From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 1 00:15:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:15:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1PCJW3-28Yfk80@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >>Declarer cashes the Ace of spades, RHO showing out. Declarer >>claims, stating that he will play a heart to the ace, take the >>spade finesse, and dummy is good. RHO now corrects his revoke >>in spades. >> >>A logical solution, it seems to me, is that declarer is >>allowed to withdraw his claim. Peter Eidt: >I'm not commenting on your logic but only referring to Minute >10 of Philadelphia's 1st meeting: > >"If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a >defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, >the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow >correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as >equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against >the revoker." Richard Hills: If by "withdraw his claim" Robert is implying that a _logical_ solution is now "play continues" or that a _logical_ solution is now "declarer makes an entirely new claim based on a double squeeze", then ... Duplicate Bridge is played by its rules, not played by "logic". Duplicate Bridge is played by its rules, not played by "logic". Duplicate Bridge is played by its rules, not played by "logic". The "illogical" Law 68D, first two phrases: "After any claim or concession, play ***ceases*** ... " The "illogical" Law 70A, second phrase: " ... the Director ***adjudicates*** the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides ... " Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 henk at ripe.net Mon Nov 1 01:01:02 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:01:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 1 02:05:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:05:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >Duplicate Bridge is played by its rules, not played by "logic". >Duplicate Bridge is played by its rules, not played by "logic". >Duplicate Bridge is played by its rules, not played by "logic". > >The "illogical" Law 68D, first two phrases: > >"After any claim or concession, play ***ceases*** ... " > >The "illogical" Law 70A, second phrase: > >" ... the Director ***adjudicates*** the result of the board as >equitably as possible to both sides ... " The only time that "logic" is relevant to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is when those Laws are decennially revised to become more suitable. So at the same time that the "illogical" Laws 68D and 70A are suitably revised, the "illogical" Law 1 may also be suitably revised to: Duplicate Bridge is played between two opponents who move their pieces alternately on a square board composed of an 8x8 grid of 64 squares alternately light (the "white" squares) and dark (the "black" squares). In a two innings match of five days or more, the side which bats first and leads by at least 200 runs shall have the option of requiring the other side to follow their innings. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 1 11:06:04 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:06:04 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <2AE2B5188C4F43E58BB61B46B4315411@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:05 AM Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Duplicate Bridge is played between two opponents > who move their pieces alternately on a square > board composed of an 8x8 grid of 64 squares > alternately light (the "white" squares) and dark > (the "black" squares). In a two innings match > of five days or more, the side which bats first > and leads by at least 200 runs shall have the > option of requiring the other side to follow > their innings. > +=+ "Contrariwise" continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 1 14:51:59 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:51:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:05:19 -0400, wrote: > >> Duplicate Bridge is played by its rules, not played by "logic". >> Duplicate Bridge is played by its rules, not played by "logic". >> Duplicate Bridge is played by its rules, not played by "logic". >> >> The "illogical" Law 68D, first two phrases: >> >> "After any claim or concession, play ***ceases*** ... " >> >> The "illogical" Law 70A, second phrase: >> >> " ... the Director ***adjudicates*** the result of the board as >> equitably as possible to both sides ... " > > The only time that "logic" is relevant to the Laws of Duplicate > Bridge is when those Laws are decennially revised to become more > suitable. So at the same time that the "illogical" Laws 68D and > 70A are suitably revised, the "illogical" Law 1 may also be > suitably revised to: > > Duplicate Bridge is played between two opponents > who move their pieces alternately on a square > board composed of an 8x8 grid of 64 squares > alternately light (the "white" squares) and dark > (the "black" squares). In a two innings match > of five days or more, the side which bats first > and leads by at least 200 runs shall have the > option of requiring the other side to follow > their innings. > > Best wishes > When an unestablished revoke is corrected, it makes sense that all of the subsquent "actions" taken by the NOS should be "undone" and everything restarts from the point of the changed play. Indeed, that is what happens for plays -- they are undone. Sven has claimed, without dispute from blml, that this is what should happen for director decisions by NOS. As Sven said, the situation is different, declarer should be allowed to make a different choice. The idea that ONLY plays are undone is......"Illogical" is the wrong word. "Unfair" seems right. It makes the laws much more complicated than they should be. Right, the laws can be as hopelessly complex and unfair as we want. But no one wants that. The WBFLC doesn't try to do that. So why, when they could have resolved this ambiguity either way, did they make such a bad choice? From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 1 15:29:47 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:29:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............ > When an unestablished revoke is corrected, it makes sense that all of the > subsquent "actions" taken by the NOS should be "undone" and everything restarts > from the point of the changed play. Indeed, that is what happens for plays -- they > are undone. Sven has claimed, without dispute from blml, that this is what should > happen for director decisions by NOS. As Sven said, the situation is different, > declarer should be allowed to make a different choice. On a point of order: I didn't say that the claim should be voided (at least that is not what I intended). But it is obvious to me that the claimer cannot be bound by his (original) claim statement; he must be allowed to have his claim adjudicated by a different line of play not necessarily embraced in his original claim statement because the circumstances for his original claim has been severely changed. And in my comment I showed how I would adjudicate the given example claim by allowing an entirely different line of play resulting in a safe play for twelve tricks with an automatic squeeze for the thirteenth trick if conditions for this were satisfactory. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 1 15:47:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:47:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> References: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > >> When an unestablished revoke is corrected, it makes sense that all >> of the >> subsquent "actions" taken by the NOS should be "undone" and >> everything restarts >> from the point of the changed play. Indeed, that is what happens >> for plays -- they >> are undone. Sven has claimed, without dispute from blml, that this >> is what should >> happen for director decisions by NOS. As Sven said, the situation >> is different, >> declarer should be allowed to make a different choice. > > On a point of order: I didn't say that the claim should be voided > (at least > that is not what I intended). > > But it is obvious to me that the claimer cannot be bound by his > (original) > claim statement; he must be allowed to have his claim adjudicated by a > different line of play not necessarily embraced in his original claim > statement because the circumstances for his original claim has been > severely > changed. > > And in my comment I showed how I would adjudicate the given example > claim by > allowing an entirely different line of play resulting in a safe > play for > twelve tricks with an automatic squeeze for the thirteenth trick if > conditions for this were satisfactory. Given that the director may "accept" (i.e. presume) an unstated variation in a claimer's line of play if an opponent who has not previously shown out of a suit would show out on the stated line (L70E1), it only makes sense for him to do the same if an opponent who has previously shown out of a suit unexpectedly "shows in". It would be obviously "irrational" for the claimer to "fail to notice" an opponent's correction of an unestablished revoke. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 1 15:54:30 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:54:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points Message-ID: Declarer claims stating he will draw trump. A10xxx KJxxx If he had included in his claiming statement that he was starting with the king, I believe we allow him to finesse for the queen if RHO shows out. But he did not. If we resolve this doubtful point against the claimer, then I assume we have his first "play" be from whatever hand doesn't allow him to pick up the queen. If we resolve this doubtful point against the nonclaimers, then I assume we have his first play be from whatever hand allows him to pick up the queen. So he always picks up the suit. From henk at ripe.net Mon Nov 1 16:05:40 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:05:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201011011505.oA1F5eYV009523@cat.ripe.net> #!/bin/tcsh -fx cd /home/henk/stats ./monthly.pl > stats/`./yesterdate.pl`.txt ./monthly.pl | /usr/bin/mail -s "BLML Usage statistics" blml at rtflb.org From henk at ripe.net Mon Nov 1 16:09:20 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:09:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201011011509.oA1F9KSa010076@cat.ripe.net> From henk at ripe.net Mon Nov 1 16:09:30 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:09:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201011011509.oA1F9Ubn010084@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for October 2010 Posts From ----- ---- 54 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 38 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 36 blml (at) arcor.de 25 svenpran (at) online.no 25 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 24 gampas (at) aol.com 23 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 22 ehaa (at) starpower.net 21 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 18 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 17 swillner (at) nhcc.net 8 henk (at) ripe.net 7 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 6 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 5 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 5 adam (at) irvine.com 4 ccw.in.nc (at) gmail.com 3 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 3 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 3 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 tedying (at) yahoo.com 2 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au 2 bpark56 (at) comcast.net 2 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 1 zecurado (at) gmail.com 1 tsvecfob (at) iol.ie 1 swillner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 1 mikopera (at) nyc.rr.com 1 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 1 madam (at) civilradio.hu 1 lumenco (at) ono.com 1 craigstamps (at) comcast.net 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 1 16:49:05 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:49:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:47:55 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >>> When an unestablished revoke is corrected, it makes sense that all >>> of the >>> subsquent "actions" taken by the NOS should be "undone" and >>> everything restarts >>> from the point of the changed play. Indeed, that is what happens >>> for plays -- they >>> are undone. Sven has claimed, without dispute from blml, that this >>> is what should >>> happen for director decisions by NOS. As Sven said, the situation >>> is different, >>> declarer should be allowed to make a different choice. >> >> On a point of order: I didn't say that the claim should be voided >> (at least >> that is not what I intended). >> >> But it is obvious to me that the claimer cannot be bound by his >> (original) >> claim statement; he must be allowed to have his claim adjudicated by a >> different line of play not necessarily embraced in his original claim >> statement because the circumstances for his original claim has been >> severely >> changed. >> >> And in my comment I showed how I would adjudicate the given example >> claim by >> allowing an entirely different line of play resulting in a safe >> play for >> twelve tricks with an automatic squeeze for the thirteenth trick if >> conditions for this were satisfactory. > > Given that the director may "accept" (i.e. presume) an unstated > variation in a claimer's line of play if an opponent who has not > previously shown out of a suit would show out on the stated line > (L70E1), it only makes sense for him to do the same if an opponent > who has previously shown out of a suit unexpectedly "shows in". It > would be obviously "irrational" for the claimer to "fail to notice" > an opponent's correction of an unestablished revoke. I think you are maybe putting a band-aid on the problem. I have AJx opposite K10x and am just trying to get a count to decide which way to finesse. I play a side suit, RHO shows out, and I claim saying I am finessing RHO for the queen. RHO then corrects his unestablished revoke. Am I allowed to play more rounds of the side suit before deciding which way to finesse? (LHO will show out on the next round of the side suit.) If I am allowed, does LHO's failure to follow suit on the second round of the side suit make it irrational to finesse RHO? It is of course very obvious to all involved that had RHO not revoked, I would have played more rounds of clubs. But it is just as obvious that my claiming statement does not include that. Sven allows me to just change my claiming statement. Did you want something different? Perhaps you want to allow any changes in claiming statement that become rational given the correction of the revoke? From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Nov 1 17:02:07 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:02:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> References: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> Message-ID: <4CCEE47F.6050202@comcast.net> On 11/1/10 10:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............ >> When an unestablished revoke is corrected, it makes sense that all of the >> subsquent "actions" taken by the NOS should be "undone" and everything > restarts >> from the point of the changed play. Indeed, that is what happens for plays > -- they >> are undone. Sven has claimed, without dispute from blml, that this is what > should >> happen for director decisions by NOS. As Sven said, the situation is > different, >> declarer should be allowed to make a different choice. > On a point of order: I didn't say that the claim should be voided (at least > that is not what I intended). > > But it is obvious to me that the claimer cannot be bound by his (original) > claim statement; he must be allowed to have his claim adjudicated by a > different line of play not necessarily embraced in his original claim > statement because the circumstances for his original claim has been severely > changed. > > And in my comment I showed how I would adjudicate the given example claim by > allowing an entirely different line of play resulting in a safe play for > twelve tricks with an automatic squeeze for the thirteenth trick if > conditions for this were satisfactory. > What if the claimer knows little of squeezes or otherwise fails to see a winning line after the revoke is corrected. Do you then punish him for claiming, given that he would not have claimed without the revoke? Or do you find the winning line for him? --bp From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 1 17:44:43 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:44:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: <4CCEE47F.6050202@comcast.net> References: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> <4CCEE47F.6050202@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001801cb79e4$1694dc70$43be9550$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Park ............... > > And in my comment I showed how I would adjudicate the given example > > claim by allowing an entirely different line of play resulting in a > > safe play for twelve tricks with an automatic squeeze for the > > thirteenth trick if conditions for this were satisfactory. > > > > What if the claimer knows little of squeezes or otherwise fails to see a winning line > after the revoke is corrected. Do you then punish him for claiming, given that he > would not have claimed without the revoke? Or do you find the winning line for > him? I shall certainly not teach him how to conduct a squeeze, but I should not deny him that line of play if he sees (discovers) it while reconsidering his claim with all cards now visible. Note that the correct procedure as I see it is: 1: Declarer claims and provides a claim statement. 2: An opponent rejects the claim in order to avoid his revoke (which he now announces) to become established. 3: The Director hears the claim statement, orders all remaining cards to be faced and hears opponents' possible objections. 4: The Director now allows the claimer to modify his claim statement as a consequence of the changed circumstances due to the announced but now unestablished revoke. (This includes allowing declarer to take advantage of would be major penalty card.) 5: The Director finally makes his ruling as to the number of tricks to be awarded for the claim. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 1 21:30:16 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:30:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer claims stating he will draw trump. > > A10xxx > > KJxxx > > If he had included in his claiming statement that he was starting > with the > king, I believe we allow him to finesse for the queen if RHO shows > out. > But he did not. > > If we resolve this doubtful point against the claimer, then I > assume we > have his first "play" be from whatever hand doesn't allow him to > pick up > the queen. > > If we resolve this doubtful point against the nonclaimers, then I > assume > we have his first play be from whatever hand allows him to pick up the > queen. So he always picks up the suit. All this is true, but why does Bob post it? A declarer with that holding stating he will draw trump, with no further indication as to how he will play the suit, will, of course, be presumed to lose to the queen. L70D1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous on this point. Bob's last paragraph, while surely true, is a pure hypothetical. Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone think this ought to be changed? What are we discussing? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Nov 1 22:13:17 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:13:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: <001801cb79e4$1694dc70$43be9550$@no> References: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> <4CCEE47F.6050202@comcast.net> <001801cb79e4$1694dc70$43be9550$@no> Message-ID: <4CCF2D6D.4000601@comcast.net> On 11/1/10 12:44 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Park > ............... >>> And in my comment I showed how I would adjudicate the given example >>> claim by allowing an entirely different line of play resulting in a >>> safe play for twelve tricks with an automatic squeeze for the >>> thirteenth trick if conditions for this were satisfactory. >>> >> What if the claimer knows little of squeezes or otherwise fails to see a > winning line >> after the revoke is corrected. Do you then punish him for claiming, given > that he >> would not have claimed without the revoke? Or do you find the winning line > for >> him? > I shall certainly not teach him how to conduct a squeeze, but I should not > deny him that line of play if he sees (discovers) it while reconsidering his > claim with all cards now visible. > > Note that the correct procedure as I see it is: > > 1: Declarer claims and provides a claim statement. > 2: An opponent rejects the claim in order to avoid his revoke (which he now > announces) to become established. > 3: The Director hears the claim statement, orders all remaining cards to be > faced and hears opponents' possible objections. > 4: The Director now allows the claimer to modify his claim statement as a > consequence of the changed circumstances due to the announced but now > unestablished revoke. (This includes allowing declarer to take advantage of > would be major penalty card.) > 5: The Director finally makes his ruling as to the number of tricks to be > awarded for the claim. > So...declarer makes a claim that would have worked if revoker's card had been legitimate, but after the revoke gets corrected he becomes forced to make a new valid claim that is perhaps beyond his skill level...or else! Doesn't seem quite right, as he might well have gotten a normal result had play continued in the absence of a revoke. This scenario does raise another question: If all play ceases following a claim, is correcting a revoke a "play?" By the way, does declarer get to see all the cards when he makes his revised claim? --bp From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 1 22:58:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:58:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801cb79e4$1694dc70$43be9550$@no> Message-ID: Archilochus, Greek poet of the 7th century BCE: "The fox knows many things - the hedgehog one big one." Sven Pran: [snip] >Note that the correct procedure as I see it is: > >1: Declarer claims and provides a claim statement. >2: An opponent rejects the claim in order to avoid his revoke >(which he now announces) to become established. >3: The Director hears the claim statement, orders all remaining >cards to be faced and hears opponents' possible objections. >4: The Director now allows the claimer to modify his claim >statement as a consequence of the changed circumstances due to >the announced but now unestablished revoke. (This includes >allowing declarer to take advantage of would be major penalty >card.) >5: The Director finally makes his ruling as to the number of >tricks to be awarded for the claim. Richard Hills: I agree with Sven's points 1,2,3 and 5. But Sven's point 4 is not only directly contrary to the wording of the WBF LC minutes 8th October 2010 item 10, Sven's point 4 is also directly contrary to Law 70C (There Is An Outstanding Trump). Suppose declarer claims one off since as declarer attempts to finesse against LHO, LHO shows out. The claim is disputed by RHO who (foolishly) wants a result of two off. This is because declarer has not made a statement about RHO's outstanding trump (Law 70C1) which declarer has completely forgotten about (Law 70C2) and declarer may normally lose a trick to RHO's trump (Law 70C3). In the course of the Director's investigations, the Director discovers that LHO has committed an unestablished revoke, thus declarer's planned finesse against LHO will actually work. So declarer modifies her claim to not only take the finesse against LHO, but to also to draw RHO's trump. Contract made. So Sven's point 4 should be rewritten to read -> 4: The Director herself (not the claimer) revises the claimer's claim, in accordance with Law 70A: "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point shall be resolved against the claimer" and/or any doubtful point shall be resolved against the revoker, in accordance with the WBF LC minutes 8th October 2010 item 10. So in my hypothetical example above, RHO does not get a result of two off, declarer does not get a result of contract made, and LHO does not have her unestablished revoke unrectified. Rather, the Director (not the claimer) revises the claimer's claim, ruling that declarer will be deemed to finesse against LHO, due to LHO being deemed to not revoke, but that RHO will be deemed to win an unexpected trump trick, due to declarer being deemed to believe that this pack contains only 12 trumps. Contract one off. What's the problem - a hedgehog or a fox? Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), The Hedgehog and the Fox (1953): "There exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision ... and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and contradictory ... The first kind of intellectual and artistic personality belongs to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes." And the third kind of intellectual and artistic personality is? Best wishes Rikki-Tikki-Tavi -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 1 23:26:36 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:26:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001801cb79e4$1694dc70$43be9550$@no> Message-ID: <000801cb7a13$d8a01c10$89e05430$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ................ > >4: The Director now allows the claimer to modify his claim statement as > >a consequence of the changed circumstances due to the announced but now > >unestablished revoke. (This includes allowing declarer to take > >advantage of would be major penalty > >card.) > >5: The Director finally makes his ruling as to the number of tricks to > >be awarded for the claim. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Sven's points 1,2,3 and 5. But Sven's point 4 is not only directly > contrary to the wording of the WBF LC minutes 8th October 2010 item 10, Sven's > point 4 is also directly contrary to Law 70C (There Is An Outstanding Trump). > > Suppose declarer claims one off since as declarer attempts to finesse against > LHO, LHO shows out. The claim is disputed by RHO who (foolishly) wants a result > of two off. This is because declarer has not made a statement about RHO's > outstanding trump (Law 70C1) which declarer has completely forgotten about > (Law > 70C2) and declarer may normally lose a trick to RHO's trump (Law 70C3). In the > course of the Director's investigations, the Director discovers that LHO has > committed an unestablished revoke, thus declarer's planned finesse against LHO > will actually work. > > > So declarer modifies her claim to not only take the finesse against LHO, but to > also to draw RHO's trump. Contract made. > > So Sven's point 4 should be rewritten to read -> > > 4: The Director herself (not the claimer) revises the claimer's claim, in accordance > with Law 70A: "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as > possible to both sides, but any doubtful point shall be resolved against the > claimer" > and/or any doubtful point shall be resolved against the revoker, in accordance > with the WBF LC minutes 8th October 2010 item 10. > > So in my hypothetical example above, RHO does not get a result of two off, > declarer does not get a result of contract made, and LHO does not have her > unestablished revoke unrectified. > > Rather, the Director (not the claimer) revises the claimer's claim, ruling that > declarer will be deemed to finesse against LHO, due to LHO being deemed to not > revoke, but that RHO will be deemed to win an unexpected trump trick, due to > declarer being deemed to believe that this pack contains only 12 trumps. Declarer must take into consideration that declarer claimed because RHO showed out and the continued play was therefore obvious. Once the revoke is corrected in time not to be established the whole foundation for the claim has vanished. Therefore I consider it utterly unfair to declarer if the claim is upheld as originally made. My personal opinion is that declarer (who at this time must be expected to be severely upset by the revoke) should be treated with leniency and in fact have doubtful points resolved for rather than against the claimer when such doubt is the result of the corrected revoke and not because the claim was originally doubtful. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 2 00:00:36 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:00:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801cb7a13$d8a01c10$89e05430$@no> Message-ID: 2018 Law 44C - Requirement to Follow Suit "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over almost (see Law Zero) all other requirements of these Laws." 2018 Law Zero - Utterly Unfair "The Director and/or any player may completely ignore any or all of the other Laws in The Fabulous Law Book if the Director and/or any player considers the correct application of any or all of the other Laws to be utterly unfair." Sven Pran: >The Director must take into consideration that declarer claimed >because LHO showed out and the continued play was therefore >obvious. [snip] >I consider it utterly unfair to declarer if the claim is upheld >as originally made. [snip] Richard Hills: The Director must take into consideration that if there had been no revoke by LHO and no claim by declarer, RHO would have scored an unexpected trump trick as declarer would not have been reminded to recount trumps as a result of RHO's objection to declarer's claim. And the claim, in my hypothetical example, was not upheld as originally made. While the result was the same, declarer gained a trick from LHO but lost a trick to RHO. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 2 01:58:24 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:58:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:30:16 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Declarer claims stating he will draw trump. >> >> A10xxx >> >> KJxxx >> >> If he had included in his claiming statement that he was starting >> with the >> king, I believe we allow him to finesse for the queen if RHO shows >> out. >> But he did not. >> >> If we resolve this doubtful point against the claimer, then I >> assume we >> have his first "play" be from whatever hand doesn't allow him to >> pick up >> the queen. >> >> If we resolve this doubtful point against the nonclaimers, then I >> assume >> we have his first play be from whatever hand allows him to pick up the >> queen. So he always picks up the suit. > > All this is true, but why does Bob post it? A declarer with that > holding stating he will draw trump, with no further indication as to > how he will play the suit, will, of course, be presumed to lose to > the queen. L70D1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous on this point. > Bob's last paragraph, while surely true, is a pure hypothetical. > Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone think this ought to be > changed? What are we discussing? Sorry, my fault for not being clear that this is not hypothetical. WBFLC Minute 10: ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker.? It might have been useful to distinguish (1) doubtful points created by the correction of the reoke (if there is such a thing) and (2) doubtful points unrelated to correction of the revoke. Suppose the play of the trump suit is unrelated to the correction of the revoke. We still have by the WBFLC minute that the doubtful point (whether to play the ace or king first) is resolved in favor of the claimer. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 2 02:00:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:00:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2AE2B5188C4F43E58BB61B46B4315411@Mildred> Message-ID: > Duplicate Bridge is played between two opponents > who move their pieces alternately on a square > board composed of an 8x8 grid of 64 squares > alternately light (the "white" squares) and dark > (the "black" squares). In a two innings match > of five days or more, the side which bats first > and leads by at least 200 runs shall have the > option of requiring the other side to follow > their innings. +=+ "Contrariwise" continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." +=+ Robert Frick: [snip] >"Illogical" is the wrong word. "Unfair" seems right. It >makes the laws much more complicated than they should be. > >Right, the laws can be as hopelessly complex and unfair as we >want. But no one wants that. The WBFLC doesn't try to do >that. So why, when they could have resolved this ambiguity >either way, did they make such a bad choice? Richard Hills: Why did NASA fake the moon landings? In order to have a rational "logical" argument with another about "fairness", the two disputants must share a common set of axioms. Sure the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are more complicated than the Laws of Duplicate Bridge "should" be -- if one's axiom is that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge should be a very simple meld of the rules of chess and the rules of cricket. But the WBF LC axiom is that it is unauthorised information to a claimer that her claim has been disputed. Thus as a logical consequence of the WBF LC axiom, the WBF LC has ruled that it is unfair for claimer to be permitted two bites at the cherry, and is fair for the Director to still adjudicate all claims (even claims affected by a non-claiming side's revoke). Best wishes Rikki-Tikki-Tavi -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Nov 2 02:15:27 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:15:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF LC minutes 8th October 2001, item 10: " ... adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker." The above phrase is not _logically_ equivalent to: " ... adjudicating all doubtful points against the revoking side." So the WBF Laws Committee has _not_ exceeded its mandate by over- ruling Law 70A. Best wishes Rikki-Tikki-Tavi -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 2 03:00:52 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:00:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:15:27 -0400, wrote: > WBF LC minutes 8th October 2001, item 10: > > " ... adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker." > > The above phrase is not _logically_ equivalent to: > > " ... adjudicating all doubtful points against the revoking side." Nice point. Can you give an example of the difference? From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Nov 2 03:07:24 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:07:24 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001801cb79e4$1694dc70$43be9550$@no> <000801cb7a13$d8a01c10$89e05430$@no> Message-ID: <1128A9DD21CA461095923DF5705ECE9C@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > ................ >> >4: The Director now allows the claimer to modify his claim statement as >> >a consequence of the changed circumstances due to the announced but now >> >unestablished revoke. (This includes allowing declarer to take >> >advantage of would be major penalty >> >card.) >> >5: The Director finally makes his ruling as to the number of tricks to >> >be awarded for the claim. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I agree with Sven's points 1,2,3 and 5. But Sven's point 4 is not only > directly >> contrary to the wording of the WBF LC minutes 8th October 2010 item 10, > Sven's >> point 4 is also directly contrary to Law 70C (There Is An Outstanding > Trump). >> >> Suppose declarer claims one off since as declarer attempts to finesse > against >> LHO, LHO shows out. The claim is disputed by RHO who (foolishly) wants a > result >> of two off. This is because declarer has not made a statement about >> RHO's >> outstanding trump (Law 70C1) which declarer has completely forgotten >> about >> (Law >> 70C2) and declarer may normally lose a trick to RHO's trump (Law 70C3). > In the >> course of the Director's investigations, the Director discovers that LHO > has >> committed an unestablished revoke, thus declarer's planned finesse >> against > LHO >> will actually work. >> >> >> So declarer modifies her claim to not only take the finesse against LHO, > but to >> also to draw RHO's trump. Contract made. >> >> So Sven's point 4 should be rewritten to read -> >> >> 4: The Director herself (not the claimer) revises the claimer's claim, in > accordance >> with Law 70A: "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as > equitably as >> possible to both sides, but any doubtful point shall be resolved against > the >> claimer" >> and/or any doubtful point shall be resolved against the revoker, in > accordance >> with the WBF LC minutes 8th October 2010 item 10. >> >> So in my hypothetical example above, RHO does not get a result of two >> off, >> declarer does not get a result of contract made, and LHO does not have >> her >> unestablished revoke unrectified. >> >> Rather, the Director (not the claimer) revises the claimer's claim, >> ruling > that >> declarer will be deemed to finesse against LHO, due to LHO being deemed >> to > not >> revoke, but that RHO will be deemed to win an unexpected trump trick, due > to >> declarer being deemed to believe that this pack contains only 12 trumps. > > Declarer must take into consideration that declarer claimed because RHO > showed out and the continued play was therefore obvious. > > Once the revoke is corrected in time not to be established the whole > foundation for the claim has vanished. Therefore I consider it utterly > unfair to declarer if the claim is upheld as originally made. My personal > opinion is that declarer (who at this time must be expected to be severely > upset by the revoke) should be treated with leniency and in fact have > doubtful points resolved for rather than against the claimer when such > doubt > is the result of the corrected revoke and not because the claim was > originally doubtful. > I think Law 70 B.2 will probably give the director sufficient latitude to determine a new "normal" line of play which now resolves doubtful points in favour of declarer bill LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION A. General Objective In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows. B. Clarification Statement Repeated 1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. 2. Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 2 03:52:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:52:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1128A9DD21CA461095923DF5705ECE9C@acer> Message-ID: Law 70B2: "Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections)." Bill Kemp: >I think Law 70 B.2 will probably give the director sufficient >latitude to determine a new "normal" line of play which now >resolves doubtful points in favour of [the claiming] declarer > >bill Rudyard Kipling, Rikki-Tikki-Tavi (1894): "The motto of all the mongoose family is 'Run and find out'." Richard Hills: Yes, rather than be a blml hedgehog who "knows" the one big fact about _should_, or a blml fox who "knows" the many facts about _unfair_, Bill Kemp is a blml mongoose who instead will "run and find out" the _actual_ facts in the _actual_ Lawbook. So yes, it seems that this much debated WBF LC ruling is a legal clarification of Law 70B2 vis-a-vis the non-claiming revoker's revoke as such. But no, I do not think that Law 70B2 can be used to over- ride the entitlements of the non-claiming side under Law 70C (There Is An Outstanding Trump), because the Law 70C prologue uses this imperative " ... the Director _shall_ ... ". Best wishes Rikki-Tikki-Tavi -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Nov 2 09:58:00 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:58:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CCFD298.1020302@skynet.be> Yes indeed, Bob: Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:30:16 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Declarer claims stating he will draw trump. >>> >>> A10xxx >>> >>> KJxxx >>> >>> If he had included in his claiming statement that he was starting >>> with the >>> king, I believe we allow him to finesse for the queen if RHO shows >>> out. >>> But he did not. >>> >>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the claimer, then I >>> assume we >>> have his first "play" be from whatever hand doesn't allow him to >>> pick up >>> the queen. >>> >>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the nonclaimers, then I >>> assume >>> we have his first play be from whatever hand allows him to pick up the >>> queen. So he always picks up the suit. >> >> All this is true, but why does Bob post it? A declarer with that >> holding stating he will draw trump, with no further indication as to >> how he will play the suit, will, of course, be presumed to lose to >> the queen. L70D1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous on this point. >> Bob's last paragraph, while surely true, is a pure hypothetical. >> Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone think this ought to be >> changed? What are we discussing? > > Sorry, my fault for not being clear that this is not hypothetical. WBFLC > Minute 10: > > > ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon > a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, > the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow > correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as > equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against > the revoker.? > > It might have been useful to distinguish (1) doubtful points created by > the correction of the reoke (if there is such a thing) and (2) doubtful > points unrelated to correction of the revoke. Suppose the play of the > trump suit is unrelated to the correction of the revoke. We still have by > the WBFLC minute that the doubtful point (whether to play the ace or king > first) is resolved in favor of the claimer. > > What Bob is thinking of is a totally unlikely scenario like this one: 1) Declarer makes a faulty claim. 