From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 1 22:08:16 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 16:08:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does picking up your cards constitute a pass? In-Reply-To: <1272635600.14401.1372735949@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <678B4BE86C09462792714BB21B8F6B76@erdos><4BDA098D.7070100@nhcc.net> <86950A26-825A-4858-B70A-6C8FA32C0B1D@starpower.net> <1272635600.14401.1372735949@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <4BDC8A30.9010307@nhcc.net> > Has that issue arisen in an ACBL tournament in your experience? Yes, in the 1999 Boston NABC. I am pretty sure I wrote to BLML about it at the time. (The alternative is r.g.b; I'm sure I wrote the details somewhere, and David Stevenson, among others, responded.) I made a bid and thought it was passed out, so I took away my bidding cards. In fact LHO had bid. Despite my timely TD call, I was not allowed to bid again. The full thread should be in the BLML archives. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 3 01:08:20 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 09:08:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F1 (was Law 27A1...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >Let's see, the opps ask you before opening lead to explain your >bids (L20F1). You don't remember one of your bids. You....? Richard Hills: 1) Look at the bidding pad (old-fashioned Aussie Tournament Organizer still using written bidding), or 2) Look at the bidding cards (new-fangled Aussie Tournament Organizer now using bidding boxes). Law 16A1(c): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following)" But in real life, 3) Anybody playing a relay system (notes emailed on request) has an elephantine memory, so I never forget any of the calls in the auction. What never? No never! What never?? Hardly ever. 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 May 3 03:03:23 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 11:03:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Irregular passes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1272632291.5633.1372725759@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: David Babcock: >The target isn't necessarily that narrow. When our RAs fall >down on the job of providing guidance, we club directors have >to do the best we can, and that "best" may sometimes profit >from awareness of what is done in other jurisdictions in >similar situations -- just as courts will sometimes look to >other jurisdictions for insight when there is nothing clearer. Richard Hills: Many of the Tuesday and Thursday evening (bidding boxes in use) players at the Canberra Bridge Club, when intending to pass throughout, use a green Pass card for their first pass, then simply rap the table with their knuckles for their second and subsequent passes. This is technically an infraction of the Aussie bidding box regulation, but it provides infinitesimal UI to their partner, so I elect to use my Law 9A1 "may" right to resist drawing attention to their infraction. Indeed, sometimes this technical infraction by opponents becomes a necessity, when they run out of Pass card due to the Ali-Hills partnership conducting a lengthy relay auction. 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 May 3 03:41:20 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 11:41:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sean of the Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>.....there was once a trend to suggest that the final >>contract be mentioned orally by declarer, all other >>players being responsible for correction..... Eric Landau: >I (and some others around here) tend to do this on opening >lead ("My lead against 4Sx?"), confirming both the opening >leader and the contract. Law 20C, Review after Final Pass: 1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask if it is his opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41). 2. Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated*. (See Laws 41B and 41C). As in B the player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt the review. Law 20E, Correction of Error in Review: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage). * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an opening lead out of turn. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Mon May 3 06:59:20 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 00:59:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Reno NABC Cases Posted Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Reno2010.html If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or Non-NABC+ case. Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they have not yet been written! -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100503/d017538a/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Mon May 3 07:00:14 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 01:00:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Reno NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Reno2010.html If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or Non-NABC+ case. Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they have not yet been written! -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From svenpran at online.no Mon May 3 10:50:09 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:50:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F1 (was Law 27A1...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601caea9d$a37cf180$ea76d480$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > > >Let's see, the opps ask you before opening lead to explain your bids > >(L20F1). You don't remember one of your bids. You....? > > Richard Hills: > > 1) Look at the bidding pad (old-fashioned Aussie Tournament Organizer still using > written bidding), > > or > > 2) Look at the bidding cards (new-fangled Aussie Tournament Organizer now > using bidding boxes). > > Law 16A1(c): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not > otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws > and in regulations (but see B1 following)" > > But in real life, > > 3) Anybody playing a relay system (notes emailed on request) has an elephantine > memory, so I never forget any of the calls in the auction. > > What never? > No never! > What never?? > Hardly ever. > > Best wishes >From Law 20C2: Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated*. Law 20E: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an opening lead out of turn. So what is the problem? Sven From henk at ripe.net Mon May 3 11:22:43 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 11:22:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201005030922.o439Mhh8015646@dog.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for April 2010 Posts From ----- ---- 54 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 44 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 36 ehaa (at) starpower.net 32 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 29 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 22 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 21 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 14 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au 13 svenpran (at) online.no 12 dpb3 (at) fastmail.fm 11 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 10 bpark56 (at) comcast.net 9 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 8 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 8 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 8 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 8 adam (at) irvine.com 7 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 6 cibor (at) poczta.fm 6 blml (at) arcor.de 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 4 schoderb (at) msn.com 4 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 4 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com 4 geller (at) nifty.com 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 3 p.j.m.smulders (at) home.nl 3 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com 2 swillner (at) nhcc.net 2 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 2 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 1 sater (at) xs4all.nl 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 henk (at) ripe.net 1 bridgeinindia (at) gmail.com 1 bbickford (at) charter.net 1 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 1 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 3 11:24:03 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 05:24:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F1 (was Law 27A1...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601caea9d$a37cf180$ea76d480$@no> References: <000601caea9d$a37cf180$ea76d480$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 03 May 2010 04:50:09 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Robert Frick: >> >> [snip] >> >> >Let's see, the opps ask you before opening lead to explain your bids >> >(L20F1). You don't remember one of your bids. You....? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> 1) Look at the bidding pad (old-fashioned Aussie Tournament Organizer > still using >> written bidding), >> >> or >> >> 2) Look at the bidding cards (new-fangled Aussie Tournament Organizer >> now >> using bidding boxes). >> >> Law 16A1(c): >> >> "A player may use information in the auction or play if: >> it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized >> or, > when not >> otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in >> these > laws >> and in regulations (but see B1 following)" >> >> But in real life, >> >> 3) Anybody playing a relay system (notes emailed on request) has an > elephantine >> memory, so I never forget any of the calls in the auction. >> >> What never? >> No never! >> What never?? >> Hardly ever. >> >> Best wishes > >> From Law 20C2: Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn to >> play, > require all previous calls to be restated*. > > Law 20E: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to > pass, > are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* > > * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear > to > an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. > > ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an > opening > lead out of turn. > > So what is the problem? The problem is what to do if you are declarer and your opponents ask for an explanation of the auction before the opening lead but you do not remember the auction. In ACBL-land at least, the bidding cards are usually put away when the auction is over. How can you explain your auction if you don't remember it, and you aren't allowed to ask for a review at this time? I actually don't have a problem, because I interpret the laws as saying that a player may ask for a review or explanation at his turn to act. Richard actually doesn't have a problem. He interprets the laws as saying he can't ask for a review of the auction unless it is your turn to call or play. But he always remembers the auction and checks the opponents card before play and remembers that too. No one else actually has a problem, I guess because they interpret the laws to mean what they think they should mean. The practical relevance arises when it is your turn to make a decision about an insufficient bid. Can you ask for a review or explanation at this time? Of course, but why? My simple answer is yes, because it is your turn to act. From svenpran at online.no Mon May 3 12:03:25 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 12:03:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F1 (was Law 27A1...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000601caea9d$a37cf180$ea76d480$@no> Message-ID: <000e01caeaa7$dfbe2920$9f3a7b60$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............... > >> From Law 20C2: Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn > >> to play, > > require all previous calls to be restated*. > > > > Law 20E: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to > > pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* > > > > * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is > > clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. > > > > ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an > > opening lead out of turn. > > > > So what is the problem? > > The problem is what to do if you are declarer and your opponents ask for an > explanation of the auction before the opening lead but you do not remember the > auction. In ACBL-land at least, the bidding cards are usually put away when the > auction is over. How can you explain your auction if you don't remember it, and > you aren't allowed to ask for a review at this time? You don't need to remember the auction in detail to give an explanation of it (summary, but still complete). If an opponent wants a detailed explanation of a call (or calls) in the auction he will have to restate the call(s) he wants so explained; and remember that all four players are jointly responsible for any such restatement to be correct. > > I actually don't have a problem, because I interpret the laws as saying that a > player may ask for a review or explanation at his turn to act. Technically (at least) this is not correct, but an opponent cannot request an explanation of a particular call without naming that call, and if necessary the circumstances for that call. > > Richard actually doesn't have a problem. He interprets the laws as saying he can't > ask for a review of the auction unless it is your turn to call or play. But he always > remembers the auction and checks the opponents card before play and > remembers that too. > > No one else actually has a problem, I guess because they interpret the laws to > mean what they think they should mean. > > The practical relevance arises when it is your turn to make a decision about an > insufficient bid. Can you ask for a review or explanation at this time? Of course, > but why? My simple answer is yes, because it is your turn to act. It IS your turn to call! But as your RHO made an insufficient bid you have the choice either requesting RHO to correct his call according to Law 27 or accepting the insufficient bid. And in order to aid your decision you have the right to both a restatement and an explanation of the auction so far. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 3 15:41:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 09:41:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F1 (was Law 27A1...) In-Reply-To: <000e01caeaa7$dfbe2920$9f3a7b60$@no> References: <000601caea9d$a37cf180$ea76d480$@no> <000e01caeaa7$dfbe2920$9f3a7b60$@no> Message-ID: <0480FC5D-4AE5-46D2-BDF3-E0FD39C2F5F1@starpower.net> On May 3, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > >>>> From Law 20C2: Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn >>>> to play, >>> require all previous calls to be restated*. >>> >>> Law 20E: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to >>> pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in >>> restatement* >>> >>> * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is >>> clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. >>> >>> ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an >>> opening lead out of turn. >>> >>> So what is the problem? >> >> The problem is what to do if you are declarer and your opponents >> ask for >> an >> explanation of the auction before the opening lead but you do not >> remember >> the >> auction. In ACBL-land at least, the bidding cards are usually put >> away >> when the >> auction is over. How can you explain your auction if you don't >> remember >> it, and >> you aren't allowed to ask for a review at this time? > > You don't need to remember the auction in detail to give an > explanation of > it (summary, but still complete). > > If an opponent wants a detailed explanation of a call (or calls) in > the > auction he will have to restate the call(s) he wants so explained; and > remember that all four players are jointly responsible for any such > restatement to be correct. > >> I actually don't have a problem, because I interpret the laws as >> saying >> that a >> player may ask for a review or explanation at his turn to act. > > Technically (at least) this is not correct, but an opponent cannot > request > an explanation of a particular call without naming that call, and if > necessary the circumstances for that call. > >> Richard actually doesn't have a problem. He interprets the laws as >> saying >> he can't >> ask for a review of the auction unless it is your turn to call or >> play. >> But he always >> remembers the auction and checks the opponents card before play and >> remembers that too. >> >> No one else actually has a problem, I guess because they interpret >> the >> laws to >> mean what they think they should mean. >> >> The practical relevance arises when it is your turn to make a >> decision >> about an >> insufficient bid. Can you ask for a review or explanation at this >> time? Of >> course, >> but why? My simple answer is yes, because it is your turn to act. > > It IS your turn to call! > But as your RHO made an insufficient bid you have the choice either > requesting RHO to correct his call according to Law 27 or accepting > the > insufficient bid. > And in order to aid your decision you have the right to both a > restatement > and an explanation of the auction so far. A request for a review or explanation when it is not your turn to call or play is technically an infraction. There is no automatic rectification for this infraction, although it may, in theory, impose UI constraints on the infractor's partner. But when it is manifestly obvious to the table that a player has forgotten the auction, and needs to recall it in order to provide a requested explanation or to exercise a legal option on a timely basis, the possibility of its conveying UI (assuming the request is properly posed) is negligible, and can be treated as "no harm, no foul", thus no rectification called for. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 3 19:40:39 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:40:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F1 (was Law 27A1...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01caeaa7$dfbe2920$9f3a7b60$@no> References: <000601caea9d$a37cf180$ea76d480$@no> <000e01caeaa7$dfbe2920$9f3a7b60$@no> Message-ID: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............... >> >> From Law 20C2: Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn >> >> to play, >> > require all previous calls to be restated*. >> > >> > Law 20E: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to >> > pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* >> > >> > * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is >> > clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. >> > >> > ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an >> > opening lead out of turn. >> > >> > So what is the problem? >> >> The problem is what to do if you are declarer and your opponents ask for > an >> explanation of the auction before the opening lead but you do not >> remember > the >> auction. In ACBL-land at least, the bidding cards are usually put away > when the >> auction is over. How can you explain your auction if you don't remember > it, and >> you aren't allowed to ask for a review at this time? > > You don't need to remember the auction in detail to give an explanation of > it (summary, but still complete). > > If an opponent wants a detailed explanation of a call (or calls) in the > auction he will have to restate the call(s) he wants so explained; and > remember that all four players are jointly responsible for any such > restatement to be correct. > >> >> I actually don't have a problem, because I interpret the laws as saying > that a >> player may ask for a review or explanation at his turn to act. > > Technically (at least) this is not correct, but an opponent cannot request > an explanation of a particular call without naming that call, and if > necessary the circumstances for that call. > >> >> Richard actually doesn't have a problem. He interprets the laws as >> saying > he can't >> ask for a review of the auction unless it is your turn to call or play. > But he always >> remembers the auction and checks the opponents card before play and >> remembers that too. >> >> No one else actually has a problem, I guess because they interpret the > laws to >> mean what they think they should mean. >> >> The practical relevance arises when it is your turn to make a decision > about an >> insufficient bid. Can you ask for a review or explanation at this time? >> Of > course, >> but why? My simple answer is yes, because it is your turn to act. > > It IS your turn to call! > But as your RHO made an insufficient bid you have the choice either > requesting RHO to correct his call according to Law 27 or accepting the > insufficient bid. > And in order to aid your decision you have the right to both a restatement > and an explanation of the auction so far. I am pretty sure most people think of it this way -- LHO has the option to accept or not accept the insufficient bid. If LHO accepts the insufficient bid, then it is LHO's turn to bid. So your method of interpreting the laws seems wrong to me. But at the least, it is complicated. A director should be able to follow the laws by reading them. I don't think your interpretation meets that criterion. Of course, your interpretation has the advantage of following the law and allowing LHO to ask for a review and explanations of the previous auction following an insufficient bid. But it is an illusory advantage, because it is generally well-accepted that a player may ask for explanation/review at his turn to act, even if that action is explaining partner's bid. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 4 07:36:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 15:36:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Star Wars Day: "May the 4th be with you." Laval Dubreuil: >>Becoming old.... Marvin French: >I'm 83 this week, becoming older. Richard Hills: And I reached my 51st birthday on May the 1st, so I am now as old as the hills. Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/ cmpubadm/17/17.pdf Page 3: We conclude that bad official language which results in tangible harm - such as preventing someone from receiving the benefits or services to which they are entitled - should be regarded as "maladministration". Richard Hills: So by that criterion Edgar Kaplan was a maladministrator for writing ambiguous Laws which deprived players of their rights when those Laws were misinterpreted by grass-roots Directors. Page 6: Michael Gove MP has written that: "Since becoming a Member of Parliament I've been learning a new language...No one ever uses a simple Anglo-Saxon word, or a concrete example, where a Latinate construction or a next-to-meaningless abstraction can be found." Richard Hills: With the exception of Law 75, the 2007 Lawbook is distinctly lacking in concrete examples to guide grass-roots Directors in their application of the Laws. And there are many next-to- meaningless abstractions, for example the nuances of "well" in the Law 23 phrase "...could well damage...". Page 8: David Crystal told us: "Every group has its jargon. There is no group on this earth that does not have a jargon. It is when that jargon becomes opaque to the outsider, when the people say, 'It is not just enough for us to talk to each other, we have to talk to the outside world' and they forget the demands of the audience, that it gets tricky." Definitions: Artificial call - is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. Page 19: Conclusion The language of government, politics and administration matters. The public sphere demands a public language that conveys meaning. Any language that obscures, confuses or evades does not fulfil its public purpose. Too often this is the case, as we have shown in this report. Nor is this a trivial matter. Good government requires good language; while bad language is a sign of poor government. By drawing attention to this issue, and suggesting some ways to improve matters, we hope to encourage the good to drive out the bad. George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" (1946): "What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about". 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 May 4 08:16:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 16:16:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] System Card placement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran: >>I'm a little surprised, coming in here after a couple of days, >>seeing no comment at all on the "terminology" used.... >> >>There are no such thing as a convention card any more - it's >>called a System Card since the introduction of the 2007 laws. >>:-) David Babcock: >And there are many fewer penalties than there used to be; they >have become "rectifications", but day-to-day conversation has >not tracked that either. The real-world use of language is >something that changes bottom-up, not top-down. Richard Hills: I disagree. Although the 1997 Lawbook used the language of "convention card", a top-down decision by the Australian Bridge Federation to distribute hardcopy and online blank "System Cards" in the previous millennium has meant that Aussie bridge players prematurely adopted the 2007 nomenclature a decade or so early. David Babcock: >As the wise old philosopher said: when you think you actually >control things, try giving orders to your cat. Richard Hills: I have no difficulty in ordering my cat to eat breakfast. On the other hand, my cat has no difficulty in reminding me to wake up to feed him breakfast by pushing the top book of the stack of books on my bedside table onto my head. :-) 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 May 4 08:57:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 16:57:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Autodefenestration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BBF0587.3050806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Peter Bowler, The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: "autodefenstration, n. The act of throwing oneself out of a window. Illustrated by the true case of Mrs Vera Czermak, who discovered that her husband was being unfaithful to her and attempted to end her life by jumping out of her third-floor flat in Prague. At the moment she jumped, her husband happened to walk by beneath the window. She landed on top of him, and survived. He died." Alain Gottcheiner: >>>May I cast some doubt on the source? All Czech women's >>>names have to end in -a for declension reasons. Richard Hills: A minor character in a Harry Potter novel, Blaise Zabini, was of indeterminate gender on first appearance in the English language version. But the Czech translator was forced to ask J.K. Rowling for clarification, thus revealing to the world that Blaise Zabini was a Slytherin boy. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I find her listed as Vera Czermak in all the >>publications I have consulted. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Alain Gottcheiner: >Concedo. Maybe the explanation lies in this sentence from >Wikipedia: > >Deriving women's names from foreigners' names is often >problematic since foreign names do not suit Czech language [snip] Richard Hills: The sixth Harry Potter book finished on a cliff-hanger, with one of the unresolved issues being the identity of the person with the initials R.A.B. R.A. "Rab" Butler (1902-1982), almost British Prime Minister: "In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves." Richard Hills: But some English-speaking Harry Potter fanatics examined the foreign language translations, noticed that the person's initials varied according to language used, and thus those fanatics were able to deduce the identity of R.A.B. before publication of the final Harry Potter book. Now if the translators of the Lawbook were as pernickety as the translators of Harry Potter, who always consulted J.K. Rowling over doubtful points in the Harry Potter novels..... 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 May 4 09:00:27 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 09:00:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] System Card placement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1270982283.8954.1369338757@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On 4 May 2010 08:16, wrote: > Harald Skj?ran: > >>>I'm a little surprised, coming in here after a couple of days, >>>seeing no comment at all on the "terminology" used.... >>> >>>There are no such thing as a convention card any more - it's >>>called a System Card since the introduction of the 2007 laws. >>>:-) > > David Babcock: > >>And there are many fewer penalties than there used to be; they >>have become "rectifications", but day-to-day conversation has >>not tracked that either. ?The real-world use of language is >>something that changes bottom-up, not top-down. > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree. ?Although the 1997 Lawbook used the language of > "convention card", a top-down decision by the Australian Bridge > Federation to distribute hardcopy and online blank "System > Cards" in the previous millennium has meant that Aussie bridge > players prematurely adopted the 2007 nomenclature a decade or so > early. Welcome aboard then! :-) In Norway we've used the word 'systemkort' (which translates to 'system card') since early 70's, at least. > > David Babcock: > >>As the wise old philosopher said: when you think you actually >>control things, try giving orders to your cat. > > Richard Hills: > > I have no difficulty in ordering my cat to eat breakfast. ?On > the other hand, my cat has no difficulty in reminding me to > wake up to feed him breakfast by pushing the top book of the > stack of books on my bedside table onto my head. > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 5 10:56:22 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 09:56:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <56280D1C20A44201BB064D9B6C0106A7@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:36 AM Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] < "...there are many next-to-meaningless abstractions, for example the nuances of "well" in the Law 23 phrase "...could well damage...". < +=+ The dictionary says that used after 'could', 'might' or 'may', the word 'well' is an intensifier just as 'indeed' would be in these same situations. To say that something 'could' be the case means that it is a possibility while the insertion of 'well' calls for a higher probability than does 'could' without it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Wed May 5 15:16:55 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 22:16:55 +0900 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <56280D1C20A44201BB064D9B6C0106A7@Mildred> References: <56280D1C20A44201BB064D9B6C0106A7@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> West is declarer. With 5 tricks left to play in the hand, North turns to West and says "OK, you take the rest." West says to the opponents, "OK, thanks, but please show me your remaining cards." South says, "Sorry, since the play of the hand has ended I am not obligated to show you my remaining cards, and I refuse to do so." West summons the director, and asks him to ask North and South to show him (West) their remaining cards. How should the director rule, and which specific law(s) justify his ruling? -Bob From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed May 5 15:27:31 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 15:27:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?=22I_refuse_to_show_you_my_remaining_cards?= =?iso-8859-15?q?!=22_-_How_do_you_rule=2C_and_why=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> Message-ID: <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Hi Bob, I rule according to Law 66 D: "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; [...]" With persisting resistance I rule Law 90. From: Robert Geller > West is declarer. With 5 tricks left to play in the hand, North turns > to West and says "OK, you take the rest." West says to the opponents, > "OK, thanks, but please show me your remaining cards." > > South says, "Sorry, since the play of the hand has ended I am not > obligated to show you my remaining cards, and I refuse to do so." > West summons the director, and asks him to ask North and South to show > him (West) their remaining cards. > > How should the director rule, and which specific law(s) justify his > ruling? > -Bob From bridge at vwalther.de Wed May 5 15:32:59 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 15:32:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> References: <56280D1C20A44201BB064D9B6C0106A7@Mildred> <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> Message-ID: <4BE1738B.2080505@vwalther.de> Am 05.05.2010 15:16, schrieb Robert Geller: > West is declarer. With 5 tricks left to play in the hand, North turns > to West and says "OK, you take the rest." West says to the opponents, > "OK, thanks, but please show me your remaining cards." > > South says, "Sorry, since the play of the hand has ended I am not > obligated to show you my remaining cards, and I refuse to do so." > > West summons the director, and asks him to ask North and South to show > him (West) their remaining cards. > > How should the director rule, and which specific law(s) justify his ruling? Law 66.D. If North refuses to show his cards, he may have committed revoke(s) Greetings Volker From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 5 16:10:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 16:10:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Hi Bob, > > I rule according to Law 66 D: > "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; [...]" > So West should say to the director that he suspects a possible revoke. Notice that this list seems incomplete ; West should have some means to check whether an explanation about South's bidding was right. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Wed May 5 16:18:15 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 10:18:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <1273069095.28993.1373525901@webmail.messagingengine.com> > I rule according to Law 66 D: > "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 what is there to settle, if declarer has not said a defender revoked and if all remaining tricks are conceded? I appreciate that dubious things may be afoot -- I'm just not sure Law 66D gets the job done, at least not if the text is read literally. > With persisting resistance I rule Law 90. now *that* works. :-) David From svenpran at online.no Wed May 5 16:23:55 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:23:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801caec5e$99fce850$cdf6b8f0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Subject: Re: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, > and why? > > Peter Eidt a ?crit : > > Hi Bob, > > > > I rule according to Law 66 D: > > "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; > > [...]" > > > So West should say to the director that he suspects a possible revoke. > > Notice that this list seems incomplete ; West should have some means to check > whether an explanation about South's bidding was right. West needs not claim the possibility of revoke for asking to see the remaining cards. "To settle . . . . . the number of tricks won or lost" is reason as good as any. (Don't overlook Law 79A2!) Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 5 22:47:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:47:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> References: <56280D1C20A44201BB064D9B6C0106A7@Mildred> <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> Message-ID: <52D400A2-6514-475D-B658-3BC341E6C783@starpower.net> On May 5, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > West is declarer. With 5 tricks left to play in the hand, North turns > to West and says "OK, you take the rest." West says to the opponents, > "OK, thanks, but please show me your remaining cards." > > South says, "Sorry, since the play of the hand has ended I am not > obligated to show you my remaining cards, and I refuse to do so." South seems to think he's playing poker.* > West summons the director, and asks him to ask North and South to show > him (West) their remaining cards. > > How should the director rule, and which specific law(s) justify his > ruling? He should first ask West why he wishes to examine the N-S hands, to protect everyone's rights if some specific law (such as L66D or L79) applies. Otherwise, he might tell the players to score it up, board over, players no longer in control of their respective hands, physically remove it from the table, then grant West the right to inspect the (now) previously played board. On Bob's description (suggesting that it was South who "made the fuss"), that's what I'd do. No specific law here, because the laws only address what happens when the deal is being prepared or contested. After that, the deal "belongs" to the club or tournament, to do with as it will. If South had some positive right to prevent West from seeing his cards after he no longer possessed them (see * above), could he not demand that the club expunge the deal from the printed hand records it distributes after the game? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From geller at nifty.com Wed May 5 23:07:42 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 06:07:42 +0900 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <52D400A2-6514-475D-B658-3BC341E6C783@starpower.net> References: <56280D1C20A44201BB064D9B6C0106A7@Mildred> <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <52D400A2-6514-475D-B658-3BC341E6C783@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BE1DE1E.1070306@nifty.com> Eric Landau wrote: > If South had some positive right to prevent West from seeing his > cards after he no longer possessed them (see * above), could he not > demand that the club expunge the deal from the printed hand records > it distributes after the game? The event was a Swiss Teams event using shuffled boards (the boards were shuffled at the beginning of each round), so there were no hand records. -Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 6 00:29:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 08:29:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <56280D1C20A44201BB064D9B6C0106A7@Mildred> Message-ID: Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language, page 36: Professor David Crystal: ".....But the thing about the internet is that, unless the site is moderated, it does allow you to say what you want. An awful lot of people, for whatever reason, do have axes to grind about all sorts of things and, suddenly, they find a medium where you can say whatever you like....." Richard Hills: >>...there are many next-to-meaningless abstractions, for >>example the nuances of "well" in the Law 23 phrase "...could >>well damage...". Grattan Endicott: >+=+ The dictionary says that used after 'could', 'might' or >'may', the word 'well' is an intensifier just as 'indeed' >would be in these same situations. To say that something >'could' be the case means that it is a possibility while the >insertion of 'well' calls for a higher probability than does >'could' without it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The axe I am grinding is the paucity of indicative examples in The Fabulous Law Book. Since Law 23 lacks any indicative examples of an offender's awareness of a mere "could damage" (Law 23 does not apply) versus indicative examples of an offender's awareness of an intensified "could well damage" (Law 23 does apply), then "well" is a next-to-meaningless abstraction. Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language, page 31: Simon Hoggart: ".....I was just asking myself a moment ago how Churchill would have broadcast if a civil servant had got to his main speeches during the war. He would have talked about an 'ongoing programme of hostile engagement in littoral sectors' for 'fight them on the beaches'....." 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 May 6 06:35:18 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:35:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "May the forcing NT be with you." Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S Pass 1NT(1) X Pass ? (1) Forcing. You, North, hold: 2 Q642 J875432 4 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 gampas at aol.com Thu May 6 12:58:15 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 06:58:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> [paul lamford] I recall a strong England International psyching an opening bid of Four Hearts with a weak hand with long spades. Patrick Jourdain was stuck over him with a game force with hearts, and the auction went all pass as it would. Patrick led and the strong but abrasive England international put his hand back in the slot, conceding 10 off, against the cold slam for his opponents. Patrick wanted to see his hand, but the declarer refused, indicating that he could not contest a claim of 0 tricks, and there was no question of any revoke (there had been no play), a CPA(dummy had a balanced 1 count) or any other infraction. I must agree that reading the Laws I can find no right of the opponents in this case, and they do not provide for calling the director when there has been no infraction of any type. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 6 14:16:32 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 13:16:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de><4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5102909D798D4E63AD0716E4C6687ED6@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? > [paul lamford] > I recall a strong England International psyching an opening bid of Four > Hearts with a weak hand with long spades. Patrick Jourdain was stuck > over him with a game force with hearts, and the auction went all pass > as it would. Patrick led and the strong but abrasive England > international put his hand back in the slot, conceding 10 off, against > the cold slam for his opponents. > > Patrick wanted to see his hand, but the declarer refused, indicating > that he could not contest a claim of 0 tricks, and there was no > question of any revoke (there had been no play), a CPA(dummy had a > balanced 1 count) or any other infraction. > > I must agree that reading the Laws I can find no right of the opponents > in this case, and they do not provide for calling the director when > there has been no infraction of any type. > +=+ Even after a claim of 0 tricks won the opponent has a right to verify this and that would be a satisfactory reason for the request. When there is an out of the blue request such has been described in this correspondence the likely thought in the enquirer's mind is that there may have been a revoke. In my opinion when there is such an enquiry the prima facie assumption is that it is made in conformity with Law 66D and this assumption should be made until the Director determines otherwise. . It is inaccurate to say the laws "do not provide for calling the director when there has been no infraction of any type". The laws provide for the Director to be called when attention is drawn to an *irregularity*. This irregularity may be either some matter that the enquirer is seeking to look into, or it may be the enquiry itself if not made in accordance with Law 66. Either way the Director should be summoned. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Thu May 6 14:37:45 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 21:37:45 +0900 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <5102909D798D4E63AD0716E4C6687ED6@Mildred> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de><4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> <5102909D798D4E63AD0716E4C6687ED6@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BE2B819.7040807@nifty.com> Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was no question of a revoke and no doubt about the remaining tricks belonging to declarer. In that case there appears to be nothing in the laws (L66D, for example) that explicitly gives West the right to see the opponents remaining cards. On the other hand, there is nothing anywhere in the laws explicitly giving players the right to reuse to show their remaining cards under any circumstances, and L74A2 suggests that such a request ought to be conformed with. In this particular competition (a Swisss teams with boards shuffled after each round) there are no hand records so it seems reasonable for players to be able to ask to see the remaining cards in a case of this type. In my 40+ years as a bridge player this is the first case that has come to my attention of a refusal of a request to show remaining cards, but others have apparently occurred as reported in this thread. What was the intention of the drafters with regard to this question. Perhaps Grattan could enlighten us. And while recognizing that BLML is primarily devoted to interpretation of the laws as they now stand, rather than how they perhaps ought to be, might it not be worthwhile to rewrite the relevant laws further to better clarify the point in question? -Bob 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: > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:58 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you > rule, and why? > > >> [paul lamford] >> I recall a strong England International psyching an opening bid of Four >> Hearts with a weak hand with long spades. Patrick Jourdain was stuck >> over him with a game force with hearts, and the auction went all pass >> as it would. Patrick led and the strong but abrasive England >> international put his hand back in the slot, conceding 10 off, against >> the cold slam for his opponents. >> >> Patrick wanted to see his hand, but the declarer refused, indicating >> that he could not contest a claim of 0 tricks, and there was no >> question of any revoke (there had been no play), a CPA(dummy had a >> balanced 1 count) or any other infraction. >> >> I must agree that reading the Laws I can find no right of the opponents >> in this case, and they do not provide for calling the director when >> there has been no infraction of any type. >> > +=+ Even after a claim of 0 tricks won the opponent has a right > to verify this and that would be a satisfactory reason for the request. > When there is an out of the blue request such has been described > in this correspondence the likely thought in the enquirer's mind is that > there may have been a revoke. > In my opinion when there is such an enquiry the prima facie > assumption is that it is made in conformity with Law 66D and this > assumption should be made until the Director determines otherwise. . > It is inaccurate to say the laws "do not provide for calling the > director when there has been no infraction of any type". The laws > provide for the Director to be called when attention is drawn to an > *irregularity*. This irregularity may be either some matter that the > enquirer is seeking to look into, or it may be the enquiry itself if > not made in accordance with Law 66. Either way the Director > should be summoned. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Thu May 6 14:40:40 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:40:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000a01caed19$563f6140$02be23c0$@no> On Behalf Of gampas at aol.com > [paul lamford] > I recall a strong England International psyching an opening bid of Four Hearts with > a weak hand with long spades. Patrick Jourdain was stuck over him with a game > force with hearts, and the auction went all pass as it would. Patrick led and the > strong but abrasive England international put his hand back in the slot, conceding > 10 off, against the cold slam for his opponents. > > Patrick wanted to see his hand, but the declarer refused, indicating that he could > not contest a claim of 0 tricks, and there was no question of any revoke (there had > been no play), a CPA(dummy had a balanced 1 count) or any other infraction. > > I must agree that reading the Laws I can find no right of the opponents in this > case, and they do not provide for calling the director when there has been no > infraction of any type. 1: Sufficient reason under Law 66D to see another player's hand is for instance to verify that the player did not concede a trick he could not lose. 2: Refusal to show a hand in response to a request as specified in Law 66D is definitely a legal reason to call the Director. 3: The refusal itself is a violation also of Law 74A2. (In Poker a player must pay to see another player's hand at the end of a play. In Bridge we have no such rule.) Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 6 15:22:29 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 15:22:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4BE2C295.5010307@ulb.ac.be> gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [paul lamford] > I recall a strong England International psyching an opening bid of Four > Hearts with a weak hand with long spades. Patrick Jourdain was stuck > over him with a game force with hearts, and the auction went all pass > as it would. Patrick led and the strong but abrasive England > international put his hand back in the slot, conceding 10 off, against > the cold slam for his opponents. > > Patrick wanted to see his hand, but the declarer refused, indicating > that he could not contest a claim of 0 tricks, and there was no > question of any revoke (there had been no play), a CPA(dummy had a > balanced 1 count) or any other infraction. > > I must agree that reading the Laws I can find no right of the opponents > in this case, and they do not provide for calling the director when > there has been no infraction of any type. > AG : I think PJ had the right to see the hand before he agrees with the concession. Say that an angry declarer conceded 10 off when he in fact should make 2 or 3 tricks (such things happen). You can't contest the claim, but you can (and should) contest the concession, est you be accused of arranging the thing with a "friendly" opponent. Best regards Alain NB : I play penalty doubles of 4-bids. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 6 15:26:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 15:26:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <000a01caed19$563f6140$02be23c0$@no> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> <000a01caed19$563f6140$02be23c0$@no> Message-ID: <4BE2C36E.7060301@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > 1: Sufficient reason under Law 66D to see another player's hand is for > instance to verify that the player did not concede a trick he could not > lose. > > AG : indeed. And also to see whether explanations were right, in case there were any, to see whether there was a fielded psyche etc. In short, there should be "some bridge reason". Surely there was one here. Conceding all 13 tricks is baroque enough to arouse all kinds of suspicions. