are in > conflict with > law. > > Therefore a crucial question is whether alerts are in conflict with > law; > the answer is an unqualified yes: > > Alerts are a system of communication where their presence and absence > communicates bridge information [such as what page of the > partnership?s > methods the player is (or is not) on ] other than by call or play. > > The law specifically prohibits communication between partners other > than by > call or play: > > L73B1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner > in which > calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions > asked or > not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not > given to > them. Wouldn't it seem a bit odd for the authors of TFLB to have explicitly forbidden communication between partners by means of alerts if alerts themselves were not legal? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 12 17:41:42 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:41:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> References: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B9A6EC6.9030600@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Mar 11, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > > >> From: "Grattan" >> >> >>> +=+ I am puzzled by the difficulty Roger has in accepting >>> that the quoted text authorizes what Richard and Harald >>> say it authorizes. It seems to be a plain statement. What >>> is the problem? >>> >> Earlier this morning Richard Hills quoted law that he purported >> provides for >> face to face alerts. I observe that it is an interesting feat for >> a law >> [that if anything lays the foundation that prohibits such alerts] be >> asserted provides for them and so I challenged him to produce law >> that does >> provide for such alerts- and that when he does I would dispatch such >> notions. In issuing that challenge I was confident that if there >> exists a >> person that could succeed it would be him. However, in issuing that >> challenge I also was confident that there is no way to succeed >> because the >> law is emphatic on the matter. The notable absence of comment by RH >> suggests >> that either he is sleeping on it or that he has not yet found such a >> passage. >> >> The suggestion that L40 provides for face to face alert regulations >> continues to persist. >> >> The notion that alerts are illegal is derived from the facts that >> alerts are >> a matter of regulation and the law permits only regulations if they >> are not >> in conflict with law. As such, face to face alerts [henceforth, >> alerts] are >> unequivocally forbidden by law. >> >> L80B2f The Tournament Organizer?s powers and duties include: to >> announce >> regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. >> >> A sufficient condition prohibiting alerts is that they are in >> conflict with >> law. >> >> Therefore a crucial question is whether alerts are in conflict with >> law; >> the answer is an unqualified yes: >> >> Alerts are a system of communication where their presence and absence >> communicates bridge information [such as what page of the >> partnership?s >> methods the player is (or is not) on ] other than by call or play. >> >> The law specifically prohibits communication between partners other >> than by >> call or play: >> >> L73B1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner >> in which >> calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions >> asked or >> not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not >> given to >> them. >> > > Wouldn't it seem a bit odd for the authors of TFLB to have explicitly > forbidden communication between partners by means of alerts if alerts > themselves were not legal? > > I see the point, but "extraneous remarks or gestures" aren't legal, and they mentioned it. I think the answer to Roger is to point the error in logic : "The notion that alerts are illegal is derived from the facts that alerts are a matter of regulation and the law permits only regulations if they are not in conflict with law. As such, face to face alerts[henceforth, alerts] are unequivocally forbidden by law." So, because TFLB allow regulations only when they don't contradict the law, andbecause alerts contradict the law, alerts aren't allowed ; and because alerts aren't allowed, they're illegal.. This looks very much like /petitio principii/ , and he forgets that TFLB itself allows putting in place alerting procedures. Best regards Alain From tedying at yahoo.com Fri Mar 12 19:31:17 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:31:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> From: Gordon Rainsford To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 5:38:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Web Movements Marvin's article suggests that it is possible (though perhaps not easy) to run a web movement for an odd number of tables. How is this done? Since Marvin was talking in his post here about web movements being used by clubs in their regular games, presumably they must be able to handle any number of tables. ________________________________ There are notes from the tech files in ACBLSCOR. These include the "variations" to run odd number tables from 15-25 tables and how to correct placing bye tables in the wrong place. The full section from the tech files is included below. -Ted Ying. WEB MOVEMENTS - BY JOHN "SPIDER" HARRIS It is not uncommon to have, at least in small tournaments, sessions of from 16-22 tables in which a movement of reasonable technical adequacy is required, such as in a Master's Pairs or an Open Pairs Finals. In the past the standard procedure has been to use twinned 3/4 movements and combined match pointing. These movements are universally disliked by players, and are not too popular with directors. They do have the purported advantage provided by rotating comparisons, but this is the subject of some disagreement. In all other respects the suggested movements of this paper are, in my opinion, superior. In effect, these movements consist of two sub-sections in which the boards circulate independently, while the moving pairs progress to the other sub-section after playing at the highest numbered table in one. In all cases, the traveling pairs move each round to the next higher numbered table, boards move next lower within each sub-section. The eighteen table game will be described in detail; the others will be understood by simply glancing at the master sheet and remembering what happened in the 18-table progression. BASIC DISTRIBUTION OF BOARDS Tables 1-9 play one set ("A"), tables 10-18 another ("B"). Stationary pairs at 1-9 play the boards in ascending sequence, those at 10-18 in descending. Boards 1-2 start at Table 1, 3-4 at 2, etc. up to 17-18 at 9. The board order is inverted and displaced in the other sub-section: 25-26 start at Table 18, 1-2 at 17, 3-4 at 16, etc. to 15-16 at 10. Note that on round one, Boards 1-16 may be duplicated in the two sub-sections, 17-18 and 25-26 may either be duplicated at tables 9 and 18 respectively, or pre-duplicated (preferred). Boards 19-24 must be duplicated by the staff. MOVEMENT OF BOARDS AND PLAYERS Traveling pairs always move to the next higher numbered table. THERE IS NO SKIP. "A" boards move down until they reach Table 1 at which point they go to a bye-stand to re-enter at Table 9. "B" boards move down until they reach Table 10 at which point they go to the other bye-stand to re-enter at Table 18. SEEDED TABLES Assuming that Table 1 is to be seeded, the only suitable* tables are: 16 tables - 1, 5, 9, 13 18 tables - 1, 7, 13 20 tables - 1, 9 22 tables - 1, 12 *Actually, in some cases other NUMBERS will work, but in 20 and 22 table progressions only two tables will mutually meet in both directions. PAIRS.081 (PAGE 5) __________________ SEATING ASSIGNMENTS In Open Pair Finals, there is the restriction that no two pairs shall meet who met in the qualifying session. Where there are only two qualifying sections, the A qualifiers are simply made N/S, the B's E/W. For three qualifying sections, a schedule accompanies each master sheet for assigning pair numbers. It is assumed that the use of these progressions will never occur where there are more than three qualifying sections. VARIATIONS BY MILLARD NACHTWEY The following is for an odd number of tables using the Web. This will work for 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 or 25 tables. Boards 1-26 are in play; every pair plays every board. Subtract 13 from the number of tables. This will leave an even fragment. To start the game, pass out the first set of boards in order, two per table, to the first 13 tables. The fragment that remains will get boards from two additional set, (at least a partial third set of boards will be needed) just as if it were a small even-numbered web. For instance, with 19 tables Table Boards 14 1-2 15 3-4 16 5-6 Bye stand (incoming boards in regular order (7-8 next) Bye stand (outgoing boards 17 3-4 18 1-2 19 25-26 Bye stand (incoming boards in reverse order (23-24 next) Boards go into play at table 19 from the byestand, out of play at table 17 (the high half of the little "web"). Those 3 tables will play their boards in reverse order. Boards from the other set go into play from the buy stand at table 16 (just below the midpoint of the little "web"), and out of play at table 1 (boards move regularly from table 14 to table 13, since table 14 always the same boards as table 1. E/W pairs move to the next higher table each round. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 13 02:45:31 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:45:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> <4B9A6EC6.9030600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <28E2A4FFF8BA430F9704FF085D32FE1C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? >> "The notion that alerts are illegal is derived from the facts that alerts are a matter of regulation and the law permits only regulations if they are not in conflict with law. As such, face to face alerts[henceforth, alerts] are unequivocally forbidden by law." So, because TFLB allow regulations only when they don't contradict the law, andbecause alerts contradict the law, alerts aren't allowed ; and because alerts aren't allowed, they're illegal.. This looks very much like /petitio principii/ , and he forgets that TFLB itself allows putting in place alerting procedures. +=+ An alerting regulation is authorized by Law 40B2(a). A regulation that is specifically authorized in the laws is not in conflict with the laws. The general statement in Law 80B2(f) applies where there is no specific power of regulation granted elsewhere in the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Mar 13 09:46:54 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:46:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <28E2A4FFF8BA430F9704FF085D32FE1C@Mildred> References: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> <4B9A6EC6.9030600@ulb.ac.be> <28E2A4FFF8BA430F9704FF085D32FE1C@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B9B50FE.1070805@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] +=+ An alerting regulation is authorized by Law 40B2(a). A regulation that is specifically authorized in the laws is not in conflict with the laws.The general statement in Law 80B2(f) applies where there is no specific power of regulation granted elsewhere in the laws. [Nige1] The law allows alerting but restricts partnership communication to calls and plays. No contradiction in principle. Alerting is legal, for example, with screens or in an on-line context, because partners are unaware of their partners' alerts and explanations. Roger just points out that the alerting regulations that most local legislators implement *in face-to-face Bridge* seem to be illegal. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 13 12:20:01 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:20:01 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> <4B9A6EC6.9030600@ulb.ac.be><28E2A4FFF8BA430F9704FF085D32FE1C@Mildred> <4B9B50FE.1070805@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > > Roger just points out that the alerting regulations that most local > legislators implement *in face-to-face Bridge* seem to be illegal. > +=+ To 'communicate' entails the sharing of information. If one partner transmits information that it is illegal to communicate the other partner must not 'receive' it, avoiding its 'communication'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sat Mar 13 15:11:09 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:11:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 46B Message-ID: <1268489469.19339.1364629855@webmail.messagingengine.com> I could do with some guidance on the meaning of the language "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" in Law 46B. Certainly, if declarer says "spade" with a raised finger, the intent is incontrovertible. But if declarer says "spade" and nothing else, when any play other than high would be ridiculous regardless of the player's standard, may an incontrovertible intent to play high be inferred? David Babcock From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 13 16:57:48 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:57:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> <4B9A6EC6.9030600@ulb.ac.be> <28E2A4FFF8BA430F9704FF085D32FE1C@Mildred> <4B9B50FE.1070805@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:20:01 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Every physician almost hath his > favourite disease." > ~ Henry Fielding . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 8:46 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > > >> >> Roger just points out that the alerting regulations that most local >> legislators implement *in face-to-face Bridge* seem to be illegal. >> > +=+ To 'communicate' entails the sharing of information. If one > partner transmits information that it is illegal to communicate the > other partner must not 'receive' it, avoiding its 'communication'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sorry if I am missing the thread, but.... It was well-agreed on BLML that one could use unexpected alerts or failures to alert to correctly describe partner's bid to the opps. In other words, I must bid as if I have misunderstood partner's bid, but I am allowed to explain his bid correctly. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Mar 13 21:01:38 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:01:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> <4B9A6EC6.9030600@ulb.ac.be><28E2A4FFF8BA430F9704FF085D32FE1C@Mildred> <4B9B50FE.1070805@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B9BEF22.5080104@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] +=+ To 'communicate' entails the sharing of information. If one partner transmits information that it is illegal to communicate the other partner must not 'receive' it, avoiding its 'communication'. [Nige1] When you alert or explain, you transmit information to partner. At face-to-face Bridge, partner receives and understands that information. He may have to act on it. (See Robert's example, when an alert of explanation is incorrect). Some BLMLers are brainwashed to uncritically accept WBF newspeak but many ordinary players trust dictionaries that call this kind of thing "communication". From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Mar 13 21:22:14 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:22:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9BEF22.5080104@yahoo.co.uk> References: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> <4B9A6EC6.9030600@ulb.ac.be> <28E2A4FFF8BA430F9704FF085D32FE1C@Mildred> <4B9B50FE.1070805@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9BEF22.5080104@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On 13 March 2010 21:01, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Grattan] > +=+ To 'communicate' entails the sharing of information. If one > partner transmits information that it is illegal to communicate the > other partner must not 'receive' it, avoiding its 'communication'. > > [Nige1] > When you alert or explain, you transmit information to partner. At > face-to-face Bridge, partner receives and understands that information. > He may have to act on it. (See Robert's example, when an alert of > explanation is incorrect). > > Some BLMLers are brainwashed to uncritically accept WBF newspeak but > many ordinary players trust dictionaries that call this kind of thing > "communication". Most ordinary bridge players have been taught in their club, through their NBO magazine etc how the alert procedure works. Some (many) plays in clubs where they don't care. Extremely few of them have ever read the bridge laws. And if they did, they wouldn't encounter the problem you envisage here. And you're wrong about the WBF brainwash too.:-) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Mar 14 00:38:22 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:38:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net> <4B9A6EC6.9030600@ulb.ac.be> <28E2A4FFF8BA430F9704FF085D32FE1C@Mildred> <4B9B50FE.1070805@yahoo.co.uk> <4B9BEF22.5080104@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B9C21EE.5090800@yahoo.co.uk> [Harald Skj?ran] And you're wrong about the WBF brainwash too.:-) [Nigel] I don't think so :( Why do so few BLMLers remark on contradictions like that pointed out by Robert Frick? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 14 04:13:01 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:13:01 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <1BE2FF44-B637-4A3A-A9B8-E23C38FBAC78@starpower.net><4B9A6EC6.9030600@ulb.ac.be><28E2A4FFF8BA430F9704FF085D32FE1C@Mildred><4B9B50FE.1070805@yahoo.co.uk><4B9BEF22.5080104@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <969175BC2B7D495AA0D29FC3FAC6803F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > On 13 March 2010 21:01, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: >> [Grattan] >> +=+ To 'communicate' entails the sharing of information. If one >> partner transmits information that it is illegal to communicate the >> other partner must not 'receive' it, avoiding its 'communication'. >> >> [Nige1] >> When you alert or explain, you transmit information to partner. At >> face-to-face Bridge, partner receives and understands that information. >> He may have to act on it. (See Robert's example, when an alert of >> explanation is incorrect). >> >> Some BLMLers are brainwashed to uncritically accept WBF newspeak but >> many ordinary players trust dictionaries that call this kind of thing >> "communication". > +=+ I was quoting from the dictionary. +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Mar 14 21:19:19 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:19:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B9D44C7.20209@nhcc.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > A correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! > > What we need is an understanding that a correct explanation of a correct > bid is AI. As far as I can tell, expected alerts and non-alerts are AI (L16A1c and not in 16B1a), unexpected ones are UI (L16B1a), but _all_ explanations (reply to a question, L16B1a) are UI. Herman has identified a problem, though in practice everyone will ignore it. Rubens wants to solve the problem by making all _correct_ alerts and explanations AI. Originally I thought that idea was silly, but I've come to like it. It solves a lot of problems with little if any loss, though it does represent change. It would be especially valuable at lower levels of play. The whole concept of "expected" requires mind reading to enforce, but that never bothers anyone but me. From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Mar 14 21:38:57 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:38:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (no subject) Message-ID: <2da24b8e1003141338h7b5f78dep3044a3a795964a1f@mail.gmail.com> I had an idea for what I think might be an interesting game... I think that it would be pretty simple to play and to code; but I think it still sounds intriguing. What do folks think of the following: The game is based on assembling an army out of individual fighters. Each players builds his/her army, creates a rule set for said army, and then the two forces are set lose on one another. What is unique about this, is that everything is very abstract: Assume that each fighter is represented as a hexagon. The hexagon has one very strong face (straight ahead). Two strong faces (2 o'clock and 10 o'clock). Two very weak faces (4 o'clock and 8 o'clock) and one very weak face (the rear). Groups of fighters get assembled together into an army. (Picture yourself placing all your units onto a large sheet of hex paper). When you build your army, the single most important rule is the following: The ?strength? of any individual piece is based on the depth of the number of units behind it. (Think about an old fashioned pike square) You ?program? your army by specifying a rules set for the different faces for individual units. I can specify that any given face of a fighter is either attracted or repelled by friendly units and / or foes. You can also specify the degree of attraction/repulsion... This (comparatively) simple set of rules could yield a lot of interesting behaviors. (For what its worth, I came up with this idea trying to figure out a simple rule set that could be used to model something like the Battle of Leuctra...). As always, thoughts and comments are welcome... -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100314/6815e9d2/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 14 22:02:59 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:02:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9D44C7.20209@nhcc.net> 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> Message-ID: <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Herman De Wael wrote: > > A correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! > > > > What we need is an understanding that a correct explanation of a > > correct bid is AI. > > As far as I can tell, expected alerts and non-alerts are AI (L16A1c and not in > 16B1a), unexpected ones are UI (L16B1a), but _all_ explanations (reply to a > question, L16B1a) are UI. Herman has identified a problem, though in practice > everyone will ignore it. Rubens wants to solve the problem by making all > _correct_ alerts and explanations AI. Originally I thought that idea was silly, but > I've come to like it. It solves a lot of problems with little if any loss, though it does > represent change. It would be especially valuable at lower levels of play. > > The whole concept of "expected" requires mind reading to enforce, but that never > bothers anyone but me. To be a bit pedantic: No information arising from an alert or missing alert, whether expected or unexpected, is ever AI for partner. So although you (usually) are entitled to assume that your partner has remembered your partnership understanding, the confirming information from an expected alert or missing alert is in itself unauthorized for you. I don't see how this can ever really matter unless your partner usually forgets the agreed understanding, in which case you probably had better change your agreements. Regards Sven From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Sun Mar 14 22:40:13 2010 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:40:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100314214018.94156485C252@relay2.webreus.nl> At 02:47 13-3-2010, Ted Ying wrote: >There are notes from the tech files in ACBLSCOR. These include the >"variations" to run odd number >tables from 15-25 tables and how to correct placing bye tables in >the wrong place. The full section >from the tech files is included below. [ ... ] Those instructions provide an adequate recipe to construct the Web Movements, as long as it is kept in mind that in the example it is assumed that there are 13 rounds, 26 boards and 18 tables (19 in the "variation" for odd number of tables). It is not difficult to generalize this to other numbers of tables and rounds. Web Movements for even number of tables may be found in the "Jeanie" data base. Thanks to all who responded. -- Peter Smulders From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 14 22:50:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:50:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B9A2ABB.8060102@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Richard demonstrates that from such a contradiction, you can >derive any absurdity. Richard Hills: Definitely NOT what I demonstrated. Rather, I demonstrated that in some circumstances a lowly regulation can over-ride a mighty Law. For example, a regulation created pursuant to Law 93C3(b): "With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.* * The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action." necessarily repeals or modifies one or more clauses of Law 92 and/or Law 93. The Roger Pewick axiom is that a regulation can never contradict a Law. Either Roger Pewick is incorrect, or Law 93C3(b) is a meaningless Law which can never be used. Nigel Guthrie: >Simpler rules would lead to fewer contradictions. Richard Hills: The Lawbook does not have any contradictions, merely (as the Introduction states) "omission of a cross-reference". To prevent future rodomontades by blml pedants, the 2018 Introduction to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge could state the obvious: "A specific Law takes precedence over a more general Law, and a regulation created pursuant to a specific Law also takes precedence over a more general Law." And Now For Something Completely Different Yesterday I played in a sponsored team in the Swiss Teams at Batemans Bay, a coastal town near Canberra. At half time a team from Ulladulla (another coastal town to the north of Batemans Bay) was in first place, with my team 1 vp behind, and the rest of the field some distance away. When I returned from lunch I looked at the scoreboard and noticed that my team was not drawn against the Ulladulla team, but was instead scheduled to play a much weaker team. I notified the Director, who discovered that a software glitch had caused the computer to generate a Round Four draw based upon the results after Round Two. So the draw was corrected, we played the Ulladulla team in Round Four, and they thrashed us. When the smoke had cleared at the end of the event the Ulladulla team was in first place and we had limped to equal third place. One of my team-mates, Arjuna De Livera, remarked with dry wit, "You took the wrong finesse." Sure I had a moral obligation to correct the Director's error. But did I have a Lawful obligation to correct a Director's error which benefited my team? If so, please quote the Law number. 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 Sun Mar 14 23:34:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:34:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ To 'communicate' entails the sharing of information. If one >>partner transmits information that it is illegal to communicate >>the other partner must not 'receive' it, avoiding its >>'communication'. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Robert Frick: >Sorry if I am missing the thread, but.... It was well-agreed on >BLML that one could use unexpected alerts or failures to alert >to correctly describe partner's bid to the opps. In other words, >I must bid as if I have misunderstood partner's bid, but I am >allowed to explain his bid correctly. Richard Hills: Yes, by putting "receive" in inverted commas, Grattan presumably had the intended meaning "receive and use for one's own benefit". Under Laws 16B and 73C one is _required_ to receive UI which partner has transmitted, so that one can determine which of one's logical alternatives is not demonstrably suggested. And Robert Frick is correct on his main point. One cannot use UI from partner to remember one's system (Laws 40C3(a) and 75A), but there is also an additional requirement (Law 20F) to give correct explanations of the pre-existing mutually agreed system to the opponents. Nigel Guthrie: >>>Why do so few BLMLers remark on contradictions like that >>>pointed out by Robert Frick? Richard Hills: The reason so few blmlers remarked is that Robert Frick pointed out a subtlety, not a contradiction. Edmund Burke (1729-1797): "Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that of course they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour." 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 Mar 15 00:02:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:02:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B9A100B.4050506@skynet.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>What was known before arriving at the table (e g one's system) >>is AI. L7 if I recall but I don't have TFLB here. Herman De Wael: >L16A1d you mean. >OK, I can grant you that. >Maybe this is the solution. >Grattan, can you confirm that this is the Lawmakers intention? Law 16A1 (c) & (d): A player may use information in the auction or play if: ..... (c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or (d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information. Law 7B1: Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Law 16A2: Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations. 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 Mar 15 00:15:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:15:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 46B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1268489469.19339.1364629855@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: David Babcock: >I could do with some guidance on the meaning of the language >"except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" >in Law 46B. > >Certainly, if declarer says "spade" with a raised finger, the >intent is incontrovertible. But if declarer says "spade" and >nothing else, when any play other than high would be ridiculous >regardless of the player's standard, may an incontrovertible >intent to play high be inferred? Pocket Oxford Dictionary: incontrovertible, a. Indisputable. indisputable, a. Not disputable. disputable, a. Open to question. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 15 08:44:38 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:44:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> 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> Message-ID: <4B9DE566.7020001@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Steve Willner >> Herman De Wael wrote: >>> A correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! >>> >>> What we need is an understanding that a correct explanation of a >>> correct bid is AI. >> >> As far as I can tell, expected alerts and non-alerts are AI (L16A1c and > not in >> 16B1a), unexpected ones are UI (L16B1a), but _all_ explanations (reply to > a >> question, L16B1a) are UI. Herman has identified a problem, though in > practice >> everyone will ignore it. Rubens wants to solve the problem by making all >> _correct_ alerts and explanations AI. Originally I thought that idea was > silly, but >> I've come to like it. It solves a lot of problems with little if any > loss, though it does >> represent change. It would be especially valuable at lower levels of > play. >> >> The whole concept of "expected" requires mind reading to enforce, but that > never >> bothers anyone but me. > > To be a bit pedantic: No information arising from an alert or missing alert, > whether expected or unexpected, is ever AI for partner. > > So although you (usually) are entitled to assume that your partner has > remembered your partnership understanding, the confirming information from > an expected alert or missing alert is in itself unauthorized for you. > > I don't see how this can ever really matter unless your partner usually > forgets the agreed understanding, in which case you probably had better > change your agreements. > Well, both Konrad and myself gave an example of when it matters, so you're sentence above is manifestly wrong. I like the idea of having "expected" explanations become AI, just as expected alerts already are. If needed, an explanation can be deemed "expected" if it conforms to the meaning the bidder apparently gave to his bid (by checking that it conforms to his hand) or if the bidder can have the TD accept that he intentionally misbid. That last thing does not require "mind-reading", as Steve suggests, or at least not more than is presently already required in deciding on misbids and psyches. > Regards Sven > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 15 11:40:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:40:53 -0000 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> <4B9DE566.7020001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6AC2922F0B85449FB14B5848257C6904@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Steve Willner >>> Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> A correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! >>>> >>>> What we need is an understanding that a correct explanation of a >>>> correct bid is AI. >>> >>> As far as I can tell, expected alerts and non-alerts are AI (L16A1c and >> not in >>> 16B1a), unexpected ones are UI (L16B1a), but _all_ explanations (reply >>> to >> a >>> question, L16B1a) are UI. Herman has identified a problem, though in >> practice >>> everyone will ignore it. Rubens wants to solve the problem by making >>> all >>> _correct_ alerts and explanations AI. Originally I thought that idea >>> was >> silly, but >>> I've come to like it. It solves a lot of problems with little if any >> loss, though it does >>> represent change. It would be especially valuable at lower levels of >> play. >>> >>> The whole concept of "expected" requires mind reading to enforce, but >>> that >> never >>> bothers anyone but me. >> >> To be a bit pedantic: No information arising from an alert or missing >> alert, >> whether expected or unexpected, is ever AI for partner. >> >> So although you (usually) are entitled to assume that your partner has >> remembered your partnership understanding, the confirming information >> from >> an expected alert or missing alert is in itself unauthorized for you. >> >> I don't see how this can ever really matter unless your partner usually >> forgets the agreed understanding, in which case you probably had better >> change your agreements. >> > > Well, both Konrad and myself gave an example of when it matters, so > you're sentence above is manifestly wrong. > > I like the idea of having "expected" explanations become AI, just as > expected alerts already are. If needed, an explanation can be deemed > "expected" if it conforms to the meaning the bidder apparently gave to > his bid (by checking that it conforms to his hand) or if the bidder can > have the TD accept that he intentionally misbid. > That last thing does not require "mind-reading", as Steve suggests, or > at least not more than is presently already required in deciding on > misbids and psyches. > >> Regards Sven >> +=+ Any assertion made in this thread should be tested initially against Law 75. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 15 13:24:14 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:24:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9DE566.7020001@skynet.be> 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> <4B9DE566.7020001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601cac43a$6db583c0$49208b40$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > >> Herman De Wael wrote: > >>> A correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! > >>> > >>> What we need is an understanding that a correct explanation of a > >>> correct bid is AI. > >> > >> As far as I can tell, expected alerts and non-alerts are AI (L16A1c > >> and > > not in > >> 16B1a), unexpected ones are UI (L16B1a), but _all_ explanations > >> (reply to > > a > >> question, L16B1a) are UI. Herman has identified a problem, though in > > practice > >> everyone will ignore it. Rubens wants to solve the problem by making > >> all _correct_ alerts and explanations AI. Originally I thought that > >> idea was > > silly, but > >> I've come to like it. It solves a lot of problems with little if any > > loss, though it does > >> represent change. It would be especially valuable at lower levels of > > play. > >> > >> The whole concept of "expected" requires mind reading to enforce, but > >> that > > never > >> bothers anyone but me. > > > > To be a bit pedantic: No information arising from an alert or missing > > alert, whether expected or unexpected, is ever AI for partner. > > > > So although you (usually) are entitled to assume that your partner has > > remembered your partnership understanding, the confirming information > > from an expected alert or missing alert is in itself unauthorized for you. > > > > I don't see how this can ever really matter unless your partner > > usually forgets the agreed understanding, in which case you probably > > had better change your agreements. > > > > Well, both Konrad and myself gave an example of when it matters, so you're > sentence above is manifestly wrong. > > I like the idea of having "expected" explanations become AI, just as expected alerts > already are. If needed, an explanation can be deemed "expected" if it conforms to > the meaning the bidder apparently gave to his bid (by checking that it conforms to > his hand) or if the bidder can have the TD accept that he intentionally misbid. > That last thing does not require "mind-reading", as Steve suggests, or at least not > more than is presently already required in deciding on misbids and psyches. > > > Regards Sven > > > > -- > Herman De Wael In the following "call" means the call made and "Alert" means either alert or missing alert. We have principally four different situations: 1 The call was according to agreements and the alert was as expected. This implies that there is no mistake of agreements related to this call within the partnership The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues according to agreements, but as this is what the player (probably) intended anyway there is no alternative action available and the fact that the information from the alert is UI has no effect. 2: The call was in conflict with agreements but the alert was still as expected. This implies that the alerting player has made the same mistake as the calling player with respect of agreements. The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues according to the mistake, but as this is what the player (probably) intended anyway there is no alternative action available and the fact that the information from the alert is UI has no effect. 3: The call was according to agreements but the alert was unexpected. This implies that the alerting player has made a mistake with respect of agreements. The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues according to the mistake, a suggestion that the calling player must avoid. 4: The call was in conflict with agreements and the alert was unexpected. This implies that the calling player has made a mistake with respect of agreements and that he possibly is reminded of this mistake from the alert. The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues according to partnership agreements, but as this information is UI to the calling player he must avoid any idea of modifying his plans for subsequent calls in the auction (until the auction itself and not the alert makes his mistake clear to him) So in situations 1 and 2 where the alert is as expected the information from the alert has no impact on the auction and the question of whether or not an expected alert shall be UI is immaterial. Consequently we can safely maintain the general principle in Law 16B1a (and other places) that no information arising from alerts (or missing alerts) can ever be AI to the alerting player's partner. There is of course no conflict between this principle and the duty for a partnership to ensure that opponents are correctly informed on partnership understandings. Sven From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Mar 15 13:37:41 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:37:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000601cac43a$6db583c0$49208b40$@no> 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> <4B9DE566.7020001@skynet.be> <000601cac43a$6db583c0$49208b40$@no> Message-ID: <4B9E2A15.6000405@comcast.net> On 3/15/10 8:24 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> On Behalf Of Steve Willner >>> >>>> Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> >>>>> A correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! >>>>> >>>>> What we need is an understanding that a correct explanation of a >>>>> correct bid is AI. >>>>> >>>> As far as I can tell, expected alerts and non-alerts are AI (L16A1c >>>> and >>>> >>> not in >>> >>>> 16B1a), unexpected ones are UI (L16B1a), but _all_ explanations >>>> (reply to >>>> >>> a >>> >>>> question, L16B1a) are UI. Herman has identified a problem, though in >>>> >>> practice >>> >>>> everyone will ignore it. Rubens wants to solve the problem by making >>>> all _correct_ alerts and explanations AI. Originally I thought that >>>> idea was >>>> >>> silly, but >>> >>>> I've come to like it. It solves a lot of problems with little if any >>>> >>> loss, though it does >>> >>>> represent change. It would be especially valuable at lower levels of >>>> >>> play. >>> >>>> The whole concept of "expected" requires mind reading to enforce, but >>>> that >>>> >>> never >>> >>>> bothers anyone but me. >>>> >>> To be a bit pedantic: No information arising from an alert or missing >>> alert, whether expected or unexpected, is ever AI for partner. >>> >>> So although you (usually) are entitled to assume that your partner has >>> remembered your partnership understanding, the confirming information >>> from an expected alert or missing alert is in itself unauthorized for >>> > you. > >>> I don't see how this can ever really matter unless your partner >>> usually forgets the agreed understanding, in which case you probably >>> had better change your agreements. >>> >>> >> Well, both Konrad and myself gave an example of when it matters, so you're >> sentence above is manifestly wrong. >> >> I like the idea of having "expected" explanations become AI, just as >> > expected alerts > >> already are. If needed, an explanation can be deemed "expected" if it >> > conforms to > >> the meaning the bidder apparently gave to his bid (by checking that it >> > conforms to > >> his hand) or if the bidder can have the TD accept that he intentionally >> > misbid. > >> That last thing does not require "mind-reading", as Steve suggests, or at >> > least not > >> more than is presently already required in deciding on misbids and >> > psyches. > >> >>> Regards Sven >>> >>> >> -- >> Herman De Wael >> > In the following "call" means the call made and "Alert" means either alert > or missing alert. > > We have principally four different situations: > > 1 The call was according to agreements and the alert was as expected. > This implies that there is no mistake of agreements related to this call > within the partnership > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues > according to agreements, but as this is what the player (probably) intended > anyway there is no alternative action available and the fact that the > information from the alert is UI has no effect. > > 2: The call was in conflict with agreements but the alert was still as > expected. > This implies that the alerting player has made the same mistake as the > calling player with respect of agreements. > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues > according to the mistake, but as this is what the player (probably) intended > anyway there is no alternative action available and the fact that the > information from the alert is UI has no effect. > > 3: The call was according to agreements but the alert was unexpected. > This implies that the alerting player has made a mistake with respect of > agreements. > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues > according to the mistake, a suggestion that the calling player must avoid. > > 4: The call was in conflict with agreements and the alert was unexpected. > This implies that the calling player has made a mistake with respect of > agreements and that he possibly is reminded of this mistake from the alert. > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues > according to partnership agreements, but as this information is UI to the > calling player he must avoid any idea of modifying his plans for subsequent > calls in the auction (until the auction itself and not the alert makes his > mistake clear to him) > > So in situations 1 and 2 where the alert is as expected the information from > the alert has no impact on the auction and the question of whether or not an > expected alert shall be UI is immaterial. > > Consequently we can safely maintain the general principle in Law 16B1a (and > other places) that no information arising from alerts (or missing alerts) > can ever be AI to the alerting player's partner. > > There is of course no conflict between this principle and the duty for a > partnership to ensure that opponents are correctly informed on partnership > understandings. > > Sven > Are there not also cases where the bidder is unsure or there was no agreement (no explanation on the SC), and the alert tells him how his partner will be interpreting it? --Bob Park From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 15 14:05:55 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:05:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9E2A15.6000405@comcast.net> 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> <4B9DE566.7020001@skynet.be> <000601cac43a$6db583c0$49208b40$@no> <4B9E2A15.6000405@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000701cac440$40621040$c12630c0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Park > On 3/15/10 8:24 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > > >> Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >>> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > >>> > >>>> Herman De Wael wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> A correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! > >>>>> > >>>>> What we need is an understanding that a correct explanation of a > >>>>> correct bid is AI. > >>>>> > >>>> As far as I can tell, expected alerts and non-alerts are AI (L16A1c > >>>> and > >>>> > >>> not in > >>> > >>>> 16B1a), unexpected ones are UI (L16B1a), but _all_ explanations > >>>> (reply to > >>>> > >>> a > >>> > >>>> question, L16B1a) are UI. Herman has identified a problem, though > >>>> in > >>>> > >>> practice > >>> > >>>> everyone will ignore it. Rubens wants to solve the problem by > >>>> making all _correct_ alerts and explanations AI. Originally I > >>>> thought that idea was > >>>> > >>> silly, but > >>> > >>>> I've come to like it. It solves a lot of problems with little if > >>>> any > >>>> > >>> loss, though it does > >>> > >>>> represent change. It would be especially valuable at lower levels > >>>> of > >>>> > >>> play. > >>> > >>>> The whole concept of "expected" requires mind reading to enforce, > >>>> but that > >>>> > >>> never > >>> > >>>> bothers anyone but me. > >>>> > >>> To be a bit pedantic: No information arising from an alert or > >>> missing alert, whether expected or unexpected, is ever AI for partner. > >>> > >>> So although you (usually) are entitled to assume that your partner > >>> has remembered your partnership understanding, the confirming > >>> information from an expected alert or missing alert is in itself > >>> unauthorized for > >>> > > you. > > > >>> I don't see how this can ever really matter unless your partner > >>> usually forgets the agreed understanding, in which case you probably > >>> had better change your agreements. > >>> > >>> > >> Well, both Konrad and myself gave an example of when it matters, so > >> you're sentence above is manifestly wrong. > >> > >> I like the idea of having "expected" explanations become AI, just as > >> > > expected alerts > > > >> already are. If needed, an explanation can be deemed "expected" if it > >> > > conforms to > > > >> the meaning the bidder apparently gave to his bid (by checking that > >> it > >> > > conforms to > > > >> his hand) or if the bidder can have the TD accept that he > >> intentionally > >> > > misbid. > > > >> That last thing does not require "mind-reading", as Steve suggests, > >> or at > >> > > least not > > > >> more than is presently already required in deciding on misbids and > >> > > psyches. > > > >> > >>> Regards Sven > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Herman De Wael > >> > > In the following "call" means the call made and "Alert" means either > > alert or missing alert. > > > > We have principally four different situations: > > > > 1 The call was according to agreements and the alert was as expected. > > This implies that there is no mistake of agreements related to this > > call within the partnership The suggested information from this alert > > is that the auction continues according to agreements, but as this is > > what the player (probably) intended anyway there is no alternative > > action available and the fact that the information from the alert is > > UI has no effect. > > > > 2: The call was in conflict with agreements but the alert was still as > > expected. > > This implies that the alerting player has made the same mistake as the > > calling player with respect of agreements. > > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction > > continues according to the mistake, but as this is what the player > > (probably) intended anyway there is no alternative action available > > and the fact that the information from the alert is UI has no effect. > > > > 3: The call was according to agreements but the alert was unexpected. > > This implies that the alerting player has made a mistake with respect > > of agreements. > > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction > > continues according to the mistake, a suggestion that the calling player must > avoid. > > > > 4: The call was in conflict with agreements and the alert was unexpected. > > This implies that the calling player has made a mistake with respect > > of agreements and that he possibly is reminded of this mistake from the alert. > > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction > > continues according to partnership agreements, but as this information > > is UI to the calling player he must avoid any idea of modifying his > > plans for subsequent calls in the auction (until the auction itself > > and not the alert makes his mistake clear to him) > > > > So in situations 1 and 2 where the alert is as expected the > > information from the alert has no impact on the auction and the > > question of whether or not an expected alert shall be UI is immaterial. > > > > Consequently we can safely maintain the general principle in Law 16B1a > > (and other places) that no information arising from alerts (or missing > > alerts) can ever be AI to the alerting player's partner. > > > > There is of course no conflict between this principle and the duty for > > a partnership to ensure that opponents are correctly informed on > > partnership understandings. > > > > Sven > > > > Are there not also cases where the bidder is unsure or there was no agreement > (no explanation on the SC), and the alert tells him how his partner will be > interpreting it? > --Bob Park Sure, I consider that a case 4 situation. The call was not according to any agreement so the alert (or missing alert) could not be as expected. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 15 14:14:36 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:14:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000601cac43a$6db583c0$49208b40$@no> 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> <4B9DE566.7020001@skynet.be> <000601cac43a$6db583c0$49208b40$@no> Message-ID: <4B9E32BC.3060604@skynet.be> Very well done Sven (I am joking). You create four cases (correct list, BTW), and you say how they are treated. Correct according to tradition, BTW. Then you summarize and you conclude that if an alert/explication is expected, there is no UI. So what you have done is to coclude that there is no UI from the fact that we traditionally do not rule UI. That is, of course, one of the worst cases of circular reasoning possible. You state merely that the rulings are correct because they have traditionally been done that way. Somewhere in your assertion, you state that a player has not used UI because he has done what he would always have done. You know better than that, Sven - a player is not allowed to do what is suggested, even if it is "what he would otherwise have done". But anyway - sorry Sven, but your contribution is meritless. Herman. Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Steve Willner >>>> Herman De Wael wrote: >>>>> A correct explanation of a misbid is certainly UI! >>>>> >>>>> What we need is an understanding that a correct explanation of a >>>>> correct bid is AI. >>>> >>>> As far as I can tell, expected alerts and non-alerts are AI (L16A1c >>>> and >>> not in >>>> 16B1a), unexpected ones are UI (L16B1a), but _all_ explanations >>>> (reply to >>> a >>>> question, L16B1a) are UI. Herman has identified a problem, though in >>> practice >>>> everyone will ignore it. Rubens wants to solve the problem by making >>>> all _correct_ alerts and explanations AI. Originally I thought that >>>> idea was >>> silly, but >>>> I've come to like it. It solves a lot of problems with little if any >>> loss, though it does >>>> represent change. It would be especially valuable at lower levels of >>> play. >>>> >>>> The whole concept of "expected" requires mind reading to enforce, but >>>> that >>> never >>>> bothers anyone but me. >>> >>> To be a bit pedantic: No information arising from an alert or missing >>> alert, whether expected or unexpected, is ever AI for partner. >>> >>> So although you (usually) are entitled to assume that your partner has >>> remembered your partnership understanding, the confirming information >>> from an expected alert or missing alert is in itself unauthorized for > you. >>> >>> I don't see how this can ever really matter unless your partner >>> usually forgets the agreed understanding, in which case you probably >>> had better change your agreements. >>> >> >> Well, both Konrad and myself gave an example of when it matters, so you're >> sentence above is manifestly wrong. >> >> I like the idea of having "expected" explanations become AI, just as > expected alerts >> already are. If needed, an explanation can be deemed "expected" if it > conforms to >> the meaning the bidder apparently gave to his bid (by checking that it > conforms to >> his hand) or if the bidder can have the TD accept that he intentionally > misbid. >> That last thing does not require "mind-reading", as Steve suggests, or at > least not >> more than is presently already required in deciding on misbids and > psyches. >> >>> Regards Sven >>> >> >> -- >> Herman De Wael > > In the following "call" means the call made and "Alert" means either alert > or missing alert. > > We have principally four different situations: > > 1 The call was according to agreements and the alert was as expected. > This implies that there is no mistake of agreements related to this call > within the partnership > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues > according to agreements, but as this is what the player (probably) intended > anyway there is no alternative action available and the fact that the > information from the alert is UI has no effect. > > 2: The call was in conflict with agreements but the alert was still as > expected. > This implies that the alerting player has made the same mistake as the > calling player with respect of agreements. > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues > according to the mistake, but as this is what the player (probably) intended > anyway there is no alternative action available and the fact that the > information from the alert is UI has no effect. > > 3: The call was according to agreements but the alert was unexpected. > This implies that the alerting player has made a mistake with respect of > agreements. > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues > according to the mistake, a suggestion that the calling player must avoid. > > 4: The call was in conflict with agreements and the alert was unexpected. > This implies that the calling player has made a mistake with respect of > agreements and that he possibly is reminded of this mistake from the alert. > The suggested information from this alert is that the auction continues > according to partnership agreements, but as this information is UI to the > calling player he must avoid any idea of modifying his plans for subsequent > calls in the auction (until the auction itself and not the alert makes his > mistake clear to him) > > So in situations 1 and 2 where the alert is as expected the information from > the alert has no impact on the auction and the question of whether or not an > expected alert shall be UI is immaterial. > > Consequently we can safely maintain the general principle in Law 16B1a (and > other places) that no information arising from alerts (or missing alerts) > can ever be AI to the alerting player's partner. > > There is of course no conflict between this principle and the duty for a > partnership to ensure that opponents are correctly informed on partnership > understandings. > > Sven > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2747 - Release Date: 03/14/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 15 14:31:31 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:31:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9E32BC.3060604@skynet.be> 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> <4B9DE566.7020001@skynet.be> <000601cac43a$6db583c0$49208b40$@no> <4B9E32BC.3060604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801cac443$d35b9d50$7a12d7f0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Very well done Sven (I am joking). > > You create four cases (correct list, BTW), and you say how they are treated. > Correct according to tradition, BTW. Then you summarize and you conclude that if > an alert/explication is expected, there is no UI. > > So what you have done is to coclude that there is no UI How on earth do you read? Of course there is UI and I do indeed conclude so. But I also state that in certain cases the UI has no impact simply because it does not suggest any action over another alternative action. That is far from concluding that the UI is authorized. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 15 15:10:42 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:10:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI case - your opinion please In-Reply-To: <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> 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> Message-ID: <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> Teams, none vul. You hold Ax - AQxx - AQ9xx - 10x RHO opens 1S, you double, and partner answers 2H. a) what do you bid ? b) what are your LAs ? c) what is your duty if partner's 2H bid was rather (but not very) slow ? If it is relevant in any manner, you play ELC : over 2C, you would have bid 2D, not necessarily showing more than a sound double but( guaranteeing 4 hearts. Thank you for your help ; debriefing follows. Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 15 15:36:56 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:36:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI case - your opinion please In-Reply-To: <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> 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> <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001cac44c$f6eb1300$e4c13900$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Teams, none vul. > You hold Ax - AQxx - AQ9xx - 10x > > RHO opens 1S, you double, and partner answers 2H. > > a) what do you bid ? > b) what are your LAs ? > c) what is your duty if partner's 2H bid was rather (but not very) slow ? > > If it is relevant in any manner, you play ELC : over 2C, you would have bid 2D, not > necessarily showing more than a sound double but( guaranteeing 4 hearts. > > Thank you for your help ; debriefing follows. > > Alain I follow the principle that the doubler shall be very conservative in his continued calls while his partner shall be aggressive. So I just bid 3H (indicating a good hand), and it doesn't matter if partner bid in tempo or had a BIT. Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Mar 15 15:54:15 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:54:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI case - your opinion please In-Reply-To: <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <4B965C88.9040901@ripe.net> <4B965E4E.8090006@skynet.be> <4B96631F.6030103@ulb.ac.be> <4B96683D.4090607@skynet.be> <4B9D44C7.20209@nhcc.net> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 15 March 2010 15:10, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Teams, none vul. > You hold Ax - AQxx - AQ9xx - 10x > > RHO opens 1S, you double, and partner answers 2H. > > a) what do you bid ? I raise to 3H. > b) what are your LAs ? I don't think I have any LAs. Raising to game is pretty wild (in normal circumstances) IMO. And passing is very much an underbid. I'd not consider any alternatives here. > c) what is your duty if partner's 2H bid was rather (but not very) slow ? For me - none, having no LAs. If I did have any LAs, I'd have to think this through. But I don't think it's clear in any way why partner was thinking. > > If it is relevant in any manner, you play ELC : over 2C, you would have > bid 2D, not necessarily showing more than a sound double but( > guaranteeing 4 hearts. No, I don't think so. > > Thank you for your help ; debriefing follows. > > ? ?Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Mar 15 16:02:16 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:02:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> 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> Message-ID: <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> Sven Pran wrote: > No information arising from an alert or missing alert, > whether expected or unexpected, is ever AI for partner. Take another look at the _2007_ version of L16A1c, specifically the last part "legal procedures." Note also the qualification "unexpected" in L16B1a. As I wrote before, _expected_ alerts are AI under the new Laws unless I've missed something. This is a change from past Laws. While alerts can be AI, partner's answers to questions are always UI. I think that's weird, but it's what the text says. Herman De Wael wrote: > I like the idea of having "expected" explanations become AI, just as > expected alerts already are. If needed, an explanation can be deemed > "expected" if it conforms to the meaning the bidder apparently gave to > his bid (by checking that it conforms to his hand) or if the bidder can > have the TD accept that he intentionally misbid. > That last thing does not require "mind-reading", as Steve suggests, or > at least not more than is presently already required in deciding on > misbids and psyches. I agree with Herman that some current Laws require mind reading to enforce, but I don't see why the difference between misbids and psychs is one of them. Why would we rule differently in the two cases, other than the present discussion where there is potentially UI? The fact that something (mind reading in this case) is in the current Laws doesn't make it a good idea even where it exists and most certainly doesn't justify extending it to new situations. But as I wrote earlier, I realize my opinion on mind reading is an unpopular one. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 15 16:10:53 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:10:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000801cac443$d35b9d50$7a12d7f0$@no> 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> <4B9DE566.7020001@skynet.be> <000601cac43a$6db583c0$49208b40$@no> <4B9E32BC.3060604@skynet.be> <000801cac443$d35b9d50$7a12d7f0$@no> Message-ID: <4B9E4DFD.5010605@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> So what you have done is to coclude that there is no UI > > How on earth do you read? > > Of course there is UI and I do indeed conclude so. > But I also state that in certain cases the UI has no impact simply because > it does not suggest any action over another alternative action. > And as both Konrad and I have shown, that is simply not the case. > That is far from concluding that the UI is authorized. > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 15 17:49:38 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:49:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> 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> Message-ID: <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sven Pran wrote: > > No information arising from an alert or missing alert, whether > > expected or unexpected, is ever AI for partner. > > Take another look at the _2007_ version of L16A1c, specifically the last part > "legal procedures." Note also the qualification "unexpected" in L16B1a. As I wrote > before, _expected_ alerts are AI under the new Laws unless I've missed > something. This is a change from past Laws. I see your point, but i don't read the laws that way. Law 16B1a doesn't explicitly make the information from an expected alert action AI, but it recognizes (as I do) that only an unexpected alert action can give information suggesting an action different from the one a player would select absent such information. The consequence is that the question of whether an expected alert action is UI or AI is immaterial, and the general rule is still that it is UI. Sven From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Mar 15 18:18:27 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:18:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> 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> Message-ID: <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> Sven Pran wrote: > Law 16B1a doesn't explicitly make the information from an expected alert > action AI, It doesn't have to; L16A1c does that. Or do you think alerts are not "arising from the legal procedures...?" All 16B1a does is carve out exceptions to the general rule in 16A1c. Answers to questions are confirmed as an exception -- as Grattan wrote -- by L75, but there's nothing in L75 about alerts alone. As noted before, this is a change, and I don't think the world has yet come to grips with all the implications. > only an unexpected alert action > can give information suggesting an action different from the one a player > would select absent such information. As Herman and Konrad have shown, that's not correct either. A generic example would be a player considering whether to use a complex inquiry sequence or to bash a final contract. Obviously there are situations where both are LAs. It looks to me as though opponents can restrict the player's choice by asking questions, but alerts don't in themselves create any restrictions. It's not surprising that some of the changes in the new Laws are not to everyone's liking, but it does no good to suggest changes don't exist. 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. From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 15 18:41:32 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:41:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> 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: <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sven Pran wrote: > > Law 16B1a doesn't explicitly make the information from an expected > > alert action AI, > > It doesn't have to; L16A1c does that. Or do you think alerts are not "arising from > the legal procedures...?" All 16B1a does is carve out exceptions to the general > rule in 16A1c. Answers to questions are confirmed as an exception -- as Grattan > wrote -- by L75, but there's nothing in L75 about alerts alone. > > As noted before, this is a change, and I don't think the world has yet come to grips > with all the implications. Even if we accept this as a change (which I don't, I still consider information from also expected alert actions to be unauthorized for partner. However, all this is IMHO really just splitting hairs. Or can you describe a situation where the matter is essential? > > > only an unexpected alert action > > can give information suggesting an action different from the one a > > player would select absent such information. > > As Herman and Konrad have shown, that's not correct either. A generic example > would be a player considering whether to use a complex inquiry sequence or to > bash a final contract. Obviously there are situations where both are LAs. It looks > to me as though opponents can restrict the player's choice by asking questions, > but alerts don't in themselves create any restrictions. > I really do not understand how opponents receiving correct information from questions or alert actions can impose restrictions on an auction? They would have to show that the partnership has executed a different auction from what it would have done absent this activity? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 15 19:20:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:20:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> 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: <4B9E7A55.7010807@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > > > As Herman and Konrad have shown, that's not correct either. A generic > example would be a player considering whether to use a complex inquiry > sequence or to bash a final contract. Obviously there are situations > where both are LAs. It looks to me as though opponents can restrict the > player's choice by asking questions, but alerts don't in themselves > create any restrictions. > > Yoiu mean that it owuld be in my interst to ask questions, because they'll have to answer, and in that case it'll restrict what they're allowed ? In that case the whole principle of questions is wrong. First, for moral reasons. Second, because in this case there will always be "a bridge reason for asking". From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Mar 15 20:13:40 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:13:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> 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> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> Message-ID: <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> Sven Pran wrote: > Even if we accept this as a change (which I don't, I still consider > information from also expected alert actions to be unauthorized for partner. So you're prepared to ignore the clear written text of the Laws? > However, all this is IMHO really just splitting hairs. Or can you describe a > situation where the matter is essential? I thought my previous message did that, as did Herman's and Konrad's. To repeat: I have a choice between a scientific auction or bashing the final contract. Both are LAs. Partner's alerts have told me we're on the same page. If those alerts are UI, I _must_ choose the bash per L16B1a. As I've written repeatedly, in reality the alerts are AI, and I can do what I want. Answers to questions are another matter. Those _are_ UI and may restrict my actions. > I really do not understand how opponents receiving correct information from > questions or alert actions can impose restrictions on an auction? It's not what opponents receive; it's what I receive. This is just a normal UI situation. When you have UI, you may be forbidden to do what you "always were going to." Nothing unusual about that. > They would have to show that the partnership has executed a different > auction from what it would have done absent this activity? No, they only need to show a logical alternative and "suggested over another." All UI situations are the same, at least in principle. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > You mean that it owuld be in my interst to ask questions, because > they'll have to answer, and in that case it'll restrict what they're > allowed ? Yes, exactly. See the example above. If it's only alerts, they are AI, and I can do whatever I want. But as soon as opponents ask a question, the answer -- even if entirely correct and expected -- is UI, and my choices may be restricted. In the example above, I would have to choose the bash. That may work well -- it was a LA after all -- but it may not, and I'd rather have the right to choose. > In that case the whole principle of questions is wrong. > First, for moral reasons. You mean L72A? Some jurisdictions have rules against dumping, but others don't. The ACBL does, so I have to ask questions when I think it's to my advantage. > Second, because in this case there will always be "a bridge reason for > asking". Indeed. Not that there's anything about a bridge reason in L20F. What Law are you thinking of that requires a bridge reason? Are you beginning to like Mr. Rubens' view a little better? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Mar 15 20:54:30 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:54:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI case - your opinion please In-Reply-To: <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> 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> <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B9E9076.4070102@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Teams, none vul. > You hold Ax - AQxx - AQ9xx - 10x > > RHO opens 1S, you double, and partner answers 2H. > > a) what do you bid ? 3H > b) what are your LAs ? None, really. As someone (Harald?) said: 4H is wild, pass is an underbid. > c) what is your duty if partner's 2H bid was rather (but not very) slow ? Bid 3H? Not 3D or something, if that is where the case is going. Best regards Matthias > > If it is relevant in any manner, you play ELC : over 2C, you would have > bid 2D, not necessarily showing more than a sound double but( > guaranteeing 4 hearts. > > Thank you for your help ; debriefing follows. > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 15 22:22:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:22:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Breach of protocol [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Mungo MacCallum, Kevin Rudd and the Lucky Country, page 37: ...an angry delegation of Aboriginal elders arrived at Parliament House demanding to see their prime minister with a demand for land rights. They were met by the president of the Senate, Sir Magnus Cormack, who informed them that they would have to wait; Mr Whitlam was in a meeting with Her Majesty, the Queen. "Well, f**k the Queen," the protesters replied. Sir Magnus, a royalist of the Menzies school, reeled back in horror. It was left to Whitlam to explain later to the delegation that their suggested course of action would have involved a severe breach of protocol. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1H ? You, South, hold: QJ9876543 8 83 A You and your three opponents are all Australian experts. What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 Mar 15 22:39:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:39:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI case - your opinion please [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Teams, none vul. >You hold Ax - AQxx - AQ9xx - 10x > >RHO opens 1S, you double, and partner answers 2H. > >a) what do you bid ? Richard Hills: 3H. Alain Gottcheiner: >b) what are your LAs ? Richard Hills: 3H. Alain Gottcheiner: >c) what is your duty if partner's 2H bid was rather (but not >very) slow ? Richard Hills: 3H. WTP? (Yes, I have argued against both non-bridge acronyms and also "What's the problem", but this is such a banal case that it deserves a double breach of protocol - see parallel thread.) 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 Mar 15 23:13:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:13:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "It's difficult enough to go around doing what is right without going around trying to do good." Steve Willner: [snip] >Answers to questions are confirmed as an exception -- as Grattan >wrote -- by L75, but there's nothing in L75 about alerts alone. [snip] Richard Hills: Doubly incorrect. Law 75 is an illustrative example, not an exception, as it states in its introductory paragraph. And Law 75A speaks about "alerts alone" via its cross-reference to Law 73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." 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 Mar 15 23:27:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:27:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B9E7A55.7010807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible." Alain Gottcheiner: >You mean that it would be in my interest to ask questions, >because they'll have to answer, and in that case it'll restrict >what they're allowed ? [snip] Richard Hills: On the other hand it is against my interest to ask questions at inappropriate times, since that would give UI to my highly ethical partner and restrict his choice amongst logical alternatives. Plus I have the severe disadvantage of being a bidding theorist, conversant not only with bidding theory in general, but also with the preferred bidding style of Canberra semi-experts in particular. Law 20G1: "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." 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 Mon Mar 15 23:53:46 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:53:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> 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> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sven Pran wrote: > > Even if we accept this as a change (which I don't, I still consider > > information from also expected alert actions to be unauthorized for partner. > > So you're prepared to ignore the clear written text of the Laws? > > > However, all this is IMHO really just splitting hairs. Or can you > > describe a situation where the matter is essential? > > I thought my previous message did that, as did Herman's and Konrad's. > > To repeat: I have a choice between a scientific auction or bashing the final > contract. Both are LAs. Partner's alerts have told me we're on the same page. If > those alerts are UI, I _must_ choose the bash per L16B1a. And please tell me exactly how partner's alert suggests the scientific auction over bashing the final contract so long as there is no misinformation or misbid involved. Are you saying that whenever an alert or missing alert confirms to me that partner and I am on the same page I may no longer use our detailed "scientific" agreements to find the best contract but must guess it right away? > > As I've written repeatedly, in reality the alerts are AI, and I can do what I want. > Answers to questions are another matter. Those _are_ UI and may restrict my > actions. > > > I really do not understand how opponents receiving correct information > > from questions or alert actions can impose restrictions on an auction? > > It's not what opponents receive; it's what I receive. This is just a normal UI > situation. When you have UI, you may be forbidden to do what you "always were > going to." Nothing unusual about that. Not unless I have other logical alternatives in addition to the "obvious" alternative and this is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Without a real alternative you cannot be restricted in you choice. Sven (snip) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 01:10:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:10:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "Nobody argues now. They give you an opinion neatly expressed in a single sentence, and that does the work of argument. My belief is that a fallacy in two lines will carry you further than a mathematical demonstration in two pages." Richard Hills asked: [big snip] >One of my team-mates, Arjuna De Livera, remarked with dry wit, >"You took the wrong finesse." Sure I had a moral obligation >to correct the Director's error. But did I have a Lawful >obligation to correct a Director's error which benefited my >team? If so, please quote the Law number. Neatly expressed in a single sentence, the first two lines of Law 72A - General Principles - Observance of Laws: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Tue Mar 16 02:56:05 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:56:05 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd41003151856k55ded49ew118c0ee51e13c495@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, wrote: > > FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: ?Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? risotto. > SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: Nothing like a good glass of Ch?teau de Chasselas, > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? eh, Josiah? > THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: ?You're right there, Obadiah. > FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? sittin' here drinking Ch?teau de Chasselas, eh? > FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: ?In them days we was glad to have the price of a > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cup o' tea. I had always though that was a Python sketch. It turns out it predates them. Here's the original, from 1967's "At Last The 1948 Show": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDaSvRO9xA Here's a Python version, from "Monty Python Live Hollywood Bowl": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13JK5kChbRw -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 04:02:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:02:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd41003151856k55ded49ew118c0ee51e13c495@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: [big snip] FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky! THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you. ALL: They won't! Adam Wildavsky: >I had always though that was a Python sketch. It turns out it predates >them. Here's the original, from 1967's "At Last The 1948 Show": [snip] Richard Hills: Yes and no. As for the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, the truth is beautiful but sometimes not simple. And I note that Nigel Guthrie has oft expressed a belief that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge should in future be amended to being simple, but Nigel cares not whether they thereby become "ugly" (i.e. ridiculously draconian consequences disadvantaging offending sides and also non-claiming sides). Two of the on-screen stars for "At Last The 1948 Show", who were also two of the off-screen scriptwriters, were Graham Chapman and John Cleese, later to be two of the six Pythons. That is, unlike most tribute bands (such as the tribute band Bjorn Again replaying the songs of ABBA), the "Monty Python Live At The Hollywood Bowl" reprise of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch was paying tribute to their own sketch-writing skills. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Mar 16 05:22:34 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:22:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B9F078A.3000405@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] And I note that Nigel Guthrie has oft expressed a belief that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge should in future be amended to being simple, but Nigel cares not whether they thereby become "ugly" (i.e. ridiculously draconian consequences disadvantaging offending sides and also non-claiming sides). [Nigel] Richard demonstrates the problem with subjective judgement about the feelings of others. Richard is right that - - I am concerned that the rules of Bridge be simple enough for players to understand and for directors to rule consistently. - I feel that Bridge rules should deter law-breakers. If this entails disadvantaging offenders rather than rewarding them, then so be it. Where Richard and I differ is that I think that such changes would make the game more beautiful and more enjoyable. There is beauty in economy and elegance. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 06:13:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:13:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B9F078A.3000405@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Monty Python's Flying Circus (and also At Last The 1948 Show): [snip] Owner: The EXPURGATED version of "Olsen's Standard Book of British Birds"? Customer: The one without the gannet! Owner: The one without the gannet!! They've ALL got the gannet!! It's a Standard British Bird, the gannet, it's in all the books!! Customer: Well, I don't like them ... they wet their nests. Owner: All right! I'll remove it!! (rrriiip!) Any other birds you don't like? Customer: I don't like the robin ... Owner: The robin! Right! The robin! (rrriiip!) There you are, any others you don't like, any others? Customer: The nuthatch? Owner: Right! The nuthatch, the nuthatch, 'ere we are! (rrriiip!) There you are! NO gannets, NO robins, NO nuthatches, THERE's your book! Customer: I can't buy that! It's torn! [snip] Richard Hills prefers the standard Law Book with the gannet: >>And I note that Nigel Guthrie has oft expressed a belief that >>the Laws of Duplicate Bridge should in future be amended to >>being simple, but Nigel cares not whether they thereby become >>"ugly" (i.e. ridiculously draconian consequences >>disadvantaging offending sides and also non-claiming sides). Nigel Guthrie prefers the EXPURGATED Law Book: >...I feel that Bridge rules should deter law-breakers. If this >entails disadvantaging offenders rather than rewarding them, >then so be it... Richard Hills can't buy that, it's torn: Since when is a non-claiming side a law-breaker? 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 Tue Mar 16 10:12:42 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:12:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Breach of protocol [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15 March 2010 22:22, wrote: > > Mungo MacCallum, Kevin Rudd and the Lucky Country, page 37: > > ...an angry delegation of Aboriginal elders arrived at > Parliament House demanding to see their prime minister with a > demand for land rights. ?They were met by the president of the > Senate, Sir Magnus Cormack, who informed them that they would > have to wait; Mr Whitlam was in a meeting with Her Majesty, the > Queen. ?"Well, f**k the Queen," the protesters replied. ?Sir > Magnus, a royalist of the Menzies school, reeled back in > horror. ?It was left to Whitlam to explain later to the > delegation that their suggested course of action would have > involved a severe breach of protocol. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?1H ? ? ? ?? > > > You, South, hold: > > QJ9876543 > 8 > 83 > A > > You and your three opponents are all Australian experts. > What call do you make? 4S, very straigthforward. > What other calls do you consider making? I might consider pass in some circumstances. But very seldom. And I'd most probably bid 4S anyway. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Mar 16 10:43:23 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:43:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B9F52BB.10107@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] Richard Hills can't buy that, it's torn: Since when is a non-claiming side a law-breaker? [Nigel] I didn't answer Richard's point about non-claimers because I don't understand it. I concede that a non-claiming side may feel disadvantaged when, for example, the director imposes a normal line of play, not mentioned by the claimer and of which the claimer seems unaware. I also concede that a non-claiming side can break the law. So what? From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 16 11:25:28 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:25:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> 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> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> Message-ID: <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > And please tell me exactly how partner's alert suggests the scientific > auction over bashing the final contract so long as there is no > misinformation or misbid involved. > > Are you saying that whenever an alert or missing alert confirms to me that > partner and I am on the same page I may no longer use our detailed > "scientific" agreements to find the best contract but must guess it right > away? > Yes indeed, that's exactly what he's saying. Both paths are LA, and the information that we're on the same page suggests that the scientific approach may be better. So if the information is UI, the scientific approach, which is suggested by the UI, should not be taken. Which is of course not what anyone wants. But it's what the laws currently say. So the laws need to be changed. You cannot have it both ways, Sven - insisting on the laws in one thread because you believe I am wrong and ignoring the laws in another because you believe the laws are wrong. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 16 12:31:11 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:31:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> 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> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4B9F6BFF.6060401@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > > > You mean L72A? Some jurisdictions have rules against dumping, but > others don't. The ACBL does, so I have to ask questions when I think > it's to my advantage. > > >> Second, because in this case there will always be "a bridge reason for >> asking". >> > > Indeed. Not that there's anything about a bridge reason in L20F. What > Law are you thinking of that requires a bridge reason? > The prohibition (agreed on blml) about pro questions. From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 16 12:32:11 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:32:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> 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> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > And please tell me exactly how partner's alert suggests the scientific > > auction over bashing the final contract so long as there is no > > misinformation or misbid involved. > > > > Are you saying that whenever an alert or missing alert confirms to me > > that partner and I am on the same page I may no longer use our > > detailed "scientific" agreements to find the best contract but must > > guess it right away? > > > > Yes indeed, that's exactly what he's saying. Both paths are LA, and the > information that we're on the same page suggests that the scientific approach may > be better. So if the information is UI, the scientific approach, which is suggested by > the UI, should not be taken. > > Which is of course not what anyone wants. But it's what the laws currently say. So > the laws need to be changed. > > You cannot have it both ways, Sven - insisting on the laws in one thread because > you believe I am wrong and ignoring the laws in another because you believe the > laws are wrong. I don't need or want to have it both ways. I simply do not agree with your understanding of Law 16 - that is all. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 16 13:21:35 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:21:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> Message-ID: On 16 March 2010 12:32, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >> > >> > And please tell me exactly how partner's alert suggests the scientific >> > auction over bashing the final contract so long as there is no >> > misinformation or misbid involved. >> > >> > Are you saying that whenever an alert or missing alert confirms to me >> > that partner and I am on the same page I may no longer use our >> > detailed "scientific" agreements to find the best contract but must >> > guess it right away? >> > >> >> Yes indeed, that's exactly what he's saying. Both paths are LA, and the >> information that we're on the same page suggests that the scientific > approach may >> be better. So if the information is UI, the scientific approach, which is > suggested by >> the UI, should not be taken. >> >> Which is of course not what anyone wants. But it's what the laws currently > say. So >> the laws need to be changed. >> >> You cannot have it both ways, Sven - insisting on the laws in one thread > because >> you believe I am wrong and ignoring the laws in another because you > believe the >> laws are wrong. > > I don't need or want to have it both ways. > > I simply do not agree with your understanding of Law 16 - that is all. I agree with Herman and Konrad here. Actually, I'm going further than Herman. In an insecure partership, expected alerts really makes the scientific approach safe. In position where playing behind screens one might very easily use the safety net of bashing. Of course, it's impossible for a TD/AC to draw a line. Thus, it's, as Konrad and Herman also said, impossible to enforce a regulation about UI in these positions. We all know how to rule, though. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 16 15:15:53 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:15:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> Message-ID: <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran ............ > I agree with Herman and Konrad here. > > Actually, I'm going further than Herman. > In an insecure partership, expected alerts really makes the scientific approach > safe. In position where playing behind screens one might very easily use the > safety net of bashing. Of course, it's impossible for a TD/AC to draw a line. Thus, > it's, as Konrad and Herman also said, impossible to enforce a regulation about UI > in these positions. > > We all know how to rule, though. I am really surprised. Is it really a logical alternative to discard a partnership understanding (that presumably has been disclosed to opponents) on the ground that an expected alert (or non-alert) makes the partnership understanding "safe" to use? I don't buy that. If this should be the case then the consequence is that absolutely no partnership understanding is legal through an auction: The moment partner correctly alerts a call (or correctly does not alert it) the player is assured that partner is "on line" and therefore it is illegal to continue adhering to the agreed partnership understanding. Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 16 17:06:43 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:06:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> Message-ID: > On Behalf Of Harald Skj??ran > ............ >> I agree with Herman and Konrad here. >> >> Actually, I'm going further than Herman. >> In an insecure partership, expected alerts really makes the scientific >> approach >> safe. In position where playing behind screens one might very easily use >> the >> safety net of bashing. Of course, it's impossible for a TD/AC to draw a >> line. Thus, >> it's, as Konrad and Herman also said, impossible to enforce a regulation >> about UI >> in these positions. >> >> We all know how to rule, though. > > I am really surprised. > > Is it really a logical alternative to discard a partnership understanding > (that presumably has been disclosed to opponents) on the ground that an > expected alert (or non-alert) makes the partnership understanding "safe" > to use? > > I don't buy that. > > If this should be the case then the consequence is that absolutely no > partnership understanding is legal through an auction: The moment partner > correctly alerts a call (or correctly does not alert it) the player is > assured that partner is "on line" and therefore it is illegal to continue > adhering to the agreed partnership understanding. To put this another way, I make a bid. I cannot be 100% certain that my partner and I are on the same wavelength. But the expected alert -- or the expected nonalert -- raise the probability that we agree on the meaning of my bid. This information usually isn't that useful. But occasionally it will tip a close decision one way or the other. This is AI according to L16B1 and, contradictorily, cannot be used according to L73A1. (L16A is useless.) But if it is UI, it is impossible to enforce. The player will not be aware of using the information. The opps will not be aware the player is using the information. The method of determining logical alternatives pretty much becomes meaningless. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 16 17:43:05 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:43:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> Message-ID: <4B9FB519.5020004@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran ............ >> I agree with Herman and Konrad here. >> >> Actually, I'm going further than Herman. In an insecure partership, >> expected alerts really makes the scientific approach safe. In >> position where playing behind screens one might very easily use >> the safety net of bashing. Of course, it's impossible for a TD/AC >> to draw a line. Thus, it's, as Konrad and Herman also said, >> impossible to enforce a regulation about UI in these positions. >> >> We all know how to rule, though. > > I am really surprised. > > Is it really a logical alternative to discard a partnership > understanding (that presumably has been disclosed to opponents) on > the ground that an expected alert (or non-alert) makes the > partnership understanding "safe" to use? > Is it really not a logical alternative to just bash the final contract? > I don't buy that. > > If this should be the case then the consequence is that absolutely no > partnership understanding is legal through an auction: The moment > partner correctly alerts a call (or correctly does not alert it) the > player is assured that partner is "on line" and therefore it is > illegal to continue adhering to the agreed partnership > understanding. > But that is just our point. If the laws are like this, then bridge becomes impossible - so the laws need to be changed. No-one ever said the laws were perfect. > Sven > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 22:36:36 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:36:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B9F52BB.10107@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: C. Claiborne Ray, The New York Times, "Mental Melodies": A catchy tune, whether classical or pop, is so well known for staying in the brain that the effect has long been exploited for advertising jingles, and there have been efforts to define what makes a melody "sticky". But a hard-to-shake melody can be a burden rather than a welcome souvenir, turning into what is called an earworm, and the reasons are not definitely known. [snip] A 2001 survey by James J. Kellaris of the University of Cincinnati, a consumer psychologist, found that "music characterized by simplicity, repetitiveness and incongruity with listeners' expectations is most likely to become 'stuck'." Up to 98 percent of people will experience a sticky tune, his study suggested [snip] After further research, Dr. Kellaris theorized that one way to scratch what he called a "cognitive itch" is to sing the mental tune aloud. Richard Hills: >>Richard Hills can't buy that, it's torn: Since when is a non- >>claiming side a law-breaker? Nigel Guthrie: >I didn't answer Richard's point about non-claimers because I >don't understand it. Richard Hills: Nigel Guthrie has long expressed approval for the elegant simplicity of the illegal claim Laws used by his particular online provider, and has frequently suggested that face-to-face duplicate bridge should also adopt these claim Laws. Alas, if Nigel's suggestion was adopted that would in effect rrriiip Law 70C out of the Law Book, disadvantaging non-claiming sides. As noted above in the New York Times article, elegant simplicity can sometimes be a burden rather than welcome. 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 Mar 16 23:21:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:21:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Breach of protocol [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: North >>Vul: North-South >> >>WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH >>--- ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?1H ? ? ? ?? >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>QJ9876543 >>8 >>83 >>A >> >>You and your three opponents are all Australian experts. >>What call do you make? Harald Skj?ran: >4S, very straightforward. >>What other calls do you consider making? Harald Skj?ran: >I might consider pass in some circumstances. But very >seldom. And I'd most probably bid 4S anyway. The auction actually continued -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1H 3S (1) 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S (3) Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass Pass (1) South had a Cunning Plan to pretend to be a non-expert, bidding 3S then later 4S, thereby getting doubled, and thus scoring a top-ish +790 instead of an average-ish +620. (2) Break in tempo. (3) For an expert this is a breach of protocol to preempt and then freely bid again. (A bunny South would always Pass when North also chooses Pass, but would always bid 4S when North chooses a penalty Double. Sure enough, at two tables of this theoretically very strong Final, two East-West pairs were permitted to declare 4H undoubled.) A2 T9 J962 QT876 T K K6532 AQJ74 K75 AQT4 K952 J43 QJ9876543 8 83 A Result: 5H by East, -50. East-West summon the Director and request a score adjustment to 4H by East, +420. How do you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Mar 16 23:54:09 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:54:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BA00C11.9010105@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] Nigel Guthrie has long expressed approval for the elegant simplicity of the illegal claim Laws used by his particular online provider, and has frequently suggested that face-to-face duplicate bridge should also adopt these claim Laws. Alas, if Nigel's suggestion was adopted that would in effect rrriiip Law 70C out of the Law Book, disadvantaging non-claiming sides. [Nige1] No wonder I misunderstand at Richard's point. The advocated claim rule certainly doesn't have ridiculously draconian consequences disadvantaging ... non-claiming sides. IMO, on the contrary, compared with current laws, it speeds up the game and benefits non-claimers. From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 17 00:13:42 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:13:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4B9FB519.5020004@skynet.be> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> <4B9FB519.5020004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > Is it really not a logical alternative to just bash the final contract? ......... Shall we ever consider a deliberate deviation from systemic agreements to be one among many logic alternatives for the purpose of applying Law 16? If the answer is yes to this question: What is the criterion for ruling that a particular (legal) call among the 38 possible different calls is not a logical alternative for this purpose? Example: Can pass from me ever be a logical alternative when my partner opens the auction with a standard Blackwood 4NT bid? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 17 01:11:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:11:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BA00C11.9010105@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Edward Lear (1812-1888), extract from "The Owl and the Pussycat": Pussy said to the Owl, "You elegant fowl! How charmingly sweet you sing! O let us be married! too long we have tarried: But what shall we do for a ring? They sailed away for a year and a day, To the land where the Bong-tree grows, And there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood With a ring at the end of his nose. Richard Hills, a Pussycat with cLaws: >>Nigel Guthrie has long expressed approval for the elegant >>simplicity of the illegal claim Laws used by his particular >>online provider, and has frequently suggested that face-to-face >>duplicate bridge should also adopt these claim Laws. Alas, if >>Nigel's suggestion was adopted that would in effect rrriiip Law >>70C out of the Law Book, disadvantaging non-claiming sides. Nigel Guthrie, an elegant Owl: >No wonder I misunderstand at Richard's point. The advocated >claim rule certainly doesn't have ridiculously draconian >consequences disadvantaging ... non-claiming sides. Richard Hills, a Pussycat with cLaws: Demonstrably false. Nigel Guthrie is being demonstrably obtuse. (Note: Sometimes a mother will complain to her nit-picking teenage son, "You are being deliberately obtuse." Demonstrably obtuse is significantly different in meaning from deliberately obtuse, as it lacks any suggestion of perverse intent.) The demonstrative example -> Declarer has made a comprehensive and almost entirely valid claim statement, with its only flaw being that declarer has forgotten that an opponent holds the deuce of trumps. If declarer plays one of her own trumps early on, declarer's claim will be very successful. But if declarer follows another entirely normal line which is consistent with her claim statement, the deuce of trumps will score an unexpected* trick. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of her action. Scenario One The elegant simplicity, but ugliness, of the Guthrie claim rule: "If declarer claims, and a defender objects, play continues. Defenders may now view each other's hands to defend double-dummy, but declarer still plays single-dummy." Declarer looks at her and dummy's cards, deduces that the only possible reason for the defenders' objection is that declarer has forgotten the deuce of trumps, so she finishes drawing trumps. Scenario Two The inelegant complexity, but beauty, of Law 70C: "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Purr, purr, scratch Richard Hills, The land where the Bong-tree grows -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Mar 17 01:30:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:30:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Shall we ever consider a deliberate deviation from systemic >agreements to be one among many logical alternatives for the >purpose of applying Law 16? Richard Hills: Of course. Since a true psyche (a deliberate and gross deviation from systemic agreements) is permitted by Law 40A3, sometimes a true psyche is a logical alternative. Many years ago I mentioned on blml how 13 out of 27 Master Solvers' Club panellists chose to Pass their partner's unconditionally forcing 4D bid because they judged that the risk of suffering a big penalty in 5Dx was too great. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Mar 17 04:37:49 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:37:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Mr Smoketoomuch [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BA04E8D.9020004@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] Declarer has made a comprehensive and almost entirely valid claim statement, with its only flaw being that declarer has forgotten that an opponent holds the deuce of trumps. If declarer plays one of her own trumps early on, declarer's claim will be very successful. But if declarer follows another entirely normal line which is consistent with her claim statement, the deuce of trumps will score an unexpected* trick. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of her action. Scenario One (The elegant simplicity, but ugliness, of the Guthrie claim rule): "If declarer claims, and a defender objects, play continues. Defenders may now view each other's hands to defend double-dummy, but declarer still plays single-dummy." Declarer looks at her and dummy's cards, deduces that the only possible reason for the defenders' objection is that declarer has forgotten the deuce of trumps, so she finishes drawing trumps. Scenario Two (The inelegant complexity, but beauty, of Law 70C): "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." [Nigel] I agree that the suggested claim rule is more elegant and simple than current law. IMO, players will also deem it fairer and more effective. Sophisticateed rules are harder for players to understand and for directors to apply than Richard implies. For example, claim cases such as Richard's example often feature on BLML. Under current laws, some directors write that they would rule differently from Richard. Victims view such inconsistencies as unfair. Also, under current laws, players are reluctant to claim because of language difficulties and because a comprehensive claim statement takes time and effort. This unnecessarily prolongs the play. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 17 05:55:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:55:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Not necessarily [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936): "The word 'good' has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his mother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man." Imps Dlr: East Vul: East-West T4 9876 AQT4 A53 Q6 AKJ9873 2 J543 J9875 6 QJT96 8 52 AKQT K32 K742 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1S X 2C (1) 2H (2) 4S Pass Pass Pass(2) (1) East is a good man, but not necessarily a good student, since East was unaware that the ABF required West's negative free bid to be Alerted. (2) North is a good man, but not necessarily a good bidder. North-South +200 (3) (3) South is a good woman and necessarily a good defender. After her obvious (but double-dummy unlucky) opening lead of the ace of hearts at trick one, she switched to an almost as obvious spade at trick two to secure the extra undertrick. (4) At the conclusion of play North-South summoned the Chief Director of Australia. He proved that he was a Chief Director, but not necessarily a good Director, as he ruled: "Result stands." How would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 17 08:17:22 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:17:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Breach of protocol [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16 March 2010 23:21, wrote: >>>Matchpoint pairs >>>Dlr: North >>>Vul: North-South >>> >>>WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH >>>--- ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?1H ? ? ? ?? >>> >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>QJ9876543 >>>8 >>>83 >>>A >>> >>>You and your three opponents are all Australian experts. >>>What call do you make? > > Harald Skj?ran: > >>4S, very straightforward. > >>>What other calls do you consider making? > > Harald Skj?ran: > >>I might consider pass in some circumstances. But very >>seldom. And I'd most probably bid 4S anyway. > > The auction actually continued -> > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?1H ? ? ? ?3S (1) > 4H ? ? ? ?Pass(2) ? Pass ? ? ?4S (3) > Pass ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?5H ? ? ? ?Pass > Pass ? ? ?Pass > > (1) South had a Cunning Plan to pretend to be a non-expert, > ? ?bidding 3S then later 4S, thereby getting doubled, and > ? ?thus scoring a top-ish +790 instead of an average-ish > ? ?+620. > (2) Break in tempo. > (3) For an expert this is a breach of protocol I've never seen such a protocol. :-) But I very seldom, if ever, preempt and freely bid again. I can imagine that happening, though. And I've seen it done several times - by experts. Mostly without success, admittedly. But aslo very successfully. > to preempt > ? ?and then freely bid again. ?(A bunny South would always > ? ?Pass when North also chooses Pass, but would always bid > ? ?4S when North chooses a penalty Double. ?Sure enough, at > ? ?two tables of this theoretically very strong Final, two > ? ?East-West pairs were permitted to declare 4H undoubled.) > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A2 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?T9 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?J962 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?QT876 > T ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? K > K6532 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AQJ74 > K75 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AQT4 > K952 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?J43 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?QJ9876543 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?8 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?83 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A > > Result: 5H by East, -50. ?East-West summon the Director and > request a score adjustment to 4H by East, +420. > > How do you rule? In cases like this one, I'd normally tend to rule against the bidder. However, it's often not clear what partner might be thinking of - often odds favor him thinking of making a penalty double, not bidding. In which case bidding is what L16 tells hesitators partner to do. Anyway, with this particular hand I have trouble believing an expert player would ever sell out to 4H, though it might be the winning decision. Thus I'd allow 4S and let the result stand. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 17 08:32:56 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:32:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not necessarily [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17 March 2010 05:55, wrote: > > G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936): > > "The word 'good' has many meanings. ?For example, if a man were > to shoot his mother at a range of five hundred yards, I should > call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man." > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: East-West > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?T4 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?9876 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AQT4 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A53 > Q6 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AKJ9873 > 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?J543 > J9875 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?6 > QJT96 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?8 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?52 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AKQT > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?K32 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?K742 > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? 1S ? ? ? ?X > 2C ?(1) ? 2H ?(2) ? 4S ? ? ? ?Pass > Pass ? ? ?Pass(2) > > (1) East is a good man, but not necessarily a good student, > ? ?since East was unaware that the ABF required West's negative > ? ?free bid to be Alerted. Strange alerting regulation. I don't think I've ever seen anyone playing 2/1 as forcing in this situation. According to Norwegian alerting regulation, the latter is alertable, since the forcing nature of the bid is unexpected. Anyway, I accept that Aussie regulations differ from our. > > (2) North is a good man, but not necessarily a good bidder. Indeed. 3H seems to describe the hand perfectly. > > North-South +200 (3) > > (3) South is a good woman and necessarily a good defender. ?After > ? ?her obvious (but double-dummy unlucky) opening lead of the > ? ?ace of hearts at trick one, she switched to an almost as > ? ?obvious spade at trick two to secure the extra undertrick. > > (4) At the conclusion of play North-South summoned the Chief > ? ?Director of Australia. ?He proved that he was a Chief > ? ?Director, but not necessarily a good Director, as he ruled: > ? ?"Result stands." > > How would you rule? N-S has been presented with a great gift of (double dummy) +800, or +500 with the normal, but unlucky lead. It's difficult for me to understand how they have been damaged here. If they claim that they would have bid 4H (difficult, though, when east bids 4S) or doubled 4S, that doesn't look very likely, seeing north's simple raise to 2H. Others might disagree. I'd let the result stand. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 17 10:30:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:30:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI case - debriefing In-Reply-To: <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> 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> <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BA0A11D.1050803@ulb.ac.be> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > > Teams, none vul. > You hold Ax - AQxx - AQ9xx - 10x > > RHO opens 1S, you double, and partner answers 2H. > > a) what do you bid ? > b) what are your LAs ? > c) what is your duty if partner's 2H bid was rather (but not very) slow ? All three respondents have found 3H absolutely obvious, and therefore not restricted by UI use. Ax AQxx AQ97x 10x KJ9xx x Kx J10xx K J108xx AQxxx Jxx Q10xxx 9xx xx K9x The fact that a 1NT overcall would have been successful, especially after the probable lead of DJ, is another story. At our table (I sat East) : W N E S 1S X p 1NT(a) 2C 3C(b) p 3NT (a) solving her problem with the lowest possible bid, an idea that stood the test of time. (b) not on the same wavelength ; here is where ELC is relevant : 2D would have been a slight underbid. Not a reason to overbid either. Partner led the CA, got an encouraging signal, and the rest wasn't declarer's delight : three down. At the other table : 1S X p .... 2H(a) p ? (a)The only known "fit", after all Now my Captan, a man of high ethics, decided he had to bend backwards, because "usually when they hesitate it's to bid more, especially when the bid is forced" and passed. This resulted in getting to the only makable contrat, where being forced to play from one's own hand was in declarer's interest. The lessons of this case are multiple : - being honest to the extreme has paid ; so what ? - perhaps the conception of "bending backwards" to the extreme isn't 100% right. - the idea, mentioned many times on blml, that sometimes they might hesitate in order to restrict partner, is perverse, as it amounts to "if they hesitate, shoot them" ; its direct cause is the preceding point. - the clich?, also mentioned many times on blml, that "when one hesitates, it's about bidding more" is plain wrong ; after all, they know that they'd rather bid one more after the tempo, to avoid UI use problems. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 17 11:13:50 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:13:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> Message-ID: <000301cac5ba$8a882e90$9f988bb0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >Shall we ever consider a deliberate deviation from systemic agreements > >to be one among many logical alternatives for the purpose of applying > >Law 16? > > Richard Hills: > > Of course. Since a true psyche (a deliberate and gross deviation from systemic > agreements) is permitted by Law 40A3, sometimes a true psyche is a logical > alternative. > > Many years ago I mentioned on blml how 13 out of 27 Master Solvers' Club > panellists chose to Pass their partner's unconditionally forcing 4D bid because > they judged that the risk of suffering a big penalty in 5Dx was too great. So: Assume your partner has made such an unconditionally forcing 4D bid. Somehow you have received UI to the effect that he remembers your agreements and is bidding accordingly. This UI of course demonstrably suggests that you too will continue with calls according to your agreements and specifically in this position answer with some legal call other than pass (unless RHO does not pass in this round). According to your opinion pass is always a logical alternative call for you in this position. Consequently, as Law 16 prohibits you from selecting a logical alternative demonstrably suggested over another by the UI you have received you are required to pass in this situation regardless of which cards you hold? I suggest you might care to consider and answer my question which you simply snipped from my post: What is the criterion for ruling that a particular (legal) call among the 38 possible different calls is not a logical alternative for the purpose of applying law 16? Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 17 11:47:44 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:47:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> <4B9FB519.5020004@skynet.be> <000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> Message-ID: <4BA0B350.3030806@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ >> Is it really not a logical alternative to just bash the final >> contract? > ......... Shall we ever consider a deliberate deviation from systemic > agreements to be one among many logic alternatives for the purpose of > applying Law 16? But we are not talking about a deviation from systemic agreements! We are talking about a player continuing with a conventional bidding sequence. Or alternatively, not doing so and just bashing the final contract. Both these must be considered LAs (or at least, we can imagine cases where both are LA). When playing behind screens, a player has no information and chooses freely. But F2F, we have the possibility that the previous bid in the sequence was explained by partner. If he explained that one incorrectly, bashing is the logical thing to do, so by L16 it is banned, and the player should continue with the conventional sequence. But similarly, if the previous bid was explained correctly, and that explanation is considered UI, then the suggested action is continueing the sequence, so the player should, by L16, bash the final contract. And I repeat, NO, this is not what I want - which is why the expected explanation should become AI. But currently, it is not. > > If the answer is yes to this question: What is the criterion for > ruling that a particular (legal) call among the 38 possible different > calls is not a logical alternative for this purpose? > > Example: Can pass from me ever be a logical alternative when my > partner opens the auction with a standard Blackwood 4NT bid? > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 17 11:58:37 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:58:37 -0000 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> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net><000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20D0F1DC83054733A9CFB1494D4A0248@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > Sven Pran wrote: >> >> And please tell me exactly how partner's alert suggests the scientific >> auction over bashing the final contract so long as there is no >> misinformation or misbid involved. >> >> Are you saying that whenever an alert or missing alert confirms to me >> that >> partner and I am on the same page I may no longer use our detailed >> "scientific" agreements to find the best contract but must guess it right >> away? >> > > Yes indeed, that's exactly what he's saying. Both paths are LA, and the > information that we're on the same page suggests that the scientific > approach may be better. So if the information is UI, the scientific > approach, which is suggested by the UI, should not be taken. > > Which is of course not what anyone wants. But it's what the laws > currently say. So the laws need to be changed. > > You cannot have it both ways, Sven - insisting on the laws in one thread > because you believe I am wrong and ignoring the laws in another because > you believe the laws are wrong. > +=+ An alert or non-alert that is in accordance with the expectations of the alerter's partner does not convey *extraneous* information. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 17 12:37:58 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:37:58 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> <4B9FB519.5020004@skynet.be><000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> <4BA0B350.3030806@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? "if the previous bid was explained correctly, and that explanation is considered UI, then the suggested action is continueing the sequence, so the player should, by L16, bash the final contract. > And I repeat, NO, this is not what I want - which is why the expected explanation should become AI. But currently, it is not. > +=+ If A makes a call intending by it a particular meaning and his partner B explains that call to opponents as A intended it, B has conveyed no *extraneous* information to A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Mar 17 16:09:22 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:09:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> <4B9FB519.5020004@skynet.be><000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> <4BA0B350.3030806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BA0F0A2.4000404@comcast.net> On 3/17/10 7:37 AM, Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Every physician almost hath his > favourite disease." > ~ Henry Fielding . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > > > "if the previous bid was explained correctly, and that > explanation is considered UI, then the suggested action > is continueing the sequence, so the player should, by > L16, bash the final contract. > >> > And I repeat, NO, this is not what I want - which is > why the expected explanation should become AI. But > currently, it is not. > >> > +=+ If A makes a call intending by it a particular meaning and > his partner B explains that call to opponents as A intended it, > B has conveyed no *extraneous* information to A. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Suppose A makes a call he is not 100% sure they have agreement about, and B alerts and explains it the way A had hoped. What now, brown Cow? --Bob Park From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 17 16:10:38 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:10:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> <4B9FB519.5020004@skynet.be><000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> <4BA0B350.3030806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BA0F0EE.3060205@skynet.be> Does the WBFLC agree with this definition of extraneous? How does it render any other pieve of information extraneous? Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Every physician almost hath his > favourite disease." > ~ Henry Fielding . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > > > "if the previous bid was explained correctly, and that > explanation is considered UI, then the suggested action > is continueing the sequence, so the player should, by > L16, bash the final contract. >> > And I repeat, NO, this is not what I want - which is > why the expected explanation should become AI. But > currently, it is not. >> > +=+ If A makes a call intending by it a particular meaning and > his partner B explains that call to opponents as A intended it, > B has conveyed no *extraneous* information to A. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2751 - Release Date: 03/16/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 17 16:20:43 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:20:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4BA0F0A2.4000404@comcast.net> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> <4B9FB519.5020004@skynet.be><000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> <4BA0B350.3030806@skynet.be> <4BA0F0A2.4000404@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4BA0F34B.6030601@ulb.ac.be> Robert Park a ?crit : > Suppose A makes a call he is not 100% sure they have agreement about, > and B alerts and explains it the way A had hoped. What now, brown Cow? > Now we can't prove this, so we might as well ignore it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 17 16:52:34 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:52:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> <4B9FB519.5020004@skynet.be><000201cac55e$53b048a0$fb10d9e0$@no> <4BA0B350.3030806@skynet.be> Message-ID: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Every physician almost hath his > favourite disease." > ~ Henry Fielding . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > > > "if the previous bid was explained correctly, and that > explanation is considered UI, then the suggested action > is continueing the sequence, so the player should, by > L16, bash the final contract. >> > And I repeat, NO, this is not what I want - which is > why the expected explanation should become AI. But > currently, it is not. >> > +=+ If A makes a call intending by it a particular meaning and > his partner B explains that call to opponents as A intended it, > B has conveyed no *extraneous* information to A. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am not sure what you are saying. I have no reason to always be 100% confident that my partner has correctly understood my bid. So at least sometimes his correct explanation will raise the probability that he has understood me. That counts as information, right? To settle if it is extraneous, you might turn to L16A. As I read that law, all explanations, being part of the procedures of the game, are AI. That can't be right. Doesn't that make L16A unusable? So why are you saying this information is not extraneous? I mean, you can get it from L16B1. Is that what you are doing? And then ignoring L73A1? From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 17 17:20:04 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:20:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI case - debriefing In-Reply-To: <4BA0A11D.1050803@ulb.ac.be> 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> <4B9E3FE2.4030008@ulb.ac.be> <4BA0A11D.1050803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <010001cac5ed$b3dd5b70$1b981250$@nl> Interesting. I only read the story this morning and did not have time to answer. However, I remember thinking that the condition of 16B1a was not satisfied precisely because of this particular type of hand. Now it is much more likely that partner hesitates with a goodish hand, but the law does not mention probabilities here. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: woensdag 17 maart 2010 10:30 To: agot at ulb.ac.be Cc: Eric LEMAIRE; Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] UI case - debriefing Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > > Teams, none vul. > You hold Ax - AQxx - AQ9xx - 10x > > RHO opens 1S, you double, and partner answers 2H. > > a) what do you bid ? > b) what are your LAs ? > c) what is your duty if partner's 2H bid was rather (but not very) slow ? All three respondents have found 3H absolutely obvious, and therefore not restricted by UI use. Ax AQxx AQ97x 10x KJ9xx x Kx J10xx K J108xx AQxxx Jxx Q10xxx 9xx xx K9x The fact that a 1NT overcall would have been successful, especially after the probable lead of DJ, is another story. At our table (I sat East) : W N E S 1S X p 1NT(a) 2C 3C(b) p 3NT (a) solving her problem with the lowest possible bid, an idea that stood the test of time. (b) not on the same wavelength ; here is where ELC is relevant : 2D would have been a slight underbid. Not a reason to overbid either. Partner led the CA, got an encouraging signal, and the rest wasn't declarer's delight : three down. At the other table : 1S X p .... 2H(a) p ? (a)The only known "fit", after all Now my Captan, a man of high ethics, decided he had to bend backwards, because "usually when they hesitate it's to bid more, especially when the bid is forced" and passed. This resulted in getting to the only makable contrat, where being forced to play from one's own hand was in declarer's interest. The lessons of this case are multiple : - being honest to the extreme has paid ; so what ? - perhaps the conception of "bending backwards" to the extreme isn't 100% right. - the idea, mentioned many times on blml, that sometimes they might hesitate in order to restrict partner, is perverse, as it amounts to "if they hesitate, shoot them" ; its direct cause is the preceding point. - the clich?, also mentioned many times on blml, that "when one hesitates, it's about bidding more" is plain wrong ; after all, they know that they'd rather bid one more after the tempo, to avoid UI use problems. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 17 18:24:52 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:24:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> Message-ID: <4BA11064.8080601@nhcc.net> Sven Pran wrote: > Is it really a logical alternative to discard a partnership understanding Who is talking about that? > The moment partner correctly alerts a call Why is this so difficult? Alerts are AI... no problem there. The issue is answers to questions, which are always UI. > What is the criterion for ruling that a particular (legal) call among the 38 > possible different calls is not a logical alternative Bridge judgment, just as in any UI case. Sven, please read carefully my original message in this thread, and don't assume that everyone else is an idiot. The 2007 Laws say something very odd here. It will only make a difference on a rare hand type, but I don't see any way around the clear text. Unless one just ignores it altogether and makes up new Laws. Grattan Endicott An alert or non-alert that is in accordance with > the expectations of the alerter's partner does not convey > *extraneous* information. Even more than that, such an alert (or non-alert) is AI. > If A makes a call intending by it a particular meaning and > his partner B explains that call to opponents as A intended it, > B has conveyed no *extraneous* information to A. This, in contrast, appears not to be the case per L16B1a, which includes "reply to a question" with no qualifier "unexpected." The different treatment of alerts versus replies to questions is the oddity. rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > As I read [L16A], > all explanations, being part of the procedures of the game, are AI. Have you missed all the other postings in this thread? Why is this so hard for people to grasp? As Robert writes, L16A1c makes both alerts and explanations AI, but 16B1a carves out exceptions for unexpected alerts and for all replies to questions, making them UI. Expected alerts or non-alerts remain AI. The question is whether there is some other bit of Law that overturns the plain meaning of these texts or if not, what the effect will be. > Suppose A makes a call he is not 100% sure they have agreement about, > and B alerts and explains it the way A had hoped. If it were only an alert, A could do whatever he wants. However, as far as I can tell, after an explanation from B, A has UI, and the usual questions of "logical alternative" and "suggested over another" arise. Sometimes -- but not always -- these will restrict A's choices. I don't like this but see no way around it in the current Laws text. From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 17 20:29:17 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:29:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Phantom double Message-ID: <1663C6F4E13A4591936EEFAA713D1627@sfora4869e47f1> Hi everyone, I was asked recently for an opinion about a case from the Polish Second Division. At favorable vulnerability we pick up: 7 5 3 2 J 9 8 J 9 5 J 4 3 The bidding goes: 1C - p - 2D - p 3C - p - 3S - p 3NT -p - xx - p p -? We are puzzled and take a second look at the tray. We discover that on top of our three previous passes there is a double card glued to the third pass. How would you rule? A. You rule that the player in question doubled 3NT although he never intended to so it is a case of an unintended call. The tray, however, already made a round trip to the other side of the screen so it is too late to apply L25A and the double as well as the ensuing redouble must stand. B You rule that the player in question made too calls over 3NT - he first passed and then doubled. The second double (out of turn) was accepted but is inadmissible and, per L36A, is cancelled and so are all the subsequent calls, including the redouble. C None of the above? If you rule B, then it kind of forces the opponents to count the pass cards in front of you which I find hard to accept. Therefore my opinion is that one should rule according to A but I'd like to find out what other people think. Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------- Atrakcyjne mieszkania i dzia??ki. Sprawd?? oferty! http://link.interia.pl/f260b From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 17 22:46:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:46:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Breach of protocol [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>For an expert this is a breach of protocol to preempt and then >>freely bid again. Harald Skj?ran: >I've never seen such a protocol. :-) > >But I very seldom, if ever, preempt and freely bid again. I can >imagine that happening, though. > >And I've seen it done several times - by experts. Mostly without >success, admittedly. Richard Hills: A jumbo jet pilot is regularly retested in a flight simulator before her flying license is renewed. If I was the El Supremo retesting bridge players, I would cancel a bridge player's expert license for making such a basic backseat driving error of preempting then freely bidding again. Harald Skj?ran: >Anyway, with this particular hand I have trouble believing an >expert player would ever sell out to 4H Richard Hills: I would always sell out to 4H. Perhaps I am not an expert. Let me explain. At imps I would always immediately overcall 4S. At any other vulnerability at matchpoint pairs I would always immediately overcall 4S. But at this adverse vulnerability -500 instead of -450 is not a mere two imps away, but possibly converting an equal top into an equal bottom. So on this deal I would immediately overcall 3S then stop bidding (unless partner chose a call which required me to make a further decision, for example Keycard Blackwood). And for whatever reason North was thinking, the demonstrable suggestion to South was that North held values (for example, the ace of spades that North actually held). So the actual Director adjusted the score to 4H +420, and the actual Appeals Committee upheld the Director's ruling by a 3-2 vote (apparently the minority gullibly accepted South's argument that his 3S bid was a Cunning Plan to "walk the dog"). 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 Wed Mar 17 22:54:50 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:54:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? In-Reply-To: <4BA11064.8080601@nhcc.net> References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> <4BA11064.8080601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000301cac61c$781d98f0$6858cad0$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sven Pran wrote: > > Is it really a logical alternative to discard a partnership > > understanding > > Who is talking about that? > > > The moment partner correctly alerts a call > > Why is this so difficult? Alerts are AI... no problem there. The issue is answers to > questions, which are always UI. > > > What is the criterion for ruling that a particular (legal) call among > > the 38 possible different calls is not a logical alternative > > Bridge judgment, just as in any UI case. > > Sven, please read carefully my original message in this thread, and don't assume > that everyone else is an idiot. Please do not assume my assumptions, in particular when you assume wrong. I am arguing against the assertions (presented here by at least two contributors) that when an expected alert or non-alert confirms that a player is "in line" with his partner then this confirmation is UI to that partner who therefore must chose calls that are not suggested by this UI. I have tried to show that this means the partner may no longer call according to the partnership agreements. This is of course a ridiculous consequence which in itself should be sufficient to disprove the assertion. However, I am not convinced that any alert or non-alert, whether or not expected, can in itself be AI. Alerts are nowhere what I am aware of listed among activities from which information is authorized to partner. But I reject the theory that a player who receives information from such an expected alert or non-alert from his partner has any logical alternative action to continue calling according to his partnership understanding. Consequently Law 16B will not apply simply because there is no logical alternative action over which the systemic action is "suggested". And BTW: The assertion that an expected alert or non-alert does not create information is obviously wrong. All actions create information in some way. Even if nothing else this action creates the information that the player obeyed his duty to opponents ("information" that obviously is UI to partner!). Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 17 22:59:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:59:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301cac5ba$8a882e90$9f988bb0$@no> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [simple snip] >>Many years ago I mentioned on blml how 13 out of 27 Master >>Solvers' Club panellists chose to Pass their partner's >>unconditionally forcing 4D bid because they judged that the >>risk of suffering a big penalty in 5Dx was too great. Sven Pran: [simple snip] >I suggest you might care to consider and answer my question >which you simply snipped from my post: > >What is the criterion for ruling that a particular (legal) call >among the 38 possible different calls is not a logical >alternative for the purpose of applying law 16? Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Richard Hills: If a Director polls 27 of your peers (class of player), and 13 out of 27 (a significant proportion) vote to violate your agreed and well-remembered system, then that call is a logical alternative. It matters not that the call is illogically inconsistent with your agreed and well-remembered system. What's the Pran Lem? 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 Mar 17 23:09:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:09:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Not necessarily [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran: >It's difficult for me to understand how they have been damaged >here. Richard Hills: The North-South argument was that they assumed the unAlerted 2C bid to be strong. If they had been correctly informed via a correct Alert that 2C was a negative free bid, it would have been easier for North to have doubled 4S. The basis for the Chief Director's ruling of "Result stands" was that North should have doubled anyway. How did the Chief Director err in interpreting Law? 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 cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 18 00:28:02 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:28:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Phantom double References: <1663C6F4E13A4591936EEFAA713D1627@sfora4869e47f1> <4BA14854.2070606@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <30BC9B84E2624D1AB7E15BD44A745DE5@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Phantom double > Hi, Konrad. Why would the double be inadmissible? > > If I understand your story, the second player to call has put out a "pass > card" that turned out to be red instead of green (and maybe had an actual > green one glued underneath). Yes, the green card was underneath. So technically he put them both on the tray, the green one underneath and the red one over it. So one might argue, I suppose, that he bid PASS first and then DOUBLE (of the two bids the one underneath on the try is deemed earlier) - so he made two bids one after another. Thus the second double,though accepted by the player's LHO, is cancelled as inadmissible (you cannot double your own pass). Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprawdz warunki na drogach! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f259f From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 18 00:52:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:52:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>>+=+ If A makes a call intending by it a particular meaning >>>>and his partner B explains that call to opponents as A >>>>intended it, B has conveyed no *extraneous* information to A. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Bob Park: >>>Suppose A makes a call he is not 100% sure they have agreement >>>about, and B alerts and explains it the way A had hoped. What >>>now, brown Cow? Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ An alert or non-alert that is in accordance with the >>expectations of the alerter's partner does not convey >>*extraneous* information. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Pard RHO You 1NT X 2D(1) (1) Alerted You had a 50% expectation that pard would Alert 2D, since you had a 50% expectation that pard would believe 2D was a transfer to hearts. You had a 50% expectation that pard would not Alert 2D, since you had a 50% expectation that pard would believe 2D showed diamonds. If you actually hold diamonds, Law 75A requires you to keep on bidding as if pard had not Alerted. But what if you actually hold hearts, fully consistent with pard's Alert? Surely in this case Bob Park correctly assesses that you have still received UI from pard? So does not Law 75A now require you to bid on the assumption that pard did not Alert your transfer to hearts? Alain Gottcheiner: >Now we can't prove this, so we might as well ignore it. Richard Hills: Yes and no. Merely because it may be difficult to prove that an unethical player has infracted a Law does not give an exceedingly ethical player (such as Alain) any right to join such unethical players in also infracting that hard-to-enforce Law. Peter Gill, 6th May 2001: ".....exceedingly ethical player (in fact, the rare kind of player whose bridge record might have been more glittering had he been less ethical, sad but true to say)....." Exceedingly ethical Laws 72B1 and 72B3: 1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept. ..... 3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. Earl Warren (1891-1974), American Chief Justice: "In civilised life, law floats in a sea of ethics." 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 Thu Mar 18 02:31:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:31:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Phantom double In-Reply-To: <1663C6F4E13A4591936EEFAA713D1627@sfora4869e47f1> References: <1663C6F4E13A4591936EEFAA713D1627@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:29:17 -0500, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I was asked recently for an opinion about a case from > the Polish Second Division. > > At favorable vulnerability we pick up: > > 7 5 3 2 > J 9 8 > J 9 5 > J 4 3 > > The bidding goes: > > 1C - p - 2D - p > 3C - p - 3S - p > 3NT -p - xx - p > p -? > > We are puzzled and take a second look at the tray. > We discover that on top of our three previous passes > there is a double card glued to the third pass. > How would you rule? > > A. You rule that the player in question doubled 3NT although > he never intended to so it is a case of an unintended call. > The tray, however, already made a round trip to the other side > of the screen so it is too late to apply L25A and the double > as well as the ensuing redouble must stand. > > B You rule that the player in question made too calls > over 3NT - he first passed and then doubled. The second double > (out of turn) was accepted but is inadmissible and, per > L36A, is cancelled and so are all the subsequent calls, > including the redouble. > > C None of the above? > > If you rule B, then it kind of forces the opponents to count > the pass cards in front of you which I find hard to accept. > Therefore my opinion is that one should rule according to > A but I'd like to find out what other people think. > > Best regards, > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland The facts of the case seem to be that the player intended to pass, but the double was stuck on top. The fair ruling presumably is the pass stands and the double does not. I take "fair" as meaning a principle above the laws, which the laws attempt to achieve. It seems to me that the laws you cite were not built to handle this situation. You can nonetheless try to follow the laws, but it is a little like following a headless chicken -- it isn't that easy and you can't expect any good guidance. IMO, L84B does not apply here. ("If the case is clearly covered by a law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he [the director] determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented"). I cannot see any place where the laws say what to do when the case is not clearly covered by a law. But.. "The director has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage." (L81C) I would take that as license that my responsibility is to try to remove the double. So... 1. You can try the follow-the-headless-chicken route. But it isn't working very well. 2. You can decide what you think is the right ruling and then find a headless-chicken route to that outcome and pretend to follow it. (In your example, option B.) 3. It would be nice if directors could just make the right ruling and not have to pretend. 3a. Perhaps there can be citation of general principles of the laws. The laws give first priority to players not being allowed to change their mind, but once that is fulfilled, tries not to have the game be influenced by mechanical errors. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 18 02:01:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:01:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Phantom double [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1663C6F4E13A4591936EEFAA713D1627@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: Gerald Ford, American President 1974-1977: "I believe that truth is the glue that holds Government together, not only our Government, but civilisation itself." Konrad Ciborowski: >there is a double card glued to the third pass. >How would you rule? Law 18F: "Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls." Richard Hills: Implicit in any Regulating Authority's bidding box regulation is an assumption that the equipment provided is not defective. For example, a peculiar phantom at the Canberra Bridge Club likes stealing the 7NT cards from bidding boxes to show off to her non-competitive bridge playing friends, who have never seen a bidding box card before. But the fact that one's defective bidding box lacks a 7NT card does not mean that one is prohibited from bidding 7NT. Likewise, a Pass is a Pass. The fact that a Double card was glued to the Pass card is a Law 18F irregularity, so as TD I would rule under Law 12C2 to give both sides Ave+. 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 Mar 18 03:25:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:25:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI case - debriefing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <010001cac5ed$b3dd5b70$1b981250$@nl> Message-ID: Ogden Nash (1902-1971): The cow is of the bovine ilk; One end is moo, the other, milk. Hans van Staveren: [snip] >Now it is much more likely that partner hesitates with a goodish >hand, but the law does not mention probabilities here. Richard Hills: 60% chance pard breaks tempo because pard is maximum 30% chance pard breaks tempo because pard is minimum 10% chance pard breaks tempo because pard watches a cow fly by I would argue that since pard holding a maximum is twice as likely as pard holding a minimum, the maximum is "demonstrably suggested". As has been noted before, the _actual_ reason for pard breaking tempo is irrelevant to a Law 16B / 73C ruling. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 18 03:24:00 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:24:00 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >>>>>+=+ If A makes a call intending by it a particular meaning >>>>>and his partner B explains that call to opponents as A >>>>>intended it, B has conveyed no *extraneous* information to A. >>>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Bob Park: > >>>>Suppose A makes a call he is not 100% sure they have agreement >>>>about, and B alerts and explains it the way A had hoped. What >>>>now, brown Cow? > > Grattan Endicott: > >>>+=+ An alert or non-alert that is in accordance with the >>>expectations of the alerter's partner does not convey >>>*extraneous* information. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Pard RHO You > 1NT X 2D(1) > > (1) Alerted > > You had a 50% expectation that pard would Alert 2D, since you had > a 50% expectation that pard would believe 2D was a transfer to > hearts. > > You had a 50% expectation that pard would not Alert 2D, since you > had a 50% expectation that pard would believe 2D showed diamonds. > > If you actually hold diamonds, Law 75A requires you to keep on > bidding as if pard had not Alerted. > > But what if you actually hold hearts, fully consistent with pard's > Alert? Surely in this case Bob Park correctly assesses that you > have still received UI from pard? So does not Law 75A now require > you to bid on the assumption that pard did not Alert your transfer > to hearts? > +=+ The intention of your bid can be ascertained from an examination of your cards. If you hold hearts and partner alerts he does not convey to you extraneous information. [Law 16B1(a)] and there is no UI from the alert. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 18 04:06:27 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:06:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Phantom double In-Reply-To: <30BC9B84E2624D1AB7E15BD44A745DE5@sfora4869e47f1> References: <1663C6F4E13A4591936EEFAA713D1627@sfora4869e47f1><4BA14854.2070606@cfa.harvard.edu> <30BC9B84E2624D1AB7E15BD44A745DE5@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 18:28 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Phantom double > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Willner" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:23 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Phantom double > > >> Hi, Konrad. Why would the double be inadmissible? >> >> If I understand your story, the second player to call has put out a "pass >> card" that turned out to be red instead of green (and maybe had an actual >> green one glued underneath). > > Yes, the green card was underneath. So technically he put > them both on the tray, the green one underneath > and the red one over it. > > So one might argue, I suppose, that he bid PASS first and then > DOUBLE (of the two bids the one underneath on the try > is deemed earlier) - so he made two bids one after another. > Thus the second double,though accepted by the > player's LHO, is cancelled as inadmissible (you cannot > double your own pass). > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland the answer to the question, 'Who on the other side of the screen glued the double card?' perhaps is germane . regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 18 05:17:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:17:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills dramatically asserted: >>Pard RHO You >>1NT X 2D(1) >> >>(1) Alerted >> >>You had a 50% expectation that pard would Alert 2D, since you >>had a 50% expectation that pard would believe 2D was a transfer >>to hearts. >> >>You had a 50% expectation that pard would not Alert 2D, since >>you had a 50% expectation that pard would believe 2D showed >>diamonds. >> >>If you actually hold diamonds, Law 75A requires you to keep on >>bidding as if pard had not Alerted. >> >>But what if you actually hold hearts, fully consistent with >>pard's Alert? Surely in this case Bob Park correctly assesses >>that you have still received UI from pard? So does not Law 75A >>now require you to bid on the assumption that pard did not Alert >>your transfer to hearts? Grattan Endicott non-dramatically refuted: >+=+ The intention of your bid can be ascertained from an >examination of your cards. If you hold hearts and partner alerts >he does not convey to you extraneous information [Law 16B1(a)] >and there is no UI from the alert. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "There is nothing dramatic in the success of a diplomatist. His victories are made up of a series of microscopic advantages: of a judicious suggestion here, or an opportune civility there: of a wise concession at one moment, and a farsighted persistence at another; of sleepless tact, immovable calmness, and patience that no folly, no provocation, no blunders can shake." Law 16B and Law 73C footnote: "* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Richard Hills concedes: So it seems that this footnote is not a dreaded so-called mind- reading Law, but rather "unexpected" and "basis" are determined by the objective evidence rather than by the subjective thoughts of the player concerned. 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 Thu Mar 18 09:32:40 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:32:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000301cac5ba$8a882e90$9f988bb0$@no> Message-ID: <000001cac675$929ce6f0$b7d6b4d0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > [simple snip] > > >>Many years ago I mentioned on blml how 13 out of 27 Master Solvers' > >>Club panellists chose to Pass their partner's unconditionally forcing > >>4D bid because they judged that the risk of suffering a big penalty in > >>5Dx was too great. > > Sven Pran: > > [simple snip] > > >I suggest you might care to consider and answer my question which you > >simply snipped from my post: > > > >What is the criterion for ruling that a particular (legal) call among > >the 38 possible different calls is not a logical alternative for the > >purpose of applying law 16? > > Law 16B1(b): > > "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and > using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a > significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." > > Richard Hills: > > If a Director polls 27 of your peers (class of player), and 13 out of 27 (a significant > proportion) vote to violate your agreed and well-remembered system, then that > call is a logical alternative. It matters not that the call is illogically inconsistent with > your agreed and well-remembered system. > If (quote) "13 out of 27 Master Solvers' Club panellists chose to Pass their partner's unconditionally forcing 4D bid because they judged that the risk of suffering a big penalty in 5Dx was too great" there must obviously have been something special with the auction and/or cards. I suspect that such was probably the reason why this case appeared in an expert panel in the first place and that an expected alert (or missing alert) was not a relevant matter. So yes, in this situation pass was absolutely a logical alternative action. But you still have to show that one logical alternative action was demonstrably suggested over another BY THE EXPECTED alert or missing alert. Can you do that? From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 18 09:44:27 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:44:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Richard Hills dramatically asserted: > > >>Pard RHO You > >>1NT X 2D(1) > >> > >>(1) Alerted > >> > >>You had a 50% expectation that pard would Alert 2D, since you had a > >>50% expectation that pard would believe 2D was a transfer to hearts. > >> > >>You had a 50% expectation that pard would not Alert 2D, since you had > >>a 50% expectation that pard would believe 2D showed diamonds. > >> > >>If you actually hold diamonds, Law 75A requires you to keep on bidding > >>as if pard had not Alerted. > >> > >>But what if you actually hold hearts, fully consistent with pard's > >>Alert? Surely in this case Bob Park correctly assesses that you have > >>still received UI from pard? So does not Law 75A now require you to > >>bid on the assumption that pard did not Alert your transfer to hearts? > > Grattan Endicott non-dramatically refuted: > > >+=+ The intention of your bid can be ascertained from an > >examination of your cards. If you hold hearts and partner alerts he > >does not convey to you extraneous information [Law 16B1(a)] and there > >is no UI from the alert. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: > > "There is nothing dramatic in the success of a diplomatist. His victories are made > up of a series of microscopic advantages: of a judicious suggestion here, or an > opportune civility there: of a wise concession at one moment, and a farsighted > persistence at another; of sleepless tact, immovable calmness, and patience that > no folly, no provocation, no blunders can shake." > > Law 16B and Law 73C footnote: > > "* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." > > Richard Hills concedes: > > So it seems that this footnote is not a dreaded so-called mind- reading Law, but > rather "unexpected" and "basis" are determined by the objective evidence rather > than by the subjective thoughts of the player concerned. My opinion (derived from information theory) is that the expected alert or missing alert conveys some information which in fact is extraneous. However the question still remains: What logical alternative action does such extraneous information demonstrably suggest over another logical action? My assertion is that it doesn't suggest any. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 18 10:13:02 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:13:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> Message-ID: <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > My opinion (derived from information theory) is that the expected alert or > missing alert conveys some information which in fact is extraneous. > However the question still remains: What logical alternative action does > such extraneous information demonstrably suggest over another logical > action? > > My assertion is that it doesn't suggest any. > Of course it does! That's the easy part! Suppose you have started a conventional sequence. Only the start of that sequence is one you know your partner sometimes misses. He makes a follow-up call, which could be an answer to your sequence, or it could be a natural development. You are behind screens, and you are wondering what to do next. If you continue the sequence, then you might run into difficulties. Your alternative is to bash the final contract. Now in this story it might be difficult to ascertain that there are indeed two logical alternatives, and that is the difficult part of this thread. But take away the screen, and you have heard your partner explain the first bid correctly. Now it is far easier to continue with the sequence. So to find that the one alternative is suggested over the other by the information is the easy part of the ruling! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 18 10:13:43 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:13:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Phantom double [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BA1EEC7.2030106@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Gerald Ford, American President 1974-1977: > > "I believe that truth is the glue that holds Government > together, not only our Government, but civilisation itself." > > Konrad Ciborowski: > > >> there is a double card glued to the third pass. >> How would you rule? >> > > Law 18F: > > "Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of > making calls." > > Richard Hills: > > Implicit in any Regulating Authority's bidding box regulation > is an assumption that the equipment provided is not defective. > > For example, a peculiar phantom at the Canberra Bridge Club > likes stealing the 7NT cards from bidding boxes to show off to > her non-competitive bridge playing friends, who have never > seen a bidding box card before. But the fact that one's > defective bidding box lacks a 7NT card does not mean that one > is prohibited from bidding 7NT. > > Likewise, a Pass is a Pass. The fact that a Double card was > glued to the Pass card is a Law 18F irregularity, so as TD I > would rule under Law 12C2 to give both sides Ave+. > > AG : Av+ is only possible when the board is deemed unplayable. When a normal result can be obtained (here, by using L18 as you mention it and cancelling Dbl and Rdbl) there is no reason to interrupt normal play of the board. Unless, perhaps, the redouble (meaning overstrength) changes something to the opening lead (thus not at IMPs). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 18 10:21:08 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:21:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI case - debriefing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BA1F084.7040002@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Ogden Nash (1902-1971): > > The cow is of the bovine ilk; > One end is moo, the other, milk. > > Hans van Staveren: > > [snip] > > >> Now it is much more likely that partner hesitates with a goodish >> hand, but the law does not mention probabilities here. >> > > Richard Hills: > > 60% chance pard breaks tempo because pard is maximum > 30% chance pard breaks tempo because pard is minimum > 10% chance pard breaks tempo because pard watches a cow fly by > > I would argue that since pard holding a maximum is twice as > likely as pard holding a minimum, the maximum is "demonstrably > suggested". > > As has been noted before, the _actual_ reason for pard breaking > tempo is irrelevant to a Law 16B / 73C ruling. > > I don't know Yves well enough to determine whether these probabilities are right. I claim that partner will be conscious that a slow pass will be interpreted by Richard as smaximum; whence he will strive to bid more with a borderline hand ; whence in turn his hesitation will usually mean minimum. Or, to express it more directly, one can prove anything. I also claim that "cow passing by" would be the 90% interpretation if partner was Yours Truly, cute girls being too uncommon in Belgian bridge clubs. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 18 10:25:38 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:25:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > My opinion (derived from information theory) is that the expected > > alert or missing alert conveys some information which in fact is extraneous. > > However the question still remains: What logical alternative action > > does such extraneous information demonstrably suggest over another > > logical action? > > > > My assertion is that it doesn't suggest any. > > > > Of course it does! That's the easy part! > > Suppose you have started a conventional sequence. Only the start of that > sequence is one you know your partner sometimes misses. He makes a follow-up > call, which could be an answer to your sequence, or it could be a natural > development. You are behind screens, and you are wondering what to do next. If > you continue the sequence, then you might run into difficulties. Your alternative is > to bash the final contract. Now in this story it might be difficult to ascertain that > there are indeed two logical alternatives, and that is the difficult part of this thread. > But take away the screen, and you have heard your partner explain the first bid > correctly. Now it is far easier to continue with the sequence. > > So to find that the one alternative is suggested over the other by the information is > the easy part of the ruling! If this is the way you play bridge then I suggest you either change your agreements or change your partner. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 10:36:01 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:36:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> Message-ID: On 18 March 2010 10:25, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >> > >> > My opinion (derived from information theory) is that the expected >> > alert or missing alert conveys some information which in fact is > extraneous. >> > However the question still remains: What logical alternative action >> > does such extraneous information demonstrably suggest over another >> > logical action? >> > >> > My assertion is that it doesn't suggest any. >> > >> >> Of course it does! That's the easy part! >> >> Suppose you have started a conventional sequence. Only the start of that >> sequence is one you know your partner sometimes misses. He makes a > follow-up >> call, which could be an answer to your sequence, or it could be a natural >> development. You are behind screens, and you are wondering what to do > next. If >> you continue the sequence, then you might run into difficulties. Your > alternative is >> to bash the final contract. Now in this story it might be difficult to > ascertain that >> there are indeed two logical alternatives, and that is the difficult part > of this thread. >> But take away the screen, and you have heard your partner explain the > first bid >> correctly. Now it is far easier to continue with the sequence. >> >> So to find that the one alternative is suggested over the other by the > information is >> the easy part of the ruling! > > If this is the way you play bridge then I suggest you either change your > agreements or change your partner. There's no reason to be rude and make implications about Herman and how he plays bridge. That's not what we're discussing here. What Herman desribes is something that happens "all the time". Not by very ethical players or players who're very familiar with the laws. But among the masses, this is obviously pretty common, and most players are totally unaware of it. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 10:36:50 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:36:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> Message-ID: 2010/3/18 Harald Skj?ran : > On 18 March 2010 10:25, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> Sven Pran wrote: >>> > >>> > My opinion (derived from information theory) is that the expected >>> > alert or missing alert conveys some information which in fact is >> extraneous. >>> > However the question still remains: What logical alternative action >>> > does such extraneous information demonstrably suggest over another >>> > logical action? >>> > >>> > My assertion is that it doesn't suggest any. >>> > >>> >>> Of course it does! That's the easy part! >>> >>> Suppose you have started a conventional sequence. Only the start of that >>> sequence is one you know your partner sometimes misses. He makes a >> follow-up >>> call, which could be an answer to your sequence, or it could be a natural >>> development. You are behind screens, and you are wondering what to do >> next. If >>> you continue the sequence, then you might run into difficulties. Your >> alternative is >>> to bash the final contract. Now in this story it might be difficult to >> ascertain that >>> there are indeed two logical alternatives, and that is the difficult part >> of this thread. >>> But take away the screen, and you have heard your partner explain the >> first bid >>> correctly. Now it is far easier to continue with the sequence. >>> >>> So to find that the one alternative is suggested over the other by the >> information is >>> the easy part of the ruling! >> >> If this is the way you play bridge then I suggest you either change your >> agreements or change your partner. > > There's no reason to be rude and make implications about Herman and > how he plays bridge. > That's not what we're discussing here. Btw, I'm pretty confident Herman does NOT play like this at all. > > What Herman desribes is something that happens "all the time". > Not by very ethical players or players who're very familiar with the laws. > But among the masses, this is obviously pretty common, and most > players are totally unaware of it. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 18 10:41:29 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:41:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> Message-ID: <4BA1F549.3010206@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> My opinion (derived from information theory) is that the expected >>> alert or missing alert conveys some information which in fact is >>> > extraneous. > >>> However the question still remains: What logical alternative action >>> does such extraneous information demonstrably suggest over another >>> logical action? >>> >>> My assertion is that it doesn't suggest any. >>> >>> >> Of course it does! That's the easy part! >> >> Suppose you have started a conventional sequence. Only the start of that >> sequence is one you know your partner sometimes misses. He makes a >> > follow-up > >> call, which could be an answer to your sequence, or it could be a natural >> development. You are behind screens, and you are wondering what to do >> > next. If > >> you continue the sequence, then you might run into difficulties. Your >> > alternative is > >> to bash the final contract. Now in this story it might be difficult to >> > ascertain that > >> there are indeed two logical alternatives, and that is the difficult part >> > of this thread. > >> But take away the screen, and you have heard your partner explain the >> > first bid > >> correctly. Now it is far easier to continue with the sequence. >> >> So to find that the one alternative is suggested over the other by the >> > information is > >> the easy part of the ruling! >> > > If this is the way you play bridge then I suggest you either change your > agreements or change your partner. > > Or the opinion you have about your partner ? From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 18 11:13:13 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:13:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BA1F549.3010206@ulb.ac.be> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> <4BA1F549.3010206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601cac683$9f230bd0$dd692370$@no> Sorry, I lost my patience. But as I have already described: The logic presented by Herman (and others) inevitably leads to the conclusion that whenever partner through (expected) alerts or non-alerts confirms that he (the partner) remembers the partnership understanding this information prohibits a player from continuing his auction according to this understanding because that is suggested by the (confirming) information conveyed with the expected alert action. Unless of course we create a general rule that deviating from partnership understanding is never a logical alternative, in which case there is no logical alternative action over which the information from an expected alert or non-alert can suggest continuing calling according to partnership understanding. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain > Gottcheiner > Sent: 18. mars 2010 10:41 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > > >> Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >>> My opinion (derived from information theory) is that the expected > >>> alert or missing alert conveys some information which in fact is > >>> > > extraneous. > > > >>> However the question still remains: What logical alternative action > >>> does such extraneous information demonstrably suggest over another > >>> logical action? > >>> > >>> My assertion is that it doesn't suggest any. > >>> > >>> > >> Of course it does! That's the easy part! > >> > >> Suppose you have started a conventional sequence. Only the start of > >> that sequence is one you know your partner sometimes misses. He makes > >> a > >> > > follow-up > > > >> call, which could be an answer to your sequence, or it could be a > >> natural development. You are behind screens, and you are wondering > >> what to do > >> > > next. If > > > >> you continue the sequence, then you might run into difficulties. Your > >> > > alternative is > > > >> to bash the final contract. Now in this story it might be difficult > >> to > >> > > ascertain that > > > >> there are indeed two logical alternatives, and that is the difficult > >> part > >> > > of this thread. > > > >> But take away the screen, and you have heard your partner explain the > >> > > first bid > > > >> correctly. Now it is far easier to continue with the sequence. > >> > >> So to find that the one alternative is suggested over the other by > >> the > >> > > information is > > > >> the easy part of the ruling! > >> > > > > If this is the way you play bridge then I suggest you either change > > your agreements or change your partner. > > > > > Or the opinion you have about your partner ? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 11:34:21 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:34:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601cac683$9f230bd0$dd692370$@no> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> <4BA1F549.3010206@ulb.ac.be> <000601cac683$9f230bd0$dd692370$@no> Message-ID: On 18 March 2010 11:13, Sven Pran wrote: > Sorry, I lost my patience. > > But as I have already described: The logic presented by Herman (and others) > inevitably leads to the conclusion that whenever partner through (expected) > alerts or non-alerts confirms that he (the partner) remembers the > partnership understanding this information prohibits a player from > continuing his auction according to this understanding because that is > suggested by the (confirming) information conveyed with the expected alert > action. Only if there's a logical alternative within the partnership agreements. And none, as far as I've understood, implies that this is how it should be. > > Unless of course we create a general rule that deviating from partnership > understanding is never a logical alternative, in which case there is no > logical alternative action over which the information from an expected alert > or non-alert can suggest continuing calling according to partnership > understanding. > > Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Alain >> Gottcheiner >> Sent: 18. mars 2010 10:41 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> > >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >> >>> My opinion (derived from information theory) is that the expected >> >>> alert or missing alert conveys some information which in fact is >> >>> >> > extraneous. >> > >> >>> However the question still remains: What logical alternative action >> >>> does such extraneous information demonstrably suggest over another >> >>> logical action? >> >>> >> >>> My assertion is that it doesn't suggest any. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Of course it does! That's the easy part! >> >> >> >> Suppose you have started a conventional sequence. Only the start of >> >> that sequence is one you know your partner sometimes misses. He makes >> >> a >> >> >> > follow-up >> > >> >> call, which could be an answer to your sequence, or it could be a >> >> natural development. You are behind screens, and you are wondering >> >> what to do >> >> >> > next. If >> > >> >> you continue the sequence, then you might run into difficulties. Your >> >> >> > alternative is >> > >> >> to bash the final contract. Now in this story it might be difficult >> >> to >> >> >> > ascertain that >> > >> >> there are indeed two logical alternatives, and that is the difficult >> >> part >> >> >> > of this thread. >> > >> >> But take away the screen, and you have heard your partner explain the >> >> >> > first bid >> > >> >> correctly. Now it is far easier to continue with the sequence. >> >> >> >> So to find that the one alternative is suggested over the other by >> >> the >> >> >> > information is >> > >> >> the easy part of the ruling! >> >> >> > >> > If this is the way you play bridge then I suggest you either change >> > your agreements or change your partner. >> > >> > >> Or the opinion you have about your partner ? >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 18 11:45:39 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:45:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <7586BFF615BD42ED9E11C42A6B7BA008@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> > Grattan Endicott non-dramatically refuted: > +=+ The intention of your bid can be ascertained from an examination of your cards. If you hold hearts and partner alerts he does not convey to you extraneous information [Law 16B1(a)] and there is no UI from the alert. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Law 16B and Law 73C footnote: > "* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." > > Richard Hills concedes: > So it seems that this footnote is not a dreaded so-called mind- reading Law, but rather "unexpected" and "basis" are determined by the objective evidence rather than by the subjective thoughts of the player concerned. > +=+ The basis of the player's action is apparent from its relationship to the cards he holds. It matters not a fig that he may think "there is a 50% chance here that partner will get my meaning wrong", partner's action in alerting is in accord with the basis of the player's action and therefore is not unexpected within the terms of the law. The specification of 'unexpected' alerts and non-alerts in 16B1(a) establishes the inference that expected alerts do not create extraneous information. In 16B2 and 16B3 'such information' relates to 'extraneous information' in 16B1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 18 12:09:16 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:09:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> Message-ID: <4BA209DC.3010105@skynet.be> Well Sven, you may be the one player who only plays with partners who are never uncertain of your system. But as a director, you need to rule at my table, and my partners keep forgetting our system (as do I). So if you are going to rule at my table with your special view of bridge, your ruling will not be correct, will it? Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> My opinion (derived from information theory) is that the expected >>> alert or missing alert conveys some information which in fact is > extraneous. >>> However the question still remains: What logical alternative action >>> does such extraneous information demonstrably suggest over another >>> logical action? >>> >>> My assertion is that it doesn't suggest any. >>> >> >> Of course it does! That's the easy part! >> >> Suppose you have started a conventional sequence. Only the start of that >> sequence is one you know your partner sometimes misses. He makes a > follow-up >> call, which could be an answer to your sequence, or it could be a natural >> development. You are behind screens, and you are wondering what to do > next. If >> you continue the sequence, then you might run into difficulties. Your > alternative is >> to bash the final contract. Now in this story it might be difficult to > ascertain that >> there are indeed two logical alternatives, and that is the difficult part > of this thread. >> But take away the screen, and you have heard your partner explain the > first bid >> correctly. Now it is far easier to continue with the sequence. >> >> So to find that the one alternative is suggested over the other by the > information is >> the easy part of the ruling! > > If this is the way you play bridge then I suggest you either change your > agreements or change your partner. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2753 - Release Date: 03/17/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 18 12:15:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:15:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> Message-ID: <4BA20B64.4000406@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >>> If this is the way you play bridge then I suggest you either change your >>> agreements or change your partner. >> >> There's no reason to be rude and make implications about Herman and >> how he plays bridge. >> That's not what we're discussing here. > > Btw, I'm pretty confident Herman does NOT play like this at all. >> Actually, he does. I was in no way offended by what Sven wrote. Sven was merely expressing that I should not be playing with partners who keep forgetting their system. Well, I'm sorry, but those partners are very hard to find. When doing the next best thing, playing with a partner who sometimes forgets the system, I am very careful at not using the UI that I sometimes get. And it is precisely because I am so careful that I also see that I sometimes get "reverse" UI. UI that partner has, this time, NOT forgotten the system. I am pointing out - to the world minus Harald and Steve, who are agreeing with me - that the Laws at current do not deal very well with that kind of reverse UI, and that they should be altered. Otherwise, and Sven is totally right in this, bridge becomes unplayable - at least for the ethical players. >> What Herman desribes is something that happens "all the time". >> Not by very ethical players or players who're very familiar with the laws. >> But among the masses, this is obviously pretty common, and most >> players are totally unaware of it. And since they get away with it (and there is actually no reason to stop them getting away with it), I feel it only fair to let the ethical players also use this small advantage - the feel-good-factor, without feeling bad about doing something which the laws actually don't allow. FWIW, I do not agree with Grattan's stance on this matter (that the word extraneous helps in solving this dilemma) but that's for another post. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 18 12:32:51 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:32:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of UI? References: <4B96417C.7060201@skynet.be> <000601cac3b9$bacc55c0$30650140$@no> <4B9E4BF8.40303@nhcc.net> <000101cac45f$8090f040$81b2d0c0$@no> <4B9E6BE3.3090302@nhcc.net> <000201cac466$c05d03b0$41170b10$@no> <4B9E86E4.8090508@nhcc.net> <000001cac492$5f42e7d0$1dc8b770$@no> <4B9F5C98.9020601@skynet.be> <000301cac4fc$525fc050$f71f40f0$@no> <000601cac513$30481000$90d83000$@no> <4BA11064.8080601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5924C14D12894248BBAEBC5F50973D0A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of UI? > Grattan Endicott> An alert or non-alert that is in accordance with >> the expectations of the alerter's partner does >> not convey *extraneous* information. > > Even more than that, such an alert (or non-alert) is AI. > >> If A makes a call intending by it a particular meaning >> and his partner B explains that call to opponents as A >> intended it, B has conveyed no *extraneous* information >> to A. > > This, in contrast, appears not to be the case per L16B1a, > which includes "reply to a question" with no qualifier > "unexpected." The different treatment of alerts versus > replies to questions is the oddity. > +=+ After a misleading explanation given in reply to a question the responsibilities of the players and of the Director are defined in Law 75. The responsibilities are binding in law - in which regard note that the law says "are as illustrated", not "are illustrated". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 18 20:16:09 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:16:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BA209DC.3010105@skynet.be> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> <4BA209DC.3010105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01cac6cf$774e23a0$65ea6ae0$@no> On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 18. mars 2010 12:09 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Well Sven, you may be the one player who only plays with partners who are never > uncertain of your system. But as a director, you need to rule at my table, and my > partners keep forgetting our system (as do I). So if you are going to rule at my > table with your special view of bridge, your ruling will not be correct, will it? OK, You meet a partnership that has declared precision as their system. Your LHO is dealer and opens 1C, your RHO alerts and explains "at least 16 HCP". Your partner passes and your RHO bids 1D, your LHO alerts and explains "less than 7 HCP" Is this partnership from now on in this auction permitted to continue using precision in spite of this "obviously" being suggested by their alerts, or must they find other logical alternatives (for instance natural or just "bashing" a contract)? Please include thorough legal reasoning with your answer. You may be interested to know that in the early days of alerting the Norwegian regulation allowed players to forbid opponents from alerting, this was frequently done against precision players because experience indicated that alerting was more beneficial to the precision players than to their opponents. Sven From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Mar 18 20:36:36 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:36:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01cac6cf$774e23a0$65ea6ae0$@no> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> <4BA209DC.3010105@skynet.be> <000e01cac6cf$774e23a0$65ea6ae0$@no> Message-ID: <4BA280C4.7090309@yahoo.co.uk> [Sven Pran] You may be interested to know that in the early days of alerting the Norwegian regulation allowed players to forbid opponents from alerting, this was frequently done against precision players because experience indicated that alerting was more beneficial to the precision players than to their opponents. [Nigel] Nowadays, Bridge conventions are more complex. Hence, alerts and explanations are even more useful to the alerting side. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Mar 19 07:38:19 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:38:19 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl><5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer><9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Ted Ying" > From: Gordon Rainsford > > Marvin's article suggests that it is possible (though perhaps not > easy) to run a web movement for an odd number of tables. How is > this done? Since Marvin was talking in his post here about web > movements being used by clubs in their regular games, presumably > they must be able to handle any number of tables. > > ________________________________ > > > There are notes from the tech files in ACBLSCOR. These include > the "variations" to run odd number > tables from 15-25 tables and how to correct placing bye tables in > the wrong place. The full section > from the tech files is included below. > > -Ted Ying. > > > > WEB MOVEMENTS - BY JOHN "SPIDER" HARRIS The statement that players don't like the web certainly isn't true here in San Diego, where the web is run frequently. Players love the fact that there are only 26 boards in play (instead of 36, for instance) and that top is one less than the number of tables instead of 12. Boards must be preduplicated by a machine of course, as doing it manually is crazy. One drawback is that lower-level directors can't be trusted to run a web without messing it up. We had that happen once here and the result was chaos. If it is done with care (not difficult) that problem goes away. An odd number of tables is not a problem, simply requiring a "guest" table where you don't go unless you are invited. The web has the drawback of all Mitchell movements, which is that it is a two-winner game. It is the fairest of all matchpoint movements, however, since pairs compare with everyone in their field on every board and play all the same hands as they do. None of the one-winner movements can come close to that ideal. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com > It is not > uncommon to have, at least in small tournaments, sessions of > from 16-22 > tables in which a movement of reasonable technical adequacy > is required, > such as in a Master's Pairs or an Open Pairs Finals. In > the past the > standard procedure has been to use twinned 3/4 movements > and combined match pointing. > > These > movements are universally disliked by players, and are not too > popular with > directors. They do have the purported advantage provided > by rotating > comparisons, but this is the subject of some disagreement. > In all other > respects the suggested movements of this paper are, in my > opinion, > superior. > > In effect, > these movements consist of two sub-sections in which the > boards > circulate independently, while the moving pairs progress to the > other > sub-section after playing at the highest numbered table in one. > In all cases, > the traveling pairs move each round to the next higher > numbered > table, boards move next lower within each sub-section. The > eighteen table > game will be described in detail; the others will be > understood by > simply glancing at the master sheet and remembering what > happened in > the 18-table progression. > > BASIC > DISTRIBUTION OF BOARDS > Tables 1-9 > play one set ("A"), tables 10-18 another ("B"). Stationary > pairs at 1-9 > play the boards in ascending sequence, those at 10-18 in > descending. > Boards 1-2 start at Table 1, 3-4 at 2, etc. up to 17-18 at > 9. The board > order is inverted and displaced in the other sub-section: > 25-26 start at > Table 18, 1-2 at 17, 3-4 at 16, etc. to 15-16 at 10. > Note that on > round one, Boards 1-16 may be duplicated in the two > sub-sections, > 17-18 and 25-26 may either be duplicated at tables 9 and > 18 > respectively, or pre-duplicated (preferred). Boards 19-24 must be > duplicated by > the staff. > > MOVEMENT OF > BOARDS AND PLAYERS > Traveling > pairs always move to the next higher numbered table. THERE > IS NO SKIP. > "A" boards move down until they reach Table 1 at which > point they go > to a bye-stand to re-enter at Table 9. "B" boards move > down until > they reach Table 10 at which point they go to the other > bye-stand to > re-enter at Table 18. > > > SEEDED TABLES > Assuming that > Table 1 is to be seeded, the only suitable* tables are: > 16 > tables - 1, 5, 9, 13 > 18 > tables - 1, 7, 13 > 20 > tables - 1, 9 > 22 tables - 1, 12 > > *Actually, in > some cases other NUMBERS will work, but in 20 and 22 > table > progressions only two tables will mutually meet in both > directions. > > > PAIRS.081 > (PAGE 5) > > __________________ > SEATING > ASSIGNMENTS > In Open Pair > Finals, there is the restriction that no two pairs shall > meet who met > in the qualifying session. Where there are only two > qualifying > sections, the A qualifiers are simply made N/S, the B's > E/W. > > For three > qualifying sections, a schedule accompanies each master > sheet for > assigning pair numbers. It is assumed that the use of these > progressions > will never occur where there are more than three > qualifying > sections. > > VARIATIONS BY > MILLARD NACHTWEY > The following > is for an odd number of tables using the Web. This will > work for 15, > 17, 19, 21, 23 or 25 tables. Boards 1-26 > are in play; > every pair > plays every board. > > Subtract 13 > from the number of tables. This will > leave an even > fragment. > > To start the > game, pass out the first set of boards in order, two per > table, to the > first 13 tables. The fragment that > remains will get > boards from > two additional set, (at least a partial third set of > boards will be > needed) just as if it were a small even-numbered web. > For instance, > with 19 tables > Table Boards > 14 1-2 > 15 3-4 > 16 5-6 > Bye stand > (incoming boards in regular order (7-8 next) > Bye stand > (outgoing boards > 17 3-4 > 18 1-2 > 19 25-26 > Bye stand > (incoming boards in reverse order (23-24 next) > > Boards go into > play at table 19 from the byestand, out of play at > table 17 (the > high half of the little "web"). Those 3 tables will > play their > boards in reverse order. Boards from the > other set go into > play from the > buy stand at table 16 (just below the midpoint of the > little > "web"), and out of play at table 1 (boards move regularly from > table 14 to > table 13, since table 14 always the same boards as table > 1. > E/W pairs move > to the next higher table each round. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Mar 19 10:57:08 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:57:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl><5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer><9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> On 19 Mar 2010, at 06:38, Marvin French wrote: > The statement that players don't like the web certainly isn't true > here in San Diego, where the web is run frequently. Players love the > fact that there are only 26 boards in play (instead of 36, for > instance) and that top is one less than the number of tables instead > of 12. I think the statement that players don't like it was related to "twinned 3/4 movements and combined match pointing", not web movements. > Boards must be preduplicated by a machine of course, as doing > it manually is crazy. One drawback is that lower-level directors > can't be trusted to run a web without messing it up. We had that > happen once here and the result was chaos. If it is done with care > (not difficult) that problem goes away. An odd number of tables is > not a problem, simply requiring a "guest" table where you don't go > unless you are invited. This seems to be yet another solution, though you don't say how it works. But I liked Ted's earlier description of a method in which a thirteen table section is combined with a small even-numbered section. In its smallest variation, when the number of tables is two greater than the number of board-sets, it becomes identical to a Bowman movement. > > The web has the drawback of all Mitchell movements, which is that it > is a two-winner game. I imagine most of the world would deal with that by the judicious use of arrow-switches. > It is the fairest of all matchpoint movements, > however, since pairs compare with everyone in their field on every > board and play all the same hands as they do. None of the one-winner > movements can come close to that ideal. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com Gordon Rainsford From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Mar 19 11:41:48 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:41:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On 19 March 2010 10:57, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 19 Mar 2010, at 06:38, Marvin French wrote: >> The statement that players don't like the web certainly isn't true >> here in San Diego, where the web is run frequently. Players love the >> fact that there are only 26 boards in play (instead of 36, for >> instance) and that top is one less than the number of tables instead >> of 12. > > I think the statement that players don't like it was related to > "twinned 3/4 movements and combined match pointing", not web movements. > > >> Boards must be preduplicated by a machine of course, as doing >> it manually is crazy. One drawback is that lower-level directors >> can't be trusted to run a web without messing it up. We had that >> happen once here and the result was chaos. If it is done with care >> (not difficult) that problem goes away. An odd number of tables is >> not a problem, simply requiring a ?"guest" table where you don't ?go >> unless you are invited. > > This seems to be yet another solution, though you don't say how it > works. But I liked Ted's earlier description of a method in which a > thirteen table section is combined with a small even-numbered > section. In its smallest variation, when the number of tables is two > greater than the number of board-sets, it becomes identical to a > Bowman movement. > >> >> The web has the drawback of all Mitchell movements, which is that it >> is a two-winner game. > > I imagine most of the world would deal with that by the judicious use > of arrow-switches. > In that case I live in a different world. It's normal here to play barometer tournaments in the clubs. Preduplicated boards, all play the same boards and all results compared across the field. Some clubs still use Howell movement, but Mitchell (with variations) is unheard of. >> It is the fairest of all matchpoint movements, >> however, since pairs compare with everyone in their field on every >> board and play all the same hands as they do. None of the one-winner >> movements can come close to that ideal. >> >> Marv >> Marvin L French >> San Diego, CA >> www.marvinfrench.com > > Gordon Rainsford > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Mar 19 11:55:52 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:55:52 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On 19 Mar 2010, at 10:41, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >>> The web has the drawback of all Mitchell movements, which is that it >>> is a two-winner game. >> >> I imagine most of the world would deal with that by the judicious use >> of arrow-switches. >> > In that case I live in a different world. > It's normal here to play barometer tournaments in the clubs. > Preduplicated boards, all play the same boards and all results > compared across the field. > Some clubs still use Howell movement, but Mitchell (with variations) > is unheard of. I think your practice, admirable though it may be, is not widespread across the world. However you are answering a different question, because my comment was about dealing with Mitchell movements (including web movements) to avoid them producing two winners. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100319/dcb6f395/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Mar 19 12:04:27 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:04:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On 19 March 2010 11:55, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 19 Mar 2010, at 10:41, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > The web has the drawback of all Mitchell movements, which is that it > > is a two-winner game. > > I imagine most of the world would deal with that by the judicious use > > of arrow-switches. > > In that case I live in a different world. > > It's normal here to play barometer tournaments in the clubs. > > Preduplicated boards, all play the same boards and all results > > compared across the field. > > Some clubs still use Howell movement, but Mitchell (with variations) > > is unheard of. > > I think your practice, admirable though it may be, is not widespread across > the world. However ?you are answering a different question, because my > comment was about dealing with Mitchell movements (including web movements) > ?to avoid them producing two winners. Yes, I'm aware of this. I guess it's mostly in Scandinavia that this is practice is widespread. We've been playing barometer movements in weekend tournaments for ages - since the 50s, I guess. I still remember doing the job of dupliating boards manually - i did it twice for a 21 table, 82 boards tournament I directed back in '82 and '83. Recently, over the last 15-20 years, it's become more and more widespread on the club level, as duplimates have become pretty normal. I guess around a quarter of our clubs (the federation consist of about 420 clubs) own one. And probably an equal number of clubs rent boards from a nearby club. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 19 12:25:11 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:25:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] accepted use of AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01cac6cf$774e23a0$65ea6ae0$@no> References: <309E4126AD0941C98AF07A61A3DBEB5C@Mildred> <000101cac677$388c5810$a9a50830$@no> <4BA1EE9E.6060808@skynet.be> <000201cac67c$f8e286c0$eaa79440$@no> <4BA209DC.3010105@skynet.be> <000e01cac6cf$774e23a0$65ea6ae0$@no> Message-ID: <4BA35F17.1090303@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > You may be interested to know that in the early days of alerting the > Norwegian regulation allowed players to forbid opponents from alerting, this > was frequently done against precision players because experience indicated > that alerting was more beneficial to the precision players than to their > opponents. > AG : you may be interested than in Herman's country (and mine), this option still exists, which makes his position even more unusual. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 19 12:29:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:29:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> While very interesting, Harald needs to be reminded that the original question was about Howell- or Mitchell-type movements, with Mitchell ones needing either arrow-switches or producing two winners. Harald's (and Scandinavia's) insistence on Barometer movements has nothing to do with this, as you can play any movement in Barometer fashion. Which leaves us with the Mitchell question. I would like to point out that there are a number of considerations that are much more important, though. First of all is that you just need to decide the number of rounds (and boards per round) that you are going to play, and that the rest will follow logically from that. The second thing that will determine the final movement is the number of pairs that join to play. From those two, you get: - if the number of pairs is less than the number of rounds you want to play, you need to increase the number of boards per table, and diminish the number of rounds; - if the number is greater than that, you will play a Howell, or any enlargement of a Howell; - if the number is equal to twice the number of rounds, you will play a Mitchell; - even more than that, and you'll play enlargements of Mitchells (appendixes, rovers, or anything) Depending on the seriousness of the tournament, you'll do your best to better the balance. There really is no more to it than that. Herman. Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 19 March 2010 11:55, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> On 19 Mar 2010, at 10:41, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >> The web has the drawback of all Mitchell movements, which is that it >> >> is a two-winner game. >> >> I imagine most of the world would deal with that by the judicious use >> >> of arrow-switches. >> >> In that case I live in a different world. >> >> It's normal here to play barometer tournaments in the clubs. >> >> Preduplicated boards, all play the same boards and all results >> >> compared across the field. >> >> Some clubs still use Howell movement, but Mitchell (with variations) >> >> is unheard of. >> >> I think your practice, admirable though it may be, is not widespread across >> the world. However you are answering a different question, because my >> comment was about dealing with Mitchell movements (including web movements) >> to avoid them producing two winners. > > Yes, I'm aware of this. > I guess it's mostly in Scandinavia that this is practice is widespread. > We've been playing barometer movements in weekend tournaments for ages > - since the 50s, I guess. I still remember doing the job of dupliating > boards manually - i did it twice for a 21 table, 82 boards tournament > I directed back in '82 and '83. > > Recently, over the last 15-20 years, it's become more and more > widespread on the club level, as duplimates have become pretty normal. > I guess around a quarter of our clubs (the federation consist of about > 420 clubs) own one. And probably an equal number of clubs rent boards > from a nearby club. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2755 - Release Date: 03/18/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 19 16:29:47 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:29:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > While very interesting, Harald needs to be reminded that the original question was > about Howell- or Mitchell-type movements, with Mitchell ones needing either arrow- > switches or producing two winners. > Harald's (and Scandinavia's) insistence on Barometer movements has nothing to > do with this, as you can play any movement in Barometer fashion. Sorry Herman, this just isn't true. Barometer depends on all boards within a set being completed and scored within one and the same round and the results being presented immediately after each round is completed. This excludes Howell and Mitchell where the same board is played in different rounds at different tables. From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 19 16:44:24 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:44:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000a01cac77b$0cfa8550$26ef8ff0$@no> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran .......... > > Yes, I'm aware of this. > I guess it's mostly in Scandinavia that this is practice is widespread. > We've been playing barometer movements in weekend tournaments for ages > - since the 50s, I guess. I still remember doing the job of dupliating boards > manually - i did it twice for a 21 table, 82 boards tournament I directed back in '82 > and '83. > > Recently, over the last 15-20 years, it's become more and more widespread on > the club level, as duplimates have become pretty normal. > I guess around a quarter of our clubs (the federation consist of about 420 clubs) > own one. And probably an equal number of clubs rent boards from a nearby club. I have run such a service for my region since 1991. Presently we provide seven clubs in the region with boards every week. In addition I know of at least two, maybe three clubs in the region that have their own machines. At the time I am writing this I have just completed ten copies each of 96 deals to the regional championship for pairs this weekend. 36 pairs shall play a full round robin with 105 deals. Due to lack of boards I shall have to make the last 9 deals tomorrow after the first session is completed. All this is just plain routine here. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 19 16:47:25 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:47:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> Message-ID: <4BA39C8D.5030402@skynet.be> Sorry Sven, but that is not true either. Barometer just means that you play all the boards at the same time. You can play any movement in barometer fashion. What do you do in your club if you want to play seven rounds with eight pairs? You play a barometer Howell. And if there are 14 pairs? You play a barometer Mitchell. Basically the same movement, only the boards are played in different rounds. And a barometer Mitchell of 7 rounds, 7 tables, has exactly the same problem as a simple Mitchell: two winners. Only the solution is not as easy, since arrow-switching in any round does not help. You need to switch different tables in different rounds - and I guess you don't do that. Now I don't mind, but if you prefer a balanced movement, a bit of work should be done. Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> While very interesting, Harald needs to be reminded that the original question was >> about Howell- or Mitchell-type movements, with Mitchell ones needing either arrow- >> switches or producing two winners. >> Harald's (and Scandinavia's) insistence on Barometer movements has nothing to >> do with this, as you can play any movement in Barometer fashion. > > Sorry Herman, this just isn't true. > > Barometer depends on all boards within a set being completed and scored within one and the same round and the results being presented immediately after each round is completed. > > This excludes Howell and Mitchell where the same board is played in different rounds at different tables. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2755 - Release Date: 03/18/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 19 16:50:39 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:50:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> Message-ID: <4BA39D4F.8040708@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> While very interesting, Harald needs to be reminded that the original question was >> about Howell- or Mitchell-type movements, with Mitchell ones needing either arrow- >> switches or producing two winners. >> Harald's (and Scandinavia's) insistence on Barometer movements has nothing to >> do with this, as you can play any movement in Barometer fashion. >> > > Sorry Herman, this just isn't true. > > Barometer depends on all boards within a set being completed and scored within one and the same round and the results being presented immediately after each round is completed. > > This excludes Howell and Mitchell where the same board is played in different rounds at different tables. > > I beg to differ ; one may organize a Mitchell or Howell movement as far as pair movement is concerned, and use barometer deals. That would still be called a Mitchell or Howell. From tedying at yahoo.com Fri Mar 19 16:58:16 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> Message-ID: <26106.72122.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mitchell, Howell and webs are movements. Barometer is a form of scoring, like IMP pairs or Matchpoints. As has been pointed out by others, you can score any movement whether Mitchell, Howell or web by Barometer scoring. -Ted. ----- Original Message ---- From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 11:29:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Web Movements On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > While very interesting, Harald needs to be reminded that the original question was > about Howell- or Mitchell-type movements, with Mitchell ones needing either arrow- > switches or producing two winners. > Harald's (and Scandinavia's) insistence on Barometer movements has nothing to > do with this, as you can play any movement in Barometer fashion. Sorry Herman, this just isn't true. Barometer depends on all boards within a set being completed and scored within one and the same round and the results being presented immediately after each round is completed. This excludes Howell and Mitchell where the same board is played in different rounds at different tables. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 19 17:37:01 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:37:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <4BA39C8D.5030402@skynet.be> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> <4BA39C8D.5030402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01cac782$679786a0$36c693e0$@no> As Harald wrote: We must live in different worlds. Why should anybody want to use stone-age Mitchell movement schedules in a series event? It is true that Howell movements can be used; in fact most movement schedules for Barometer are derived from what is also known as "infinite Howell". It is however, very important to validate the Howell schedules for balance because the way boards are inserted no longer contribute to the balancing. Most of the original Howell schedules had to be reconstructed for this reason when being used with series events. When we talk about Howell or Mitchell type events in Norway we implicitly assume only one copy of each deal being passed between the tables and where all the scoring must be done at the end of the session. This in contrast with series events where the same deals are played simultaneously at all tables. "Barometer" signifies that the deals are scored and results are presented immediately after each round. A full round robin with 8 pairs requires 7 rounds. You may call the movement Howell, series or Barometer. The latter designation creates less confusion (if any). If we have 14 pairs and can only play 7 rounds we play Swiss pairs. If for any reason Swiss is undesired we play truncated round robin. The one thing we NEVER do is any kind of Mitchell movement. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 19. mars 2010 16:47 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Web Movements > > Sorry Sven, but that is not true either. > Barometer just means that you play all the boards at the same time. You can play > any movement in barometer fashion. > What do you do in your club if you want to play seven rounds with eight pairs? > You play a barometer Howell. And if there are 14 pairs? You play a barometer > Mitchell. Basically the same movement, only the boards are played in different > rounds. > And a barometer Mitchell of 7 rounds, 7 tables, has exactly the same problem as a > simple Mitchell: two winners. Only the solution is not as easy, since arrow- > switching in any round does not help. You need to switch different tables in > different rounds - and I guess you don't do that. Now I don't mind, but if you prefer > a balanced movement, a bit of work should be done. > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> While very interesting, Harald needs to be reminded that the original > >> question was about Howell- or Mitchell-type movements, with Mitchell > >> ones needing either arrow- switches or producing two winners. > >> Harald's (and Scandinavia's) insistence on Barometer movements has > >> nothing to do with this, as you can play any movement in Barometer fashion. > > > > Sorry Herman, this just isn't true. > > > > Barometer depends on all boards within a set being completed and scored > within one and the same round and the results being presented immediately after > each round is completed. > > > > This excludes Howell and Mitchell where the same board is played in different > rounds at different tables. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2755 - Release Date: > > 03/18/10 20:33:00 > > > > -- > 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 Fri Mar 19 17:48:20 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:48:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <26106.72122.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> <26106.72122.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000f01cac783$fc390940$f4ab1bc0$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ted > Ying > Sent: 19. mars 2010 16:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Web Movements > > Mitchell, Howell and webs are movements. > > Barometer is a form of scoring, like IMP pairs or Matchpoints. > > As has been pointed out by others, you can score any movement whether > Mitchell, Howell or web by Barometer scoring. > > -Ted. Any movement where the same deals are played at all tables simultaneously. I have never heard of an event announced as Mitchell or Howell where this is the case although it is of course possible. Whenever I have seen the designation Mitchell or Howell it signifies an event where only one copy of each deal is used and is passed from table to table during the match. When barometer scoring is used the event is presented as such. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Mar 19 18:02:41 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:02:41 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl><5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer><9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com><320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com><2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP><410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <3DC0FF8B2AA9433C97E9B209B5BD5374@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Harald Skj?ran" < >> I think the statement that players don't like it was related to >> "twinned 3/4 movements and combined match pointing", not web >> movements. >> >> >>> Boards must be preduplicated by a machine of course, as doing >>> it manually is crazy. One drawback is that lower-level directors >>> can't be trusted to run a web without messing it up. We had that >>> happen once here and the result was chaos. If it is done with >>> care >>> (not difficult) that problem goes away. An odd number of tables >>> is >>> not a problem, simply requiring a "guest" table where you don't >>> go >>> unless you are invited. >> >> This seems to be yet another solution, though you don't say how >> it >> works. But I liked Ted's earlier description of a method in which >> a >> thirteen table section is combined with a small even-numbered >> section. In its smallest variation, when the number of tables is >> two >> greater than the number of board-sets, it becomes identical to a >> Bowman movement. >> >>> >>> The web has the drawback of all Mitchell movements, which is >>> that it >>> is a two-winner game. >> >> I imagine most of the world would deal with that by the judicious >> use >> of arrow-switches. >> > In that case I live in a different world. > It's normal here to play barometer tournaments in the clubs. > Preduplicated boards, all play the same boards and all results > compared across the field. > Some clubs still use Howell movement, but Mitchell (with > variations) > is unheard of. > >>> It is the fairest of all matchpoint movements, >>> however, since pairs compare with everyone in their field on >>> every >>> board and play all the same hands as they do. None of the >>> one-winner >>> movements can come close to that ideal. >>> >>> Marv >>> Marvin L French >>> San Diego, CA >>> www.marvinfrench.com >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From tedying at yahoo.com Fri Mar 19 18:14:28 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <000f01cac783$fc390940$f4ab1bc0$@no> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> <26106.72122.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000f01cac783$fc390940$f4ab1bc0$@no> Message-ID: <152018.21204.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> A barometer is essentially an event where all tables are relaying the same boards every round. Relay Mitchell movements are used in 8-table and 12-table movements and hence the relay tables are playing the same deals every round. There are several Howells that use relays and I can think of one Howell movement (3-table) where all three tables relay the same set of boards on the final round (the 3-table, 25 board movement where all three tables play boards 21-25 on the final round). Web movements use multiple sets of boards and often have 2-4 tables in the event playing the same hands at the same time. -Ted. ----- Original Message ---- From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 12:48:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Web Movements > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ted > Ying > Sent: 19. mars 2010 16:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Web Movements > > Mitchell, Howell and webs are movements. > > Barometer is a form of scoring, like IMP pairs or Matchpoints. > > As has been pointed out by others, you can score any movement whether > Mitchell, Howell or web by Barometer scoring. > > -Ted. Any movement where the same deals are played at all tables simultaneously. I have never heard of an event announced as Mitchell or Howell where this is the case although it is of course possible. Whenever I have seen the designation Mitchell or Howell it signifies an event where only one copy of each deal is used and is passed from table to table during the match. When barometer scoring is used the event is presented as such. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 19 18:23:40 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:23:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <000f01cac783$fc390940$f4ab1bc0$@no> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> <26106.72122.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000f01cac783$fc390940$f4ab1bc0$@no> Message-ID: <4BA3B31C.6070003@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> > Ted > >> Ying >> Sent: 19. mars 2010 16:58 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Web Movements >> >> Mitchell, Howell and webs are movements. >> >> Barometer is a form of scoring, like IMP pairs or Matchpoints. >> >> As has been pointed out by others, you can score any movement whether >> Mitchell, Howell or web by Barometer scoring. >> >> -Ted. >> > > Any movement where the same deals are played at all tables simultaneously. > > I have never heard of an event announced as Mitchell or Howell where this is > the case although it is of course possible. > > Whenever I have seen the designation Mitchell or Howell it signifies an > event where only one copy of each deal is used and is passed from table to > table during the match. When barometer scoring is used the event is > presented as such. > > Our experience differs. I've often seen "barometer Mitchell" (well, in French). Anyways, it does exist. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Mar 19 20:22:46 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:22:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl><5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer><9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com><320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com><2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP><410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <7BE8918615BF48D088AD70FBB309031A@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Gordon Rainsford" >I think your practice, admirable though it may be, is not >widespread across the world. However you are answering a different question, because my comment was about dealing with Mitchell movements All attempts to produce a one-winner game produces an unfair game. Matchpoint pairs is a game of comparisons. You and partner achieve a result, and that result is compared with others who played the same hands. Ideally, you should compare with every other pair on every hand, but that isn't possible in normal bridge (no robots). The best one can do is have a two-winner straight mitchell or web movement. Some people talk about the supposedly perfect game, a 7-table Howell. Pairs play all 26 boards and meet every other pair. However, they do not compare with every other pair on each board and they do not play the same hands as every other pair. The perfect game is exampled imperfectly by the second qualifying round of a large ACBL pair championship. The sections are "twinned" into two-section groups, 13 tables in each section. After the first session, pairs switch section and direction (except for the few who must play N-S twice, which is why I said "imperfectly"). Assuming all pairs switch, the result after two sessions is a separate ranking for each field, which has (1) played the same hands, (2) compared with all in their field on every board, and (3) played all the boards. If larger sections were to be desired, a web can produce the same fair outcome. The fields advance to the finals separately, perhaps 13 out of 26 pairs advancing, with no regard to scores in the other field or other twin sections. That is, a pair in one twinned field may qualify while a pair in the opposite field with a higher score may not. A pair in one twin section may qualify while a pair in another twin section playing in the same direction may not. When a pair complains about this, they are told that the lower-scoring pair has two or three possible differences in their competition, so comparing scores is comparing apples and oranges: They: (1) faced different opponents and/or (2) played different hands, and/or (3) compared with different pairs. Then fairness goes out the window in the finals, in which a straight Mitchell or web is used for two sessions, all (except the handicapped) changing direction for the final session. The result is that each of the two fields has not compared with anyone in the other field, has played entirely different hands, and has faced entirely different opponents, and yet they are ranked together. Apples and oranges. At the very least they could switch the direction of only 1/2 the pairs for the second session. Then, instead of each pair comparing with 1/2 of the competition twice and 1/2 never, they would compare with 1/4 twice, 1/2 once, and 1/4 never. An arrow switch for the last round would be another step toward fairness, resulting in a one-winner movement that tends to even out any imbalance of strength in the two fields. I once recommended a major NABC pair championship that would be totally fair. It went over like a lead balloon. To see it go to my web site, click on Bridge Topics, then click on Knockout Pairs and Swiss Pairs Proposal. John Probst was a big help to me in this effort. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Mar 19 21:49:06 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:49:06 -0800 Subject: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge Message-ID: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP> Someone please tell me where I can find the French version of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. I've been told before, but lost the information. I often find that the French translator throws good light on the intent of a murky law. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 20 10:59:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:59:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <000e01cac782$679786a0$36c693e0$@no> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> <4BA39C8D.5030402@skynet.be> <000e01cac782$679786a0$36c693e0$@no> Message-ID: <4BA49C94.3050405@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > As Harald wrote: We must live in different worlds. > > Why should anybody want to use stone-age Mitchell movement schedules in a > series event? > maybe because not everyone has duplimate machines at hand? > It is true that Howell movements can be used; in fact most movement > schedules for Barometer are derived from what is also known as "infinite No Sven, not for "barometer", for "barometers used in Norway". > Howell". It is however, very important to validate the Howell schedules for > balance because the way boards are inserted no longer contribute to the > balancing. Most of the original Howell schedules had to be reconstructed for > this reason when being used with series events. > > When we talk about Howell or Mitchell type events in Norway we implicitly > assume only one copy of each deal being passed between the tables and where > all the scoring must be done at the end of the session. This in contrast > with series events where the same deals are played simultaneously at all > tables. "Barometer" signifies that the deals are scored and results are > presented immediately after each round. > Well, that use of the words Barometer and Howell is wrong. You can have a Barometer Howell. > A full round robin with 8 pairs requires 7 rounds. You may call the movement > Howell, series or Barometer. The latter designation creates less confusion > (if any). > You are talking to Norwegian players who have (just like players all over the world) no idea of how a movement is made. I was talking to members on blml, most of whom have at least some idea. To us, using the words barometer and howell like that is confusing. > If we have 14 pairs and can only play 7 rounds we play Swiss pairs. If for > any reason Swiss is undesired we play truncated round robin. The one thing > we NEVER do is any kind of Mitchell movement. > Good on you. Some of us are not as fortunate with regards to availability of duplications, scoring software, and players who know what to do. A Swiss pairs in Antwerp (there is now a regular one each month) takes a lot longer (still) than it does in England. Or Norway, I would imagine. In my club, we play Howell and Mitchells and combinations of those, and the movements are balanced and ideal. Why should you believe that is in some way less than in Norway? I can guarantee you that my movements are far better than your truncated round robin! Herman. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Herman De Wael >> Sent: 19. mars 2010 16:47 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Web Movements >> >> Sorry Sven, but that is not true either. >> Barometer just means that you play all the boards at the same time. You > can play >> any movement in barometer fashion. >> What do you do in your club if you want to play seven rounds with eight > pairs? >> You play a barometer Howell. And if there are 14 pairs? You play a > barometer >> Mitchell. Basically the same movement, only the boards are played in > different >> rounds. >> And a barometer Mitchell of 7 rounds, 7 tables, has exactly the same > problem as a >> simple Mitchell: two winners. Only the solution is not as easy, since > arrow- >> switching in any round does not help. You need to switch different tables > in >> different rounds - and I guess you don't do that. Now I don't mind, but if > you prefer >> a balanced movement, a bit of work should be done. >> >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>> While very interesting, Harald needs to be reminded that the original >>>> question was about Howell- or Mitchell-type movements, with Mitchell >>>> ones needing either arrow- switches or producing two winners. >>>> Harald's (and Scandinavia's) insistence on Barometer movements has >>>> nothing to do with this, as you can play any movement in Barometer > fashion. >>> >>> Sorry Herman, this just isn't true. >>> >>> Barometer depends on all boards within a set being completed and scored >> within one and the same round and the results being presented immediately > after >> each round is completed. >>> >>> This excludes Howell and Mitchell where the same board is played in > different >> rounds at different tables. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2755 - Release Date: >>> 03/18/10 20:33:00 >>> >> >> -- >> Herman De Wael >> Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2755 - Release Date: 03/18/10 20:33:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Sat Mar 20 14:44:16 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:44:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge In-Reply-To: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP> References: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000001cac833$6ff64be0$4fe2e3a0$@com> Hi Marv, I had a link to the 1997 French version of laws, but cannot get one to the 2007 edition. If you find, let me know. Though, I got a PDF file of these laws (563k) I can send you. Laval Du Breuil PS: I will send you my Law book -----Message d'origine----- De?: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Marvin French Envoy??: 19 mars 2010 16:49 ??: Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet?: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge Someone please tell me where I can find the French version of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. I've been told before, but lost the information. I often find that the French translator throws good light on the intent of a murky law. 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 olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Sat Mar 20 14:54:29 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:54:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge In-Reply-To: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP> References: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: hi, i send you directly or the robot will not let the pdf come through! i am working actually on a commentated version, for summer probably Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:49 PM Subject: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge > > Someone please tell me where I can find the French version of the > 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. I've been told before, but lost the > information. > > I often find that the French translator throws good light on the > intent of a murky law. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.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 From daniel.amiguet at tvtmail.ch Sat Mar 20 15:16:16 2010 From: daniel.amiguet at tvtmail.ch (Daniel AMIGUET) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:16:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge In-Reply-To: <000001cac833$6ff64be0$4fe2e3a0$@com> References: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP> <000001cac833$6ff64be0$4fe2e3a0$@com> Message-ID: <4BA4D8B0.1070905@tvtmail.ch> Hi All I sent him a copy of PDF verssion I found on my HD Le 20.03.10 14:44, laval dubreuil a ?crit : > Hi Marv, > > I had a link to the 1997 French version of laws, but cannot get one to the > 2007 edition. > If you find, let me know. > > Though, I got a PDF file of these laws (563k) I can send you. > > Laval Du Breuil > PS: I will send you my Law book > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de > Marvin French > Envoy? : 19 mars 2010 16:49 > ? : Bridge Laws Mailing List > Objet : [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge > > Someone please tell me where I can find the French version of the > 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. I've been told before, but lost the > information. > > I often find that the French translator throws good light on the > intent of a murky law. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From jkljkl at gmx.de Sat Mar 20 16:16:30 2010 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:16:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge In-Reply-To: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP> References: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4BA4E6CE.6020705@gmx.de> Hallo Marvin, Am 19.03.2010 21:49, schrieb Marvin French: > Someone please tell me where I can find the French version of the > 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. I've been told before, but lost the > information. http://www.ffbridge.asso.fr/competitions/gc.php?m=6,49,128&args=128 ciao stefan From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 20 18:23:30 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:23:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <4BA49C94.3050405@skynet.be> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> <4BA39C8D.5030402@skynet.be> <000e01cac782$679786a0$36c693e0$@no> <4BA49C94.3050405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01cac852$1084c2d0$318e4870$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Why should anybody want to use stone-age Mitchell movement schedules > > in a series event? > > > > maybe because not everyone has duplimate machines at hand? We ceased using Mitchell movements long before we got the first card dealing machine in Norway. > > > It is true that Howell movements can be used; in fact most movement > > schedules for Barometer are derived from what is also known as > > "infinite Howell" > > No Sven, not for "barometer", for "barometers used in Norway". > In my club, we play Howell and Mitchells and combinations of those, and the > movements are balanced and ideal. Why should you believe that is in some way > less than in Norway? Because the question has been thoroughly analyzed at the university in Oslo. I don't know exactly when that was done, but it was before 1973. I can guarantee you that my movements are far better than > your truncated round robin! > > Herman. I should like to see that verified mathematically. Standard Mitchell with two separate ranking result lists is of course fully balanced, but serial movements all require a number of rounds equal to the number of players less one for full balance, and with certain number of tables full balance is simply not possible. However, I am even more interested in learning precisely what you mean when you use the word barometer in bridge? All you have said so far is that it is not the same as we mean in Norway. Here the term barometer has as far as I know been used at least since 1952. A quick search on Google resulted in nothing relevant to the game of bridge other than a precise description on the barometer exactly as we use it in Norway. ACBL refers to "Swedish barometer" and apparently the idea back in 1987. Sven From tedying at yahoo.com Sat Mar 20 18:43:02 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Web Movements In-Reply-To: <000a01cac852$1084c2d0$318e4870$@no> References: <20100311150722.B0B21485C174@relay2.webreus.nl> <5009DECACE7E41D987894E963B5923B3@acer> <9AC00A25-427A-45C8-8A02-7B3D41511467@btinternet.com> <320874.23556.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2919DFE1EDE14EEA98E12C0D42D00D8A@MARVLAPTOP> <410A8FA4-7042-4F37-B3A3-38B3AD058889@btinternet.com> <4BA3602C.8000007@skynet.be> <000901cac779$027913a0$076b3ae0$@no> <4BA39C8D.5030402@skynet.be> <000e01cac782$679786a0$36c693e0$@no> <4BA49C94.3050405@skynet.be> <000a01cac852$1084c2d0$318e4870$@no> Message-ID: <822331.70937.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> http://www.acbl.org/play/pairgamesexplained.html#1 This is the ACBL's definition of a Barometer. Note it says nothing about the movement of players in the game as they can move in any pattern, whether Mitchell, Howell or any other movement. The only thing that the ACBL considers relevant is when the boards are played and the scoring. -Ted. ----- Original Message ---- From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 1:23:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Web Movements On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Why should anybody want to use stone-age Mitchell movement schedules > > in a series event? > > > > maybe because not everyone has duplimate machines at hand? We ceased using Mitchell movements long before we got the first card dealing machine in Norway. > > > It is true that Howell movements can be used; in fact most movement > > schedules for Barometer are derived from what is also known as > > "infinite Howell" > > No Sven, not for "barometer", for "barometers used in Norway". > In my club, we play Howell and Mitchells and combinations of those, and the > movements are balanced and ideal. Why should you believe that is in some way > less than in Norway? Because the question has been thoroughly analyzed at the university in Oslo. I don't know exactly when that was done, but it was before 1973. I can guarantee you that my movements are far better than > your truncated round robin! > > Herman. I should like to see that verified mathematically. Standard Mitchell with two separate ranking result lists is of course fully balanced, but serial movements all require a number of rounds equal to the number of players less one for full balance, and with certain number of tables full balance is simply not possible. However, I am even more interested in learning precisely what you mean when you use the word barometer in bridge? All you have said so far is that it is not the same as we mean in Norway. Here the term barometer has as far as I know been used at least since 1952. A quick search on Google resulted in nothing relevant to the game of bridge other than a precise description on the barometer exactly as we use it in Norway. ACBL refers to "Swedish barometer" and apparently the idea back in 1987. Sven _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Mar 20 20:11:38 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:11:38 -0800 Subject: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge References: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP> <4BA4E6CE.6020705@gmx.de> Message-ID: <1EA5CAA8075C4424BB2C386FA54B5CB7@MARVLAPTOP> Thanks for the many replies. Or should I say merci beaucoup? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Sun Mar 21 00:43:04 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:43:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge In-Reply-To: <1EA5CAA8075C4424BB2C386FA54B5CB7@MARVLAPTOP> References: <624F3BF1A0E54288B459DC4F7BC2C157@MARVLAPTOP><4BA4E6CE.6020705@gmx.de> <1EA5CAA8075C4424BB2C386FA54B5CB7@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <1019AB9A13984D6D8C03ADF34259E728@PCdeOlivier> you're welcome :) Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] French Laws of Duplicate Bridge > > Thanks for the many replies. Or should I say merci beaucoup? > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.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 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Mar 21 08:18:41 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:18:41 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Agreeing with Herman just once [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: >From Richard Hills > I agree 100% (not merely 63%) with Herman De Wael's accurate > paraphrase of the essence of Law 70C3: > > "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the > Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > > 1. ...... and > > 2. ...... and > > 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. While in this area, let's look at Law 70 E1 ...or would subsequently fail to follow suit on any normal* line of play. No matter which is the intent. If I have KJxxx trumps opposite A10xxx with one opponent void and I claim without a statement, then guessing correctly is a normal line of play and it says ANY normal line of play, so the claim is valid. The ambiguous word "any" should be avoided in a legal document unless either of its senses works (as in 70C3). The French have it right in 70E1, which I pointed out long ago: ...que l'adversaire ne fournisse pas ult?rieurement dans cette couleur sur n'importe quelle ligne de jeu normale* "n'importe quelle," no matter which. The French have a reputation for clarity of language, earning the characterization of French as "the language of diplomacy" from the 17th century until its replacement by English in the early 20th century. Maybe the change was a mistake. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com que l'adversaire ne fournisse pas ult?rieurement dans cette couleur sur n'importe quelle ligne de jeu normale* ou, > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that > would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From craigstamps at comcast.net Sun Mar 21 22:00:39 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:00:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Agreeing with Herman just once [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000d01cac939$9052e130$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> The rule says, as you quote, Marvin, the trick shall be awarded to the side which did not claim if: "a trump remains out (and)...a trick could be lost to that trump on any normal line of play." Well, guessing right would be ONE normal line of play...but SO WOULD GUESSING WRONG! Give a trick to opponents who hold the trump. Claimers lose all unmentioned finesses has long been a tenet of the game, and I do not see where ther new laws have changed that. The rule isn't no penalty if SOME line prevails against an unmentioned outstanding trump...to avoid losing a trick to that trump there must be NO normal linr of play that will lose a trick to it. Guessing which was to finesse is pretty normal...at least for me. :-) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreeing with Herman just once [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >From Richard Hills > I agree 100% (not merely 63%) with Herman De Wael's accurate > paraphrase of the essence of Law 70C3: > > "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the > Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > > 1. ...... and > > 2. ...... and > > 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. While in this area, let's look at Law 70 E1 ...or would subsequently fail to follow suit on any normal* line of play. No matter which is the intent. If I have KJxxx trumps opposite A10xxx with one opponent void and I claim without a statement, then guessing correctly is a normal line of play and it says ANY normal line of play, so the claim is valid. The ambiguous word "any" should be avoided in a legal document unless either of its senses works (as in 70C3). The French have it right in 70E1, which I pointed out long ago: ...que l'adversaire ne fournisse pas ult?rieurement dans cette couleur sur n'importe quelle ligne de jeu normale* "n'importe quelle," no matter which. The French have a reputation for clarity of language, earning the characterization of French as "the language of diplomacy" from the 17th century until its replacement by English in the early 20th century. Maybe the change was a mistake. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com que l'adversaire ne fournisse pas ult?rieurement dans cette couleur sur n'importe quelle ligne de jeu normale* ou, > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that > would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Mar 21 11:19:43 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:19:43 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Agreeing with Herman just once [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000d01cac939$9052e130$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <6734447B97594FE2A4DD53F54A39C234@MARVLAPTOP> From: "craig" (snip) >Claimers lose all unmentioned finesses has long been a tenet of the game, and I do not see where ther new laws have changed that. That's what the 1963 Laws said, no finesse unless an opponent has previously shown out. Now you can finesse if not doing so would be crazy, as when repeating a previous finesse that was obviously on (losing the trick would mean down one in a grand slam). If you don't understand the ambiguity of the word "any," then further discussion is futile. Other ambiguous words are "or" (exclusive or inclusive?) and "either" (one or the other; or both?). Lawmakers should be very careful not to use them without clarification when it is possible to assume the wrong intention. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 22 04:06:10 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:06:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Not necessarily [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Peter Bowler, The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: "sophomania, n. A delusional state in which the sufferer believes that he or she is a person of exceptional intelligence. Standard therapeutic procedure is for the sufferer to write a letter to the editor on a subject of current controversy; this invariably induces large numbers of other sufferers to write to the editor, telling the original sufferer what a fool he is. If therapy fails and the sufferer succumbs, he or she may be doomed to end his or her days as an economist." Richard Hills (current post): Or doomed to end my days as a blmler. Imps Dlr: East Vul: East-West T4 9876 AQT4 A53 Q6 AKJ9873 2 J543 J9875 6 QJT96 8 52 AKQT K32 K742 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1S X 2C (1) 2H 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) East-West were unaware that the ABF required West's negative free bid to be Alerted. Heart Ace led, then a trump switch, North-South +200. Chief Director's ruling was, "Result stands." Harald Skj?ran: >>It's difficult for me to understand how they have been damaged >>here. Richard Hills (former post): >The North-South argument was that they assumed the unAlerted 2C >bid to be strong. If they had been correctly informed via a >correct Alert that 2C was a negative free bid, it would have >been easier for North to have doubled 4S. > >The basis for the Chief Director's ruling of "Result stands" >was that North should have doubled anyway. How did the Chief >Director err in interpreting Law? Richard Hills (current post): My sophomaniac belief was that the Chief Director had misapplied the much-discussed Law 12C1(b), so my sophomaniac belief was that there should have been a split score, North-South +200 for 4S undoubled, and East-West -500 for 4S doubled. But when discussing the ruling with the Chief Director two days later, he informed me that the basis of his ruling was instead the second sentence of Law 12B1: Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred because the trivial failure by East-West to Alert 2C did not in any way damage North, who has had five decades of experience as a Canberra expert, and who therefore had a clearcut penalty double of 4S no matter what. 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 Mar 22 07:51:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:51:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] [LMB] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: [LMB] Lois McMaster Bujold mailing list, ostensibly discussing the science fiction and fantasy novels of Lois McMaster Bujold. http://lists.herald.co.uk/pipermail/lois-bujold/ Lois herself wrote: >Naw. What you're seeing here is the natural progression of any >group of human beings who come together for a hobby interest. >As the group ages, it tends to become more and more about its >own social overhead, and less and less about the ostensible >subject. I've seen it in all sorts of contexts, not just >fandom. > >Another problem is that it's known that I lurk here, which >inhibits people taking the "con" in the pro-and-con >discussions. Some of the most interesting book discussions >come from differences of opinion, but I admit it's a bit tough >on the con people to sustain their side, being naturally >outnumbered here. > >The old listees will be sluggish on the subject of structured >discussions (or they'd be doing it already.) It's up to the >new listees to jump in and make a go of it. [snip] Richard Hills: As blml has aged, it seems that I have been pandering too much to my social overhead, wasting everyone's time by using a logical sledgehammer to crack many obviously fallacious nuts. What the heck, I will again pander to my social overhead, again wasting everyone's time with another logical sledgehammer. Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2D (1) Pass 3H (2) Pass Pass(3) 3D (5) 3H (4) Pass 4H (6) Pass Pass(7) Pass(8) (1) European Multi; weak 2 in a major or strong balanced. (2) Pass or correct. (3) Weak 2 in hearts. (4) East's insufficient bid accepted by South under Law 27A1. (5) After the deal was concluded, East stated that if her 3D bid had not been accepted, she was not strong enough to bid 4D, so she would instead have passed out 3H, even though this would have subjected West to Law 26A lead restrictions. (6) North-South were a one-off Canberra-Sydney partnership, playing on neutral territory at the coastal town of Moruya. So the pair lacked any Law 40A1(a) implicit understanding about the meaning of South's second 3H bid. North thought that the logic of the auction suggested that South was mildly inviting game. With a top-of-the-range weak 2 in hearts, North accepted the putative mild invitation. (7) South coincidentally thought that the logic of the auction suggested that South was mildly inviting game. (8) North-South cold for eleven tricks, +650. Law 27A1: "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls." Should the 2018 Laws protect the rights of non-offending sides? Should the 2018 Laws be elegantly simplified by axing Law 27A1? Is it logically possible to answer Yes to both questions above? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 22 14:48:20 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:48:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Not necessarily [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <91F19906CFA14A7DA0835C83907F9707@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: ; Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 3:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not necessarily [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Peter Bowler, The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: "sophomania, n. A delusional state in which the sufferer believes that he or she is a person of exceptional intelligence. Standard therapeutic procedure is for the sufferer to write a letter to the editor on a subject of current controversy; this invariably induces large numbers of other sufferers to write to the editor, telling the original sufferer what a fool he is. If therapy fails and the sufferer succumbs, he or she may be doomed to end his or her days as an economist." Richard Hills (current post): Or doomed to end my days as a blmler. Imps Dlr: East Vul: East-West T4 9876 AQT4 A53 Q6 AKJ9873 2 J543 J9875 6 QJT96 8 52 AKQT K32 K742 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1S X 2C (1) 2H 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) East-West were unaware that the ABF required West's negative free bid to be Alerted. Heart Ace led, then a trump switch, North-South +200. Chief Director's ruling was, "Result stands." Harald Skj?ran: >>It's difficult for me to understand how they have been damaged >>here. Richard Hills (former post): >The North-South argument was that they assumed the unAlerted 2C >bid to be strong. If they had been correctly informed via a >correct Alert that 2C was a negative free bid, it would have >been easier for North to have doubled 4S. > >The basis for the Chief Director's ruling of "Result stands" >was that North should have doubled anyway. How did the Chief >Director err in interpreting Law? Richard Hills (current post): My sophomaniac belief was that the Chief Director had misapplied the much-discussed Law 12C1(b), so my sophomaniac belief was that there should have been a split score, North-South +200 for 4S undoubled, and East-West -500 for 4S doubled. But when discussing the ruling with the Chief Director two days later, he informed me that the basis of his ruling was instead the second sentence of Law 12B1: Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred because the trivial failure by East-West to Alert 2C did not in any way damage North, who has had five decades of experience as a Canberra expert, and who therefore had a clearcut penalty double of 4S no matter what. < "talent instantly recognizes genius" ~ G ~ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 23 07:18:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:18:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] [LMB] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aral Vorkosigan: "The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in that future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present - they are real." John (MadDog) Probst, December 2008, quiz for players (not TDs): During the auction, a player bids hearts (let's say 4H) for the first time, LHO passes and partner doubles. (My partner bids so badly that I sometimes have to double to express my contempt.) Next player now bids 4S. When the TD arrives he cancels the inadmissible double and the subsequent 4S bid (Law 36). The double is substituted with a pass and 4H is passed out. Can declarer forbid a spade lead? Law 36A - Offender's LHO Calls before Rectification "If offender's LHO calls before rectification of an inadmissible double or redouble the inadmissible call and all subsequent calls are cancelled. The auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. The lead restrictions in Law 26 do not apply." John (MadDog) Probst, December 2008, quiz for players (not TDs): A defender, thinking he is dummy (it happens), starts to spread his hand on the table and has got as far as the four deuces. He gets stopped at this point and his partner is on lead. If declarer forbids the lead, or insists on the lead, of any suit, then the card(s) in that suit may be picked up (Law 51). So declarer, showing a sense of humour, bans the lead of all four suits and all the penalty cards are picked up. What happens now? Law 59 - Inability to Lead or Play as Required "A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a rectification, whether because he holds no card of the required suit, or because he has only cards of a suit he is prohibited from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit." Richard Hills, March 2010, quiz for bridge friends of blmlers: I suggest that the two MadDog questions be posed by blmlers to their unLawful bridge friends, but posed in a special way. Rather than ask those unLawful bridge friends what the Laws do say about the two MadDog questions, ask those unLawful bridge friends what the Laws SHOULD say about the two MadDog questions. I am willing to bet a virtual can of Diet Coke that the majority of those unLawful bridge friends will think that the Laws SHOULD say ..... what Laws 36A and 59 already do say. 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 Mar 24 00:49:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:49:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] [LMB] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Miles Vorkosigan: "Hi, I'm a hero, but I can't tell you why. It's classified." Richard Hills rhetorical questions: Should the 2018 Laws protect the rights of non-offending sides? Should the 2018 Laws be elegantly simplified by axing Law 27A1? Is it logically possible to answer Yes to both questions above? Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman, A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder, page 165: "Being too neat with business documents can even present a public menace. When the brakes on all twenty of Amtrak's high- speed Acela trains in the Northeast were found to contain cracks that could have led to a crash, forcing a three-month sidelining of the trains, the problem was eventually traced to an effort to declutter a maintenance manual. The original manual had pointed out the need to inspect the brakes for signs of impending cracks, but Amtrak wanted to put a more concise version in the hands of its maintenance people. Among the snippets cut for the neater, shorter version was the brake inspection warning." EBU comment on neater, shorter semi-official EBU flowcharts: "The charts do not represent EBU policy - they are offered on TD courses as an alternative to the law book. In that regard (and as with Mr Bridge's booklet) they are not meant to be exhaustive - otherwise they become as complicated as the law book itself." 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 Mar 24 03:46:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:46:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Integrity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: David Burn, 10th March 2010: >.....At the risk of emulating RJH, I quote in full:..... Richard Hills: A non-bridge article about integrity is quoted in full below, so those blmlers who prefer terse posts about bridge alone should stop reading when reaching my signature block. However, the recommendations could be adapted to bridge. For example Nigel Guthrie (and to a lesser extent Herman De Wael) argue that the only way to remove an incentive to revoke is to "increase punishments for wrongdoers". The attached article by Ross Gittins shows that there is another way. Ross Gittins, paraphrased for bridge relevance: "Disclosure means a systematic effort to share facts openly. When behaviour is hidden, the temptation to deal dishonestly can be too great to resist. Formal systems for feedback between players and Recorders encourage people to behave well." Ross Gittins, paraphrased for online bridge relevance: "Accountability means a Director policing the rules [Which is a big problem with many online bridge providers; they prefer to save money by stripping down claim and MI Laws - although BBO does provide a black-listing feature, which means that an honest player need play against a grey ethics opponent only once.] and a Disciplinary Committee punishing offenders, thus creating considerable confidence that cheating the system doesn't pay." Ross Gittins, paraphrased for bridge irrelevance: "Norms means an idiosyncratically developed set of Laws (with language from 1963 idiosyncratically retained) about acceptable behaviour. Laws that are as unclear as possible and are decennially updated and have over-refined language to keep them irrelevant and incredible." 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 Ross Gittins, Sydney Morning Herald business columnist, Wednesday 24th March 2010 When you spend as much time as I do monitoring the words and actions of politicians, it's easy to become cynical and lapse into the belief that the world's a pretty phoney place. So it's nice to be reminded there's actually a lot of integrity in the world. Indeed, the economy is built on it. And it's made a major contribution to our prosperity. This eye-opener comes from a new book, "The Economics of Integrity", by the New York journalist Anna Bernasek, published by HarperCollins. (Anna began her career working with me on the Herald.) Economists tend to emphasise the role of competition in making the economy more efficient, and the importance of the individual. Unfortunately, they underplay the role of cooperation and the way we depend on each other. Bernasek says integrity has two components. The first is being trustworthy - following the rules, telling the truth and being careful on the job. The second is having trust in others. So integrity refers to relationships of mutual trust. When you think about it - as we rarely do - you realise that our economic transactions are built on trust. We trust the people we buy from to sell us goods and services that are safe, reliable and of the quality we expected we were paying for. We try to ensure we deal only with businesses we can trust. We judge this by the company's reputation and our own experience of it. Brand names, on which all of us rely, are a shorthand way of communicating trustworthiness to customers. Sensible firms ensure that, in their efforts to make a quid, they do nothing that might damage the reputation - even the psychological aura - of their brand. When a business offers an unconditional money-back guarantee it's trying to demonstrate its trustworthiness. What company would offer such a guarantee if it knew its product was dodgy? But it's also demonstrating its trust in its customers - that few will take unfair advantage of it. You and I value trustworthiness so highly we're often prepared to pay a little more for it. So businesses are rewarded for the efforts they make to be reliable and for resisting the temptation to cut corners. We trust - or should be able to trust - our employers to give us a square deal. And they trust us to do the same. The more trust, the better the relationship; the better the job we do, the less time, money and angst devoted to checking on each other. So Bernasek says integrity is the invisible infrastructure of the economy, supporting everything we do. It's an investment with an economic pay-off, making it a valuable community asset. When we're able to trust each other, we avoid much needless expense and are able to focus on more productive matters. When companies possess trustworthiness they're able to sell more and achieve economies of scale. And when we're more trusting and feel confident in dealing with businesses we don't know - including foreign ones - we benefit from greater specialisation and exchange. So it's no exaggeration to say integrity has contributed significantly to our affluence. When you write for a hard-nosed American audience - where too many people have told themselves the lie that nice guys finish last - it seems compulsory to argue that virtue has a material pay-off, which it does. But I'll let you into a soft-hearted secret: integrity also brings intrinsic rewards - it makes us feel better about ourselves. It feels good to know that as an employee or as a business you're delivering value for money. That you have a product you can be proud of, you follow up problems, treat your customers well and are trying to develop long-term relationships. It also feels good to be trusted, to know that others have a high opinion of you. Bernasek says we're heirs to a huge stock of integrity that's been added to and passed on from one generation to the next. Yet it's hard to avoid the suspicion that, of late, we've been running down that stock. That in their mania to increase profits in the short-term, some businesses have been cutting the quality of their product and hoping no one will notice. In a sense that's the story of the global financial crisis. Institutions we thought we could trust - banks, auditors, credit- rating agencies, even government regulators - have been revealed as unworthy of the trust we placed in them. So what can we do to rebuild the integrity of the economic system? The politicians' standard approach is to tighten laws and increase punishments for wrongdoers. But this provokes the familiar objection that good people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will always find a way around the laws. Fortunately, that's too black and white. There are a lot of people in the middle, who could be either good or bad depending on the influences on them. Bernasek says we can build integrity - create integrity systems - by working on the DNA of integrity: disclosure, norms and accountability. Disclosure means a systematic effort to share facts openly. When behaviour is hidden, the temptation to deal dishonestly can be too great to resist. Formal systems for feedback between buyers and sellers encourage people to behave well. Norms means a carefully developed set of rules about acceptable behaviour. Rules that are as clear as possible and are regularly updated and refined to keep them relevant and credible. Accountability means policing the rules and punishing offenders, thus creating considerable confidence that cheating the system doesn't pay. If done well, she concludes, investing in integrity can help create a culture of integrity in which sound principles are internalised and passed on from one generation to the next. That's when you know you've made it: when laws and rules and punishment cause good behaviour to be internalised. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Mar 25 00:52:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:52:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] EBU White Book 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Peter Bowler, The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: "zzxjoanw, n. A Maori drum. The recommended use is in Scrabble. The technique is to save up, at all costs, the letters Z, X, J, O, and W (or a blank that can be used in place of any you don't manage to acquire; to wait for a dangling AN on which you can build; and then to strike. The satisfaction to be derived from this single act altogether outweighs whatever chagrin you might otherwise experience through losing the game, as you assuredly will - even that experienced through losing six games in succession, if need be, before you can effect your coup." Ross Eckler, Making the Alphabet Dance: "The two-Z barrier was breached many years ago in a specialized dictionary, Rupert Hughes's The Musical Guide (later, Music- Lovers Encyclopedia), published in various editions between 1905 and 1956. Its final entry, ZZXJOANW (shaw) Maori 1.Drum 2.Fife 3.Conclusion, remained unchallenged for more than seventy years until Philip Cohen pointed out various oddities: the strange pronunciation, the odd diversity of meanings (including "conclusion") and the non-Maori appearance of the word. (Maori uses the fourteen letters AEGHIKMNOPRTUW, and all words end in a vowel). A hoax clearly entered somewhere; no doubt Hughes expected it to be obvious, but he did not take into account the credulity of logologists, sensitized by dictionary-sanctioned outlandish words such as mlechchha and qaraqalpaq." The credulity of Directors may be moderated if they peruse the EBU White Book 2010, which can be downloaded from: http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/ Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 25 02:20:49 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:20:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU White Book 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <02C04A58992740389C1AA6207F361413@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:52 PM Subject: [BLML] EBU White Book 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Peter Bowler, The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: > > "zzxjoanw, n. A Maori drum. The recommended use is in Scrabble. > The technique is to save up, at all costs, the letters Z, X, J, > O, and W (or a blank that can be used in place of any you don't > manage to acquire; to wait for a dangling AN on which you can > build; and then to strike. The satisfaction to be derived from > this single act altogether outweighs whatever chagrin you might > otherwise experience through losing the game, as you assuredly > will - even that experienced through losing six games in > succession, if need be, before you can effect your coup." > > Ross Eckler, Making the Alphabet Dance: > > "The two-Z barrier was breached many years ago in a specialized > dictionary, Rupert Hughes's The Musical Guide (later, Music- > Lovers Encyclopedia), published in various editions between 1905 > and 1956. Its final entry, ZZXJOANW (shaw) Maori 1.Drum 2.Fife > 3.Conclusion, remained unchallenged for more than seventy years > until Philip Cohen pointed out various oddities: the strange > pronunciation, the odd diversity of meanings (including > "conclusion") and the non-Maori appearance of the word. (Maori > uses the fourteen letters AEGHIKMNOPRTUW, and all words end in a > vowel). A hoax clearly entered somewhere; no doubt Hughes > expected it to be obvious, but he did not take into account the > credulity of logologists, sensitized by dictionary-sanctioned > outlandish words such as mlechchha and qaraqalpaq." > > The credulity of Directors may be moderated if they peruse the > EBU White Book 2010, which can be downloaded from: > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/ > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 25 17:14:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:14:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] agreement? L65D Message-ID: "A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won." North, South, and West agreed on making one. Does that count as agreement? (East then of course claimed down 1 and by the time I got to the table, East was the only player with her cards in order in front of her.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 25 17:41:19 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:41:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] agreement Message-ID: <4ac23125d50d4de1741d5015b4a8b8f6.squirrel@email.powweb.com> NS agreed to play New Minor Forcing. According to the convention a response of 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major when the other major is hearts. South didn't know this part of the convention. Did South agree that 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major (when the other major is hearts). Or, more precisely, how do you rule when EW were damaged because the convention was correctly described but South didn't know that part of the convention? Um, the game ends in about 90 minutes. From tedying at yahoo.com Thu Mar 25 17:51:55 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] agreement? L65D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <713397.79045.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: "rfrick at rfrick.info" To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 12:14:22 PM Subject: [BLML] agreement? L65D "A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won." North, South, and West agreed on making one. Does that count as agreement? (East then of course claimed down 1 and by the time I got to the table, East was the only player with her cards in order in front of her.) _______________________________________________ I think that Law 66D covers this. Any of the four players can contest the ownership of a trick or the final tally of tricks. Any players that have mixed their cards LAW 66 - INSPECTION OF TRICKS D. After the Conclusion of Play After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke or of the number of tricks won or lost, but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favor of the other side. To me, this means that all four players should agree to the number of tricks won and before agreement is reached. In your situation, I would then ask the four players to reconstruct the play of the hand based on East's plays. Hopefully, you can get the four players to agree on what happened in the replay from East's card order. However, I would tend to lean in favor of East if they cannot come to an agreement. North and South should have made sure that both East and West concurred before mixing their cards. -Ted. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 25 18:26:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:26:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] agreement In-Reply-To: <4ac23125d50d4de1741d5015b4a8b8f6.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <4ac23125d50d4de1741d5015b4a8b8f6.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <4BAB9CE1.8090201@ulb.ac.be> rfrick at rfrick.info a ?crit : > NS agreed to play New Minor Forcing. According to the convention a > response of 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major when the other major is > hearts. > > South didn't know this part of the convention. > > Did South agree that 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major (when the other > major is hearts). > > Or, more precisely, how do you rule when EW were damaged because the > convention was correctly described but South didn't know that part of the > convention? > > Um, the game ends in about 90 minutes. > > The second part is easy : no redress. No wrong explanation, only system error. The first part : is tis convention described somewhere ? (book agreed upon, convention card ...) If it isn't, who claims the bid denies hearts ? (in Crowhurst it doesn't). If it is, and if the explanation was 'new minor forcing', and if 2NT really denies 4 hearts, then explaining 'NMF' was Mi, but only in that case. BTW, when hearing something so vague, opponents should enquire about the meaning of 2NT (if needed) rather than assume it. You can always rule 'failure to protect' in such a case. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 25 22:15:15 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:15:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] agreement In-Reply-To: <4BAB9CE1.8090201@ulb.ac.be> References: <4ac23125d50d4de1741d5015b4a8b8f6.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4BAB9CE1.8090201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:26:57 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > rfrick at rfrick.info a ?crit : >> NS agreed to play New Minor Forcing. According to the convention a >> response of 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major when the other major >> is >> hearts. >> >> South didn't know this part of the convention. >> >> Did South agree that 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major (when the >> other >> major is hearts). >> >> Or, more precisely, how do you rule when EW were damaged because the >> convention was correctly described but South didn't know that part of >> the >> convention? >> >> Um, the game ends in about 90 minutes. >> >> > The second part is easy : no redress. No wrong explanation, only system > error. > > The first part : is tis convention described somewhere ? (book agreed > upon, convention card ...) If it isn't, who claims the bid denies > hearts ? (in Crowhurst it doesn't). > If it is, and if the explanation was 'new minor forcing', and if 2NT > really denies 4 hearts, then explaining 'NMF' was Mi, but only in that > case. > > BTW, when hearing something so vague, opponents should enquire about the > meaning of 2NT (if needed) rather than assume it. You can always rule > 'failure to protect' in such a case. I would not rate "new minor forcing" as vague. In the particular case, they did ask the meaning of 2NT, and they were told it denied 3-card spade support and denied a four-card heart suit. Which is of course the convention. Obviously South at this point learned that he did not understand the convention correctly, but was under no obligation to correct the explanation if he had agreed that that was the meaning of 2NT. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 26 00:19:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:19:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BAB9CE1.8090201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Adam Smith (1723-1790): "However selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, even though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." Robert Frick: >>NS agreed to play New Minor Forcing. According to the >>convention a response of 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major >>when the other major is hearts. >> >>South didn't know this part of the convention. >> >>Did South agree that 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major >>(when the other major is hearts). >> >>Or, more precisely, how do you rule when EW were damaged >>because the convention was correctly described but South >>didn't know that part of the convention? >> >>Um, the game ends in about 90 minutes. Alain Gottcheiner: >The second part is easy: no redress. No wrong explanation, only >system error. [snip] Richard Hills: The second part is difficult: possible redress. Wrong explanation, due to no system agreement. A pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is a pre- existing mutual partnership understanding if and only if both partners have had a prior understanding. Since "South didn't know that part of the convention", North-South had not any prior agreement about that part of the convention, so North saying that they did have such an agreement was misinformation. Compare and contrast with North-South having a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding, South temporarily forgetting, but North correctly explaining. In that case Alain's "no redress" ruling would be correct, Law 75C. 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 Mar 26 05:09:30 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:09:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:19:31 -0500, wrote: > Adam Smith (1723-1790): > > "However selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently > some principles in his nature, which interest him in the > fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, > even though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of > seeing it." > > Robert Frick: > >>> NS agreed to play New Minor Forcing. According to the >>> convention a response of 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major >>> when the other major is hearts. >>> >>> South didn't know this part of the convention. >>> >>> Did South agree that 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major >>> (when the other major is hearts). >>> >>> Or, more precisely, how do you rule when EW were damaged >>> because the convention was correctly described but South >>> didn't know that part of the convention? >>> >>> Um, the game ends in about 90 minutes. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> The second part is easy: no redress. No wrong explanation, only >> system error. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The second part is difficult: possible redress. Wrong > explanation, due to no system agreement. > > A pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is a pre- > existing mutual partnership understanding if and only if both > partners have had a prior understanding. Since "South didn't > know that part of the convention", North-South had not any prior > agreement about that part of the convention, so North saying > that they did have such an agreement was misinformation. > > Compare and contrast with North-South having a pre-existing > mutual partnership understanding, South temporarily forgetting, > but North correctly explaining. In that case Alain's "no > redress" ruling would be correct, Law 75C. > > Thanks for answering, and a sensible answer. Might this be a problem? I sit down to play one hand, I read that the player is playing Capelletti, but I don't remember it. Ironically (?), it comes up that one hand. Since I do not have a prior understanding of my partner's bid, we don't have an agreement (according to what you said above). So "no agreement" is an acceptable explanation to the opps, who in fact were rude enough to ask the meaning of my partner's bid after I alerted. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 26 05:55:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:55:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World June 1984, Appeals Committee XVII, Issues of Fact: "... A Committee should consider the surrounding circumstances and the inherent probabilities. In the long run, though, it will have to trust to common sense and ordinary human intuition in deciding whom to believe. Thus, it is important to hear all four players, not just one from each side - sometimes, questions will reveal that one player is not nearly so sure as his partner, that he is merely being loyal in backing up his partner's version (if one player fails to appear at the hearing, it is fair to conclude that this may be the case). Still, there is no arithmetical rule. Even if the witnesses appear to be two-to-one, or three-to-one, for a particular version, the committee members may find themselves more impressed by the one. Then they should rule that way, the way their instincts tell them the balance of probability lies. ..." Richard Hills: [snip] >>A pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is a pre- >>existing mutual partnership understanding if and only if both >>partners have had a prior understanding. Since "South didn't >>know that part of the convention", North-South had not any >>prior agreement about that part of the convention, so North >>saying that they did have such an agreement was misinformation. >> >>Compare and contrast with North-South having a pre-existing >>mutual partnership understanding, South temporarily forgetting, >>but North correctly explaining. In that case Alain's "no >>redress" ruling would be correct, Law 75C. Robert Frick: >Thanks for answering, and a sensible answer. Might this be a >problem? > >I sit down to play one hand, I read that the player is playing >Capelletti, but I don't remember it. Ironically (?), it comes up >that one hand. Since I do not have a prior understanding of my >partner's bid, we don't have an agreement (according to what you >said above). Richard Hills: Incorrect. I carefully drew a distinction between "didn't know" and "temporarily forgetting". You had a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding to play Cappelletti (due to your one-deal partner observing you reading her system card, and due to you being aware of the meaning of Cappelletti at a pre- existing time). Robert Frick: >So "no agreement" is an acceptable explanation to the opps, who >in fact were rude enough to ask the meaning of my partner's bid >after I alerted. Richard Hills: Incorrect. The opponents are entitled by Law 20F to receive the correct explanation of the call in accordance with your pre- existing mutual implicit partnership understanding to play Cappelletti. The fact that you have remembered that you are playing Cappelletti but have forgotten the meaning of partner's particular Cappelletti call is not an insuperable problem, thanks to the third sentence of Law 20F1: Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The procedure formerly recommended by the WBF Laws Committee (and embedded into the ABF Alert Regulation) is: 1. The player who remembers that their pair has a (Special) Partnership Understanding, but has forgotten the exact nature of their (S)PU, should summon the Director upon being asked a question about the (S)PU. 2. The Director should order the forgetful questioned player away from the table. 3. The forgetful player's partner then describes their pre- existing mutual explicit or implicit (Special) Partnership Understanding, but NOT the partner's actual cards (e.g. the partner need not reveal if she psyched). 4. The Director then orders the forgetful questioned player to return to the table. Robert Frick: >So "no agreement" is an acceptable explanation to the opps, who >in fact were rude enough to ask the meaning of my partner's bid >after I alerted. Richard Hills: Incorrect. If you are aware that you have a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding (but you have temporarily forgotten its exact nature), then you stating "no agreement" is an UNacceptable explanation. The Introduction states: "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, and Law 72B1 states: A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 26 09:47:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:47:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] agreement In-Reply-To: References: <4ac23125d50d4de1741d5015b4a8b8f6.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4BAB9CE1.8090201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BAC74A9.2070008@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:26:57 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > >> rfrick at rfrick.info a ?crit : >> >>> NS agreed to play New Minor Forcing. According to the convention a >>> response of 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major when the other major >>> is >>> hearts. >>> >>> South didn't know this part of the convention. >>> >>> Did South agree that 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major (when the >>> other >>> major is hearts). >>> >>> Or, more precisely, how do you rule when EW were damaged because the >>> convention was correctly described but South didn't know that part of >>> the >>> convention? >>> >>> Um, the game ends in about 90 minutes. >>> >>> >>> >> The second part is easy : no redress. No wrong explanation, only system >> error. >> >> The first part : is tis convention described somewhere ? (book agreed >> upon, convention card ...) If it isn't, who claims the bid denies >> hearts ? (in Crowhurst it doesn't). >> If it is, and if the explanation was 'new minor forcing', and if 2NT >> really denies 4 hearts, then explaining 'NMF' was Mi, but only in that >> case. >> >> BTW, when hearing something so vague, opponents should enquire about the >> meaning of 2NT (if needed) rather than assume it. You can always rule >> 'failure to protect' in such a case. >> > > I would not rate "new minor forcing" as vague. In the particular case, > they did ask the meaning of 2NT, and they were told it denied 3-card spade > support and denied a four-card heart suit. Which is of course the > convention. No redress. > Obviously South at this point learned that he did not > understand the convention correctly, but was under no obligation to > correct the explanation if he had agreed that that was the meaning of 2NT. > > Indeed. If they agreed 'new minor forcing' than they had an agreement, had to explain according to it, and were under no obligation (L40) to act according to it.. Of course, you can tell them not tu use the convention any more before they got complete agreement. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 26 10:00:43 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:00:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BAC77BB.1060404@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > A pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is a pre- > existing mutual partnership understanding if and only if both > partners have had a prior understanding. Since "South didn't > know that part of the convention", North-South had not any prior > agreement about that part of the convention, so North saying > that they did have such an agreement was misinformation. > > Compare and contrast with North-South having a pre-existing > mutual partnership understanding, South temporarily forgetting, > but North correctly explaining. In that case Alain's "no > redress" ruling would be correct, Law 75C. > There is, however, a contradiction. We're told that 'new minor forcing' is unambiguous and well-known. In this case, agreeing to play NMF without saying more creates an agreement. When a Belgian French-speaking player says 'we play PasPas', his knowledgeable parnet does know everything he needs to play the convention. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 26 14:45:33 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:45:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <128B3B7D-6D5D-4B17-9EEF-3A9E81BCA0CB@starpower.net> On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:09 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:19:31 -0500, wrote: > >> Adam Smith (1723-1790): >> >> "However selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently >> some principles in his nature, which interest him in the >> fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, >> even though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of >> seeing it." >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>>> NS agreed to play New Minor Forcing. According to the >>>> convention a response of 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major >>>> when the other major is hearts. >>>> >>>> South didn't know this part of the convention. >>>> >>>> Did South agree that 2NT denies 4 cards in the other major >>>> (when the other major is hearts). >>>> >>>> Or, more precisely, how do you rule when EW were damaged >>>> because the convention was correctly described but South >>>> didn't know that part of the convention? >>>> >>>> Um, the game ends in about 90 minutes. >> >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>> The second part is easy: no redress. No wrong explanation, only >>> system error. >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> The second part is difficult: possible redress. Wrong >> explanation, due to no system agreement. >> >> A pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is a pre- >> existing mutual partnership understanding if and only if both >> partners have had a prior understanding. Since "South didn't >> know that part of the convention", North-South had not any prior >> agreement about that part of the convention, so North saying >> that they did have such an agreement was misinformation. >> >> Compare and contrast with North-South having a pre-existing >> mutual partnership understanding, South temporarily forgetting, >> but North correctly explaining. In that case Alain's "no >> redress" ruling would be correct, Law 75C. > > Thanks for answering, and a sensible answer. Might this be a problem? > > I sit down to play one hand, I read that the player is playing > Capelletti, > but I don't remember it. Ironically (?), it comes up that one hand. > Since > I do not have a prior understanding of my partner's bid, we don't > have an > agreement (according to what you said above). So "no agreement" is an > acceptable explanation to the opps, who in fact were rude enough to > ask > the meaning of my partner's bid after I alerted. I'm not so sure about that. You're supposed to tell them whatever you know that might be relevant. "Our agreement is 'Cappelletti', but I don't remember how it goes" would seem to be "whatever you know that might be relevant", and thus surely an acceptable explanation. If you simply try to be as helpful and forthcoming as possible (as the ACBL suggests), you need not worry about what legally constitutes a minimally acceptable explanation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 26 15:01:52 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:01:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: <128B3B7D-6D5D-4B17-9EEF-3A9E81BCA0CB@starpower.net> References: <128B3B7D-6D5D-4B17-9EEF-3A9E81BCA0CB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BACBE50.2020103@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > I'm not so sure about that. You're supposed to tell them whatever > you know that might be relevant. "Our agreement is 'Cappelletti', > but I don't remember how it goes" would seem to be "whatever you know > that might be relevant", and thus surely an acceptable explanation. > AG : that would be ethical behind screens. Without them, you run across the usual problem of creating UI and a mess. By the way, you have to tell everything that's relevant about the system and partner's habits ; your lack of knowledge hardly is part of either. Please notice that, in the usual problem, it was partner's explanation about your lacking 4 hearts that was ocnsidered a problem (in case the real explanation was "insufficient agreement"), not your explanation that you're playing NMF. Of course, if you're uncertain about responses, you can always say "relay asking for shape and strength" and let partner explain whatyour bid means, and too bad if it isn't what you have. But to do that (or to act as Eric suggested in the Cappelletti case) you first have to know about your absence of knowledge, and that's the difficult part. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 26 16:22:03 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:22:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: <128B3B7D-6D5D-4B17-9EEF-3A9E81BCA0CB@starpower.net> References: <128B3B7D-6D5D-4B17-9EEF-3A9E81BCA0CB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BACD11B.4040808@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:09 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > I'm not so sure about that. You're supposed to tell them whatever > you know that might be relevant. NO. It is not enough for you to tell them what you know. Even things that you have forgotten are still knowledge to which they are entitled. > "Our agreement is 'Cappelletti', > but I don't remember how it goes" would seem to be "whatever you know > that might be relevant", and thus surely an acceptable explanation. > Acceptable, yes, since you are being honest. Enough, no, because they are entitled to know how Capeletti goes, even if you don't. > If you simply try to be as helpful and forthcoming as possible (as > the ACBL suggests), you need not worry about what legally constitutes > a minimally acceptable explanation. > Yes you should. And in this case you should indeed excuse yourself and let partner explain it to opponents. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 29 00:02:00 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:02:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <128B3B7D-6D5D-4B17-9EEF-3A9E81BCA0CB@starpower.net> Message-ID: Professor Bernardo de la Paz: "More than three can't agree on when to have dinner, much less when to strike." Eric Landau: >>I'm not so sure about that. You're supposed to tell them >>whatever you know that might be relevant. Herman De Wael: >NO. It is not enough for you to tell them what you know. Even >things that you have forgotten are still knowledge to which >they are entitled. Eric Landau: >>"Our agreement is 'Cappelletti', but I don't remember how it >>goes" would seem to be "whatever you know that might be >>relevant", and thus surely an acceptable explanation. Herman De Wael: >Acceptable, yes, since you are being honest. > >Enough, no, because they are entitled to know how Cappelletti >goes, even if you don't. Eric Landau: >>If you simply try to be as helpful and forthcoming as >>possible (as the ACBL suggests), you need not worry about >>what legally constitutes a minimally acceptable explanation. Herman De Wael: >Yes you should. And in this case you should indeed excuse >yourself and let partner explain it to opponents. Richard Hills: I agree 99% with Herman De Wael. Law 40B6(a) requires that "a player should disclose all special information", _not_ that "a player should disclose remembered special information". My 1% quibble with Herman De Wael is that a player lacks the power to permit partner to explain her own call. Only the Director has that power. See Law 20F1 and also this first sentence of Law 81C: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage." 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 Mar 29 01:21:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:21:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BAC77BB.1060404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Ronald Ziegler, Press Secretary of President Richard Nixon, 17th April 1973: "[Mr Nixon's latest statement] is the Operative White House Position ... and all previous statements are inoperative." Alain Gottcheiner, earlier post: >>.....If they agreed 'new minor forcing' than they had an >>agreement, had to explain according to it..... >> >>Of course, you can tell them not to use the convention any >>more before they got complete agreement. Richard Hills: Muddled thinking by Alain, contradiction in terms. Sure, if they agreed they had an agreement, but since they actually incompletely agreed they had an incomplete agreement. That is, they had no pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding whether after "new minor forcing" a 2NT response denied an unbid four card heart suit Alain Gottcheiner, later post: >There is, however, a contradiction. > >We're told that 'new minor forcing' is unambiguous and well- >known. In this case, agreeing to play NMF without saying >more creates an agreement. > >When a Belgian French-speaking player says 'we play PasPas', >his knowledgeable partner does know everything he needs to >play the convention. Richard Hills: Muddled thinking by Alain, stereotyping. Stating that most Belgian French-speaking players are knowledgeable does not answer the question, "Does this particular Belgian French- speaking player correctly know every aspect of 'PasPas'?" 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 Mar 29 07:52:07 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:52:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Psychic Cooper Echoes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: David Burn, 14th January 2003: >I have been watching this with mounting incredulity. But there >comes a point at which the lunatics appear to me to have taken >over the asylum. > >This petering from dummy business is something we did when we >were children. Some of us still appear to do it, so presumably >some of us still are. Whereas the childlike approach to the >game of bridge has much to commend it, there is no particular >reason why grown-ups should sit around discussing the >ramifications thereof. Richard Hills, 29th March 2010: A dozen years ago, Dorothy Jesner organised lunchtime bridge sessions at local primary schools. Her initiative was strongly supported by the teachers, since they noticed that the ramifications thereof were a jump in the reasoning and numeracy skills of their pupils. To keep the interest of some of the older students, I taught them Cooper Echoes and Psychic Cooper Echoes. Some of those students are now luminaries of the Australian National University Bridge Club, playing successful serious bridge (a few weeks ago I lost a Swiss match to an ANU team), but nevertheless mixing their successful serious bridge with the frivolities of the seven of diamonds Beer Card rule. The ramifications of my serious and still successful (the Ali- Hills partnership won the second-most important Canberra Imp Pairs event earlier this year) approach to bridge does not stop me sharing a joke with all three opponents by carefully playing the trey and next the deuce from dummy. David Burn, 14th January 2003: >And yet here are some pretty serious grown-ups discussing the >consequences of a psychic peter from dummy by declarer, and >talking about a peter from dummy in terms of "communication >with partner"... it would be funny, if it weren't tragic. > >Dummy is dummy, declarer's agent; it is obvious from the Laws >that once dummy has become dummy, he has ceased to be >"partner", or any kind of an agent in his own right with whom >it is possible to "communicate" meaningfully or to have >"undisclosed" understandings. 2007 Law 40D, final sentence: "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy." Richard Hills, 29th March 2010: Yes, I agree that a declarer ordering her dummy to play a card neither creates UI nor creates MI. If declarer is unblocking, and a defender chooses to misinterpret that as a Cooper Echo, thus the defender lets an unmakable contract succeed by choosing to prevent the overtrick, then no infraction and no rectification. 2007 Law 21A: "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." David Burn, 14th January 2003: >If Alain and John and other twelve year olds want to exchange >secret "messages" with dummy - well, maybe one of these days >someone will buy them a pair of long trousers. Clowning around >by petering from dummy is probably against the Proprieties, 2007 Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." David Burn, 14th January 2003: >in which case this eminently sensible body of Law should be >salvaged from the ocean bed for the purpose of finding the bit >which says "It is not a good idea to behave like an idiot". 2007 Law 72A, second sentence: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Richard Hills, 29th March 2010: But the _chief_ object is not the _only_ object. If you are a defender, and an obtuse declarer has not yet claimed, it is permissible to discard any one of your meaningless cards. On some occasions the first meaningless card that you discard will be a Congratulatory Jack, which has the meaning, "Nicely defended partner, we are -620 for a top, thanks to your killing switch, rather than -650 for an average." David Burn, 14th January 2003: >Then, it should be thrown back into the ocean again, harder >than before. > >But to talk about what twelve year olds might do in order to >let other twelve year olds know that "the contract is safe" >(of course it is in Belgium, for even if you don't know how to >make it, all you have to do is claim and call for Herman) is >not an exercise for the Bridge Laws Mailing List. Grattan, I >am surprised at you. > >David Burn >London, England -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Mar 29 10:13:19 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:13:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB0611F.90702@comcast.net> On 3/29/10 1:21 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Ronald Ziegler, Press Secretary of President Richard Nixon, > 17th April 1973: > > "[Mr Nixon's latest statement] is the Operative White House > Position ... and all previous statements are inoperative." > > Alain Gottcheiner, earlier post: > > >>> .....If they agreed 'new minor forcing' than they had an >>> agreement, had to explain according to it..... >>> >>> Of course, you can tell them not to use the convention any >>> more before they got complete agreement. >>> > Richard Hills: > > Muddled thinking by Alain, contradiction in terms. Sure, if > they agreed they had an agreement, but since they actually > incompletely agreed they had an incomplete agreement. > > That is, they had no pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit > partnership understanding whether after "new minor forcing" a > 2NT response denied an unbid four card heart suit > > Alain Gottcheiner, later post: > > >> There is, however, a contradiction. >> >> We're told that 'new minor forcing' is unambiguous and well- >> known. In this case, agreeing to play NMF without saying >> more creates an agreement. >> >> When a Belgian French-speaking player says 'we play PasPas', >> his knowledgeable partner does know everything he needs to >> play the convention. >> > Richard Hills: > > Muddled thinking by Alain, stereotyping. Stating that most > Belgian French-speaking players are knowledgeable does not > answer the question, "Does this particular Belgian French- > speaking player correctly know every aspect of 'PasPas'?" > > If they say "New Minor Forcing" or "Cappelletti" when in fact they have incomplete agreement, are those not mistaken explanations...so that Law 75.B applies? --Bob Park, posting from (finally) sunny Spain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 29 12:03:18 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:03:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4BB0611F.90702@comcast.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On 3/29/10 1:21 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Ronald Ziegler, Press Secretary of President Richard Nixon, >> 17th April 1973: >> >> "[Mr Nixon's latest statement] is the Operative White House >> Position ... and all previous statements are inoperative." >> >> Alain Gottcheiner, earlier post: >> >> >>>> .....If they agreed 'new minor forcing' than they had an >>>> agreement, had to explain according to it..... >>>> >>>> Of course, you can tell them not to use the convention any >>>> more before they got complete agreement. >>>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Muddled thinking by Alain, contradiction in terms. Sure, if >> they agreed they had an agreement, but since they actually >> incompletely agreed they had an incomplete agreement. >> >> That is, they had no pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit >> partnership understanding whether after "new minor forcing" a >> 2NT response denied an unbid four card heart suit >> >> Alain Gottcheiner, later post: >> >> >>> There is, however, a contradiction. >>> >>> We're told that 'new minor forcing' is unambiguous and well- >>> known. In this case, agreeing to play NMF without saying >>> more creates an agreement. >>> >>> When a Belgian French-speaking player says 'we play PasPas', >>> his knowledgeable partner does know everything he needs to >>> play the convention. >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Muddled thinking by Alain, stereotyping. Stating that most >> Belgian French-speaking players are knowledgeable does not >> answer the question, "Does this particular Belgian French- >> speaking player correctly know every aspect of 'PasPas'?" >> >> > If they say "New Minor Forcing" or "Cappelletti" when in fact they have > incomplete agreement, are those not mistaken explanations...so that Law > 75.B applies? > > --Bob Park, posting from (finally) sunny Spain > +=+ Laws 40B4 (in particular), 40B6(a) and (b), should be studied. The reference to 'meaning' in 40B4 is to be noted. It would cover anything demonstrably contained in an agreement on which the call is based that, for any reason, the partner does not understand to be part of the agreement. It is reckless to agree a named convention without discussing its extent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 29 15:08:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:08:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB0A63A.2030502@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> There is, however, a contradiction. >> >> We're told that 'new minor forcing' is unambiguous and well- >> known. In this case, agreeing to play NMF without saying >> more creates an agreement. >> >> When a Belgian French-speaking player says 'we play PasPas', >> his knowledgeable partner does know everything he needs to >> play the convention. >> > > Richard Hills: > > Muddled thinking by Alain, stereotyping. Stating that most > Belgian French-speaking players are knowledgeable does not > answer the question, "Does this particular Belgian French- > speaking player correctly know every aspect of 'PasPas'?" > > If not, then the original assertion that 'new minor forcing is unambiguous and well-known' can be questioned. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 29 15:16:21 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:16:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psychic Cooper Echoes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB0A825.9020005@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other > contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and > ethical standards set out in these laws." > > Richard Hills, 29th March 2010: > > But the _chief_ object is not the _only_ object. If you are a > defender, and an obtuse declarer has not yet claimed, it is > permissible to discard any one of your meaningless cards. > > On some occasions the first meaningless card that you discard > will be a Congratulatory Jack, which has the meaning, "Nicely > defended partner, we are -620 for a top, thanks to your killing > switch, rather than -650 for an average." > > By the way, a congratulory jack could help you obtaining a higher score by giving partner the warm feeling that you're a true partnership; Same is true of Cooper echoes, too, of course. Those who consider them children pastimes don't understand the main axiom of partnership : "when he did something good, tell him ; when he did something bad, don't". Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 29 15:22:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:22:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2010, at 6:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Professor Bernardo de la Paz: > > "More than three can't agree on when to have dinner, much less > when to strike." > > Eric Landau: > >>> I'm not so sure about that. You're supposed to tell them >>> whatever you know that might be relevant. > > Herman De Wael: > >> NO. It is not enough for you to tell them what you know. Even >> things that you have forgotten are still knowledge to which >> they are entitled. > > Eric Landau: > >>> "Our agreement is 'Cappelletti', but I don't remember how it >>> goes" would seem to be "whatever you know that might be >>> relevant", and thus surely an acceptable explanation. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Acceptable, yes, since you are being honest. >> >> Enough, no, because they are entitled to know how Cappelletti >> goes, even if you don't. > > Eric Landau: > >>> If you simply try to be as helpful and forthcoming as >>> possible (as the ACBL suggests), you need not worry about >>> what legally constitutes a minimally acceptable explanation. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Yes you should. And in this case you should indeed excuse >> yourself and let partner explain it to opponents. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree 99% with Herman De Wael. Law 40B6(a) requires that "a > player should disclose all special information", _not_ that "a > player should disclose remembered special information". > > My 1% quibble with Herman De Wael is that a player lacks the > power to permit partner to explain her own call. Only the > Director has that power. See Law 20F1 and also this first > sentence of Law 81C: > > "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for > rectifying irregularities and redressing damage." In the original thread case, a player agreed to play according to his partner's SC, noted that it included "Cappelletti", but did not remember the Cappelletti convention, and it was to that problem that I replied as above. As Herman and Richard note, if this player had previously had an explicit agreement with that partner regarding Cappelletti, which he had since forgotten, that would be, from a legal perspective, an entirely different situation. Is this an anomaly in the laws? Does it make sense to treat "agreements" that were never actually realized in detail and those which were but have since been forgotten in such very different manners? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 29 16:10:56 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:10:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB0B4F0.9080101@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > In the original thread case, a player agreed to play according to his > partner's SC, noted that it included "Cappelletti", but did not > remember the Cappelletti convention, and it was to that problem that > I replied as above. > > As Herman and Richard note, if this player had previously had an > explicit agreement with that partner regarding Cappelletti, which he > had since forgotten, that would be, from a legal perspective, an > entirely different situation. > > Is this an anomaly in the laws? Does it make sense to treat > "agreements" that were never actually realized in detail and those > which were but have since been forgotten in such very different manners? > Part of the problem seems to stem from the fact that it is the opposite of the situation for which the rules were devised. The idea is that, when you agree to play X, then you have to disclose X, and the notion of 'agreeing' would be taken as fairly extensive, in order to insist on disclosure. Now we are in a rare situation where disclosing your 'agreement' disadvantages your opponent. This is uncommon enough to let us feel that disclosure laws treat this problem in the wrong way. I don't claim there is a perfect solution. Can we penalize a pair for failing to know whether they have an agreement ? L74A, perhaps ? But IMOBO saying 'I play everything that is on your CC' is a very precise agreement, one which I occasionally have. BTA I'm a systems freak. Best regards Alain From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Mar 29 17:11:17 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:11:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4BB0611F.90702@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4BB0C315.4070308@comcast.net> On 3/29/10 12:03 PM, Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Park" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:13 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> On 3/29/10 1:21 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Ronald Ziegler, Press Secretary of President Richard Nixon, >>> 17th April 1973: >>> >>> "[Mr Nixon's latest statement] is the Operative White House >>> Position ... and all previous statements are inoperative." >>> >>> Alain Gottcheiner, earlier post: >>> >>> >>> >>>>> .....If they agreed 'new minor forcing' than they had an >>>>> agreement, had to explain according to it..... >>>>> >>>>> Of course, you can tell them not to use the convention any >>>>> more before they got complete agreement. >>>>> >>>>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Muddled thinking by Alain, contradiction in terms. Sure, if >>> they agreed they had an agreement, but since they actually >>> incompletely agreed they had an incomplete agreement. >>> >>> That is, they had no pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit >>> partnership understanding whether after "new minor forcing" a >>> 2NT response denied an unbid four card heart suit >>> >>> Alain Gottcheiner, later post: >>> >>> >>> >>>> There is, however, a contradiction. >>>> >>>> We're told that 'new minor forcing' is unambiguous and well- >>>> known. In this case, agreeing to play NMF without saying >>>> more creates an agreement. >>>> >>>> When a Belgian French-speaking player says 'we play PasPas', >>>> his knowledgeable partner does know everything he needs to >>>> play the convention. >>>> >>>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Muddled thinking by Alain, stereotyping. Stating that most >>> Belgian French-speaking players are knowledgeable does not >>> answer the question, "Does this particular Belgian French- >>> speaking player correctly know every aspect of 'PasPas'?" >>> >>> >>> >> If they say "New Minor Forcing" or "Cappelletti" when in fact they have >> incomplete agreement, are those not mistaken explanations...so that Law >> 75.B applies? >> >> --Bob Park, posting from (finally) sunny Spain >> >> > +=+ Laws 40B4 (in particular), 40B6(a) and (b), should be studied. > The reference to 'meaning' in 40B4 is to be noted. It would cover > anything demonstrably contained in an agreement on which the call > is based that, for any reason, the partner does not understand to be > part of the agreement. It is reckless to agree a named convention > without discussing its extent. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Hmmm...It's not clear to me that Laws 40B4 and 40B(a) and (b) answer the question. In the scenario I cited, A explains B's call to mean someing other than what B indended it to mean. Note that B has not misbid. He simply had a different understanding of the meaning of his action. So A's explanation was not an explanation of their actual agreement, but rather was an extrapolation (done solo) of what the agreement actually was. So why doesn't Law 75B apply? --bp From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 29 17:24:01 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:24:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hay green mint > > Is this an anomaly in the laws? Does it make sense > to treat "agreements" that were never actually realized > in detail and those which were but have since been > forgotten in such very different manners? > +=+ "Partnership methods ........... may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players" (40A1) < "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding" [40B1(b)] < +=+ I see no merit in intervention if players enter into agreements they do not fully underswtand. Caveat emptor. If you buy the goods unexamined you are stuck with them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 29 18:24:13 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:24:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB0D42D.6050509@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold > New things succeed, as former things grow old." > [Robert Herrick] . > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:22 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hay green mint > > > >> Is this an anomaly in the laws? Does it make sense >> to treat "agreements" that were never actually realized >> in detail and those which were but have since been >> forgotten in such very different manners? >> >> > +=+ "Partnership methods ........... may be reached > explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual > experience or awareness of the players" (40A1) > < > "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between > partners is a partnership understanding" [40B1(b)] > < > +=+ I see no merit in intervention if players enter > into agreements they do not fully underswtand. > Caveat emptor. If you buy the goods unexamined > you are stuck with them. > Of course, but here this understanding of the laws helps the emptors. That's where the postman bit the dog. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 29 20:14:38 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:14:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB0EE0E.8040901@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > As Herman and Richard note, if this player had previously had an > explicit agreement with that partner regarding Cappelletti, which he > had since forgotten, that would be, from a legal perspective, an > entirely different situation. > > Is this an anomaly in the laws? Does it make sense to treat > "agreements" that were never actually realized in detail and those > which were but have since been forgotten in such very different manners? > Why not? The word is agreement after all - so if you have agreed and forgotten, you have an agreement - but if you have never agreed, you have no agreement. BTW, all we are trying to do is to rule with benefit of the doubt against possible offender. A misexplaining side who claim to have misbid and had an agreement is ruled not to have known that agreement; a misexplaining side who claim not to have the agreement are ruled to have had it. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 29 20:32:36 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:32:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: <4BB0EE0E.8040901@skynet.be> References: <4BB0EE0E.8040901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b1003291132v7d88d529wec0d2770b8838208@mail.gmail.com> Herman De Wael writes: > > The word is agreement after all - so if you have agreed and forgotten, > you have an agreement - but if you have never agreed, you have no agreement. > But the word is not "agreement" anymore, it is *understanding*. And this change is an improvement in the laws. If you understand that your partner forgets the convention 1/3 of the time, or that his chance of forgetting it this time is 1/3, then failure to disclose this is MI, in my opinion. Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 29 22:41:42 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:41:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB0C315.4070308@comcast.net> References: <4BB0611F.90702@comcast.net> <4BB0C315.4070308@comcast.net> Message-ID: In another case, my partner and I agreed to play Rosenkrantz doubles. Then it came up whether they apply over a balancing overcall. Something like 1D P P 1H 2D X The opponents were given the explanation that the X is a Rosenkrantz double. The double was meant as being for penalties. To decide if this was misbid or misexplanation, I guess we have to call Rosenkrantz. And if you don't think that is plausible, what if Meckstroth and Rodwell have system notes which they have agreed on. Don't we look to those system notes to decide what their actual agreement is? From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Mar 29 22:23:57 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:23:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Psychic Cooper Echoes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB10C5D.9020705@yahoo.co.uk> Playing games is a bit childish but IMO, there nothing particularly childish, illegal or unethical about *Cooper Echo* or a *Congratulatory Jack*. Although the latter should be declared. They cheer up partner so there is a better Bridge argument for them than for "Beer card" battles and the like. I haven't yet adopted any of these amusements but they seem harmless fun to me. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 29 22:43:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:43:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Psychic Cooper Echoes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB10C5D.9020705@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Playing games is a bit childish..... Richard Hills: Duplicate Bridge is a game. All that duplicate players do is muck about around card tables having a good time. Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons." 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 Mar 29 22:54:07 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:54:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Laws 40B4 (in particular), 40B6(a) and (b), should be >>studied. The reference to 'meaning' in 40B4 is to be noted. >>It would cover anything demonstrably contained in an agreement >>on which the call is based that, for any reason, the partner >>does not understand to be part of the agreement. It is >>reckless to agree a named convention without discussing its >>extent. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: A "Michaels Cue Bid" as defined by Adelaide experts differs from a "Michaels Cue Bid" as defined by Canberra experts (and both of these differ from a "Michaels Cue Bid" as defined by its inventor, Mike Michaels). Robert Frick: >In another case, my partner and I agreed to play Rosenkrantz >doubles. Then it came up whether they apply over a balancing >overcall. Something like > >1D P P 1H >2D X > >The opponents were given the explanation that the X is a >Rosenkrantz double. The double was meant as being for >penalties. > >To decide if this was misbid or misexplanation, I guess we have >to call Rosenkrantz. William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet: What's in a name? that which we call a Rosenkrantz By any other name would smell as sweet. 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 Mar 30 00:20:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:20:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB0C315.4070308@comcast.net> Message-ID: The Economist, March 25th 2010 http://www.economist.com/science-technology/ [snip] The dinosaurs were done for, as everybody knows, by a collision with an asteroid. The Permian was curtailed by massive volcanism. But what exactly happened towards the end of the Triassic has been much debated. A study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by Jessica Whiteside of Brown University in Rhode Island and her colleagues, pretty well nails it down. It was the geological chaos that created the North Atlantic Ocean. [snip] Put it all together and the probable course of events was this. The initial volcanism as North America split from Europe released carbon dioxide from deep inside the Earth. That produced a greenhouse effect which, in turn, melted seabed structures known as methane clathrates, which trap that gas in ice. This caused a massive release of 12C-rich methane into the atmosphere, explaining the initial drop in 13C concentrations. The methane, being a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, exacerbated things, while the carbon dioxide acidified the oceans, killing most of the animal shellmakers and fertilising the photosynthesis of planktonic plants. The subsequent plankton bloom sucked up the 12C and the isotope ratio veered off in the opposite direction. The greenhouse warming and the acid rain also did for the forests and many of the reptiles. Only once things had settled down could the survivors regroup. New species of trees took over. The forests grew back. And a bunch of hitherto not-so- terrible lizards began their long march. Bob Park: [snip] >an extrapolation (done solo) of what the agreement actually >was. > >So why doesn't Law 75B apply? > --bp Richard Hills: A solo belief of one partner is not a pre-existing mutual understanding of both partners. So yes, in this situation Bob correctly argues that Law 75B (Mistaken Explanation) applies. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Mar 30 00:26:33 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:26:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Psychic Cooper Echoes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB12919.60807@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] Playing games is a bit childish..... [Richard Hills] Duplicate Bridge is a game. All that duplicate players do is muck about around card tables having a good time. [Nige2] That was the exactly point I was making :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 30 01:55:53 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:55:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4BB0611F.90702@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:03:18 -0500, Grattan wrote: >> > +=+ [snip It is reckless to agree a named convention > without discussing its extent. > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ But I think extraordinarily common. I once drove a player to the club as we discussed what to play, and for the most part the conversations was something like "Drury?" "no." "1430?" "fine". "Smith echoes?" yes. "Smolen?". For a half hour. We discussed the meaning of Capelletti only because I didn't remember it. I can't imagine how our conversation could have been different. And the reality is, players usually do not realize ambiguities in these conventions, when ambiguities are present. And they can think they know the whole convention when they don't. So it seems very odd if neither the laws not common practice addressed this problem. Bob, who played all day today with the agreement of "Support Doubles" without ever having time to clarify when they were on and when they were off. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 30 02:17:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:17:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Arthur Buller (1874-1944), British botanist and mycologist: There was a young lady named Bright, Whose speed was far faster than light; She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night. Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>Caveat emptor. If you buy the goods unexamined you are stuck >>with them. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Robert Frick: [snip] >Bob, who played all day today with the agreement of "Support >Doubles" without ever having time to clarify when they were >on and when they were off. Richard Hills: Some conventions are inherently more dangerous than others. The semi-retired American expert Larry Cohen recommended that a new partnership should NOT use Support Doubles, because the cost of the many bidding misunderstandings greatly outweighed any benefit that the convention might give. Robert Frick: >So it seems very odd if neither the laws nor common practice >addressed this problem. Problem addressed by the commonly practiced Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 30 03:46:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:46:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:17:43 -0500, wrote: > Arthur Buller (1874-1944), British botanist and mycologist: > > There was a young lady named Bright, > Whose speed was far faster than light; > She set out one day > In a relative way > And returned on the previous night. > > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >>> Caveat emptor. If you buy the goods unexamined you are stuck >>> with them. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> Bob, who played all day today with the agreement of "Support >> Doubles" without ever having time to clarify when they were >> on and when they were off. > > Richard Hills: > > Some conventions are inherently more dangerous than others. > > The semi-retired American expert Larry Cohen recommended that > a new partnership should NOT use Support Doubles, because the > cost of the many bidding misunderstandings greatly outweighed > any benefit that the convention might give. > > Robert Frick: > >> So it seems very odd if neither the laws nor common practice >> addressed this problem. > > Problem addressed by the commonly practiced Law 21B1(b): > > "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Well, it isn't an issue of evidence. In most examples I give, the facts are known (or given). Nor is that the question. The question is what is the agreement when players make an agreement and have different understandings of their agreement. Does it work in practice? I don't remember their being consensus on the initial example. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 30 03:13:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:13:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Walter Raleigh (1861-1922), English lecturer and critic: "In examinations those who do not wish to know ask questions of those who cannot tell." Robert Frick: >The question is what is the agreement when players make an >agreement and have different understandings of their agreement. Richard Hills: The question is what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. The answer is: (a) in a universe where an irresistible force exists, an immovable object cannot also exist, and (b) in a universe where an immovable object exists, an irresistible force cannot also exist. Now for Bob Frick's question. What happens when partners make a prior agreement on a mutual partnership understanding, but they do not have a prior agreement on a mutual partnership understanding? 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 Mar 30 06:37:49 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:37:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Weighted score adjustments Message-ID: I am told that the ABF and the EBU (in the White Paper) do not iinclude possible adverse results of an OS action taken concurrent with or subsequent to an infraction when weighing possibilities under L12C1(c). Possibilities must be based only on what might have happened had there been no infraction. That looks to me like ACBL thinking for L12C1(e)(ii) when they added "had the irregularity not occurred." Surely the Laws would not have one approach for a single score adjustment and another for weighted adjustments. Would some worthies out there please support me on this? And if I'm wrong, please cite the language in the Laws that proves me wrong. Ah, I see it, that word "equity." But in this law it means fairness in adjusting the OS score, nothing more. It doesn't say "restore equity" (as in Law 85D) it says "to do equity," which only means to balance out possibilities in a fair way. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 30 07:42:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:42:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Magna Carta (1297 edition) clause 29 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Magna Carta (1297 edition) clause 29: "No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right." Law 93 (Procedures of Appeal) footnote: "* The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action." Richard Hills: Over time the Parliament at Westminster has repealed most of the clauses of Magna Carta, but clause 29 remains the Law of the Land in England and Wales. 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 Email from Adam Wildavsky and Bruce Reeve regarding proposed [ACBL] changes to frivolous appeals. We understand that in [Washington] D.C. the C&C [Competition & Conventions] committee voted to recommend to the board a change in policy for Appeal Without Merit Warnings. Apparently a player who has accumulated two AWMW warnings in a period of two years will be prohibited from appealing any more rulings for an additional two years. We would like to see fewer meritless appeals, so we appreciate the intent of this change. However, we'd like to request that you put off sending your recommendation to the board pending further discussion among our two committees. We have a few reasons. * Any changes to AWMW policy will have a substantial impact on the National Appeals Committee, and we'd always like to be consulted before any changes are made. * While we haven't seen the details, the policy seems to lack nuance. ACs are far from perfect and not all AWMWs are created equal. Some are well deserved, while others are assessed when the case, properly decided, would have gone the other way! The current policy requires review by a committee before any penalties take effect. That seems sensible. It gives players a chance to explain why they appealed, and the committee can take into account comments from the casebook commentators regarding the appeal's merit or lack thereof. That seems a reasonable amount of due process before curtailing a right guaranteed to every player under the laws. * It's not clear that the proposed policy is legal. The laws give every player the right to appeal a ruling. If you decide to retain your recommendation then it probably should be run by the Laws Commission as well. * We're curious how you propose to handle the case where only one member of a pair, or a team, is under the "no appeal" sanction. * When automatic penalties ensue it's not clear that "Warning" is an appropriate term to use. * With penalties so severe, committees may hesitate to hand out an AWMW even when it is well deserved. One possibility would be to forward your recommendation from the C&C committee to the board along with a separate recommendation from the National Appeals Committee. We don't favor this approach because it would require the board to deal with details that are best left to committees. If our committees consult on this matter we're confident we can come up with something we'll both be happy to propose to the BOD [Board of Directors]. Regards, Adam Wildavsky - Chairman, National Appeals Committee Bruce Reeve - Director, National Appeals Committee -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Mar 30 08:08:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:08:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), three times British Prime Minister: "No one is fit to be trusted with a secret who is not prepared, if necessary, to tell an untruth to defend it." Marvin French asked: >Would some worthies out there please support me on this? WBF Code of Practice (too unworthy to be adopted by the ACBL): "Law 12C1(c) operates unless the Regulating Authority elects otherwise. It applies in WBF tournaments. (The Regulating Authority may elect to apply all or part of Law 12C1(e) to replace all or part of Law 12C1(c).) The purpose of this law is to enable the Director and an appeal committee to form a view as to what is an equitable outcome in the score, and to implement that outcome. It makes the appeal committee the final arbiter of equity." Introduction, first paragraph (also too unworthy): "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director." Law 12B1, first sentence (even more unworthy): "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 30 09:52:30 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:52:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: <4BB0EE0E.8040901@skynet.be> References: <4BB0EE0E.8040901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BB1ADBE.8000805@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Eric Landau wrote: > >> As Herman and Richard note, if this player had previously had an >> explicit agreement with that partner regarding Cappelletti, which he >> had since forgotten, that would be, from a legal perspective, an >> entirely different situation. >> >> Is this an anomaly in the laws? Does it make sense to treat >> "agreements" that were never actually realized in detail and those >> which were but have since been forgotten in such very different manners? >> >> > > Why not? > > The word is agreement after all - so if you have agreed and forgotten, > you have an agreement - but if you have never agreed, you have no agreement. > > BTW, all we are trying to do is to rule with benefit of the doubt > against possible offender. > A misexplaining side who claim to have misbid and had an agreement is > ruled not to have known that agreement; a misexplaining side who claim > not to have the agreement are ruled to have had it. > > AG : okay, except that in many cases, including this one, we can't pretend they're misexplaining before we know whether they have an agreement. To say "they have misexplained, because they had an agreement, and they're deemed to have an agreement, because they have misexplained" is logically faulty. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 30 15:14:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:14:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: References: <4BB0611F.90702@comcast.net> Message-ID: <78F7E238-593A-4BE9-9AD0-1CF8011263EA@starpower.net> On Mar 29, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:03:18 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> +=+ [snip It is reckless to agree a named convention >> without discussing its extent. > > But I think extraordinarily common. I once drove a player to the > club as > we discussed what to play, and for the most part the conversations was > something like "Drury?" "no." "1430?" "fine". "Smith echoes?" yes. > "Smolen?". For a half hour. We discussed the meaning of Capelletti > only > because I didn't remember it. I can't imagine how our conversation > could > have been different. > > And the reality is, players usually do not realize ambiguities in > these > conventions, when ambiguities are present. And they can think they > know > the whole convention when they don't. > > So it seems very odd if neither the laws not common practice addressed > this problem. > > Bob, who played all day today with the agreement of "Support Doubles" > without ever having time to clarify when they were on and when they > were > off. It's worse than that, as "support doubles" come in two such distinct flavors as to constitute different conventions. In some partnerships, a support double shows a hand that, absent the agreement to play support doubles, would have raised with three-card support. In others, a double is mandatory on any hand with three- card support, and failure to double denies three cards in partner's suit. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 30 15:42:29 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:42:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint In-Reply-To: <78F7E238-593A-4BE9-9AD0-1CF8011263EA@starpower.net> References: <4BB0611F.90702@comcast.net> <78F7E238-593A-4BE9-9AD0-1CF8011263EA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BB1FFC5.5020909@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Mar 29, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:03:18 -0500, Grattan >> wrote: >> >> >>> +=+ [snip It is reckless to agree a named convention >>> without discussing its extent. >>> >> But I think extraordinarily common. I once drove a player to the >> club as >> we discussed what to play, and for the most part the conversations was >> something like "Drury?" "no." "1430?" "fine". "Smith echoes?" yes. >> "Smolen?". For a half hour. We discussed the meaning of Capelletti >> only >> because I didn't remember it. I can't imagine how our conversation >> could >> have been different. >> >> And the reality is, players usually do not realize ambiguities in >> these >> conventions, when ambiguities are present. And they can think they >> know >> the whole convention when they don't. >> >> So it seems very odd if neither the laws not common practice addressed >> this problem. >> >> Bob, who played all day today with the agreement of "Support Doubles" >> without ever having time to clarify when they were on and when they >> were >> off. >> > > It's worse than that, as "support doubles" come in two such distinct > flavors as to constitute different conventions. In some > partnerships, a support double shows a hand that, absent the > agreement to play support doubles, would have raised with three-card > support. In others, a double is mandatory on any hand with three- > card support, and failure to double denies three cards in partner's > suit. > AG : in others still, it is neither. Some supports double aficionados require three cards and an "interesting" hand, but seldom support on three cards, so this is an intermediate position. For example, they would double after 1C p 1S 2D with Jxx Kx Axx AQxxx although they would have rebid 1NT (thus not the former interpretation) but they wouldn't if you change the hand to Jxx Kxx Axx AJxx thus not the latter interpretation either. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 31 04:20:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:20:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hay green mint [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Burn's Third Law: "You cannot make 3NT on a cross-ruff." David Burn also wrote an extremely entertaining article about partnership agreements (or lack thereof) on conventions, with particular reference to the notorious Ghestem convention: http://blakjak.org/brx_brn0.htm 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 Mar 31 05:57:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:57:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37: [snip] >>The Facts: 4S went down one, +50 >>for N/S. The opening lead was a low >>heart. South, as she led to trick two, >>knocked over her card holder, briefly >>exposing her cards to the rest of the >>players at the table. She covered >>them quickly and pulled them into >>her lap. E/W called the Director who >>said they believed North had seen >>South's cards. The Director applied >>Law 50, instructing the players that >>South's prematurely exposed (but not >>led) cards would not be treated as >>penalty cards and to resume play. He >>remained at the table and monitored >>the play, which he reported went as >>shown in the diagram. At the end of >>the play, the Director was satisfied >>that there had been no damage from >>the briefly exposed cards (Law 16) >>and allowed the table result to stand. [snip] 2003 casebook panellist Grattan Endicott: >Unless knocking over the card holder was >deemed a purposeful action there was no >infraction. South did not act to make UI >available, it occurred adventitiously. If >North saw anything significant as the >outcome of the accident, Law 16B would >apply. Everything the Director did was >within the powers the relevant law gives, >regardless of spirit, and I have no >inclination to challenge the Director's >conclusions in addressing the question of >whether North had UI and took advantage >of it. Richard Hills, 3rd May 2004: It seems to me that Grattan Endicott has misinterpreted Law 16B. Law 16B refers to "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins", but this case was about seeing 13 of partner's cards after the auction had finished and the play had begun. Richard Hills, 31st March 2010: The 1997 Law 16B is now the 2007 Law 16C. 2003 casebook panellist Jeff Goldsmith: >I didn't know that Law 50 allows Directors >to judge that an exposed card provides no >penalty. Law 50B says "a card.....exposed >inadvertently.....becomes a minor penalty >card," which suggests to me that Law 50 >was misapplied, but I think it would be a >good thing if Law 50 could be applied as it >was, particularly with respect to >handicapped players. [snip] Richard Hills, 3rd May 2004: It seems to me that Jeff Goldsmith has correctly interpreted Law 50. Richard Hills, 31st March 2010: Except that the 13 unintentionally exposed cards are major penalty cards, as Law 50 also says that "...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards". Richard Hills, 3rd May 2004: It seems to me that the Law 50 caveat, "unless the Director designates otherwise", is subject to the Law 49 restriction, "Except in the normal course of play or application of law". That is, in my opinion, the TD cannot arbitrarily designate that a prematurely exposed card is not a penalty card, but the TD must have some Lawful justification for so ruling. For example, a ruling pursuant to footnote number 19 of Law 68, "If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards....." would be a valid reason for the TD to "designate otherwise". I do, however, agree with Jeff Goldsmith's suggestion that the actual TD ruling should be made specifically legal in the 2006 versions of Law 49 and Law 50. 2006 Law 3B2(g), never officially adopted: "The Director is bound by these Laws, and under them by the said regulations and the conditions of contest. He has powers and duties: for cause, in his discretion, to waive measures of rectification set out in the laws." 2007 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.*** Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 31 09:00:05 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:00:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 4:57 AM Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37: > > [snip] > >>>The Facts: 4S went down one, +50 >>>for N/S. The opening lead was a low >>>heart. South, as she led to trick two, >>>knocked over her card holder, briefly >>>exposing her cards to the rest of the >>>players at the table. She covered >>>them quickly and pulled them into >>>her lap. E/W called the Director who >>>said they believed North had seen >>>South's cards. The Director applied >>>Law 50, instructing the players that >>>South's prematurely exposed (but not >>>led) cards would not be treated as >>>penalty cards and to resume play. He >>>remained at the table and monitored >>>the play, which he reported went as >>>shown in the diagram. At the end of >>>the play, the Director was satisfied >>>that there had been no damage from >>>the briefly exposed cards (Law 16) >>>and allowed the table result to stand. > > [snip] > > 2003 casebook panellist Grattan Endicott: > >>Unless knocking over the card holder was >>deemed a purposeful action there was no >>infraction. South did not act to make UI >>available, it occurred adventitiously. If >>North saw anything significant as the >>outcome of the accident, Law 16B would >>apply. Everything the Director did was >>within the powers the relevant law gives, >>regardless of spirit, and I have no >>inclination to challenge the Director's >>conclusions in addressing the question of >>whether North had UI and took advantage >>of it. > > Richard Hills, 3rd May 2004: > > It seems to me that Grattan Endicott has > misinterpreted Law 16B. > > Law 16B refers to "seeing a card belonging > to another player at his own table before > the auction begins", but this case was > about seeing 13 of partner's cards after > the auction had finished and the play had > begun. > > Richard Hills, 31st March 2010: > > The 1997 Law 16B is now the 2007 Law 16C. > > 2003 casebook panellist Jeff Goldsmith: > >>I didn't know that Law 50 allows Directors >>to judge that an exposed card provides no >>penalty. Law 50B says "a card.....exposed >>inadvertently.....becomes a minor penalty >>card," which suggests to me that Law 50 >>was misapplied, but I think it would be a >>good thing if Law 50 could be applied as it >>was, particularly with respect to >>handicapped players. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills, 3rd May 2004: > > It seems to me that Jeff Goldsmith has > correctly interpreted Law 50. > > Richard Hills, 31st March 2010: > > Except that the 13 unintentionally exposed > cards are major penalty cards, as Law 50 also > says that "...when one defender has two > or more penalty cards, all such cards become > major penalty cards". > > Richard Hills, 3rd May 2004: > > It seems to me that the Law 50 caveat, > "unless the Director designates otherwise", > is subject to the Law 49 restriction, > "Except in the normal course of play or > application of law". > > That is, in my opinion, the TD cannot > arbitrarily designate that a prematurely > exposed card is not a penalty card, but the > TD must have some Lawful justification for > so ruling. > > For example, a ruling pursuant to footnote > number 19 of Law 68, "If the statement or > action pertains only to the winning or > losing of an uncompleted trick currently in > progress, play proceeds regularly; cards > exposed or revealed by a defender do not > become penalty cards....." would be a valid > reason for the TD to "designate otherwise". > > I do, however, agree with Jeff Goldsmith's > suggestion that the actual TD ruling should > be made specifically legal in the 2006 > versions of Law 49 and Law 50. > > 2006 Law 3B2(g), never officially adopted: > > "The Director is bound by these Laws, and > under them by the said regulations and the > conditions of contest. He has powers and > duties: > for cause, in his discretion, to waive > measures of rectification set out in the > laws." > > 2007 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.*** > +=+ Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender? Grammatically reference to " the non-offending side" requires that any other side is an offending side. Question: is it desirable by way of interpretation to say that where both sides are non-offending the words 'the non-offending side' may be construed as applying to either? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 31 10:59:41 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:59:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> > +=+ Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card > or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender? I'm sorry Grattan, but you cannot have more inadvertent than inadvertent. The laws on minor penalty cards already speak of inadvertent exposure. If this lady has made no infraction, then what of the player who pulls out one card only to see another one also drop on the table? This ruling was totally wrong, and you trying to defend it on any other ground than "it feels right" is, IMO, not on. The laws have specifically mentioned the case of accidental exposure, trying to make the penalty as light as possible. They have also specifically mentioned that showing more than one card is no longer to be treated as lightly. why then should this lady escape? Why should she be allowed to do what I won't be, if I drop all my cards on the floor? If the answer is "because she's handicapped", then I'm all right with that. But if Grattan answers "because she made no infraction" then I'm not. > Grammatically reference to " the non-offending side" > requires that any other side is an offending side. > Question: is it desirable by way of interpretation to > say that where both sides are non-offending the words > 'the non-offending side' may be construed as applying > to either? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 31 12:33:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:33:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BB32505.1060609@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card >> or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender? >> > > AG : no, because an offense supposes intentionality. But there was a breach of standard procedure, which leads to specific procedures. Notice that there are many fields, in law and sport, where unintentional actions are still penalized, so this shouldn't be considered problematic. > I'm sorry Grattan, but you cannot have more inadvertent than > inadvertent. AG : Why not ? In the same fields, there is a difference between A "didn't do it on purpose, but should have known" (e.g. injuries in an accident you caused through inattention) and B "couldn't have escaped it even with all due caution" (e.g. a gust of wind pushes you against another person, who is injured). Both are inadvertent, but they are treated differently. I don't know whether that should apply to bridge, but your argument doesn't hold : there are degrees in inadvertency > The laws on minor penalty cards already speak of > inadvertent exposure. If this lady has made no infraction, then what of > the player who pulls out one card only to see another one also drop on > the table? > AG : case A : he could have avoided it by giving due attention to his moves. But case B if he suffers from Parkinson's disease. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 31 15:06:53 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:06:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:57:59 -0500, wrote: > > ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37: > > [snip] > >>> The Facts: 4S went down one, +50 >>> for N/S. The opening lead was a low >>> heart. South, as she led to trick two, >>> knocked over her card holder, briefly >>> exposing her cards to the rest of the >>> players at the table. She covered >>> them quickly and pulled them into >>> her lap. E/W called the Director who >>> said they believed North had seen >>> South's cards. The Director applied >>> Law 50, instructing the players that >>> South's prematurely exposed (but not >>> led) cards would not be treated as >>> penalty cards and to resume play. He >>> remained at the table and monitored >>> the play, which he reported went as >>> shown in the diagram. At the end of >>> the play, the Director was satisfied >>> that there had been no damage from >>> the briefly exposed cards (Law 16) >>> and allowed the table result to stand. > > [snip] > > 2003 casebook panellist Grattan Endicott: > >> Unless knocking over the card holder was >> deemed a purposeful action there was no >> infraction. South did not act to make UI >> available, it occurred adventitiously. If >> North saw anything significant as the >> outcome of the accident, Law 16B would >> apply. Everything the Director did was >> within the powers the relevant law gives, >> regardless of spirit, and I have no >> inclination to challenge the Director's >> conclusions in addressing the question of >> whether North had UI and took advantage >> of it. > > Richard Hills, 3rd May 2004: > > It seems to me that Grattan Endicott has > misinterpreted Law 16B. > > Law 16B refers to "seeing a card belonging > to another player at his own table before > the auction begins", but this case was > about seeing 13 of partner's cards after > the auction had finished and the play had > begun. > > Richard Hills, 31st March 2010: > > The 1997 Law 16B is now the 2007 Law 16C. > > 2003 casebook panellist Jeff Goldsmith: > >> I didn't know that Law 50 allows Directors >> to judge that an exposed card provides no >> penalty. Law 50B says "a card.....exposed >> inadvertently.....becomes a minor penalty >> card," which suggests to me that Law 50 >> was misapplied, but I think it would be a >> good thing if Law 50 could be applied as it >> was, particularly with respect to >> handicapped players. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills, 3rd May 2004: > > It seems to me that Jeff Goldsmith has > correctly interpreted Law 50. > > Richard Hills, 31st March 2010: > > Except that the 13 unintentionally exposed > cards are major penalty cards, as Law 50 also > says that "...when one defender has two > or more penalty cards, all such cards become > major penalty cards". > > Richard Hills, 3rd May 2004: > > It seems to me that the Law 50 caveat, > "unless the Director designates otherwise", > is subject to the Law 49 restriction, > "Except in the normal course of play or > application of law". > > That is, in my opinion, the TD cannot > arbitrarily designate that a prematurely > exposed card is not a penalty card, but the > TD must have some Lawful justification for > so ruling. > > For example, a ruling pursuant to footnote > number 19 of Law 68, "If the statement or > action pertains only to the winning or > losing of an uncompleted trick currently in > progress, play proceeds regularly; cards > exposed or revealed by a defender do not > become penalty cards....." would be a valid > reason for the TD to "designate otherwise". > > I do, however, agree with Jeff Goldsmith's > suggestion that the actual TD ruling should > be made specifically legal in the 2006 > versions of Law 49 and Law 50. > > 2006 Law 3B2(g), never officially adopted: > > "The Director is bound by these Laws, and > under them by the said regulations and the > conditions of contest. He has powers and > duties: > for cause, in his discretion, to waive > measures of rectification set out in the > laws." > > 2007 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.*** IMO the first thing the director has to decide is if "the case is clearly covered by a law that prescribes the rectification of the irregularity." (Law 84) I am very comfortable with the decision that it is not. The lawbook simply cannot cover every possible situation. One, it would become too large and actually harder to study and read and understand. Two, no one can think of every possible situation in advance. I heard one where, after trick 4, the player exposed all four cards he had played to show that they were all threes. The opponents called the director, who ruled no rectification. He said something to the effect that this was allowable enjoyment of the game. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 31 14:28:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:28:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB33FF5.3080402@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > IMO the first thing the director has to decide is if "the case is clearly > covered by a law that prescribes the rectification of the irregularity." > (Law 84) > > I am very comfortable with the decision that it is not. > > The lawbook simply cannot cover every possible situation. One, it would > become too large and actually harder to study and read and understand. > Two, no one can think of every possible situation in advance. > > I heard one where, after trick 4, the player exposed all four cards he had > played to show that they were all threes. The opponents called the > director, who ruled no rectification. He said something to the effect that > this was allowable enjoyment of the game. > > That's funny ; I encountered a similar case not long ago. I don't know whether it's universal, but we have a "moral law" saying that if you happen to win a trick consisting of the 2,3,4 and 5 of the same suit, you're compelled to order champaign. (not that it takes such uncommon occurrences to have good reasons ; last night, it was the last day in Brussels' championship and I lost the count of champaign bottles) It happened that, on the third trick, declarer was last to play after the 4, 2 and 3 were played, and dummy taunted : "champaign, partner ?" Opponents complained that dummy had infracted several laws by drawing declarer's attention to which cards had been played. The TD's response was "do you know the meaning of the phrase 'fun of the game' ?" Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 31 15:49:03 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:49:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB30EFD.30003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5260911FDA2142FCB4F33B0EECD68704@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan wrote: >>> >> +=+ Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card >> or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender? > > > I'm sorry Grattan, but you cannot have more inadvertent than > inadvertent. The laws on minor penalty cards already speak of > inadvertent exposure. If this lady has made no infraction, then what of > the player who pulls out one card only to see another one also drop on > the table? > This ruling was totally wrong, and you trying to defend it on any other > ground than "it feels right" is, IMO, not on. > +=+ Herman has failed to follow the implications of what I wrote. If there is no offender then the reference to 'the' non-offending side is inapplicable. In that situation there is no such side to request waiver of the rectification. The power in Law 81C5 cannot be exercised and the Director's hands are tied. He must apply Law 49. I suggested that if it is desired to provide the Director with flexibility to exercise his discretion in the situation postulated, we need action by the WBFLC. A possible action would be to add in reference to 'the non-offending side' in Law 81C5 a footnote reading: "(*Either side when both are non-offending)" As for the player who drops a card accidentally when pulling out the one he wishes to play, his clumsiness is the equivalent of the palsy of the little old lady. ~ G ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 31 15:57:08 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:57:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady In-Reply-To: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BB354B4.70802@nhcc.net> On 3/31/2010 3:00 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card > or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender? Some while ago, we had an exchange on the difference between irregularities and infractions. This seems, at first glance, to be an example of the former but not the latter. I may be missing something. I don't think it's a very far stretch to read "the non-offending side" as applying to both sides if both are non-offending. The problem, of course, is "for cause" and the necessary subjective judgment. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Mar 31 16:09:05 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:09:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2 tricks revoke, still? In-Reply-To: <4BB354B4.70802@nhcc.net> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB354B4.70802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Hello, A small test for you ... Contract is 3NT Declarers revokes, revoke is established, TD transfers 2 tricks according to L64A, not 64C-Equity, Is this possible? If yes, explains, Cheers, 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 From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Mar 31 16:52:46 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:52:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?2_tricks_revoke=2C_still=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1NwzHi-27aAz20@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Hello Olivier, From: "olivier.beauvillain" > A small test for you ... > > Contract is 3NT > Declarers revokes, revoke is established, > > TD transfers 2 tricks according to L64A, not 64C-Equity, > > Is this possible? sure :) > If yes, explains, Law 43 B2b Cheers Peter From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Mar 31 16:56:49 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:56:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2 tricks revoke, still? In-Reply-To: <1NwzHi-27aAz20@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <1NwzHi-27aAz20@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B5AD5AC8A354CC793E02C8538443E0D@PCdeOlivier> Ok! Too fast ... welle done, i cought someones in France with this Q :)) Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 tricks revoke, still? > > Hello Olivier, > > From: "olivier.beauvillain" >> A small test for you ... >> >> Contract is 3NT >> Declarers revokes, revoke is established, >> >> TD transfers 2 tricks according to L64A, not 64C-Equity, >> >> Is this possible? > > sure :) > >> If yes, explains, > > Law 43 B2b > > Cheers > Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 31 18:17:30 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:17:30 -0800 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC Appeal Case 8 Message-ID: No need to show the hands. With both vul, East's 1H bid was raised by West, and then North hesitated (allegedly five seconds) with xxxx AKQ Ax Axxx before passing. South balanced with 3D, holding nothing but six diamonds KQ. North now bid 3NT making. The director was called after play was over and judged that there was a BIT by North. Score adjusted back to 2H-1, appealed. At the AC meeting, only N-S showed up. Now followed a good example of how ACBL ACs handle UI. The Appeal: According to the screening director, E-W claimed that North took five seconds to pass 2H. South said that there was no hesitation. It took at most 3 seconds for North to pass. By the time E-W called the director, North had left the table for a break. N-S said that E-W made no comments about any hesitation during the auction or when dummy was displayed. After the completion of play, one of the E-W players remarked that North had quite a good hand. They decided that there must have been a hesitation. [Marv] That last sentence is obviously an unwarranted assumption by N-S, and is in fact a scurrilous remark, claiming that E-W fabricated the hesitation after seeing North's hand. The Decision: When there is a BIT that might provide UI, players are encouraged to either call the director or get confirmation of the BIT from the opponents right away. By delaying the director call, E-W considerably weakened its claim of a tempo break. [Marv] Stop right there and look at L16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he *may* [emphasis mine] announce that he reserves the right to call the Director later. The *opponents* [emphasis mine] should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information may have been conveyed. [Marv] This says nothing about calling the TD when UI is observed. Moreover, commenting on the UI is optional, not required. If a comment is made and the opponents dispute the fact of the UI, there is no suggestion that a player conference be held or that the non-UI side should call the TD. Accordingly, N-S followed L16B2 exactly. The AC continues: Based on the facts presented by the screening director and N-S, the AC decided that the time it took North to pass did not constitute an "unmistakable hesitation." Thus, the table result of 3NT by North +600 was restored for both sides. [Marv] This is typical AC operation. The TD's determination of a BIT is ignored. It is implied that the NOS are self-serving liars and that UI creators never lie. The correct procedure in L16B2 is shelved in favor of a procedure not sanctioned by the Laws. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Mar 31 18:17:34 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:17:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Palsied little old lady In-Reply-To: <4BB354B4.70802@nhcc.net> References: <1AB33F2977A74BFC87C326C274E450A0@Mildred> <4BB354B4.70802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4BB3759E.70907@yahoo.co.uk> I don't think the rules of any game can deal explicitly with such events. There are just too many possibilities and variations. Current Bridge rules are already far too dependent on subjective judgement. Bridge Law-makers devised the the ideal solution: when non-offenders realize what has happened, they are empowered to ask the director to *waive the penalty* for the infraction. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Mar 31 18:51:45 2010 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:51:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] San Diego NABC Appeal Case 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB37DA1.70709@yahoo.co.uk> [Marvin French] No need to show the hands. With both vul, East's 1H bid was raised by West, and then North hesitated (allegedly five seconds) with xxxx AKQ Ax Axxx before passing. South balanced with 3D, holding nothing but six diamonds KQ. North now bid 3NT making. The director was called after play was over and judged that there was a BIT by North. Score adjusted back to 2H-1, appealed. At the AC meeting, only N-S showed up. Now followed a good example of how ACBL ACs handle UI. The Appeal: According to the screening director, E-W claimed that North took five seconds to pass 2H. South said that there was no hesitation. It took at most 3 seconds for North to pass. By the time E-W called the director, North had left the table for a break. N-S said that E-W made no comments about any hesitation during the auction or when dummy was displayed. After the completion of play, one of the E-W players remarked that North had quite a good hand. They decided that there must have been a hesitation. [Marv] That last sentence is obviously an unwarranted assumption by N-S, and is in fact a scurrilous remark, claiming that E-W fabricated the hesitation after seeing North's hand. The Decision: When there is a BIT that might provide UI, players are encouraged to either call the director or get confirmation of the BIT from the opponents right away. By delaying the director call, E-W considerably weakened its claim of a tempo break. [Marv] Stop right there and look at L16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he *may* [emphasis mine] announce that he reserves the right to call the Director later. The *opponents* [emphasis mine] should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information may have been conveyed. [Marv] This says nothing about calling the TD when UI is observed. Moreover, commenting on the UI is optional, not required. If a comment is made and the opponents dispute the fact of the UI, there is no suggestion that a player conference be held or that the non-UI side should call the TD. Accordingly, N-S followed L16B2 exactly. The AC continues: Based on the facts presented by the screening director and N-S, the AC decided that the time it took North to pass did not constitute an "unmistakable hesitation." Thus, the table result of 3NT by North +600 was restored for both sides. [Marv] This is typical AC operation. The TD's determination of a BIT is ignored. It is implied that the NOS are self-serving liars and that UI creators never lie. The correct procedure in L16B2 is shelved in favor of a procedure not sanctioned by the Laws. [Nigel] Marvin, please would you supply a link to this case because I can't find it on the ACBL website. Anyway, on the facts presented, I agree with Marvin that the committee seem to have got it wrong. The committee criticised the putative victims for not calling the director earlier but would have been better employed asking the alleged law-breakers why they didn't make their seemingly slanderous allegations to the director at the time. Even if the committee suspect that the director is incompetent, they should accord him the courtesy of calling him back to hear why he got the facts so wrong. Perhaps, the official appeals commentators could send cases like this back for reassessment by the committee; if that is impracticable, the the ACBL could strike the AC majority voters from a list of approved appeals committee members. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 31 22:00:52 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:00:52 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Taking Players Away from the Table Message-ID: <6A3DF1AE1324485C8BBC81B4EB732EF1@MARVLAPTOP> I may have asked this before, but if so I don't remember the answers. In an MI case, when it is too late for a call to be changed, is it appropriate for the TD to take players away from the table to ask what they would have done absent the MI? I see it as a waste of time in what is a timed competition. There is no advantage to the players, since an answer that is not believed will be given zero weight, and a self-damaging answer will be given 100% certainty weight. Second question: I am advising players to obey the instruction to leave the table, but to refuse to answer any questions. Is that legal? Third question: If answers are not given, does the TD have the right to say that this annuls any chance of redress? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com