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu May 6 16:51:51 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 16:51:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do yourule, and why? In-Reply-To: <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de><4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4BE2D787.2090404@meteo.fr> gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [paul lamford] > I recall a strong England International psyching an opening bid of Four > Hearts with a weak hand with long spades. Patrick Jourdain was stuck > over him with a game force with hearts, and the auction went all pass > as it would. Patrick led and the strong but abrasive England > international put his hand back in the slot, conceding 10 off, against > the cold slam for his opponents. > > Patrick wanted to see his hand, but the declarer refused, indicating > that he could not contest a claim of 0 tricks, and there was no > question of any revoke (there had been no play), a CPA(dummy had a > balanced 1 count) or any other infraction. > > I must agree that reading the Laws I can find no right of the opponents > in this case, and they do not provide for calling the director when > there has been no infraction of any type. maybe you could invoke L1, L13 or L14 to check the hand holds 13 cards, all different and different from the 39 cards in the other hands. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 6 17:50:06 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 11:50:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: <4BE2B819.7040807@nifty.com> References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de><4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> <5102909D798D4E63AD0716E4C6687ED6@Mildred> <4BE2B819.7040807@nifty.com> Message-ID: > Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was no question of a > revoke and no doubt about the remaining tricks belonging to declarer. > In that case there appears to be nothing in the laws (L66D, for example) > that explicitly gives West the right to see the opponents remaining cards. > > On the other hand, there is nothing anywhere in the laws explicitly > giving players the right to reuse to show their remaining cards under > any circumstances, and L74A2 suggests that such a request ought to be > conformed with. > > In this particular competition (a Swisss teams with boards shuffled > after each round) there are no hand records so it seems reasonable for > players to be able to ask to see the remaining cards in a case of this > type. > > In my 40+ years as a bridge player this is the first case that has come > to my attention of a refusal of a request to show remaining cards, but > others have apparently occurred as reported in this thread. > > What was the intention of the drafters with regard to this question. > Perhaps Grattan could enlighten us. > > And while recognizing that BLML is primarily devoted to interpretation > of the laws as they now stand, rather than how they perhaps ought to be, > might it not be worthwhile to rewrite the relevant laws further to > better clarify the point in question? > > -Bob I can imagine putting my hand back in the board, listening to my opponents argue about the hand while I would like to go on to the next hand, and then them asking to see my hand. I would probably say no. It seems to be implied by L7B3 that the director can be called and then the director can decide if the hand can be removed from the board (preferably removing the hand himself). This is in addition to seeing the hand to resolve any questions such as revoke or claim. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 6 19:04:20 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <56280D1C20A44201BB064D9B6C0106A7@Mildred> References: <56280D1C20A44201BB064D9B6C0106A7@Mildred> Message-ID: <655201.69180.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] "...there are many next-to-meaningless abstractions, for example the nuances of "well" in the Law 23 phrase "...could well damage...". [Grattan Endicott] +=+ The dictionary says that used after 'could', 'might' or 'may', the word 'well' is an intensifier just as 'indeed' would be in these same situations. To say that something 'could' be the case means that it is a possibility while the insertion of 'well' calls for a higher probability than does 'could' without it. [Nigel] I agree with Richard: a rule's meaning shouldn't depend on subtleties of idiom or punctuation. Anyway, in this instance, specifying a "higher" probability makes sense only if you know what probability is exceeded. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 6 19:09:47 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 17:09:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why? In-Reply-To: References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com> <1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de><4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be> <8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> <5102909D798D4E63AD0716E4C6687ED6@Mildred> <4BE2B819.7040807@nifty.com> Message-ID: <564119.45292.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Robert Geller is right that the law should mandate that you show your hand on request, after play has ended, even if you concede all the tricks. You may be under time-pressure and want to get this bad board over quickly but such a law is necessary to allay multitudes of suspicions e.g. - you are not taking the game seriously. - you have revoked, perhaps deliberately. - you are conceding tricks you can't lose by normal play. - you have the wrong number of cards but you believe that losing all the tricks will still give you a good result. - you have bid with the hand from the previous board (ditto). - you are losing deliberately to earn a bribe. - you are losing deliberately to win a bet. - you are losing deliberately for another tactical reason. For example, so that you get easier opponents on the next round (which is often illegal). From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu May 6 20:47:30 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:47:30 -0800 Subject: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" References: <4BE16FC7.7030506@nifty.com><1O9edP-1n4eps0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de><4BE17C5D.1050107@ulb.ac.be><8CCBB2229A2C5F8-2290-82FB@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com><5102909D798D4E63AD0716E4C6687ED6@Mildred><4BE2B819.7040807@nifty.com> <564119.45292.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9DB2D1A5CA734EF8AC22D329AD1FB0F3@MARVLAPTOP> In an NABC+ event, two occurences at my table: 1. A defender trumped the 12th trick and conceded the last while putting his hand back in the board and quickly moving to the next table. I asked his partner to show me his last card, which revealed that the cheater had revoked, knowing there would be no penalty if caught. 2. A defender put his numerous remaining cards into the pocket, after briefly flashing them and conceding the rest of the tricks. He had dropped an offending card on the floor, hoping no one would catch the crime. When the next table called the TD because of a 12-card hand, he located it under my table and the crime was uncovered, revoke penalty paid. I was dummy and I'm ashamed to say I hadn't paid enough attention to notice anything. These things seem to happen to me only at NABCs. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From geller at nifty.com Fri May 7 09:53:25 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 16:53:25 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Quote without comment Message-ID: <4BE3C6F5.20204@nifty.com> A not-for-profit organization, the ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of bridge, sanctions clubs and tournament games, and encourages participation at all levels of proficiency and experience. http://www.acbl.org/about/ourGame.html From blml at arcor.de Sun May 9 14:36:42 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 14:36:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19203738.1273408602654.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S Pass 1NT(1) X > Pass ? > > (1) Forcing. > > You, North, hold: > > 2 > Q642 > J875432 > 4 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? Partner shown a takeout double over a 1S opener. I consider 3D, 5D, 2D, and 2H, in this order. Thomas Traumziele - von Beschreibung bis Buchung jetzt kompakt auf den Reise-Seiten von Arcor.de! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.reise From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 9 14:54:37 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 12:54:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <19203738.1273408602654.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <19203738.1273408602654.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <457771.24172.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard James Hills] Imps W/NS North holds: S:2 H:Q642 D:J875432 C:4 (1S) _P (1NT) _X (_P) ?? _X = T/O of 1S. 1N = Forcing. What call do you make? [nigel] IMO: 5D = 10, 4D = 9, 3D = 8, 4H = 7, 3H = 6, 2H = 5, 2S = 3, 2D = 2, 2N = 1, P = 1. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 10 01:26:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 09:26:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "May the farce be with you." Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S Pass 1NT(1) X Pass 2D (2) 2S Pass(3) Pass 3H Pass 3NT (4) Pass Pass Pass (1) Forcing. (2) Farcial underbid, not the primary choice of any blmler, with North holding: 2 Q642 J875432 4 (3) Break in tempo, South farcially choosing to Pass with: AKT A98 AQ9 AJ85 (4) 12 tricks for +690 (the king of diamonds was singleton). Director's farcial ruling: "The director judged that, although the BIT suggests action over inaction, it did not indicate any specific action." Richard Hills: Since action is demonstrably suggested over inaction, if Pass is a logical alternative, then Pass is the only legal logical alternative. Director's farcial ruling: "Several 'A' players were consulted about North's call over 2S. All felt that pass was not a logical alternative. Therefore, the director allowed the table result of 3NT by South making six, N/S plus 690 to stand." Richard Hills: The farcial underbidding by both North and South demonstrably suggested that they were not "A" players, but rather "Z" players. Ergo, the Director's poll was irrelevant. Appeals Committee's farcial decision: "While the pass by South of 2S was extraordinary, it was unanimous that North had a clear-cut bid." Richard Hills: Clear-cut to the "Super-A" players on the Appeals Committee. Not clear-cut to a Walter the Walrus who bid a mere 2D on the previous round of the bidding. I would have ruled that Pass was indeed a logical alternative for the "Z" class Walter the Walrus North. Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question....." Richard Hills: So I would have ruled that the contract should have been adjusted to 2S making six tricks, E/W -100. Appeals Committee's farcial decision: [snip] "The appellants were informed of the poll results during the screening process but persisted with the appeal. The committee assessed an Appeal Without Merit Warning (AWMW)." Richard Hills: No, rather it should be an Appeals Committee Without Merit Warning to: Mark Feldman (Chairman), Eugene Kales, Ed Lazarus, Bruce Reeve, Bob White. http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Reno2010/04-NABC+.pdf 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 10 03:11:07 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 18:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <873931.71532.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] The farcial underbidding by both North and South demonstrably suggested that they were not "A" players, but rather "Z" players. Ergo, the Director's poll was irrelevant. [Nige1] It is a good idea for the director to poll the players' peers, in such cases. Also, I think a peer should be defined as a player with a level of skill roughly equivalent to that of the average competitor. I agree with Richard, however, that the poll must be restricted to the subset of "peers" who would have taken the same earlier actions as the alleged offenders. If that subset is empty then the poll is of no help. And whether those actions are inferor or superior is irrelevant. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 10 08:47:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:47:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <655201.69180.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The dictionary says that used after 'could', 'might' or >>'may', the word 'well' is an intensifier just as 'indeed' >>would be in these same situations. To say that something >>'could' be the case means that it is a possibility while the >>insertion of 'well' calls for a higher probability than does >>'could' without it. Nigel Guthrie: >I agree with Richard: a rule's meaning shouldn't depend on >subtleties of idiom or punctuation. Anyway, in this instance, >specifying a "higher" probability makes sense only if you know >what probability is exceeded. Hypothetical 2018 formatting of Law 23 Law 23, Awareness of Potential Damage II Indicative Example II Whenever, in the opinion of the II For any infraction it Director, an offender could have been II possible to argue that aware at the time of his irregularity II it "could damage" the that this could well damage the non- II non-offending side. offending side, he shall require the II Thus "could well auction and play to continue (if not II damage" means that Law completed). When the play has been II 23 applies to specific completed the Director awards an II infractions. E.g. RHO adjusted score if he considers the II opens a 2C game force, offending side has gained an II you overcall 2H, LHO advantage through the irregularity*. II responds 3D, partner II raises to 6H, RHO bids * as, for example, by partner's II 7D. You contemplate a enforced pass. II cheap save in 7H, but II partner doubles out of II turn, not accepted by II RHO, thus compelling II you to pass. Partner II holds the ace of II diamonds. This is a II clearcut "could well II damage", so the score II adjusted under Law 23 II from 7Dx down one II trick to 7Hx down II many tricks (and you II find a new partner). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 10 11:29:26 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:29:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <96E258112A5E4C8BB8AF9C73795F2658@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >>>+=+ The dictionary says that used after 'could', 'might' or >>>'may', the word 'well' is an intensifier just as 'indeed' >>>would be in these same situations. To say that something >>>'could' be the case means that it is a possibility while the >>>insertion of 'well' calls for a higher probability than does >>>'could' without it. > > Nigel Guthrie: > >>I agree with Richard: a rule's meaning shouldn't depend on >>subtleties of idiom or punctuation. Anyway, in this instance, >>specifying a "higher" probability makes sense only if you know >>what probability is exceeded. > > Hypothetical 2018 formatting of Law 23 > > Law 23, Awareness of Potential Damage II Indicative Example > II > Whenever, in the opinion of the II For any infraction it > Director, an offender could have been II possible to argue that > aware at the time of his irregularity II it "could damage" the > that this could well damage the non- II non-offending side. > offending side, he shall require the II Thus "could well > auction and play to continue (if not II damage" means that Law > completed). When the play has been II 23 applies to specific > completed the Director awards an II infractions. E.g. RHO > adjusted score if he considers the II opens a 2C game force, > offending side has gained an II you overcall 2H, LHO > advantage through the irregularity*. II responds 3D, partner > II raises to 6H, RHO bids > * as, for example, by partner's II 7D. You contemplate a > enforced pass. II cheap save in 7H, but > II partner doubles out of > II turn, not accepted by > II RHO, thus compelling > II you to pass. Partner > II holds the ace of > II diamonds. This is a > II clearcut "could well > II damage", so the score > II adjusted under Law 23 > II from 7Dx down one > II trick to 7Hx down > II many tricks (and you > II find a new partner). > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > +=+ "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 give to them." [ Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 - Preface.] I know you are out of sympathy with this, Nigel, but it is the adopted philosophy of the 2007 revision. 'Acts of the Apostles 9:5.' . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 10 11:31:03 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:31:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <387BDA1D93604F4B9292D4C92CDD6D5C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > 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: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 7:47 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>>>+=+ The dictionary says that used after 'could', 'might' or >>>>'may', the word 'well' is an intensifier just as 'indeed' >>>>would be in these same situations. To say that something >>>>'could' be the case means that it is a possibility while the >>>>insertion of 'well' calls for a higher probability than does >>>>'could' without it. >> >> Nigel Guthrie: >> >>>I agree with Richard: a rule's meaning shouldn't depend on >>>subtleties of idiom or punctuation. Anyway, in this instance, >>>specifying a "higher" probability makes sense only if you know >>>what probability is exceeded. >> >> Hypothetical 2018 formatting of Law 23 >> >> Law 23, Awareness of Potential Damage II Indicative Example >> II >> Whenever, in the opinion of the II For any infraction it >> Director, an offender could have been II possible to argue that >> aware at the time of his irregularity II it "could damage" the >> that this could well damage the non- II non-offending side. >> offending side, he shall require the II Thus "could well >> auction and play to continue (if not II damage" means that Law >> completed). When the play has been II 23 applies to specific >> completed the Director awards an II infractions. E.g. RHO >> adjusted score if he considers the II opens a 2C game force, >> offending side has gained an II you overcall 2H, LHO >> advantage through the irregularity*. II responds 3D, partner >> II raises to 6H, RHO bids >> * as, for example, by partner's II 7D. You contemplate a >> enforced pass. II cheap save in 7H, but >> II partner doubles out of >> II turn, not accepted by >> II RHO, thus compelling >> II you to pass. Partner >> II holds the ace of >> II diamonds. This is a >> II clearcut "could well >> II damage", so the score >> II adjusted under Law 23 >> II from 7Dx down one >> II trick to 7Hx down >> II many tricks (and you >> II find a new partner). >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >> Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >> Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets >> > +=+ "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." > [ Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 - Preface.] > I know you are out of sympathy with this, Nigel, but it is > the adopted philosophy of the 2007 revision. 'Acts of > the Apostles 9:5.' . > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 10 12:59:40 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 11:59:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <873931.71532.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <817E3B800A9541BCB90A02B38BCD9493@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard Hills] > The farcial underbidding by both North and South > demonstrably suggested that they were not "A" players, but rather "Z" players. Ergo, the Director's poll was irrelevant. > > [Nige1] > It is a good idea for the director to poll the players' peers, in such cases. Also, I think a peer should be defined as a player with a level of skill roughly equivalent to that of the average competitor. I agree with Richard, however, that the poll must be restricted to the subset of "peers" who would have taken the same earlier actions as the alleged offenders. If that subset is empty then the poll is of no help. And whether those actions are inferor or superior is irrelevant. > _______________________________________________ +=+ My comment on this is that where it is said "If that subset is empty then the poll is of no help" it is probably an improvement to say "of less help". However, it is probably also true that even if they would not have taken the same earlier actions peers can help us to judge at their level the actions that were taken and the ensuing situations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 11 00:33:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 08:33:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <96E258112A5E4C8BB8AF9C73795F2658@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ "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." > [ Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 - Preface.] >I know you are out of sympathy with this, Nigel, but it is >the adopted philosophy of the 2007 revision. 'Acts of the >Apostles 9:5.' . > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Bible, Authorised Version 1611 (King James Bible): "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." ACTS 9:5 Richard Hills: But should the format of the Laws create _unnecessarily_ hard problems for expert and experienced Directors to understand? Sure, expert and experienced solvers of cryptic crosswords could still read the Laws if they were _unnecessarily_ written in anagrams. Monty Python's Flying Circus: Interviewer: And I believe you're working on an anagram version of Shakespeare ... Man: Sey, sey, taht si crreoct, er. Ta the mnemot I'm wroking on "The Mating of the Wersh". Interviewer: "The Mating of the Wersh". By William Shakespeare? Man: Nay, by Mallawi Rapesheake. Interviewer: And, er, what else? Man: "Two Netlemeg of Verona", "Twelfth Thing", "The Chamrent of Venice" ... Interviewer: Have you done "Hamlet"? Man: "Thamle". "Be ot or bot ne ot, tath is the nestquie". Interviewer: And what is your next project? Man: "Ring Kichard the Thrid". Interviewer: I'm sorry? Man: "A shroe! A shroe! My dingkome for a shroe!" Interviewer: Ah, Ring Kichard, yes ... but surely that's not an anagram, that's a spoonerism. Man: If you're going to split hairs I'm going to piss off. (he leaves) 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 May 11 06:10:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 14:10:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Quotes without comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BE3C6F5.20204@nifty.com> Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/about/ourGame.html ".....the ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of bridge....." Lindsay Tanner (1956 - ), Australian Minister for Finance: "In politics everyone exaggerates everything all the time." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue May 11 12:10:25 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 03:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Fw: Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <387BDA1D93604F4B9292D4C92CDD6D5C@Mildred> References: <387BDA1D93604F4B9292D4C92CDD6D5C@Mildred> Message-ID: <212302.49684.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 - Preface.] +=+ "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." [Grattan] I know you are out of sympathy with this, Nigel, but it is the adopted philosophy of the 2007 revision. 'Acts of the Apostles 9:5.' [Nigel] I recognize that The WBFLC has successfully relinquished much of its responsibility by devolving duties to local regulators and directors. Of course directors relish the increased power and job interest. I admit that I am among the players who deplore this trend. We feel that it fosters unwelcome and unnecessary local variations in the nature of the game and makes inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings inevitable. I concede that the average age of directors is rising and, as they grow old, their experience and expertise increases. But less experienced club-level directors would prefer simpler book rulings with less less scope for judgement. Also, some players like me would prefer results to be decided by simple rules that they can understand -- rather than by sophisticated laws that few understand and about which even legal gurus can't agree. The final outcome often hinges on the whim of a director. (For completeness) I also think that the rules of a game should deter offenders and provide redress to victims. "Equity" (in the sense of restoring the status quo) is insufficient as a basis for law. In practice, it rewards and encourages transgression. It engenders a feeling of frustration and unfairness among the diminishing group of law-abiding players. There are many factors that put off would-be Bridge players. About most of these factors, we can do nothing. But, it isn't beyond the wit of man to devise simpler rules that are easier to understand, while retaining the essential nature of our wonderful game. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Tue May 11 12:52:47 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 06:52:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Quotes without comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1273575167.29273.1374468959@webmail.messagingengine.com> > ".....the ACBL determines internationally recognized rules > of bridge....." > > Lindsay Tanner (1956 - ), Australian Minister for Finance: > > "In politics everyone exaggerates everything all the time." The same piece has Bermuda still as a member country of ACBL, and supports the notion that the name "bridge" had to do with an actual bridge, a never-convincing theory that was overtaken in the 1970s by the establishment that the Russian language did in fact have the word "biritch" at one time, almost certainly establishing the lineage of the name through the 1886 pamphlet "Biritch, or Russian Whist". If the piece has any value, it is as a demonstration of the embarrassment one can suffer as a consequence of poor Web site editing/maintenance. David From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 11 15:46:30 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 14:46:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Quotes without comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <93C1A3D3D9CA45B582E8936D67EC5240@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Quotes without comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > http://www.acbl.org/about/ourGame.html > > ".....the ACBL determines internationally recognized rules > of bridge....." > > Lindsay Tanner (1956 - ), Australian Minister for Finance: > > "In politics everyone exaggerates everything all the time." > +=+ And this was evidently Mr. Tanner's example. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 12 00:16:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 08:16:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Quotes without comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <93C1A3D3D9CA45B582E8936D67EC5240@Mildred> Message-ID: Lindsay Tanner (1956 - ), Australian Minister for Finance: "In politics everyone exaggerates everything all the time." +=+ And this was evidently Mr. Tanner's example. +=+ Epiminedes of Knossus (circa 600 BCE), Cretan philosopher: "All Cretans are liars." 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 larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed May 12 00:49:40 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 23:49:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Quotes without comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <5DCB5E7CFF454F95A86FC86C1B5F1308@woe9f427cae481> I only have one vice....I lie. > Lindsay Tanner (1956 - ), Australian Minister for Finance: > > "In politics everyone exaggerates everything all the time." > > +=+ And this was evidently Mr. Tanner's example. +=+ > > Epiminedes of Knossus (circa 600 BCE), Cretan philosopher: > > "All Cretans are liars." > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 12 00:56:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 08:56:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A-Team Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <212302.49684.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I recognize that The WBFLC has successfully relinquished much >of its responsibility by devolving duties to local regulators >and directors.....The final outcome often hinges on the whim >of a director..... Richard Hills: Yes, in the good old days under the 1997 Lawbook, whenever a club Director had a problem she would not need to solve it herself. Instead a WBFLC tank would parachute onto the club- house roof, and out would jump the A-Team, Colonel John "Hannibal" Wignall Captain Grattan "Howling Mad" Endicott Lieutenant Ton "Faceman" Kooijman Sergeant William "Bad Attitude" Schoder blowing away with a bazooka both Law ambiguities and also the clubhouse itself. Now, in the bad new days under the 2007 Lawbook, "the final outcome often hinges on the whim of a director". Pull the other one, it's got bells on. The 1997 Lawbook was the bad old days, the 2007 Lawbook is the good new days. Although the 2007 Lawbook is not yet perfectly formatted, it does more clearly delineate what actions are legal and illegal for RAs and TDs than the 1997 Lawbook ever did. See especially the 2007 Laws 80 and 81. 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 May 12 06:09:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 14:09:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC+ appeal 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Appeal from Vanderbilt Knockout Teams, Round of 32 http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Reno2010/08-NABC+.pdf Note from the Chairman [Bart Bramley]: The committee was distressed by the possibility that we were preventing a player from taking the "correct" bridge bid, the one that would score 100 in the Master Solvers Club. However, our judgment of pass as a logical alternative was vindicated by my own poll of at least 10 expert players, all of whom passed 3NT without much of a problem, and most of whom passed just as easily after being presented with appellants' arguments in favor. A player who opens with a one-bid should not often have a problem over a one-level response. In particular, a 2NT jump rebid should already be part of a planned auction, so it is a bid that should always be made in normal tempo. Failure to do so can compromise the bidder's side. **If you want your partner to be able to make finely judged calls, you must bid in a consistent tempo so as not to restrict his options.** [Bart Bramley emphasis] 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 May 12 08:03:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:03:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <817E3B800A9541BCB90A02B38BCD9493@Mildred> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>>It is a good idea for the director to poll the players' >>>peers, in such cases. Also, I think a peer should be >>>defined as a player with a level of skill roughly >>>equivalent to that of the average competitor. Richard Hills: Definitely not. The phrase used in Law 16B1(b) is "among the class of players in question". One of the definitions for "class" in the Pocket Oxford Dictionary is "divided according to merit". Taking an arbitrary average is not only contrary to Law 16B1(b) but also nonsensical. The "average" human being has one ovary and one testicle. Nigel Guthrie: >>>I agree with Richard, however, that the poll must be >>>restricted to the subset of "peers" who would have >>>taken the same earlier actions as the alleged offenders. >>>If that subset is empty then the poll is of no help. And >>>whether those actions are inferior or superior is >>>irrelevant. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ My comment on this is that where it is said "If that >>subset is empty then the poll is of no help" it is >>probably an improvement to say "of less help". However, >>it is probably also true that even if they would not have >>taken the same earlier actions peers can help us to judge >>at their level the actions that were taken and the >>ensuing situations. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Yes and no. If, for example, the question is what any expert peer of North would do at the current juncture -- with the previous auction being irrelevant -- then the subset of such peers is very large. But in the stem case the question is whether it is a logical alternative for a somewhat conservative 2D to be followed by an ultra-conservative Pass. Given that conservativeness is at the heart of the question, it is somewhat conservative experts who should be polled, so the subset of such peers is very small. In a blind testing of somewhat conservative Canberra expert Len Dixon (bridge columnist for The Canberra Times for the past forty-odd years), Len voted for the somewhat conservative 2D in the first part of the problem. For the second part -> Len Dixon: >The choice at North's second turn seem to be among Pass, >Double, 3D and 3H. Pass seems the call least likely to >cost distressingly many IMPs. Richard Hills: Of course, with matchpoint pairs being the norm in the ACBL, expert players have many habits unsuited to IMPs. One ludicrous ACBL expert habit is to strive to balance whenever the opponents have found a fit in 2S, since a Biltcliffe Coup is merely a bottom at pairs, but costs distressingly many IMPs at teams. Monty Python's Flying Circus: Gumby Specialist: Hello! T.F. Gumby: Are you the brain specialist? Gumby Specialist: Hello! T.F. Gumby: Are you the brain specialist? Gumby Specialist: No, no, I am not the brain specialist. No, no, I am not ... Yes. Yes I am. T.F. Gumby: My brain hurts! Richard Hills: So if North is indeed a gumby ACBL expert, none of North's gumby peers may think that passing out 2S is a logical gumby alternative. Nigel Guthrie: >>>And whether those actions are inferior or superior is >>>irrelevant. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 12 15:01:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:01:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 12, 2010, at 2:03 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > >>>> It is a good idea for the director to poll the players' >>>> peers, in such cases. Also, I think a peer should be >>>> defined as a player with a level of skill roughly >>>> equivalent to that of the average competitor. > > Definitely not. The phrase used in Law 16B1(b) is "among > the class of players in question". One of the definitions > for "class" in the Pocket Oxford Dictionary is "divided > according to merit". A typical ACBL tournament session provides numerous flights and/or "strata" (fields that play together but are scored separately) with varying upper masterpoint limits. (Our weekly Thursday night game has eight such, from 5 masterpoints to no limit.) That certainly sounds like "divided according to merit". If a player with few masterpoints, who could play in a lower-level field, chooses to play "with the big boys", one could argue that his self-determined "class" is more indicative of his "merit" than his masterpoint total. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 12 16:02:37 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <270107.87682.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric landau] A typical ACBL tournament session provides numerous flights and/or "strata" (fields that play together but are scored separately) with varying upper masterpoint limits. (Our weekly Thursday night game has eight such, from 5 masterpoints to no limit.) That certainly sounds like "divided according to merit". If a player with few masterpoints, who could play in a lower-level field, chooses to play "with the big boys", one could argue that his self-determined "class" is more indicative of his "merit" than his masterpoint total. [Nige1] Eric's is the practical approach and that principle should be specified in the law-book. Richard's approach is too elaborate and over-dependent on his subjective judgement. It may cause resentment when he rejects potential poll recruits because he thinks they're too poor or too good. Also, when the putative offender is a stranger, skill level may be unknown. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 12 21:44:24 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 20:44:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Quotes without comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5DCB5E7CFF454F95A86FC86C1B5F1308@woe9f427cae481> Message-ID: <6226CCF6C48F4784829A034EDF5AFC8F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Quotes without comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >I only have one vice....I lie. > > >> Lindsay Tanner (1956 - ), Australian Minister for Finance: >> >> "In politics everyone exaggerates everything all the time." >> >> +=+ And this was evidently Mr. Tanner's example. +=+ >> >> Epiminedes of Knossus (circa 600 BCE), Cretan philosopher: >> >> "All Cretans are liars." >> +=+ [Logan Pearsall Smith:] " If you want to be thought a liar, always tell the truth." +=+ << From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 13 01:13:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 09:13:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>Definitely not. The phrase used in Law 16B1(b) is "among >>>the class of players in question". One of the definitions >>>for "class" in the Pocket Oxford Dictionary is "divided >>>according to merit". Eric Landau: >>A typical ACBL tournament session provides numerous flights >>and/or "strata" (fields that play together but are scored >>separately) with varying upper masterpoint limits. (Our >>weekly Thursday night game has eight such, from 5 master- >>points to no limit.) That certainly sounds like "divided >>according to merit". If a player with few masterpoints, who >>could play in a lower-level field, chooses to play "with the >>big boys", one could argue that his self-determined "class" >>is more indicative of his "merit" than his masterpoint total. Eric Skywalker: I'll never join you! Richard Vader: If only you knew the power of the Dark Masterpoint Totals. Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your strata. Eric Skywalker: He told me enough! He told me you finessed him! Richard Vader: No, I am your strata. Anakin Hillswalker: Masterpoint totals are red herrings; they are not in any way indicative of a player's ability, merely loosely correlated with a player's wealth and longevity. Stratified matchpoint pairs events are red herrings. Contrary to the belief of former President George W. Bush, America is not the centre of the universe. At the real centre of the universe, the Australian Capital Territory, the Canberra Bridge Club never holds stratified matchpoint pairs events (and never holds bracketed knockout teams events). Obi-Wan Guthrie: [snip] >It may cause resentment when he rejects potential poll >recruits because he thinks they're too poor or too good. Anakin Hillswalker: In the qualifying rounds of the 2010 Australian National Open Teams, the Milne team was seeded 14th. If the Milne team had been involved in an appeal, would players from teams seeded 13th and 15th have been potential poll recruits? No. The Milne team had minimal Dark Masterpoint Totals because every player in the team was aged under 25. But their combined ability saw them easily win the qualifying event, then easily win every one of the subsequent knockout matches until the Grand Final, which they narrowly lost. So only their victorious Grand Final opponents were truly of the same "class of player". Obi-Wan Guthrie: >Also, when the putative offender is a stranger, skill level >may be unknown. Anakin Hillswalker: Another red herring. A few simple questions by the Director can quickly discover skill level. John (Han Solo) Probst, Star Wars Day 2005: As I mentioned, I had a game in Toronto at Kate B-somethings's with she-who-must-be-obeyed. Mise en scene: LHO male mid 30's, RHO dowager witch. I'm in 4S on a 5 bid auction. He rises SA when I lead from hand. He looked ok, so I said "How many master points have you got?". "About as many as you if you ask the question!" So the discussion went on very happily for a while, and eventually I played the hand out per the percentages which was correct. At the end SWMBO looked vacant and DW asked "Why did you take so long over a routine hand?". Happily LHO said "The Limey and I were having a joke" which seemed to shut her up. Was my question illegal? (since I was trying to elicit whether it was her pro getting paid, or her son being kind) His answer told me fwiw. Best wishes Anakin Hillswalker, Tatooine -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 May 13 03:00:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 11:00:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Yuba City Stratified Pairs Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S X 3D (1) 3H 4S Pass Pass ? (1) Invitational in spades South holds: 200 ACBL masterpoints (the ACBL awards masterpoints more generously than is the norm in The Rest Of The World) What call would a peer of South make? What call would a peer of South consider making? There is no need for blmlers to see South's actual cards, since it is obvious that all blmlers are more expert than South's peers. 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 May 13 03:26:18 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 11:26:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Masterpoint totals are red herrings; they are not in any way >indicative of a player's ability, merely loosely correlated >with a player's wealth and longevity. Or correlated by location. Canberra has a disproportionately large number of incompetent Grandmasters, due to the Aussie practice of always holding the Summer Festival of Bridge here. So this makes it easy for Canberrans to accrue more master- points in two weeks than West Australians of the "same class of player" accrue in two years. Best wishes Richard Hills, Canberra Grandmaster, 4485.35 masterpoints -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 May 13 06:39:23 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 14:39:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Yuba City Stratified Pairs >>Dlr: West >>Vul: East-West >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>1S X 3D (1) 3H >>4S Pass Pass ? >> >>(1) Invitational in spades >> >>South holds: >> >>200 ACBL masterpoints (the ACBL awards masterpoints more >>generously than is the norm in The Rest Of The World) >> >>What call would a peer of South make? >>What call would a peer of South consider making? >> >>There is no need for blmlers to see South's actual cards, >>since it is obvious that all blmlers are more expert than >>South's peers. Brian Thorp, Canberra Grandmaster, 1783.07 masterpoints: >I seem to have missed something, Richard. > >I think my pd's Pass, given the vulnerability, is saying >that 5H may be a reasonable sacrifice but that he has a >little defence to 4S - so if I have no defence I bid 5H; >if I have significant defence I double, and if I have a >little defence I tank. Richard Hills: :-) Brian Thorp: >To know what to do without seeing my hand obviously >requires more expertise than this non_BLMLer has. Richard Hills: :-) again. No, Brian's zero-dummy analysis showed excellent expertise, since South's cards were: Q652 QJT65 432 5 As East was promising a limit raise in spades, and West accepted that raise, it is quite likely examining South's cards that North chose a minimal takeout double due to a spade void. Ergo, 5Hx -500 may be an excellent matchpoint pairs score vis-a-vis 4S -620. Alas, a correct Director's ruling was overturned by an incompetent Appeal Panel's illegal ruling. What actually happened was that West gave misinformation; East's 3D was not a limit raise in spades. Rather, by partnership agreement, East's 3D was weak and natural, showing long diamonds. Ergo, North was less likely to hold a spade void (and indeed did not do so), plus a phantom save in 5H was more likely. Sure enough, 5Hx was -800 at the table, when 4S would have also failed. http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Reno2010/09-Non-NABC+.pdf The Directors' Ruling: Although the directors unanimously felt that the 5H bid was ill-advised, Richard Hills: 20-20 hindsight. :-( The Directors' Ruling: a majority felt that, given the correct information, it would be even less attractive. Therefore, in accordance with Laws 21B3 and 12, the contract was adjusted to 4S by West with a result of down one assigned to both sides (E/W -100 and N/S +100). The Appeal Panel's Decision: Four players with 110-300 masterpoints were given South's hand. Two bid 3H initially whether 3D was a spade raise or a weak diamond bid. The other two passed if it was a spade raise. However, having bid 3H initially, all four passed 4S regardless of the meaning of 3H. Richard Hills: A big mistake by the Appeal Panel in choosing to poll South's class of player was that the issue at stake was not whether South's 5H sacrifice was a logical alternative. South bid 5H at the table, so necessarily 5H was one of the two logical alternatives. Rather, the issue at stake was whether South's 5H was a related-to-the-infraction Law 12C1(b) "serious error". The Appeal Panel ignored (or was ignorant of) repeated WBF LC advice that a serious error must be a Serious Error. An error in hoping for a not vul -500 versus a vul -620 is merely a misjudgement, not a Serious Error. Plus the Appeal Panel ignored (or was ignorant of) repeated WBF advice that novice bridge players are capable of very few Serious Errors. The Appeal Panel's Decision: Therefore, the panel felt that 5H was not based on the mis- information. There was some sentiment for a procedural penalty against E/W for MI, but the panel decided (2-1) to restore the table result to N/S and the director's adjustment (4S down one) to E/W. Richard Hills: Now this was just an illegal ruling. If the MI from West was so trivial that it was irrelevant to South's 5H, then the table result should be restored to both sides. If the MI from West was so non-trivial that it was relevant to South's 5H, then the Directors' ruling should be upheld for both sides. While an Appeal Panel is sometimes permitted to split the score, an Appeal Panel is never-ever permitted to split the facts. Appeal Panel Without Merit Warning: Peter Marcus (Reviewer), Candace Kuschner, Tom Marsh Bill Michael. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu May 13 06:53:43 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 14:53:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201005130454.o4D4sQUp002893@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 02:39 PM 13/05/2010, RJH wrote: > >>Yuba City Stratified Pairs > >>Dlr: West > >>Vul: East-West > >> > >>The bidding has gone: > >> > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>1S X 3D (1) 3H > >>4S Pass Pass ? > >> > >>(1) Invitational in spades > >> > >>South holds: > >> > >>200 ACBL masterpoints (the ACBL awards masterpoints more > >>generously than is the norm in The Rest Of The World) > >> > >>What call would a peer of South make? > >>What call would a peer of South consider making? > >> > >>There is no need for blmlers to see South's actual cards, > >>since it is obvious that all blmlers are more expert than > >>South's peers. > >Brian Thorp, Canberra Grandmaster, 1783.07 masterpoints: > > >I seem to have missed something, Richard. > > > >I think my pd's Pass, given the vulnerability, is saying > >that 5H may be a reasonable sacrifice but that he has a > >little defence to 4S - so if I have no defence I bid 5H; > >if I have significant defence I double, and if I have a > >little defence I tank. > >Richard Hills: > >:-) > >Brian Thorp: > > >To know what to do without seeing my hand obviously > >requires more expertise than this non_BLMLer has. > >Richard Hills: > >:-) again. > >No, Brian's zero-dummy analysis showed excellent expertise, >since South's cards were: > >Q652 >QJT65 >432 >5 > >As East was promising a limit raise in spades, and West >accepted that raise, it is quite likely examining South's >cards that North chose a minimal takeout double due to a >spade void. Ergo, 5Hx -500 may be an excellent matchpoint >pairs score vis-a-vis 4S -620. Alas, a correct Director's >ruling was overturned by an incompetent Appeal Panel's >illegal ruling. > >What actually happened was that West gave misinformation; >East's 3D was not a limit raise in spades. Rather, by >partnership agreement, East's 3D was weak and natural, >showing long diamonds. Ergo, North was less likely to >hold a spade void (and indeed did not do so), plus a >phantom save in 5H was more likely. Sure enough, 5Hx was >-800 at the table, when 4S would have also failed. > >http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Reno2010/09-Non-NABC+.pdf > >The Directors' Ruling: > >Although the directors unanimously felt that the 5H bid >was ill-advised, > >Richard Hills: > >20-20 hindsight. :-( > >The Directors' Ruling: > >a majority felt that, given the correct information, it >would be even less attractive. Therefore, in accordance >with Laws 21B3 and 12, the contract was adjusted to 4S by >West with a result of down one assigned to both sides (E/W >-100 and N/S +100). > >The Appeal Panel's Decision: > >Four players with 110-300 masterpoints were given South's >hand. Two bid 3H initially whether 3D was a spade raise or >a weak diamond bid. The other two passed if it was a spade >raise. However, having bid 3H initially, all four passed 4S >regardless of the meaning of 3H. > >Richard Hills: > >A big mistake by the Appeal Panel in choosing to poll >South's class of player was that the issue at stake was not >whether South's 5H sacrifice was a logical alternative. >South bid 5H at the table, so necessarily 5H was one of the >two logical alternatives. > >Rather, the issue at stake was whether South's 5H was a >related-to-the-infraction Law 12C1(b) "serious error". > >The Appeal Panel ignored (or was ignorant of) repeated WBF >LC advice that a serious error must be a Serious Error. An >error in hoping for a not vul -500 versus a vul -620 is >merely a misjudgement, not a Serious Error. > >Plus the Appeal Panel ignored (or was ignorant of) repeated >WBF advice that novice bridge players are capable of very >few Serious Errors. > >The Appeal Panel's Decision: > >Therefore, the panel felt that 5H was not based on the mis- >information. There was some sentiment for a procedural >penalty against E/W for MI, but the panel decided (2-1) to >restore the table result to N/S and the director's >adjustment (4S down one) to E/W. > >Richard Hills: > >Now this was just an illegal ruling. If the MI from West >was so trivial that it was irrelevant to South's 5H, then >the table result should be restored to both sides. If the >MI from West was so non-trivial that it was relevant to >South's 5H, then the Directors' ruling should be upheld for >both sides. > >While an Appeal Panel is sometimes permitted to split the >score, an Appeal Panel is never-ever permitted to split the >facts. As usual Richard is spot on. Many years ago I learnt a rule of thumb from John Probst that in MI cases you hit them, it is only in the UI cases you have trouble working out what to do. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From blml at arcor.de Thu May 13 13:12:34 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 13:12:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1533296.1273749154226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Yuba City Stratified Pairs > >>Dlr: West > >>Vul: East-West > >> > >>The bidding has gone: > >> > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>1S X 3D (1) 3H > >>4S Pass Pass ? [...] > Rather, the issue at stake was whether South's 5H was a > related-to-the-infraction Law 12C1(b) "serious error". > > The Appeal Panel ignored (or was ignorant of) repeated WBF > LC advice that a serious error must be a Serious Error. An > error in hoping for a not vul -500 versus a vul -620 is > merely a misjudgement, not a Serious Error. I agree with Richard that this AC got it completely wrong. At this vulnerability, bidding 5H forces opponents into a decision that frequently is difficult: the decision whether to bid 5S, or double 5H. Bidding 5H can only be a Serious Error if it is evident that 5H goes down for 800+ AND they will double rather than bid 5S. One brutal and successful strategy against weak opponents works like this: you judge that 4S makes exactly, and that 5H likely is down four or more. You bid 5H anyways. They bid 5S because of the vulnerability. Then YOU double THEM. If they actually get it right and double 5H, they are still likely to drop a trick or two defending - your side declaring 5HX gives both of them the opportunity to make mistakes during card play. Thomas Traumziele - von Beschreibung bis Buchung jetzt kompakt auf den Reise-Seiten von Arcor.de! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.reise From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu May 13 18:39:41 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 08:39:41 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1533296.1273749154226.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: >> The Appeal Panel ignored (or was ignorant of) repeated WBF >> LC advice that a serious error must be a Serious Error. An >> error in hoping for a not vul -500 versus a vul -620 is >> merely a misjudgement, not a Serious Error. Not ignorant of, supposedly WBFLC Tues 8 Sept 2009, Adam Wildavsky (AC Chairman) present as "guest": "...the standard for a 'serious error' must be extremely high and the calibre of player is also relevant." ACBLC Nov 22, 2008 "The commission concurs with the WBF...in that a player's expertise be considered in determining whether that player's error was a serious one..." When I suggested to Adam that "extremely high" should be incorporated into that statement in a future meeting, I think he said that would be considered. However, the Reno LC minutes are two months late in being posted and I don't know if it was discussed. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 13 23:56:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 07:56:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "May the Grand Slam Force be with you." Swiss Teams, 14-board matches with WBF victory points Dlr: East Vul: Both The bidding has gone and will go: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1NT (1) Pass(2) ? Pass ? Pass ? Pass ? Pass ? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (1) 12-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major. (2) North-South's team-mates at the other table are both expert Australian internationals You, West, hold: AK876 AQ AKJ942 --- On the hypothesis that North-South pass throughout, plan the auction. 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 May 14 00:26:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 08:26:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 72B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 72B2 currently reads: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2)." At Philadelphia I suggest that the WBF LC corrects an important omission, updating Law 72B2 to read: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2, plus see Law 16C1 for extraneous information received which was not transmitted by partner)." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri May 14 01:54:30 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 15:54:30 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: ; Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > "May the Grand Slam Force be with you." > > Swiss Teams, 14-board matches with WBF victory points > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone and will go: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1NT (1) Pass(2) > ? Pass ? Pass > ? Pass ? Pass > ? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera > > (1) 12-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major. > (2) North-South's team-mates at the other table are > both expert Australian internationals > > You, West, hold: > > AK876 > AQ > AKJ942 > --- > > On the hypothesis that North-South pass throughout, > plan the auction. > 2NT, a "cue bid," then diamonds, forcing, then spades (forcing if at the three level). If I have bid both suits (implying at least 5=6) I'll pass 3NT (or 4NT). If partner bids hearts twice, I'll raise to 6H. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 14 01:15:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:15:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: >...However, the Reno LC minutes are two months late in being >posted... Richard Hills: The link to the Reno ACBL LC minutes is active, it is just that the link does not lead anywhere. So perhaps it is merely a software glitch. Adam Wildavsky, can you please resolve this 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 adam at tameware.com Fri May 14 02:37:17 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 17:37:17 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:15 PM, wrote: > > Marvin French: > > >...However, the Reno LC minutes are two months late in being > >posted... > > Richard Hills: > > The link to the Reno ACBL LC minutes is active, it is just that > the link does not lead anywhere. ?So perhaps it is merely a > software glitch. > > Adam Wildavsky, can you please resolve this problem? They'll be posted soon -- sorry for the delay! -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri May 14 04:35:51 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 18:35:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > > The link to the Reno ACBL LC minutes is active, it is just that > the link does not lead anywhere. So perhaps it is merely a > software glitch. > > Adam Wildavsky, can you please resolve this problem? > I already asked Adam about that link and he said the minutes were still being finalized, and someone had jumped the gun putting the link up. Naif as I am, I had not realized that there were more to minutes than typing them up and posting them. They do get read and approved at the next meeting, so errors can be fxed. Excuse me, I mean rectified. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri May 14 14:22:21 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 14:22:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14 May 2010 01:54, Marvin French wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Cc: ; > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> "May the Grand Slam Force be with you." >> >> Swiss Teams, 14-board matches with WBF victory points >> Dlr: East >> Vul: Both >> >> The bidding has gone and will go: >> >> WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH >> --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? 1NT (1) ? Pass(2) >> ? ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? Pass >> ? ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? Pass >> ? ? ? ? ? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera >> >> (1) 12-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major. >> (2) North-South's team-mates at the other table are >> ? ?both expert Australian internationals >> >> You, West, hold: >> >> AK876 >> AQ >> AKJ942 >> --- >> >> On the hypothesis that North-South pass throughout, >> plan the auction. >> > 2NT, a "cue bid," As I read the OP, your partner opened 1NT..... > then diamonds, forcing, then spades (forcing if at > the three level). If I have bid both suits (implying at least 5=6) > I'll pass 3NT (or 4NT). If partner bids hearts twice, I'll raise to > 6H. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Fri May 14 14:32:54 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 14:32:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17696957.1273840374916.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Swiss Teams, 14-board matches with WBF victory points > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone and will go: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1NT (1) Pass(2) > ? Pass ? Pass > ? Pass ? Pass > ? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera > > (1) 12-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major. > (2) North-South's team-mates at the other table are > both expert Australian internationals > > You, West, hold: > > AK876 > AQ > AKJ942 > --- > > On the hypothesis that North-South pass throughout, > plan the auction. If I play forcing stayman, I use that. Otherwise, I would play 1NT (p) 2C (p) 2D/2H (p) 2S as an artificial GF relay. I will try to find out - partner's distribution - whether he has the SQ. Thomas Traumziele - von Beschreibung bis Buchung jetzt kompakt auf den Reise-Seiten von Arcor.de! http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.reise From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 14 15:40:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 15:40:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BED52B9.2020409@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > On 14 May 2010 01:54, Marvin French wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Cc: ; >> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:56 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> >>> "May the Grand Slam Force be with you." >>> >>> Swiss Teams, 14-board matches with WBF victory points >>> Dlr: East >>> Vul: Both >>> >>> The bidding has gone and will go: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- 1NT (1) Pass(2) >>> ? Pass ? Pass >>> ? Pass ? Pass >>> ? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera >>> >>> (1) 12-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major. >>> (2) North-South's team-mates at the other table are >>> both expert Australian internationals >>> >>> You, West, hold: >>> >>> AK876 >>> AQ >>> AKJ942 >>> --- >>> >>> On the hypothesis that North-South pass throughout, >>> plan the auction. >>> >>> >> 2NT, a "cue bid," >> > > As I read the OP, your partner opened 1NT..... > > >> then diamonds, forcing, then spades (forcing if at >> the three level). If I have bid both suits (implying at least 5=6) >> I'll pass 3NT (or 4NT). If partner bids hearts twice, I'll raise to >> 6H. >> Sorry if I'm too late. I would transfer to spades, then bid diamonds. If partner then raises either (or bids 4C, which I use as a diamond raise), I will proceed with 5C (lackwood), then over the obvious 5D, bid 5H (asking for queens, 4 steps). If he doesn't, I bid 4D, then 6C, showing the void and implying HA (I hope). Transferring to diamonds makes it impossible to lackwood at a reasonable level. If the player didn't bid any slam and partner is broke, rule "fielded psyche". Why do you mention that partners are internationals ? Are they expected to do anything else than pass, with so little in hand ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 14 15:41:57 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:41:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B587836-999A-48F4-8C34-D89408B92DE2@starpower.net> On May 13, 2010, at 5:56 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > "May the Grand Slam Force be with you." > > Swiss Teams, 14-board matches with WBF victory points > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone and will go: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1NT (1) Pass(2) > ? Pass ? Pass > ? Pass ? Pass > ? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera > > (1) 12-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major. > (2) North-South's team-mates at the other table are > both expert Australian internationals > > You, West, hold: > > AK876 > AQ > AKJ942 > --- > > On the hypothesis that North-South pass throughout, > plan the auction. Fortunately, my preferred methods work well on this hand; I can bid 2NT, then 3S over partner's minor-suit preference to show a game- forcing diamond-spade hand. If partner doesn't raise, I'll try 4H; if he bids 4S I can try RKCB despite my void. If he shows good diamonds and poor spades, I can shoot out 7D with confidence. Even if he's totally uncooperative, I should be able to get in a 6C cue as a 7D try. I figure I'm about 95% to wind up in seven of one of my suits. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri May 14 18:20:35 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 08:20:35 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Alain References: <4BED52B9.2020409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <599B9A873A7A4961A943D35A4ECD5606@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >>>> The bidding has gone and will go: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> --- --- 1NT (1) Pass(2) >>>> ? Pass ? Pass >>>> ? Pass ? Pass >>>> ? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera >>>> >> >> As I read the OP, your partner opened 1NT..... I have problems with unformatted (on my screen) bidding diagrams and thought it was an opponent who opened. I promise to be more careful in future. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 17 01:40:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:40:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Star Wars Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel, 16th March 2008 >a 3rd example (again local club) > >Again a very good player > >Bidding goes P P 3D ?? > >S AJxx >H KQx >D - >C AKJTxx > >Good hand - I think almost everyone without exception would >double. [snip] >The actual bid was 6C's !! Richard Hills, 17th March 2008: The call I would choose myself opposite a passed partner, since now the grand slam is unlikely. Karel, 16th March 2008: [valid reasons snipped] >All valid reasons - but none so outstanding/concrete/urgent to >avoid the normal double Richard Hills, 17th March 2008: No, a double is lunacy on this hand with its huge playing strength. The diamond void means that there is an unacceptable risk of pard passing for an inadequate penalty. If: (a) I am a very good (albeit optimistic) player, and (b) I would leap to 6C at the table, then (c) perhaps the other good player's ethics are beyond reproach? Richard Hills, 17th May 2010: Swiss Teams, 14-board matches with WBF victory points Dlr: East Vul: Both I, West, held: AK876 AQ AKJ942 --- The bidding at the table went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Quail --- --- 1NT (1) Pass(2) 7D (3) Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major. (2) North-South's team-mates at the other table are both expert Australian internationals. Alain Gottcheiner, 14th May 2010: >Why do you mention that partners are internationals? Richard Hills, 17th May 2010: (3) Since the internationals at the other table were certain to bid at least 6D, the break-even point for trying a grand slam was 57%. A more pessimistic expert Australian international I played against in the next round argued a la Karel that the leap should be avoided, since the grand would have no play if East held three small spades. I riposted that East had to have his hcp somewhere. Sure enough, although pard held a grotty 12 hcp with wasted values in clubs, he held one of the winning options: QJ4 K9 Q653 KJ75 so at the table 7D was cold. Alain Gottcheiner, 14th May 2010: >Sorry if I'm too late. I would transfer to spades, then bid >diamonds. Richard Hills, 17th May 2010: 7S was not cold at the table, since South was void in diamonds. Was my leap to 7D prima facie evidence that I had infracted Law 16C1? "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information." Or was my leap to 7D a slightly abnormal logical alternative for my "class of player"? Eric Landau, 14th May 2010: [snip of suggested slower science] >I figure I'm about 95% to wind up in seven of one of my suits. Richard Hills, 17th May 2010: In all Canberra Bridge Club tournaments boards are computer dealt and duplicated across the field. So when this board was played in a completely different match the auction showed similar celerity. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Van Van der Vucht Hoek --- --- 1D (1) 2H (2) 7D (3) Pass Pass Pass (1) Australian Standard American, a 1NT opening bid was not available as it shows 15-18 hcp (2) A (very) weak jump overcall, holding: 952 T76432 --- A862 (3) On this auction, 7D is much more likely to be successful than on the information available to me at my table For what it is worth, the Australian internationals in my match also faced the handicap of an uncontested auction, and also faced the handicap of pre-empting themselves with a 1NT opening bid, so (since the international West was not a lunatic unilateral overbidder) they reached only 6D. 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 May 19 09:31:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 17:31:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The Appeal: N/S appealed the director's decision and all four players attended the review. North said he pulled out the pass card, put it on the table (or very near the table) and then immediately pulled it back and put the 3NT card out. He said it was inadvertent that he passed and called it a mechanical error. He also said this problem would not occur without bidding boxes (i.e. he would have changed his verbal bid without pause for thought). Richard Hills: >No, if I had been the Director in a parallel universe in >which verbal bidding was used on this board, I would still >have ruled against North. Changing an originally _intended_ >verbal call very very quickly is _not_ identical to changing >an _unintended_ verbal call without pause for thought. > >Indeed, North's attempt to sea-lawyer with the 1997 Lawbook's >word "inadvertent" is one reason the 2007 Lawbook uses the >replacement word "unintended". The Appeal: He said the ACBL was incorrectly interpreting Law 25's use of "unintended" and should allow such clear mistakes to be corrected so as not to skew the field. Richard Hills: >"Protect the field" is a fantasy of Bobby Wolff. What Law 25B >requires is the specific East-West pair at North's specific >table are protected from North's illegal attempt to change his >Pass to 3NT. The Decision: ACBL regulations and the law are clear. The pass card was placed on the table and then changed to 3NT; the pass was ruled intentional (not inadvertent) and the 3NT was not accepted by East. North wanted the panel to change or ignore ACBL policy, which the panel refused to do. Therefore, the director's decision was upheld. Despite being told the law and ACBL policy on mechanical errors relating to changes of call, particularly involving the two different parts of the bidding box, North was adamant in wanting to pursue the appeal to a hearing. Therefore, the panel issued an appeal without merit warning (AWMW). Richard Hills: >I agree with the ruling, but disagree with the AWMW, since >North seemed confused about what was at stake, causing me to >suspect that the Appeals Advisor was less than clear. > >If I had been the Appeals Advisor to North, I would have told >North that there were two issues at stake: > >1. The ACBL Bidding Box regulation, which determines when a >call is made. Since North's initial pass was clearly made >under this reg, I would have advised North that there was no >chance on this ground. > >2. Law 25A only permits the substitution of a never-intended >call with an intended call. Since North clearly fleetingly >intended Pass in response to South's game invite, I would have >advised North that there was no chance on this ground. 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 petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed May 19 13:07:52 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 14:07:52 +0300 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim Message-ID: In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are good. Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the 7). East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also shows her cards. South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West agrees. PPs aside, how do you rule? Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed May 19 15:48:07 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:48:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?a_new_sort_of_claim?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" > In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced > players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is > on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are > good. > Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the > 7). > East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also > shows her cards. > South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West > agrees. > > PPs aside, how do you rule? 2 down, Law 70 A From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 19 15:55:19 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:55:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF3EDC7.3010908@ulb.ac.be> Petrus Schuster OSB a ?crit : > In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced > players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is on > lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are good. > Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the 7). > East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also > shows her cards. > South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West > agrees. > > PPs aside, how do you rule? > Taking aside the fact that E/W should have called the TD, which may lead to all sorts of PPs but not as big as the one adjudged to South, East has full rights to mention a line of play that will lead to 2 down. At the moment West faces his cards, he didn't yet agree with the claim, whence his side didn't lose their rights. Seeing all four hands is included in the non-claiming side's rights. Whether L44 (?), which covers dummy mentioning a line of play, also covers dummy claiming is a minor point. I'm fully prepared to rule that East's denial of the claim was made in due time. Best regards Alain From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Wed May 19 16:12:36 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:12:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF3EDC7.3010908@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BF3EDC7.3010908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1274278356.24891.1375863759@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Whether L44 (?), which covers dummy mentioning a line of play, also > covers dummy claiming is a minor point. If answering the question requires discussing the non-claiming side's rights, then whether a claim has occurred is not a minor point; it is the first point. I think that dummy does not have standing to claim for the reason that Law 68C cannot be read (sensibly) as allowing dummy to suggest a line of play when he could do so *only* in consequence of having claimed. David From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 19 16:37:30 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 16:37:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <1274278356.24891.1375863759@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <4BF3EDC7.3010908@ulb.ac.be> <1274278356.24891.1375863759@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <4BF3F7AA.6060706@ulb.ac.be> David Babcock a ?crit : >> Whether L44 (?), which covers dummy mentioning a line of play, also >> covers dummy claiming is a minor point. >> > > If answering the question requires discussing the non-claiming side's > rights, then whether a claim has occurred is not a minor point; it is > the first point. > It's not the point I mentioned. What I mentioned is that "when dummy has mentioned a line of play", defenders have some extra rights, and I didn't know whether that applies when dummy claims. And the answer was : I don't care, because that's not the law I want to apply here. > I think that dummy does not have standing to claim for the reason that > Law 68C cannot be read (sensibly) as allowing dummy to suggest a line of > play when he could do so *only* in consequence of having claimed. > In that case, we have to rule in another way : EW shouldn't have shown their cards. But this infraction was prompted by dummy's own infraction, so dummy (and declarer) can't take advantage of that. From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed May 19 17:00:26 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:00:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 06:07 To: Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim > In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced > players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is on > lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are good. > Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the 7). > East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also > shows her cards. > South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West > agrees. > > PPs aside, how do you rule? > > Regards, > Petrus S has claimed [68A] in violation of L43A1c [25% PP]. EW contested the claim [70] and their objection is valid. W's change to agreement is rescinded [10B] given cause that S breached L74 [100% PP]. EW had not acquiesced as E's objection had not been renounced. Further, upon the lead of the S8 the adjudicated line requires S contributing the CA in accordance with the claim [no clarification] which may or not affect the number of tricks available to EW. S breached L79A2 [100% PP]. I am thinking that the ice S is on is approaching 2mm and am wondering if I should advise him to go on an immediate crash diet. And I sense that a 2 board DP is on its way. And one last thing, I suggest that everyone take 3 or 4 deep breaths and exhale slowly. regards roger pewick From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed May 19 17:31:23 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 17:31:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has not claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. If the TD had been called immediately he should have decided to continue play in accordance with 45F. So formally spoken West by facing his hand made a claim. But we do not know how many tricks he claimed for? Take it from there. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter Eidt Verzonden: woensdag 19 mei 2010 15:48 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" > In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced > players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is > on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are > good. > Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the > 7). > East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also > shows her cards. > South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West > agrees. > > PPs aside, how do you rule? 2 down, Law 70 A _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 19 17:59:26 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 17:59:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4BF40ADE.8060701@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > ton: > I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has not > claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. If the TD > had been called immediately he should have decided to continue play in > accordance with 45F. So formally spoken West by facing his hand made a > claim. So formally speaking dummy may pseudo-claim in order to make opponent show his cards by reflex and go away with it ? L72 perhaps ? Or expelling him ? From cibor at poczta.fm Wed May 19 19:29:00 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:29:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > ton: > I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has > not > claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. This might be what you would want in the laws but that's not what you put in there. "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." There is no differentiation between members of the "contestant". Contestant - in a a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; This is, in principle, the main problem that plagues the laws of bridge - the inability of the lawmakers to express precisely what they want. This is the number one reason why there are so many holes in the laws. I have always claimed that the laws (of any kind) should be written by logicians and/or computer programmers. The powers that be would determine what they would like the laws to say and leave the implementation to experts in the field. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------------------------------------------- Kredyty hipoteczne z dop??at? . Sprawd?? koniecznie! http://linkint.pl/f26ca From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 19 20:20:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:20:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4B55516C549A4B9DAEBEEE08D786B3FD@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim +=+ I think we might begin by noting that dummy has violated Law 43A1(c), but like ton I do not see any claim made by declarer. Technically there is UI and a slightly tricky decision for declarer, best solved perhaps by playing the hand out and waiting to see if anyone is so bold as to challenge the play. As declarer I might well choose to ignore West's exposure of his cards. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ................................................................................................................. > ton: > I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has > not > claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. If the > TD > had been called immediately he should have decided to continue play in > accordance with 45F. So formally spoken West by facing his hand made a > claim. But we do not know how many tricks he claimed for? Take it from > there. > > ton > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter > Eidt > Verzonden: woensdag 19 mei 2010 15:48 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >> In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced >> players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is >> on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are >> good. >> Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the >> 7). >> East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also >> shows her cards. >> South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West >> agrees. >> >> PPs aside, how do you rule? > > 2 down, Law 70 A > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed May 19 23:07:42 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:07:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF4531E.2010309@t-online.de> Roger Pewick schrieb: > > And one last thing, I suggest that everyone take 3 or 4 deep breaths and > exhale slowly. > Excellent advice. Best regards Matthias > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Thu May 20 00:41:57 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 18:41:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF40ADE.8060701@ulb.ac.be> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF40ADE.8060701@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1274308917.13088.1375949677@webmail.messagingengine.com> > So formally speaking dummy may pseudo-claim in order to make opponent > show his cards by reflex and go away with it ? When we are told that West showed his cards following a claim by dummy, I think we can safely assume we are discussing a novice game (or a midnight side game), and anyone "getting away with it" probably doesn't apply to the actual case. David From jrhind at therock.bm Thu May 20 01:07:59 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:07:59 -0300 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi folks, I have a vague recollection of an incident in the 1999 Bermuda Bowl (Southampton, Bermuda 2000) where declarer stated that he had the remaining tricks when West was on lead. East said "Play on" and the director awarded the remaining tricks to declarer on the basis that defender cannot be awakened by partners comments and therefore will arbitrarily be determined to have played any card. Bill Schoder was the DIC at this event so he may have a better memory of it than I. The issue here, however, I see as being distinctly different. In my mind, once dummy opens their mouth I think all bets are off. I would tend to allow the hand on lead to play and let the cards fall where they may. There has been no legitimate claim and way too much UI which I can only assume is a result of having a table full of bridge players who have no understanding of the laws and not a great deal of bridge experience. Cheers, Jack On 5/19/10 8:07 AM, "Petrus Schuster OSB" wrote: > In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced > players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is on > lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are good. > Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the 7). > East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also > shows her cards. > South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West > agrees. > > PPs aside, how do you rule? > > Regards, > Petrus From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 20 01:59:30 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:59:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <262703.4871.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [ton endorsed by Grattqn]] I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has not claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. [Konrad Ciborowski] This might be what you would want in the laws but that's not what you put in there. "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." There is no differentiation between members of the "contestant". Contestant - in a a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; This is, in principle, the main problem that plagues the laws of bridge - the inability of the lawmakers to express precisely what they want. This is the number one reason why there are so many holes in the laws. I have always claimed that the laws (of any kind) should be written by logicians and/or computer programmers. The powers that be would determine what they would like the laws to say and leave the implementation to experts in the field. [Nigel] As Konrad says, the rules (laws + regulations) of Bridge are unclear. This spoils the game for players while permitting secretary birds enjoy endless arguments about the legal interpretation of basic cases with agreed facts. The attempt to present the rules as flow-charts is a welcome trend. But sophisticated and subjective laws are prone to anomalies, no matter who writes them. IMO, the first step is to unify and simplify the rules. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 20 03:46:58 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:46:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: "Incremental change will not do. It is time for a wholesale, big bang approach." ~ The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP Richard Hills: In the 2010 film Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang, the eponymous Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson) noted: "I hear you've been naughty." Grattan Endicott: +=+ I think we might begin by noting that dummy has violated Law 43A1(c), but like ton I do not see any claim made by declarer. Technically there is UI and a slightly tricky decision for declarer, best solved perhaps by playing the hand out and waiting to see if anyone is so bold as to challenge the play. As declarer I might well choose to ignore West's exposure of his cards. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Yes, I agree with Grattan that dummy has been naughty. But in Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang the mother (Maggie Gyllenhaal) noticed that her three children were fighting with their two cousins, and decided to rectify the situation by boiling some eggs. It seems to me that Grattan's proposed rectification is equally wishy-washy. Rather, it seems to me that most relevant is Law 23: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." Richard Hills: Dummy "could have been aware" that for some defenders it is standard practice to expose their cards after declarer's claim in order to check the accuracy of the claim. Thus by dummy falsely claiming this "could well damage" the defending side by confusing them into creating penalty cards which would not otherwise have been exposed. So after completion of the play (6NT one off, due to the penalty cards), as the Nanny McPhee TD I would use Law 23 to adjust the score to 6NT two off and then big bang my Law 90 stick on dummy. * * * Law 68A, first sentence: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." Definitions: "Contestant - in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Konrad Ciborowski: There is no differentiation between the members of the "contestant". Richard Hills: Two answers to this argument. Firstly, reductio ad absurdum. If it is legal in a pair event for dummy to claim, then it is equally legal in a team event for a team- mate at the other table to claim at this table. Secondly, the 2007 Introduction (part of the Laws) states: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross- reference." so in Law 70A there is an omission of a cross-reference to Law 43A1(c): "Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer." but that does not necessarily mean that the scope of Law 43A1(c) is limited by Law 70A. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 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 overrides 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: So the specific Law 43A1(c) over-rides the more general Law 70A. What's the main problem? Konrad Ciborowski: This is, in principle, the main problem that plagues the laws of bridge - the inability of the lawmakers to express precisely what they want. This is the number one reason why there are so many holes in the laws. I have always claimed that the laws (of any kind) should be written by logicians and/or computer programmers. The powers that be would determine what they would like the laws to say and leave the implementation to experts in the field. Richard Hills: Laws written by logicians and/or computer programmers??? It is no use having Laws written in super-precise language if grass-roots TDs cannot understand that wonderful super- precise language. Much better would be translating the Kaplanic English of the 2007 Lawbook to plain English in the 2018 Lawbook. So a better advisor to the 2018 Drafting Committee would be an author of science textbooks for Texas high schools. Nigel Guthrie: As Konrad says, the rules (laws + regulations) of Bridge are unclear. Richard Hills: No, the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are 99% clear, but may be wilfully misinterpreted by logicians and/or computer programmers. Nigel Guthrie: This spoils the game for players Richard Hills: No, 99% of the players could not care less about the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Their game may be spoiled by an incompetent Director's incorrect application of the Laws, but that is a matter for the Tournament Organizer to rectify with training and/or hiring a new Director. Nigel Guthrie: while permitting secretary birds enjoy endless arguments about the legal interpretation of basic cases with agreed facts. Richard Hills: Of course this list enjoy endless arguments, since that is the prime purpose of this list. But in real life at the table successful Secretary Birds are few and far between. Occasionally you will see a Secretary Bird intimidate the opponents and give a ruling herself at the table. But when that Secretary Bird's infraction of Law 9B is noticed by a competent Director, there will be a big bang and the Director will apply Law 90 or Law 91 to the plucked and f***ed Secretary Bird. Nigel Guthrie: The attempt to present the rules as flow-charts is a welcome trend. Richard Hills: Yes and no. If a flow chart of a Law was a translation of that Law, then well and good. But the semi-official EBU flow charts omit very tiny but very important details, thus encouraging EBU Directors to make unLawful rulings. Nigel Guthrie: But sophisticated and subjective laws are prone to anomalies, no matter who writes them. IMO, the first step is to unify and simplify the rules. Richard Hills: In one specific aspect the 1963 Lawbook was simpler than the 1975 Lawbook. Alcatraz Coups were legal under the 1963 Lawbook. While the 1975 Lawbook included a big bang _necessarily complicated_ Law to prohibit Alcatraz Coups. 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 May 20 08:23:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:23:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, January 2005: >>+=+ I can't believe that no-one has got around yet to >>naming some place in the USA 'New Zealand'. If true >>this must be a first. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ Todd M. Zimnoch, January 2005: >Could be. But just to be contrary, we'd likely call it >New Zedland. Richard Hills, May 2010: New Zedland and Australia are notoriously liberal in permitting conventions, while ACBL-land is notoriously conservative. Why is that so? The notorious personality Lew Mathe had strong views on many subjects, and was not too timorous to suggest that others adopt those views. When Lew Mathe became ACBL President in the early 1970s, he arranged for the ACBL to impose a lengthy five year moratorium on the legalisation of new conventions. In my opinion, that moratorium was the tipping point for the current ACBL culture, in which even an expert such as Larry Cohen is reflexively critical of the (only slightly esoteric) Polish Club system. Off-topic note: A highly readable and thought-provoking popular science book is "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 20 09:07:08 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:07:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> Sorry Ton, but if you"re going to rule from there, and give declaring side the benefit of the doubt, you are going to have to deal with dummy's claim a lot of times from then on ... Herman. ton wrote: > ton: > I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has not > claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. If the TD > had been called immediately he should have decided to continue play in > accordance with 45F. So formally spoken West by facing his hand made a > claim. But we do not know how many tricks he claimed for? Take it from > there. > > ton > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter > Eidt > Verzonden: woensdag 19 mei 2010 15:48 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >> In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced >> players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is >> on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are >> good. >> Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the >> 7). >> East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also >> shows her cards. >> South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West >> agrees. >> >> PPs aside, how do you rule? > > 2 down, Law 70 A > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2882 - Release Date: 05/18/10 20:26:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Thu May 20 08:17:14 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:17:14 +0300 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <1274308917.13088.1375949677@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF40ADE.8060701@ulb.ac.be> <1274308917.13088.1375949677@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 May 2010 01:41:57 +0300, David Babcock wrote: > >> So formally speaking dummy may pseudo-claim in order to make opponent >> show his cards by reflex and go away with it ? > > When we are told that West showed his cards following a claim by dummy, > I think we can safely assume we are discussing a novice game (or a > midnight side game), and anyone "getting away with it" probably doesn't > apply to the actual case. > > Unfortunately, as I have pointed out it was neither. It was a regional tournament with international participation, and while NS were not-quite-average players, E was a junior international and W a Senior Lifemaster. And it was about 7 pm. The problem as I see it is in the wording of L68: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." does not say by whom. Read strictly, it would even apply to a statement by a kiebitzer. And as Ton has pointed out, the first question to be answered is whether a claim by NS has occurred. BTW, if play were to continue there is no play problem for declarer: if W cashes his good spade, she is down two, otherwise down one. Regards, Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu May 20 10:40:40 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:40:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: I like this idea : 45F Dummy suggested a play to declarer witch is to claim for one down, this is a damage to defenders because S8 is a winner so i give an adjusted score : 6NT - 2 doe's dummy complains about this ruling? ... can be a piece of fun! next time he will not speak, for sure :) at last, it is equity you can rule against West who can have forgotten his S8 was a master, seems possible according the given facts and then split the scores second choice for me but imho, NS is good for 6NT-2 either cases, Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > ton: > I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has > not > claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. If the > TD > had been called immediately he should have decided to continue play in > accordance with 45F. So formally spoken West by facing his hand made a > claim. But we do not know how many tricks he claimed for? Take it from > there. > > ton > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter > Eidt > Verzonden: woensdag 19 mei 2010 15:48 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >> In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced >> players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is >> on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are >> good. >> Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the >> 7). >> East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also >> shows her cards. >> South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West >> agrees. >> >> PPs aside, how do you rule? > > 2 down, Law 70 A > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 20 11:40:32 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:40:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de><000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF40ADE.8060701@ulb.ac.be><1274308917.13088.1375949677@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 7:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > On Thu, 20 May 2010 01:41:57 +0300, David Babcock > wrote: > >>> So formally speaking dummy may pseudo-claim in order to make opponent >>> show his cards by reflex and go away with it ? >> >> When we are told that West showed his cards following a claim by dummy, >> I think we can safely assume we are discussing a novice game (or a >> midnight side game), and anyone "getting away with it" probably doesn't >> apply to the actual case. >> > Unfortunately, as I have pointed out it was neither. It was a regional > tournament with international participation, and while NS were > not-quite-average players, E was a junior international and W a Senior > Lifemaster. And it was about 7 pm. > The problem as I see it is in the wording of L68: "Any statement to the > effect that a contestant will win a specific number of > tricks is a claim of those tricks." does not say by whom. Read strictly, > it would even apply to a statement by a kiebitzer. And as Ton has pointed > out, the first question to be answered is whether a claim by NS has > occurred. > BTW, if play were to continue there is no play problem for declarer: if W > cashes his good spade, she is down two, otherwise down one. > > Regards, > Petrus > ......................................................................................................... Case originally put:- In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are good. Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the 7). East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also shows her cards. South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West agrees. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 20 13:18:13 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:18:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF40ADE.8060701@ulb.ac.be> <1274308917.13088.1375949677@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <4BF51A75.40708@ulb.ac.be> Petrus Schuster OSB a ?crit : > On Thu, 20 May 2010 01:41:57 +0300, David Babcock wrote: > > >>> So formally speaking dummy may pseudo-claim in order to make opponent >>> show his cards by reflex and go away with it ? >>> >> When we are told that West showed his cards following a claim by dummy, >> I think we can safely assume we are discussing a novice game (or a >> midnight side game), and anyone "getting away with it" probably doesn't >> apply to the actual case. >> >> >> > > > Unfortunately, as I have pointed out it was neither. It was a regional > tournament with international participation, and while NS were > not-quite-average players, E was a junior international and W a Senior > Lifemaster. And it was about 7 pm. > The problem as I see it is in the wording of L68: "Any statement to the > effect that a contestant will win a specific number of > tricks is a claim of those tricks." does not say by whom. Read strictly, > it would even apply to a statement by a kiebitzer. And as Ton has pointed > out, the first question to be answered is whether a claim by NS has > occurred. > AG : if the answer is to the negative, one should remember that there is a jurisprudency that deviations from correct procedures which are prompted by opponents' deviations can be considered not to have occurred, and at the very least the first offender shouldn't take profit from them. I'd like to apply this to West's exposure and East's reaction, after dummy's obvious and gross departure from procedure, if needed. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu May 20 13:20:22 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:20:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: If you don't know how to rule, may be. But my approach towards dummy in this case doesn't make it probable that he will do it twice. And your reading still is somewhat poor, did I say that I was going to rule in favor of the declaring side? The application of our laws asks for a strict approach. Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. 45F demands the TD being called. If a defender instead of calling takes other action he commits an infraction too. 68A tells that showing your cards normally is considered to be a claim. But the TD could decide otherwise if the player demonstrably did not intend to claim. I do not see an escape from that conclusion in this case. Now my ruling: I will ask West to explain what number of tricks he wants to make. If he says 1 (spade 8) I will say OK. If declarer then objects I will make a decision myself, being 1 trick for the defending side. But declarer will not. If he says zero, his partner might object and play continues. But then I would not allow the play of the spade 8 (or more formally: I would adjust the score if West plays the spade of 8). Then I will give the defending side a PP (more than 10% of a top in a pairs event). It is not that difficult is it? ton Sorry Ton, but if you"re going to rule from there, and give declaring side the benefit of the doubt, you are going to have to deal with dummy's claim a lot of times from then on ... Herman. ton wrote: > ton: > I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has not > claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. If the TD > had been called immediately he should have decided to continue play in > accordance with 45F. So formally spoken West by facing his hand made a > claim. But we do not know how many tricks he claimed for? Take it from > there. > > ton > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter > Eidt > Verzonden: woensdag 19 mei 2010 15:48 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >> In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced >> players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is >> on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are >> good. >> Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the >> 7). >> East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also >> shows her cards. >> South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West >> agrees. >> >> PPs aside, how do you rule? > > 2 down, Law 70 A > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2882 - Release Date: 05/18/10 20:26:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 20 13:33:34 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:33:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF51E0E.2070700@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott, January 2005: > > >>> +=+ I can't believe that no-one has got around yet to >>> naming some place in the USA 'New Zealand'. If true >>> this must be a first. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ >>> > > Todd M. Zimnoch, January 2005: > > >> Could be. But just to be contrary, we'd likely call it >> New Zedland. >> > > Richard Hills, May 2010: > > New Zedland and Australia are notoriously liberal in > permitting conventions, while ACBL-land is notoriously > conservative. Why is that so? > > The notorious personality Lew Mathe had strong views on > many subjects, and was not too timorous to suggest that > others adopt those views. > > When Lew Mathe became ACBL President in the early 1970s, > he arranged for the ACBL to impose a lengthy five year > moratorium on the legalisation of new conventions. In > my opinion, that moratorium was the tipping point for > the current ACBL culture United States, Great Britain and France are the lands where natural systems theorists come from. They also have more restrictive regulations than neighbouring countries. IMOVBO there is an obvious link. 'we are the best, so everybody should do as we do' surely isn't very far from their state of mind. French organizers of international tournaments were quite reluctant to adopt the (more flexible) European policy, and many of their top players still show contempt for those who 'need such incongruities to get a result', thereby repating US's big mistake of the 50s-60s. Another element could be country size. In Belgium, where team championships are organized in a similar way to soccer / US foot / rugby etc. championships (manageable because you can go anywhere, play and return within one afternoon), you know your opponents long in advance. If you played a strange system, you just had to send it to them. Now that websites exist, this is the way in which system communication occurs, of course, but history shows us that this ease in commuicating your system led to a more liberal systems policy. I would like to know whether this could have been an element in other countries where policies are flexible and unorthodox systems abound, like New Zealand, Poland or Denmark. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 20 13:35:01 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:35:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BF51E65.1000506@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Sorry Ton, but if you"re going to rule from there, and give declaring > side the benefit of the doubt, you are going to have to deal with > dummy's claim a lot of times from then on ... > AG : Indeed, and that's why the principle that, when your irregularity causes an opponent's irregularity, the latter may be omitted, is fair. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 20 13:37:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:37:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4BF51EE2.4040409@ulb.ac.be> olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > I like this idea : > 45F > Dummy suggested a play to declarer witch is to claim for one down, > this is a damage to defenders because S8 is a winner > so i give an adjusted score : 6NT - 2 > AG : apart from the fact that he only suggested an /action/, I think this is a fair way to sort things out. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 20 13:40:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:40:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4BF51FBE.6020006@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > ton: > If you don't know how to rule, may be. But my approach towards dummy in this > case doesn't make it probable that he will do it twice. > AG : well, that's not sure. Yesterday evening, I mentioned that dummy was high -it was- and I'll do so later. But the important part is : everybody at the table considered this as a claim. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu May 20 13:44:11 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:44:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <002501caf811$c4602c10$4d208430$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: As we have tried to explain before the laws are not a set of independent sentences, each of which can be isolated and understood on its own. Let us take the following case: In law X it says: Dummy can not claim And in law Y (Y>X) it says: any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim. Now we need clever human beings to draw the conclusion that a dummy making such statement does not create a claim. This is even true when X>Y, but then there is a slight reason to complain. ton > ton: > I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has > not > claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. This might be what you would want in the laws but that's not what you put in there. "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." There is no differentiation between members of the "contestant". Contestant - in a a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; This is, in principle, the main problem that plagues the laws of bridge - the inability of the lawmakers to express precisely what they want. This is the number one reason why there are so many holes in the laws. I have always claimed that the laws (of any kind) should be written by logicians and/or computer programmers. The powers that be would determine what they would like the laws to say and leave the implementation to experts in the field. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------------------------------------------- Kredyty hipoteczne z dop??at? . Sprawd?? koniecznie! http://linkint.pl/f26ca _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 20 13:50:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:50:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <002501caf811$c4602c10$4d208430$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <002501caf811$c4602c10$4d208430$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4BF52222.504@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > ton: > As we have tried to explain before the laws are not a set of independent > sentences, each of which can be isolated and understood on its own. > > Let us take the following case: > > In law X it says: Dummy can not claim > AG : I beg to diiffer. It says : dummy MAY not claim. > And in law Y (Y>X) it says: any statement to the effect that a contestant > will win a specific number of tricks is a claim. > > Now we need clever human beings to draw the conclusion that a dummy making > such statement does not create a claim. > AG : and I draw the conclusion that dummy has made something he wasn't allowed to make, which is very different from not having made it. Since I'm conceited enough to imagine I'm clever, perhaps I'm not a human being. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Thu May 20 13:56:59 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 07:56:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. That is so if Law 42A1c's language "dummy must not participate in the play" extends to ending play via a claim. That is certainly reasonable, but the difficulty with this is that Law 68A could so easily have been written to put this beyond doubt, but it wasn't. The clarification in this thread that the lawgivers' intent was that dummy may not claim is most welcome in any case. David From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu May 20 14:11:50 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:11:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On 20 May 2010 13:56, David Babcock wrote: > >> Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. > > That is so if Law 42A1c's language "dummy must not participate in the > play" extends to ending play via a claim. A claim is part of the play period. So there's absolutely no doubt that dummy can't make a claim (or concession). That part of the discussion here is meaningless IMO. How to rule in the actuel case is another story. A split score, declaring side -2 and defenders -1 only, seems reasonable to me, but not neccesarily obvious. And a PP for dummy, of course. > That is certainly reasonable, > but the difficulty with this is that Law 68A could so easily have been > written to put this beyond doubt, but it wasn't. ?The clarification in > this thread that the lawgivers' intent was that dummy may not claim is > most welcome in any case. > > David > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu May 20 14:12:43 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:12:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BF51E0E.2070700@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BF51E0E.2070700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <54997268-D954-47A5-9A0A-9A824632CECF@btinternet.com> On 20 May 2010, at 12:33, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Another element could be country size. In Belgium, where team > championships are organized in a similar way to soccer / US foot / > rugby > etc. championships (manageable because you can go anywhere, play and > return within one afternoon), you know your opponents long in advance. > If you played a strange system, you just had to send it to them. Now > that websites exist, this is the way in which system communication > occurs, of course, but history shows us that this ease in commuicating > your system led to a more liberal systems policy. Hence Australia? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100520/5386a4d6/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Thu May 20 14:21:55 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 20 May 2010 14:21:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?a_new_sort_of_claim?= Message-ID: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> "ton" pisze: > ton: > As we have tried to explain before the laws are not a set of independent > sentences, each of which can be isolated and understood on its own. > That's exactly the reason why these sentences shouldn't contradict one another. At present in many cases they do and it looks to me that whenever it is pointed out the lawmakers get angry and say "but it is so obvious that what we meant here was...". > Let us take the following case: > > In law X it says: Dummy can not claim > And number of the law X is... I'm serious. Where exactly is it written in the scriptures that dummy cannot claim? The only place I can think of is L43A1(c) but even so it doesn't say what to do when the dummy makes a claim nonetheless. L43B mentions only PP. Don't get me wrong. I could live with the interpretation that a statement made by dummy is not a claim. But then, having just ruled that dummy never claimed, you allow West to show his cards to his partner who in turn tells him which card to play and you allow West to take advantage of it ("I will ask West to explain what number of tricks he wants to make. If he says 1 (spade 8) I will say OK."). So you say that there was no claim but then you go ahead and rule as if there was a claim by the declaring side. And you still maintain that "it is not too difficult" and make sarcastic remarks like "we need clever human beings to draw the conclusion...". Oh, well. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pamietaj o Dniu Matki! Wyslij kartk? na komorke >> http://linkint.pl/f26f3 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 20 14:29:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:29:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <54997268-D954-47A5-9A0A-9A824632CECF@btinternet.com> References: <4BF51E0E.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <54997268-D954-47A5-9A0A-9A824632CECF@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4BF52B22.3060900@ulb.ac.be> Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > > On 20 May 2010, at 12:33, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Another element could be country size. In Belgium, where team >> >> championships are organized in a similar way to soccer / US foot / rugby >> >> etc. championships (manageable because you can go anywhere, play and >> >> return within one afternoon), you know your opponents long in advance. >> >> If you played a strange system, you just had to send it to them. Now >> >> that websites exist, this is the way in which system communication >> >> occurs, of course, but history shows us that this ease in commuicating >> >> your system led to a more liberal systems policy. >> > > > Hence Australia? AG : don't know. The population implementation of Australia is so specific that I wouldn't hazard to put it into the equation. (an event at state level in WA or SA would mainly be at city level) And what's the systems communicaiton policy ? BTW, I do claim that moderate distances made pre-set round-robins easier, which in turn made systems communication easier, not that it was the only way to ensure efficient communication. This claim comes from frequent discussion with French players, who claimed that it was unfair to play sophisticated systems against players that don't know you do, and were astounded when I answered that in Belgium, there was a way to let them know, even at moderate level. (ah yes, I forgot one country : the Netherlands, also a small-sized country with many system freaks) From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 20 15:46:55 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 15:46:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4BF53D4F.60606@skynet.be> It is not difficult, but imagine the hands were reversed, and it is declarer who claims for -1. Now, even if West has no intention of playing the S8 (obviously not realising it is high) we do give him that trick - even if it is east who remarks that it is high. Why should we not give East-West the same benefit here? Herman. ton wrote: > ton: > If you don't know how to rule, may be. But my approach towards dummy in this > case doesn't make it probable that he will do it twice. > And your reading still is somewhat poor, did I say that I was going to rule > in favor of the declaring side? > The application of our laws asks for a strict approach. > Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. 45F demands the TD > being called. If a defender instead of calling takes other action he commits > an infraction too. 68A tells that showing your cards normally is considered > to be a claim. But the TD could decide otherwise if the player demonstrably > did not intend to claim. I do not see an escape from that conclusion in this > case. > Now my ruling: I will ask West to explain what number of tricks he wants to > make. If he says 1 (spade 8) I will say OK. If declarer then objects I will > make a decision myself, being 1 trick for the defending side. But declarer > will not. If he says zero, his partner might object and play continues. But > then I would not allow the play of the spade 8 (or more formally: I would > adjust the score if West plays the spade of 8). Then I will give the > defending side a PP (more than 10% of a top in a pairs event). > > It is not that difficult is it? > > ton > > > Sorry Ton, but if you"re going to rule from there, and give declaring > side the benefit of the doubt, you are going to have to deal with > dummy's claim a lot of times from then on ... > Herman. > > ton wrote: >> ton: >> I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has > not >> claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. If the > TD >> had been called immediately he should have decided to continue play in >> accordance with 45F. So formally spoken West by facing his hand made a >> claim. But we do not know how many tricks he claimed for? Take it from >> there. >> >> ton >> >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter >> Eidt >> Verzonden: woensdag 19 mei 2010 15:48 >> Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim >> >> From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >>> In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced >>> players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is >>> on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are >>> good. >>> Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the >>> 7). >>> East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also >>> shows her cards. >>> South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West >>> agrees. >>> >>> PPs aside, how do you rule? >> >> 2 down, Law 70 A >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2882 - Release Date: 05/18/10 > 20:26:00 >> > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2884 - Release Date: 05/19/10 20:26:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu May 20 16:51:34 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:51:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF53D4F.60606@skynet.be> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF53D4F.60606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004301caf82b$f1d65c40$d58314c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> You, Herman, are really not reading at all!! I do give EW the same benefit here. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Herman De Wael Verzonden: donderdag 20 mei 2010 15:47 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim It is not difficult, but imagine the hands were reversed, and it is declarer who claims for -1. Now, even if West has no intention of playing the S8 (obviously not realising it is high) we do give him that trick - even if it is east who remarks that it is high. Why should we not give East-West the same benefit here? Herman. ton wrote: > ton: > If you don't know how to rule, may be. But my approach towards dummy in this > case doesn't make it probable that he will do it twice. > And your reading still is somewhat poor, did I say that I was going to rule > in favor of the declaring side? > The application of our laws asks for a strict approach. > Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. 45F demands the TD > being called. If a defender instead of calling takes other action he commits > an infraction too. 68A tells that showing your cards normally is considered > to be a claim. But the TD could decide otherwise if the player demonstrably > did not intend to claim. I do not see an escape from that conclusion in this > case. > Now my ruling: I will ask West to explain what number of tricks he wants to > make. If he says 1 (spade 8) I will say OK. If declarer then objects I will > make a decision myself, being 1 trick for the defending side. But declarer > will not. If he says zero, his partner might object and play continues. But > then I would not allow the play of the spade 8 (or more formally: I would > adjust the score if West plays the spade of 8). Then I will give the > defending side a PP (more than 10% of a top in a pairs event). > > It is not that difficult is it? > > ton > > > Sorry Ton, but if you"re going to rule from there, and give declaring > side the benefit of the doubt, you are going to have to deal with > dummy's claim a lot of times from then on ... > Herman. > > ton wrote: >> ton: >> I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has > not >> claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. If the > TD >> had been called immediately he should have decided to continue play in >> accordance with 45F. So formally spoken West by facing his hand made a >> claim. But we do not know how many tricks he claimed for? Take it from >> there. >> >> ton >> >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter >> Eidt >> Verzonden: woensdag 19 mei 2010 15:48 >> Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim >> >> From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >>> In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced >>> players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is >>> on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are >>> good. >>> Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the >>> 7). >>> East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also >>> shows her cards. >>> South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West >>> agrees. >>> >>> PPs aside, how do you rule? >> >> 2 down, Law 70 A >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2882 - Release Date: 05/18/10 > 20:26:00 >> > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2884 - Release Date: 05/19/10 20:26:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu May 20 17:06:14 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:06:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: > Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. David: That is so if Law 42A1c's language "dummy must not participate in the play" extends to ending play via a claim. ton: Bringing in Konrad here: this has nothing to do with lack of logic, this has to do with people being able to read!!! The word 'extends' in David's sentence is ridiculous. How can anybody seriously 'claim' that claiming is not part of the play. Once again I rest my case, more interesting things to do. ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 20 17:36:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:36:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com> <004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > ton: > >> Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. >> Sorry. Dummy must not (or may not) make a claim. Dummy must not participate in any way to the play, except as specified (enquiry about possible revoke etc.). That's the auxiliary verb used in TFLB. If he couldn't, but did, he would commit an infraction to the rules of propositional logic. He may not, but he does, so he commits an infraction to the rules of bridge. See the difference ? From adam at irvine.com Thu May 20 17:52:51 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 08:52:51 -0700 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 May 2010 13:44:11 +0200." <002501caf811$c4602c10$4d208430$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <201005201547.IAA04712@mailhub.irvine.com> > ton: > As we have tried to explain before the laws are not a set of independent > sentences, each of which can be isolated and understood on its own. > > Let us take the following case: > > In law X it says: Dummy can not claim > > And in law Y (Y>X) it says: any statement to the effect that a contestant > will win a specific number of tricks is a claim. > > Now we need clever human beings to draw the conclusion that a dummy making > such statement does not create a claim. > > This is even true when X>Y, but then there is a slight reason to complain. If you're suggesting that the numbering of the Laws has some bearing on when one Law should take precedence over another, I don't think this is reasonable. As far as I can tell, the numbering of the Laws is done with the purpose of organizing them into sections and making the right Law easier to find, not to make any statement about which Law is the correct one when two seem to contradict. -- Adam From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu May 20 18:10:36 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 18:10:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com><004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: so, he may not but he can? he may not claim but he did claim this is illegal, ok but do we have a Law to tell us was happens? i don't think, usually, when there is an infraction, NOS may accept it, so why not let EW accept it? then it's a clain, W tables his cards East see a master card and telle him to play it, so it'a an easy 6NT-2 for everybody, where did i go wrong? ok, nowhere it's said that you can accept ANY irr?gularity ... Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim ton a ?crit : > ton: > >> Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. >> Sorry. Dummy must not (or may not) make a claim. Dummy must not participate in any way to the play, except as specified (enquiry about possible revoke etc.). That's the auxiliary verb used in TFLB. If he couldn't, but did, he would commit an infraction to the rules of propositional logic. He may not, but he does, so he commits an infraction to the rules of bridge. See the difference ? _______________________________________________ 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 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 20 18:37:19 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 18:37:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com><004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be> olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > so, > > he may not but he can? > Il ne peut pas mais il peut ... oups ... Il n'en a pas le droit mais il se peut qu'il le fasse. Difficult to realize that 'may' is different from 'must' but 'may not' is similar to 'must not'; That's because word groupings are fluctuating to the extreme in English. He - may not - do He - must - not do > he may not claim > but he did claim > > this is illegal, ok > but do we have a Law to tell us was happens? > i don't think, > > usually, when there is an infraction, NOS may accept it, > > so why not let EW accept it? > > then it's a clain, W tables his cards > East see a master card and telle him to play it, > > so it'a an easy 6NT-2 for everybody, > > where did i go wrong? > Nowhere IMOBO. > ok, nowhere it's said that you can accept ANY irr?gularity ... > AG : indeed, but surely it's the spirit of the rules. However, there should be a limit to this. For example, fi two pairs switch positions, their opponents may not accept it, lest the movement be ruined. But when there is an infraction which you'd end better by accepting it to be made, you should in general be able to do so. In some sports, the umpire has to assess whether this is the case ('avantage du ballon'). In some others, the player may exercise this right ( reaction to fouls by a snookered player being a good example, as is not taking a penalty shot at rugby) At bridge, this is written in many rules (as those about LOOT, IB) and my personal feeling is that hte intention was that it be rather general. Best regards Alain From jrhind at therock.bm Thu May 20 18:38:06 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:38:06 -0300 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In an effort to get out from under all the semantics I will put my head int he noose here and make a ruling as follows: 1. Dummy is not permitted to make a claim or any statement about the ability to win or lose tricks during the play so there dummy as not claimed but has violated the rules. 2. West showed the entire table his hand and East made a comment about being able to win a trick with the S8. Both these acts constitute UI so I am going to rule that West arbitrarily plays one of his remaining cards and it is NOT the S8. Therefore the result is 6NT -1. 3. Both E/W and N/S will get the result for 6NT -1. Additionally N/S will get a PP for violating a law and causing this problem in the first place. Does this get the job done? Do you think this is a correct application of the laws? Jack On 5/20/10 1:10 PM, "olivier.beauvillain" wrote: > so, > > he may not but he can? > > he may not claim > but he did claim > > this is illegal, ok > but do we have a Law to tell us was happens? > i don't think, > > usually, when there is an infraction, NOS may accept it, > > so why not let EW accept it? > > then it's a clain, W tables his cards > East see a master card and telle him to play it, > > so it'a an easy 6NT-2 for everybody, > > where did i go wrong? > > ok, nowhere it's said that you can accept ANY irr?gularity ... > > Olivier Beauvillain > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 5:36 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > > > ton a ?crit : >> ton: >> >>> Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. >>> > Sorry. Dummy must not (or may not) make a claim. > Dummy must not participate in any way to the play, except as specified > (enquiry about possible revoke etc.). That's the auxiliary verb used in > TFLB. > > If he couldn't, but did, he would commit an infraction to the rules of > propositional logic. > He may not, but he does, so he commits an infraction to the rules of bridge. > > See the difference ? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 20 19:20:42 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:20:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BF51E0E.2070700@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BF51E0E.2070700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <40582e1e378bf3a83800d837cc1c5804.squirrel@email.powweb.com> I had the impression that other countries tended to have younger players. I am directing a 23.5 table game this afternoon (at $13 per person). I suppose there might be a few people here younger than 60. But much of the "new blood" in bridge is people who retire and are learning bridge for the first time. So, as a guess, the money is in designing a game that appeals to retired beginners. But to look at this another way, I think most people do not enjoy playing against a convention they don't understand. > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Grattan Endicott, January 2005: >> >> >>>> +=+ I can't believe that no-one has got around yet to >>>> naming some place in the USA 'New Zealand'. If true >>>> this must be a first. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ >>>> >> >> Todd M. Zimnoch, January 2005: >> >> >>> Could be. But just to be contrary, we'd likely call it >>> New Zedland. >>> >> >> Richard Hills, May 2010: >> >> New Zedland and Australia are notoriously liberal in >> permitting conventions, while ACBL-land is notoriously >> conservative. Why is that so? >> >> The notorious personality Lew Mathe had strong views on >> many subjects, and was not too timorous to suggest that >> others adopt those views. >> >> When Lew Mathe became ACBL President in the early 1970s, >> he arranged for the ACBL to impose a lengthy five year >> moratorium on the legalisation of new conventions. In >> my opinion, that moratorium was the tipping point for >> the current ACBL culture > United States, Great Britain and France are the lands where natural > systems theorists come from. They also have more restrictive regulations > than neighbouring countries. IMOVBO there is an obvious link. > 'we are the best, so everybody should do as we do' surely isn't very far > from their state of mind. French organizers of international tournaments > were quite reluctant to adopt the (more flexible) European policy, and > many of their top players still show contempt for those who 'need such > incongruities to get a result', thereby repating US's big mistake of > the 50s-60s. > > Another element could be country size. In Belgium, where team > championships are organized in a similar way to soccer / US foot / rugby > etc. championships (manageable because you can go anywhere, play and > return within one afternoon), you know your opponents long in advance. > If you played a strange system, you just had to send it to them. Now > that websites exist, this is the way in which system communication > occurs, of course, but history shows us that this ease in commuicating > your system led to a more liberal systems policy. > > I would like to know whether this could have been an element in other > countries where policies are flexible and unorthodox systems abound, > like New Zealand, Poland or Denmark. > > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu May 20 19:43:07 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:43:07 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <1345E175C2D84A65B4CD129CFCFA1C3D@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > > When Lew Mathe became ACBL President in the early 1970s, > he arranged for the ACBL to impose a lengthy five year > moratorium on the legalisation of new conventions. Approved by the ACBL Board of Directors. > In my opinion, that moratorium was the tipping point for > the current ACBL culture, in which even an expert such > as Larry Cohen is reflexively critical of the (only > slightly esoteric) Polish Club system. But Larry has no power over the control of conventions, not being a member of he C&C committee or the BoD. The ACBL's multi-tier convention charts, which restrict conventions according to the level of competitions, are quite liberal. At high levels of play the SuperChart disallows only: 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose sole purpose is to destroy the oppponents' methods. 2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. 3. Psychic controls 4. Forcing pass systems ["slightly esoteric"?] 5. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP (psychs excepted) 6. Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than 10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention Chart. This includes psyching responses to or rebids of those methods. The moratorium did not apply if you had money and influence. During the moratorium period I was surprised to see a change in the ACBL convention card, a new red box (meaning Alertable) for an opening 1D bid of less than three cards. Since that is a convention, I complained to the ACBL that the moratorium was not being honored. The reply (in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin) was that it was necessary for a Big Club system. Whose system? C.C.Wei's Precision System, of course. Edgar Kaplan's reply to me was that this was a *fait accompli*, so forgettaboutit. The change was not approved by the C&C committee or in the BoD minutes, but was snuck in *sub rosa*. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 20 20:50:07 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:50:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > > "ton" pisze: >> ton: >> As we have tried to explain before the laws are not a set of independent >> sentences, each of which can be isolated and understood on its own. >> > > That's exactly the reason why these sentences shouldn't > contradict one another. At present in many cases they > do and it looks to me that whenever it is pointed > out the lawmakers get angry and say "but it is so obvious > that what we meant here was...". > +=+ This is a sweeping statement. In such situations I am primarily concerned with (and turn my attention to) what the laws actually say - not what meaning we intended. After a code of laws is published intention is no longer the prime consideration. The prime consideration is the meaning and interpretation as written. As a secondary matter we may turn to intention if we have difficulty in interpretation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 20 21:09:35 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 20:09:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be><002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF51FBE.6020006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <65FB6DABE2954286AAA4485E3789E67D@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim ton a ?crit : > ton: > If you don't know how to rule, may be. But my approach towards > dummy in this case doesn't make it probable that he will do it twice. > AG : well, that's not sure. Yesterday evening, I mentioned that dummy was high -it was- and I'll do so later. But the important part is : everybody at the table considered this as a claim. < +=+ What the players 'considered' is immaterial. As for breach of Law 43A1(c), Law 43B1 prescribes a power for the Director. However a PP does nothing to sort out the ensuing mess. It is the process of resolving this that we have been discussing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri May 21 00:14:49 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:14:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> [GE] I am primarily concerned with (and turn my attention to) what the laws actually say - not what meaning we intended. [DALB] Well, what the Laws actually say is this: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed. Now, I have very rarely in my life heard a claim by a contestant, because a contestant is: in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Thus, the second sentence of the Law I have quoted above is nonsense, and (as Konrad suggests) it is the kind of nonsense that could easily have been eliminated by proof-readers or by logicians (assuming that the logicians did not play bridge). The people who wrote that nonsense may well say "It is clear that when we use the word 'contestant' in a sense wholly divorced from the definition we ourselves have given of the word' contestant', what we obviously mean is... well, let's say 'player', shall we?" They might then say, as Harald says, "Dummy is not a 'player', so dummy cannot claim - problem solved!" But this is further nonsense, and again it could have been obviated had logicians been present. This assertion: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks" means not only that dummy can claim, but that a spectator or a Vugraph commentator can claim. True, it was "obviously" not intended to mean that, but that is what it means. Faced with this kind of thing, the people in charge of the rules tend to adopt the "this is obvious" defence. They should not, for most of the rules that are rubbish were made before their time and can easily be remade to say what those in charge want them to say. Konrad and I are happy to volunteer. Anyone else? David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 21 01:09:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:09:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980): "There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it." Herman De Wael: >It is not difficult, but imagine the hands were reversed, and >it is declarer who claims for -1. Now, even if West has no >intention of playing the S8 (obviously not realising it is >high) we do give him that trick - even if it is East who >remarks that it is high. Richard Hills: This hypothetical is correctly resolved by Herman. Herman De Wael: >Why should we not give East-West the same benefit here? Richard Hills: However, if a non-claim has been made by the declaring side, because dummy has merely made a non-binding random remark, and West attempts to concede the remaining tricks because West obviously does not realise that the S8 is high, but East immediately objects to West's concession, then use Law 68B2: "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it." Richard Hills: While in this hypothetical situation none of West's cards are penalty cards (which they were in the original problem, in which West did not concede but merely exposed her cards as a response to dummy's non-claim), the fact that East has objected to West's concession is UI to West. Ergo, West may not select from amongst logical alternative cards one that might have been demonstrably suggested by East's objection to the concession. In the original post there was visible in dummy nothing but heart and club winners. So the only logical cards for West to play fall into the category of spade and diamond cards. Ergo, if West's eight of spades is the only card in that category, cashing the eight of spades must be West's only logical alternative. David Burn: [snip] >>This assertion: >> >>"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a >>specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks" >> >>means not only that dummy can claim, but that a spectator or >>a Vugraph commentator can claim. True, it was "obviously" >>not intended to mean that, but that is what it means. >> >>Faced with this kind of thing, the people in charge of the >>rules tend to adopt the "this is obvious" defence. They >>should not, for most of the rules that are rubbish were made >>before their time and can easily be remade to say what those >>in charge want them to say. Konrad and I are happy to >>volunteer. >> >>Anyone else? Richard Hills: Nigel Guthrie desires a Big Bang rewrite of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, in which their meanings are fundamentally changed. However, for the few specific suggestions Nigel Guthrie has put forward so far, I believe that the unintended detrimental consequences of those Big Bang changes far outweigh any mooted benefits. On the other hand, I would be delighted to join Konrad Ciborowski and David Burn in _translating_ the 2007 Lawbook from turgid Kaplanese into plainer English. Law 68A, plainer (but not plainest) English version: "Any statement by declarer or a defender* to the effect that their side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. Declarer or a defender also claims when she suggests that play be curtailed, or when she shows her cards (unless she demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces her cards after an opening lead out of turn then Law 54, not this Law, will apply). * See Law 43 for a statement by dummy, and see Law 76 for a statement by a spectator." 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 May 21 01:45:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:45:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <40582e1e378bf3a83800d837cc1c5804.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >I had the impression that other countries tended to have >younger players. Richard Hills: This tendency does not just happen. Both the Australians and the Europeans have been actively and enthusiastically organising youth bridge tournaments for forty years; the ACBL effort in organising youth bridge tournaments started much later in a half-hearted stop-and-go fashion. Robert Frick: >I am directing a 23.5 table game this afternoon (at $13 >per person). I suppose there might be a few people here >younger than 60. But much of the "new blood" in bridge >is people who retire and are learning bridge for the >first time. > >So, as a guess, the money is in designing a game that >appeals to retired beginners. Richard Hills: Last night at the Canberra Bridge Club there were half- a-dozen teenagers and twenty-somethings playing expert bridge against expert opponents in a 16-table Swiss Teams multi-session event with 14-board matches and table-top computer scoring for only $12 per person. Robert Frick: >But to look at this another way, I think most people do >not enjoy playing against a convention they don't >understand. Richard Hills: But to look at this another way, many Canberran bunnies note the effectiveness of their opponents' Brown Sticker Twos, so those Canberran bunnies therefore add such Brown Sticker Twos to their own system cards. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 21 02:42:56 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 01:42:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> Message-ID: <39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim [GE] I am primarily concerned with (and turn my attention to) what the laws actually say - not what meaning we intended. [DALB] Well, what the Laws actually say is this: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed. Now, I have very rarely in my life heard a claim by a contestant, because a contestant is: in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Thus, the second sentence of the Law I have quoted above is nonsense << << +=+ Yes. The wording was introduced by Kaplan in 1987 and not changed in 1997 or 2007. On the latter occasion the view was "if it ain't broke don't fix it". This may have been because logic appeared to require that 'contestant', being linked to 'he', must be a player of those constituting a contestant. It may be of interest to note that the aborted rewrite of the laws that I sought to persuade colleagues to adopt (set aside in 2005 when the ACBL would only accept 'incremental' changes in the Laws) did not use 'contestant' in the claims laws. This is illustrated by two extracts:: "Any statement made by a player prior to the completion of the play of a deal to the effect that his side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A player also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed or when he shows his cards (unless the Director is wholly satisfied that the player did not intend to claim). " and "Any statement made by a player prior to completion of the play of a deal that his side will lose a given number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects no concession (and no claim) has occurred. Law 8C may apply and the Director must be summoned before play continues." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In my copy, alongside the first extract, I have written 'tidy up'. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 21 02:58:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:58:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pauline Kael (1919-2001), American film critic: "The words 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' which I saw on an Italian movie poster, are perhaps the briefest statement imaginable of the basic appeal of movies.' Olivier Beauvillain: [snip] >usually, when there is an infraction, NOS may accept it, [snip] >where did i go wrong? > >ok, nowhere it's said that you can accept ANY irr?gularity Richard Hills: There is not any general rule about the non-offending side condoning an infraction of the offending side. Laws 27A1, 29A, 53B and 54 permit the LHO of an infractor to unintentionally or intentionally condone that particular infraction. But Law 25B states that the LHO of the infractor must intentionally condone the infraction, with an unintentional condonation cancelled. And Laws 36 and 38 prohibit condonation of an inadmissible double nor condonation of a bid of more than seven. Plus when a specific Law does not mention condonation (for example the specific Law 50 on penalty cards) then applicable is the general Law 10A: "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive - see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." and the general 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 21 07:49:44 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 15:49:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <40582e1e378bf3a83800d837cc1c5804.squirrel@email.powweb.com > References: <4BF51E0E.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <40582e1e378bf3a83800d837cc1c5804.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <201005210550.o4L5oFeE023732@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> rfrick says: At 03:20 AM 21/05/2010, you wrote: >I had the impression that other countries tended to have younger players. >I am directing a 23.5 table game this afternoon (at $13 per person). I >suppose there might be a few people here younger than 60. But much of the >"new blood" in bridge is people who retire and are learning bridge for the >first time. > >So, as a guess, the money is in designing a game that appeals to retired >beginners. I think you may be thinking of a game similar to bridge but designed for people whose brain has seen better days. It has already been invented and has been played by my partner for years Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 21 09:09:27 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:09:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The Sun (London tabloid newspaper), 14th May 2010: "In an article on February 3, we implied two thirds of Haitians drank goats' blood while practising voodoo. We are happy to make clear this is not the case." Daylight Stratified Open Pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass ? You, South, hold: T52 QT96543 983 --- So you, South, elect to respond with a weak jump to 2H. The bidding continued: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 2H (1) Pass 3H Pass(2) ? (1) Your 2H was initially not alerted by partner. (2) East foolishly enquired about the meaning of 2H. Partner responded that 2H was natural and game-forcing. But then partner noticed that she had not opened 1S, but had rather opened 1D. So partner now explained that your 2H jump response promised 5 spades, 4 hearts and 5-9 hcp (which in fact is the convention written on your partnership's System Cards). You have multiple UI from partner. UI demonstrably suggesting that bidding is correct is that partner believed at the time her 3H bid was forcing. UI demonstrably suggesting that passing is correct is that partner now thinks you hold 5 spades, so raising to 4H may see partner converting to a ridiculous 4S in a non-fit. What is your legal logical alternative? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri May 21 09:32:31 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:32:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com><004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> <4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> very old english lesson, may be i am wrong : may = you are allowed to do so can = you physically are able to do it ex : you may not kill somebody (your partner???) but you can kill him must = you may not do something else : you must let him live in french, always "pouvoir" : je ne peux pas tuer mon partenaire, mais je peux le tuer, oups!!! et je dois le laisser vivre (ouf), so dummy may not claim (not allowed) but he can (just has to speak ...) in L31A2a partner may not bid, must pass ... but he still can peek-up a bid-card > new irregularity dummy's claim is an irregularity, we still need to know what to do, i think this is a rather common problem! Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > so, > > he may not but he can? > Il ne peut pas mais il peut ... oups ... Il n'en a pas le droit mais il se peut qu'il le fasse. Difficult to realize that 'may' is different from 'must' but 'may not' is similar to 'must not'; That's because word groupings are fluctuating to the extreme in English. He - may not - do He - must - not do > he may not claim > but he did claim > > this is illegal, ok > but do we have a Law to tell us was happens? > i don't think, > > usually, when there is an infraction, NOS may accept it, > > so why not let EW accept it? > > then it's a clain, W tables his cards > East see a master card and telle him to play it, > > so it'a an easy 6NT-2 for everybody, > > where did i go wrong? > Nowhere IMOBO. > ok, nowhere it's said that you can accept ANY irr?gularity ... > AG : indeed, but surely it's the spirit of the rules. However, there should be a limit to this. For example, fi two pairs switch positions, their opponents may not accept it, lest the movement be ruined. But when there is an infraction which you'd end better by accepting it to be made, you should in general be able to do so. In some sports, the umpire has to assess whether this is the case ('avantage du ballon'). In some others, the player may exercise this right ( reaction to fouls by a snookered player being a good example, as is not taking a penalty shot at rugby) At bridge, this is written in many rules (as those about LOOT, IB) and my personal feeling is that hte intention was that it be rather general. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ 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 From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri May 21 09:35:01 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:35:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E2052E05246438C91E18AF72A8221F8@PCdeOlivier> 2. West showed the entire table his hand and East made a comment about being able to win a trick with the S8. Both these acts constitute UI so I am going to rule that West arbitrarily plays one of his remaining cards and it is NOT the S8. Therefore the result is 6NT -1. not always my opinion : says you have an UI Dummy got HA, DA, CA, you have S8, D2, C2, playing in NT for me, even if you don't know about the S8, not playing it IS irrationnal! Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Rhind" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim In an effort to get out from under all the semantics I will put my head int he noose here and make a ruling as follows: 1. Dummy is not permitted to make a claim or any statement about the ability to win or lose tricks during the play so there dummy as not claimed but has violated the rules. 2. West showed the entire table his hand and East made a comment about being able to win a trick with the S8. Both these acts constitute UI so I am going to rule that West arbitrarily plays one of his remaining cards and it is NOT the S8. Therefore the result is 6NT -1. 3. Both E/W and N/S will get the result for 6NT -1. Additionally N/S will get a PP for violating a law and causing this problem in the first place. Does this get the job done? Do you think this is a correct application of the laws? Jack On 5/20/10 1:10 PM, "olivier.beauvillain" wrote: > so, > > he may not but he can? > > he may not claim > but he did claim > > this is illegal, ok > but do we have a Law to tell us was happens? > i don't think, > > usually, when there is an infraction, NOS may accept it, > > so why not let EW accept it? > > then it's a clain, W tables his cards > East see a master card and telle him to play it, > > so it'a an easy 6NT-2 for everybody, > > where did i go wrong? > > ok, nowhere it's said that you can accept ANY irr?gularity ... > > Olivier Beauvillain > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 5:36 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > > > ton a ?crit : >> ton: >> >>> Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. >>> > Sorry. Dummy must not (or may not) make a claim. > Dummy must not participate in any way to the play, except as specified > (enquiry about possible revoke etc.). That's the auxiliary verb used in > TFLB. > > If he couldn't, but did, he would commit an infraction to the rules of > propositional logic. > He may not, but he does, so he commits an infraction to the rules of > bridge. > > See the difference ? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 __________ 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 olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri May 21 09:44:55 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:44:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl><00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> <39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Incremental change will not do. It is time > for a wholesale, big bang approach" > ~ The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:14 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > > [GE] > > I am primarily concerned with (and turn my attention to) what the laws > actually say - not what meaning we intended. > > [DALB] > > Well, what the Laws actually say is this: > > Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number > of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he > suggests that play be curtailed. > Now, I have very rarely in my life heard a claim by a contestant, because > a contestant is: in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two > players > playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more > players playing as team-mates. > Thus, the second sentence of the Law I have quoted above is nonsense > << > << > +=+ Yes. The wording was introduced by Kaplan in 1987 and not changed > in 1997 or 2007. On the latter occasion the view was "if it ain't broke > don't fix it". This may have been because logic appeared to require that > 'contestant', being linked to 'he', must be a player of those constituting > a > contestant. > It may be of interest to note that the aborted rewrite of the laws > that I sought to persuade colleagues to adopt (set aside in 2005 when > the ACBL would only accept 'incremental' changes in the Laws) did not > use 'contestant' in the claims laws. This is illustrated by two > extracts:: > > "Any statement made by a player prior to the completion of the play > of a deal to the effect that his side will win a specific number of tricks > is a claim of those tricks. A player also claims when he suggests that > play be curtailed or when he shows his cards (unless the Director is > wholly satisfied that the player did not intend to claim). " > and > "Any statement made by a player prior to completion of the play of > a deal that his side will lose a given number of tricks is a concession > of those tricks; a claim of some tricks is a concession of the > remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when > he abandons his hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender > attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately > objects no concession (and no claim) has occurred. Law 8C may > apply and the Director must be summoned before play continues." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > In my copy, alongside the first extract, I have written 'tidy up'. we did the same in our french translation : "contestant" became "joueur" (player) we didn't think that's dummy can claim, he is a player ... so may be we have to change somthing in our next version ... Olivier Beauvillain > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri May 21 09:55:26 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:55:26 +0300 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:38:06 +0300, Jack Rhind wrote: > In an effort to get out from under all the semantics I will put my head > int > he noose here and make a ruling as follows: > > 1. Dummy is not permitted to make a claim or any statement about the > ability > to win or lose tricks during the play so there dummy as not claimed but > has > violated the rules. > > 2. West showed the entire table his hand and East made a comment about > being > able to win a trick with the S8. Both these acts constitute UI so I am > going > to rule that West arbitrarily plays one of his remaining cards and it is > NOT > the S8. Therefore the result is 6NT -1. > > 3. Both E/W and N/S will get the result for 6NT -1. Additionally N/S will > get a PP for violating a law and causing this problem in the first place. > > Does this get the job done? > Do you think this is a correct application of the laws? > I'm not sure about that. Assuming there was no claim by the declaring side: West has claimed/conceded without a statement as per L68A 2nd sentence. E has objected to a concession of 4 tricks, so the concession ist cancelled (L68B2) and there are no penalty cards. The information that S8 will win a trick is unauthorized, and the TD will have to decide whether, for this particular W, there is a logical alternative to playing S8. If there is not, it is 6NT-2. If there is, the ruling will preliminarily be 6NT-1. The TD will then have to consider the effect of dummy's irregularity for which there is no prescribed rectification. Under L12A1 he may then adjust the score to 6NT-2. And if the declaring side has claimed, the decision will be 6NT-2 as per L70A. So I always come to 6NT-2; but then I'm biased as that has been my table decision. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 21 10:56:47 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:56:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl><00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com><39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> Message-ID: <325AE4C0F3D24848A7FD4103BF87C5E7@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim we did the same in our french translation : "contestant" became "joueur" (player) we didn't think that's dummy can claim, he is a player ... so may be we have to change somthing in our next version ... Olivier Beauvillain > +=+ Dummy, however, is subject to the limitations in Law 43. For clarity and convenience this might perhaps have been reiterated in the claims law, but it applies anyway. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 21 11:19:54 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:19:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF6503A.6000506@ulb.ac.be> Jack Rhind a ?crit : > In an effort to get out from under all the semantics I will put my head int > he noose here and make a ruling as follows: > > 1. Dummy is not permitted to make a claim or any statement about the ability > to win or lose tricks during the play so there dummy as not claimed but has > violated the rules. > Stealing isn't allowed ; therefore, I broke the rules but didn't steal, Your Honor. How can one possibly argue that, because you're not allowed to do such-and-such, it's impossible that you did ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 21 11:23:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:23:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <65FB6DABE2954286AAA4485E3789E67D@Mildred> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be><002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF51FBE.6020006@ulb.ac.be> <65FB6DABE2954286AAA4485E3789E67D@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BF65118.1000002@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Incremental change will not do. It is time > for a wholesale, big bang approach" > ~ The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:40 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > > ton a ?crit : > >> ton: >> If you don't know how to rule, may be. But my approach towards >> dummy in this case doesn't make it probable that he will do it twice. >> >> > AG : well, that's not sure. Yesterday evening, I mentioned that dummy > was high -it was- and I'll do so later. But the important part is : > everybody at the table considered this as a claim. > < > +=+ What the players 'considered' is immaterial. > AG : nobody ever thought that dummy didn't claim ; that should at least be a hint that "dummy is not allowed to claim; therefore he didn't" is dubious. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 21 11:29:02 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:29:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> Message-ID: <4BF6525E.4040401@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [GE] > > I am primarily concerned with (and turn my attention to) what the laws > actually say - not what meaning we intended. > > [DALB] > > Well, what the Laws actually say is this: > > Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of > tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests > that play be curtailed. > > Now, I have very rarely in my life heard a claim by a contestant, because a > contestant is: > > in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as > partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing > as team-mates. > > Thus, the second sentence of the Law I have quoted above is nonsense, and > (as Konrad suggests) it is the kind of nonsense that could easily have been > eliminated by proof-readers or by logicians (assuming that the logicians did > not play bridge). > > The people who wrote that nonsense may well say "It is clear that when we > use the word 'contestant' in a sense wholly divorced from the definition we > ourselves have given of the word' contestant', what we obviously mean is... > well, let's say 'player', shall we?" They might then say, as Harald says, > "Dummy is not a 'player', so dummy cannot claim - problem solved!" > > But this is further nonsense, and again it could have been obviated had > logicians been present. This assertion: > > "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of > tricks is a claim of those tricks" > > means not only that dummy can claim, but that a spectator or a Vugraph > commentator can claim. True, it was "obviously" not intended to mean that, > but that is what it means. > > Faced with this kind of thing, the people in charge of the rules tend to > adopt the "this is obvious" defence. They should not, for most of the rules > that are rubbish were made before their time and can easily be remade to say > what those in charge want them to say. Konrad and I are happy to volunteer. > Anyone else? > > AG : present ! At least to ensure that the French translation will be faithful to the English text (modal auxiliaries, probability scales and so on). From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 21 11:35:29 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:35:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF653E1.8090406@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> But to look at this another way, I think most people do >> not enjoy playing against a convention they don't >> understand. >> > > Richard Hills: > > But to look at this another way, many Canberran bunnies > note the effectiveness of their opponents' Brown Sticker > Twos, so those Canberran bunnies therefore add such > Brown Sticker Twos to their own system cards. > > AG : that's indeed the way it works, but only in countries where you won't be chastised for deviating from The One System. And I dare say that in my own country this begins to be a tendency. Wedneday evening, my partner's 1NT opening on Qxx-KJ-Kx-AJ9xxx was reported to the TD, because "by definition, a NT opening shows a balanced hand". He rejected the objection, of course, but it shows how The One Thought works. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 21 11:38:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:38:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> <39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BF6547F.8090407@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > [DALB] > > Well, what the Laws actually say is this: > > Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number > of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he > suggests that play be curtailed. > Now, I have very rarely in my life heard a claim by a contestant, because > a contestant is: in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two > players > playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more > players playing as team-mates. > Thus, the second sentence of the Law I have quoted above is nonsense > << > << > +=+ Yes. The wording was introduced by Kaplan in 1987 and not changed > in 1997 or 2007. On the latter occasion the view was "if it ain't broke > don't fix it". This may have been because logic appeared to require that > 'contestant', being linked to 'he', must be a player of those constituting a > contestant. > It may be of interest to note that the aborted rewrite of the laws > that I sought to persuade colleagues to adopt (set aside in 2005 when > the ACBL would only accept 'incremental' changes in the Laws) did not > use 'contestant' in the claims laws. This is illustrated by two extracts:: > > "Any statement made by a player prior to the completion of the play > of a deal to the effect that his side will win a specific number of tricks > is a claim of those tricks. A player also claims when he suggests that > play be curtailed or when he shows his cards (unless the Director is > wholly satisfied that the player did not intend to claim). " > AG : this suits me fine. Notice that according to this texts, it isn't theoretically impossible for dummy to claim (although it is disallowed, of course), since dummy still is a player. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 21 11:45:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:45:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com><004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> <4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be> <141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <4BF65626.1040007@ulb.ac.be> olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > very old english lesson, may be i am wrong : > may = you are allowed to do so > can = you physically are able to do it > ex : you may not kill somebody (your partner???) but you can kill him > must = you may not do something else : you must let him live > in french, always "pouvoir" : je ne peux pas tuer mon partenaire, mais je > peux le tuer, oups!!! et je dois le laisser vivre (ouf) > AG : only in French from France ; in Belgium 'je sais le tuer'. I've always felt that the few vocabulary differences between France and Belgium created more clarity on Belgium's side (in fact , most of them are archaisms from a time when intelligible speech was highly praised). > so dummy may not claim (not allowed) but he can (just has to speak ...) > in L31A2a > partner may not bid, must pass ... but he still can peek-up a bid-card > new > irregularity > AG : aye. So in the case under scrutiny dummy has indeed claimed. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 21 11:46:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:46:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <325AE4C0F3D24848A7FD4103BF87C5E7@Mildred> References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl><00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com><39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> <325AE4C0F3D24848A7FD4103BF87C5E7@Mildred> Message-ID: <4BF65691.40501@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Incremental change will not do. It is time > for a wholesale, big bang approach" > ~ The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "olivier.beauvillain" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:44 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > > we did the same in our french translation : > "contestant" became "joueur" (player) > we didn't think that's dummy can claim, > he is a player ... > so may be we have to change somthing in our next version ... > Olivier Beauvillain > > +=+ Dummy, however, is subject to the limitations in > Law 43. For clarity and convenience this might perhaps > have been reiterated in the claims law, but it applies > anyway. AG : dummy may not ask about the bidding, but sometimes he does. Dummy may not claim, but sometimes he does. What's the difference ? From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri May 21 12:07:04 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:07:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF6503A.6000506@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BF6503A.6000506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002601caf8cd$5e1ea050$1a5be0f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Alain: How can one possibly argue that, because you're not allowed to do such-and-such, it's impossible that you did ? ton: That is not what I (try to) say. If a claim is an action that has to be made by either the declarer or a defender then dummy cannot claim ( after which 'may' is not an issue). Don't you agree? Now the question arises whether the laws in one way or another define a claim as such. Imo they do implicitly. When you read L42 it tells in detail what dummy is allowed to do. Which leads to the definition for a claim as stated above. Let me give another example: read L45C4(a): 'a card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play'. Does this mean that dummy can force the play of a card. It says so, isn't it? No he CAN not. But we have to read other laws for that conclusion. And I wish all those who think that they can improve the laws by implementing more logic a lot of success, but I very much doubt the result. It will result into something unreadable, in which the amount of mistakes and failures will be multiplied by a factor much bigger than 2. One of the things why mankind has made some progress is that we are not robots and are able (at least some of us) to use our brains. ton From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri May 21 14:19:07 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:19:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF65626.1040007@ulb.ac.be> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com><004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> <4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be><141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> <4BF65626.1040007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1095AA09D4314BE88FDB7CB9BE1383E3@PCdeOlivier> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > very old english lesson, may be i am wrong : > may = you are allowed to do so > can = you physically are able to do it > ex : you may not kill somebody (your partner???) but you can kill him > must = you may not do something else : you must let him live > in french, always "pouvoir" : je ne peux pas tuer mon partenaire, mais je > peux le tuer, oups!!! et je dois le laisser vivre (ouf) > AG : only in French from France ; in Belgium 'je sais le tuer'. I've always felt that the few vocabulary differences between France and Belgium created more clarity on Belgium's side (in fact , most of them are archaisms from a time when intelligible speech was highly praised). OB : Yes, i agree, and Canadian'french is better sometimes too ... > so dummy may not claim (not allowed) but he can (just has to speak ...) > in L31A2a > partner may not bid, must pass ... but he still can peek-up a bid-card > > new > irregularity > AG : aye. So in the case under scrutiny dummy has indeed claimed. OB : yes, he claimed but was not authorized to do so ... _______________________________________________ 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 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 21 14:36:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:36:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <1095AA09D4314BE88FDB7CB9BE1383E3@PCdeOlivier> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com><004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> <4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be><141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> <4BF65626.1040007@ulb.ac.be> <1095AA09D4314BE88FDB7CB9BE1383E3@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <4BF67E46.2000401@ulb.ac.be> olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:45 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > > > olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > >> very old english lesson, may be i am wrong : >> may = you are allowed to do so >> can = you physically are able to do it >> ex : you may not kill somebody (your partner???) but you can kill him >> must = you may not do something else : you must let him live >> in french, always "pouvoir" : je ne peux pas tuer mon partenaire, mais je >> peux le tuer, oups!!! et je dois le laisser vivre (ouf) >> >> > AG : only in French from France ; in Belgium 'je sais le tuer'. I've > always felt that the few vocabulary differences between France and > Belgium created more clarity on Belgium's side (in fact , most of them > are archaisms from a time when intelligible speech was highly praised). > > OB : Yes, i agree, and Canadian'french is better sometimes too ... > > > >> so dummy may not claim (not allowed) but he can (just has to speak ...) >> in L31A2a >> partner may not bid, must pass ... but he still can peek-up a bid-card > >> new >> irregularity >> >> > AG : aye. So in the case under scrutiny dummy has indeed claimed. > OB : yes, he claimed but was not authorized to do so ... > Tiens, encore un faux ami. "Authorized" = autoris?, comme dans "avis autoris?". Sinon, "allowed". From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri May 21 14:48:22 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 13:48:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF6503A.6000506@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BF6503A.6000506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001caf8e3$e5a12b90$b0e382b0$@com> [AG] How can one possibly argue that, because you're not allowed to do such-and-such, it's impossible that you did? [DALB] Palmstr?m, etwas schon an Jahren, wird an einer Stra?enbeuge und von einem Kraftfahrzeuge ?berfahren. Wie war (spricht er, sich erhebend und entschlossen weiterlebend) m?glich, wie dies Ungl?ck, ja - da? es ?berhaupt geschah? Ist die Staatskunst anzuklagen in Bezug auf Kraftfahrwagen? Gab die Polizeivorschrift hier dem Fahrer freie Trift? Oder war vielmehr verboten hier Lebendige zu Toten umzuwandeln - kurz und schlicht: Durfte hier der Kutscher nicht? Eingeh?llt in feuchte T?cher, pr?ft er die Gesetzesb?cher und ist alsobald im klaren: Wagen durften dort nicht fahren! Und er kommt zu dem Ergebnis: Nur ein Traum war das Erlebnis. Weil, so schlie?t er messerscharf, nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf. Christian Morgenstern, Die unm?gliche Tatsache For the very few on this list who are not fluent in seventeen languages, I append a rough and ready translation: The Impossible Fact Palmstr?m, getting on a bit, walking slowly without fuss, is on a bend and by a bus suddenly hit. "How is it" (he exclaims anon while resolutely living on) "possible that such a fall could ever have occurred at all? Did the state administration fail in terms of transportation? Did some edict of police let drivers go just where they please? Or was it there prohibited to change the living to the dead? Cutting swiftly to the chase - had the driver there no place? Head engulfed in dampened tissues, he pursues the legal issues till all at once is clear as day - cars had there no right of way! And he comes to the conclusion: his mishap was an illusion. "For", he argues trenchantly, "what's not permitted cannot be." David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 21 15:24:59 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:24:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Golf. Message-ID: <288F76C4159E449F9E0732005EC33022@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> Message-ID: On May 20, 2010, at 6:14 PM, David Burn wrote: > Faced with this kind of thing, the people in charge of the rules > tend to > adopt the "this is obvious" defence. They should not, for most of > the rules > that are rubbish were made before their time and can easily be > remade to say > what those in charge want them to say. Konrad and I are happy to > volunteer. > Anyone else? I'd be delighted. But it can only work if the next Drafting Committee is willing to release its pertinacious grip on the text prior to finalizing it and casting it in concrete. And I'm confident that if they were, they'd have no shortage of volunteers. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 21 15:52:34 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:52:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com><004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> <4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be> <141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: On May 21, 2010, at 3:32 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: > very old english lesson, may be i am wrong : > may = you are allowed to do so > can = you physically are able to do it > ex : you may not kill somebody (your partner???) but you can kill him > must = you may not do something else : you must let him live > in french, always "pouvoir" : je ne peux pas tuer mon partenaire, > mais je > peux le tuer, oups!!! et je dois le laisser vivre (ouf), > so dummy may not claim (not allowed) but he can (just has to > speak ...) Not clear; indeed, that's the substance of the question at issue. If dummy "may not" claim but "can" claim, we are faced with the problem of adjudicating an illegally made claim, which is a matter for the laws pertaining to adjudicating claims. But if dummy (per the laws) "cannot" claim then nothing dummy says can be taken as a claim, however closely it might resemble one, and it becomes a matter for the laws pertaining to improper information being conveyed by dummy to declarer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 21 16:00:35 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:00:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF6503A.6000506@ulb.ac.be> References: <4BF6503A.6000506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8A6E836A-B280-4D37-97C7-A75605A83A77@starpower.net> On May 21, 2010, at 5:19 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > How can one possibly argue that, because you're not allowed to do > such-and-such, it's impossible that you did ? It's really very easy, if you control the definition of "such-and-such". You're not allowed to commit murder. But, if Her Majesty's government grants you a double-0 license to kill at will, it becomes impossible to commit murder. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri May 21 16:13:40 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:13:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com><004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be><4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be><141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <28B6D62A25F242D4A185131D21FF56A0@PCdeOlivier> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > On May 21, 2010, at 3:32 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: > >> very old english lesson, may be i am wrong : >> may = you are allowed to do so >> can = you physically are able to do it >> ex : you may not kill somebody (your partner???) but you can kill him >> must = you may not do something else : you must let him live >> in french, always "pouvoir" : je ne peux pas tuer mon partenaire, >> mais je >> peux le tuer, oups!!! et je dois le laisser vivre (ouf), >> so dummy may not claim (not allowed) but he can (just has to >> speak ...) > > Not clear; indeed, that's the substance of the question at issue. If > dummy "may not" claim but "can" claim, we are faced with the problem > of adjudicating an illegally made claim, which is a matter for the > laws pertaining to adjudicating claims. But if dummy (per the laws) > "cannot" claim then nothing dummy says can be taken as a claim, > however closely it might resemble one, and it becomes a matter for > the laws pertaining to improper information being conveyed by dummy > to declarer. You "may not" play/lead out of turn, but you can, You "may not" made an insufficient bid, but you can, we have Laws to tell us what to do if this happen and opponent may cover your irregularity or accept it if the Law tells so Dummy"may not" interfer the play, but he can, you can't prevent him from speaking-doing forbidden things We need to know how to rule... and do the same ruling everywhere! Olivier Beauvillain > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ 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 ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 21 16:23:17 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:23:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF6547F.8090407@ulb.ac.be> References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> <39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> <4BF6547F.8090407@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <37C34B55-A153-4D6F-935E-890A213E6975@starpower.net> On May 21, 2010, at 5:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : > >> "Any statement made by a player prior to the completion of the play >> of a deal to the effect that his side will win a specific number >> of tricks >> is a claim of those tricks. A player also claims when he suggests >> that >> play be curtailed or when he shows his cards (unless the Director is >> wholly satisfied that the player did not intend to claim). " > > AG : this suits me fine. Notice that according to this texts, it isn't > theoretically impossible for dummy to claim (although it is > disallowed, > of course), since dummy still is a player. Notice also, however, that it is trivial to make it theoretically impossible; just substitute "declarer or either defender" for "a player". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 21 16:36:06 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:36:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <4BF65691.40501@ulb.ac.be> References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl><00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com><39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> <325AE4C0F3D24848A7FD4103BF87C5E7@Mildred> <4BF65691.40501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <59948F81-904A-4352-B607-A0A64FB628A0@starpower.net> On May 21, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : dummy may not ask about the bidding, but sometimes he does. Dummy > may not claim, but sometimes he does. What's the difference ? The difference is that "claim" is a legal term of art which is defined in the context of and by the laws themselves, whereas "ask about the bidding" is plain English defined by the dictionary. When you control the defintiion of a word, you can make it imply whatever you want it to. You can't stop someone from "claiming" in the "dictionary sense", but can easily preclude him logically from "claiming" in the "bridge sense" -- your definition, your choice. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 21 16:45:11 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 15:45:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl><00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com><39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred> <325AE4C0F3D24848A7FD4103BF87C5E7@Mildred> <4BF65691.40501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0B1476687DBC451ABF645DCA15A4C72B@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Incremental change will not do. It is time > for a wholesale, big bang approach" > ~ The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "olivier.beauvillain" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:44 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > > we did the same in our french translation : > "contestant" became "joueur" (player) > we didn't think that's dummy can claim, > he is a player ... > so may be we have to change somthing in our next version ... > Olivier Beauvillain > > +=+ Dummy, however, is subject to the limitations in > Law 43. For clarity and convenience this might perhaps > have been reiterated in the claims law, but it applies > anyway. AG : dummy may not ask about the bidding, but sometimes he does. Dummy may not claim, but sometimes he does. What's the difference ? +=+ Ton, of course, is making the right noises in regard to this and other aspects of the discussion. "'Extraneous : not part of the lawful procedures of the game" (definitions). A claim by dummy is a rumour in the wind. It is extraneous because dummy's limitations make it unlawful for him to participate in the play and unlawful for him to communicate anything about the play to declarer. It may give rise to sanctions under Law 16B as well as under Law 43B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 21 17:09:00 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:09:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <28B6D62A25F242D4A185131D21FF56A0@PCdeOlivier> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com><004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be><4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be><141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> <28B6D62A25F242D4A185131D21FF56A0@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: On May 21, 2010, at 10:13 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On May 21, 2010, at 3:32 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: >> >>> very old english lesson, may be i am wrong : >>> may = you are allowed to do so >>> can = you physically are able to do it >>> ex : you may not kill somebody (your partner???) but you can kill >>> him >>> must = you may not do something else : you must let him live >>> in french, always "pouvoir" : je ne peux pas tuer mon partenaire, >>> mais je >>> peux le tuer, oups!!! et je dois le laisser vivre (ouf), >>> so dummy may not claim (not allowed) but he can (just has to >>> speak ...) >> >> Not clear; indeed, that's the substance of the question at issue. If >> dummy "may not" claim but "can" claim, we are faced with the problem >> of adjudicating an illegally made claim, which is a matter for the >> laws pertaining to adjudicating claims. But if dummy (per the laws) >> "cannot" claim then nothing dummy says can be taken as a claim, >> however closely it might resemble one, and it becomes a matter for >> the laws pertaining to improper information being conveyed by dummy >> to declarer. > > You "may not" play/lead out of turn, but you can, > You "may not" made an insufficient bid, but you can, > we have Laws to tell us what to do if this happen > and opponent may cover your irregularity or accept it if the Law > tells so > > Dummy"may not" interfer the play, but he can, you can't prevent him > from > speaking-doing forbidden things > We need to know how to rule... and do the same ruling everywhere! Exactly right. Dummy *has* done something he "may not", so there is definitely an irregularity. What we need to know is what is it he has "irregularly" done, and that depends on how TFLB defines a claim. If he has illegally "claimed", go to Chapter VI Part V ("Claims and Concessions"). If he has illegally "interfered with the play", go to Chapter VI Part I Section One, L42-43 ("Dummy's Rights/ Limitations"). So the question here is how TFLB defines a claim. Decide that, and we will know how to rule. The problem, as David Burn has shown, is that a plain English reading of "how TFLB defines a claim" yields logical nonsense, so we are stuck trying to decide what someone thought it was supposed to mean. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 22 01:53:25 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 19:53:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <28B6D62A25F242D4A185131D21FF56A0@PCdeOlivier> References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com> <004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> <4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be> <141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> <28B6D62A25F242D4A185131D21FF56A0@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: Declarer comes down to K10x opposite AJx in a suit. He leads from hand, thinks, and dummy spontaneously plays the jack, covered by the queen. The play of the jack is withdrawn, declarer plays the ace and finesses the queen on the way back. Or dummy spontaneously leads a card and the defense follows giving declarer useful information. How about (1) dummy's action is "withdrawn", (2) any subsequent actions by the defense are also withdrawn, and (3) those action by the defense become AI to the defense and UI to declarer. So any claim by dummy is withdrawn, accepting or not accepting the claim is withdrawn, and anything discussed with regard to the claim is UI to declarer and AI to the defense. Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 3:52 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim > > >> >> On May 21, 2010, at 3:32 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: >> >>> very old english lesson, may be i am wrong : >>> may = you are allowed to do so >>> can = you physically are able to do it >>> ex : you may not kill somebody (your partner???) but you can kill him >>> must = you may not do something else : you must let him live >>> in french, always "pouvoir" : je ne peux pas tuer mon partenaire, >>> mais je >>> peux le tuer, oups!!! et je dois le laisser vivre (ouf), >>> so dummy may not claim (not allowed) but he can (just has to >>> speak ...) >> >> Not clear; indeed, that's the substance of the question at issue. If >> dummy "may not" claim but "can" claim, we are faced with the problem >> of adjudicating an illegally made claim, which is a matter for the >> laws pertaining to adjudicating claims. But if dummy (per the laws) >> "cannot" claim then nothing dummy says can be taken as a claim, >> however closely it might resemble one, and it becomes a matter for >> the laws pertaining to improper information being conveyed by dummy >> to declarer. > > You "may not" play/lead out of turn, but you can, > You "may not" made an insufficient bid, but you can, > we have Laws to tell us what to do if this happen > and opponent may cover your irregularity or accept it if the Law tells so > > Dummy"may not" interfer the play, but he can, you can't prevent him from > speaking-doing forbidden things > We need to know how to rule... and do the same ruling everywhere! > Olivier Beauvillain >> >> >> Eric Landau >> 1107 Dale Drive >> Silver Spring MD 20910 >> ehaa at starpower.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la >> base >> des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________ >> >> Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 21 17:40:44 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:40:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com><39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred><4BF6547F.8090407@ulb.ac.be> <37C34B55-A153-4D6F-935E-890A213E6975@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim On May 21, 2010, at 5:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : > >> "Any statement made by a player prior to the completion of the play >> of a deal to the effect that his side will win a specific number >> of tricks >> is a claim of those tricks. A player also claims when he suggests >> that >> play be curtailed or when he shows his cards (unless the Director is >> wholly satisfied that the player did not intend to claim). " > > AG : this suits me fine. Notice that according to this texts, it isn't > theoretically impossible for dummy to claim (although it is > disallowed, > of course), since dummy still is a player. Notice also, however, that it is trivial to make it theoretically impossible; just substitute "declarer or either defender" for "a player". +=+ Yes. And since the text was a work in progress who knows whether we might have got there. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sat May 22 14:05:45 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com><39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred><4BF6547F.8090407@ulb.ac.be><37C34B55-A153-4D6F-935E-890A213E6975@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1274529945.17376.1376364443@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:40 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: > > since the text was a work in progress who > knows whether we might have got there. If this is step 1 toward endorsing David Burn's proposal in principle: bravo. David From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat May 22 15:58:42 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 15:58:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> Message-ID: <000301caf9b6$e418e000$ac4aa000$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Mister Burn: Konrad and I are happy to > volunteer. > Anyone else? I'd be delighted. But it can only work if the next Drafting Committee is willing to release its pertinacious grip on the text prior to finalizing it and casting it in concrete. And I'm confident that if they were, they'd have no shortage of volunteers. Eric Landau ton: At last we got rid of 'acquiescence' in the laws. Does anybody think that we are waiting for a member of the drafting committee using 'pertinacious' in a text meant to communicate? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat May 22 16:13:59 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 07:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com><39269BEDAE6746D9991B8EA0501CCD1D@Mildred><4BF6547F.8090407@ulb.ac.be> <37C34B55-A153-4D6F-935E-890A213E6975@starpower.net> Message-ID: <436055.9060.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Yes. And since the text was a work in progress who knows whether we might have got there. [Nigel] I would like the laws of Bridge to be simplified and unified; arguably, for such *drastic* changes it is reasonable to wait a decade between revisions. Here, however, we are discussing *minor* changes to rectify small mistakes or to improve clarity. These should be implemented immediately and in place, in the law book. Anticipating the usual quibbles: 1. In theory there is a multi-copyright problem (WBF, ACBL, Portland Club, Uncle Tom Cobley and all). In practice, I'm sure that all these bodies have the interests of Bridge and Bridge players at heart, so none would object to minor corrections. 2. NBAs wouldn't mind because the WBF already encourages them to concoct daft variations, whenever the whim takes them. 3. In the age of the internet, it suffices that a master web edition is continuously kept up to date on the WBF site, mirrored on NBA sites. A director could consult it on a hand-held device (phone, pad, or whatever). Or update hardcopy from the web edition. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat May 22 18:58:46 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 08:58:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <9D21A081C0EF4AC0AE955FCD6F39242B@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > Daylight Stratified Open Pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > T52 > QT96543 > 983 > --- > > So you, South, elect to respond with a weak jump to 2H. > > The bidding continued: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 2H (1) > Pass 3H Pass(2) ? > > (1) Your 2H was initially not alerted by partner. > > (2) East foolishly enquired about the meaning of 2H. > > Partner responded that 2H was natural and game-forcing. > > But then partner noticed that she had not opened 1S, > but had rather opened 1D. So partner now explained > that your 2H jump response promised 5 spades, 4 hearts > and 5-9 hcp (which in fact is the convention written on > your partnership's System Cards). > > You have multiple UI from partner. > > UI demonstrably suggesting that bidding is correct is that > partner believed at the time her 3H bid was forcing. > > UI demonstrably suggesting that passing is correct is that > partner now thinks you hold 5 spades, so raising to 4H may > see partner converting to a ridiculous 4S in a non-fit. > > What is your legal logical alternative? 4H The first UI is irrelevant after partner changes her explanation. I didn't hear the second UI behind the virtual screen and I would normally accept the game try in hearts because of the diamond "fit." However, with passing suggested by the second UI I do not take that LA (not an LA for me, but for a substantial number of my peers). There is a popular belief out there that you should just pass 3H and let the TD/AC decide the matter. That violates L16B1(a), which says you should adjudicate the matter yourself before acting. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at tameware.com Sun May 23 23:51:35 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 17:51:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Reno NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Reno2010.html > > If you want to discuss a particular case please include the case > number in the Subject: line and indicate whether it's an NABC+ or > Non-NABC+ case. > > Panelist comments are not yet posted because for the most part they > have not yet been written! Here are my draft comments: ??http://bit.ly/reno_nabc_plus_aw ??http://bit.ly/reno_non_nabc_plus_aw As always, comments, suggestions, and corrections are welcome. Please remember to change the Subject: line. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 24 01:06:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:06:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BF653E1.8090406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Yes Minister, "Big Brother": Jim Hacker: Hello, Bernard? Yes, it's me. Look, I'm going to have to cancel tomorrow. Yes - Swansea, and Newcastle. Well, you see, it's my wife's wedding anniversary tomorrow. Annie Hacker: It's yours too! Jim Hacker: Yes, and mine too, actually. (listens) Yes, it is. What do you mean, coincidence? Don't be silly, Bernard. Anyway, I'm going to Paris tomorrow and that's final. Yes, I know I said before that it's final, but this time it is final. Well, you'll just have to cope as best you can, that's all. Yes. Yes? Definitely. Yes? Is that clear? Right. Annie Hacker: (delighted) We're going to Paris! Jim Hacker: No, I'm going to Swansea and Newcastle. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : that's indeed the way it works, but only in countries >where you won't be chastised for deviating from The One >System. > >And I dare say that in my own country this begins to be a >tendency. Wednesday evening, my partner's 1NT opening on Qxx- >KJ-Kx-AJ9xxx was reported to the TD, because "by definition, a >NT opening shows a balanced hand". He rejected the objection, >of course, but it shows how The One Thought works. Richard Hills: Why "of course"? Even in Australia, where Big Brother does not mandate a finally final One System To Rule Them All, there is still a requirement to Alert a natural 1NT if "its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect". (ABF Alert regulation, clause 3.2.2) So if Alain's opponents misdefended or misbid because they had not been fully informed of the nature of his partner's 1NT opening, then if I was Alain's TD I would "of course" adjust the score and apply a Law 90B7 PP to Alain's partnership. 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 May 24 02:37:18 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:37:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9D21A081C0EF4AC0AE955FCD6F39242B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: >>Daylight Stratified Open Pairs >>Dlr: North >>Vul: North-South >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1D Pass ? >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>T52 >>QT96543 >>983 >>--- >> >>So you, South, elect to respond with a weak jump to 2H. >> >>The bidding continued: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1D Pass 2H (1) >>Pass 3H Pass(2) ? >> >>(1) Your 2H was initially not alerted by partner. >> >>(2) East foolishly enquired about the meaning of 2H. >> >> Partner responded that 2H was natural and game- >> forcing. >> >> But then partner noticed that she had not opened 1S, >> but had rather opened 1D. So partner now explained >> that your 2H jump response promised 5 spades, 4 hearts >> and 5-9 hcp (which in fact is the convention written >> on your partnership's System Cards). >> >>You have multiple UI from partner. >> >>UI demonstrably suggesting that bidding is correct is that >>partner believed at the time her 3H bid was forcing. >> >>UI demonstrably suggesting that passing is correct is that >>partner now thinks you hold 5 spades, so raising to 4H may >>see partner converting to a ridiculous 4S in a non-fit. >> >>What is your legal logical alternative? Marvin French: >4H > >The first UI is irrelevant after partner changes her >explanation. Richard Hills: Incorrect. The first UI informs you that, at the time pard raised to 3H, pard thought that her 3H was game-forcing due to her thinking that your 2H was game-forcing. Plus the first UI tells you that partner may now change her mind and decide to play in spades if given the chance. Indeed, this she would do, holding at the table: J94 AKJ AJT7 A96 On the other hand, the first MI is irrelevant as MI, since partner immediately changed her explanation. Marvin French: >I didn't hear the second UI behind the virtual screen [snip] Richard Hills: Very incorrect. Both Marvin French and David Burn should be well aware by now that a player striving to obey Law 16B and Law 73C should not try to ignore UI by pretending that there was a "virtual screen". Rather, what is required by Law 73C is that a player should carefully listen to partner's UI, then take a contraindicated logical alternative (which may be a logical alternative that the player would never have selected in the absence of UI from partner). ACBL Appeal Panel, The Decision: "The panel determined that no incorrect information was given to E/W other than the original "natural, game-forcing" explanation, which was corrected immediately. South had forgotten their agreement (he only plays it with this partner) and North's explanation is consistent with her 3H bid (if she had realized, before she bid, what 2H was, she would have bid 2S, their 5-3 fit, or 3S not 3H, their 4-3 fit). While unfortunate, N/S committed no rules infraction; therefore, no adjustment is warranted. The appeal was judged to have merit." Richard Hills: Two errors by the appeal panel. Firstly, the panel forgot the Iron Rule that creation of MI necessarily involves creation of UI, so the panel should have read Law 75A. Law 75A, final sentence, adapted for current case: "For instance, if North rebids three hearts, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely shows a raise of a game-forcing two hearts; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values." In which case Marv's 4H bid is the right call for the wrong reason. On the other hand the Law 75A adaptation for the current case might be: "...to act as though North had made a preemptive raise of a weak response, requiring South to drop dead and Pass." In which case South's at-the-table Pass of 3H was correct. So the appeal panel erred in not enquiring about exactly what methods - drop-dead 3H or invite 3H - South plays in his other partnerships. Secondly the panel forgot about Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Examining the System Cards to confirm that the obscure convention was recorded there was a first step, but the appeal panel should have enquired how often in the past South had forgotten a convention he plays in no other partnership. If South had deviated often enough for North to have "more reason to be aware" that 2H might be a deviant weak jump response, then MI did exist, and the appeal panel should have considered awarding an adjusted score of 4C East-West +130. 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 May 24 03:36:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:36:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Web [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Solon (c.630 - c.555 BCE): "Laws are like spider's webs: if some poor weak creature come up against them, it is caught; but a bigger one can break through and get away." Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >3. In the age of the internet, it suffices that a master web >edition is continuously kept up to date on the WBF site, >mirrored on NBA sites. A director could consult it on a hand- >held device (phone, pad, or whatever). Or update hardcopy >from the web edition. EBU Law and Ethics Committee draft minutes 15th April 2010: 2.3 Matters arising 2.3.1 White Book revision (2.3.3) The revised edition was now available from the EBU website. Mr Stevenson reported that some changes had been made after the final deadline mainly to do with the spelling of quoted material. It was confirmed that changes to spelling and order of words was permitted providing the context remained unaltered. There were still some issues relating to the index, the contents and reformatting. It was agreed to make corrections and provide an updated edition in time for August 1st. There remained the issue of hard copies and several TDs on the committee would have liked their own edition in hard copy but 224 pages were excessive to print on a domestic printer. It was suggested that a dedicated computer could be available at events with all the reference books on it, but having it on scoring computers was not an ideal solution. The secretary had obtained a quote for the printing of 500 but that would go against the idea of easy changes to an on-line only version. It was agreed to ask panel TDs at the Panel Weekend in October for their preferences and in any case no hard-printed copies would be obtained before August. The discussion moved on the whether the White Book (Orange Book and Tangerine Book) should remain in the open domain on the website under the new Universal Membership scheme. Some members expressed views that the WB should be freely available while the OB and TB should go "behind the wall" for members only while a counter view suggested the OB and TB should be freely available but the WB go behind the wall. The view from both Mr Endicott and Mr Stevenson was that the WB was a valuable addition to other NBOs many of whom had nothing like it in their own countries. The Committee expressed a preference that all three publications (WB, OB and TB) remain freely available but there were some who strongly disagreed - items produced involving expenditure should no longer be available to non-members or non-affiliated clubs. One member said that any attempt to restrict access would be futile and to try to restrict it would be unpoliceable. Nevertheless it was agreed that it was a Board decision. 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 May 24 07:34:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:34:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nanny McPhee: "I have five lessons to teach. What lessons they learn is entirely up to them." Robert Frick: >Declarer comes down to K10x opposite AJx in a suit. He >leads from hand, thinks, and dummy spontaneously plays >the jack, covered by the queen. The play of the jack is >withdrawn, declarer plays the ace and finesses the queen >on the way back. > >Or dummy spontaneously leads a card and the defence >follows giving declarer useful information. > >How about (1) dummy's action is "withdrawn", (2) any >subsequent actions by the defence are also withdrawn, >and (3) those action by the defence become AI to the >defence and UI to declarer. > >So any claim by dummy is withdrawn, accepting or not >accepting the claim is withdrawn, and anything discussed >with regard to the claim is UI to declarer and AI to the >defence. Richard Hills: It is unclear whether Bob's posting is either (a) proposing changes to the 2018 Lawbook, or (b) suggesting "practical" but unLawful uses of the 2007 Lawbook, or (c) intended by Bob to be very Lawful interpretations of the 2007 Lawbook. I do not intend to discuss (a) because of de gustibus non est disputandum. It is futile to discuss (b). But as for (c), I have five lessons to teach. Lesson One, Read The Fabulous Law Book: Whether it is declarer or dummy perpetrating an Alcatraz Coup, in both cases the Director may and should use Law 23 to rectify any damage to the non-offending side. Lesson Two, Read The Fabulous Law Book: Law 45D specifies that dummy's unLawfully played card is not withdrawn if both sides have played to the next trick. But, of course, since dummy's unilateral play is still an infraction, Law 23 may still apply if the defenders are damaged. Lesson Three, Read The Fabulous Law Book: If the defence cards are withdrawn within the Law 45D time limit, then Law 45D thoughtfully contains a cross- reference to Law 16D. Lesson Four, Read The Fabulous Law Book: A claim is not playing a card (indeed a claim signals the cessation of playing cards), so Law 45D does not apply to an alleged "claim" by dummy. Lesson Five, RTFLB & Read The WBF Laws Committee Minutes: The 2009 WBF LC minutes firmly established "the principle that a specific law overrides a general law". The general Law about dummy's limitations is Law 43. However, the specific Law 45D over-rides the general Law 43 when it comes resolving the infraction caused by dummy exceeding her limitations and unilaterally playing a card. But there is not any specific Law over-riding Law 43 when it comes to resolving the infraction of an alleged "claim" by dummy. Hence dummy cannot "claim", so a non- claim by dummy cannot be withdrawn, since the "claim" did not exist in the first place (thus some subsequent actions by the defence may be UI to their side and AI to declarer). Christian Morgenstern, as quoted by David Burn: [snip] And he comes to the conclusion: his mishap was an illusion. "For", he argues trenchantly, "what's not permitted cannot be." Richard Hills: Ton and Grattan et al are not arguing that the "mishap was an illusion"; we are instead arguing that the mishap was not an infraction of the claim Laws, but rather an infraction of Law 43A1(c). Note that if the "claiming" dummy is later the first to observe that a defender has exposed some or all of her cards, then that defender's cards no longer become penalty cards due to Law 43B3: "If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, there is no rectification. Play continues as though no irregularity had occurred. At the end of play see Law 12B1." 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 May 24 08:06:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:06:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odd Trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>I'd be delighted. But it can only work if the next Drafting >>Committee is willing to release its pertinacious grip on the >>text prior to finalizing it and casting it in concrete. And >>I'm confident that if they were, they'd have no shortage of >>volunteers. Ton Kooijman: >At last we got rid of 'acquiescence' in the laws. Does >anybody think that we are waiting for a member of the >drafting committee using 'pertinacious' in a text meant to >communicate? Pocket Oxford Dictionary: pertinacious, a. Persistent, sticking to a point or course. Richard Hills: I may be pertinacious in my persiflage, but it is an odd trick for obsolete phrases such as Odd Trick to be embedded in a text meant to communicate. 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 May 24 10:54:12 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:54:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Odd Trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <5DFF954ABA6346E5A5E0DC3FB46188A7@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 7:06 AM Subject: [BLML] Odd Trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Eric Landau: > >>>I'd be delighted. But it can only work if the next Drafting >>>Committee is willing to release its pertinacious grip on the >>>text prior to finalizing it and casting it in concrete. And >>>I'm confident that if they were, they'd have no shortage of >>>volunteers. > > Ton Kooijman: > >>At last we got rid of 'acquiescence' in the laws. Does >>anybody think that we are waiting for a member of the >>drafting committee using 'pertinacious' in a text meant to >>communicate? > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > pertinacious, a. Persistent, sticking to a point or course. > > Richard Hills: > > I may be pertinacious in my persiflage, but it is an odd trick > for obsolete phrases such as Odd Trick to be embedded in a > text meant to communicate. > +=+ My view is that the hurdle to be jumped is that people are comfortable with old wording that they have interpreted and with which they are at ease, notwithstanding that it may present difficulties for the uninitiated. There is no lack of talent in the Drafting Committee, from the Chairman down, if words are wanted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 24 15:10:53 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:10:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Proofreading ( was:a new sort of claim) In-Reply-To: <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> Message-ID: <4BFA7ADD.3030601@t-online.de> David Burn schrieb: > Faced with this kind of thing, the people in charge of the rules tend to > adopt the "this is obvious" defence. They should not, for most of the rules > that are rubbish were made before their time and can easily be remade to say > what those in charge want them to say. Konrad and I are happy to volunteer. > Anyone else? > > David Burn > London, England > I would even go a step further. My proposal: Set up a couple of groups over the internet, each with a group leader, moderator, whatever. Maybe even do it as a closed forum or something. Be sure that each group contains people with different mother languages. British/American/Australian etc counts as different for me, but each group should contain several non-native speakers of English. A couple of non-players should help, too. Run the proposed new laws by them. Each member independently paraphrases the text, moderator gets the results and processes differences. Possibly discussion why there are differences in understanding. Moderator reports to next gremium. This should take care of most translation difficulties, too. And yes, I would be in. Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 24 15:12:22 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:12:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: <000001caf8e3$e5a12b90$b0e382b0$@com> References: <4BF6503A.6000506@ulb.ac.be> <000001caf8e3$e5a12b90$b0e382b0$@com> Message-ID: <4BFA7B36.6060809@t-online.de> David Burn schrieb: > Palmstr?m, etwas schon an Jahren, Brilliant translation. Any idea who did it? Best regards Matthias From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 24 15:41:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:41:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim In-Reply-To: References: <1OEjd2-03kMKG0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000001caf768$589241c0$09b6c540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF4DF9C.2040404@skynet.be> <002101caf80e$70e532e0$52af98a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1274356619.22040.1376033329@webmail.messagingengine.com> <004401caf82d$fe200ad0$fa602070$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4BF556E3.3030007@ulb.ac.be> <4BF5653F.8090309@ulb.ac.be> <141AB86B4882445FB94F079CCA636A23@PCdeOlivier> <28B6D62A25F242D4A185131D21FF56A0@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <3E712294-B3BA-4803-87B4-C77C50A4073D@starpower.net> On May 21, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer comes down to K10x opposite AJx in a suit. He leads from > hand, > thinks, and dummy spontaneously plays the jack, covered by the > queen. The > play of the jack is withdrawn, declarer plays the ace and finesses the > queen on the way back. > > Or dummy spontaneously leads a card and the defense follows giving > declarer useful information. > > How about (1) dummy's action is "withdrawn", (2) any subsequent > actions by > the defense are also withdrawn, and (3) those action by the defense > become > AI to the defense and UI to declarer. > > So any claim by dummy is withdrawn, accepting or not accepting the > claim > is withdrawn, and anything discussed with regard to the claim is UI to > declarer and AI to the defense. Seems reasonable, but why use the word "claim" when the laws on claims are irrelevant to the intent of the clarification? Why not "So any violation of L43A1(c)..."? If we're not going to treat an attempt by dummy to claim as a "claim", why call it one? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Mon May 24 16:08:52 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proofreading ( was:a new sort of claim) In-Reply-To: <4BFA7ADD.3030601@t-online.de> References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> <4BFA7ADD.3030601@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001cafb4a$a48c99f0$eda5cdd0$@com> Matthias wrote: I would even go a step further. My proposal: Set up a couple of groups over the internet, each with a group leader, moderator, whatever. Maybe even do it as a closed forum or something. Be sure that each group contains people with different mother languages. British/American/Australian etc counts as different for me, but each group should contain several non-native speakers of English. A couple of non-players should help, too. Run the proposed new laws by them. Each member independently paraphrases the text, moderator gets the results and processes differences. Possibly discussion why there are differences in understanding. Moderator reports to next gremium. This should take care of most translation difficulties, too. And yes, I would be in. __________________________________________________________________________ I would also be in.... if useful... French Canadian, reading easily English and Spanish, retired ACBL TD. Having spent thousands on hours trying to translate law texts into logical charts, IMHO the problems are more related to the texts than to the laws themselves. The actual version should have be rewritten, changing order of many articles to put them in a more logical order, more suitable to cases as TDs live them when called to the table. Laval Du Breuil Quebec From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 24 17:22:00 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:22:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proofreading ( was:a new sort of claim) In-Reply-To: <4BFA7ADD.3030601@t-online.de> References: <20100520122155.58B101A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl> <00bb01caf869$dcf18230$96d48690$@com> <4BFA7ADD.3030601@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 May 2010 09:10:53 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > David Burn schrieb: > >> Faced with this kind of thing, the people in charge of the rules tend to >> adopt the "this is obvious" defence. They should not, for most of the >> rules >> that are rubbish were made before their time and can easily be remade >> to say >> what those in charge want them to say. Konrad and I are happy to >> volunteer. >> Anyone else? >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> > > I would even go a step further. My proposal: > > Set up a couple of groups over the internet, each with a group leader, > moderator, whatever. Maybe even do it as a closed forum or something. Be > sure that each group contains people with different mother languages. > British/American/Australian etc counts as different for me, but each > group should contain several non-native speakers of English. A couple of > non-players should help, too. > > Run the proposed new laws by them. Each member independently paraphrases > the text, moderator gets the results and processes differences. Possibly > discussion why there are differences in understanding. Moderator reports > to next gremium. > > This should take care of most translation difficulties, too. > > And yes, I would be in. > > Best regards > Matthias It is very obvious to me that any changes in the laws should be posted publicly where anyone can comment upon them. This taps into collective wisdom in finding potential problems with laws and suggesting improvements. It is just as obvious that this procedure should be started NOW, so that there is practice and experience in this process when it comes time to do the 2017 laws. Note, for example, serious problems in L16A, the claim laws, L64B7. Or that probably no one present realized that the Beijing revision of L20F1 applies to asking about insufficient bids. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 25 03:53:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:53:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Proofreading [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cafb4a$a48c99f0$eda5cdd0$@com> Message-ID: Laval Du Breuil: >I would also be in.... if useful... > >French Canadian, reading easily English and Spanish, retired >ACBL TD. > >Having spent thousands on hours trying to translate law texts >into logical charts, IMHO the problems are more related to the >texts than to the laws themselves. Richard Hills: A two-card ending discussed on blml some years ago -> Dummy KJ --- --- --- LHO RHO 5 AQ J --- --- --- --- --- Declarer 42 --- --- --- Declarer leads the spade deuce, LHO revokes by discarding the heart jack, the spade jack is played from dummy, and RHO has a fond belief that her spade queen wins the trick. However, LHO discovers her non-established revoke, so therefore subsitutes the spade five, with her heart jack to become a penalty card on trick thirteen. Under Law 62C1 declarer can withdraw dummy's spade jack. If declarer does so, under Law 62C2 RHO can withdraw the spade queen, which becomes a penalty card. Declarer decides to switch to playing dummy's spade king at trick twelve. Is RHO's spade queen a penalty card at trick twelve, or is the penalty card nature of the spade queen delayed to trick thirteen? The answer is in Law 47D, which states that for RHO "another card may be substituted", that is RHO may play the ace on dummy's king at trick twelve, with RHO's queen not becoming a penalty card until trick thirteen. Law 47D has a cross-reference to Law 62C2, but Law 62C2 does not have a cross-reference to Law 47D. A simple proofread of this anomaly would merely add the missing cross-reference. A more comprehensive proofread of this anomaly would require the vastly more difficult task of Laval Du Breuil >The actual version should have be rewritten, changing order of >many articles to put them in a more logical order, more >suitable to cases as TDs live them when called to the table. Richard Hills: that is, to fully correct this anomaly the Laws about non- established revokes and the Laws about penalty cards should all be relocated to form a subset of the Laws about withdrawn cards. A similar reorganisation of the Laws was attempted by Grattan Endicott and the Drafting Committee up to 2005. But one reason the task proved too difficult at that time was that the Drafting Committee was not merely attempting to rearrange the 1997 Lawbook, it was also simultaneously attempting to change some 1997 Laws into 2007 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue May 25 04:28:01 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 03:28:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a new sort of claim (completely off topic) In-Reply-To: <4BFA7B36.6060809@t-online.de> References: <4BF6503A.6000506@ulb.ac.be> <000001caf8e3$e5a12b90$b0e382b0$@com> <4BFA7B36.6060809@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000701cafbb1$e5c18a90$b1449fb0$@com> [DALB] > Palmstr?m, etwas schon an Jahren, [MB] Brilliant translation. Any idea who did it? [DALB] Why, thank you. I did most of it; the second stanza is my best recollection of an English version I read when I was about seven (and incapable of reading the German version at that time), but the rest is my own work. Some of it is, I see, similar to a translation by Max Knight that you can find here: http://www.jbeilharz.de/morgenstern/morgenstern_poems.html but this is not altogether surprising - there cannot be very many ways of translating certain stanzas, after all. Knight seems to me often to miss the mark by some way - Karl Ross's translation of "Das M?wenlied" (on the same page) is more the kind of thing. David Burn London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Tue May 25 05:18:32 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 23:18:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BFB4188.9000805@nhcc.net> On 5/20/2010 7:09 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > West attempts to concede the remaining tricks ... but East > immediately objects to West's concession, then use Law 68B2: ... > ...the fact that East has objected > to West's concession is UI to West. Huh? Where did you find that? Why doesn't L16A1c apply? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 25 06:33:51 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:33:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BFB4188.9000805@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Law 68B2, second sentence: "Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately." Richard Hills: >> ... West attempts to concede the remaining tricks ... but >>East immediately objects to West's concession, then use >>Law 68B2 ... the fact that East has objected to West's >>concession is UI to West ... Steve Willner: >Huh? Where did you find that? Why doesn't L16A1c apply? Law 16A1(c), bracketed phrase: "(but see B1 following)" Law 16B1(a), first and last phrases: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." John Osborne, "Look Back in Anger" (1956): "There aren't any good, brave causes left. If the big bang does come, and we all get killed off, it won't be in aid of the old-fashioned, grand design. It'll just be for the Brave New-nothing-very-much-thank-you. About as pointless and inglorious as stepping in front of a bus." Best wishes for good, brave causes (such as preventing use of UI from partner after conceding) 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 May 25 08:12:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:12:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The ACBL Director Ruling: It was determined that: 1. There was a BIT by West before the pass over 5C. 2. The BIT demonstrably suggested the double by East. 3. Pass by East is a logical alternative. Therefore, the contract was changed to 5C by South (no double) and the result to down two, N/S minus 100 and E/W + 100. The ACBL lack-of-natural-justice Appeal: E/W appealed and East and West were the only players to attend the review. E/W said that South did not hesitate (as required) before bidding 5C. West considered his call before passing to 5C but neither East nor West thought that West's BIT was long; 5-10 or 10-12 seconds. The ACBL Appeals Panel Decision: Since South did not pause any of the required 10 seconds, West was entitled to some amount of time. Therefore, the panel judged that there was no BIT and no infraction. The table contract of 5C doubled by South was restored with the result of down two. N/S minus 300 and E/W plus 300. Richard Hills: Why, at ACBL nationals, is it policy for the table TD to be excluded from giving testimony at appeals? And why, in all ACBL events, is it policy for Appeals Committees and Appeals Panels to restart the ruling from scratch? Is it not sensible for the ACBL to now adopt the Rest-Of-The-World approach of a default belief (until persuaded by new evidence) that the table TD got the ruling right the first time? And how can an ACBL Appeals Panel presume to over- rule an ACBL Director-at-the-table on a simple matter of fact best determined at the table? Or was the ACBL Appeals Panel implicitly deciding that the ACBL Director-at-the-table was incompetent at gathering all the facts? Perhaps the ACBL Appeals Panel was swayed by the non- appearance of North-South. In that case North-South were impaled on the horns of a Minotaur: (a) miss their dinner break to ensure that a completely meritless appeal by East-West gained the AWMW that it deserved, or (b) go to their dinner break, thus allowing East-West to state uncontested terminological inexactitudes. 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 May 25 09:26:49 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 23:26:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > > Why, at ACBL nationals, is it policy for the table TD > to be excluded from giving testimony at appeals? It is practice, but not policy. From the ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees: The Role of the Tournament Director -- As the first witness, he or she presents a complete statement of the facts, issues, applicable laws and available sanctions. -- After responding to any questions from the commitee members and parties, the Tournament Director may withdraw. The chairperson may and should recall the Tournament Director especially when more information is needed. In lieu of this policy, at NABCs an appeals form is filled out by the TD outlining all the pertinent information for the AC. The non-NABC+ appeals are conducted by a TD Panel, not by the formal AC body that conducts appeals for NABC+ cases. In neither case is the above policy followed. I'll let Adam explain that, since he is the Chairman of the AC for NABCs. In my experience the ACBL policy is followed at Regional and Sectional tournaments. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 25 20:10:16 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 20:10:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BFC1288.20707@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > >> AG : that's indeed the way it works, but only in countries >> where you won't be chastised for deviating from The One >> System. >> >> And I dare say that in my own country this begins to be a >> tendency. Wednesday evening, my partner's 1NT opening on Qxx- >> KJ-Kx-AJ9xxx was reported to the TD, because "by definition, a >> NT opening shows a balanced hand". He rejected the objection, >> of course, but it shows how The One Thought works. >> > > Richard Hills: > > Why "of course"? > Because, if my partner had decided this was a balanced hand - which is very understandable-, the fact that opponents don't agree with this judgment is irrelevant. But I intended to put the emphiasis on the word "definition", and say that it is not the right one to be used here ; "agreement" should have been used. > Even in Australia, where Big Brother does not mandate a finally > final One System To Rule Them All, there is still a requirement > to Alert a natural 1NT if "its meaning is affected by other > agreements AG : and ... do you think we had any "agreement that affected it" ? > So if Alain's opponents misdefended or misbid because they had > not been fully informed of the nature of his partner's 1NT > opening, AG :youy are wrong, totally wrong. They have to be informed of what the opening shows, not what my partner had. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 26 00:28:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:28:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BFC1288.20707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), Canadian/American economist: "The experience of being disastrously wrong is salutary; no economist should be denied it, and not many are." Richard Hills: [snip] >>So if Alain's opponents misdefended or misbid because they had >>not been fully informed of the nature of his partner's 1NT >>opening, [snip] Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >AG : You are wrong, totally wrong. They have to be informed of >what the opening shows, not what my partner had. Richard Hills: Alain is wrong, disastrously wrong. It is true that the opponents need only be informed of the Alain-partner pre- existing mutual partnership understandings, but not the actual cards held by Alain's partner. Law 75C - Mistaken Call - second sentence: "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." Richard Hills: But if I was Alain's Director, I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that Alain-partner were disastrously wrong in failing to disclose their partnership's Law 40C1 pre-existing mutual _implicit_ partnership understanding that Alain's partner would often deviate by opening 1NT with a 3-2-2-6 shape. Law 21B1(b) - Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Richard Hills: Of course, "evidence to contrary" would include Alain-partner demonstrating that not only was this Alain's first session with his current partner, but also that Alain was unaware of his new partner's 1NT opening style (e.g. Alain's partner was a first- time visitor to Belgium from Ruritania). 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 May 26 00:56:49 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:56:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (1) Stop card used. (2) No pause before 5C bid. (3) Break in tempo (BIT) agreed. 15 seconds maximum. The Facts: The director was called at the end of the auction and again after the play of the hand was completed. The facts are as above. Marvin French: [snip] >In lieu of this policy, at NABCs an appeals form is filled out >by the TD outlining all the pertinent information for the AC. [snip] Richard Hills: So were The Facts doctored afterwards by the Appeals Panel? If the table TD indeed ruled that South ignored East's stop card by bidding 5C immediately, then surely the table TD should have ruled that there was not any meaningful break in tempo by West. Either the table TD or the Appeals Panel (or both) were grossly incompetent. Which? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 26 02:13:59 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 20:13:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BFC67C7.4050909@nhcc.net> >>> ... West attempts to concede the remaining tricks ... but >>> East immediately objects to West's concession, then use >>> Law 68B2 ... the fact that East has objected to West's >>> concession is UI to West ... SW> ?!! On 5/25/2010 12:33 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 16B1(a), first and last phrases: > > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information So is that _petitio principii_, or is it a different fallacy? Yes, _if_ there is UI, there are consequences. The question on the table is _whether_ East's objection is UI or AI. L16A1c seems to say the objection is AI. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 26 02:28:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:28:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BFC67C7.4050909@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >So is that _petitio principii_, or is it a different fallacy? > >Yes, _if_ there is UI, there are consequences. The question >on the table is _whether_ East's objection is UI or AI. >L16A1c seems to say the objection is AI. Richard Hills: The operative word is "seems". Pocket Oxford Dictionary: but, prep. Except, without, outside of or apart from Richard Hills: Since Law 16A1(c) concludes with "but see B1 following", the specific Law 16B1 on Extraneous Information from Partner over- rides the more general Law 16A1(c) on Players' Use of Information. What's the petitio principii 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed May 26 08:47:55 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:47:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4BFC1288.20707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 26 May 2010 00:28, wrote: > John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), Canadian/American economist: > > "The experience of being disastrously wrong is salutary; no > economist should be denied it, and not many are." > > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > >>>So if Alain's opponents misdefended or misbid because they had >>>not been fully informed of the nature of his partner's 1NT >>>opening, > > [snip] > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >>AG : You are wrong, totally wrong. They have to be informed of >>what the opening shows, not what my partner had. > > Richard Hills: > > Alain is wrong, disastrously wrong. ?It is true that the > opponents need only be informed of the Alain-partner pre- > existing mutual partnership understandings, but not the actual > cards held by Alain's partner. > > Law 75C - Mistaken Call - second sentence: > > "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive > an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have > no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." > > Richard Hills: > > But if I was Alain's Director, I would be willing to bet dollars > to doughnuts that Alain-partner were disastrously wrong in > failing to disclose their partnership's Law 40C1 pre-existing > mutual _implicit_ partnership understanding that Alain's partner > would often deviate by opening 1NT with a 3-2-2-6 shape. Well, it's possible you have to disclose this down under. Up here (Norway), you won't, since 3-2-2-6 distribution fits nicely into our definition of a balanced hand. > > Law 21B1(b) - Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent: > > "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > > Richard Hills: > > Of course, "evidence to contrary" would include Alain-partner > demonstrating that not only was this Alain's first session with > his current partner, but also that Alain was unaware of his new > partner's 1NT opening style (e.g. Alain's partner was a first- > time visitor to Belgium from Ruritania). > > > 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 May 26 12:21:18 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:21:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Proofreading [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BFCF61E.20605@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Laval Du Breuil: > > >> I would also be in.... if useful... >> >> French Canadian, reading easily English and Spanish, retired >> ACBL TD. >> >> Having spent thousands on hours trying to translate law texts >> into logical charts, IMHO the problems are more related to the >> texts than to the laws themselves. >> > > Richard Hills: > > A two-card ending discussed on blml some years ago -> > > Dummy > KJ > --- > --- > --- > LHO RHO > 5 AQ > J --- > --- --- > --- --- > Declarer > 42 > --- > --- > --- > > Declarer leads the spade deuce, LHO revokes by discarding the > heart jack, the spade jack is played from dummy, and RHO has a > fond belief that her spade queen wins the trick. > > However, LHO discovers her non-established revoke, AG : is there such a thing as a revoke on trick 12 ? > so therefore > subsitutes the spade five, with her heart jack to become a > penalty card on trick thirteen. Under Law 62C1 declarer can > withdraw dummy's spade jack. If declarer does so, under Law > 62C2 RHO can withdraw the spade queen, which becomes a penalty > card. > > Declarer decides to switch to playing dummy's spade king at > trick twelve. Is RHO's spade queen a penalty card at trick > twelve, or is the penalty card nature of the spade queen > delayed to trick thirteen? > > The answer is in Law 47D, which states that for RHO "another > card may be substituted", that is RHO may play the ace on > dummy's king at trick twelve, with RHO's queen not becoming a > penalty card until trick thirteen. > AG : where is it written that it becomes a penalty card ? If a card may be legally substituted to a trick, then the withdrawn card wasn't illegally played. Can a legally played card become a penalty card ? (surely there is some law to explain this, it only means there will be one more cross-reference) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 26 12:38:23 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:38:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BFCFA1F.8010603@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > But if I was Alain's Director, I would be willing to bet dollars > to doughnuts that Alain-partner were disastrously wrong in > failing to disclose their partnership's Law 40C1 pre-existing > mutual _implicit_ partnership understanding that Alain's partner > would often deviate by opening 1NT with a 3-2-2-6 shape. > AG : you've lost dollars. No specific agreement, not a regular partnership, and the word "often" in your sentence is plain wrong (did you happen to look at the hand ?) BTW, this is so standard in our country (and in books) that it doesn't need any alert. And thanks for thinking I might be voluntarily retaining information. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 26 12:41:35 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:41:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4BFC1288.20707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BFCFADF.8040303@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> Richard Hills: >> >> But if I was Alain's Director, I would be willing to bet dollars >> to doughnuts that Alain-partner were disastrously wrong in >> failing to disclose their partnership's Law 40C1 pre-existing >> mutual _implicit_ partnership understanding that Alain's partner >> would often deviate by opening 1NT with a 3-2-2-6 shape. >> > > Well, it's possible you have to disclose this down under. > Up here (Norway), you won't, since 3-2-2-6 distribution fits nicely > into our definition of a balanced hand. > AG : at least that one does. >> Richard Hills: >> >> Of course, "evidence to contrary" would include Alain-partner >> demonstrating that not only was this Alain's first session with >> his current partner, but also that Alain was unaware of his new >> partner's 1NT opening style (e.g. Alain's partner was a first- >> time visitor to Belgium from Ruritania). >> AG : it is in fact the contrary. Everybody who has played in Brussels should know this is standard. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 26 14:54:57 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:54:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C5E1E14-11D7-4F79-95E7-61F260036192@starpower.net> On May 25, 2010, at 6:28 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), Canadian/American economist: > > "The experience of being disastrously wrong is salutary; no > economist should be denied it, and not many are." > > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > >>> So if Alain's opponents misdefended or misbid because they had >>> not been fully informed of the nature of his partner's 1NT >>> opening, > > [snip] > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >> AG : You are wrong, totally wrong. They have to be informed of >> what the opening shows, not what my partner had. > > Richard Hills: > > Alain is wrong, disastrously wrong. It is true that the > opponents need only be informed of the Alain-partner pre- > existing mutual partnership understandings, but not the actual > cards held by Alain's partner. > > Law 75C - Mistaken Call - second sentence: > > "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive > an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have > no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." > > Richard Hills: > > But if I was Alain's Director, I would be willing to bet dollars > to doughnuts that Alain-partner were disastrously wrong in > failing to disclose their partnership's Law 40C1 pre-existing > mutual _implicit_ partnership understanding that Alain's partner > would often deviate by opening 1NT with a 3-2-2-6 shape. Perhaps Alain's point is that with no special agreement, opening 1NT with 3-2-2-6 is not a "deviation". From "The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" [ACBL]: "Balanced Distribution (or pattern). A hand that appears suitable for notrump rather than trump contracts. Standard types are 4-4-3-2, 4-3-3-3, and 5-3-3-2. 5-4-2-2 and 6-3-2-2 are borderline cases." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 26 16:08:53 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 16:08:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics In-Reply-To: <2C5E1E14-11D7-4F79-95E7-61F260036192@starpower.net> References: <2C5E1E14-11D7-4F79-95E7-61F260036192@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4BFD2B75.7060806@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On May 25, 2010, at 6:28 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >> John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), Canadian/American economist: >> >> "The experience of being disastrously wrong is salutary; no >> economist should be denied it, and not many are." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> [snip] >> >> >>>> So if Alain's opponents misdefended or misbid because they had >>>> not been fully informed of the nature of his partner's 1NT >>>> opening, >>>> >> [snip] >> >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >> [snip] >> >> >>> AG : You are wrong, totally wrong. They have to be informed of >>> what the opening shows, not what my partner had. >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Alain is wrong, disastrously wrong. It is true that the >> opponents need only be informed of the Alain-partner pre- >> existing mutual partnership understandings, but not the actual >> cards held by Alain's partner. >> >> Law 75C - Mistaken Call - second sentence: >> >> "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive >> an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have >> no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> But if I was Alain's Director, I would be willing to bet dollars >> to doughnuts that Alain-partner were disastrously wrong in >> failing to disclose their partnership's Law 40C1 pre-existing >> mutual _implicit_ partnership understanding that Alain's partner >> would often deviate by opening 1NT with a 3-2-2-6 shape. >> > > Perhaps Alain's point is that with no special agreement, opening 1NT > with 3-2-2-6 is not a "deviation". > > From "The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" [ACBL]: "Balanced > Distribution (or pattern). A hand that appears suitable for notrump > rather than trump contracts. Standard types are 4-4-3-2, 4-3-3-3, > and 5-3-3-2. 5-4-2-2 and 6-3-2-2 are borderline cases." > AG : My point is that it is standard, and I like the way it is defined in Eric's excerpt. 'suitable for notrump' is a much more correct definition, if one is needed, than giving a set of patterns. By the way, my first reaction at the table was : "A natural NT bid shows a NT-oriented hand, not a balanced hand". I wouldn't open a 15-17 NT on AKQx - xxx - xx - AKJx, balanced as it is. There is a moral in all this. We've seen that Richard, who is a clever guy and knowledgeable in the field of umpiring, fell into the 'definition' trap to the point of seeing an invisible (pink ?) infraction. This is a good reason to avoid working on the basis of (necessarily rigid) definitions. Best regards Alain From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 26 21:40:43 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics In-Reply-To: <4BFD2B75.7060806@ulb.ac.be> References: <2C5E1E14-11D7-4F79-95E7-61F260036192@starpower.net> <4BFD2B75.7060806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <734612.95029.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : My point is that it is standard, and I like the way it is defined in Eric's excerpt. 'suitable for notrump' is a much more correct definition, if one is needed, than giving a set of patterns. By the way, my first reaction at the table was : "A natural NT bid shows a NT-oriented hand, not a balanced hand". I wouldn't open a 15-17 NT on AKQx - xxx - xx - AKJx, balanced as it is.There is a moral in all this. We've seen that Richard, who is a clever guy and knowledgeable in the field of umpiring, fell into the 'definition' trap to the point of seeing an invisible (pink ?) infraction. This is a good reason to avoid working on the basis of (necessarily rigid) definitions. [Nigel] Alain must be delighted with the current law-book :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 27 01:12:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:12:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2C5E1E14-11D7-4F79-95E7-61F260036192@starpower.net> Message-ID: Napoleon, twice Emperor of France: "It is easier to put up with unpleasantness from a man of one's own way of thinking than from one who takes an entirely different point of view." Eric Landau: >>Perhaps Alain's point is that with no special agreement, >>opening 1NT with 3-2-2-6 is not a "deviation". >> >>From "The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" [ACBL]: >>"Balanced Distribution (or pattern). A hand that appears >>suitable for notrump rather than trump contracts. Standard >>types are 4-4-3-2, 4-3-3-3, and 5-3-3-2. 5-4-2-2 and 6-3-2-2 >>are borderline cases." Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : My point is that it is standard, and I like the way it is >defined in Eric's excerpt. [snip] >There is a moral in all this. We've seen that Richard, who is >a clever guy and knowledgeable in the field of umpiring, fell >into the 'definition' trap to the point of seeing an invisible >(pink ?) infraction. This is a good reason to avoid working on >the basis of (necessarily rigid) definitions. Richard Hills, unpleasantly entirely different point of view: My point is not whether something is "borderline standard". Rather, my point is that in Australia novices are not required to read The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. So in Australia it is important to give more extensive explanations to novices than you might give to fellow experts, since for novices there are many more things which they "are unlikely to expect". (ABF Alert regulation, clause 3.2.2) For example, the Ali-Hills partnership does not alert our 1NT opening bid, since our 1NT opening bid unconditionally denies a 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 shape (and also unconditionally denies a five card major). But in this different 1NT rebid sequence: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali 1C (1) Pass 1D (2) Pass 1NT(3) (1) 15+ hcp, any shape, alerted. (2) Negative, any shape, alerted. (3) 15-18 hcp, balanced or semi-balanced, alerted because of the semi-balanced possibility, despite a semi-balanced shape being "borderline standard" in The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. I like to baffle bunnies due to my superior skill. I hate to baffle bunnies by catching them unawares via an undisclosed "borderline standard" agreement. 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 May 27 01:55:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:55:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Proofreading [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4BFCF61E.20605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>.....Under Law 62C1 declarer can withdraw dummy's spade >>jack. If declarer does so, under Law 62C2 RHO can withdraw >>the spade queen, which becomes a penalty card..... Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : where is it written that it becomes a penalty card ? Law 62C2: After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D. Alain Gottcheiner: >If a card may be legally substituted to a trick, then the >withdrawn card wasn't illegally played. Can a legally >played card become a penalty card ? Richard Hills: Yes, if partner previously illegally played a card (a non- established revoke by partner). Alain Gottcheiner: >(surely there is some law to explain this, it only means >there will be one more cross-reference) Richard Hills: Also relevant is Law 47E, which applies both to the declaring side and to the defending side. Law 47E - Change of Play Based on Misinformation 1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances. 2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. (b) When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may award an adjusted score. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 27 04:11:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 12:11:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT ACBL Laws Commission Grand Sierra Resort, Reno NV March 13, 2010 Members Present: Chip Martel, Chairman Howard Weinstein Adam Wildavsky, Vice Chairman Jeff Polisner Allan Falk Chris Compton Ron Gerard Eric Rodwell Georgia Heth Peter Boyd Matt Smith Gary Blaiss Also Present Mike Flader, Tournament Director and Scribe Matt Koltnow, Tournament Director Al Levy, ACBL Board of Directors Michael Farebrother, Tournament Director The meeting was called to order at 10 AM. A motion was made by Allan Falk to approve the San Diego minutes. Seconded by Georgia Heth. Motion carried. Peter Boyd suggested considering a new meeting time as he was unable to attend in San Diego due to a conflict with the Senior Teams. Laws 7B1 and 6C were discussed next. There was a consensus that no player should remove his cards from the board before at least one member of the opposing pair arrives. The Commission recommended that this be added to the ACBL Condition of Contest. Georgia Heth volunteered to make such a recommendation to the Board. The Commission then discussed a proposed addition written by Matt Smith to the ACBL TechFiles. The addition provided guidelines for the correct application of Law 82C1 (Director Error). Issues discussed included: 1. Does 82C apply whether director makes an incorrect judgment or only when he errs in applying the Law? 2. What time period applies to the application of 82C. Is it the appeal period or the correction period? 3. If changing a judgment ruling, can the other side still appeal? Jeff Polisner felt that, with regard to correcting errors in applying the Laws, the correction period rather than the appeals period should apply. Chris Compton agreed, but said there had to be a line beyond which corrections could not be made. There was no agreement about what this line should be. The consensus of the group was that an incorrect ruling refers to an error in applying the Laws, not poor judgment. Chip Martel supported making sure that the offending side gets no score better than the score they were entitled to had the Laws been properly applied. The Commission approved the addition of this article to the Tech Files. Peter Boyd suggested a further online discussion of this issue. The Commission then discussed some clarification of Laws 21B3 and 40B4 in the context of an auction such as 1D - Dbl - 3D where 3D is explained as limit (misinformation "MI" since the actual agreement is weak). Advancer passes with a 17 count and misses a superior contract. To what redress is he entitled? Matt Smith: Non-offenders are not entitled to redress if the director judges that the MI was not the cause of the damage. He feels we should not adjust the score of the offending side if the director rules that the damage is not the consequence of the irregularity. Adam Wildavsky did not agree with this approach. Eric Rodwell suggested that the non-offenders might keep their score, and the offender be given a procedural penalty. Jeff Polisner suggested that Law 90 does not apply to misinformation. Al Levy felt a penalty should be levied against the offenders even if there is no connection between the damage and the irregularity. Boyd prefers to side with Smith in cases where the director judges that MI was not the cause of damage. Smith pointed out that if the director judges that the MI was not the cause of the damage, then, Law 12 does not get applied. He suggested we publish some articles to create some guidelines for what should be done. Rodwell differentiated between subsequent and consequent. Consequent means as a result of the irregularity. Subsequent does not. Wildavsky suggested putting something on the agenda for New Orleans. Allan Falk's motion on law 20 was discussed next. Polisner thought that the proposal did not have much practical application. Falk said that the issue was the extent to which you are required to disclose the fact that you know partner had made a mistaken bid. Gerard suggested that Falk is asking the players to say what is in their hand rather than disclose their agreements. Falk feels that what is wrong with the current situation is that opponents are not being allowed insight into what is going on at the table. He would like to see the benefits of screens extended to non- screen situations. Martel suggested this issue be revisited next time. Chip Martel brought up the issue of what constitutes a logical alternative. Suppose someone with UI makes a call that is not considered to be a logical alternative but that works out for the offenders (e.g. in a competitive auction N makes a slow double of 4S; South now bids 6C making when 5C and Pass are considered to be his logical alternatives). Have we the right to penalize this? Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a logical alternative with respect to application of Law 16B1. Seconded by Wildavsky. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 12:03 PM. 2010-1 Reno Law Commission Agenda Item TD TechFile Item When after a director error it is necessary to apply Law 82C, please be careful not to give either side a score greater than would have been expected without the director error. Rather, the score assigned to each side should be that which would have been a reasonable consequence of the correct ruling (allowing for the fact that each side is considered a non-offending side for the purposes of Law 12C1(e)[i]). Too often in these cases directors tend to let the side that benefited from the erroneous ruling keep the score achieved as a result of that ruling while adjusting the other side's score upward. But by taking this approach the benefiting side's score is often much greater than could have occurred had there been no director error at all (even allowing for the fact that it is considered a non-offending side), so that is not a correct application of Law 82C. Please note also to be particularly careful when giving insufficient bid rulings involving 27B1(b) to mention when making the ruling that the result may be reviewed by the director at the end of the hand as per 27D. If at that point the director judges that the non-offending side was damaged by the infraction, then in law no director error has occurred so it is not permissible to apply 82C. Law 27D itself instructs the director how he should adjust the score in such a case. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 27 07:38:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:38:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I like to baffle bunnies due to my superior skill. I hate to baffle bunnies by catching them unawares via an undisclosed "borderline standard" agreement. 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 Grattan Endicott, short response to a lengthy post on Law 40B6(a) "...but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players", September 8th 2009: >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 08/09/2009 7:27 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures": > >Is there anything in conventional English which could equal the >vividness of "To craunch a marmoset"? > >Law 40B5: > >"When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special >partnership understanding that does not comply with the >regulations governing the tournament the score shall be >adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject >to a procedural penalty." > >Adam Wildavsky petitio principii: > >[snip] > >>>>In my experience this convention is played so widely at the >>>>NABC+ level that everyone is prepared for it and as a >>>>consequence few pairs give the required pre-alert. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Which suggests, under Law 40B5, that few pairs are legally >playing the convention. So in this particular case the TD and >AC could have ruled "illegal convention" (not merely MI), and >adjusted the score to what North-South would have achieved if >East had chosen a non-conventional natural 2H overcall. > >Adam Wildavsky quoted a second time: > >[snip] > >>>>In my experience this convention is played so widely at the >>>>NABC+ level that everyone is prepared for it and as a >>>>consequence few pairs give the required pre-alert. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Plus obviously the non-offending North-South were not prepared >for this convention, so N-S were not part of "everyone". So if >alternatively the TD and AC instead chose to rule merely MI >(not "illegal convention"), and adjusted the score on the basis >that the pre-Alert was given in a timely fashion, N-S would >have had the chance to prepare a sensible defence which might >have allowed them an "at all probable" chance to reach the N-S >spade game. > >Can failure to prepare a defence to a convention you do not >know exists be a Law 12C1(b) "wild or gambling action"? > >Richard Willey petitio principii: > >>>If I am reading things correctly, the incident in question >>>occurred in the Flight A GNTs. >>> >>>Just how much hand holding do these folks require? > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Lots. Due to the Weimar Republic inflation of ACBL master- >points, I would give this variant on Marv's explanation of 2S >to any ACBL Flight A player: > >"2S shows two or fewer cards in spades and three or more >cards in hearts. Partner is requesting me to pass if my suit >is spades, or correct to 3H if my suit is hearts. Pard lacks >the strength to make a artificial invitation to game via 2NT." > >Richard Willey petitio principii: > >>>Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand the >>>inferences from bidding 2S rather than 2H. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Where do you draw the line? Should anyone with half a brain >understand the inferences from my Symmetric Relay system (notes >emailed on request)? > >Law 40B6(a), final segment: > >"..... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his >knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge >players." > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >I admit that Richard Willey is one of the few ACBLers who would >easily understand Symmetric Relay inferences. Richard's former >partner attests to his excellence in bidding system design. > >But I would argue that Richard is blinded by his own expertise >(as also were the actual TD and AC), thereby finding it very >difficult to walk in the moccasins of lesser bridge players who >are still playing by rote, not yet by ratiocination. > >Nigel Guthrie on disclosure: > >>The law should explicitly repudiate Richard's point of view. >>The director should turn it on its head and point out that - >>- An accurate description is more succinct than the woolly >>prevarication. >>- And is a no-brainer for asker and explainer alike. > >Law 40B6(a), middle segment, on disclosure: > >".....disclose all special information conveyed to him through >partnership agreement or partnership experience.....". > +=+ Well, at least Richard has read the law book. In a field where most players have a common understanding of the method, others who do not should be protected if the method is not known to bridge players generally. Grattan +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 May 27 08:19:06 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:19:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lindsay Tanner (1956 - ), Australian Minister for Finance: "In politics everyone exaggerates everything all the time." +=+ And this was evidently Mr. Tanner's example. +=+ ".....the ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of bridge....." ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes, 13th March 2010: [big snip] Chip Martel brought up the issue of what constitutes a logical alternative. Suppose someone with UI makes a call that is not considered to be a logical alternative but that works out for the offenders (e.g. in a competitive auction N makes a slow double of 4S; South now bids 6C making when 5C and Pass are considered to be his logical alternatives). Have we the right to penalize this? Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a logical alternative with respect to application of Law 16B1. Seconded by Wildavsky. Motion carried. Grattan Endicott concurred, 29th April 2010: +=+ Although the law book does not specify it to be so and has a different definition, it has long seemed evident to me that, whatever his peers may think, the player in question does believe his chosen action to be logical, and to be numbered among the logical alternative actions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills concurs, 27th May 2010: No doubt it would be useful if the Philadelphia meeting of the WBF Drafting Committee decided to add a footnote to the Law 16B1(b) definition of logical alternative. But even without that footnote, the ACBL LC has acted with legality. Grattan has previously pointed out that the narrow obligations of Law 16B are superseded by the much broader obligations of Law 73C -> C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he >>>>> must carefully avoid taking any advantage <<<<< 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu May 27 10:08:47 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:08:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6C2CEA4E-2CC3-44F7-9FC9-1CB18B7A0405@btinternet.com> On 25 May 2010, at 23:28, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Alain is wrong, disastrously wrong. It is true that the > opponents need only be informed of the Alain-partner pre- > existing mutual partnership understandings, but not the actual > cards held by Alain's partner. > > Law 75C - Mistaken Call - second sentence: > > "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive > an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have > no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." > > Richard Hills: > > But if I was Alain's Director, I would be willing to bet dollars > to doughnuts that Alain-partner were disastrously wrong in > failing to disclose their partnership's Law 40C1 pre-existing > mutual _implicit_ partnership understanding that Alain's partner > would often deviate by opening 1NT with a 3-2-2-6 shape. > > Law 21B1(b) - Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent: > > "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." This last quotation seems to be a red herring, since there is surely no question of if being a Mistaken Call. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100527/f441fa49/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 27 19:14:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 26, 2010, at 10:11 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT > > ACBL Laws Commission > Grand Sierra Resort, Reno NV > March 13, 2010 [...] > Rodwell differentiated between subsequent and consequent. > Consequent means as a result of the irregularity. Subsequent > does not. Wildavsky suggested putting something on the agenda > for New Orleans. I'm not sure what Eric was getting at here; the difference between "subsequent" and "consequent" damage (the latter a subset of the former) is solidly enshrined in current ACBL jurisprudence. What is needed is a reiteration of the basic principle, which seems to have gotten lost in some recent appeals. Edgar Kaplan's writings, which introduced this distinction, made it clear that all subsequent damage is to be presumed consequent in the absence of an action by the NOS sufficiently egregious to "break the connection between the infraction and the damage" -- i.e. ruling damage to be "not consequent" requires a positive finding. The only question that should be on the table is what we mean by "sufficiently" egregious. Mr. Kaplan set a very high bar, and for very good reason; "breaking the connection" should be an extremely rare finding, requiring an error well beyond "obvious", if equity for the NOS is to be assured. The ACBL, if they are to readdress this issue, should make that clear, perhaps by providing useful examples. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu May 27 20:16:48 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:16:48 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 References: Message-ID: <6619E39929A648D99EFEE676B20D7E0F@MARVLAPTOP> > On May 26, 2010, at 10:11 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT >> >> ACBL Laws Commission >> Grand Sierra Resort, Reno NV >> March 13, 2010 > > [...] > >> Rodwell differentiated between subsequent and consequent. >> Consequent means as a result of the irregularity. Subsequent >> does not. Wildavsky suggested putting something on the agenda >> for New Orleans. > > I'm not sure what Eric was getting at here; the difference between > "subsequent" and "consequent" damage (the latter a subset of the > former) is solidly enshrined in current ACBL jurisprudence. What > is > needed is a reiteration of the basic principle, which seems to > have > gotten lost in some recent appeals. Edgar Kaplan's writings, > which > introduced this distinction, made it clear that all subsequent > damage > is to be presumed consequent in the absence of an action by the > NOS > sufficiently egregious to "break the connection between the > infraction and the damage" -- i.e. ruling damage to be "not > consequent" requires a positive finding. The only question that > should be on the table is what we mean by "sufficiently" > egregious. > Mr. Kaplan set a very high bar, and for very good reason; > "breaking > the connection" should be an extremely rare finding, requiring an > error well beyond "obvious", if equity for the NOS is to be > assured. > The ACBL, if they are to readdress this issue, should make that > clear, perhaps by providing useful examples. Last year I asked Adam whether the LC could emphasize this point in a meeting, citing the WBFLC minute of 8 Sept 2009: ...the standard for judging a 'serious error' must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant. These criteria were partially accepted by the ACBLLC 23 Nov 2008: The Commission concurs with the WBF Committee's interpretation of L12C1(b) in that a player's expertise be considered in determining whether that player's error was a serious one that contributed to that player's side receiving an unfavorable result. Not including a "serious error" criterion, and minutes of the last few LC meetings have not addressed the subject. In the absence of a clarifying statement, the ACBL's current requirement is cited in the Tech Files of ACBLScore: At the 1992 Indianapolis NABCs, theACBL Laws Commission reaffirmed its position that in order to protect their rights, bridge players are under an obligations (sic) to play at a reasonable level commensurate with their expertise. The NABC AC interpreted this as requiring that a player "continue to play bridge," and numerous cases reflect that unduly harsh criterion. Adam, can't this be put on the agenda for New Orleans? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu May 27 20:41:02 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:41:02 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > Lindsay Tanner (1956 - ), Australian Minister for Finance: > > "In politics everyone exaggerates everything all the time." > > +=+ And this was evidently Mr. Tanner's example. +=+ > > ".....the ACBL determines internationally recognized rules > of bridge....." > > ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes, 13th March 2010: > > [big snip] > > Chip Martel brought up the issue of what constitutes a > logical alternative. Suppose someone with UI makes a call > that is not considered to be a logical alternative but that > works out for the offenders (e.g. in a competitive auction N > makes a slow double of 4S; South now bids 6C making when 5C > and Pass are considered to be his logical alternatives). > Have we the right to penalize this? Martel moved that the > call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a > logical alternative with respect to application of Law 16B1. > Seconded by Wildavsky. Motion carried. > > Grattan Endicott concurred, 29th April 2010: > > +=+ Although the law book does not specify it to be so and > has a different definition, it has long seemed evident to me > that, whatever his peers may think, the player in question > does believe his chosen action to be logical, and to be > numbered among the logical alternative actions. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [Marv] Alternative to what? LA's are alternatives to an illegal action. A logical but illegal action taken is not a logical alternative. > > Richard Hills concurs, 27th May 2010: > > No doubt it would be useful if the Philadelphia meeting of > the WBF Drafting Committee decided to add a footnote to the > Law 16B1(b) definition of logical alternative. > > But even without that footnote, the ACBL LC has acted with > legality. Grattan has previously pointed out that the > narrow obligations of Law 16B are superseded by the much > broader obligations of Law 73C -> > > C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner > > When a player has available to him unauthorized information > from his partner, such as from a remark, question, > explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, > haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to > alert, he > >>>>>> must carefully avoid taking any advantage <<<<< > > from that unauthorized information. > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Marvin French disagrees, 28 May 2010: The way to "carefully avoid taking any advantage" is spelled out by L16B1(a). A player must not take an action suggested by UI if there is a logical alternative. Logical alternatives are not judged by the player, but as defined in L16B2(b) The ACBL's adoption of the "Jeff Rubens" criterion is contrary to the Laws. The broadly stated obligations of Law 73C are superseded by the narrow (more clearly defined) obligations of L16B. The ACBL continues to write its own Laws, and I'm surprised that Grattan and Richard agree with this one. Experts on the LC want their illegal bids to be legal, which violates all precedence. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at tameware.com Thu May 27 21:22:35 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:22:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 In-Reply-To: <6619E39929A648D99EFEE676B20D7E0F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6619E39929A648D99EFEE676B20D7E0F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Marvin French wrote: > > > >> On May 26, 2010, at 10:11 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT >>> >>> ACBL Laws Commission >>> Grand Sierra Resort, Reno NV >>> March 13, 2010 >> >> [...] >> >>> Rodwell differentiated between subsequent and consequent. >>> Consequent means as a result of the irregularity. Subsequent >>> does not. Wildavsky suggested putting something on the agenda >>> for New Orleans. >> >> I'm not sure what Eric was getting at here; the difference between >> "subsequent" and "consequent" damage (the latter a subset of the >> former) is solidly enshrined in current ACBL jurisprudence. ?What is >> needed is a reiteration of the basic principle, which seems to have >> gotten lost in some recent appeals. ?Edgar Kaplan's writings, which >> introduced this distinction, made it clear that all subsequent damage >> is to be presumed consequent in the absence of an action by the NOS >> sufficiently egregious to "break the connection between the >> infraction and the damage" -- i.e. ruling damage to be "not >> consequent" requires a positive finding. ?The only question that >> should be on the table is what we mean by "sufficiently" egregious. >> Mr. Kaplan set a very high bar, and for very good reason; "breaking >> the connection" should be an extremely rare finding, requiring an >> error well beyond "obvious", if equity for the NOS is to be assured. >> The ACBL, if they are to readdress this issue, should make that >> clear, perhaps by providing useful examples. > > Last year I asked Adam whether the LC could emphasize this point in a meeting, citing the WBFLC minute of 8 Sept 2009: > > ...the standard for judging a 'serious error' must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant. > > These criteria were partially accepted by the ACBLLC 23 Nov 2008: > > The Commission concurs with the WBF Committee's interpretation of L12C1(b) in that a player's expertise be considered in determining whether that player's error was a serious one that contributed to that player's side receiving an unfavorable result. > > Not including a "serious error" criterion, and minutes of the last few LC meetings have not addressed the subject. > > In the absence of a clarifying statement, the ACBL's current requirement is cited in the Tech Files of ACBLScore: > > At the 1992 Indianapolis NABCs, theACBL Laws Commission reaffirmed its position that in order to protect their rights, bridge players are under an obligations (sic) to play at a reasonable level commensurate with their expertise. > > The NABC AC interpreted this as requiring that a player "continue to play bridge," and numerous cases reflect that unduly harsh criterion. > > Adam, can't this be put on the agenda for New Orleans? When it says "Wildavsky suggested putting something on the agenda?for New Orleans" one should not infer that we decided not to. As of now the ball is in my court to propose an agenda item. I'd be happy with any help BLML can provide! Eric L's note above should make a good start. Here's what I wrote last year: > I believe that 12C1b is intended to make Kaplan's > consequent/subsequent?doctrine explicit. I know you are familiar with > it already. He described it in this August 1973 TBW editorial, in > response to a letter from Eric?Landau: >??http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 27 22:39:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:39:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 In-Reply-To: <6619E39929A648D99EFEE676B20D7E0F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6619E39929A648D99EFEE676B20D7E0F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <6B44738E-E117-42F8-85D4-43BD31AF8B2F@starpower.net> On May 27, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> On May 26, 2010, at 10:11 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT >>> >>> ACBL Laws Commission >>> Grand Sierra Resort, Reno NV >>> March 13, 2010 >> >> [...] >> >>> Rodwell differentiated between subsequent and consequent. >>> Consequent means as a result of the irregularity. Subsequent >>> does not. Wildavsky suggested putting something on the agenda >>> for New Orleans. >> >> I'm not sure what Eric was getting at here; the difference between >> "subsequent" and "consequent" damage (the latter a subset of the >> former) is solidly enshrined in current ACBL jurisprudence. What >> is >> needed is a reiteration of the basic principle, which seems to >> have >> gotten lost in some recent appeals. Edgar Kaplan's writings, >> which >> introduced this distinction, made it clear that all subsequent >> damage >> is to be presumed consequent in the absence of an action by the >> NOS >> sufficiently egregious to "break the connection between the >> infraction and the damage" -- i.e. ruling damage to be "not >> consequent" requires a positive finding. The only question that >> should be on the table is what we mean by "sufficiently" >> egregious. >> Mr. Kaplan set a very high bar, and for very good reason; >> "breaking >> the connection" should be an extremely rare finding, requiring an >> error well beyond "obvious", if equity for the NOS is to be >> assured. >> The ACBL, if they are to readdress this issue, should make that >> clear, perhaps by providing useful examples. > > Last year I asked Adam whether the LC could emphasize this point in > a meeting, citing the WBFLC minute of 8 Sept 2009: > > ...the standard for judging a 'serious error' must be extremely high > and the calibre of the player is also relevant. > > These criteria were partially accepted by the ACBLLC 23 Nov 2008: Apparently, "partially accepted" means they accepted the "cailbre of the player" part but not the "extremely high" part.... > The Commission concurs with the WBF Committee's interpretation of > L12C1(b) in that a player's expertise be considered in determining > whether that player's error was a serious one that contributed to > that player's side receiving an unfavorable result. > > Not including a "serious error" criterion, and minutes of the last > few LC meetings have not addressed the subject. ...as Marv also appears to conclude. I think it has a lot to do with the problem that in an attempt to avoid fancy words, we now use the term "serious error" in place of Mr. Kaplan's termiological choice of "egregious error". Thesaurus listings notwithstanding, these are nowhere near synonymous; the latter is a *much* stronger term. American Heritage defines "egregious" as "outstandingly bad; blatant; outrageous"; of the five meanings given for "serious", none would appropriately modify "error" (ditto for seven meanings in my RH unabridged). Even used extremely loosely, "serious" doesn't come close to connoting "outstandingly bad", "blatant" or "outrageous". Words matter, and if we want people to get this right, we need to drop "serious" from the discussion for something that says what we mean; personally, I like "egregious", but if that's too fancy for some, "outrageous" or "ridiculous" (a word Mr. Kaplan favored in defining "egregious") should do. > In the absence of a clarifying statement, the ACBL's current > requirement is cited in the Tech Files of ACBLScore: > > At the 1992 Indianapolis NABCs, theACBL Laws Commission reaffirmed > its position that in order to protect their rights, bridge players > are under an obligations (sic) to play at a reasonable level > commensurate with their expertise. Either that's just wrong, or Mr. Kaplan would no longer recognize his own idea. You should *not* be obliged "to play at a reasonable level commensurate with [your] experience" -- not even close. You should be obliged only to avoid playing ridiculously, outrageously, or -- dare I say it? -- egregiously. The LC's formulation ignores the difference between "bad" and "outstandingly bad". > The NABC AC interpreted this as requiring that a player "continue to > play bridge," and numerous cases reflect that unduly harsh > criterion. If they meant what they said, "continue to play bridge" would be just about right -- a genuinely egregious error should cause onlookers, observing in isolation, to (ahem) "seriously" doubt that one plays the game at all. But of course they don't; in the current jargon of the game, "continue to play bridge" implies "up to one's usual level", and thus is even stronger than "avoid serious error". > Adam, can't this be put on the agenda for New Orleans? > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 28 00:53:50 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 08:53:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: A.J. Ayer (1910-1989), English philosopher: "Even logical positivists are capable of love." Marvin French: [big snip] >The ACBL continues to write its own Laws, and I'm surprised >that Grattan and Richard agree with this one. Experts on the >LC want their illegal bids to be legal, which violates all >precedence. Richard Hills: Merely because a call is defined as a logical alternative call does NOT mean that that call is also defined as a legal call. It is commonplace for there to be three or four logical alternative calls and for only one of those three or four being legal. Indeed, that was the purpose of the ACBL LC ruling. In the indicative example the only reason that they wanted to rule the at-the-table bid of 6C as a logical alternative was to allow the hypothetical TD to rule 6C as an illegal logical alternative. A.J. Ayer (1910-1989), English philosopher: "It seems that I have spent my entire time trying to make life more rational and that it was all wasted effort." 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 May 28 06:37:10 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:37:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mathe-matics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6C2CEA4E-2CC3-44F7-9FC9-1CB18B7A0405@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Law 21B1(b) - Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Gordon Rainsford: >This last quotation seems to be a red herring, since there >is surely no question of it being a Mistaken Call. Apocryphal red herring quotation allegedly by Edgar Kaplan: "If you do not like what a Law says, find another Law." Law 40A1(a) - Players' Systemic Agreements: "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." Apocryphal red herring quotation allegedly by Richard Hills: "If one's regular RHO becomes one's first-time partner, then the first-time partnership has mutual experience of the ex- RHO's habit of opening 1NT with a borderline standard semi- balanced shape." 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 posundelin at yahoo.se Fri May 28 08:51:21 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 06:51:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <155804.53136.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> South had Q98763 to KT5 and played small to king?which lost to East?s ace. On a??later trick to queen West showed out. ? Declarer called the TD and claimed that West had broken tempo before following to the first trick. Dummy agreed, West did not agree, but East had not observed any tempo break. ? Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? Which way? Or does it depend on how experienced or established the players are? ? Or - is it (as theTD stated) common practice to assume tempo break if one side says so, and thus in this cae rule that declarer would have finessed ("most favourable..")? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100528/16b7871b/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Fri May 28 10:03:11 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 28 May 2010 10:03:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Automatic_ruling=3F?= Message-ID: <20100528080311.391B97DC866@f20.poczta.interia.pl> "PO Sundelin" pisze: >Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." So the TD listens to both versions of events and picks one that seems more probable to him. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Markowe buty sportowe w promocyjnych cenach! Sprawdz: http://linkint.pl/f270d From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 28 10:38:40 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:38:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marvin's argument Message-ID: <4BFF8110.6000709@skynet.be> If I have understood most of the posts in these threads, Marvin's argument goes as follows: (apologies if I got any of this wrong, the argument and my counterarguments are still valid) When a player has UI, he is not allowed to take an action that is a LA to another action, and which has been suggested by the UI. But (according to the argument), he should be allowed to take an action that is not in itself a LA, since no-one would take that action. An example: a player realizes, through UI, that the contract that is reached (5Cl) is a disatrous one. he would like to change it to 5Di (which is a reasonable contract), but the UI suggests this and passing is a LA. He is not allowed to bid 5Di. But is he allowed to bid 6Di instead, when 6Di is a gamble which no-one would seriously consider or take, and which is therefore not a LA? A sense of fair play says that he should be allowed to turn his zero into a gambling small chance at a top, but I do not believe that this is what the laws intended. After all, if the player needs UI to realize that 5Di is better than 5Cl, chances are that, without the UI, no-one else would realize. Then, 5Di is, according to the same reasoning, not a LA either. So what interpretation can you use that would allow 6Di while also disallowing 5Di? What we are aiming for is the ideal situation: no UI. Without UI, it is likely that 5Cl would be the contract. So that is what it's going to be with UI. Never 6Di. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 28 10:41:50 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:41:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <155804.53136.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <155804.53136.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4BFF81CE.2060303@skynet.be> Surely you realize, PO, that there cannot be an automatic rulling here. If that were the case, all I needed to do, as declarer, is claim hesitations left right and centre and get my way all the time. Nor can there be an automatic non-ruling, or hesitators cold get away with murder. These things need to be handled with care, by the Director. He hears both parties and makes a decision. Impossible to to with just a written report. It's up to the Director. Herman. PO Sundelin wrote: > South had Q98763 to KT5 and played small to king which lost to East?s > ace. On a later trick to queen West showed out. > Declarer called the TD and claimed that West had broken tempo before > following to the first trick. Dummy agreed, West did not agree, but East > had not observed any tempo break. > Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? Which way? Or > does it depend on how experienced or established the players are? > Or - is it (as theTD stated) common practice to assume tempo break if > one side says so, and thus in this cae rule that declarer would have > finessed ("most favourable..")? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2900 - Release Date: 05/27/10 20:30:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 28 11:29:39 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:29:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marvin's argument In-Reply-To: <4BFF8110.6000709@skynet.be> References: <4BFF8110.6000709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4BFF8D03.3060106@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > If I have understood most of the posts in these threads, Marvin's > argument goes as follows: (apologies if I got any of this wrong, the > argument and my counterarguments are still valid) > > When a player has UI, he is not allowed to take an action that is a LA > to another action, and which has been suggested by the UI. But > (according to the argument), he should be allowed to take an action that > is not in itself a LA, since no-one would take that action. > > An example: a player realizes, through UI, that the contract that is > reached (5Cl) is a disatrous one. he would like to change it to 5Di > (which is a reasonable contract), but the UI suggests this and passing > is a LA. He is not allowed to bid 5Di. But is he allowed to bid 6Di > instead, when 6Di is a gamble which no-one would seriously consider or > take, and which is therefore not a LA? > AG : a firm no. Absent UI, he would never have bid 6D. Substract UI to see what should have happend. From posundelin at yahoo.se Fri May 28 12:21:48 2010 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:21:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <4BFF81CE.2060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I thought I knew.... However, the TD I quoted said that normally when someone claims tempo break there was one, and the case would be dealt with accordingly?... as if this were common practise among TDs. He recently attended the European TD course/seminar. ? I just wanted to find out if his statement was based on some recommendation from there. ? ? --- Den fre 2010-05-28 skrev Herman De Wael : Fr?n: Herman De Wael ?mne: Re: [BLML] Automatic ruling? Till: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Datum: fredag 28 maj 2010 10:41 Surely you realize, PO, that there cannot be an automatic rulling here. If that were the case, all I needed to do, as declarer, is claim hesitations left right and centre and get my way all the time. Nor can there be an automatic non-ruling, or hesitators cold get away with murder. These things need to be handled with care, by the Director. He hears both parties and makes a decision. Impossible to to with just a written report. It's up to the Director. Herman. PO Sundelin wrote: > South had Q98763 to KT5 and played small to king which lost to East?s > ace. On a later trick to queen West showed out. > Declarer called the TD and claimed that West had broken tempo before > following to the first trick. Dummy agreed, West did not agree, but East > had not observed any tempo break. > Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? Which way? Or > does it depend on how experienced or established the players are? > Or - is it (as theTD stated) common practice to assume tempo break if > one side says so, and thus in this cae rule that declarer would have > finessed ("most favourable..")? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2900 - Release Date: 05/27/10 20:30:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ 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/20100528/811413c3/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Fri May 28 12:38:05 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 28 May 2010 12:38:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Automatic_ruling=3F?= Message-ID: <20100528103805.B30D17DC864@f20.poczta.interia.pl> "PO Sundelin" pisze: I thought I knew.... >However, the TD I quoted said that normally when someone claims >tempo break there was one, and the case would be dealt >with accordingly?... as if this were common practise among TDs. >He recently attended the European TD course/seminar. This is exactly what I heard during the Polish TD course. And this is how the TDs in Poland are trained. At least now I know that this isn't just a local perversion. It is a European perversion. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kup wlasne mieszkanie za 72 tys. zl. Sprawdz najlepsze oferty >>> http://linkint.pl/f26c8 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 28 12:55:52 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:55:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <20100528103805.B30D17DC864@f20.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20100528103805.B30D17DC864@f20.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <4BFFA138.2090403@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > "PO Sundelin" pisze: > > > > I thought I knew.... > >> However, the TD I quoted said that normally when someone claims >> tempo break there was one, and the case would be dealt >> with accordingly ... as if this were common practise among TDs. >> He recently attended the European TD course/seminar. >> > > This is exactly what I heard during the Polish TD course. > And this is how the TDs in Poland are trained. > At least now I know that this isn't just a local > perversion. It is a European perversion. > AG : IMOBO the main perversion is that we're asked to determine, on the basis of non-neutral testimonies, what happened when we were away. Not that I have any alternative to suggest, you know, just intending to suggest that default values are perhaps less worse than rough guesses. Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri May 28 16:26:42 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 16:26:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Automatic_ruling=3F?= In-Reply-To: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1OI0WJ-0FszBY0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> I cannot remember any recommendations from EBL TD courses regarding this issue, but I can remember having got a guideline myself from some source (and it could well be from EBL collegues). Each case (of alleged BIT) has to be judged on its own merits and using the "Balance of Probablilties". In case of disputed facts the probablities to be "calculated" are: a) p1(event1) (BIT existed and "breaker" himself dissents and partner was "absent") b) p2(event2) (one side invents a BIT where never was any such) In normal bridge life p1 is much greater than p2 and as long as the actual scenario gives no other hint(s) IMO a TD should proceed on the balance that event1 did happen. This is TD's duty under Law 85 A1 and B. Peter From: PO Sundelin > I thought I knew.... However, the TD I quoted said that normally when > someone claims tempo break there was one, and the case would be dealt > with accordingly?... as if this were common practise among TDs. He > recently attended the European TD course/seminar. ? I just wanted to > find out if his statement was based on some recommendation from there. > ? ? > > --- Den FRE 2010-05-28 SKREV HERMAN DE WAEL __: > > Fr?n: Herman De Wael > ?mne: Re: [BLML] Automatic ruling? > Till: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Datum: fredag 28 maj 2010 10:41 > > Surely you realize, PO, that there cannot be an automatic rulling > here. > If that were the case, all I needed to do, as declarer, is claim > hesitations left right and centre and get my way all the time. > Nor can there be an automatic non-ruling, or hesitators cold get away > > with murder. > These things need to be handled with care, by the Director. He hears > both parties and makes a decision. > Impossible to to with just a written report. It's up to the Director. > > Herman. > > PO Sundelin wrote: > > South had Q98763 to KT5 and played small to king which > > lost to East?s ace. On a later trick to queen West showed out. > > Declarer called the TD and claimed that West had broken > > tempo before following to the first trick. Dummy agreed, > > West did not agree, but East had not observed any tempo break. > > Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? > > Which way? > > Or does it depend on how experienced or established the > > players are? > > Or - is it (as theTD stated) common practice to assume > > tempo break if one side says so, and thus in this cae rule > > that declarer would have finessed ("most favourable..")? From doghoward at aol.com Fri May 28 17:26:45 2010 From: doghoward at aol.com (doghoward at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:26:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <155804.53136.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CCCC9150C9D0EB-1CDC-A0A0@webmail-d033.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: PO Sundelin To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Fri, May 28, 2010 2:51 am Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? South had Q98763 to KT5 and played small to king which lost to East?s ace. On a later trick to queen West showed out. Declarer called the TD and claimed that West had broken tempo before following to the first trick. Dummy agreed, West did not agree, but East had not observed any tempo break. Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? Which way? Or does it depend on how experienced or established the players are? Or - is it (as theTD stated) common practice to assume tempo break if one side says so, and thus in this cae rule that declarer would have finessed ("most favourable..") *********************************** I am a naive lurker, but when we look at cases like this and the likelihood of a hesitation, shouldn't we look at whether the hesitation would have had any bridge logic to it? And here, declarer is claiming that west hesitated -- presumably thought before playing -- with Jx of trumps when a low card was led towards K10x? Unless there were very subtle indications for this -- a psychological ploy in context of the whole hand, perhaps -- who would make that play, other than perhaps the newest of novices? Ed Shapiro _______________________________________________ lml mailing list lml at rtflb.org ttp://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100528/3ce86252/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 28 18:02:19 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 18:02:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <8CCCC9150C9D0EB-1CDC-A0A0@webmail-d033.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CCCC9150C9D0EB-1CDC-A0A0@webmail-d033.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4BFFE90B.4030104@ulb.ac.be> doghoward at aol.com a ?crit : > > -----Original Message----- > From: PO Sundelin > To: blml at rtflb.org > Sent: Fri, May 28, 2010 2:51 am > Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? > > South had Q98763 to KT5 and played small to king which lost to East?s > ace. On a later trick to queen West showed out. > > Declarer called the TD and claimed that West had broken tempo before > following to the first trick. Dummy agreed, West did not agree, but > East had not observed any tempo break. > > Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? Which way? Or > does it depend on how experienced or established the players are? > > Or - is it (as theTD stated) common practice to assume tempo break if > one side says so, and thus in this cae rule that declarer would have > finessed ("most favourable..") > > *********************************** > I am a naive lurker, but when we look at cases like this and the > likelihood of a hesitation, shouldn't we look at whether the > hesitation would have had any bridge logic to it? And here, declarer > is claiming that west hesitated -- presumably thought before playing > -- with Jx of trumps when a low card was led towards K10x? Unless > there were very subtle indications for this -- a psychological ploy in > context of the whole hand, perhaps -- who would make that play, other > than perhaps the newest of novices? > > Ed Shapiro > > AG : If I read the conditions well, West hesitated with a singleton, not with Jx. You're taking it the wrong way round. If there is any bridge logic for the hesitation, there will be no penalty at all. This logic might in some occurrences be rather thin (e.g. putting up Q from Qxx in front of Kxx to avoid partner being endplayed from AJ10 - you'll have to ascertain whether this was plausible). When there isn't, then we're required to decide whether there was any hesitation (which will then be considered misleading). Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 28 23:43:06 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 23:43:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> PO Sundelin schrieb: > I thought I knew.... > However, the TD I quoted said that normally when someone claims tempo break there was one, and, as far as the argument goes, he is right. More often than not there was a hesitation. The problem is that this says nothing about there _actually_ was one in the case under consideration. > and the case would be dealt with accordingly ... as if this were common practise among TDs. Well, if I am called and a case similar to yours develops, most of the time (it depends what I know about the players, every TD knows certain customers) I assign some probability whether this is what really happened or not, then try to find out what _did_ happen, just as a game between me and myself. I find that there is some truth in the theory mentioned above, but not enough to make a working hypothesis out of it. It biases one's judgement too much. Yes, often there was a hesitation, but in some cases most vehemently argued by the accusing side evidence could be garnered that there had been no break of tempo at all. > He recently attended the European TD course/seminar. Linus? If so, give him my regards please, he was in my group. > > I just wanted to find out if his statement was based on some recommendation from there. That would be an overbid. It may well be that someone mentioned this as a rule of thumb, but it sure was no "official" guideline or some such. Best regards Matthias P.S. I found Ed Shapiro's omment to be very much to the point. We have to ask declarer the question: what do you think he was hesitating about? If the answer is err...hmm...yes...aahh the case is as good as closed, assuming that the level of play is good. Since Jx has nothing to think about, chances are that the player in question in fact didn't... > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 28 23:51:08 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 23:51:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marvin's argument In-Reply-To: <4BFF8110.6000709@skynet.be> References: <4BFF8110.6000709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C003ACC.2060401@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > If I have understood most of the posts in these threads, Marvin's > argument goes as follows: (apologies if I got any of this wrong, the > argument and my counterarguments are still valid) > > When a player has UI, he is not allowed to take an action that is a LA > to another action, and which has been suggested by the UI. But > (according to the argument), he should be allowed to take an action that > is not in itself a LA, since no-one would take that action. No one not in possession of UI, that is. If you _know_ you are headed for -13 IMP or a cold bottom a loss of 8 IMP or a 20% board looks very attractive, doesn't it? > > An example: a player realizes, through UI, that the contract that is > reached (5Cl) is a disatrous one. he would like to change it to 5Di > (which is a reasonable contract), but the UI suggests this and passing > is a LA. He is not allowed to bid 5Di. But is he allowed to bid 6Di > instead, when 6Di is a gamble which no-one would seriously consider or > take, and which is therefore not a LA? If 5D is reasonable, 6D may be bad, but not disastrous, while 5C (per definition) is. So, if we didn't have UI tht 5C is a disaster, would we ever bid 6D? > > A sense of fair play says that he should be allowed to turn his zero > into a gambling small chance at a top, A sense of fair play says that we should take our medicine like good sportsmen, and not try to wiggle out of it if the laws say we mustn't. > but I do not believe that this is > what the laws intended. After all, if the player needs UI to realize > that 5Di is better than 5Cl, chances are that, without the UI, no-one > else would realize. Then, 5Di is, according to the same reasoning, not a > LA either. So what interpretation can you use that would allow 6Di while > also disallowing 5Di? None. I agree with all your statements from the last paragraph, and the reasoning you mentioned. > > What we are aiming for is the ideal situation: no UI. Without UI, it is > likely that 5Cl would be the contract. So that is what it's going to be > with UI. Never 6Di. Right. > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat May 29 00:04:03 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 18:04:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <155804.53136.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <155804.53136.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8473BC0631E7482492AA86E0E753F356@erdos> Independent of whether a hesitation occurred, the ruling needs to be based on whether there is damage. West would have no reason to hesitate with a singleton 2, but he would probably equally have no reason to hesitate with J2, so I do not see a case for an adjustment here. Players do hesitate because they aren't paying attention to the play, or are thinking about past or future tricks. As a similar principle, it is common to rule on a disputed hesitation by taking the player's actual hand into account. ----- Original Message ----- From: PO Sundelin To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 2:51 AM Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? South had Q98763 to KT5 and played small to king which lost to East?s ace. On a later trick to queen West showed out. Declarer called the TD and claimed that West had broken tempo before following to the first trick. Dummy agreed, West did not agree, but East had not observed any tempo break. Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? Which way? Or does it depend on how experienced or established the players are? Or - is it (as theTD stated) common practice to assume tempo break if one side says so, and thus in this cae rule that declarer would have finessed ("most favourable..")? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20100528/de6320a7/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 29 02:41:11 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:41:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C0062A7.8060405@nhcc.net> > Since Law 16A1(c) concludes with "but see B1 following", the > specific Law 16B1 on Extraneous Information from Partner over- > rides the more general Law 16A1(c) on Players' Use of > Information. Everyone agrees on that. Where, exactly, does L16B1 say anything about concessions of tricks? From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 29 02:46:22 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:46:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> On 5/27/2010 2:41 PM, Marvin French wrote: > A player must not take an action suggested by UI if there > is a logical alternative. I think there's near-universal agreement on that, but there's some difficulty with the exact way L16B1 is phrased. One way out of the difficulty is to say that the action chosen is always a logical alternative. An alternative is to say that L73C is separate and independent of L16B. These will come to pretty much the same thing in most cases, but the point is to rule out _all_ actions suggested by UI. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 29 02:52:26 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:52:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <20100528080311.391B97DC866@f20.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20100528080311.391B97DC866@f20.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <4C00654A.9020303@nhcc.net> On 5/28/2010 4:03 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance > of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the > evidence he is able to collect." > > So the TD listens to both versions of events and picks one that seems > more probable to him. It's probably worth mentioning that there is more to most rulings than figuring out whether or not a tempo break occurred. L73F, for example, requires an "innocent player," "a false inference," "no demonstrable bridge reason," "could have known," and "damage." On the facts PO presented, false inference and damage are both in doubt, though I can imagine cases where both exist. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 29 03:17:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 21:17:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> References: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:46:22 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 5/27/2010 2:41 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> A player must not take an action suggested by UI if there >> is a logical alternative. > > I think there's near-universal agreement on that, but there's some > difficulty with the exact way L16B1 is phrased. One way out of the > difficulty is to say that the action chosen is always a logical > alternative. An alternative is to say that L73C is separate and > independent of L16B. These will come to pretty much the same thing in > most cases, but the point is to rule out _all_ actions suggested by UI. L16B1 says, almost, that a player may not choose an LA suggested by the UI when there is an LA not suggested by the UI. It should say that a player may not choose an ALTERNATIVE suggested by the UI when there is an LA not suggested by the UI. When you put in that first "logical", you create your problems. (As for your patches: It is clear from the 2007 definition of "logical alternative" that a bid is not a logical alternative just because a player makes it. I think we want L16B1 to have precedence over L73C, precisely because we do not want to rule out the possibility of a player making the bid suggested by the UI.) Bob From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat May 29 07:58:39 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 21:58:39 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 References: <6619E39929A648D99EFEE676B20D7E0F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <92525CC1D5B54376A8EAA58682E10666@MARVLAPTOP> Adam wrote: > I believe that 12C1b is intended to make Kaplan's > consequent/subsequent doctrine explicit. I know you are familiar > with > it already. He described it in this August 1973 TBW editorial, in > response to a letter from Eric Landau: which says: The type of error that makes damage "subsequent" can be seen in the examples in the June "How Would You Rule?": a player doesn't see one of his cards; a player revokes; a defender on lead against six-notrump-doubled fails to lead one of his two aces; glaring, foolish errors. The current ACBL policy that I quoted from the Tech Files is to rule serious error for merely bad bridge. I am asking that Kaplan's criterion for serious error, which matches that of the WBFLC, be endorsed by the ACBLLC. If you mean that serious error annuls all redress, as many ACBL TDs now believe, L12C1(b) annuls that notion. I did not fully understand that myself, until recently. The cost of serious error (or gambling, or wild action) is subtracted from the numerical compensation that would normally be awarded. If that cost is less than the normal compensation, the non-offenders get the difference. If it equals or exceeds the normal compensation, then there is no compensation and table result stands. Another way to get the same answer is to say that if the non-offenders would have had a better score despite the infraction had they not committed a serious error, table result stands. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 29 17:09:28 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 16:09:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP><4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:46:22 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 5/27/2010 2:41 PM, Marvin French wrote: >>> A player must not take an action suggested by UI if there >>> is a logical alternative. >> >> I think there's near-universal agreement on that, but there's some >> difficulty with the exact way L16B1 is phrased. One way out of the >> difficulty is to say that the action chosen is always a logical >> alternative. An alternative is to say that L73C is separate and >> independent of L16B. These will come to pretty much the same thing in >> most cases, but the point is to rule out _all_ actions suggested by UI. > > > L16B1 says, almost, that a player may not choose an LA suggested by the UI > when there is an LA not suggested by the UI. > > It should say that a player may not choose an ALTERNATIVE suggested by the > UI when there is an LA not suggested by the UI. > > When you put in that first "logical", you create your problems. > > > (As for your patches: It is clear from the 2007 definition of "logical > alternative" that a bid is not a logical alternative just because a player > makes it. I think we want L16B1 to have precedence over L73C, precisely > because we do not want to rule out the possibility of a player making the > bid suggested by the UI.) > > Bob <<< +=+ Blmlers may care to discuss whether, to be among "the class of players in question" [Law 16B1(b)], a player must also, like the player who made the call, consider the call made to be among the logical alternatives. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 29 17:21:24 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 11:21:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 May 2010 11:09:28 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Incremental change will not do. It is time > for a wholesale, big bang approach" > ~ The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 2:17 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March > 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:46:22 -0400, Steve Willner >> wrote: >> >>> On 5/27/2010 2:41 PM, Marvin French wrote: >>>> A player must not take an action suggested by UI if there >>>> is a logical alternative. >>> >>> I think there's near-universal agreement on that, but there's some >>> difficulty with the exact way L16B1 is phrased. One way out of the >>> difficulty is to say that the action chosen is always a logical >>> alternative. An alternative is to say that L73C is separate and >>> independent of L16B. These will come to pretty much the same thing in >>> most cases, but the point is to rule out _all_ actions suggested by UI. >> >> >> L16B1 says, almost, that a player may not choose an LA suggested by the >> UI >> when there is an LA not suggested by the UI. >> >> It should say that a player may not choose an ALTERNATIVE suggested by >> the >> UI when there is an LA not suggested by the UI. >> >> When you put in that first "logical", you create your problems. >> >> >> (As for your patches: It is clear from the 2007 definition of "logical >> alternative" that a bid is not a logical alternative just because a >> player >> makes it. I think we want L16B1 to have precedence over L73C, precisely >> because we do not want to rule out the possibility of a player making >> the >> bid suggested by the UI.) >> >> Bob > <<< > +=+ Blmlers may care to discuss whether, to be among "the class > of players in question" [Law 16B1(b)], a player must also, like the > player who made the call, consider the call made to be among the > logical alternatives. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Prior to 2007, "logical alternative" had no defnition in the laws. (Right?) So dictionary definition applied. In the 2007 laws, it is defined. So it is a technical term and the dictionary definition is not relevant. So, just because I would make a bid, that does not mean it is a logical alternative by the 2007 definition. I occasionally make bids which I think are right yet I would guess (at the table at the time) that they are not logical alternatives. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat May 29 17:52:51 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 07:52:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please Message-ID: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> I ask those with working knowledge of weighted score adjustments for the answers to these questions: 1. When a complicated weighted adjusted score ends in a matchpoint assignment, how do all other pairs compare with that result? 2. In a BAM event the adjustment can hardly be made in match points, or are fractional match points acceptable when win/loss/tie probabilities are mixed? 3. In an IMP pair event, X-imp scoring, are weighted adjusted scores indeed compared to every other result to get an IMP answer for each comparison, as the White Book says? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Sat May 29 19:49:12 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 19:49:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Marvin French > Sent: 29. mai 2010 17:53 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Educate me please > > I ask those with working knowledge of weighted score adjustments for the answers > to these questions: > > 1. When a complicated weighted adjusted score ends in a matchpoint > assignment, how do all other pairs compare with that result? > > 2. In a BAM event the adjustment can hardly be made in match points, or are > fractional match points acceptable when win/loss/tie probabilities are mixed? > > 3. In an IMP pair event, X-imp scoring, are weighted adjusted scores indeed > compared to every other result to get an IMP answer for each comparison, as the > White Book says? 1: If the Director assigns an adjusted score directly in MP, possibly after weighting several MP scores, there is no table score against which the other tables can be compared and scored. Thus the other tables are scored exactly as if the assigned score had been artificial, disregarding this table completely in the scoring of the other tables. If he assigns a table result on the board from weighted alternatives (like 50% 420 and 50% -50) the assigned result will be a board result that can be used in MP scoring for all the tables. (The assigned table result can then very well be fictive, like 235 in my example, that is unimportant for MP calculations.) 2: In BAM as far as I know only the two tables meeting in the match are compared and the result in this match does not influence the other matches at all. Thus I don't understand the problem? 3: I am not familiar with the White Book, but this sounds reasonable. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat May 29 23:10:34 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 17:10:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> Message-ID: "Sven Pran" writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Marvin French >> Sent: 29. mai 2010 17:53 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] Educate me please >> >> I ask those with working knowledge of weighted score adjustments for the > answers >> to these questions: >> 2. In a BAM event the adjustment can hardly be made in match points, or > are >> fractional match points acceptable when win/loss/tie probabilities are > mixed? > 2: In BAM as far as I know only the two tables meeting in the match are > compared and the result in this match does not influence the other matches > at all. Thus I don't understand the problem? Team A is +420, making 4S. Team B would have reached 4S had there been no MI; instead, they were +400 in 3NT. The TD determines that 4S would probably make ten tricks but might make eleven, and wishes to award Team B 20% of +450 and 80% of +420. This would give Team B 60% of the board; is this a legal ruling? (I would say that it should be allowed; in an event with carry-over, 60% of a board and 90% of a board might lead to different rankings.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 30 00:49:23 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 18:49:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 May 2010 11:09:28 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " Incremental change will not do. It is time > for a wholesale, big bang approach" > ~ The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 2:17 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March > 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:46:22 -0400, Steve Willner >> wrote: >> >>> On 5/27/2010 2:41 PM, Marvin French wrote: >>>> A player must not take an action suggested by UI if there >>>> is a logical alternative. >>> >>> I think there's near-universal agreement on that, but there's some >>> difficulty with the exact way L16B1 is phrased. One way out of the >>> difficulty is to say that the action chosen is always a logical >>> alternative. An alternative is to say that L73C is separate and >>> independent of L16B. These will come to pretty much the same thing in >>> most cases, but the point is to rule out _all_ actions suggested by UI. >> >> >> L16B1 says, almost, that a player may not choose an LA suggested by the >> UI >> when there is an LA not suggested by the UI. >> >> It should say that a player may not choose an ALTERNATIVE suggested by >> the >> UI when there is an LA not suggested by the UI. >> >> When you put in that first "logical", you create your problems. >> >> >> (As for your patches: It is clear from the 2007 definition of "logical >> alternative" that a bid is not a logical alternative just because a >> player >> makes it. I think we want L16B1 to have precedence over L73C, precisely >> because we do not want to rule out the possibility of a player making >> the >> bid suggested by the UI.) >> >> Bob > <<< > +=+ Blmlers may care to discuss whether, to be among "the class > of players in question" [Law 16B1(b)], a player must also, like the > player who made the call, consider the call made to be among the > logical alternatives. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Prior to 2007, "logical alternative" had no defnition in the laws. (Right?) So dictionary definition applied. In the 2007 laws, it is defined. So it is a technical term and the dictionary definition is not relevant. So, just because I would make a bid, that does not mean it is a logical alternative by the 2007 definition. I occasionally make bids which I think are right yet I would guess (at the table at the time) that they are not logical alternatives. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun May 30 01:51:58 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 00:51:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> Message-ID: On 29 May 2010, at 18:49, Sven Pran wrote: > > 1: If the Director assigns an adjusted score directly in MP, > possibly after > weighting several MP scores, there is no table score against which > the other > tables can be compared and scored. Thus the other tables are scored > exactly > as if the assigned score had been artificial, disregarding this table > completely in the scoring of the other tables. It's often done like this, but it's really not correct. The result at this table should have an effect on the rest of the field: one need only to consider the hypothetical examples of 99% of a top & 1% of a bottom, as compared with 1% of a top and 99% of a bottom, to see this. Below is an example using European matchpointing (halve these matchpoints for US style results) where a +420 result in the initial table is adjusted to 60% of +170 & 40% of +50 in the second table. Frequency Result Matchpoints 2 +420 9 1 +170 6 1 +140 4 1 +50 2 1 -100 0 Frequency Result Matchpoints 1 +420 10 1.6 +170 7.4 1 +140 4.8 1.4 +50 2.4 1 -100 0 The NS pair in question will get 60% of 7.4 + 40% of 2.4 = 5.4 matchpoints As you see, the results of all the other pairs whose scores are between or equal to the results used in the weighting, are also affected, as they should be. Sven's method would (if I'm not mis-representing his method) give the following table: Frequency Result Matchpoints 1 +420 10 1 +170 8 1 +140 5 1 Art Av 5 1 +50 2 1 -100 0 from which the NS pair in question would get 60% of 8 + 40% of 2 = 5.6 matchpoints Gordon Rainsford From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun May 30 02:03:11 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 01:03:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <644A53D7-7B88-456B-BC04-D39198353726@btinternet.com> On 29 May 2010, at 16:52, Marvin French wrote: > 2. In a BAM event the adjustment can hardly be made in match points, > or are fractional match points acceptable when win/loss/tie > probabilities are mixed? Since you are only determining win/loss/draw on the board, I'd have expected the weighting to be done with the aggregate scores before comparing with the other table. However, we don't have any national BAM events over here, so I'd be interested to hear how it's done in countries that do have them and who use weighted scores. > > 3. In an IMP pair event, X-imp scoring, are weighted adjusted scores > indeed > compared to every other result to get an IMP answer for each > comparison, as the White Book says? Yes. Since Cross-IMP scoring is done by computer, it's not difficult to do. Gordon Rainsford From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun May 30 04:00:32 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 18:00:32 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13thMarch 2010[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <3B2A959C358547C9BCAE0041C209010F@MARVLAPTOP> <4C0063DE.4030808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4ED70E857209453DB47D4B48A0FF41B0@MARVLAPTOP> Steve Wilner wrote: Marvin French wrote: >> A player must not take an action suggested by UI if there >> is a logical alternative. > > I think there's near-universal agreement on that, but there's some > difficulty with the exact way L16B1 is phrased. One way out of > the > difficulty is to say that the action chosen is always a logical > alternative. An alternative is to say that L73C is separate and > independent of L16B. These will come to pretty much the same > thing in > most cases, but the point is to rule out _all_ actions suggested > by UI. Not understood. It is perfectly okay to act as suggested by UI if there is no other action that makes sense. Geez, it's so simple. If it appears that you may have taken advantage of UI the score will be adjusted if the opponents are damaged. Unless, of course, you can show that no other action than the one taken makes sense. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun May 30 11:51:58 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 11:51:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001101caffdd$bf619860$3e24c920$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: interesting, my anti spam filter ignores thousands of blml messages and puts this one in my anti spam map. Education in the Netherlands nowadays is something rotten/sensual. Onderwerp: [BLML] Educate me please I ask those with working knowledge of weighted score adjustments for the answers to these questions: 1. When a complicated weighted adjusted score ends in a matchpoint assignment, how do all other pairs compare with that result? 2. In a BAM event the adjustment can hardly be made in match points, or are fractional match points acceptable when win/loss/tie probabilities are mixed? 3. In an IMP pair event, X-imp scoring, are weighted adjusted scores indeed compared to every other result to get an IMP answer for each comparison, as the White Book says? 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun May 30 12:30:54 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 11:30:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> Message-ID: <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> On 30 May 2010, at 00:51, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Sven's method would (if I'm not mis-representing his method) give the > following table: > > Frequency Result Matchpoints > 1 +420 10 > 1 +170 8 > 1 +140 5 > 1 Art Av 5 > 1 +50 2 > 1 -100 0 > > from which the NS pair in question would get 60% of 8 + 40% of 2 = > 5.6 matchpoints A further problem with this method (and all variations on it) is that it doesn't provide you with the ability to award scores that don't already exist on the table. In particular it causes difficulty if you want to award a percentage of a score that is better than the best other score in the table, or worse than the worst other score. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100530/62e19b03/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun May 30 12:51:11 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 12:51:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <001101caffdd$bf619860$3e24c920$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001101caffdd$bf619860$3e24c920$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <000b01caffe6$04fab2a0$0ef017e0$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton > Sent: 30. mai 2010 11:52 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Educate me please > > ton: > interesting, my anti spam filter ignores thousands of blml messages and puts this > one in my anti spam map. Education in the Netherlands nowadays is something > rotten/sensual. The same happened in my computer! Sven From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun May 30 13:52:37 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 12:52:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <000b01caffe6$04fab2a0$0ef017e0$@no> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001101caffdd$bf619860$3e24c920$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000b01caffe6$04fab2a0$0ef017e0$@no> Message-ID: <4304807B-B096-4019-933D-9C5EAEB78F9E@btinternet.com> On 30 May 2010, at 11:51, Sven Pran wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of > ton >> Sent: 30. mai 2010 11:52 >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Educate me please >> >> ton: >> interesting, my anti spam filter ignores thousands of blml >> messages and > puts this >> one in my anti spam map. Education in the Netherlands nowadays is > something >> rotten/sensual. > > The same happened in my computer! > Sven It would probably be avoided by referring to "Cross-IMPs" rather than the way it was done in the original post. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun May 30 14:31:21 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 14:31:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings about this kind of calculation. I saw Sven weigh(t?)ing two total points scores resulting in a 235 or something. And Gordon seems to go wrong as well. May be Herman can concentrate on this issue, this is where he is an expert in. We should not weigh(t) total points but matchpoints resulting from total points. And when an adjusted score is better than any other score it receives the top, as we do for a million years. And if such score gets a weight less than 1 give it the referring frequency (.7 for example) . It is all in my commentary which can be found on the wbf website. Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Gordon Rainsford Verzonden: zondag 30 mei 2010 12:31 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Educate me please On 30 May 2010, at 00:51, Gordon Rainsford wrote: Sven's method would (if I'm not mis-representing his method) give the following table: Frequency Result Matchpoints 1 +420 10 1 +170 8 1 +140 5 1 Art Av 5 1 +50 2 1 -100 0 from which the NS pair in question would get 60% of 8 + 40% of 2 = 5.6 matchpoints A further problem with this method (and all variations on it) is that it doesn't provide you with the ability to award scores that don't already exist on the table. In particular it causes difficulty if you want to award a percentage of a score that is better than the best other score in the table, or worse than the worst other score. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100530/0b689576/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun May 30 14:32:03 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 14:32:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <4304807B-B096-4019-933D-9C5EAEB78F9E@btinternet.com> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001101caffdd$bf619860$3e24c920$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000b01caffe6$04fab2a0$0ef017e0$@no> <4304807B-B096-4019-933D-9C5EAEB78F9E@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000c01cafff4$1c193e80$544bbb80$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > On 30 May 2010, at 11:51, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > >> Behalf Of > > ton > >> Sent: 30. mai 2010 11:52 > >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Educate me please > >> > >> ton: > >> interesting, my anti spam filter ignores thousands of blml messages > >> and > > puts this > >> one in my anti spam map. Education in the Netherlands nowadays is > > something > >> rotten/sensual. > > > > The same happened in my computer! > > Sven > > It would probably be avoided by referring to "Cross-IMPs" rather than the way it > was done in the original post. The only thing I can say for sure is that the SPAM filter was triggered on one or more particular words in the message text; and so even before the message reached my rules filter which routes all BLBM messages to a special folder. Sven From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun May 30 14:53:15 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 13:53:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On 30 May 2010, at 13:31, ton wrote: > And Gordon seems to go wrong as well. In what way? I've just had a look in you commentary, and the method I explained for match-pointing is precisely the same method your example uses. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100530/9dea3638/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun May 30 18:34:39 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 18:34:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <000c01cb0016$00f15e90$02d41bb0$@no> Just to clear up this misunderstanding: I wrote that when the Director assigns a score directly in MP, possibly after weighting several alternative MP scores then this assigned MP result cannot be taken into consideration when. The procedure for the other tables is exactly the same as when an artificial adjusted score has been assigned. But I added that if the Director instead assigned a total score, possibly after weighting several alternative total scores then the result would be a total score, probably fictitious (like 235), and this total score could be used when calculating MP scores at all tables. Not that I recommend this procedure, but it is mathematically absolutely possible. Regards Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: 30. mai 2010 14:31 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Educate me please ton: there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings about this kind of calculation. I saw Sven weigh(t?)ing two total points scores resulting in a 235 or something. And Gordon seems to go wrong as well. May be Herman can concentrate on this issue, this is where he is an expert in. We should not weigh(t) total points but matchpoints resulting from total points. And when an adjusted score is better than any other score it receives the top, as we do for a million years. And if such score gets a weight less than 1 give it the referring frequency (.7 for example) . It is all in my commentary which can be found on the wbf website. Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Gordon Rainsford Verzonden: zondag 30 mei 2010 12:31 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Educate me please On 30 May 2010, at 00:51, Gordon Rainsford wrote: Sven's method would (if I'm not mis-representing his method) give the following table: Frequency Result Matchpoints 1 +420 10 1 +170 8 1 +140 5 1 Art Av 5 1 +50 2 1 -100 0 from which the NS pair in question would get 60% of 8 + 40% of 2 = 5.6 matchpoints A further problem with this method (and all variations on it) is that it doesn't provide you with the ability to award scores that don't already exist on the table. In particular it causes difficulty if you want to award a percentage of a score that is better than the best other score in the table, or worse than the worst other score. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100530/e34bc49f/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun May 30 23:32:46 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 13:32:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marvin's argument References: <4BFF8110.6000709@skynet.be> <4C003ACC.2060401@t-online.de> Message-ID: <0158F025E2924D8886D3F5DF791F91F9@MARVLAPTOP> = > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> If I have understood most of the posts in these threads, Marvin's >> argument goes as follows: (apologies if I got any of this wrong, >> the >> argument and my counterarguments are still valid) >> I do not recognize what follows and disavow it. Maybe I don't express myself well. I'll be trying again. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 31 01:00:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:00:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C0062A7.8060405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Nanny McPhee: "One of you is going to have to go and it can't be the donkey." Richard Hills: [snip] >>Since Law 16A1(c) concludes with "but see B1 following", the >>specific Law 16B1 on Extraneous Information from Partner over- >>rides the more general Law 16A1(c) on Players' Use of >>Information. >> >>What's the petitio principii problem? Steve Willner: >Everyone agrees on that. > >Where, exactly, does L16B1 say anything about concessions of >tricks? Pocket Oxford Dictionary: obtuse, a. slow of perception Richard Hills: Law 16B1 states "suggest a call or **play**". Law 68B2 states "**no concession** has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. **Play** continues." Ergo, the remark by partner declining your attempted concession is now a Law 16B1 extraneous remark from partner, since now "no concession has occurred" and "play continues". If you had not interrupted play with your attempted concession, you would not have gained new UI that partner thinks she holds (or thinks you hold) at least one more winner. Also relevant is Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and **play** shall be effected only by means of calls and **plays**." What's the obtuse 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 31 01:33:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:33:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Kaplanatic ruling? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <155804.53136.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: PO Sundelin: > ... Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? ... 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. ..." 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 May 31 04:20:28 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 12:20:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Kaplanatic ruling? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan: "Bridge is one of my pleasures, but bridge teaches you how to endure misery." PO Sundelin: >South had Q98763 to KT5 and played small to king which lost to >East's ace. On a later trick to queen West showed out. > >Declarer called the TD and claimed that West had broken tempo >before following to the first trick. [snip] >Or - is it (as the TD stated) common practice to assume tempo >break if one side says so, and thus in this case rule that >declarer would have finessed ("most favourable..")? Law 73D - Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Richard Hills: Given that West would normally have identical tempo in playing either the singleton trump x or playing low from doubleton trump Jx, a variation in tempo would not normally work to the benefit of West's side. Law 73D - Variations in Tempo or Manner Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Richard Hills: It is possible, to avoid confusion, that in the 2018 Law 73D the phrase "not in itself an infraction" will be shortened to "not an infraction". Law 73D - Variations in Tempo or Manner Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. Richard Hills: If declarer thought that LHO was a bunny and deduced that LHO was thinking about playing high with Jx of trumps in front of the KT5 of trumps visible in dummy, then that was obviously an "own risk" deduction by declarer. Law 73D - Variations in Tempo or Manner 2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), Richard Hills: If, however, LHO is a "cunning" bunny (a novice bridge player who was formerly an experienced poker player) and LHO always hesitates with a singleton trump but never hesitates with two or more trumps, then LHO deserves a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty, but declarer still does not deserve an adjusted score for an extra trump trick. Despite the hypothetical LHO's hypothetical "attempt to mislead", in this particular case the hypothetical declarer had zero bridge reasons to be actually misled. Therefore the at-the-table declarer should have assumed that the at-the-table LHO's hesitation was for a non-bridge reason, such as the at-the-table LHO thinking about ordering a coffee. Law 73D - Variations in Tempo or Manner the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. Richard Hills: On the facts as presented there is a prima facie case that declarer has purposefully deviated from correct Law 79A2 procedure, "knowingly" seeking an adjusted "score for a trick that his side did not win". Edgar Kaplan: "4H is a very good bid --- but on some other hand." Richard Hills: The actual Director's ruling in favour of the at-the-table declarer was a very good ruling --- but on some other 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 31 07:22:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 15:22:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +=+ Blmlers may care to discuss whether, to be among "the class of players in question" [Law 16B1(b)], a player must also, like the player who made the call, consider the call made to be among the logical alternatives. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In which case I would like to discuss -> 2011 Bermuda Bowl Final, fifth board out of sixty-four Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, North, hold: 5432 --- 5432 65432 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 7NT X Pass Pass XX Pass Pass Pass Result: -7600 after East cashes her 13-card heart suit. Was the 7NT opening bid a logical alternative for the class of player of North, who has qualified for the Bermuda Bowl? Was the 7NTxx next call a logical alternative for the class of player of North, who has qualified for the Bermuda Bowl? Or do two intentional infractions of Law 72A: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. 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." mean that neither of North's calls can be deemed to be logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon May 31 09:32:00 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:32:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <000c01cb0016$00f15e90$02d41bb0$@no> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000c01cb0016$00f15e90$02d41bb0$@no> Message-ID: <003401cb0093$5bf58280$13e08780$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> But I added that if the Director instead assigned a total score, possibly after weighting several alternative total scores then the result would be a total score, probably fictitious (like 235), and this total score could be used when calculating MP scores at all tables. Not that I recommend this procedure, but it is mathematically absolutely possible. Regards Sven ton: I am not sure what you mean with 'mathematically absolutely possible'. Mathematically (better may be: arithmetically) it is absolutely possible to manipulate numbers anyway you want. The question is whether this is a right procedure from a bridge technical point of view and my opinion is that nobody should ever do something like you describe. Assigning a total score you need a unique bridge result and as soon as two or more bridge results have to be considered the only correct way of calculating is taking the average of (i)mp's and not of total points. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100531/30c70a17/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 31 09:48:31 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:48:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> reply from the expert: ton wrote: > ton: > > May be Herman can concentrate on this issue, this is where he is an > expert in. > Gordon wrote in an earlier thread: Below is an example using European matchpointing (halve these matchpoints for US style results) where a +420 result in the initial table is adjusted to 60% of +170 & 40% of +50 in the second table. Frequency Result Matchpoints 2 +420 9 1 +170 6 1 +140 4 1 +50 2 1 -100 0 Frequency Result Matchpoints 1 +420 10 1.6 +170 7.4 1 +140 4.8 1.4 +50 2.4 1 -100 0 The NS pair in question will get 60% of 7.4 + 40% of 2.4 = 5.4 matchpoints As you see, the results of all the other pairs whose scores are between or equal to the results used in the weighting, are also affected, as they should be. Gordon's method is totally correct. Gordon then added: > > A further problem with this method (and all variations on it) is that it > doesn't provide you with the ability to award scores that don't already > exist on the table. In particular it causes difficulty if you want to > award a percentage of a score that is better than the best other score > in the table, or worse than the worst other score. > of course there is no problem with this: just apply the same formula with those weights at either end. Of course you'll then arrive at scores of -0.4, but no-one said there could be no negative scores, did they? > Gordon Rainsford > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon May 31 10:55:16 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:55:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <82F6178B-E75C-42F5-B192-E7549C682F6E@btinternet.com> On 31 May 2010, at 08:48, Herman De Wael wrote: > reply from the expert: > > ton wrote: >> ton: >> >> May be Herman can concentrate on this issue, this is where he is an >> expert in. > > Gordon's method is totally correct. Thank you! > > Gordon then added: > >> >> A further problem with this method (and all variations on it) is >> that it >> doesn't provide you with the ability to award scores that don't >> already >> exist on the table. In particular it causes difficulty if you want to >> award a percentage of a score that is better than the best other >> score >> in the table, or worse than the worst other score. >> > > of course there is no problem with this: just apply the same formula > with those weights at either end. Of course you'll then arrive at > scores > of -0.4, but no-one said there could be no negative scores, did they? Indeed no problem with my/your method. The bit you edited out (and about which I was perhaps not sufficiently clear) was that these later comments applied only to Sven's method and all variations on it - ie methods that ignore the effect of the weighted score on the matchpoints of the rest of the field. So I don't think Ton, you or I have any difference in our approaches to this. Gordon Rainsford From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 31 11:12:35 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:12:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling? In-Reply-To: <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> References: <63514.13118.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0038EA.9090003@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C037D83.4000603@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > PO Sundelin schrieb: > >> I thought I knew.... >> However, the TD I quoted said that normally when someone claims tempo break there was one, >> > > and, as far as the argument goes, he is right. More often than not there > was a hesitation. The problem is that this says nothing about there > _actually_ was one in the case under consideration. > That's the same kind of statistical method that is used by insurance companies. Now you could try changing that too :-\ From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 31 12:32:24 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 12:32:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Educate me please In-Reply-To: <82F6178B-E75C-42F5-B192-E7549C682F6E@btinternet.com> References: <4D2935DD8F654D3E8AFE30579BD5F3C2@MARVLAPTOP> <001201caff57$407fb7b0$c17f2710$@no> <83373FA5-4D1B-48C7-A400-842573E0E966@btinternet.com> <001801cafff4$03810290$0a8307b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4C0369CF.3010701@skynet.be> <82F6178B-E75C-42F5-B192-E7549C682F6E@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4C039038.8050402@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> of course there is no problem with this: just apply the same formula >> with those weights at either end. Of course you'll then arrive at >> scores >> of -0.4, but no-one said there could be no negative scores, did they? > > Indeed no problem with my/your method. The bit you edited out (and > about which I was perhaps not sufficiently clear) was that these > later comments applied only to Sven's method and all variations on it > - ie methods that ignore the effect of the weighted score on the > matchpoints of the rest of the field. > Duly noted. Sorry I misinterpreted your post. > So I don't think Ton, you or I have any difference in our approaches > to this. > We most certainly don't. > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 31 16:00:02 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 14:00:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission draft minutes 13th March 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65486.20202.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Blmlers may care to discuss whether, to be among "the class of players in question" [Law 16B1(b)], a player must also, like the player who made the call, consider the call made to be among the logical alternatives. [Nigel] No. Of course not.... but, as well as listing logical alternatives, a polled player should: (1) Agree that the *previous* calls in this auction by this player are reasonable. So that he is bidding on the same premises. (2) Be asked which calls are suggested by the unauthorised information