2) Defender now finds a non-established revoke in a totally unrelated suit 3) Declarer's claim is now ruled in his favour. I don't know what he intends to do with this scenario, but if it is this one: -since this ruling is now totally ridiculous, the law must be changed; then Bob is wrong. A ruling, even if ridiculous, can be allowed to stand if the circumstances leading to it are so totally unlikely that the situation will never arise. And please also consider this: This particular claim is completely wrong, and independently so of the revoke. But there may well be claims that are a little bit less wrong, and a bit more dependent on the revoke. For example, when LHO shows out in hearts, LHO must be the one with the trump and cashing the correct A/K first almost becomes the only normal line. Maybe not enoug yet, but you get my drift. Why should we have to draw a line somewhere - opponents revoked, did they not? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 2 09:59:50 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:59:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601cb7a6c$4f3b15c0$edb14140$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes > the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been established. > The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as > equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker.? > > It might have been useful to distinguish (1) doubtful points created by the > correction of the reoke (if there is such a thing) and (2) doubtful points unrelated > to correction of the revoke. Suppose the play of the trump suit is unrelated to the > correction of the revoke. We still have by the WBFLC minute that the doubtful > point (whether to play the ace or king > first) is resolved in favor of the claimer. Your point seems very relevant, but it introduces a real problem: How is the Director to rule if the doubtful point is entirely unrelated to the revoke? Even an apparently completely unrelated point could be related due to indirect inference, for instance counting up the offender's hand becomes different before and after the revoke. This may then affect the play of the trump suit. There will easily be many borderline situations, including situations where declarer would not even have claimed at all had the revoke not occurred, so I shall prefer consistently adjudicating against the revoker in such cases. The revoker is the sole player responsible for changing a clear-cut claim into a doubtful one. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 2 14:53:11 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:53:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:47:55 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >>> >>>> When an unestablished revoke is corrected, it makes sense that all >>>> of the >>>> subsquent "actions" taken by the NOS should be "undone" and >>>> everything restarts >>>> from the point of the changed play. Indeed, that is what happens >>>> for plays -- they >>>> are undone. Sven has claimed, without dispute from blml, that this >>>> is what should >>>> happen for director decisions by NOS. As Sven said, the situation >>>> is different, >>>> declarer should be allowed to make a different choice. >>> >>> On a point of order: I didn't say that the claim should be voided >>> (at least >>> that is not what I intended). >>> >>> But it is obvious to me that the claimer cannot be bound by his >>> (original) >>> claim statement; he must be allowed to have his claim adjudicated >>> by a >>> different line of play not necessarily embraced in his original >>> claim >>> statement because the circumstances for his original claim has been >>> severely >>> changed. >>> >>> And in my comment I showed how I would adjudicate the given example >>> claim by >>> allowing an entirely different line of play resulting in a safe >>> play for >>> twelve tricks with an automatic squeeze for the thirteenth trick if >>> conditions for this were satisfactory. >> >> Given that the director may "accept" (i.e. presume) an unstated >> variation in a claimer's line of play if an opponent who has not >> previously shown out of a suit would show out on the stated line >> (L70E1), it only makes sense for him to do the same if an opponent >> who has previously shown out of a suit unexpectedly "shows in". It >> would be obviously "irrational" for the claimer to "fail to notice" >> an opponent's correction of an unestablished revoke. > > I think you are maybe putting a band-aid on the problem. > > I have AJx opposite K10x and am just trying to get a count to > decide which > way to finesse. I play a side suit, RHO shows out, and I claim > saying I am > finessing RHO for the queen. > > RHO then corrects his unestablished revoke. Am I allowed to play more > rounds of the side suit before deciding which way to finesse? (LHO > will > show out on the next round of the side suit.) If I am allowed, does > LHO's > failure to follow suit on the second round of the side suit make it > irrational to finesse RHO? > > It is of course very obvious to all involved that had RHO not > revoked, I > would have played more rounds of clubs. But it is just as obvious > that my > claiming statement does not include that. Sven allows me to just > change my > claiming statement. Did you want something different? Perhaps you > want to > allow any changes in claiming statement that become rational given the > correction of the revoke? I guess that's a fair assessment of my position. I see a parallel between an opponent correcting an unestablished revoke and an opponent showing out of a suit, or popping the key missing honor: The director may, in that case, "accept" an unstated line of play on the grounds that it would be "irrational" for the claimer to overlook the unexpected occurence and modify his stated line of play accordingly. I don't see this as any different from Sven's position. From that perspective, Bob's AJx opposite K10x example lacks sufficient detail to resolve. He would almost certainly be "allowed" (i.e. presumed) to continue to run his side suit -- unless the director determines that it would not be rational for him to do so, even after the correction -- but whether that would eventually mean "allowing" him to successfully finesse LHO for the queen depends on the hand, on the information (spuriously) "revealed" by the show- out (I'd expect the TD to be much more liberal if the presumed but incorrect count was complete), and on what the claimer's purpose was in running the long suit. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 2 15:28:34 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:28:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: <4CCF2D6D.4000601@comcast.net> References: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> <4CCEE47F.6050202@comcast.net> <001801cb79e4$1694dc70$43be9550$@no> <4CCF2D6D.4000601@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Robert Park wrote: > On 11/1/10 12:44 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Robert Park >> >>>> And in my comment I showed how I would adjudicate the given example >>>> claim by allowing an entirely different line of play resulting in a >>>> safe play for twelve tricks with an automatic squeeze for the >>>> thirteenth trick if conditions for this were satisfactory. >>> >>> What if the claimer knows little of squeezes or otherwise fails >>> to see a winning line >>> after the revoke is corrected. Do you then punish him for >>> claiming, given that he >>> would not have claimed without the revoke? Or do you find the >>> winning line for >>> him? >> >> I shall certainly not teach him how to conduct a squeeze, but I >> should not >> deny him that line of play if he sees (discovers) it while >> reconsidering his >> claim with all cards now visible. >> >> Note that the correct procedure as I see it is: >> >> 1: Declarer claims and provides a claim statement. >> 2: An opponent rejects the claim in order to avoid his revoke >> (which he now >> announces) to become established. >> 3: The Director hears the claim statement, orders all remaining >> cards to be >> faced and hears opponents' possible objections. >> 4: The Director now allows the claimer to modify his claim >> statement as a >> consequence of the changed circumstances due to the announced but now >> unestablished revoke. (This includes allowing declarer to take >> advantage of >> would be major penalty card.) >> 5: The Director finally makes his ruling as to the number of >> tricks to be >> awarded for the claim. > > So...declarer makes a claim that would have worked if revoker's > card had > been legitimate, but after the revoke gets corrected he becomes forced > to make a new valid claim that is perhaps beyond his skill level...or > else! Doesn't seem quite right, as he might well have gotten a normal > result had play continued in the absence of a revoke. Declarer isn't "forced" to do anything. He is allowed to suggest how he might modify his original claim statement, and the director may accept his suggestion, but, ultimately, play has ceased, and the eventual outcome is adjudicated by the director. If declarer "might well have gotten a [superior] normal result had play continued", it is the director's responsibility to insure that he gets it. > This scenario does raise another question: If all play ceases > following > a claim, is correcting a revoke a "play?" It doesn't matter. The unestablished revoke not only may be corrected if it has been noticed at this point, it must be. See L63A3 and L62A. > By the way, does declarer get to see all the cards when he makes his > revised claim? Yes. But his "revised claim" is not treated as a whole new claim statement per L68C, but rather as an "unstated line of play" per L70E1, which the director may or may not accept. The director gets to see all the cards, and that's what matters. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 2 15:48:58 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:48:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [Minute 10] In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cb79d1$3c6af780$b540e680$@no> <4CCEE47F.6050202@comcast.net> <001801cb79e4$1694dc70$43be9550$@no> <4CCF2D6D.4000601@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4CD024DA.8060502@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/11/2010 15:28, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> On 11/1/10 12:44 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> On Behalf Of Robert Park >>> >>>>> And in my comment I showed how I would adjudicate the given example >>>>> claim by allowing an entirely different line of play resulting in a >>>>> safe play for twelve tricks with an automatic squeeze for the >>>>> thirteenth trick if conditions for this were satisfactory. >>>> What if the claimer knows little of squeezes or otherwise fails >>>> to see a winning line >>>> after the revoke is corrected. Do you then punish him for >>>> claiming, given that he >>>> would not have claimed without the revoke? Or do you find the >>>> winning line for >>>> him? >>> I shall certainly not teach him how to conduct a squeeze, but I >>> should not >>> deny him that line of play if he sees (discovers) it while >>> reconsidering his >>> claim with all cards now visible. >>> >>> Note that the correct procedure as I see it is: >>> >>> 1: Declarer claims and provides a claim statement. >>> 2: An opponent rejects the claim in order to avoid his revoke >>> (which he now >>> announces) to become established. >>> 3: The Director hears the claim statement, orders all remaining >>> cards to be >>> faced and hears opponents' possible objections. >>> 4: The Director now allows the claimer to modify his claim >>> statement as a >>> consequence of the changed circumstances due to the announced but now >>> unestablished revoke. (This includes allowing declarer to take >>> advantage of >>> would be major penalty card.) >>> 5: The Director finally makes his ruling as to the number of >>> tricks to be >>> awarded for the claim. >> So...declarer makes a claim that would have worked if revoker's >> card had >> been legitimate, but after the revoke gets corrected he becomes forced >> to make a new valid claim that is perhaps beyond his skill level...or >> else! Doesn't seem quite right, as he might well have gotten a normal >> result had play continued in the absence of a revoke. > Declarer isn't "forced" to do anything. He is allowed to suggest how > he might modify his original claim statement, and the director may > accept his suggestion, but, ultimately, play has ceased, and the > eventual outcome is adjudicated by the director. If declarer "might > well have gotten a [superior] normal result had play continued", it > is the director's responsibility to insure that he gets it. AG : sorry if this has been said before (too little time to read everything), but don't we need to add "had play continued according to the way that was stated" ? (typical case : declarer says he plays Ace and Queen so that the Jack will make a trick thereafter, but the King falls under the Ace) From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 2 17:59:30 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:59:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points In-Reply-To: <61C48B4517254B89B5B63C4C02C38AFD@Mildred> References: <000601cb7a6c$4f3b15c0$edb14140$@no> <61C48B4517254B89B5B63C4C02C38AFD@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:21:21 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "Football is not all about highs" > ~ Liverpool FC Captain. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:59 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points > > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> ............. >>> ???If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender >>> disputes >>> the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been >>> established. >>> The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the >>> claim as >>> equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against the >>> revoker.??? >>> >>> It might have been useful to distinguish (1) doubtful points created by >>> the >>> correction of the reoke (if there is such a thing) and (2) doubtful >>> points unrelated >>> to correction of the revoke. Suppose the play of the trump suit is >>> unrelated to the >>> correction of the revoke. We still have by the WBFLC minute that the >>> doubtful >>> point (whether to play the ace or king >>> first) is resolved in favor of the claimer. >> >> Your point seems very relevant, but it introduces a real problem: >> How is the Director to rule if the doubtful point is entirely unrelated >> to >> the revoke? >> >> Even an apparently completely unrelated point could be related due to >> indirect > inference, for instance counting up the offender's hand becomes different > before > and after the revoke. This may then affect the play of the trump suit. >> >> There will easily be many borderline situations, including situations >> where > declarer would not even have claimed at all had the revoke not occurred, > so > I shall > prefer consistently adjudicating against the revoker in such cases. The > revoker is > the sole player responsible for changing a clear-cut claim into a > doubtful > one. >> > +=+ A question to ask is whether the Director would > have any doubt in such situations as he applied Law 70. > A possible answer is "only if the revoke had affected > the situation". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > L70 starts out saying that doubtful points are resolved against the claimer, and then specifies how this is to be done. The goal is to *protect the nonclaimers from information the claimer gained after making the claim*. Here, we are resolving doubtful points for the claimer. We can follow L70 for a guide, but the goal here is to *protect the claimer from the problem that he claimed in a different situation* (and you aren't letting him take back the claim). Maybe you want the director to do both protections? From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 2 18:12:53 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:12:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points In-Reply-To: <4CCFD298.1020302@skynet.be> References: <4CCFD298.1020302@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:58:00 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes indeed, Bob: > > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:30:16 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> Declarer claims stating he will draw trump. >>>> >>>> A10xxx >>>> >>>> KJxxx >>>> >>>> If he had included in his claiming statement that he was starting >>>> with the >>>> king, I believe we allow him to finesse for the queen if RHO shows >>>> out. >>>> But he did not. >>>> >>>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the claimer, then I >>>> assume we >>>> have his first "play" be from whatever hand doesn't allow him to >>>> pick up >>>> the queen. >>>> >>>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the nonclaimers, then I >>>> assume >>>> we have his first play be from whatever hand allows him to pick up the >>>> queen. So he always picks up the suit. >>> >>> All this is true, but why does Bob post it? A declarer with that >>> holding stating he will draw trump, with no further indication as to >>> how he will play the suit, will, of course, be presumed to lose to >>> the queen. L70D1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous on this point. >>> Bob's last paragraph, while surely true, is a pure hypothetical. >>> Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone think this ought to be >>> changed? What are we discussing? >> >> Sorry, my fault for not being clear that this is not hypothetical. WBFLC >> Minute 10: >> >> >> ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon >> a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, >> the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow >> correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as >> equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against >> the revoker.? >> >> It might have been useful to distinguish (1) doubtful points created by >> the correction of the reoke (if there is such a thing) and (2) doubtful >> points unrelated to correction of the revoke. Suppose the play of the >> trump suit is unrelated to the correction of the revoke. We still have >> by >> the WBFLC minute that the doubtful point (whether to play the ace or >> king >> first) is resolved in favor of the claimer. >> >> > > What Bob is thinking of is a totally unlikely scenario like this one: > 1) Declarer makes a faulty claim. > 2) Defender now finds a non-established revoke in a totally unrelated > suit > 3) Declarer's claim is now ruled in his favour. > > I don't know what he intends to do with this scenario, but if it is this > one: > -since this ruling is now totally ridiculous, the law must be changed; > then Bob is wrong. > A ruling, even if ridiculous, can be allowed to stand if the > circumstances leading to it are so totally unlikely that the situation > will never arise. > And please also consider this: > This particular claim is completely wrong, and independently so of the > revoke. But there may well be claims that are a little bit less wrong, > and a bit more dependent on the revoke. For example, when LHO shows out > in hearts, LHO must be the one with the trump and cashing the correct > A/K first almost becomes the only normal line. Maybe not enoug yet, but > you get my drift. Why should we have to draw a line somewhere - > opponents revoked, did they not? > Hi Herman. This situation could arise. I realize that an opponent revoked. Normally I just tell them, but suppose I decide I really want to get a good score. I could lead to the next trick and hope they follow suit, getting an extra trick if I misguess the queen in AJx opposite K10x. But it is safer to claim (if I get the benefit of the doubt, and assuming the only remaining loser is possibly misguessing the queen). More generally, benefit of doubt can be worth a lot. (Hmmm, always worth more if it is the second revoke in the suit.) From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Nov 2 21:25:43 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:25:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points In-Reply-To: References: <4CCFD298.1020302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CD073C7.2090905@skynet.be> OK Bob, good example. Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:58:00 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Yes indeed, Bob: >> >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:30:16 -0400, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>>> Declarer claims stating he will draw trump. >>>>> >>>>> A10xxx >>>>> >>>>> KJxxx >>>>> >>>>> If he had included in his claiming statement that he was starting >>>>> with the >>>>> king, I believe we allow him to finesse for the queen if RHO shows >>>>> out. >>>>> But he did not. >>>>> >>>>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the claimer, then I >>>>> assume we >>>>> have his first "play" be from whatever hand doesn't allow him to >>>>> pick up >>>>> the queen. >>>>> >>>>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the nonclaimers, then I >>>>> assume >>>>> we have his first play be from whatever hand allows him to pick up the >>>>> queen. So he always picks up the suit. >>>> >>>> All this is true, but why does Bob post it? A declarer with that >>>> holding stating he will draw trump, with no further indication as to >>>> how he will play the suit, will, of course, be presumed to lose to >>>> the queen. L70D1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous on this point. >>>> Bob's last paragraph, while surely true, is a pure hypothetical. >>>> Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone think this ought to be >>>> changed? What are we discussing? >>> >>> Sorry, my fault for not being clear that this is not hypothetical. WBFLC >>> Minute 10: >>> >>> >>> ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon >>> a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, >>> the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow >>> correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as >>> equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against >>> the revoker.? >>> >>> It might have been useful to distinguish (1) doubtful points created by >>> the correction of the reoke (if there is such a thing) and (2) doubtful >>> points unrelated to correction of the revoke. Suppose the play of the >>> trump suit is unrelated to the correction of the revoke. We still have >>> by >>> the WBFLC minute that the doubtful point (whether to play the ace or >>> king >>> first) is resolved in favor of the claimer. >>> >>> >> >> What Bob is thinking of is a totally unlikely scenario like this one: >> 1) Declarer makes a faulty claim. >> 2) Defender now finds a non-established revoke in a totally unrelated >> suit >> 3) Declarer's claim is now ruled in his favour. >> >> I don't know what he intends to do with this scenario, but if it is this >> one: >> -since this ruling is now totally ridiculous, the law must be changed; >> then Bob is wrong. >> A ruling, even if ridiculous, can be allowed to stand if the >> circumstances leading to it are so totally unlikely that the situation >> will never arise. >> And please also consider this: >> This particular claim is completely wrong, and independently so of the >> revoke. But there may well be claims that are a little bit less wrong, >> and a bit more dependent on the revoke. For example, when LHO shows out >> in hearts, LHO must be the one with the trump and cashing the correct >> A/K first almost becomes the only normal line. Maybe not enoug yet, but >> you get my drift. Why should we have to draw a line somewhere - >> opponents revoked, did they not? >> > > Hi Herman. This situation could arise. I realize that an opponent revoked. > Normally I just tell them, but suppose I decide I really want to get a > good score. I could lead to the next trick and hope they follow suit, > getting an extra trick if I misguess the queen in AJx opposite K10x. But > it is safer to claim (if I get the benefit of the doubt, and assuming the > only remaining loser is possibly misguessing the queen). More generally, > benefit of doubt can be worth a lot. (Hmmm, always worth more if it is the > second revoke in the suit.) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > You are right if, but only you have all the tricks save one (*). Establishing the revoke will bring you that trick, but if the B** discovers his revoke you will not gain it. If OTOH you claim, even if he discovers it, you wil get the queen from the TD. Do you really mind this happening (as TD)? Turning 80% of a trick into 100%? And do you really want to change the law just because of this ploy? (*) If you miss more than one trick, your better line is to get the revoke established (wins a trick) and then guess the queen (another half trick). -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 2 21:53:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:53:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Fool disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Enquiring declarer: "What is your carding?" Irritated defender: "We don't unblock." Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 2 22:29:36 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:29:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF LC minutes 8th October 2001, item 10: " ... adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker." Richard Hills: >>The above phrase is not _logically_ equivalent to: >> >>" ... adjudicating all doubtful points against the >>revoking side." Grattan Endicott: >+=+ A question to ask is whether the Director would have >any doubt in such situations as he applied Law 70. >A possible answer is "only if the revoke had affected the >situation". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Indeed. While it is true that Law 70A states " ... any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer ... " it is also true that Law 84D states "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side ... " and it is again true that a side which perpetrates a revoke, including a non-established revoke, has committed an infraction, thus is an offending side. Meanwhile, an incorrect claim is usually not an infraction, except when the claim is a coffee-house infracting Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 2 23:24:19 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:24:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points In-Reply-To: <4CD073C7.2090905@skynet.be> References: <4CCFD298.1020302@skynet.be> <4CD073C7.2090905@skynet.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 15:25 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] adjudicating doubtful points > OK Bob, good example. > > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:58:00 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Yes indeed, Bob: >>> >>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:30:16 -0400, Eric Landau >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Declarer claims stating he will draw trump. >>>>>> >>>>>> A10xxx >>>>>> >>>>>> KJxxx >>>>>> >>>>>> If he had included in his claiming statement that he was starting >>>>>> with the >>>>>> king, I believe we allow him to finesse for the queen if RHO shows >>>>>> out. >>>>>> But he did not. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the claimer, then I >>>>>> assume we >>>>>> have his first "play" be from whatever hand doesn't allow him to >>>>>> pick up >>>>>> the queen. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the nonclaimers, then I >>>>>> assume >>>>>> we have his first play be from whatever hand allows him to pick up >>>>>> the >>>>>> queen. So he always picks up the suit. >>>>> >>>>> All this is true, but why does Bob post it? A declarer with that >>>>> holding stating he will draw trump, with no further indication as to >>>>> how he will play the suit, will, of course, be presumed to lose to >>>>> the queen. L70D1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous on this point. >>>>> Bob's last paragraph, while surely true, is a pure hypothetical. >>>>> Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone think this ought to be >>>>> changed? What are we discussing? >>>> >>>> Sorry, my fault for not being clear that this is not hypothetical. >>>> WBFLC >>>> Minute 10: >>>> >>>> >>>> ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon >>>> a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, >>>> the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow >>>> correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as >>>> equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against >>>> the revoker.? >>>> >>>> It might have been useful to distinguish (1) doubtful points created by >>>> the correction of the reoke (if there is such a thing) and (2) doubtful >>>> points unrelated to correction of the revoke. Suppose the play of the >>>> trump suit is unrelated to the correction of the revoke. We still have >>>> by >>>> the WBFLC minute that the doubtful point (whether to play the ace or >>>> king >>>> first) is resolved in favor of the claimer. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What Bob is thinking of is a totally unlikely scenario like this one: >>> 1) Declarer makes a faulty claim. >>> 2) Defender now finds a non-established revoke in a totally unrelated >>> suit >>> 3) Declarer's claim is now ruled in his favour. >>> >>> I don't know what he intends to do with this scenario, but if it is this >>> one: >>> -since this ruling is now totally ridiculous, the law must be changed; >>> then Bob is wrong. >>> A ruling, even if ridiculous, can be allowed to stand if the >>> circumstances leading to it are so totally unlikely that the situation >>> will never arise. >>> And please also consider this: >>> This particular claim is completely wrong, and independently so of the >>> revoke. But there may well be claims that are a little bit less wrong, >>> and a bit more dependent on the revoke. For example, when LHO shows out >>> in hearts, LHO must be the one with the trump and cashing the correct >>> A/K first almost becomes the only normal line. Maybe not enoug yet, but >>> you get my drift. Why should we have to draw a line somewhere - >>> opponents revoked, did they not? >>> >> >> Hi Herman. This situation could arise. I realize that an opponent >> revoked. >> Normally I just tell them, but suppose I decide I really want to get a >> good score. I could lead to the next trick and hope they follow suit, >> getting an extra trick if I misguess the queen in AJx opposite K10x. But >> it is safer to claim (if I get the benefit of the doubt, and assuming the >> only remaining loser is possibly misguessing the queen). More generally, >> benefit of doubt can be worth a lot. (Hmmm, always worth more if it is >> the >> second revoke in the suit.) >> _______________________________________________ > You are right if, but only you have all the tricks save one (*). > Establishing the revoke will bring you that trick, but if the B** > discovers his revoke you will not gain it. > If OTOH you claim, even if he discovers it, you wil get the queen from > the TD. > Do you really mind this happening (as TD)? Turning 80% of a trick into > 100%? > And do you really want to change the law just because of this ploy? > > (*) If you miss more than one trick, your better line is to get the > revoke established (wins a trick) and then guess the queen (another half > trick). > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium When it comes to the interpretation of language, particularly the language of law, I fail to see how it is legitimate to claim that passages that say no such thing...do say such thing that is in direct contravention of something else that does. Speaking specifically to the case at hand there is a passage that resolves doubtful points against claimer and there is no passage that resolves doubtful points in favor of claimer. And considering that the law is to be followed then for L70 to be satisfied then doubtful points are resolved against claimer. At such point there are no doubtful points to be resolved thereby leaving null doubtful points to be resolved for claimer. As such the referenced so-called interpretation has the status of being a triviality. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 2 23:32:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:32:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 94 - Cyberspace, the Final Frontier A. These are the voyages of the Starship Blml. B. Its five-year mission: (a) to explore strange new Lawbooks, (i) to seek out new Grattanese and new ambiguities, (ii) to boldly rule where no Director has ruled before. Walk-in Butler Pairs (imps scored against a datum) Dlr: South Vul: None The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1H Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass (1) Choice of contracts T32 A76 KQ95 AT6 J5 K964 9 T532 JT7642 A8 Q973 KJ8 AQ87 KQJ84 3 542 Opening lead: Jack of diamonds This end position was reached after East had just won the king of spades at trick seven, and was considering her lead to trick eight. --- --- Q95 AT6 --- 6 --- T T76 8 Q97 KJ8 8 J8 --- 542 Declarer decided to save time by claiming, noting that he had side winners in the ace of clubs, the queen of diamonds (discarding a club) and the eight of spades. East was uncomfortable with declarer not mentioning the outstanding trump (Law 70C), so she doubted the claim (Law 68D). Thus dummy therefore summoned the Director (Law 9B1(b)). Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side winners: (b) how would you rule? (c) how did the actual TD rule? (d) how did the actual TD not rule? Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 2 23:55:47 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:55:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:29:36 -0400, wrote: > WBF LC minutes 8th October 2001, item 10: > > " ... adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker." > > Richard Hills: > >>> The above phrase is not _logically_ equivalent to: >>> >>> " ... adjudicating all doubtful points against the >>> revoking side." > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ A question to ask is whether the Director would have >> any doubt in such situations as he applied Law 70. >> A possible answer is "only if the revoke had affected the >> situation". >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed. While it is true that Law 70A states > > " ... any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved > against the claimer ... " > > it is also true that Law 84D states > > "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- > offending side ... " > > and it is again true that a side which perpetrates a revoke, > including a non-established revoke, has committed an > infraction, thus is an offending side. > > Meanwhile, an incorrect claim is usually not an infraction, > except when the claim is a coffee-house infracting Law 79A2: > > "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a > trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick > that his opponents could not lose." \ Right. But are we talking about doubtful points? I think we are talking about allowing declarer (or director) to change the claiming statement, something which otherwise never happens. Suppose declarer's claiming statement is that he is taking the finesse in hearts and then dummy is good. Legally speaking, is it a doubtful point whether or not he takes the heart finesse? Where we normally rule in favor on the nonclaimants? I thought everyone just followed the claiming statement and doubtful points only arose in the ambiguities of the claiming statement or when it went off the tracks. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 3 00:13:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 10:13:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >.....director) to change the claiming statement, something >which otherwise never happens..... Richard Hills: Never say never. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 1st November 2001, item 3: "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Wed Nov 3 02:55:35 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 01:55:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <262423.58547.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Law 94 - Cyberspace, the Final Frontier A. These are the voyages of the Starship Blml. B. Its five-year mission: (a) to explore strange new Lawbooks, (i) to seek out new Grattanese and new ambiguities, (ii) to boldly rule where no Director has ruled before. Walk-in Butler Pairs (imps scored against a datum) Dlr: South Vul: None -- -- -- 1H _P 3N _P 4H AP 3N = Choice of contracts ..................T32 ..................A76 ..................KQ95 ..................AT6 J5...................................K964 9....................................T532 JT7642...............................A8 Q973.................................KJ8 ..................AQ87 ..................KQJ84 ..................3 ..................542 Opening lead: Jack of diamonds This end position was reached after East had just won the king of spades at trick seven, and was considering her lead to trick eight. ..................S- ..................H- ..................D:Q95 ..................C:AT6 S-....................................S:6 H-....................................H:T D:T76.................................D:8 C:Q97.................................C:KJ8 ..................S:8 ..................H:J8 ..................D- --- ..................C:542 Declarer decided to save time by claiming, noting that he had side winners in the ace of clubs, the queen of diamonds (discarding a club) and the eight of spades. East was uncomfortable with declarer not mentioning the outstanding trump (Law 70C), so she doubted the claim (Law 68D). Thus dummy therefore summoned the Director (Law 9B1(b)). Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side winners: (b) how would you rule? (c) how did the actual TD rule? (d) how did the actual TD not rule? {Nigel] FWIW, IMO, the correct decision, according to current rules, is nearer two down than an overtrick but, in practice, it depends on the whim of the director: Herman De Wael might award declarer an overtrick for attempting to speed up the game. Richard Hills might award the contract because it makes on any reasonable line of play. Grattan Endicott one down: CA, DQ, ruff D5 (RHO discards S6), attempt to cash S8... David Burn two down: CA, DQ, ruff D5 with HJ, attempt to cash H8... From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 3 09:03:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:03:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CD1173A.5030809@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/11/2010 23:32, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > T32 > A76 > KQ95 > AT6 > J5 K964 > 9 T532 > JT7642 A8 > Q973 KJ8 > AQ87 > KQJ84 > 3 > 542 > > Opening lead: Jack of diamonds > > This end position was reached after East had just won the > king of spades at trick seven, and was considering her lead > to trick eight. > > --- > --- > Q95 > AT6 > --- 6 > --- T > T76 8 > Q97 KJ8 > 8 > J8 > --- > 542 > > Declarer decided to save time by claiming, noting that he > had side winners in the ace of clubs, the queen of diamonds > (discarding a club) and the eight of spades. East was > uncomfortable with declarer not mentioning the outstanding > trump (Law 70C), so she doubted the claim (Law 68D). Thus > dummy therefore summoned the Director (Law 9B1(b)). > > Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side > winners: > > (b) how would you rule? AG : there is nonzero probability that declarer didn't remember the outstanding trump, especially as the split was unbalanced. Therefore, unless declarer states one is pulling the last trump, I'll give one trick to the defense (apparently no more) > (c) how did the actual TD rule? AG : captain, I'm a TD, not a diviner ! > (d) how did the actual TD not rule? AG : as strange as it might be, the response is the same as in c) From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 3 09:07:38 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:07:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CD1184A.5000206@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > This end position was reached after East had just won the > king of spades at trick seven, and was considering her lead > to trick eight. > > --- > --- > Q95 > AT6 > --- 6 > --- T > T76 8 > Q97 KJ8 > 8 > J8 > --- > 542 > > Declarer decided to save time by claiming, noting that he > had side winners in the ace of clubs, the queen of diamonds > (discarding a club) and the eight of spades. East was > uncomfortable with declarer not mentioning the outstanding > trump (Law 70C), so she doubted the claim (Law 68D). Thus > dummy therefore summoned the Director (Law 9B1(b)). > > Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side > winners: > > (b) how would you rule? I'm assuming declarer claimed 5 out of 6 tricks. Correct claim, even when the trump is forgotten. > (c) how did the actual TD rule? 5 tricks? > (d) how did the actual TD not rule? spade return, club ace, diamond queen (club gone), club for east, club - ruffed with the jack, trump for east = 4 tricks? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > 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 > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10 08:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 3 09:11:15 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:11:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <262423.58547.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <262423.58547.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CD11923.6020006@skynet.be> I did not see this line: (it's too early in the morning for me) Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Grattan Endicott one down: CA, DQ, ruff D5 (RHO discards S6), attempt to cash > S8... Indeed - 4 tricks. > David Burn two down: CA, DQ, ruff D5 with HJ, attempt to cash H8... that is just plain silly. A player who forgets a trump does not ruff with the high one - and one who remembers it doesn't either. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 3 09:12:20 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:12:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CD1173A.5030809@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CD1173A.5030809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2010/11/3 Alain Gottcheiner : > Le 2/11/2010 23:32, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?T32 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A76 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KQ95 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AT6 >> J5 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? K964 >> 9 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?T532 >> JT7642 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? A8 >> Q973 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? KJ8 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AQ87 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KQJ84 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?542 >> >> Opening lead: Jack of diamonds >> >> This end position was reached after East had just won the >> king of spades at trick seven, and was considering her lead >> to trick eight. >> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--- >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--- >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Q95 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AT6 >> --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?6 >> --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?T >> T76 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?8 >> Q97 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KJ8 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?8 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?J8 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--- >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?542 >> >> Declarer decided to save time by claiming, noting that he >> had side winners in the ace of clubs, the queen of diamonds >> (discarding a club) and the eight of spades. ?East was >> uncomfortable with declarer not mentioning the outstanding >> trump (Law 70C), so she doubted the claim (Law 68D). ?Thus >> dummy therefore summoned the Director (Law 9B1(b)). >> >> Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side >> winners: >> >> ? ? (b) how would you rule? > AG : there is nonzero probability that declarer didn't remember the > outstanding trump, especially as the split was unbalanced. ????? The lack of drawing the last trump, which looks pretty dumb, indicates that declarer really is unaware of the outstanding trump. Maybe west discarded a diamond on the secondt trump and declarer didn't realise that it wasn't a trump? Anyway, this is hard to tell without knowing the exact play of the hand up to the point of the claim. If I'm not convinced declarer knew about the outstanding trump, I'd rule two tricks (at least) to the defenders. > Therefore, unless declarer states one is pulling the last trump, I'll > give one trick to the defense (apparently no more). > > ?> (c) how did the actual TD rule? > > AG : captain, I'm a TD, not a diviner ! > >> ? ? (d) how did the actual TD not rule? > AG : as strange as it might be, the response is the same as in c) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 3 13:45:14 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> On Nov 2, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:29:36 -0400, wrote: > >> WBF LC minutes 8th October 2001, item 10: >> >> " ... adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >>>> The above phrase is not _logically_ equivalent to: >>>> >>>> " ... adjudicating all doubtful points against the >>>> revoking side." >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>> +=+ A question to ask is whether the Director would have >>> any doubt in such situations as he applied Law 70. >>> A possible answer is "only if the revoke had affected the >>> situation". >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Indeed. While it is true that Law 70A states >> >> " ... any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved >> against the claimer ... " >> >> it is also true that Law 84D states >> >> "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >> offending side ... " >> >> and it is again true that a side which perpetrates a revoke, >> including a non-established revoke, has committed an >> infraction, thus is an offending side. >> >> Meanwhile, an incorrect claim is usually not an infraction, >> except when the claim is a coffee-house infracting Law 79A2: >> >> "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a >> trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick >> that his opponents could not lose." > > Right. But are we talking about doubtful points? I think we are > talking > about allowing declarer (or director) to change the claiming > statement, > something which otherwise never happens. > > Suppose declarer's claiming statement is that he is taking the > finesse in > hearts and then dummy is good. Legally speaking, is it a doubtful > point > whether or not he takes the heart finesse? Where we normally rule > in favor > on the nonclaimants? I thought everyone just followed the claiming > statement and doubtful points only arose in the ambiguities of the > claiming statement or when it went off the tracks. When an opponent has shown out of a suit, giving you what appears to be a full (or useful partial) count on the hand, and you claim on the basis of that information, and then your opponent reveals that he is not in fact void in that suit, I think it's fair to say that your claim "went off the tracks" at that point. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 3 14:29:01 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 14:29:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1571823831.608341288790941423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Walk-in Butler Pairs (imps scored against a datum) > Dlr: South > Vul: None > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4H > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Choice of contracts > > T32 > A76 > KQ95 > AT6 > J5 K964 > 9 T532 > JT7642 A8 > Q973 KJ8 > AQ87 > KQJ84 > 3 > 542 > > Opening lead: Jack of diamonds > > This end position was reached after East had just won the > king of spades at trick seven, and was considering her lead > to trick eight. > > --- > --- > Q95 > AT6 > --- 6 > --- T > T76 8 > Q97 KJ8 > 8 > J8 > --- > 542 > > Declarer decided to save time by claiming, noting that he > had side winners in the ace of clubs, the queen of diamonds > (discarding a club) and the eight of spades. East was > uncomfortable with declarer not mentioning the outstanding > trump (Law 70C), so she doubted the claim (Law 68D). Thus > dummy therefore summoned the Director (Law 9B1(b)). > > Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side > winners: > > (b) how would you rule? > (c) how did the actual TD rule? > (d) how did the actual TD not rule? >From Richard's description, it seems possible that declarer was not aware of the outstanding trump. While I cannot stomach requesting declarer to play the H8 losing to the HT, the following line is possible: C return, won by the A. DQ, D ruff, lose the club loser. Now the HT gets promoted when the defense plays another club. I thus see a possibility for ruling two more tricks to the defense. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 3 15:11:13 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:11:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic In-Reply-To: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 2, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:29:36 -0400, wrote: >> >>> WBF LC minutes 8th October 2001, item 10: >>> >>> " ... adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker." >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>>>> The above phrase is not _logically_ equivalent to: >>>>> >>>>> " ... adjudicating all doubtful points against the >>>>> revoking side." >>> >>> Grattan Endicott: >>> >>>> +=+ A question to ask is whether the Director would have >>>> any doubt in such situations as he applied Law 70. >>>> A possible answer is "only if the revoke had affected the >>>> situation". >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Indeed. While it is true that Law 70A states >>> >>> " ... any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved >>> against the claimer ... " >>> >>> it is also true that Law 84D states >>> >>> "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >>> offending side ... " >>> >>> and it is again true that a side which perpetrates a revoke, >>> including a non-established revoke, has committed an >>> infraction, thus is an offending side. >>> >>> Meanwhile, an incorrect claim is usually not an infraction, >>> except when the claim is a coffee-house infracting Law 79A2: >>> >>> "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a >>> trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick >>> that his opponents could not lose." >> >> Right. But are we talking about doubtful points? I think we are >> talking >> about allowing declarer (or director) to change the claiming >> statement, >> something which otherwise never happens. >> >> Suppose declarer's claiming statement is that he is taking the >> finesse in >> hearts and then dummy is good. Legally speaking, is it a doubtful >> point >> whether or not he takes the heart finesse? Where we normally rule >> in favor >> on the nonclaimants? I thought everyone just followed the claiming >> statement and doubtful points only arose in the ambiguities of the >> claiming statement or when it went off the tracks. > > When an opponent has shown out of a suit, giving you what appears to > be a full (or useful partial) count on the hand, and you claim on the > basis of that information, and then your opponent reveals that he is > not in fact void in that suit, I think it's fair to say that your > claim "went off the tracks" at that point. I meant "off-the-tracks" as a technical term. It is well-accepted that when the opponents win a trick they were not expected to win, or the claim involves a revoke (or leading from the wrong hand), that the claiming statment is not followed. A sudden influx of new information is not a reason to allow claimer to change the claiming statement. I claim, stating that I will lose one trick at the end, for making 3NT. My opponents point out that I have a card pointed the wrong way and actually I will be down 1. It now becomes irrational not to change my claiming statement. May I change it? Probably not, right? For the case of a corrected revoke, I think I should be allowed to change my claiming statment for the same reason that I am allowed to change the play of a card -- when the revoke is corrected, I am in a different situation, I am the NOS, and I might want to do something different based on the new information. But being the NOS is critical. From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 3 15:12:20 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:12:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic In-Reply-To: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000d01cb7b61$21913640$64b3a2c0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau .......... > When an opponent has shown out of a suit, giving you what appears to be a full > (or useful partial) count on the hand, and you claim on the basis of that > information, and then your opponent reveals that he is not in fact void in that suit, I > think it's fair to say that your claim "went off the tracks" at that point. "That point" being the moment the opponent revealed that he in fact is not void, which probably is before the claim statement should be executed. Consequently it is even fair to ignore the claim statement as such and allow the claimer to whatever line of play he might have selected had the revoke not occurred. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 3 15:42:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:42:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic In-Reply-To: References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CD174DC.2050102@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/11/2010 15:11, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Nov 2, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:29:36 -0400, wrote: >>> >>>> WBF LC minutes 8th October 2001, item 10: >>>> >>>> " ... adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker." >>>> >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>>>> The above phrase is not _logically_ equivalent to: >>>>>> >>>>>> " ... adjudicating all doubtful points against the >>>>>> revoking side." >>>> Grattan Endicott: >>>> >>>>> +=+ A question to ask is whether the Director would have >>>>> any doubt in such situations as he applied Law 70. >>>>> A possible answer is "only if the revoke had affected the >>>>> situation". >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> Indeed. While it is true that Law 70A states >>>> >>>> " ... any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved >>>> against the claimer ... " >>>> >>>> it is also true that Law 84D states >>>> >>>> "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >>>> offending side ... " >>>> >>>> and it is again true that a side which perpetrates a revoke, >>>> including a non-established revoke, has committed an >>>> infraction, thus is an offending side. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, an incorrect claim is usually not an infraction, >>>> except when the claim is a coffee-house infracting Law 79A2: >>>> >>>> "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a >>>> trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick >>>> that his opponents could not lose." >>> Right. But are we talking about doubtful points? I think we are >>> talking >>> about allowing declarer (or director) to change the claiming >>> statement, >>> something which otherwise never happens. >>> >>> Suppose declarer's claiming statement is that he is taking the >>> finesse in >>> hearts and then dummy is good. Legally speaking, is it a doubtful >>> point >>> whether or not he takes the heart finesse? Where we normally rule >>> in favor >>> on the nonclaimants? I thought everyone just followed the claiming >>> statement and doubtful points only arose in the ambiguities of the >>> claiming statement or when it went off the tracks. >> When an opponent has shown out of a suit, giving you what appears to >> be a full (or useful partial) count on the hand, and you claim on the >> basis of that information, and then your opponent reveals that he is >> not in fact void in that suit, I think it's fair to say that your >> claim "went off the tracks" at that point. > I meant "off-the-tracks" as a technical term. It is well-accepted that > when the opponents win a trick they were not expected to win, or the claim > involves a revoke (or leading from the wrong hand), that the claiming > statment is not followed. > > A sudden influx of new information is not a reason to allow claimer to > change the claiming statement. I claim, stating that I will lose one trick > at the end, for making 3NT. My opponents point out that I have a card > pointed the wrong way and actually I will be down 1. It now becomes > irrational not to change my claiming statement. May I change it? Probably > not, right? > > For the case of a corrected revoke, I think I should be allowed to change > my claiming statment for the same reason that I am allowed to change the > play of a card -- when the revoke is corrected, I am in a different > situation, I am the NOS, and I might want to do something different based > on the new information. But being the NOS is critical. AG : how do you treat the case when declarer states the first trick of the claim as coming from the wrong hand (without a card from that suit in the other hand, or from the wrong side to take a marked finesse) ? He is the OS (marginall O, however), yet the claim can simply not be followed at all. Treat as "no statement" ? Logic, perhaps, but on which basis ? From gampas at aol.com Wed Nov 3 17:46:42 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 12:46:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue In-Reply-To: References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> Teams AQ QJ2 AQ95 AKQ10 987 KJ54 10987 65 64 9872 J432 987 10653 AK54 KJ10 65 Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the club finesse unless the jack of clubs comes down." West stated that it did not fall, and he presumed declarer meant the spade finesse, so he was one down. Declarer, our equivalent of the Secretary Bird said, "No I meant the club finesse, do you not speak English?" How do you rule? From gampas at aol.com Wed Nov 3 17:57:42 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 12:57:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) AQ QJ2 AQ95 AKQ10 K87 J942 10987 65 64 8732 432 J987 10653 AK43 KJ10 65 Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the club finesse unless the jack of clubs comes down." West, our club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, stated that it did not fall, and declarer was bound to follow the wording of his clarification statement so was one down as the club finessse also lost. Declarer called the director, as he thought the club finesse was irrational, but SB thought it merely careless and that did not matter anyway as he had stated he would take it. How do you rule? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 3 19:36:25 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:36:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CD1ABA9.9030507@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/11/2010 17:57, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) > > AQ > QJ2 > AQ95 > AKQ10 > > K87 J942 > 10987 65 > 64 8732 > 432 J987 > 10653 > AK43 > KJ10 > 65 > > Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts > > Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the club finesse unless > the jack of clubs comes down." West, our club's equivalent of the > Secretary Bird, stated that it did not fall, and declarer was bound to > follow the wording of his clarification statement so was one down as > the club finessse also lost. Declarer called the director, as he > thought the club finesse was irrational, but SB thought it merely > careless and that did not matter anyway as he had stated he would take > it. How do you rule? AG : in both cases, I rule that declarer has stated a line of play ; if the CJ doesn't fall on the first turn, he finesses it later. Entries are no problem. Inferior but not irrational. We must keep very tight to the statement, for this very reason : declarer is not allowed to say "of course I meant ..." after hearing his opponents' objections. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 3 21:21:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:21:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue In-Reply-To: <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <680956FB-0015-4B13-896E-ED8912561AD5@starpower.net> On Nov 3, 2010, at 12:46 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > Teams > AQ > QJ2 > AQ95 > AKQ10 > > 987 KJ54 > 10987 65 > 64 9872 > J432 987 > 10653 > AK54 > KJ10 > 65 > > Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts > > Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the club finesse unless > the jack of clubs comes down." West stated that it did not fall, > and he > presumed declarer meant the spade finesse, so he was one down. > Declarer, our equivalent of the Secretary Bird said, "No I meant the > club finesse, do you not speak English?" How do you rule? Making seven. His statement is consistent only with one round of clubs, cross to hand, club finesse, no other sequence of play. He may have meant to say "spade finesse", but he gets lucky. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 3 21:23:59 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:23:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7656F4FA-A4D0-471E-AF6C-DE6361C763E4@starpower.net> On Nov 3, 2010, at 12:57 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) > > AQ > QJ2 > AQ95 > AKQ10 > > K87 J942 > 10987 65 > 64 8732 > 432 J987 > 10653 > AK43 > KJ10 > 65 > > Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts > > Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the club finesse unless > the jack of clubs comes down." West, our club's equivalent of the > Secretary Bird, stated that it did not fall, and declarer was bound to > follow the wording of his clarification statement so was one down as > the club finessse also lost. Declarer called the director, as he > thought the club finesse was irrational, but SB thought it merely > careless and that did not matter anyway as he had stated he would take > it. How do you rule? Down one. See previous post. FWIW, SB is right. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Wed Nov 3 22:18:49 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:18:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue In-Reply-To: <680956FB-0015-4B13-896E-ED8912561AD5@starpower.net> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net><8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <680956FB-0015-4B13-896E-ED8912561AD5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CD49B3D7A7C427-E84-AFD@webmail-m043.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] On Nov 3, 2010, at 12:46 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > Teams > AQ > QJ2 > AQ95 > AKQ10 > > 987 KJ54 > 10987 63 > 64 8732 > J432 987 > 10653 > AK54 > KJ10 > 65 > > Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts > > Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the club finesse unless > the jack of clubs comes down." West stated that it did not fall, > and he > presumed declarer meant the spade finesse, so he was one down. > Declarer, our equivalent of the Secretary Bird said, "No I meant the > club finesse, do you not speak English?" How do you rule? Making seven. His statement is consistent only with one round of clubs, cross to hand, club finesse, no other sequence of play. He may have meant to say "spade finesse", but he gets lucky. [Paul Lamford] I disagree. Let us say that declarer had stated "taking the heart finesse unless the jack of clubs comes down"; I would have no hesitation in ruling that the contract is one off, and no hesitation in ruling that the contract made in version (2). In my opinion, finessing the ten of clubs is irrational even for someone who states that he will take the club finesse unless the jack of clubs comes down. The fact that finessing the ten of clubs is legal is completely irrelevant. If it were so, then the director would just have to establish whether a legal play failed and we know that he does not do that. I think that the correct decision is the reverse of the one stated. The point is that the statement itself makes it clear that his intention is to cash three clubs and take the spade finesse; assuming that South is a reasonable player. And surely we do not allow an irrational line which is successful. And in the corollary where the jack of clubs and king of spades are transposed, I woul rule that the contract makes. If declarer states that he intended to cash *four* clubs and then take the spade finesse if the jack of clubs did not drop, would you force him to play four clubs from the top. Again I think you would be misapplying the law. What has happened to "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both side"? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 3 23:27:49 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 09:27:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1571823831.608341288790941423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: A while back two blmlers suggested that the Prime topic of an original post should be reflected in the title that the original poster selected. Therefore blmlers responding to the original post in this thread are missing the point in assuming that Law 70C is this thread's Prime topic. Law 70C is not the Prime Directive of the Lawbook. Rather, the Prime Directive of the Lawbook is instead Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." > (d) how did the actual TD not rule? Declarer knew that it was obvious he was drawing the last trump, so declarer was rude to the defenders for daring to question his claim. When the Director used Law 70C to adjust declarer's claim of +420 to a score of -50, declarer knew that the ruling was obviously wrong, so declarer was rude to the Director for daring to be so incompetent. Now declarer knew it was obvious to appeal the Director's ruling, but was over-ruled by dummy citing Law 92D1, so declarer completed the hat-trick by being rude to dummy. The actual Director did not rule under Law 91A to suspend declarer for the rest of the session (perhaps taking into account declarer's long-standing good character). However, this story has a happy ending. On the drive home dummy explained to declarer exactly how and why declarer had been wrong. So declarer promptly apologised to the defenders and the Director on the following day. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Wed Nov 3 23:36:10 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:36:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD49BEA5E0DBA2-124C-36F0@webmail-m056.sysops.aol.com> Teams AQ QJ2 AQ95 AKQ10 K J98742 10974 65 6432 87 J432 987 10653 AK83 KJ10 65 Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the heart finesse unless the jack of clubs comes down." West, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, stated that it did not fall, and he had the nine of hearts, so the only heart finesse available failed. How do you rule? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 00:04:15 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:04:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01cb7b61$21913640$64b3a2c0$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >Consequently it is even fair to ignore the claim statement as >such and allow the claimer to whatever line of play he might >have selected had the revoke not occurred. Star Trek misquotation: "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it." Richard Hills: Sven's "consequently" logically follows from Sven's axiom that life should be fair. My logic follows from the axiom that this is not the Bridge Fair Mailing List, but rather this is the Bridge Laws Mailing List. Sven's "fair" suggestion is directly contrary to Law 70A's requirement that _not_ the claimer but rather "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to _both_ sides". Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Thu Nov 4 00:23:27 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 23:23:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Future of Brdige Message-ID: <994015.32681.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> IMO... There are many reasons why bridge is becoming less popular. About most of them we can do little. But law-makers can improve the rules, keeping the game's essential nature. Players would be happier with consistent rulings that they could understand. Bridge rules are too sophisticated, subjective, unclear, fragmented, and incomplete. They are hard to understand, there is little incentive to comply with them, and they are hard to enforce. Understandably, directors too, struggle vainly with the laws. At Brighton this year, there were three illegal rulings, on the three occasions that we called the director. Don't blame the directors. They do the best they can, with tact and good humour. Blame daft laws. Unfortunately, legal eagles would miss the endless cycle of interminable controversies in BLML and other discussion groups. Currently there are feeding-frenzies over claim-law. They provide a fascinating challenge for law-makers and top-directors. For players: just more inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings. Many have proposed simplifications to claim law. I like the on-line rule. To claim, declarer names a number of tricks, faces his hand, and leaves it face-up. To dispute the claim, defenders ask declarer to play on, single-dummy, without saying why. Similarly, a defender claims by showing declarer his hand. There have been other suggestions to simplify this and many other laws. Such simplifications have obvious draw-backs. Some suggestions might be refined and improved. What most of the suggestions have in common is that they are simple to learn and enforce; and would produce fairer rulings that players and directors could understand. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 4 00:23:49 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:23:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 In-Reply-To: <1PCJW3-28Yfk80@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <1PCJW3-28Yfk80@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Richard challenged me to defend, among other things, my claim that Minute 10 is unfair. I cannot deliver on that promise, because I did not envision that claimer was going to be able to change his claiming statement. Is that legal? The law has to be interpreted as having a missing sentence, "The claiming statment is followed unless _____." People differ how to fill in the blank, but no one fills it in with "unless the claim is suboptimal" or "unless the claimant gets new information and he wants to change his mind." But Minute 10 could be interpreted as allowing this. For a simple revoke ruling, equity is not the goal or even a consideration. Instead the director just follows the laws, equity be damned. L84B says exactly that: "If the case is clearly covered by a law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented". But when a case it not clearly covered by a law, most directors, one way or another, put equity as their concern. Perhaps Minute 10 could be read as saying that this is a situation that cannot be easily covered by laws and instead equity has the top priority: The claimant cannot withdraw his claim, but if equity suggests it, the claim can be changed and the director should allow the change. Coupled with resolving doubtful points to the claimer, it is unlikely that the claimer suffers by not being allowed to undo the actual claim itself. > ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon > a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, > the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow > correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as > equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against > the revoker.? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Nov 4 00:29:17 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 00:29:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] LA? Message-ID: <4CD1F04D.9040206@aol.com> Pairs, W dealer, EW non vul, NS vul. As East you hold: Q1098632 Bidding goes: W N E S 94 1cl Ps 1sp dbl K6 2sp Ps 3sp 4h Q5 4sp Ps Ps 5d Ps* Ps ? * = hesitation 1. What do you call? 2. What do you call if partner (West) has hesitated before his last pass? 3. Is there a logical alternative to calling 5sp after the hesitation? Ciao, JE From gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 4 00:29:17 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:29:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 In-Reply-To: References: <1PCJW3-28Yfk80@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <8CD49C6118044AA-124C-4180@webmail-m056.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Robert Frick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 23:23 Subject: Re: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 Richard challenged me to defend, among other things, my claim that Minute 10 is unfair. I cannot deliver on that promise, because I did not envision that claimer was going to be able to change his claiming statement. Is that legal? The law has to be interpreted as having a missing sentence, "The claiming statment is followed unless _____." People differ how to fill in the blank, but no one fills it in with "unless the claim is suboptimal" or "unless the claimant gets new information and he wants to change his mind." But Minute 10 could be interpreted as allowing this. For a simple revoke ruling, equity is not the goal or even a consideration. Instead the director just follows the laws, equity be damned. L84B says exactly that: "If the case is clearly covered by a law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented". But when a case it not clearly covered by a law, most directors, one way or another, put equity as their concern. Perhaps Minute 10 could be read as saying that this is a situation that cannot be easily covered by laws and instead equity has the top priority: The claimant cannot withdraw his claim, but if equity suggests it, the claim can be changed and the director should allow the change. Coupled with resolving doubtful points to the claimer, it is unlikely that the claimer suffers by not being allowed to undo the actual claim itself. > ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon > a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, > the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow > correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as > equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against > the revoker.? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 00:31:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:31:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CD174DC.2050102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : how do you treat the case when declarer states the first >trick of the claim as coming from the wrong hand (without a >card from that suit in the other hand, or from the wrong side >to take a marked finesse)? He is the OS (marginal O, however), Richard Hills: No, an unintentionally mistaken claim is not an infraction. Leading a card from the wrong hand is an infraction; stating that you later intend to lead a card from the wrong hand is not necessarily an infraction (unless Law 79A2 applies). Alain Gottcheiner: >yet the claim can simply not be followed at all. > >Treat as "no statement"? Logic, perhaps, but on which basis? WBF Laws Committee minutes, 1st November 2001, item 3: "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." Richard Hills: So "up to the point" could be "at the beginning". What's the problem? In this thread the problem is at least one blmler indulging in logical contortions in an attempt to prove that the claim Laws say what the blmler thinks is "fair". Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 4 00:43:45 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 00:43:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000d01cb7b61$21913640$64b3a2c0$@no> Message-ID: <001e01cb7bb0$f5468090$dfd381b0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >Consequently it is even fair to ignore the claim statement as such and > >allow the claimer to whatever line of play he might have selected had > >the revoke not occurred. > > Star Trek misquotation: > > "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it." > > Richard Hills: > > Sven's "consequently" logically follows from Sven's axiom that life should be fair. > > My logic follows from the axiom that this is not the Bridge Fair Mailing List, but > rather this is the Bridge Laws Mailing List. > > Sven's "fair" suggestion is directly contrary to Law 70A's requirement that _not_ > the claimer but rather "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably > as possible to _both_ sides". OK, considering your desire to twist my words I shall be more specific: As a Director I should in this case first of all rule that declarer is not bound by his claim statement which apparently was made with the obvious but faulty understanding that RHO is void in the suit where he has revoked. I shall then welcome and hear any relevant statement, particularly from declarer on his view of the possibilities in the play of the remaining cards, but also from defenders. I shall then give my ruling according to what I consider a likely progress of the play had there been no revoke and no claim, with doubtful points resolved in favour of declarer (because RHO alone was responsible for this irregular situation). From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 4 02:03:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:03:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD49BEA5E0DBA2-124C-36F0@webmail-m056.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD49BEA5E0DBA2-124C-36F0@webmail-m056.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:36:10 -0400, wrote: > Teams > AQ > QJ2 > AQ95 > AKQ10 > > K J98742 > 10974 65 > 6432 87 > J432 987 > 10653 > AK83 > KJ10 > 65 > > Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts > > Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the heart finesse unless > the jack of clubs comes down." West, the club's equivalent of the > Secretary Bird, stated that it did not fall, and he had the nine of > hearts, so the only heart finesse available failed. > > How do you rule? The ACBL asks directors to distinguish faulty claims from poorly expressed claims. I have found that advice useful. Here, I would rule that the declarer could not have meant to finesse in hearts and hence must have misspoke. I would allow the spade finesse. If there is a chance, I would first make the claimant clarify his claim. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 03:53:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:53:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Future of Bridge & Sven apology [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <994015.32681.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >At Brighton this year, there were three illegal rulings, on the >three occasions that we called the director. Richard Hills: Please describe those rulings, preferably with the complete deal, auction and play. It is easy to misdescribe a ruling as illegal, as I incorrectly misdescribed a hypothetical ruling by Sven Pran as illegal. My apologies to Sven. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 4 04:55:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:55:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] LA? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CD1F04D.9040206@aol.com> Message-ID: >Pairs, W dealer, EW non vul, NS vul. > >As East you hold: > >QT98632 >94 >K6 >Q5 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C Pass 1S X >2S Pass 3S 4H >4S Pass Pass 5D >Pass Pass ? > >1. What do you call? Pass in normal tempo. >2. What do you call if partner (West) has hesitated before >his last pass? Pass in quicker than normal tempo (to avoid a Law 90B2 slow play fine caused by pard's hesitation). >3. Is there a logical alternative to calling 5S after the >hesitation? A logical alternative to 5S is a gap between two mountains. >Ciao, JE Best wishes, RH -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 4 07:12:29 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 07:12:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] LA? In-Reply-To: <4CD1F04D.9040206@aol.com> References: <4CD1F04D.9040206@aol.com> Message-ID: <1123218937.1288851149254.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Pairs, W dealer, EW non vul, NS vul. > > As East you hold: > > Q1098632 Bidding goes: W N E S > 94 1cl Ps 1sp dbl > K6 2sp Ps 3sp 4h > Q5 4sp Ps Ps 5d > Ps* Ps > ? * = hesitation > > 1. What do you call? Clearly this is not a forcing pass situation. At pairs, I consider pass, double, and 5S. Surely opener can have something like KJxx,xx,Qxx,AKJx, where even 4S will go down. Or KJxx,xx,x,AKJxxx, where 5D will likely make given S's monstrous two-suiter. > 2. What do you call if partner (West) has hesitated before his last pass? This type of hesitation suggests action over inaction. I have neither a clearcut 5S nor a clearcut double. > 3. Is there a logical alternative to calling 5sp after the hesitation? I consider both pass and double to be LAs at pairs. The odds are different at IMPs. Thomas From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Nov 4 09:01:07 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 09:01:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: 2010/11/3 : > Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) > > ? ?AQ > ? ?QJ2 > ? ?AQ95 > ? ?AKQ10 > > K87 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?J942 > 10987 ? ? ? ? ? ?65 > 64 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 8732 > 432 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?J987 > ? ?10653 > ? ?AK43 > ? ?KJ10 > ? ?65 > > Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts > > Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the club finesse unless > the jack of clubs comes down." West, our club's equivalent of the > Secretary Bird, stated that it did not fall, and declarer was bound to > follow the wording of his clarification statement so was one down as > the club finessse also lost. Declarer called the director, as he > thought the club finesse was irrational, but SB thought it merely > careless and that did not matter anyway as he had stated he would take > it. How do you rule? As a TD I'm afraid I've got no option, and have to rule down one. Though I don't like it. As an opponent I'd of course allow the contract to make and never call the director - it's obvious to me that declarers intention was to cash three high clubs and take the making spade finesse when the club jack failed to drop. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 4 10:02:42 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 05:02:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net><8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com><8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> [harald skjaeran] As a TD I'm afraid I've got no option, and have to rule down one. Though I don't like it. As an opponent I'd of course allow the contract to make and never call the director - it's obvious to me that declarers intention was to cash three high clubs and take the making spade finesse when the club jack failed to drop. [paul lamford] You contradict yourself. I disagree with the first sentence, and agree with the second one. As a TD you should rule that the declarer's stated line was not normal and that he can substitute the only normal line. Nothing in 70D1 or 70E1 prevents the declarer from making a further statement that he meant spade finesse. The director rules solely on whether there is a an alternative normal line, and *that includes the original statement* unless the Law, like many others, is just wrongly worded. Certainly in (3) where declarer has an irrelevant heart finesse, I would hope you would rule this way. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 4 10:14:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:14:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD49BEA5E0DBA2-124C-36F0@webmail-m056.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD49BEA5E0DBA2-124C-36F0@webmail-m056.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CD2795D.3000805@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/11/2010 23:36, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > Teams > AQ > QJ2 > AQ95 > AKQ10 > > K J98742 > 10974 65 > 6432 87 > J432 987 > 10653 > AK83 > KJ10 > 65 > > Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts > > Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the heart finesse unless > the jack of clubs comes down." West, the club's equivalent of the > Secretary Bird, stated that it did not fall, and he had the nine of > hearts, so the only heart finesse available failed. > > How do you rule? AG : I rule that declarer made no valid statement, as no heart finesse is available. Notice that South doesn't hold the 10, so there is no finesse against the 9, but even if there were the play would be irrational. In contrast, playing the club finesse unless the Jack falls on the first round is inferior - not irrational. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 4 10:18:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:18:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] LA? In-Reply-To: <4CD1F04D.9040206@aol.com> References: <4CD1F04D.9040206@aol.com> Message-ID: <4CD27A77.7070905@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/11/2010 0:29, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Pairs, W dealer, EW non vul, NS vul. > > As East you hold: > > Q1098632 Bidding goes: W N E S > 94 1cl Ps 1sp dbl > K6 2sp Ps 3sp 4h > Q5 4sp Ps Ps 5d > Ps* Ps > ? * = hesitation > > 1. What do you call? > > 2. What do you call if partner (West) has hesitated before his last pass? > > 3. Is there a logical alternative to calling 5sp after the hesitation? AG : what do the system notes say about passes at "red" ? If they say the pass is forcing after bidding a game at red, then there is no LA. Else, passing is a LA, taking into account that one only bid 3S (trying to go to 4S by steps, as if reluctantly, doesn't apply here). Notice that 4S isn't a "freely bid game", so most pairs won't play the pass as forcing. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 4 10:20:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:20:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CD27ACE.5000607@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/11/2010 0:31, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : how do you treat the case when declarer states the first >> trick of the claim as coming from the wrong hand (without a >> card from that suit in the other hand, or from the wrong side >> to take a marked finesse)? He is the OS (marginal O, however), > Richard Hills: > > No, an unintentionally mistaken claim is not an infraction. Sorry, Sir, one also is the OS after an irregularity. And stating you'll play from the wrong hand is one. From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 4 11:33:14 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 11:33:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net><8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com><8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <001601cb7c0b$b07715f0$116541d0$@no> Please show which law allows the Director to disregard a clear and unambiguous claim statement on the allegation that it is irrational? Observe that Law 70E only applies to new line of plays not mentioned in the original claim statement, it does not apply to the original claim statement. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > gampas at aol.com > Sent: 4. november 2010 10:03 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) > > [harald skjaeran] > As a TD I'm afraid I've got no option, and have to rule down one. > Though I don't like it. As an opponent I'd of course allow the contract to make and > never call the director - it's obvious to me that declarers intention was to cash > three high clubs and take the making spade finesse when the club jack failed to > drop. > > [paul lamford] > You contradict yourself. I disagree with the first sentence, and agree with the > second one. As a TD you should rule that the declarer's stated line was not > normal and that he can substitute the only normal line. > Nothing in 70D1 or 70E1 prevents the declarer from making a further statement > that he meant spade finesse. The director rules solely on whether there is a an > alternative normal line, and *that includes the original statement* unless the Law, > like many others, is just wrongly worded. > > Certainly in (3) where declarer has an irrelevant heart finesse, I would hope you > would rule this way. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 4 11:53:19 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 06:53:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: <001601cb7c0b$b07715f0$116541d0$@no> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net><8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com><8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> <001601cb7c0b$b07715f0$116541d0$@no> Message-ID: <8CD4A25A09FE4FF-21BC-115AC@webmail-m093.sysops.aol.com> [Sven Pran] Please show which law allows the Director to disregard a clear and unambiguous claim statement on the allegation that it is irrational? Observe that Law 70E only applies to new line of plays not mentioned in the original claim statement, it does not apply to the original claim statement. [Paul Lamford] In our example the spade finesse is a new line of play. The club finesse was the stated line. 70E1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. This has the natural corollary: If failure to adopt the line of play of the spade finesse would be irrational, then the director will accept that line of play, even though it was unstated, and whether or not an opponent failed to follow to a spade before the claim was made and whether or not he stated something else. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 4 14:06:22 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 09:06:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD49BEA5E0DBA2-124C-36F0@webmail-m056.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD49BEA5E0DBA2-124C-36F0@webmail-m056.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7FD17E43-089D-4709-B2F8-F0DCCB61B3A8@starpower.net> On Nov 3, 2010, at 6:36 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > Teams > AQ > QJ2 > AQ95 > AKQ10 > > K J98742 > 10974 65 > 6432 87 > J432 987 > 10653 > AK83 > KJ10 > 65 > > Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts > > Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the heart finesse unless > the jack of clubs comes down." West, the club's equivalent of the > Secretary Bird, stated that it did not fall, and he had the nine of > hearts, so the only heart finesse available failed. > > How do you rule? Making seven (but only because of that onside stiff SK!). I would find playing hearts other than by cashing the suit out to be irrational. Contrast that with the previous case, where finessing the C10 rather than the SQ is clearly inferior, but not irrational. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jrhind at therock.bm Thu Nov 4 14:24:06 2010 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:24:06 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <7FD17E43-089D-4709-B2F8-F0DCCB61B3A8@starpower.net> Message-ID: I would have declarer repeat his claim statement where I expect that it will be clarified that he meant a spade finesse rather than a heart finesse. As the spade finesse takes care of itself I would award making 7NT. Jack On 11/4/10 10:06 AM, "Eric Landau" wrote: >On Nov 3, 2010, at 6:36 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> Teams >> AQ >> QJ2 >> AQ95 >> AKQ10 >> >> K J98742 >> 10974 65 >> 6432 87 >> J432 987 >> 10653 >> AK83 >> KJ10 >> 65 >> >> Dealer South 1NT (12-14) - 7NT, lead ten of hearts >> >> Declarer claimed with the statement: "Taking the heart finesse unless >> the jack of clubs comes down." West, the club's equivalent of the >> Secretary Bird, stated that it did not fall, and he had the nine of >> hearts, so the only heart finesse available failed. >> >> How do you rule? > >Making seven (but only because of that onside stiff SK!). I would >find playing hearts other than by cashing the suit out to be >irrational. Contrast that with the previous case, where finessing >the C10 rather than the SQ is clearly inferior, but not irrational. > > >Eric Landau >1107 Dale Drive >Silver Spring MD 20910 >ehaa at starpower.net > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 4 14:54:33 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:54:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <620179.33080.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Nigel] ... in practice, it depends on the whim of the director ... [Nige2] Q.E.D. :) From gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 4 16:02:39 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 11:02:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] Contrast that with the previous case, where finessing the C10 rather than the SQ is clearly inferior, but not irrational. [Paul Lamford] I disagree. I think that finessing the C10 rather than the SQ is clearly irrational. It is also inferior. I also think it is clear that when people writing on here use "clearly" it is to bolster a weak argument. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 4 16:32:02 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:32:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/11/2010 16:02, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [Eric Landau] Contrast that with the previous case, where finessing the > C10 rather than the SQ is clearly inferior, but not irrational. > > [Paul Lamford] I disagree. I think that finessing the C10 rather than > the SQ is clearly irrational. It is also inferior. I also think it is > clear that when people writing on here use "clearly" it is to bolster a > weak argument. In the same way, I think that the problem comes from the fact that some give the word "irrational" too weak a meaning. Could you tell us what difference you intend to make between "inferior" and "irrational" ? From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 4 18:32:35 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 13:32:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 05:02:42 -0400, wrote: > [harald skjaeran] > As a TD I'm afraid I've got no option, and have to rule down one. > Though I don't like it. As an opponent I'd of course allow the contract > to make and never call the director - it's obvious to me that declarers > intention was to cash three high clubs and take the making spade > finesse when the club jack failed to drop. > > [paul lamford] > You contradict yourself. I disagree with the first sentence, and agree > with the second one. As a TD you should rule that the declarer's stated > line was not normal and that he can substitute the only normal line. > Nothing in 70D1 or 70E1 prevents the declarer from making a further > statement that he meant spade finesse. The director rules solely on > whether there is a an alternative normal line, and *that includes the > original statement* unless the Law, like many others, is just wrongly > worded. I am comfortable with "wrongly worded". The laws should say "the claiming statment is followed until/unless....." When it cannot be followed is one situation, when it is vague or ambiguous is the other. Then, L70C, L70D, and L70E makes sense as guiding the director when the claim statement is not being followed, not for when a clearly stated claim statement can be abandoned. For example, I claim with spades trump, saying my hand is high. I have the ace of spades and ace of hearts. I do not know that a trump is out. We use L70C to say that playing the ace of hearts first is a normal play. Of course. It might get ruffed. Now suppose I add to my claiming statement that I am playing the ace of spades first. All of the criteria for L70C are still met, and playing the ace of hearts first is still a normal play given that I think my hand is high and trumps are out. The only justification for not applying L70C is that we shouldn't have gotten there -- it is not used for the clear parts of a claim. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 22:21:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:21:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Two bee egg speck Ted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: President John F. Kennedy, inaugural address: "ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country" Theodore "Ted" Sorensen (1928-2010) was asked if he had ghost- written Kennedy's speech. As was to be expect Ted, Ted replied: "Ask not." Imps Dlr: South Vul: Both You, North, hold: J72 A8 KJ KQ9832 The uncontested bidding has gone: SOUTH NORTH 1C (1) 2C (2) 2D (3) 3C (4) 3NT(5) 4NT(6) 5H (7) ? (1) 15+ hcp, 3+ controls (A = 2, K = 1) and any shape. (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls and 4+ clubs. (3) Relay. (4) 3-2-2-6 (tripleton spade) or 2-2-2-7 shape. (5) Non-forcing relay. (6) Exactly 4 controls, and likes queens and jacks (with exactly 4 controls and unlikable queens and jacks North is required to Pass the 3NT non-forcing relay). (7) Non-systemic. South's only systemic calls are a Pass or a bid at the six-level. The ACBL has a regulation that partnerships MUST have created understandings in "to be expected" situations. The ABF has a similar regulation: "Pairs who frequently forget their system or conventions have a damaging effect on the tournament. The Director is empowered by these Regulations to require such a pair to play a simpler system or convention. In extreme cases he may apply a procedural penalty under Law 90A." If you were North, what call do make? If you were an ABF Director, do you require North-South to play a simpler system? If you were an ACBL Director, do you rule that North-South are unexpected? Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 4 22:32:06 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 22:32:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Two bee egg speck Ted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <462499826.2518271288906326969.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Both > > You, North, hold: > > J72 > A8 > KJ > KQ9832 > > The uncontested bidding has gone: > > SOUTH NORTH > 1C (1) 2C (2) > 2D (3) 3C (4) > 3NT(5) 4NT(6) > 5H (7) ? > > (1) 15+ hcp, 3+ controls (A = 2, K = 1) and any shape. > (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls and 4+ clubs. > (3) Relay. > (4) 3-2-2-6 (tripleton spade) or 2-2-2-7 shape. > (5) Non-forcing relay. > (6) Exactly 4 controls, and likes queens and jacks (with > exactly 4 controls and unlikable queens and jacks North is > required to Pass the 3NT non-forcing relay). > (7) Non-systemic. South's only systemic calls are a Pass or a > bid at the six-level. The ACBL has a regulation that > partnerships MUST have created understandings in "to be > expected" situations. The ABF has a similar regulation: > > "Pairs who frequently forget their system or conventions have a > damaging effect on the tournament. The Director is empowered by > these Regulations to require such a pair to play a simpler > system or convention. In extreme cases he may apply a > procedural penalty under Law 90A." > > If you were North, what call do make? I have no idea. > If you were an ABF Director, do you require North-South to play > a simpler system? No. I'd only ever consider ruling that way if a pair frequently causes trouble when a wheel comes off, and especially if they frequently create MI or seem to exploit UI. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 4 22:38:55 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 22:38:55 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <769558868.2520011288906735165.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Eric Landau] Contrast that with the previous case, where finessing the > C10 rather than the SQ is clearly inferior, but not irrational. > > [Paul Lamford] I disagree. I think that finessing the C10 rather than > the SQ is clearly irrational. It is also inferior. I also think it is > clear that when people writing on here use "clearly" it is to bolster a > weak argument. Selecting a 51% line instead of a 68% line is not irrational. However, if I should ever play in a tournament where Paul Lamford is TD, I will try the following secretary bird approach: A trick 1, I simply claim, and state that I will take the best percentage line, without bothering to actually state any line. I will then let Paul figure it out for me, stating that taking anything other than the best percentage line would be irrational. Never has declaring a hand been easier. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 22:48:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:48:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CD27ACE.5000607@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>No, an unintentionally mistaken claim is not an infraction. >> >>Leading a card from the wrong hand is an infraction; stating >>that you later intend to lead a card from the wrong hand is >>not necessarily an infraction (unless Law 79A2 applies). Alain Gottcheiner: >Sorry, Sir, one also is the OS after an irregularity. And >stating you'll play from the wrong hand is one. Richard Hills: Sorry, Sir, you are begging the question, petitio principii. I assert that intending to commit an irregularity is not yet an irregularity. You merely contradict this statement without any Logic or evidence. Definitions: "Irregularity ? a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." Richard Hills: Note that "a deviation" is past tense; the Definition does not include the future tense "or an intention to deviate". Since "play ceases" (Law 68D) when a claim occurs, the claimer's proposed irregular play from the wrong hand has not occurred. Quod erat demonstrandum. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 4 22:58:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:58:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Two bee egg speck Ted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462499826.2518271288906326969.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: >>If you were North, what call do make? Thomas Dehn: >I have no idea. Richard Hills: Some sort of call has to be made to avoid a slow play fine. In this sort of situation, when it is obvious to a passing waiter that a wheel has fallen off the system, the practical action is to choose a contract that will have some play no matter what partner is doing. So I vote for 6C rather than a risky pass of 5H or the poor cost-benefit selection of 5NT (Terence Reese described a final contract of 5NT as the "hippopotamus contract", due to its ungainly and non-gainly nature). Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 4 23:06:01 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 23:06:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Two bee egg speck Ted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80378489.2524991288908361403.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>If you were North, what call do make? > > Thomas Dehn: > > >I have no idea. > > Richard Hills: > > Some sort of call has to be made to avoid a slow play fine. In > this sort of situation, when it is obvious to a passing waiter > that a wheel has fallen off the system, the practical action is > to choose a contract that will have some play no matter what > partner is doing. > > So I vote for 6C rather than a risky pass of 5H or the poor > cost-benefit selection of 5NT (Terence Reese described a final > contract of 5NT as the "hippopotamus contract", due to its > ungainly and non-gainly nature). Not so easy. Partner might think that 5H is artificial, and asks for hippogryphs. 6C then is not natural, but shows that you have the Ace of hippogryphs. Or partner might think that 5H shows two aces and no slam interest. Or whatever else he imagined it might mean. Of course you are not gonna pass 5H. But choosing what to bid is nontrivial. It requires detailed experience with the system. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 23:56:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:56:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Two bee egg speck Ted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <80378489.2524991288908361403.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >Not so easy. Partner might think that 5H is artificial, and asks >for hippogryphs. 6C then is not natural, but shows that you have >the Ace of hippogryphs. [snip] >But choosing what to bid is non-trivial. It requires detailed >experience with the system. Richard Hills: There are some Ivory Tower relay theorists who use the 4D End Signal (pard must bid 4H, then Pass the next bid, if any), thus "efficiently" permitting other breaks in the relay to ask for hippogryphs. And those Ivory Tower relay theorists sneer at my "inefficient" Symmetric Relay system, where all breaks in the relay are natural. But when a wheel falls off in Symmetric Relay, it was easier for me (yes, I was North) than for the Ivory Tower relayers to bolt the wheel on again, since 6C is guaranteed natural in my methods. Unfortunately the AQ of spades was sitting over pard's K of spades, so my 6C contract was hopeless. Not to worry, since pard had opened 1C we right-sided the contract, with 6C cold with pard as declarer. :-) :-) Even my "detailed experience with the system" did not permit me to deduce what pard intended with his 5H bid, so I asked him at the end of the deal. He explained that for 30 seconds he had had an aberration, treating my 4NT as Blackwood. When I went into the tank his beard grew whiter at the thought that I might Pass his 5H bid. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 5 00:00:20 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 00:00:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4CD27ACE.5000607@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003b01cb7c74$0ea3fdb0$2bebf910$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ............. > Note that "a deviation" is past tense; the Definition does not include the future > tense "or an intention to deviate". Since "play ceases" (Law 68D) when a claim > occurs, the claimer's proposed irregular play from the wrong hand has not > occurred. > > Quod erat demonstrandum. HUH ? ? ? ? ? "Deviation" is a noun, not a verb, so speaking about past, present or future tense for this word is meaningless. The only "erat demonstrandum" appears to be ignorance of basic grammar? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 5 03:06:31 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:06:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] undo Message-ID: The opponent makes an insufficient bid. I have to decide whether or not to accept it. I ask about the meaning of some bid, getting an answer. Now I make my decision. Then the opponent corrects the explanation of this bid. I want to change my decision. Can I? It seems to me that this should be an easy ruling. I mean, when the opponent withdraws a call, play, or some other action, I should be able to change the actions I have made on the basis of the wrong information. There can be some limit, but I remember this one without looking -- until my partner takes action. To build off of Nigel's point, this is a simple undo principle. Why would we intentionally make the laws harder to learn and remember by making exceptions, unless we have good reason for the exceptions? From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Nov 5 04:28:29 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:28:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] undo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201011050328.oA53ScQL006024@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Robert says: At 01:06 PM 5/11/2010, you wrote: >The opponent makes an insufficient bid. I have to decide whether or not to >accept it. I ask about the meaning of some bid, getting an answer. > >Now I make my decision. Then the opponent corrects the explanation of this >bid. I want to change my decision. Can I? > >It seems to me that this should be an easy ruling. I mean, when the >opponent withdraws a call, play, or some other action, I should be able to >change the actions I have made on the basis of the wrong information. cut in words of 1 syllable RTFLB no "should be able to" in my copy Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 5 04:47:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:47:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003b01cb7c74$0ea3fdb0$2bebf910$@no> Message-ID: The Court Jester (1955 film): "The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle. The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true." Definitions: "Irregularity ? a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." Richard Hills: >>Note that "a deviation" is past tense; the Definition does not >>include the future tense "or an intention to deviate". Since >>"play ceases" (Law 68D) when a claim occurs, the claimer's >>proposed irregular play from the wrong hand has not occurred. >> >>Quod erat demonstrandum. Sven Pran, the brew that is true: >HUH ? ? ? ? ? > >"Deviation" is a noun, not a verb, so speaking about past, >present or future tense for this word is meaningless. > >The only "erat demonstrandum" appears to be ignorance of basic >grammar? Law 12B1, Objectives of Score Adjustment, first sentence: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." Richard Hills, the brew that is true: In the above Law the word "gained" is a verb in the past tense. Quod erat demonstrandum. The Court Jester (1955 film): "Who did what to what?" "Oh, they all did, sire. There they were in the dark; the Duke with his dagger, the Doge with his dart, Duchess with her dirk." "Duchess with her dirk?" "Yes! The Duchess dove at the Duke just when the Duke dove at the Doge. Now the Duke ducked, the Doge dodged, and the Duchess didn't. So the Duke got the Duchess, the Duchess got the Doge, and the Doge got the Duke!" "Curious. I... I... hm? What? What's that? All I heard was that the Duchess had a siege of rheumatism. She's 83, you know." Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Nov 5 07:21:55 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:21:55 +0800 Subject: [BLML] undo References: <201011050328.oA53ScQL006024@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <7788EDDDF6824F31A2663D3711C492E0@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] undo large snip > in words of 1 syllable RTFLB > no "should be able to" in my copy > Friendly has 2 syllables cheers bill > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 5 09:58:39 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:58:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] undo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601cb7cc7$a408fe20$ec1afa60$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > The opponent makes an insufficient bid. I have to decide whether or not to accept > it. I ask about the meaning of some bid, getting an answer. > > Now I make my decision. Then the opponent corrects the explanation of this bid. I > want to change my decision. Can I? > > It seems to me that this should be an easy ruling. I mean, when the opponent > withdraws a call, play, or some other action, I should be able to change the actions > I have made on the basis of the wrong information. > There can be some limit, but I remember this one without looking -- until my > partner takes action. The laws are silent on this particular situation, but if I ever met it I would rule as follows: If you accepted the insufficient bid and then the explanation was corrected before you made your subsequent call I would allow you to instead reject the insufficient bid. In all other situations I would let your original decision stand and make it clear that I would eventually adjust the result on the board if I found that your side had been damaged from the irregularities. Note that there are other irregularities here in addition to the insufficient bid: A player explaining his own call may be a violation of Law 20F1. A player correcting his partner's explanation violates Law 20F5 A player correcting his own explanation may give cause for a Law 23 rectification. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 5 10:18:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:18:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two bee egg speck Ted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CD3CBD1.1000202@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/11/2010 22:21, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > President John F. Kennedy, inaugural address: > > "ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do > for your country" > > Theodore "Ted" Sorensen (1928-2010) was asked if he had ghost- > written Kennedy's speech. As was to be expect Ted, Ted replied: > > "Ask not." > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Both > > You, North, hold: > > J72 > A8 > KJ > KQ9832 > > The uncontested bidding has gone: > > SOUTH NORTH > 1C (1) 2C (2) > 2D (3) 3C (4) > 3NT(5) 4NT(6) > 5H (7) ? > > (1) 15+ hcp, 3+ controls (A = 2, K = 1) and any shape. > (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls and 4+ clubs. > (3) Relay. > (4) 3-2-2-6 (tripleton spade) or 2-2-2-7 shape. > (5) Non-forcing relay. > (6) Exactly 4 controls, and likes queens and jacks (with > exactly 4 controls and unlikable queens and jacks North is > required to Pass the 3NT non-forcing relay). > (7) Non-systemic. South's only systemic calls are a Pass or a > bid at the six-level. The ACBL has a regulation that > partnerships MUST have created understandings in "to be > expected" situations. AG : this is not "to be expected". Even more so, the system explicitly says it isn't expected. Or, said in another way, the understainding exists : it is "does not exist". Does the ACBL compel you to have an understanding about bidding 1NT-2D-5C ? > If you were North, what call do make? > AG : if I were North, I'd pass, because partner seems to think that 4 controls aren't enough to play slam. It depends, of course, on whether partner had a heart slam-try available over 3C. If I were North, I'd apply the general rule I use in relay systems : any bid at game level that isn't a relay or an asking bid is definitive. > If you were an ABF Director, do you require North-South to play > a simpler system? AG : nope. First, the 5H bid could have been a slip of the bidding-box, in which case system isn't responsible. Second, this is an intricated situation, not one that shall be covered because it already happened often. Of course, some Norths would conclude there could only have been such a slip, in which case they'd bid 5S to allow their partners to correct the error. This should bez allowed. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 5 10:27:20 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:27:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CD3CDF8.1010704@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/11/2010 22:48, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > >>> No, an unintentionally mistaken claim is not an infraction. >>> >>> Leading a card from the wrong hand is an infraction; stating >>> that you later intend to lead a card from the wrong hand is >>> not necessarily an infraction (unless Law 79A2 applies). > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> Sorry, Sir, one also is the OS after an irregularity. And >> stating you'll play from the wrong hand is one. > Richard Hills: > > Sorry, Sir, you are begging the question, petitio principii. You're wrong about what this means, but that's another story. > I assert that intending to commit an irregularity is not yet > an irregularity. You merely contradict this statement without > any Logic or evidence. In fact, this is not what I mean. I only mean that, if one can be compelled to follow a line which, if taken to the exact word, would result in an irregularity, one will inevitably end as OS ; and my second point is that it should be avoided. > Definitions: > > "Irregularity ? a deviation from correct procedure inclusive > of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a > player." > > Richard Hills: > > Note that "a deviation" is past tense AG : in my grammar books, which are of very high level, substantives show no tense, excepted in heavily-aspectual languages like Armenian or Esperanto. How you can find that "deviation" is past tense escapes me, and the authors. Best regards Alain PS : for esperantists, contrast "partprenanto / partpreninto / parprenonto" = "participant, former participant, would-be participant". Notice that english needs an additional wordd to include a meaning of tense. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 5 14:46:04 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] LA? In-Reply-To: <4CD1F04D.9040206@aol.com> References: <4CD1F04D.9040206@aol.com> Message-ID: <17433FBF-6C78-4809-863D-81FA40FE0803@starpower.net> On Nov 3, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Pairs, W dealer, EW non vul, NS vul. > > As East you hold: > > Q1098632 Bidding goes: W N E S > 94 1cl Ps 1sp dbl > K6 2sp Ps 3sp 4h > Q5 4sp Ps Ps 5d > Ps* Ps > ? * = hesitation > > 1. What do you call? Pass. > 2. What do you call if partner (West) has hesitated before his > last pass? Pass. > 3. Is there a logical alternative to calling 5sp after the > hesitation? Obviously; pass. At matchpoints "the five-level belongs to the opponents." But that assumes that 3S was a non-constructive blocking call, which I infer from looking at the hand. If 3S was systemically forward- going, however, I have created a forcing auction, and thus have no useful information from partner's hesitation. If 3S was systemically ambiguous, partner's hesitation might suggest that he hoped his pass would be forcing, and I should pass -- which is what I would have done without the hesitation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 5 15:14:52 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:14:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net><8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com><8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7ECDF3BC-C972-4FD2-96FB-023C0C95F349@starpower.net> On Nov 4, 2010, at 5:02 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [harald skjaeran] > As a TD I'm afraid I've got no option, and have to rule down one. > Though I don't like it. As an opponent I'd of course allow the > contract > to make and never call the director - it's obvious to me that > declarers > intention was to cash three high clubs and take the making spade > finesse when the club jack failed to drop. > > [paul lamford] > You contradict yourself. I disagree with the first sentence, and agree > with the second one. As a TD you should rule that the declarer's > stated > line was not normal and that he can substitute the only normal line. > Nothing in 70D1 or 70E1 prevents the declarer from making a further > statement that he meant spade finesse. The director rules solely on > whether there is a an alternative normal line, and *that includes the > original statement* unless the Law, like many others, is just wrongly > worded. > > Certainly in (3) where declarer has an irrelevant heart finesse, I > would hope you would rule this way. Paul provides the refutation to his own conclusion: "Nothing... prevents the declarer from making a further statement that he meant spade finesse." As the problem was presented, declarer claimed, his opponents objected, the director was called, and there was a ruling to be made. Surely if declarer's "club finesse" was merely a slip of the tongue he would have attempted to correct it by now. Raising a "slip of the tongue" claim only after an adverse ruling has been delivered seriously lacks credibility. Had declarer reacted at once to SB's objection to his claim, asserting that he meant to say "spade finesse" rather than "club finesse" (having presumably realized he had misspoke only after it was pointed out to him), I would "allow" him to "take" the spade finesse. In effect, I would apply the same criterion here that I would to a L25A change of call. But there is no indication that he made any such statement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 5 15:26:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:26:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Nov 4, 2010, at 11:02 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Eric Landau] Contrast that with the previous case, where finessing > the > C10 rather than the SQ is clearly inferior, but not irrational. > > [Paul Lamford] I disagree. I think that finessing the C10 rather than > the SQ is clearly irrational. It is also inferior. I also think it is > clear that when people writing on here use "clearly" it is to > bolster a > weak argument. Does Paul really think calling finessing the C10 rather than the SQ "inferior" a weak argument? I'll stand by "clearly inferior". Perhaps my grammar might otherwise have been a bit ambiguous, but surely not after we spent months parsing that particular comma before "but not irrational" in T previous FLB. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 5 15:52:36 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:52:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> <4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Nov 4, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 4/11/2010 16:02, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > >> [Eric Landau] Contrast that with the previous case, where >> finessing the >> C10 rather than the SQ is clearly inferior, but not irrational. >> >> [Paul Lamford] I disagree. I think that finessing the C10 rather than >> the SQ is clearly irrational. It is also inferior. I also think it is >> clear that when people writing on here use "clearly" it is to >> bolster a >> weak argument. > > In the same way, I think that the problem comes from the fact that > some > give the word "irrational" too weak a meaning. I'd say the problem is that some do not accept "irrationality" as a quality distinct from "carelessness" or "inferiority", and think that "irrational" can be defined as "very careless or very inferior". Besides being hopelessly subjective, that view cannot be justified from a dictionary. > Could you tell us what difference you intend to make between > "inferior" > and "irrational" ? One difference must be (if we are to continue speaking English) that inferiority is subject to quantitative modification (something can be "slightly inferior" or "very inferior" to something else) whereas irrationality, like pregnancy, is binary ("just a little bit irrational" is as meaningless as "just a little bit pregnant"). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 5 16:19:42 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 11:19:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <73F189B5-1DAD-478B-AB75-C10C94B2D99B@starpower.net> On Nov 4, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 05:02:42 -0400, wrote: > >> [harald skjaeran] >> As a TD I'm afraid I've got no option, and have to rule down one. >> Though I don't like it. As an opponent I'd of course allow the >> contract >> to make and never call the director - it's obvious to me that >> declarers >> intention was to cash three high clubs and take the making spade >> finesse when the club jack failed to drop. >> >> [paul lamford] >> You contradict yourself. I disagree with the first sentence, and >> agree >> with the second one. As a TD you should rule that the declarer's >> stated >> line was not normal and that he can substitute the only normal line. >> Nothing in 70D1 or 70E1 prevents the declarer from making a further >> statement that he meant spade finesse. The director rules solely on >> whether there is a an alternative normal line, and *that includes the >> original statement* unless the Law, like many others, is just wrongly >> worded. > > I am comfortable with "wrongly worded". The laws should say "the > claiming > statment is followed until/unless....." When it cannot be followed > is one > situation, when it is vague or ambiguous is the other. > > Then, L70C, L70D, and L70E makes sense as guiding the director when > the > claim statement is not being followed, not for when a clearly > stated claim > statement can be abandoned. > > For example, I claim with spades trump, saying my hand is high. I > have the > ace of spades and ace of hearts. I do not know that a trump is out. > We use > L70C to say that playing the ace of hearts first is a normal play. Of > course. It might get ruffed. > > Now suppose I add to my claiming statement that I am playing the > ace of > spades first. All of the criteria for L70C are still met, and > playing the > ace of hearts first is still a normal play given that I think my > hand is > high and trumps are out. The only justification for not applying > L70C is > that we shouldn't have gotten there -- it is not used for the clear > parts > of a claim. To make this analogous to the thread case, we need to add that immediately before his claim, Bob played the SK and both opponents showed out. Then he claimed, saying, "My hand is high." But then his RHO piped up with, "Oops, I seem to still have some spades". Now Bob wants to amend his claim to play the SA before the HA. "All of the criteria for L70C are still met." But doesn't L70E1 come into play, allowing him to modify his claim on the grounds that it would be irrational to continue to assume RHO is out of trumps at this point? IOW, do we "forgive" declarer for being "unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand" if his "unawareness" was due to the opponent actually showing out on a trump trick, or does L70C apply regardless? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 5 17:18:52 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:18:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] LA? In-Reply-To: <17433FBF-6C78-4809-863D-81FA40FE0803@starpower.net> References: <4CD1F04D.9040206@aol.com> <17433FBF-6C78-4809-863D-81FA40FE0803@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CD42E6C.1080807@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/11/2010 14:46, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Nov 3, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Pairs, W dealer, EW non vul, NS vul. >> >> As East you hold: >> >> Q1098632 Bidding goes: W N E S >> 94 1cl Ps 1sp dbl >> K6 2sp Ps 3sp 4h >> Q5 4sp Ps Ps 5d >> Ps* Ps >> ? * = hesitation >> >> 1. What do you call? > Pass. > >> 2. What do you call if partner (West) has hesitated before his >> last pass? > Pass. > >> 3. Is there a logical alternative to calling 5sp after the >> hesitation? > Obviously; pass. At matchpoints "the five-level belongs to the > opponents." > > But that assumes that 3S was a non-constructive blocking call, which > I infer from looking at the hand. If 3S was systemically forward- > going, however, I have created a forcing auction, and thus have no > useful information from partner's hesitation. AG : i don't think that a constructive, but non-game-forcing, call would create a forcing situation above the level of commitment (which in this case is its own level). 4S appears to have been bid as a pushing move, and it worked. Most wouldn't want to be compelled to double or bid 5S, and play for a top or bottom, while they could play for a top or average by passing. N E 1D 1S p 2D 3C If 2D was of the unassuming type, I don't think that the situation is forcing anymore. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 5 17:27:34 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:27:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CD43076.50506@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/11/2010 15:26, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Nov 4, 2010, at 11:02 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> [Eric Landau] Contrast that with the previous case, where finessing >> the >> C10 rather than the SQ is clearly inferior, but not irrational. >> >> [Paul Lamford] I disagree. I think that finessing the C10 rather than >> the SQ is clearly irrational. It is also inferior. I also think it is >> clear that when people writing on here use "clearly" it is to >> bolster a >> weak argument. > Does Paul really think calling finessing the C10 rather than the SQ > "inferior" a weak argument? I'll stand by "clearly inferior". AG : touch?. Some seem to mix up "irrational" (i.e. an idea that would never come to a logical mind) with "clearly inferior" (i.e. an idea that logical minds should recognize as bad after consideration). Jettisoning the King under the Ace and giving the 3 to the opponents is irrational ; playing for a 52% drop-or-finesse line in lieu of a 68% drop-or-finesse line (with other things being equal) is inferior, and perhaps clearly inferior. I'll stick to "inferior" too. Now, if declarer states a line of play that is inferior, who are we to pretend that he meant another which is superior ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 5 17:30:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:30:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> <4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4CD43136.7050508@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/11/2010 15:52, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Nov 4, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 4/11/2010 16:02, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : >> >>> [Eric Landau] Contrast that with the previous case, where >>> finessing the >>> C10 rather than the SQ is clearly inferior, but not irrational. >>> >>> [Paul Lamford] I disagree. I think that finessing the C10 rather than >>> the SQ is clearly irrational. It is also inferior. I also think it is >>> clear that when people writing on here use "clearly" it is to >>> bolster a >>> weak argument. >> In the same way, I think that the problem comes from the fact that >> some >> give the word "irrational" too weak a meaning. > I'd say the problem is that some do not accept "irrationality" as a > quality distinct from "carelessness" or "inferiority", and think that > "irrational" can be defined as "very careless or very inferior". > Besides being hopelessly subjective, that view cannot be justified > from a dictionary. > >> Could you tell us what difference you intend to make between >> "inferior" >> and "irrational" ? > One difference must be (if we are to continue speaking English) that > inferiority is subject to quantitative modification (something can be > "slightly inferior" or "very inferior" to something else) whereas > irrationality, like pregnancy, is binary ("just a little bit > irrational" is as meaningless as "just a little bit pregnant"). Happy to read that we agree. And in this case the problem under scrutiny is solved. (notice, however, that in French, "a little bit pregnant" would be valid. Just change it to "alive") From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 5 17:34:42 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:34:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (2) In-Reply-To: <73F189B5-1DAD-478B-AB75-C10C94B2D99B@starpower.net> References: <39B552A2-E159-49F4-81A1-EBAA3BCA70F1@starpower.net> <8CD498DD415551C-1810-607@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD498F5D83981C-1810-930@webmail-d085.sysops.aol.com> <8CD4A162C299B49-1B7C-143E1@Webmail-m113.sysops.aol.com> <73F189B5-1DAD-478B-AB75-C10C94B2D99B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CD43222.4030303@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/11/2010 16:19, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > To make this analogous to the thread case, we need to add that > immediately before his claim, Bob played the SK and both opponents > showed out. Then he claimed, saying, "My hand is high." But then > his RHO piped up with, "Oops, I seem to still have some spades". Now > Bob wants to amend his claim to play the SA before the HA. "All of > the criteria for L70C are still met." But doesn't L70E1 come into > play, allowing him to modify his claim on the grounds that it would > be irrational to continue to assume RHO is out of trumps at this point? > > IOW, do we "forgive" declarer for being "unaware that a trump > remained in an opponent's hand" if his "unawareness" was due to the > opponent actually showing out on a trump trick, or does L70C apply > regardless? > AG : I think that, when an error is caused by an opponent's infraction (or even irregularity), you're entitled to redress ? e.g. in defense, playing partner for no HK because declarer's ruff of a spade lead means partner should have SK, entitles us to redress beyond the standard revoke penalty. Why shouldn't it be the same here ? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 6 01:58:24 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:58:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] undo In-Reply-To: <201011050328.oA53ScQL006024@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201011050328.oA53ScQL006024@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:28:29 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Robert says: > > At 01:06 PM 5/11/2010, you wrote: >> The opponent makes an insufficient bid. I have to decide whether or not >> to >> accept it. I ask about the meaning of some bid, getting an answer. >> >> Now I make my decision. Then the opponent corrects the explanation of >> this >> bid. I want to change my decision. Can I? >> >> It seems to me that this should be an easy ruling. I mean, when the >> opponent withdraws a call, play, or some other action, I should be able >> to >> change the actions I have made on the basis of the wrong information. > cut > in words of 1 syllable RTFLB > no "should be able to" in my copy You aren't going to rule that way, right? I decide to not accept an insufficient bid, based on the just-given explanation suggesting that there will be no possible nonbarring correction. The opps then correct their explanation and I learn there is a nonbarring correction. I can't change my decision? Maybe what you are saying, though, is the point. The law book tries to avoid stating underlying principles and patterns, while directors are desperately grasping to find them. Here, the law book could have just said that everything -- plays, calls, claims & concessions, infraction recovery decisions -- is withdrawn in response to correction of an irregularity. Or said that and just listed exceptions. Instead, it said that some things are withdrawn and left the rest unsaid. Does anyone think that leaving things unsaid is a good policy? And it left a patchwork of recoveries. You can change your claim but you can change your claiming statement? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 6 02:38:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 01:38:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) > Could you tell us what difference you intend to > make between "inferior" and "irrational" ? (Eric Landau) One difference must be (if we are to continue speaking English) that inferiority is subject to quantitative modification (something can be "slightly inferior" or "very inferior" to something else) whereas irrationality, like pregnancy, is binary ("just a little bit irrational" is as meaningless as "just a little bit pregnant"). [Grattan] I would say Eric is pointed at the heart of the question here. As far as I can see a line of play is irrational if it defies the plainly exposed facts of the hand. A line is inferior if, whilst the line is not irrational in those terms, there is another line more likely to take best advantage of the potential facts and probabilities of the hand. (I have not followed this thread but presume we are somewhere about Law 70E1.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 6 03:43:25 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 22:43:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Minute 10 Commentary Message-ID: ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker.? The first main criticism of this minute would be that not all doubtful points should be adjudicated against the revoker. Doubtful points produced by a faulty claim should still be adjudicated against the claimer. I am guessing that the WBFLC would like their minute interpreted that way. But it is not what it says. The second main criticism is: blml seemed to unanimously agree that the claim statement can be changed to reflect new information from the correction of the revoke. If this is what the WBFLC intended, it should have made that clear. My impression is that people did not interpret the 2001 minutes as allowing changes in the claiming statement. It still seems more efficient to me to have the public commentary come BEFORE the minutes are discussed and approved. Numerous blmlers contributed to the analysis above; I did not start the week with any of these ideas. Other points. 1. Revoker? Shouldn't this be revoking side? 2. Is the director obligated to point out the unestablished revoke? Or do the players have to find it? 3. Richard probably wants clarification of who can change the claiming statement. 4. If the WBFLC meant to say that considerations of equity are paramount, they should have said so. They used parallel form to L70, suggesting that a directors' consideration of equity plays no more role here than for regular claims. 5. The WBFLC presumably has thought about the general question of what actions are undone following correction of an unestablished revoke. Perhaps they should have chosen the simple answer of "all". Anyway, once they make it clear that "all" is not the correct answer, they should have addressed the status of Infraction Recovery Decisions, which in this case is lead options when there is a penalty card. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 6 09:11:09 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 08:11:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> Message-ID: <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (Eric Landau) One difference must be (if we are to continue speaking English) that inferiority is subject to quantitative modification (something can be "slightly inferior" or "very inferior" to something else) whereas irrationality, like pregnancy, is binary ("just a little bit irrational" is as meaningless as "just a little bit pregnant"). [Grattan] I would say Eric is pointed at the heart of the question here. As far as I can see a line of play is irrational if it defies the plainly exposed facts of the hand. A line is inferior if, whilst the line is not irrational in those terms, there is another line more likely to take best advantage of the potential facts and probabilities of the hand. (I have not followed this thread but presume we are somewhere about Law 70E1.) {Nigel] Lexicographers sanction qualifiers like "more rational" or "most rational" but Eric's distinction still makes sense to me. A problem remains: Actions in conflict with correct reasoning are irrational. For example, suppose you can win a competition by making 3N. There is only one "sure-trick" line. IMO, any other line is irrational. From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 6 10:01:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:01:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> Message-ID: <915461469.1289034092302.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > (Eric Landau) > One difference must be (if we are to continue > speaking English) that inferiority is subject to > quantitative modification (something can be > "slightly inferior" or "very inferior" to something > else) whereas irrationality, like pregnancy, is > binary ("just a little bit irrational" is as meaningless > as "just a little bit pregnant"). > > [Grattan] > I would say Eric is pointed at the heart of the > question here. As far as I can see a line of play > is irrational if it defies the plainly exposed facts > of the hand. A line is inferior if, whilst the line > is not irrational in those terms, there is another > line more likely to take best advantage of the > potential facts and probabilities of the hand. > (I have not followed this thread but presume > we are somewhere about Law 70E1.) > > {Nigel] > Lexicographers sanction qualifiers like "more rational" or "most rational" > but > Eric's distinction still makes sense to me. > > > A problem remains: Actions in conflict with correct reasoning are > irrational. > > For example, suppose you can win a competition by making 3N. There is only > one "sure-trick" line. IMO, any other line is irrational. If a player claims that we will take the C finesse rather than the S finesse, even though objective analysis shows that the S finesse is a superior line, then in the absence of any conflicting information I will assume that the player simply did not analyze the hand correctly. A player frequently does not optimally analyze a hand. Seeing a 100% line and an 80% line, and then taking the 80% line, might be considered irrational. Misevaluating the 100% line as having only 60% is not irrational. Overlooking the 100% line is not irrational. For example, in the hand that started this thread, "cash the three top clubs, if CJ does not drop, finesse the SQ" is NOT the best line. Thomas From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 6 10:22:21 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:22:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <915461469.1289034092302.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <915461469.1289034092302.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <64928.42478.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Thomas Dehn] For example, in the hand that started this thread, "cash the three top clubs, if CJ does not drop, finesse the SQ" is NOT the best line. [Nigel] Others have pointed out that... 1. You should take the club finesse if RHO shows out on the first round 2. Play a show-up squeeze if RHO shows out on the second or third rounds. If the director spots these marginal improvements, should he allow declarer to take advantage of them, if thy weren't mentioned in the original claim statement? IMO, the law specifically allows (1) and some directors would allow a declarer, whom they admire, to take advantage of (2). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 6 10:16:20 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:16:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 8:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) > (Eric Landau) > One difference must be (if we are to continue > speaking English) that inferiority is subject to > quantitative modification (something can be > "slightly inferior" or "very inferior" to something > else) whereas irrationality, like pregnancy, is > binary ("just a little bit irrational" is as meaningless > as "just a little bit pregnant"). > > [Grattan] > I would say Eric is pointed at the heart of the > question here. As far as I can see a line of play > is irrational if it defies the plainly exposed facts > of the hand. A line is inferior if, whilst the line > is not irrational in those terms, there is another > line more likely to take best advantage of the > potential facts and probabilities of the hand. > (I have not followed this thread but presume > we are somewhere about Law 70E1.) > > {Nigel] > Lexicographers sanction qualifiers like "more rational" ? or "most rational" but Eric's distinction still makes > sense to me. > > > A problem remains: Actions in conflict with correct > reasoning are irrational. > > For example, suppose you can win a competition by > making 3N. There is only one "sure-trick" line. IMO, > any other line is irrational. > _______________________________________________ +=+ {Grattan} This last statement appears to involve a judgement of the standard of the player. Is he good enough to recognize the one true line? Law 70E1 does not say "irrational for the player concerned". Irrationality is an absolute condition. There may be situations in which the Director can deduce with sufficient certainty from antecedent action that the player knows what he is doing. +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 6 11:38:42 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:38:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational Message-ID: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following statement. A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered irrational. Can we agree on this? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 6 11:54:24 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:54:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] benefit of the doubt in favour of claimer Message-ID: <4CD533E0.9010100@skynet.be> There has been some discussion recently about the principle that when there has been a revoke, established or not, the benefit of the doubt shall go with claimer, rather than against him. Quite a number of examples have been given of faulty claims, in which the claimer gets lucky because an opponent had revoked. I don't see this as a huge problem. Whenever we are ruling on claims, we are looking for the reason for it being faulty. And we usually find such a reason. But we usually stop when we have found one reason. Because most of the time there is only one reason. Usually, someone has failed to count a particular suit correctly, or even failed to count it at all, and not considered the remaining possibilities. That someone should not benefit. Now when there has been a revoke, we know who the someone is that caused the miscount: the revoker. So it is natural that person should not benefit. What the criticizers of the turning of the benefit are doing, is giving examples in which two people have simultaneously miscounted: both claimer and opponent have made a mistake, and at the same time too. I believe that this occurence is far too infrequent to really worry about. And I believe that it is best for the game that the TD should not have to look for a secondary mistake by claimer, over and above the clear mistake by his opponent: the revoke. There was, in these two weeks, one interesting side issue: the declarer who knows that his opponents have revoked could claim, having the TD find the queen of trumps for him. I believe that this too is too infrequent to worry about. It is very rare that a claimer knows there has been a revoke. Of course, the revoke might already have been announced. And this is the one situation the WBFLC should deal with: - a defender has revoked and the revoke has been established. The TD has been at the table and told declarer that he will get an extra trick. Declarer is still off one ace and the queen of trumps, but the rest is high. He claims, stating he will give away the ace (and get it back for the revoke) and pick up the trumps. If the benefit of the doubt now still goes against revoker, then this is not fair. Perhaps the rule that the benefit of the doubt goes against revoker should contain a subsentence stating "and it is _afterwards_ established that there has been a revoke" -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 6 13:52:02 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:52:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <64928.42478.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <64928.42478.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <915461469.1289034092302.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2141972803.2779521289047922478.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Thomas Dehn] > > For example, in the hand that started this thread, "cash the > three top clubs, if CJ does not drop, finesse the SQ" is NOT > the best line. > > [Nigel] > Others have pointed out that... > > 1. You should take the club finesse if RHO shows out on the first round > 2. Play a show-up squeeze if RHO shows out on the second or third rounds. I was thinking about RHO having both the long clubs and the SK. 7NT always is down, but the number of undertricks varies with the line of play. > If the director spots these marginal improvements, should he allow declarer > to take advantage of them, if thy weren't mentioned in the original claim > statement? > > IMO, the law specifically allows (1) Yes. > and some directors would allow a > declarer, whom they admire, to take advantage of (2). Playing a show-up squeeze was not part of the original claim statement. Nor was cashing all tricks simply to force RHO to discard his remaining C winners, to reduce undertricks. If declarer wants to have those lines taken into account by the TD when the claim is evaluated, he should his claim accordingly. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 6 13:56:50 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:56:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> References: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following > statement. > > A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered > irrational. > > Can we agree on this? I disagree. You would need an even more restricted type of inferiour. You would need a line that under no reasonable layout makes more tricks than the other line. Consider xxxxx opposite AQJTx. Playing for the drop is inferior, but not irrational. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 6 14:16:32 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:16:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following >> statement. >> >> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the >> claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered >> irrational. >> >> Can we agree on this? > > I disagree. You would need an even more restricted > type of inferiour. > You would need a line that under no reasonable > layout makes more tricks than the other line. > > Consider xxxxx opposite AQJTx. Playing for the drop > is inferior, but not irrational. > Do we need to qualify the inferiority then, as in "substantially inferior"? - I wrote "to such a degree". Also I believe the sentence "conclude that inferiority" already deals with this issue. Your example shows this well: without any other clue, the line of playing for the drop is substantially inferior, but a minor player may not recognize that the difference is very big. So perhaps using the word "recognize" in stead of conclude? A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered irrational. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 6 14:30:21 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:30:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following > >> statement. > >> > >> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > >> claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered > >> irrational. > >> > >> Can we agree on this? > > > > I disagree. You would need an even more restricted > > type of inferiour. > > You would need a line that under no reasonable > > layout makes more tricks than the other line. > > > > Consider xxxxx opposite AQJTx. Playing for the drop > > is inferior, but not irrational. > > > > Do we need to qualify the inferiority then, as in "substantially > inferior"? - I wrote "to such a degree". > Also I believe the sentence "conclude that inferiority" already deals > with this issue. > > Your example shows this well: without any other clue, the line of > playing for the drop is substantially inferior, but a minor player may > not recognize that the difference is very big. > > So perhaps using the word "recognize" in stead of conclude? > > A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered > irrational. I have the impression that you have a different understanding of the meaning of inferior than I have. My understanding of the intent of L70E1 and the foot note to L70 is that lines which are merely careless or inferior are not irrational. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 6 14:43:05 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 09:43:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] benefit of the doubt in favour of claimer In-Reply-To: <4CD533E0.9010100@skynet.be> References: <4CD533E0.9010100@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 06:54:24 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > There has been some discussion recently about the principle that when > there has been a revoke, established or not, the benefit of the doubt > shall go with claimer, rather than against him. > > Quite a number of examples have been given of faulty claims, in which > the claimer gets lucky because an opponent had revoked. > > I don't see this as a huge problem. > > Whenever we are ruling on claims, we are looking for the reason for it > being faulty. And we usually find such a reason. But we usually stop > when we have found one reason. Because most of the time there is only > one reason. Usually, someone has failed to count a particular suit > correctly, or even failed to count it at all, and not considered the > remaining possibilities. That someone should not benefit. > > Now when there has been a revoke, we know who the someone is that caused > the miscount: the revoker. So it is natural that person should not > benefit. > > What the criticizers of the turning of the benefit are doing, is giving > examples in which two people have simultaneously miscounted: both > claimer and opponent have made a mistake, and at the same time too. > > I believe that this occurence is far too infrequent to really worry > about. And I believe that it is best for the game that the TD should not > have to look for a secondary mistake by claimer, over and above the > clear mistake by his opponent: the revoke. > > There was, in these two weeks, one interesting side issue: the declarer > who knows that his opponents have revoked could claim, having the TD > find the queen of trumps for him. I believe that this too is too > infrequent to worry about. It is very rare that a claimer knows there > has been a revoke. Declarer claims, there is a trump out that he does not know about, and he could lose a trick to it by normal play. However, an unestablished revoke is corrected, doubtful points now go in his favor, the claiming statment can be changed, and the director allows a change to picking up the lose trump. You seem to be arguing that this isn't exactly equitable, but it isn't that unequitable and it's occurrence is so low that we don't need to worry about it. Then why even have Minute 10? Why not go with the very simple principle that all actions following a corrected revoke are undone and can be changed by the NOS? > Of course, the revoke might already have been announced. And this is the > one situation the WBFLC should deal with: > - a defender has revoked and the revoke has been established. The TD has > been at the table and told declarer that he will get an extra trick. > Declarer is still off one ace and the queen of trumps, but the rest is > high. He claims, stating he will give away the ace (and get it back for > the revoke) and pick up the trumps. If the benefit of the doubt now > still goes against revoker, then this is not fair. > > Perhaps the rule that the benefit of the doubt goes against revoker > should contain a subsentence stating "and it is _afterwards_ established > that there has been a revoke" I will add this to my list of things that probably should have been written differently. From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 6 15:05:10 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 15:05:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (4) Message-ID: <219231093.2793661289052310114.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> In the local club teams knockout championship, the underdog team led by the clubs's equivalent of the secretary bird won against the experts by two imps. The experts carefully checked all results on all boards, not willing to suffer such a monumental upset two years in a row. The previous year, the experts had lost a match they should have won when the secretary bird sniffed out a Grosvenor coup attempt by the expert player in the E seat. Subsequently, the experts noticed that boards one and two, on which no IMPs had been lost or gained, had actually been misboarded. They claimed that in board two, if the board had not been misboarded, the expert declarer could have played for the obvious hexagon squeeze, and would have made 1NT instead of going down one. Right or wrong, the TD decided that two replacement boards needed to be played. The first of the two replacement boards was a boring 3NT contract where the secretary bird duly made 10 tricks; costing his side at worst one overtrick IMP. He was confident they were up by one or two IMPs before the last board. The last replacement board provided spectacular fireworks, though. Board 34. Dealer E, N/S vulnerable. Teams AQ QJ2 AQ95 AKQ10 984 KJ72 1097 654 6432 87 432 J987 10653 AK83 KJ10 65 East passed, South opened 1NT (12-14), which N raised to 7NT. Lead ten of hearts. The secretary bird was well aware that due to the close state of the match an extra effort was necessary to prevent a disastrous second undertrick in case 7NT fails. He carefully evaluated all possible lines and rulings. He then came up with the following safety claim: "I will cash the club tops and subsequently the red suit tricks. If the CJ drops, I am home. Otherwise, depending on whether somebody showed out in clubs, I'll play either the show-up squeeze or simply finesse spades". The expert in the E seat objected to this claim: "because of the state of the match, I will try a Grosvenor coup. discarding the SJ72 (in that order) on the red suit winners." He requested that the TD rule 7NT down two. The secretary bird was prepared for this statement, though. "After last year, he wouldn't try that again. He would fear too much that I dropped his spade K making the unmakeable 7NT, when his expert teammates might have bid and made the unbeatable 7D. Even had he tried another Grosvenor coup, I would have sniffed it out again. You probably should rule 7NT just made, but I am in a generous mood today, and I am willing to accept a ruling of 7NT down one." Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 6 15:13:33 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:13:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> References: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 06:38:42 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following > statement. > > A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered > irrational. > > Can we agree on this? I think you are asking what would be irrational if declarer otherwise was careful and did not make any mistakes. For resolving ambiguities in the claim statement, the question maybe should be what is irrational even if declarer made bad calculations and wasn't paying attention (but knows whatever is implied by the claiming statement). I think that makes an easy line for directors to follow. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 6 15:32:41 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:32:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment Message-ID: Yesterday, declarer claimed saying she had the rest except the ace of hearts. Had she played it out, she certainly would have gotten all of the tricks except the ace. But there was a double dummy defense to get two tricks on defense. (The chance of my partner finding this defense at the table was zero. Take that as an accepted fact.) What should be the proper ruling? Normally, I would have thought that it was obvious the defense gets two tricks if they can find that defense double dummy. But the prelude to L70 says that the director should try to make an equitable ruling to both sides. Normally I ignore that. Well, to be honest, I didn't even know it was there. Does it really have any effect on rulings? Is this one of them? Certainly the equitable ruling is that defense gets only one more trick. The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. -- Q xxxx -- -- -- 9x Ax QJx 10 -- xx xx J10x -- -- From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 6 15:44:23 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 15:44:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <996284695.2801781289054663642.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Yesterday, declarer claimed saying she had the rest except the ace of > hearts. Had she played it out, she certainly would have gotten all of the > tricks except the ace. But there was a double dummy defense to get two > tricks on defense. (The chance of my partner finding this defense at the > table was zero. Take that as an accepted fact.) > > > What should be the proper ruling? Normally, I would have thought that it > was obvious the defense gets two tricks if they can find that defense > double dummy. But the prelude to L70 says that the director should try to > make an equitable ruling to both sides. Normally I ignore that. Well, to > be honest, I didn't even know it was there. Does it really have any effect > > on rulings? Is this one of them? Certainly the equitable ruling is that > defense gets only one more trick. > > > > The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. > > -- > Q > xxxx > -- > > -- -- > 9x Ax > QJx 10 > -- xx > > xx > J10x > -- > -- Declarer has claimed. If either defender objects to the claim pointing out the line of play (consistent with the claim statement) that leads to two tricks to the defense, the defense gets two tricks. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 6 17:25:20 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:25:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following >>>> statement. >>>> >>>> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the >>>> claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered >>>> irrational. >>>> >>>> Can we agree on this? >>> >>> I disagree. You would need an even more restricted >>> type of inferiour. >>> You would need a line that under no reasonable >>> layout makes more tricks than the other line. >>> >>> Consider xxxxx opposite AQJTx. Playing for the drop >>> is inferior, but not irrational. >>> >> >> Do we need to qualify the inferiority then, as in "substantially >> inferior"? - I wrote "to such a degree". >> Also I believe the sentence "conclude that inferiority" already deals >> with this issue. >> >> Your example shows this well: without any other clue, the line of >> playing for the drop is substantially inferior, but a minor player may >> not recognize that the difference is very big. >> >> So perhaps using the word "recognize" in stead of conclude? >> >> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the >> claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered >> irrational. > > I have the impression that you have a different understanding > of the meaning of inferior than I have. My understanding > of the intent of L70E1 and the foot note to L70 > is that lines which are merely > careless or inferior are not irrational. > > I believe there are two possible meanings of the word "inferior", and it is a pity it was used. Inferior, as it is used, is an adjective meaning, roughly, "bad, but not very much so". Another meaning is the comparative one: one line is inferior to another one. That was the meaning I used in my sentence above. When a line is inferior to another one, and a player sees that it is inferior, then it becomes irrational for him to follow that line. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 6 17:28:22 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:28:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: References: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CD58226.3040307@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 06:38:42 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following >> statement. >> >> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the >> claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered >> irrational. >> >> Can we agree on this? > > > I think you are asking what would be irrational if declarer otherwise was > careful and did not make any mistakes. > I stated in my sentence that the player "cannot fail" to recognize that the line is inferior. Of course we are not talking about a player making a mistake. BTW, we do not consider mistakes when assessing claims. We only look at those mistakes a player has already made, not those that he could make. When looking at AQJxx opp xxxxx, we do not consider that the player (if his abilities are high enough) would miscalculate that the drop is a serious line. > For resolving ambiguities in the claim statement, the question maybe > should be what is irrational even if declarer made bad calculations and > wasn't paying attention (but knows whatever is implied by the claiming > statement). > > > > I think that makes an easy line for directors to follow. easy ??? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 6 17:47:50 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:47:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD58226.3040307@skynet.be> References: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <4CD58226.3040307@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:28:22 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 06:38:42 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following >>> statement. >>> >>> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the >>> claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered >>> irrational. >>> >>> Can we agree on this? >> >> >> I think you are asking what would be irrational if declarer otherwise >> was >> careful and did not make any mistakes. >> > > I stated in my sentence that the player "cannot fail" to recognize that > the line is inferior. Of course we are not talking about a player making > a mistake. Hi Herman. I concede. Is this your chain of thought? We know Meckstroth will see to play the hand as a double squeeze. Well, once we point out that he has all the tricks but one, not all of the tricks as he claimed. It is irrational for him to not choose the best of whatever lines of play he would see. > > BTW, we do not consider mistakes when assessing claims. We only look at > those mistakes a player has already made, not those that he could make. > When looking at AQJxx opp xxxxx, we do not consider that the player (if > his abilities are high enough) would miscalculate that the drop is a > serious line. > >> For resolving ambiguities in the claim statement, the question maybe >> should be what is irrational even if declarer made bad calculations and >> wasn't paying attention (but knows whatever is implied by the claiming >> statement). >> >> >> >> I think that makes an easy line for directors to follow. > > easy ??? yes. I don't have to listen to players claiming that they counted out the hand or knew this or that, much less judge whether or not they are telling the truth. I have the rule of the thumb that I do not play the hand for the claimer, noticing things and making wise decisions. The claim is pretty much judged by the cards I can see and the claiming statement. I know where the line is. From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 6 17:48:38 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:48:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> References: <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1349143222.2827611289062118794.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn wrote: > >>> Herman De Wael wrote: > >>>> It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following > >>>> statement. > >>>> > >>>> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > >>>> claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered > >>>> irrational. > >>>> > >>>> Can we agree on this? > >>> > >>> I disagree. You would need an even more restricted > >>> type of inferiour. > >>> You would need a line that under no reasonable > >>> layout makes more tricks than the other line. > >>> > >>> Consider xxxxx opposite AQJTx. Playing for the drop > >>> is inferior, but not irrational. > >>> > >> > >> Do we need to qualify the inferiority then, as in "substantially > >> inferior"? - I wrote "to such a degree". > >> Also I believe the sentence "conclude that inferiority" already deals > >> with this issue. > >> > >> Your example shows this well: without any other clue, the line of > >> playing for the drop is substantially inferior, but a minor player may > >> not recognize that the difference is very big. > >> > >> So perhaps using the word "recognize" in stead of conclude? > >> > >> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > >> claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered > >> irrational. > > > > I have the impression that you have a different understanding > > of the meaning of inferior than I have. My understanding > > of the intent of L70E1 and the foot note to L70 > > is that lines which are merely > > careless or inferior are not irrational. > > > > > > I believe there are two possible meanings of the word "inferior", and it > is a pity it was used. Inferior, as it is used, is an adjective meaning, > roughly, "bad, but not very much so". > > Another meaning is the comparative one: one line is inferior to another > one. That was the meaning I used in my sentence above. When a line is > inferior to another one, and a player sees that it is inferior, then it > becomes irrational for him to follow that line. I think that the "careless or inferior for the class of player involved" in the footnote to L70 is intended as "includes moderately bad or unlucky decisions, but not outrageously stupid decisions". Assume a claim breaks down because a defense shows out. There are two possible lines of play o a straight finesse in spades o playing for a H 3-3 split. Declarer can try one, but not the other. We do not impose on declarer a line of play where he tries neither the S finesse nor the H 3-3 split. That would be irrational. But the TD might well decide that both trying the S finesse and playing for the H split are normal lines, and ultimately rule against claimer if either the S finesse fails or H don't split. L70D1. Using the comparative meaning of "inferior", playing for the H split might be deemed "inferior", and with such a law the TD would then rule for the claimer if the S finesse makes and hearts don't split. Thomas From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 6 18:04:07 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:04:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> References: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <641345.73372.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Herman De Wael] A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered irrational. [Nigel] Like many other laws, claims law needs revision. The director must 1. Interpret woolly complex laws. For example ascribe precise meanings to words like "rational" for which most dictionaries provide multiple definitions. 2. Analyse a hand. This is a rare ability that even the most expert declarers sometimes get wrong. What is worse, regardless of ability, different players are prone to different mistakes. So a common error for one player would be unimaginable for another (and vice versa). Also, there is an understandable temptation for a director to show-off his expertise. 3. Subjectively decypher a claim statement and judge a player's ability. Here the problems multiply. Starting with language differences. There is a spectrum of indulgence exemplified by Herman de Wael at one end to David Burn at the other. Hence which director you call can make several tricks difference to the ruling. Naturally, players regard incomprehensible and inconsistent rulings as unfair. 4. Assess "clarifications". If the direcotor asks the player to explain the claim that opens another can of worms. Truthful players suffer immediate disadvantage (see Paul Lamford's example). But prevaricators are also likely to be treated differently according to their plausibility. On BLML, there have been suggestions to simplify claim law. All have draw-backs but I think most improve on current law. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 6 19:18:54 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:18:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <549994.23996.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Robert Frick] Yesterday, declarer claimed saying she had the rest except the ace of hearts. Had she played it out, she certainly would have gotten all of the tricks except the ace. But there was a double dummy defense to get two tricks on defense. (The chance of my partner finding this defense at the table was zero. Take that as an accepted fact.) What should be the proper ruling? Normally, I would have thought that it was obvious the defense gets two tricks if they can find that defense double dummy. But the prelude to L70 says that the director should try to make an equitable ruling to both sides. Normally I ignore that. Well, to be honest, I didn't even know it was there. Does it really have any effect on rulings? Is this one of them? Certainly the equitable ruling is that defense gets only one more trick. The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. -- Q xxxx -- -- -- 9x Ax QJx 10 -- xx xx J10x -- -- [Nige1] The law unequivocally awards two tricks to the defence if they dispute the claim. Do you have to dispute a faulty claim when you are aware of it? I don't know. Anyway, I suppose you could ask the director (yourself) to waive the ruling :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 6 21:35:31 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 16:35:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: <549994.23996.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <549994.23996.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:18:54 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > Yesterday, declarer claimed saying she had the rest except the ace of > > hearts. Had she played it out, she certainly would have gotten all of the > tricks except the ace. But there was a double dummy defense to get two > tricks on defense. (The chance of my partner finding this defense at the > table was zero. Take that as an accepted fact.) > What should be the proper ruling? Normally, I would have thought that it > was obvious the defense gets two tricks if they can find that defense > double dummy. But the prelude to L70 says that the director should try to > make an equitable ruling to both sides. Normally I ignore that. Well, to > be honest, I didn't even know it was there. Does it really have any > effect > on rulings? Is this one of them? Certainly the equitable ruling is that > defense gets only one more trick. > The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. > -- > Q > xxxx > -- > -- -- > 9x Ax > QJx 10 > -- xx > xx > J10x > -- > -- > [Nige1] > The law unequivocally awards two tricks to the defence if they dispute > the > claim. Do you have to dispute a faulty claim when you are aware of it? I > don't > know. Anyway, I suppose you could ask the director (yourself) to waive > the > ruling :) I don't think unequivocal is close to the right word. My objection to the claim (L70B2) is that there is a double defense to get two tricks, one which I freely admit we would not have found. It is well-accepted that the nonclaimers can now propose double-dummy lines of defense, but I don't see that anywhere in the laws. Right? If they do state it, I don't see where director has to accept it. Another small point is that I have to object to the claim before I see the hands, and it might not even see them. After, there is no provision in the laws for the nonclaimers to propose lines of play. And if it isn't legal, doesn't that make it illegal And even worse... "The director may accept it [play after the claim] as evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim..." This strongly implies that the director is trying to determine the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim. Why would director do this if probable plays were irrelevant? And I don't even care about that part. I am focused on the fact that both you and Thomas are ignoring the injunction to make a ruling as equitable as possible to both sides. I do the same, so maybe that is typical. From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 6 22:05:07 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 22:05:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment Message-ID: <1453475800.2871761289077507854.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:18:54 -0400, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > > > [Robert Frick] > > Yesterday, declarer claimed saying she had the rest except the ace of > > > > hearts. Had she played it out, she certainly would have gotten all of the > > tricks except the ace. But there was a double dummy defense to get two > > tricks on defense. (The chance of my partner finding this defense at the > > table was zero. Take that as an accepted fact.) > > What should be the proper ruling? Normally, I would have thought that it > > was obvious the defense gets two tricks if they can find that defense > > double dummy. But the prelude to L70 says that the director should try to > > make an equitable ruling to both sides. Normally I ignore that. Well, to > > be honest, I didn't even know it was there. Does it really have any > > effect > > on rulings? Is this one of them? Certainly the equitable ruling is that > > defense gets only one more trick. > > The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. > > -- > > Q > > xxxx > > -- > > -- -- > > 9x Ax > > QJx 10 > > -- xx > > xx > > J10x > > -- > > -- > > [Nige1] > > The law unequivocally awards two tricks to the defence if they dispute > > the > > claim. Do you have to dispute a faulty claim when you are aware of it? I > > > don't > > know. Anyway, I suppose you could ask the director (yourself) to waive > > the > > ruling :) > > I don't think unequivocal is close to the right word. My objection to the > claim (L70B2) is that there is a double defense to get two tricks, one > which I freely admit we would not have found. It is well-accepted that the > nonclaimers can now propose double-dummy lines of defense, but I don't see > that anywhere in the laws. Right? If they do state it, I don't see where > director has to accept it. > > Another small point is that I have to object to the claim before I see the > hands, and it might not even see them. After, there is no provision in the > laws for the nonclaimers to propose lines of play. And if it isn't legal, > doesn't that make it illegal L70A2 Next, the director hears the opponents objections to the claim (but the director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections) This is where opponents get to state why they deem the claim incorrect. Obviously that includes stating possible defensive plays. > And even worse... "The director may accept it [play after the claim] as > evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim..." This > strongly implies that the director is trying to determine the players' > probable plays subsequent to the claim. Why would director do this if > probable plays were irrelevant? It is not irrelevant. For example, it is very relevant to clarify the claim statement. > And I don't even care about that part. I am focused on the fact that both > you and Thomas are ignoring the injunction to make a ruling as equitable > as possible to both sides. I do the same, so maybe that is typical. Any doubtful points are resolved against claimer. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 6 22:27:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:27:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: <1453475800.2871761289077507854.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <1453475800.2871761289077507854.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:05:07 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:18:54 -0400, Nigel Guthrie >> wrote: >> >> > [Robert Frick] >> > Yesterday, declarer claimed saying she had the rest except the ace of >> > >> > hearts. Had she played it out, she certainly would have gotten all of >> the >> > tricks except the ace. But there was a double dummy defense to get two >> > tricks on defense. (The chance of my partner finding this defense at >> the >> > table was zero. Take that as an accepted fact.) >> > What should be the proper ruling? Normally, I would have thought that >> it >> > was obvious the defense gets two tricks if they can find that defense >> > double dummy. But the prelude to L70 says that the director should >> try to >> > make an equitable ruling to both sides. Normally I ignore that. Well, >> to >> > be honest, I didn't even know it was there. Does it really have any >> > effect >> > on rulings? Is this one of them? Certainly the equitable ruling is >> that >> > defense gets only one more trick. >> > The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. >> > -- >> > Q >> > xxxx >> > -- >> > -- -- >> > 9x Ax >> > QJx 10 >> > -- xx >> > xx >> > J10x >> > -- >> > -- >> > [Nige1] >> > The law unequivocally awards two tricks to the defence if they dispute >> > the >> > claim. Do you have to dispute a faulty claim when you are aware of >> it? I >> >> > don't >> > know. Anyway, I suppose you could ask the director (yourself) to waive >> > the >> > ruling :) >> >> I don't think unequivocal is close to the right word. My objection to >> the >> claim (L70B2) is that there is a double defense to get two tricks, one >> which I freely admit we would not have found. It is well-accepted that >> the >> nonclaimers can now propose double-dummy lines of defense, but I don't >> see >> that anywhere in the laws. Right? If they do state it, I don't see >> where >> director has to accept it. >> >> Another small point is that I have to object to the claim before I see >> the >> hands, and it might not even see them. After, there is no provision in >> the >> laws for the nonclaimers to propose lines of play. And if it isn't >> legal, >> doesn't that make it illegal > > L70A2 > Next, the director hears the opponents objections to the claim (but the > director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' > objections) > > This is where opponents get to state why they deem the > claim incorrect. Obviously that includes stating possible > defensive plays. Yes, but according to the laws, the nonclaimers have to do this before they see the hands. Right? > >> And even worse... "The director may accept it [play after the claim] as >> evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim..." This >> strongly implies that the director is trying to determine the players' >> probable plays subsequent to the claim. Why would director do this if >> probable plays were irrelevant? > > It is not irrelevant. For example, it is very relevant to clarify > the claim statement. Yes, but this law does not say "claimer's probable plays". It' says "players' probable plays." Implying that it is relevant what the nonclaimers would have played. > >> And I don't even care about that part. I am focused on the fact that >> both >> you and Thomas are ignoring the injunction to make a ruling as equitable >> as possible to both sides. I do the same, so maybe that is typical. > > Any doubtful points are resolved against claimer. There were no doubtful points in this claim. But in general, are you saying that the phrase "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" is irrelevant given the rest of the claiming law? The above situation was my best attempt to find a situation where considerations of equity might take precedence over the other procedures. From svenpran at online.no Sat Nov 6 22:49:55 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 22:49:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: References: <1453475800.2871761289077507854.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000301cb7dfc$8cc432d0$a64c9870$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ........... > > This is where opponents get to state why they deem the claim > > incorrect. Obviously that includes stating possible defensive plays. > > Yes, but according to the laws, the nonclaimers have to do this before they see > the hands. Right? Wrong Before 2007 Law 70B explicitly specified that 1: The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. 2. Next, the Director requires all players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. 3. The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. The current Law 70B specifies: 1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. 2. Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections). 3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. Note that there is no timing clause in the current Law 70B3, and from the context it is clear that the Director may require the remaining cards to be faced at any time during the processing of a contested claim (even before hearing the repetition of the original claim statement if he so decides). This does not imply that the Director necessarily shall accept any objection made against the claim; he must apply his own judgement. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Nov 7 13:40:07 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 13:40:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <1349143222.2827611289062118794.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1349143222.2827611289062118794.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CD69E27.1050004@skynet.be> No Thomas, you misunderstood me. Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Assume a claim breaks down because a defense shows out. > > There are two possible lines of play > o a straight finesse in spades > o playing for a H 3-3 split. > Declarer can try one, but not the other. > > We do not impose on declarer a line of > play where he tries neither the S finesse nor > the H 3-3 split. That would be irrational. > Indeed. > But the TD might well decide that > both trying the S finesse and playing for the H split > are normal lines, and ultimately rule against > claimer if either the S finesse fails or H don't split. L70D1. > Indeed. > Using the comparative meaning of "inferior", playing > for the H split might be deemed "inferior", and with > such a law the TD would then rule for the claimer > if the S finesse makes and hearts don't split. > Indeed, one line is inferior to the other one, but not by very much. Do read that all of my sentences included some words like "clearly", or "cannot fail to recognize the inferiority". This case does not fit in that category. Now change your example, where one line relies on the HQ dropping, so hearts should be 6-2, and the other line is a spade finesse. Now, the drop is "clearly" inferior to the finesse, and claimer cannot fail to recognize this inferiority. Do you agree that in such a case, the TD may well rule that playing for the drop is irrational? My point is that, while the line itself might be rational, the inferiority to another rational line makes _choosing_ this line irrational. OK? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Sun Nov 7 14:16:29 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:16:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational Message-ID: <1369184229.1289135789422.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > No Thomas, you misunderstood me. > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > Assume a claim breaks down because a defense shows out. > > > > There are two possible lines of play > > o a straight finesse in spades > > o playing for a H 3-3 split. > > Declarer can try one, but not the other. > > > > We do not impose on declarer a line of > > play where he tries neither the S finesse nor > > the H 3-3 split. That would be irrational. > > > > Indeed. > > > But the TD might well decide that > > both trying the S finesse and playing for the H split > > are normal lines, and ultimately rule against > > claimer if either the S finesse fails or H don't split. L70D1. > > > > Indeed. > > > Using the comparative meaning of "inferior", playing > > for the H split might be deemed "inferior", and with > > such a law the TD would then rule for the claimer > > if the S finesse makes and hearts don't split. > > > > Indeed, one line is inferior to the other one, but not by very much. > Do read that all of my sentences included some words like "clearly", or > "cannot fail to recognize the inferiority". This case does not fit in > that category. I think that one of the problems with TFLB is that words are used, but not defined, which then are interpreted slightly differently by different people. In some cases, this ultimately leads to different interpretations of TFLB. If you did a poll among bridge players whether playing for hearts 3-3 is "clearly inferior" to the S finesse, or merely "inferior", you would probably get a significant percentage of votes that indeed it "clearly inferior". > Now change your example, where one line relies on the HQ dropping, so > hearts should be 6-2, and the other line is a spade finesse. > > Now, the drop is "clearly" inferior to the finesse, and claimer cannot > fail to recognize this inferiority. Do you agree that in such a case, > the TD may well rule that playing for the drop is irrational? > My point is that, while the line itself might be rational, the > inferiority to another rational line makes _choosing_ this line irrational. > > OK? I agree, I would consider playing for the drop irrational in this example. It is the type of line that is so much inferior that a player would not choose the lower percentage play for other reasons, such as table feel, or to create a swing. I then think that your suggested wording "A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered irrational." will be interpreted as defining a different threshold. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Nov 7 15:51:57 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 15:51:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <1369184229.1289135789422.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <1369184229.1289135789422.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CD6BD0D.1000203@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > > I agree, I would consider playing for the drop irrational in this example. > It is the type of line that is so much inferior that a player > would not choose the lower percentage play for other reasons, > such as table feel, or to create a swing. > > I then think that your suggested wording > > "A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered > irrational." > > will be interpreted as defining a different threshold. > does it? I don't see that. We both agree that in my second example, the inferior line is to be considered irrational. You say: It is the type of line that is so much inferior that a player would not choose the lower percentage play for other reasons, such as table feel, or to create a swing. I take from that: "so much inferior" and "would not choose". I say: "A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered irrational." I take from that: "inferior to such a degree" and "cannot fail to recognize". Our two wordings for the first item "so much inferior" and "inferior to such a degree" are totally synonimous - OK? And the wordings for the second item are different in the fact that I say the player realizes it is inferior, and you say that he would not choose it. I also think that these are the same. So I really don't see how we can be defining a different treshold. Your sentence does not help people. It tells them what they already know: an irrational line is one which a player would not follow. That still leaves the question open: "how do we define which lines a payer would and would not follow?" In contrast, my sentence gives an answer to that one: A player will not follow a line which he recognizes to be (clearly) inferior to another one. I believe that this guidance is helpful to TD's. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 7 20:59:02 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 20:59:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR baromether event? Message-ID: <001b01cb7eb6$39f33960$add9ac20$@no> I have become involved in a discussion on an irregular situation for which no law appears applicable and should appreciate views/opinions on how to handle: Consider a Round Robin barometer tournament for pairs: Each contestant meets each other contestant in the event once (and once only). The same set of boards are played at all tables during the same round and is scored (and published) immediately at the end of each round so all contestants know exactly how they are placed continuously during the event. Example: If we have 100 pairs the event will consist of 99 rounds, and if we play 3 boards per round all tables will play boards 1-3 in the first round, boards 4-6 in the second round and so on (for a total of 297 boards). This event will obviously be broken up in sessions, and say that in the first round after a session break pairs W and X are scheduled to play each other at table A while pairs Y and Z are scheduled to play each other at table B. Players are human so nobody should be surprised that in spite of all announcements pair W incorrectly finds their way to and sits down at table B where pair Y is already seated. (W has not yet met Y in the event so neither of them catches the error immediately). They start on their first board in that round and then pair Z arrives (a few seconds late) at the table where they find their seats occupied by pair W. All the time pair Y sits at table A waiting for their opponents (pair X) to show up, and now the Director is called to sort out things. We have had a tradition for handling this situation under Law 15, considering the clause "If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round" to be understood to also cover the situation where although the board was designated for them to play in the current round it was designated to be played against some other pair than the one they actually play against. We have a feeling, and fear that this use of law 15 can best be described as abuse of the law. So which law (if any) can be applicable to the situation described, and how should the director rule in order to minimize undesirable consequences? Note that even if A has not yet played against Z we cannot just change the schedule by swapping W and Z in this round as that will severly upset later rounds in the schedule. From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 7 21:12:31 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:12:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR baromether event? Minor correction In-Reply-To: <001b01cb7eb6$39f33960$add9ac20$@no> References: <001b01cb7eb6$39f33960$add9ac20$@no> Message-ID: <001c01cb7eb8$1c259b60$5470d220$@no> Sorry, I managed to mix the pairs designations and have corrected them below > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven > Pran > Sent: 7. november 2010 20:59 > To: blml > Subject: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR baromether event? > > I have become involved in a discussion on an irregular situation for which no law > appears applicable and should appreciate views/opinions on how to > handle: > > Consider a Round Robin barometer tournament for pairs: Each contestant meets > each other contestant in the event once (and once only). The same set of boards > are played at all tables during the same round and is scored (and > published) immediately at the end of each round so all contestants know exactly > how they are placed continuously during the event. > > Example: If we have 100 pairs the event will consist of 99 rounds, and if we play 3 > boards per round all tables will play boards 1-3 in the first round, boards 4-6 in the > second round and so on (for a total of 297 boards). > > This event will obviously be broken up in sessions, and say that in the first round > after a session break pairs W and X are scheduled to play each other at table A > while pairs Y and Z are scheduled to play each other at table B. > > Players are human so nobody should be surprised that in spite of all > announcements pair W incorrectly finds their way to and sits down at table B > where pair Y is already seated. (W has not yet met Y in the event so neither of > them catches the error immediately). They start on their first board in that round > and then pair Z arrives (a few seconds late) at the table where they find their > seats occupied by pair W. > > All the time pair X sits at table A waiting for their opponents (pair W) to show up, > and now the Director is called to sort out things. > > We have had a tradition for handling this situation under Law 15, considering the > clause "If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current > round" to be understood to also cover the situation where although the board was > designated for them to play in the current round it was designated to be played > against some other pair than the one they actually play against. > > We have a feeling, and fear that this use of law 15 can best be described as > abuse of the law. > > So which law (if any) can be applicable to the situation described, and how should > the director rule in order to minimize undesirable consequences? > > Note that even if X has not yet played against Z we cannot just change the > schedule by swapping W and Z in this round as that will severely upset later rounds > in the schedule. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Nov 7 21:16:19 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 20:16:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR baromether event? References: <001b01cb7eb6$39f33960$add9ac20$@no> Message-ID: It is not designated for them to play [against this pair]. If you let them keep their score, then you have a problem when the are [really] due to play each other. For me A- both, A+ other 2 pairs. Seat properly, catty on. > I have become involved in a discussion on an irregular situation for which > no law appears applicable and should appreciate views/opinions on how to > handle: > > Consider a Round Robin barometer tournament for pairs: Each contestant > meets > each other contestant in the event once (and once only). The same set of > boards are played at all tables during the same round and is scored (and > published) immediately at the end of each round so all contestants know > exactly how they are placed continuously during the event. > > Example: If we have 100 pairs the event will consist of 99 rounds, and if > we > play 3 boards per round all tables will play boards 1-3 in the first > round, > boards 4-6 in the second round and so on (for a total of 297 boards). > > This event will obviously be broken up in sessions, and say that in the > first round after a session break pairs W and X are scheduled to play each > other at table A while pairs Y and Z are scheduled to play each other at > table B. > > Players are human so nobody should be surprised that in spite of all > announcements pair W incorrectly finds their way to and sits down at table > B > where pair Y is already seated. (W has not yet met Y in the event so > neither > of them catches the error immediately). They start on their first board in > that round and then pair Z arrives (a few seconds late) at the table where > they find their seats occupied by pair W. > > All the time pair Y sits at table A waiting for their opponents (pair X) > to > show up, and now the Director is called to sort out things. > > We have had a tradition for handling this situation under Law 15, > considering the clause "If players play a board not designated for them to > play in the current round" to be understood to also cover the situation > where although the board was designated for them to play in the current > round it was designated to be played against some other pair than the one > they actually play against. > > We have a feeling, and fear that this use of law 15 can best be described > as > abuse of the law. > > So which law (if any) can be applicable to the situation described, and > how > should the director rule in order to minimize undesirable consequences? > > Note that even if A has not yet played against Z we cannot just change the > schedule by swapping W and Z in this round as that will severly upset > later > rounds in the schedule. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Sun Nov 7 21:41:45 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:41:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR baromether event? Message-ID: <1619951495.3088931289162505581.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > I have become involved in a discussion on an irregular situation for which > no law appears applicable and should appreciate views/opinions on how to > handle: > > Consider a Round Robin barometer tournament for pairs: Each contestant > meets > each other contestant in the event once (and once only). The same set of > boards are played at all tables during the same round and is scored (and > published) immediately at the end of each round so all contestants know > exactly how they are placed continuously during the event. > > Example: If we have 100 pairs the event will consist of 99 rounds, and if > we > play 3 boards per round all tables will play boards 1-3 in the first round, > boards 4-6 in the second round and so on (for a total of 297 boards). > > This event will obviously be broken up in sessions, and say that in the > first round after a session break pairs W and X are scheduled to play each > other at table A while pairs Y and Z are scheduled to play each other at > table B. > > Players are human so nobody should be surprised that in spite of all > announcements pair W incorrectly finds their way to and sits down at table > B > where pair Y is already seated. (W has not yet met Y in the event so > neither > of them catches the error immediately). They start on their first board in > that round and then pair Z arrives (a few seconds late) at the table where > they find their seats occupied by pair W. > > All the time pair Y sits at table A waiting for their opponents (pair X) to > show up, and now the Director is called to sort out things. Presumably, you mean that X is sitting at table A waiting for W. > We have had a tradition for handling this situation under Law 15, > considering the clause "If players play a board not designated for them to > play in the current round" to be understood to also cover the situation > where although the board was designated for them to play in the current > round it was designated to be played against some other pair than the one > they actually play against. > > We have a feeling, and fear that this use of law 15 can best be described > as > abuse of the law. > > So which law (if any) can be applicable to the situation described, and how > should the director rule in order to minimize undesirable consequences? > > Note that even if A has not yet played against Z we cannot just change the > schedule by swapping W and Z in this round as that will severly upset later > rounds in the schedule. TFLB simply is silent about barometer tournaments. I think anybody who schedules a barometer tournament should be aware of that, and cover a few common problem scenarios in the regulations that apply to the tournament. Assuming those don't cover this scenario, then the director has to resolve the issue. As it is not directly covered in TFLB, the director to some extent has to make up the ruling, rather than merely quote some paragraph from TFLB and apply that. Yes, L15 does not directly apply, but given that this scenario is not covered elsewhere in TFLB, I deem applying L15 one out of several possible approaches. I.e., assuming the problem is discovered during the auction period of the first board of the round, the director might o have W sit down with X and Y sit down with Z o if the same auction with the same meaning occurs, no problem at that table o if the auction is different, then X, Y, and Z are considered non-offending whereas W is considered offending Alternatively, as all tables play the same board, the TD might consider letting the first board of that round be played by W vs Y and Z vs. X, and change pairings after the first board of the round. I'd deem that approach ok, too. In both approaches, I'd give W a PP of 20% of a top for showing up at the wrong table and causing the whole mess. Generally, I think the TD should try an approach that lets the board be played rather than cancel the board. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Sun Nov 7 21:46:13 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:46:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR baromether event? In-Reply-To: References: <001b01cb7eb6$39f33960$add9ac20$@no> Message-ID: <1584099353.3090241289162773572.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> That cannot be right - pair W is solely responsible for creating the mixup, the other three pairs were seated correctly. Thomas LarryB wrote: > It is not designated for them to play [against this pair]. If you let them > keep their score, then you have a problem when the are [really] due to play > each other. For me A- both, A+ other 2 pairs. Seat properly, catty on. > > > I have become involved in a discussion on an irregular situation for > which > > no law appears applicable and should appreciate views/opinions on how to > > handle: > > > > Consider a Round Robin barometer tournament for pairs: Each contestant > > meets > > each other contestant in the event once (and once only). The same set of > > boards are played at all tables during the same round and is scored (and > > published) immediately at the end of each round so all contestants know > > exactly how they are placed continuously during the event. > > > > Example: If we have 100 pairs the event will consist of 99 rounds, and if > > > we > > play 3 boards per round all tables will play boards 1-3 in the first > > round, > > boards 4-6 in the second round and so on (for a total of 297 boards). > > > > This event will obviously be broken up in sessions, and say that in the > > first round after a session break pairs W and X are scheduled to play > each > > other at table A while pairs Y and Z are scheduled to play each other at > > table B. > > > > Players are human so nobody should be surprised that in spite of all > > announcements pair W incorrectly finds their way to and sits down at table > > > B > > where pair Y is already seated. (W has not yet met Y in the event so > > neither > > of them catches the error immediately). They start on their first board > in > > that round and then pair Z arrives (a few seconds late) at the table > where > > they find their seats occupied by pair W. > > > > All the time pair Y sits at table A waiting for their opponents (pair X) > > to > > show up, and now the Director is called to sort out things. > > > > We have had a tradition for handling this situation under Law 15, > > considering the clause "If players play a board not designated for them > to > > play in the current round" to be understood to also cover the situation > > where although the board was designated for them to play in the current > > round it was designated to be played against some other pair than the one > > they actually play against. > > > > We have a feeling, and fear that this use of law 15 can best be described > > > as > > abuse of the law. > > > > So which law (if any) can be applicable to the situation described, and > > how > > should the director rule in order to minimize undesirable consequences? > > > > Note that even if A has not yet played against Z we cannot just change > the > > schedule by swapping W and Z in this round as that will severly upset > > later > > rounds in the schedule. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 blml at arcor.de Sun Nov 7 22:01:50 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:01:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD6BD0D.1000203@skynet.be> References: <4CD6BD0D.1000203@skynet.be> <1369184229.1289135789422.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1094670200.3094271289163710064.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > I agree, I would consider playing for the drop irrational in this example. > > It is the type of line that is so much inferior that a player > > would not choose the lower percentage play for other reasons, > > such as table feel, or to create a swing. > > > > I then think that your suggested wording > > > > "A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > > claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered > > irrational." > > > > will be interpreted as defining a different threshold. > > > > does it? > > I don't see that. > > We both agree that in my second example, the inferior line is to be > considered irrational. > > You say: It is the type of line that is so much inferior that a player > would not choose the lower percentage play for other reasons, such as > table feel, or to create a swing. > > I take from that: "so much inferior" and "would not choose". > > I say: "A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that > the claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be > considered irrational." > > I take from that: "inferior to such a degree" and "cannot fail to > recognize". > > Our two wordings for the first item "so much inferior" and "inferior to > such a degree" are totally synonimous - OK? Agree so far. > And the wordings for the second item are different in the fact that I > say the player realizes it is inferior, and you say that he would not > choose it. I also think that these are the same. I believe they are not the same. The number of lines a player might choose contain quite a few lines the player might "recognize as inferior". BTW, I was not trying to suggest a wording. I was only trying to point out that your suggested wording will lead to misunderstandings. Many players will interprete "recognize that inferiority" as merely "recognize that the formal probability of success is significantly lower". This is in no way the same as "would not choose". To choose a line, many other factors come into play, such as state of the match, table feel, whether declarer believes the defense's auction and carding, whether an opponent might have chosen a different auction or play with a particular hand, whether winning by a squeeze is considered more gratifying than winning by a finesse, and so on. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 8 00:01:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:01:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] benefit of the doubt in favour of claimer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CD533E0.9010100@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >both claimer and opponent have made a mistake, and at the same >time too. > >I believe that this occurrence is far too infrequent to really >worry about. Richard Hills: I agree with Herman that this is wildly infrequent. In my 30 years as a player and a part-time TD these corresponding errors by claimer and opponent have never occurred at the table I was ruling at and/or playing at. Herman De Wael: >And I believe that it is best for the game that the TD should >not have to look for a secondary mistake by claimer, over and >above the clear mistake by his opponent: the revoke. [snip] Richard Hills: I agree with Herman again. A revoke is an infraction, but an unintentionally mistaken claim is not an infraction. W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado: And I expect you'll all agree That he was right to so decree. And I am right, And you are right, And all is right as right can be! Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 8 01:49:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:49:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The purpose of Alerting [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: David Burn, 9th December 2008: > ... I am aware of a strongly-held view within our Laws and >Ethics Committee to the effect that the purpose of alerting >is to comply with the regulations, and not necessarily to >tell the opponents anything useful. ... Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 8 08:25:32 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:25:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <1094670200.3094271289163710064.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <4CD6BD0D.1000203@skynet.be> <1369184229.1289135789422.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <1094670200.3094271289163710064.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CD7A5EC.2000606@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Agree so far. > >> And the wordings for the second item are different in the fact that I >> say the player realizes it is inferior, and you say that he would not >> choose it. I also think that these are the same. > > I believe they are not the same. The number of lines a player > might choose contain quite a few lines the player might > "recognize as inferior". BTW, I was not trying > to suggest a wording. I was only trying to point out that > your suggested wording will lead to misunderstandings. > > Many players will interprete "recognize that inferiority" as > merely "recognize that the formal probability of success is significantly lower". > This is in no way the same as "would not choose". To choose a line, > many other factors come into play, such as state of the match, table feel, > whether declarer believes the defense's auction and carding, > whether an opponent might have chosen a different auction > or play with a particular hand, whether winning by a squeeze is considered > more gratifying than winning by a finesse, and so on. > Come on Thomas, get real. If a player recognizes that a line is "so much" inferior, then he will not choose it. You yourself state that "a line that is so much inferior that a player will not choose it" is called irrational. All that needs to be done is to make a ruling on what is "so much" inferior. My only point is that when a line becomes "so much" inferior, it becomes irrational. Your argueing against such a statement does not help the game forward. > > Thomas > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 8 08:59:47 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 08:59:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD7A5EC.2000606@skynet.be> References: <4CD7A5EC.2000606@skynet.be> <4CD6BD0D.1000203@skynet.be> <1369184229.1289135789422.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <1094670200.3094271289163710064.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1595337140.1289203187338.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > Agree so far. > > > >> And the wordings for the second item are different in the fact that I > >> say the player realizes it is inferior, and you say that he would not > >> choose it. I also think that these are the same. > > > > I believe they are not the same. The number of lines a player > > might choose contain quite a few lines the player might > > "recognize as inferior". BTW, I was not trying > > to suggest a wording. I was only trying to point out that > > your suggested wording will lead to misunderstandings. > > > > Many players will interprete "recognize that inferiority" as > > merely "recognize that the formal probability of success is significantly lower". > > This is in no way the same as "would not choose". To choose a line, > > many other factors come into play, such as state of the match, table > feel, > > whether declarer believes the defense's auction and carding, > > whether an opponent might have chosen a different auction > > or play with a particular hand, whether winning by a squeeze is > considered > > more gratifying than winning by a finesse, and so on. > > > > Come on Thomas, get real. > If a player recognizes that a line is "so much" inferior, then he will > not choose it. > You yourself state that "a line that is so much inferior that a player > will not choose it" is called irrational. > > All that needs to be done is to make a ruling on what is "so much" > inferior. > > My only point is that when a line becomes "so much" inferior, it becomes > irrational. Your argueing against such a statement does not help the > game forward. Herman, I do not disagree with your intent. I disagree with your opinion that your suggested wording "A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered irrational." reflects your intent in a sufficiently clear way. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 8 09:19:22 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:19:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <1595337140.1289203187338.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <4CD7A5EC.2000606@skynet.be> <4CD6BD0D.1000203@skynet.be> <1369184229.1289135789422.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <1094670200.3094271289163710064.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1595337140.1289203187338.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CD7B28A.3070502@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Herman, > > > I do not disagree with your intent. I disagree with your opinion > that your suggested wording > "A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered > irrational." > reflects your intent in a sufficiently clear way. > Then can you please suggest wording that more clearly reflects our apparently correct intent? > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Nov 8 10:52:25 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:52:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (4) In-Reply-To: <219231093.2793661289052310114.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <219231093.2793661289052310114.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CD7C859.9030202@meteo.fr> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > In the local club teams knockout championship, > the underdog team led by the clubs's equivalent of > the secretary bird won against the experts by two imps. > The experts carefully checked all results on all boards, > not willing to suffer such a monumental upset two years in a row. > > The previous year, the experts had lost > a match they should have won when the secretary bird > sniffed out a Grosvenor coup attempt by the expert player in the E seat. > > Subsequently, the experts noticed that boards > one and two, on which no IMPs had been lost or gained, > had actually been misboarded. They claimed that in board two, > if the board had not been misboarded, the expert declarer could > have played for the obvious hexagon squeeze, and would have made 1NT > instead of going down one. Right or wrong, > the TD decided that two replacement boards needed to be played. > > The first of the two replacement boards was a boring > 3NT contract where the secretary bird duly made 10 tricks; > costing his side at worst one overtrick IMP. He was confident > they were up by one or two IMPs before the last board. > > The last replacement board provided spectacular fireworks, > though. > > Board 34. Dealer E, N/S vulnerable. > > Teams > AQ > QJ2 > AQ95 > AKQ10 > > 984 KJ72 > 1097 654 > 6432 87 > 432 J987 > 10653 > AK83 > KJ10 > 65 > > East passed, South opened 1NT (12-14), which N raised > to 7NT. Lead ten of hearts. > > The secretary bird was well aware that due to the close state > of the match an extra effort was necessary to prevent a disastrous > second undertrick in case 7NT fails. He carefully evaluated all possible > lines and rulings. He then came up with the following safety claim: > "I will cash the club tops and subsequently the red suit > tricks. If the CJ drops, I am home. Otherwise, depending > on whether somebody showed out in clubs, I'll play > either the show-up squeeze or simply finesse spades". > > The expert in the E seat objected to this claim: "because > of the state of the match, I will try a Grosvenor coup. discarding > the SJ72 (in that order) on the red suit winners." He requested > that the TD rule 7NT down two. > > The secretary bird was prepared for this statement, though. > "After last year, he wouldn't try that again. He would > fear too much that I dropped his spade K making > the unmakeable 7NT, when his expert teammates 7NT is not unmakeable. jpr > might have bid and made the unbeatable 7D. > Even had he tried another Grosvenor coup, I would have > sniffed it out again. You probably should rule 7NT just > made, but I am in a generous mood today, and > I am willing to accept a ruling of 7NT down one." > > > > Thomas -- _______________________________________________ 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 7 02:52:42 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 01:52:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] inferior and irrational I believe there are two possible meanings of the word "inferior", and it is a pity it was used. Inferior, as it is used, is an adjective meaning, roughly, "bad, but not very much so". > Another meaning is the comparative one: one line is inferior to another one. That was the meaning I used in my sentence above. When a line is inferior to another one, and a player sees that it is inferior, then it becomes irrational for him to follow that line. > +=+ A player may knowingly choose an inferior line with a purpose. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 8 13:31:11 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 07:31:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: <996284695.2801781289054663642.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <996284695.2801781289054663642.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:44:23 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> Yesterday, declarer claimed saying she had the rest except the ace of >> hearts. Had she played it out, she certainly would have gotten all of >> the >> tricks except the ace. But there was a double dummy defense to get two >> tricks on defense. (The chance of my partner finding this defense at the >> table was zero. Take that as an accepted fact.) >> >> >> What should be the proper ruling? Normally, I would have thought that it >> was obvious the defense gets two tricks if they can find that defense >> double dummy. But the prelude to L70 says that the director should try >> to >> make an equitable ruling to both sides. Normally I ignore that. Well, to >> be honest, I didn't even know it was there. Does it really have any >> effect >> >> on rulings? Is this one of them? Certainly the equitable ruling is that >> defense gets only one more trick. >> >> >> >> The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. >> >> -- >> Q >> xxxx >> -- >> >> -- -- >> 9x Ax >> QJx 10 >> -- xx >> >> xx >> J10x >> -- >> -- > > Declarer has claimed. If either defender objects to the claim > pointing out the line of play (consistent with the claim statement) > that leads to two tricks to the defense, the defense gets two tricks. > Just to check -- I am not quarreling with this ruling. But giving the defense just 1 trick is the equitable ruling, correct? They would never ha=ve gotten two tricks without the claim. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 8 13:59:28 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:59:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> Message-ID: <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/11/2010 2:52, Grattan a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "Football is not all about highs" > ~ Liverpool FC Captain. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:25 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] inferior and irrational > > > I believe there are two possible meanings of the > word "inferior", and it is a pity it was used. Inferior, > as it is used, is an adjective meaning, roughly, "bad, > but not very much so". > Another meaning is the comparative one: one line > is inferior to another one. That was the meaning I > used in my sentence above. When a line is inferior > to another one, and a player sees that it is inferior, > then it becomes irrational for him to follow that line. > AG : disagree strongly. First, it has been shown before on blml that line a might be inferior to B, which is inferior to C, which is inferior to A. If works this out the table, then you pretend that any line woud be irraitonal, because it is known to be inferior to some other. Surely this isn't rational. Second, there might be strategic reasons for using a slightly inferior line of play (e.g. you know the contract will be played from the other side, with more hazards, and you don't( want to lose when the risky line they'll be compelled to use wins) What would be irrational would be to use a dominated line, in the sense used in the theory of games, i.e. A never wins when B doesn't, and may lose when B wins. Best regfards Alain From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 8 14:26:26 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:26:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred><845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred> Message-ID: <8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> +=+ {Grattan} This last statement appears to involve a judgement of the standard of the player. Is he good enough to recognize the one true line? Law 70E1 does not say "irrational for the player concerned". Irrationality is an absolute condition. There may be situations in which the Director can deduce with sufficient certainty from antecedent action that the player knows what he is doing. +=+ I agree entirely that irrationality should be an absolute condition, but it must take into account the rationality of the average person. In our example, it does not matter that a squeeze is better (it actually only adds around 0.3%). The choice of words used "taking the club finesse if the jack of clubs does not drop" is irrational for the person making the statement. Nobody would express themselves this way - it is an obvious slip of the tongue. Now, a large number of people would state "taking the spade finesse if the jack of clubs does not drop". It is completely irrelevant whether the claim statement is legal or not - the TD still applies the same rationality test to it. And, whether or not the player wishes to change it. If he sticks to his guns and says "no I meant the club finesse all along" when he discovers that the jack of clubs is onside but the king of spades is offside, the director still rules that the original statement was irrational and the director just follows: "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides". The claimer's statement, and any subsequent correction, are merely aides to fulfilling this overriding clause. Many people on here do not follow this at all, preferring to stick to some literal meaning of the words uttered. This is not what the Laws say. From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 8 14:26:56 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 14:26:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01cb7f48$9e0aec80$da20c580$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............... > What would be irrational would be to use a dominated line, in the sense used in > the theory of games, i.e. A never wins when B doesn't, and may lose when B wins. Please observe that the laws no longer use the qualifier "for the class of player" with the word irrational. There was a very good reason for dropping this qualifier and that is that "irrational" shall not depend on the player, only upon the actual (visible) situation. Playing the Queen under the King when leading a small towards Ace - Queen is one example of what will (usually) be deemed irrational. Failing to have noticed (or remember) that all other clubs have been played so that the deuce is high is NOT irrational; it is just (very) inferior. Top players are not immune to irrational plays; I still remember the Italian team losing BB final with an (undisputable) irrational play of the ten of spades from dummy. This is one reason why I frown when players claim, possibly because they are too exhausted to work out the complete situation and instead gamble on being given the game by the Director. From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 8 14:28:19 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:28:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <915461469.1289034092302.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <915461469.1289034092302.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CD4D5FF0306E92-1040-1DE5D@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> [Thomas Dehn] For example, in the hand that started this thread, "cash the three top clubs, if CJ does not drop, finesse the SQ" is NOT the best line. [Paul Lamford] Completely irrelevant - it is a rational line - and it is clearly the one intended From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 8 14:39:20 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:39:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (4) In-Reply-To: <219231093.2793661289052310114.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <219231093.2793661289052310114.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CD4D617B2F3E82-1040-1E079@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> [Thomas Dehn] In the local club teams knockout championship, the underdog team led by the clubs's equivalent of the secretary bird won against the experts by two imps. The experts carefully checked all results on all boards, not willing to suffer such a monumental upset two years in a row. The previous year, the experts had lost a match they should have won when the secretary bird sniffed out a Grosvenor coup attempt by the expert player in the E seat. Subsequently, the experts noticed that boards one and two, on which no IMPs had been lost or gained, had actually been misboarded. They claimed that in board two, if the board had not been misboarded, the expert declarer could have played for the obvious hexagon squeeze, and would have made 1NT instead of going down one. Right or wrong, the TD decided that two replacement boards needed to be played. The first of the two replacement boards was a boring 3NT contract where the secretary bird duly made 10 tricks; costing his side at worst one overtrick IMP. He was confident they were up by one or two IMPs before the last board. The last replacement board provided spectacular fireworks, though. Board 34. Dealer E, N/S vulnerable. Teams AQ QJ2 AQ95 AKQ10 984 KJ72 1097 654 6432 87 432 J987 10653 AK83 KJ10 65 East passed, South opened 1NT (12-14), which N raised to 7NT. Lead ten of hearts. The secretary bird was well aware that due to the close state of the match an extra effort was necessary to prevent a disastrous second undertrick in case 7NT fails. He carefully evaluated all possible lines and rulings. He then came up with the following safety claim: "I will cash the club tops and subsequently the red suit tricks. If the CJ drops, I am home. Otherwise, depending on whether somebody showed out in clubs, I'll play either the show-up squeeze or simply finesse spades". The expert in the E seat objected to this claim: "because of the state of the match, I will try a Grosvenor coup. discarding the SJ72 (in that order) on the red suit winners." He requested that the TD rule 7NT down two. The secretary bird was prepared for this statement, though. "After last year, he wouldn't try that again. He would fear too much that I dropped his spade K making the unmakeable 7NT, when his expert teammates might have bid and made the unbeatable 7D. Even had he tried another Grosvenor coup, I would have sniffed it out again. You probably should rule 7NT just made, but I am in a generous mood today, and I am willing to accept a ruling of 7NT down one." [Paul Lamford] A very nice story. But not a diffficult ruling for the TD who will correctly rule down 2. East is entitled to bare the king of spades in the defence, and declarer will still be deemed to select the rational line of finessing the queen at trick 12, as Law 70E1 is clear that the TD can only accept an alternative line of rising if the original line is irrational, which it patently is not. From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 8 14:47:35 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:47:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <769558868.2520011288906735165.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> <769558868.2520011288906735165.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CD4D62A295BCFB-1040-1E1F5@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> [Thomas Dehn] Selecting a 51% line instead of a 68% line is not irrational. However, if I should ever play in a tournament where Paul Lamford is TD, I will try the following secretary bird approach: A trick 1, I simply claim, and state that I will take the best percentage line, without bothering to actually state any line. I will then let Paul figure it out for me, stating that taking anything other than the best percentage line would be irrational. Never has declaring a hand been easier. [Paul Lamford] If declarer had claimed stating that he would take the club finesse, this would be a 50% line and I would rule that he was one down or not solely dependng on the position of the jack of clubs, so the percentages are irrelevant. If declarer had claimed stating that he would take the best percentage line, I would rule one down if either the king of spades or jack of clubs were wrong, so you would be unwise to try your SB approach in a tournament at which I was TD, as I would search out any barely rational line at which you could go down. You and several others are missing the point completely. Nobody, except perhaps a clever cheat, would stated "taking the club finesse if the jack of clubs does not drop". Each case must be judged on his merits. So, just stop for a second, and try to rule as equitably as possible. That is all you have to do, and that is all you should do. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Nov 8 14:51:42 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:51:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: References: <996284695.2801781289054663642.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <693294.93795.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Robert Frick] Just to check -- I am not quarreling with this ruling. But giving the defense just 1 trick is the equitable ruling, correct? They would never have gotten two tricks without the claim. [Nigel] On equity principles, Robert may well be right. If so, IMO, the law is inconsistent because the law also appears to say that if defenders object to declarer's claim and the director sees that the claim should fail on reasonable defence, he should rule in favour of the defenders i.e. here award defenders two tricks. Unfortunately, so-called "Equity" is responsible for much injustice and uncertainty at Bridge. IMO, a claim's validity should not depend on the naivety of defenders. For example, in a Menagerie book by Victor Mollo, the Hog finds a brilliant declarer-play to overcome a suit-blockage and make an otherwise impossible 3N. The Walrus declares the same contract at another table. He fails to notice the blockage but says "Gentlemen, I won't waste your time", lays his hand down and claims. In the story, the defenders accept the claim. But suppose that, instead, they had called the director. IMO the director should rule in the defenders' favour, even if the defenders can't spot the exact flaw in the claim. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 8 14:59:06 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 14:59:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> Message-ID: <4CD8022A.6080704@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> > Another meaning is the comparative one: one line > is inferior to another one. That was the meaning I > used in my sentence above. When a line is inferior > to another one, and a player sees that it is inferior, > then it becomes irrational for him to follow that line. >> > +=+ A player may knowingly choose an inferior line > with a purpose. Then it is not an inferior line! Or at the very least, not an inferior one that the player recognizes as such. My whole point is that "clearly" inferior lines are not chosen, and should therefore be deemed irrational. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 8 15:01:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:01:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4CD802CC.9030904@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Second, there might be strategic reasons for using a slightly inferior > line of play (e.g. you know the contract will be played from the other > side, with more hazards, and you don't( want to lose when the risky line > they'll be compelled to use wins) > Which is precisely why I am talking about "clearly" inferior lines, or "lines that the player cannot fail to recognize as inferior". If a line has a strategic reason for being better, then it does not fall within the scope of what I am trying to make people see. If there is a 25% line, can one call it irrational - surely not. But if there is also a 75% line, surely we should say it is irrational for the claimer to chose that one? > What would be irrational would be to use a dominated line, in the sense > used in the theory of games, i.e. A never wins when B doesn't, and may > lose when B wins. > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 8 15:11:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:11:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred><845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred> <8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CD80519.2090504@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/11/2010 14:26, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > +=+ {Grattan} > This last statement appears to involve a judgement of the standard of > the player. Is he good enough to recognize the one true line? Law 70E1 > does not say "irrational for the player concerned". Irrationality is > an absolute condition. There may be situations in which the Director > can deduce with sufficient certainty from antecedent action that the > player knows what he is doing. +=+ > > I agree entirely that irrationality should be an absolute condition, > but it must take into account the rationality of the average person. In > our example, it does not matter that a squeeze is better (it actually > only adds around 0.3%). The choice of words used "taking the club > finesse if the jack of clubs does not drop" is irrational for the > person making the statement. AG : you still have to explain why it is irrational. To most of us it is mainly inferior. > Nobody would express themselves this way - > it is an obvious slip of the tongue. Now, a large number of people > would state "taking the spade finesse if the jack of clubs does not > drop". It is completely irrelevant whether the claim statement is legal > or not - the TD still applies the same rationality test to it. And, > whether or not the player wishes to change it. If he sticks to his guns > and says "no I meant the club finesse all along" when he discovers that > the jack of clubs is onside but the king of spades is offside, the > director still rules that the original statement was irrational and the > director just follows: > > "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as > possible to both sides". > > The claimer's statement, and any subsequent correction, are merely > aides to fulfilling this overriding clause. Many people on here do not > follow this at all, preferring to stick to some literal meaning of the > words uttered. This is not what the Laws say. > AG : right, but I still don't have any proof that the player's meaning was different from his wording. Why would it be against equity to suppose that he meant it ? Because some TDs think that the line is vastly inferior ? That's no criterion for me. I make about 20 plays per tournament that a better player would disagree with (and perhaps call irrational, although it isn't the right word) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 8 15:14:08 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:14:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <000f01cb7f48$9e0aec80$da20c580$@no> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> <000f01cb7f48$9e0aec80$da20c580$@no> Message-ID: <4CD805B0.9040807@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/11/2010 14:26, Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > ............... >> What would be irrational would be to use a dominated line, in the sense > used in >> the theory of games, i.e. A never wins when B doesn't, and may lose when B > wins. > > Please observe that the laws no longer use the qualifier "for the class of > player" with the word irrational. > > There was a very good reason for dropping this qualifier and that is that > "irrational" shall not depend on the player, only upon the actual (visible) > situation. > > Playing the Queen under the King when leading a small towards Ace - Queen is > one example of what will (usually) be deemed irrational. Failing to have > noticed (or remember) that all other clubs have been played so that the > deuce is high is NOT irrational; it is just (very) inferior. > > Top players are not immune to irrational plays; I still remember the Italian > team losing BB final with an (undisputable) irrational play of the ten of > spades from dummy. This is one reason why I frown when players claim, > possibly because they are too exhausted to work out the complete situation > and instead gamble on being given the game by the Director. > > _ Agree, and good example ; "irrational" means something very strong, and this is among the few plays -if one can call them plays- which i would thusly qualify. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 8 15:16:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:16:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD8022A.6080704@skynet.be> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD8022A.6080704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CD80644.1050703@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/11/2010 14:59, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Grattan wrote: >> Another meaning is the comparative one: one line >> is inferior to another one. That was the meaning I >> used in my sentence above. When a line is inferior >> to another one, and a player sees that it is inferior, >> then it becomes irrational for him to follow that line. >> +=+ A player may knowingly choose an inferior line >> with a purpose. > Then it is not an inferior line! > Or at the very least, not an inferior one that the player recognizes as > such. > My whole point is that "clearly" inferior lines are not chosen, and > should therefore be deemed irrational. > Se my former response : there are times when you can't do anything but choose a "clearly inferior" line - just depends on "inferior to what" ? Also, what if I think that playing (or bidding, by the way) along an inferior line will help me on the long run , Never played poker ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 8 15:18:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:18:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD802CC.9030904@skynet.be> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> <4CD802CC.9030904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CD806BD.20506@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/11/2010 15:01, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Second, there might be strategic reasons for using a slightly inferior >> line of play (e.g. you know the contract will be played from the other >> side, with more hazards, and you don't( want to lose when the risky line >> they'll be compelled to use wins) >> > Which is precisely why I am talking about "clearly" inferior lines, or > "lines that the player cannot fail to recognize as inferior". If a line > has a strategic reason for being better, then it does not fall within > the scope of what I am trying to make people see. > > If there is a 25% line, can one call it irrational - surely not. But if > there is also a 75% line, surely we should say it is irrational for the > claimer to chose that one? > AG : if I'm ahead in the match, and I'm convinced they'll be compelled (due to another opening lead perhaps) to play for the 25% line, I'll play for the 25% line. And that would be rational. I'm sticking with "vastrly inferior is different from irrational", sorry. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 8 15:30:38 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:30:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2010, at 4:11 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > (Eric Landau) > One difference must be (if we are to continue > speaking English) that inferiority is subject to > quantitative modification (something can be > "slightly inferior" or "very inferior" to something > else) whereas irrationality, like pregnancy, is > binary ("just a little bit irrational" is as meaningless > as "just a little bit pregnant"). > > [Grattan] > I would say Eric is pointed at the heart of the > question here. As far as I can see a line of play > is irrational if it defies the plainly exposed facts > of the hand. A line is inferior if, whilst the line > is not irrational in those terms, there is another > line more likely to take best advantage of the > potential facts and probabilities of the hand. > (I have not followed this thread but presume > we are somewhere about Law 70E1.) > > {Nigel] > Lexicographers sanction qualifiers like "more rational" or "most > rational" but > Eric's distinction still makes sense to me. Rationality is not subject to degree. It is therefore understood that when we use comparative modifiers such as "more rational" what we really mean is "more apparently rational". > A problem remains: Actions in conflict with correct reasoning are > irrational. Actions in conflict with correct reasoning based on known (or validly assumed) facts are irrational. One can rationally derive a false conclusion from a false premise, although that conclusion may appear irrational to someone in possession of the facts. > For example, suppose you can win a competition by making 3N. There > is only one > "sure-trick" line. IMO, any other line is irrational. It is not irrational to miss the only sure-trick line -- if it were, the entire bridge-playing population would act irrationally on a regular basis. What is irrational is to be aware of the only sure- trick line but to fail to take it. Problems arise when a player makes an incomplete claim statement that encompasses the sure-trick line but fails to fully specify it, then subsequently asserts that he was aware of it all along, thus making the "irrationality" exception in L70E2 (arguably) operative. The key question with regard to interpreting the claims laws is whether the TD should presumptively reject all such asertions, or should accept them if and when he judges the claimer to belong to a sufficiently superior "class of player" to give them, in his judgment, sufficient credibility to be accepted. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 8 15:49:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:49:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> References: <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1B324D00-AD2A-42B0-A8C9-3B97D2A39DCA@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following > statement. > > A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be considered > irrational. > > Can we agree on this? No. Indeed, it is the key point of contention here. Either (a) Herman's statement is correct as written, or (b) to make it correct, substitute "any claimer" for "the claimer". Until we decide which of these is correct, we won't get very far with this topic. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 8 15:53:29 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:53:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > .................................... Problems arise when a > player makes an incomplete claim statement that encompasses the sure-trick line > but fails to fully specify it, then subsequently asserts that he was aware of it all > along, thus making the "irrationality" exception in L70E2 (arguably) operative. > > The key question with regard to interpreting the claims laws is whether the TD > should presumptively reject all such asertions, or should accept them if and when > he judges the claimer to belong to a sufficiently superior "class of player" to give > them, in his judgment, sufficient credibility to be accepted. Why does a claimer fail to point out important details (if any) in his intended line of play with his claim statement? Only if there is no such important detail to which an alternative might exist shall the Director accept that the claimer "of course was aware of it". Otherwise he should assume that the player failed to point out important details simply because he was unaware of such details at the time he made his claim. There must not be any room for doubtful points in a good claim, this is IMHO the main reason why Law 70A states that "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". (A claim only saves time when it is so obvious and free of doubt that the Director is not needed to adjudicate the claim) From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 8 16:08:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:08:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <6D992058-BDD8-4AC6-9F46-FB97D5C09D7A@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> It would help a lot if we were to be able to agree on the following >>>> statement. >>>> >>>> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the >>>> claimer cannot fail to conclude that inferiority, shall be >>>> considered >>>> irrational. >>>> >>>> Can we agree on this? >>> >>> I disagree. You would need an even more restricted >>> type of inferiour. >>> You would need a line that under no reasonable >>> layout makes more tricks than the other line. >>> >>> Consider xxxxx opposite AQJTx. Playing for the drop >>> is inferior, but not irrational. >> >> Do we need to qualify the inferiority then, as in "substantially >> inferior"? - I wrote "to such a degree". >> Also I believe the sentence "conclude that inferiority" already deals >> with this issue. >> >> Your example shows this well: without any other clue, the line of >> playing for the drop is substantially inferior, but a minor player >> may >> not recognize that the difference is very big. >> >> So perhaps using the word "recognize" in stead of conclude? >> >> A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the >> claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be >> considered >> irrational. > > I have the impression that you have a different understanding > of the meaning of inferior than I have. My understanding > of the intent of L70E1 and the foot note to L70 > is that lines which are merely > careless or inferior are not irrational. There is no "merely" in the footnote: "'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior". Play that is "very careless" (or "inferior), or "extremely careless", or "monumentally careless" or even "so careless as to make an even more careless play unimaginable" remains unequivocably "careless", and thus unequivocably "'normal'". For the laws to make sense, "irrational" must be taken to have some qualitatively distinct meaning from "careless or inferior", not be defined solely by some inherently subjective difference in degree. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 8 16:30:35 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:30:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <1349143222.2827611289062118794.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1349143222.2827611289062118794.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1864338D-753B-4D12-9FB6-C24ED053328E@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> I have the impression that you have a different understanding >>> of the meaning of inferior than I have. My understanding >>> of the intent of L70E1 and the foot note to L70 >>> is that lines which are merely >>> careless or inferior are not irrational. >> >> I believe there are two possible meanings of the word "inferior", >> and it >> is a pity it was used. Inferior, as it is used, is an adjective >> meaning, >> roughly, "bad, but not very much so". >> >> Another meaning is the comparative one: one line is inferior to >> another >> one. That was the meaning I used in my sentence above. When a line is >> inferior to another one, and a player sees that it is inferior, >> then it >> becomes irrational for him to follow that line. > > I think that the "careless or inferior for the class of player > involved" in > the footnote to L70 is intended as "includes moderately bad > or unlucky decisions, but not outrageously stupid decisions". That may have been what was intended, but it isn't what was written. For what "class of player" are "moderately bad or unlucky decisions, but not outrageously stupid decisions" neither careless nor inferior? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 8 16:30:47 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:30:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no> Message-ID: <8CD4D710D1F7640-1040-1F7D1@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> [Sven Pran] Only if there is no such important detail to which an alternative might exist shall the Director accept that the claimer "of course was aware of it". [Paul Lamford] Each case is judged on its merits. If the declarer needs to play the king first when claiming three tricks with Kx opposite AQx, and he does not give this important detail, the Director is quite entitled to accept that the claimer "of course was aware of it". If the declarer need to play the ace or queen first in order to be able to cash or unblock the other winners, then the Director is quite entitled to accept that the claimer was "not aware of this important detail" if he did not state it. The Director's sole job is to decide "what is an irrational line ... and decide the claim as equitably as possible .... and make a decision based on his view of the probability after gathering the evidence." That is why we have directors, and that is why they consult. And the off-centre views on here are why we need their judgement." From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 8 17:08:59 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:08:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4D710D1F7640-1040-1F7D1@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no> <8CD4D710D1F7640-1040-1F7D1@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000c01cb7f5f$411d21c0$c3576540$@no> On Behalf Of gampas at aol.com > [Sven Pran] > Only if there is no such important detail to which an alternative might exist shall the > Director accept that the claimer "of course was aware of it". > > [Paul Lamford] Each case is judged on its merits. If the declarer needs to play the > king first when claiming three tricks with Kx opposite AQx, and he does not give > this important detail, the Director is quite entitled to accept that the claimer "of > course was aware of it". If the declarer need to play the ace or queen first in order > to be able to cash or unblock the other winners, then the Director is quite entitled > to accept that the claimer was "not aware of this important detail" if he did not > state it. The Director's sole job is to decide "what is an irrational line ... and decide > the claim as equitably as possible .... > and make a decision based on his view of the probability after gathering the > evidence." > > That is why we have directors, and that is why they consult. And the off-centre > views on here are why we need their judgement." And the claimers who claim this way "in order to save time" have no idea of what it means to save time. Instead they waste time and embarrass opponents. They would instead save time facing their cards one by one at a rate of approximately 2 cards per second, thus making it unambiguously clear how they will make the remaining tricks. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 8 17:13:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:13:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD8022A.6080704@skynet.be> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD8022A.6080704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5358C2F8-8581-469C-947F-DAC81EC6E210@starpower.net> On Nov 8, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan wrote: > >> Another meaning is the comparative one: one line >> is inferior to another one. That was the meaning I >> used in my sentence above. When a line is inferior >> to another one, and a player sees that it is inferior, >> then it becomes irrational for him to follow that line. >> >> +=+ A player may knowingly choose an inferior line >> with a purpose. > > Then it is not an inferior line! > Or at the very least, not an inferior one that the player > recognizes as > such. > My whole point is that "clearly" inferior lines are not chosen, and > should therefore be deemed irrational. I am playing a knockout match, and believe myself to be reasonably well ahead, so that I will win the match if I can avoid a major adverse swing. I reach 7NT, and am confident that the opponents holding our cards at the other table will reach it as well. I have two possible lines to make it: a 50% finesse or a double backwash squeeze. The squeeze will make 7NT 90% of the time, but 10% of the time it will fail when the finesse would have succeeded. I do not believe that the declarer in my seat at the other table is capable of finding the double backwash squeeze; I am certain he will take the finesse. I choose to do the same. I argue that in this scenario I have rationally chosen to take what I recognize to be a clearly inferior line. To argue otherwise, IMO, overly stretches the definition of at least one of the words in the previous sentence. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 8 17:27:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:27:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <4CD80519.2090504@ulb.ac.be> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred><845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred> <8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> <4CD80519.2090504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Nov 8, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 8/11/2010 14:26, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > >> Nobody would express themselves this way - >> it is an obvious slip of the tongue. Now, a large number of people >> would state "taking the spade finesse if the jack of clubs does not >> drop". It is completely irrelevant whether the claim statement is >> legal >> or not - the TD still applies the same rationality test to it. And, >> whether or not the player wishes to change it. If he sticks to his >> guns >> and says "no I meant the club finesse all along" when he discovers >> that >> the jack of clubs is onside but the king of spades is offside, the >> director still rules that the original statement was irrational >> and the >> director just follows: >> >> "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as >> possible to both sides". >> >> The claimer's statement, and any subsequent correction, are merely >> aides to fulfilling this overriding clause. Many people on here do >> not >> follow this at all, preferring to stick to some literal meaning of >> the >> words uttered. This is not what the Laws say. > > AG : right, but I still don't have any proof that the player's meaning > was different from his wording. Why would it be against equity to > suppose that he meant it ? > Because some TDs think that the line is vastly inferior ? That's no > criterion for me. I make about 20 plays per tournament that a better > player would disagree with (and perhaps call irrational, although it > isn't the right word) In the original thread case, it would be absurd to assume that the player didn't mean what he said but was keeping it a secret. I don't see how Paul can conclude that it was "an obvious slip of the tongue" given that the player involved has at no point spoken up to say so. IME, someone who makes an obvious slip of the tongue cannot be stopped from stating so even when it is inappropriate for him to do so. At no point was there any suggestion of the player in the original scenario asserting that he meant to say "spade finesse" rather than "club finesse", so why would anyone think to assume so? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 8 18:10:44 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:10:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: References: <996284695.2801781289054663642.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1271054441.1127711289236244527.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:44:23 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> Yesterday, declarer claimed saying she had the rest except the ace of > >> hearts. Had she played it out, she certainly would have gotten all of > >> the > >> tricks except the ace. But there was a double dummy defense to get two > >> tricks on defense. (The chance of my partner finding this defense at the > >> table was zero. Take that as an accepted fact.) > >> > >> > >> What should be the proper ruling? Normally, I would have thought that it > >> was obvious the defense gets two tricks if they can find that defense > >> double dummy. But the prelude to L70 says that the director should try > >> to > >> make an equitable ruling to both sides. Normally I ignore that. Well, to > >> be honest, I didn't even know it was there. Does it really have any > >> effect > >> > >> on rulings? Is this one of them? Certainly the equitable ruling is that > >> defense gets only one more trick. > >> > >> > >> > >> The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. > >> > >> -- > >> Q > >> xxxx > >> -- > >> > >> -- -- > >> 9x Ax > >> QJx 10 > >> -- xx > >> > >> xx > >> J10x > >> -- > >> -- > > > > Declarer has claimed. If either defender objects to the claim > > pointing out the line of play (consistent with the claim statement) > > that leads to two tricks to the defense, the defense gets two tricks. > > > > Just to check -- I am not quarreling with this ruling. But giving the > defense just 1 trick is the equitable ruling, correct? They would never > have gotten two tricks without the claim. I think that even a very bad player would accidentally stumble upon the killing defense once in a while. For example, after declarer has ruffed the D continuation and played a H to the Q, the Rueful Rabbit would duck the HA to rectify the count. Only if you believe that E would always cash the HA immediately will the defense never get two tricks. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 8 18:13:59 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:13:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational [correction] In-Reply-To: <1864338D-753B-4D12-9FB6-C24ED053328E@starpower.net> References: <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1349143222.2827611289062118794.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1864338D-753B-4D12-9FB6-C24ED053328E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:30 AM, I wrote: > On Nov 6, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>>> I have the impression that you have a different understanding >>>> of the meaning of inferior than I have. My understanding >>>> of the intent of L70E1 and the foot note to L70 >>>> is that lines which are merely >>>> careless or inferior are not irrational. >>> >>> I believe there are two possible meanings of the word "inferior", >>> and it >>> is a pity it was used. Inferior, as it is used, is an adjective >>> meaning, >>> roughly, "bad, but not very much so". >>> >>> Another meaning is the comparative one: one line is inferior to >>> another >>> one. That was the meaning I used in my sentence above. When a >>> line is >>> inferior to another one, and a player sees that it is inferior, >>> then it >>> becomes irrational for him to follow that line. >> >> I think that the "careless or inferior for the class of player >> involved" in >> the footnote to L70 is intended as "includes moderately bad >> or unlucky decisions, but not outrageously stupid decisions". > > That may have been what was intended, but it isn't what was written. > For what "class of player" are "moderately bad or unlucky decisions, > but not outrageously stupid decisions" neither careless nor inferior? Sorry, I got that backwards. I should have written, "For what 'class of player' are 'outrageously stupid decisions' neither careless nor inferior?" Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 8 18:33:50 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:33:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no> Message-ID: <4CD8347E.6050102@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Why does a claimer fail to point out important details (if any) in his > intended line of play with his claim statement? > > Only if there is no such important detail to which an alternative might > exist shall the Director accept that the claimer "of course was aware of > it". > > Otherwise he should assume that the player failed to point out important > details simply because he was unaware of such details at the time he made > his claim. > Sven fails to think this through. Let me elaborate: Suppose a player claims, saying "drawing trumps", having nine of them including the top four. He has failed to say, "drawing trumps until they are all gone". He has failed to say that he will "draw twice if they are 2-2, thrice if they are 3-1, and four times if they are 4-0". He has failed to say "I have nine trumps so there are 4 trumps out". According to Sven, the director should assume that the player was unaware of all these facts. Of course Sven does not think that (I hope) but Sven fails to see that his statement applies to all these cases just as much as to the hypothetical one he is thinking of. So Sven is wrong: The Director should not automatically assume that a player who omits to mention a particular thing must be deemed to not know that thing. The Director should instead investigate and find some other piece of evidence enabling him to make that decision. And of course, if the director is uncertain, the benefit of the doubt should go against claimer. But there are cases where the director simply has no doubt. > There must not be any room for doubtful points in a good claim, this is IMHO > the main reason why Law 70A states that "any doubtful point as to a claim > shall be resolved against the claimer". > Indeed, any _doubtful_ point. Not _every point_. > (A claim only saves time when it is so obvious and free of doubt that the > Director is not needed to adjudicate the claim) > And sometimes players get it wrong when they decide there can be no doubt. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 8 18:39:47 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:39:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational Message-ID: <1365560851.1138561289237987784.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > Herman, > > > > > > I do not disagree with your intent. I disagree with your opinion > > that your suggested wording > > "A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > > claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered > > irrational." > > reflects your intent in a sufficiently clear way. > > > > Then can you please suggest wording that more clearly reflects our > apparently correct intent? I think the word irrational actually is not necessary. Thus I propose getting rid of it: "L70 E1: 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless the line is the only remaining normal* line when the original clarification statement cannot be carried out." Thomas From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 8 19:09:01 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:09:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred><845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred><8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com><4CD80519.2090504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CD4D8727C1C21C-E7C-11C9@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] In the original thread case, it would be absurd to assume that the player didn't mean what he said but was keeping it a secret. I don't see how Paul can conclude that it was "an obvious slip of the tongue" given that the player involved has at no point spoken up to say so. IME, someone who makes an obvious slip of the tongue cannot be stopped from stating so even when it is inappropriate for him to do so. At no point was there any suggestion of the player in the original scenario asserting that he meant to say "spade finesse" rather than "club finesse", so why would anyone think to assume so? [Paul Lamford] The absurdity is in what your write. The original thread stated: "West stated that it did not fall, and he presumed declarer meant the spade finesse" This would have immediately drawn attention to the claimer's slip of the tongue, but in any case someone who thought he said "spade finesse" would not have any reason to stated that he said something else unless he was told that he had. The whole principle of the Laws is that mechanical errors in bidding and spoken errors in calling for cards from dummy are corrected. It would be absurd to assume that Eric Landau didn't mean what he wrote but was keeping it a secret as well. "Why would anyone think to assume so", you ask? Because of the way he phrased it. From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 8 19:13:26 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:13:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <000c01cb7f5f$411d21c0$c3576540$@no> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no><8CD4D710D1F7640-1040-1F7D1@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> <000c01cb7f5f$411d21c0$c3576540$@no> Message-ID: <8CD4D87C5D0158E-E7C-12FE@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> [Sven Pran] And the claimers who claim this way "in order to save time" have no idea of what it means to save time. Instead they waste time and embarrass opponents. They would instead save time facing their cards one by one at a rate of approximately 2 cards per second, thus making it unambiguously clear how they will make the remaining tricks. [Paul Lamford] Fine. Abolish claims. But until we do, let us decide on them equitably, and in accordance with the Laws. It is truly ridiculous that one might get a different ruling depending on whether de Wael or Burn comes to your table. From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 8 20:19:35 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:19:35 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) Message-ID: <739596322.1176751289243975729.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> gampas at aol.com wrote: > You and several others are missing the point completely. Nobody, except > perhaps a clever cheat, would stated "taking the club finesse if the > jack of clubs does not drop". Each case must be judged on his merits. > So, just stop for a second, and try to rule as equitably as possible. > That is all you have to do, and that is all you should do. I have seen claims much worse than this. The director requires the claimer to restate his claim. If the claimer then states "taking the club finesse if the jack of clubs does not drop", then that is his claim statement, and it is what the director will use, regardless of how bad a line it is. L68 ff. do not explicitly cover the scenario where the claimer misspoke. I am fine with letting the claimer fix such an error using the "without pause for thought" guideline used in various other laws. That can be considered equitable. But it is a stretch, as it is not explicitly stated in L68 ff. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 8 20:24:55 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:24:55 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4D8727C1C21C-E7C-11C9@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4D8727C1C21C-E7C-11C9@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred><845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred><8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com><4CD80519.2090504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <146168664.1179091289244295430.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> gampas at aol.com wrote: > You and several others are missing the point completely. Nobody, except > perhaps a clever cheat, would stated "taking the club finesse if the > jack of clubs does not drop". Each case must be judged on his merits. > So, just stop for a second, and try to rule as equitably as possible. > That is all you have to do, and that is all you should do. I have seen claims much worse than this. Worse claims that were not misspoken, that is. Heck, I myself once ducked the first trick in a grand slam. The director requires the claimer to restate his claim. If the claimer then states "taking the club finesse if the jack of clubs does not drop", then that is his claim statement, and it is what the director will use, regardless of how bad a line it is. L68 ff. do not explicitly cover the scenario where the claimer misspoke. I am fine with letting the claimer fix such an error using the "without pause for thought" guideline used in various other laws. That can be considered equitable. But that is already a stretch, especially when any UI comes into play. It is the claimer's task to state his claim clearly. If he states a different claim then the one he intended to make, he has nobody to blame but himself. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 8 21:14:34 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:14:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4D87C5D0158E-E7C-12FE@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> <4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no> <8CD4D710D1F7640-1040-1F7D1@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> <000c01cb7f5f$411d21c0$c3576540$@no> <8CD4D87C5D0158E-E7C-12FE@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:13:26 -0500, wrote: > [Sven Pran] > And the claimers who claim this way "in order to save time" have no > idea of > what it means to save time. Instead they waste time and embarrass > opponents. > > They would instead save time facing their cards one by one at a rate of > approximately 2 cards per second, thus making it unambiguously clear how > they will make the remaining tricks. > > [Paul Lamford] > Fine. Abolish claims. But until we do, let us decide on them equitably, > and in accordance with the Laws. > > It is truly ridiculous that one might get a different ruling depending > on whether de Wael or Burn comes to your table. When declarer said "trying to drop the jack of clubs or else taking the heart finesse", it was obvious that he did not mean heart finesse. Following ACBL guidance to distinguish bad claims from poor statements, I give him the spade finesse. IF I am convinced that "trying to drop the jack of clubs or else taking the club finesse" is also just a poor statement, then following this same principle I should give him the spade finesse. But I am worried that the opponents only called because the jack of clubs was offside. If they do object and the jack is shown to be onside, I worry that claimer will hold to his claiming statement. But I would not know which ruling was right or which one to choose. From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 8 22:21:57 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:21:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: References: <1453475800.2871761289077507854.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <627336284.1217471289251317273.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:05:07 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: [...] > >> > The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. > >> > -- > >> > Q > >> > xxxx > >> > -- > >> > -- -- > >> > 9x Ax > >> > QJx 10 > >> > -- xx > >> > xx > >> > J10x > >> > -- > >> > -- > >> And even worse... "The director may accept it [play after the claim] as > >> evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim..." This > >> strongly implies that the director is trying to determine the players' > >> probable plays subsequent to the claim. Why would director do this if > >> probable plays were irrelevant? > > > > It is not irrelevant. For example, it is very relevant to clarify > > the claim statement. > > Yes, but this law does not say "claimer's probable plays". It' says > "players' probable plays." Implying that it is relevant what the > nonclaimers would have played. I have no idea whether this is how 70D3 is intended. "players" also might refer to "declarer in case declarer claimed, or both defenders in case a defender claimed" > >> And I don't even care about that part. I am focused on the fact that > >> both > >> you and Thomas are ignoring the injunction to make a ruling as equitable > >> as possible to both sides. I do the same, so maybe that is typical. > > > > Any doubtful points are resolved against claimer. > > There were no doubtful points in this claim. No? Claimer claimed four tricks, but against best defense he can only get three. That is not a doubtful point in the claim? > But in general, are you saying that the phrase "the Director adjudicates > the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" is > irrelevant given the rest of the claiming law? There is no statement "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" in TFLB. The statement is "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 8 22:44:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:44:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <4CD8347E.6050102@skynet.be> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no> <4CD8347E.6050102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5441BBD3-E4A0-4D5D-AAC3-465A33FB9B16@starpower.net> On Nov 8, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Suppose a player claims, saying "drawing trumps", having nine of them > including the top four. He has failed to say, "drawing trumps until > they > are all gone". He has failed to say that he will "draw twice if > they are > 2-2, thrice if they are 3-1, and four times if they are 4-0". He has > failed to say "I have nine trumps so there are 4 trumps out". > According to Sven, the director should assume that the player was > unaware of all these facts. I question whether we are really supposed to presume that a player who claims with "drawing trumps" would stop at the point at which he has seen all of the outstanding trumps, as opposed to his taking as many rounds of the suit as would be required to handle any break. Imagine a player claiming all at trick one holding AKQJ2 opposite 6543 in trumps. He claims with, "I will pull all the trumps, and have the rest in high cards." He has miscounted, and is, in fact, a trick short in high cards, and if trumps are 4-0 the hand cannot be made. But trumps are 3-1, and were he to stop pulling them after three rounds, it would be patently irrational for him to go down by failing to simply trump a loser with the trump 6 remaining in dummy. I would be inclined to rule that he goes down. ISTM that if a player's claim is stated so as to involve drawing all of the outstanding trumps regardless of how they are breaking, he should be presumed to play as many rounds of trumps as that would require, rather than be permitted to take advantage of a subsequently discovered favorable trump break in ways not mentioned in his original statement. Of course, to make my point, I postulated trumps 3-1. If they're 2-2, one might consider it irrational to continue to pull them once both opponents have shown out. But that's really a separate issue from what "drawing trumps" should be presumed to imply. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 8 22:45:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:45:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Ha(nd)mman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >>Each case is judged on its merits. If the declarer needs to >>play the king first when claiming three tricks with Kx >>opposite AQx, and he does not give this important detail, the >>Director is quite entitled to accept that the claimer "of >>course was aware of it". [snip] Richard Hills: A while back David Burn related how multi World Champion Bob Hamman (who sits South for column purposes) mangled this exact combination, blocking the suit by leading the x away from the king. Is a World Champion unable to unblock? No, but a World Champion is capable of mis-sorting his cards, fondly believing that his Kx was Kxx. So one advantage of claiming is that the claimer is deemed to play better than a World Champion (unless the claimer lays down his cards in a mis-sorted state, as once fortunately happened at my table, see below). Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets >Imps >Dlr E 3 >Vul NS 7 > AJ862 > AT9862 >Hashmat Ali Richard Hills >K JT65 >AQT982 653 >KT4 973 >KJ7 Q54 > MLLAI > AQ98742 > KQJ4 > 5 > 3 > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- --- --- Pass >1S 2H 3C Pass >3S Pass 4D Pass >4S Pass Pass Pass > >The play was truncated: Ace of >hearts; King of spades switch to >the Ace; Queen of spades cashed. > >After that trick, declarer laid his >hand on the table, noting that the >only remaining tricks he would lose >were to my JT of trumps. > >Declarer was and is the second-best >player in Canberra, and for him >Most Losing Lines Are Irrational >(MLLAI). > >Even so, I decided to summon the >TD, since I had noticed that the >pip on declarer's Queen of hearts >was a little bit too pointy. > >The TD unimaginatively ruled that >4S was now two off, giving us the >additional tricks of the King of >diamonds and the Queen of hearts. > >However, as TD, I would have ruled >differently. > >Firstly, I would rule that it >would be irrational for MLLAI to >mis-sort his cards. The fact that >he had actually mis-sorted his >cards I would rule irrelevant. > >Secondly, I would rule that it >would be irrational for declarer >to fail in 4S by not taking the >diamond finesse, ruffing out the >diamonds, crossing to the Ace of >clubs, and discarding the losing >Jack of hearts on a good diamond. > >The fact that MLLAI had not stated >this only logical line of play in >his claim was irrelevant, since >given his class of player, he is >never required to make a complete >and comprehensive claim statement. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Nov 8 23:18:36 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:18:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Sven of the Wise Tongue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01cb7f5f$411d21c0$c3576540$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >And the claimers who claim this way "in order to save time" have >no idea of what it means to save time. Instead they waste time >and embarrass opponents. > >They would instead save time facing their cards one by one at a >rate of approximately 2 cards per second, thus making it un- >ambiguously clear how they will make the remaining tricks. Richard Hills: Yes and no. At the very highest levels of Aussie bridge, the knockout matches in our National Open Teams, declarer or a defender simply exposes all of her cards at the appropriate time (often without an unnecessary statement of the obvious) and the board is scored up. Against the very lowest level of Aussie opponents one saves time by never claiming, neither as declarer nor as a defender. Only against mediocre Aussie opponents is Sven's technique the speediest way that declarer (or a defender) can claim all of the remaining tricks. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 9 05:40:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:40:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jeff Easterson, December 2008: [snip] >>May I suggest that it is also possible to volunteer information >>to which, in your opinion, the other side may not be entitled? >>And I suspect that many (most?) of us do that. Ciao, JE John (MadDog) Probst, December 2008: >I happily spent a couple of minutes describing a hand I didn't >hold last night. Bore no resemblance at all, in fact, but I'd >been conscious of that. After I faced my hand my opponent burst >out laughing and said "well done". > >Footnote: It's difficult to keep a straight face when you're >describing the hand you've bid rather than the one you hold, but >that's what we do. john Richard Hills, December 2008: It is even more difficult to keep a straight face when you're describing a card that partner holds which also appears in dummy. Last night was a key event equivalent to the Bermuda Bowl; the penultimate Swiss match in the Consolation section of a Canberra Bridge Club teams championship. :-) Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South The Aussie Acol bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Dorothy Jesner Richard Hills --- 1S Pass 1NT Pass Pass Pass Dummy KQT42 K AT6 QJ94 Declarer A7 7653 9873 AT8 Dorothy led the nine of spades to dummy's deuce, my five and declarer's ace. At that point declarer asked me about the systemic meaning of the nine of spades. I replied that Dorothy was promising the ten of spades but denying any higher honour. So at this point all four players know that Dorothy's opening lead was a false card. At trick two declarer led the seven of spades, and the trey appeared from Dorothy. Declarer now had to decide whether Dorothy's opening lead was a falsecard from: (a) 9863 (systemic opening lead eight of spades), or (b) 973 (systemic opening lead seven of spades), or (c) J983 (systemic opening lead trey of spades). At the table declarer guessed wrong, one off. We narrowly won the equivalent-to-Bermuda-Bowl-event, and our octogenarian kibitzer (Dorothy's husband George) was wild with applause. :-) Richard Hills, November 2010 footnote: George Jesner passed away for the last time in October 2010. He will be much missed, not only for his bridge expertise, but also for his wicked sense of humour. It is a little known fact that the Stayman convention was actually invented by Sam Stayman's partner, George Rapee. Likewise the "Benji" Twos convention, locally popular in Britain and Australia, was actually invented by Albert Benjamin's partner, George Jesner. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 9 06:18:09 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:18:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: <627336284.1217471289251317273.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <1453475800.2871761289077507854.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <627336284.1217471289251317273.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:21:57 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:05:07 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > [...] >> >> > The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. >> >> > -- >> >> > Q >> >> > xxxx >> >> > -- >> >> > -- -- >> >> > 9x Ax >> >> > QJx 10 >> >> > -- xx >> >> > xx >> >> > J10x >> >> > -- >> >> > -- > >> >> And even worse... "The director may accept it [play after the claim] >> as >> >> evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim..." >> This >> >> strongly implies that the director is trying to determine the >> players' >> >> probable plays subsequent to the claim. Why would director do this if >> >> probable plays were irrelevant? >> > >> > It is not irrelevant. For example, it is very relevant to clarify >> > the claim statement. >> >> Yes, but this law does not say "claimer's probable plays". It' says >> "players' probable plays." Implying that it is relevant what the >> nonclaimers would have played. > > I have no idea whether this is how 70D3 is intended. > "players" also might refer to "declarer in case declarer > claimed, or both defenders in case a defender claimed" > > >> >> And I don't even care about that part. I am focused on the fact that >> >> both >> >> you and Thomas are ignoring the injunction to make a ruling as >> equitable >> >> as possible to both sides. I do the same, so maybe that is typical. >> > >> > Any doubtful points are resolved against claimer. >> >> There were no doubtful points in this claim. > > No? Claimer claimed four tricks, but against best defense > he can only get three. That is not a doubtful point in the claim? There is no doubt that declarer claimed 4 tricks, no doubt that double-dummy defense holds dummy to three tricks, and essentially no doubt that declarer would have made four tricks had she not claimed. No doubtful points here. > >> But in general, are you saying that the phrase "the Director adjudicates >> the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" is >> irrelevant given the rest of the claiming law? > > There is no statement "the Director adjudicates > the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" in TFLB. > The statement is > "the Director adjudicates the > result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any > doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." Sorry, I can't see how this last sentence doesn't contain the phrase that you say is not in the law book. The question is, what if the lawbook was exactly the same except that phrase about equity was missing. Would that change any rulings? From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Nov 9 08:52:26 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:52:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <5441BBD3-E4A0-4D5D-AAC3-465A33FB9B16@starpower.net> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no> <4CD8347E.6050102@skynet.be> <5441BBD3-E4A0-4D5D-AAC3-465A33FB9B16@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CD8FDBA.1050203@skynet.be> Well Eric, let me tell you that you are wrong. It is very clear in claim law that a claimer does not fail to notice how many of a particular card are out. It is considered irrational to draw mmore trumps than are needed. Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 8, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Suppose a player claims, saying "drawing trumps", having nine of them >> including the top four. He has failed to say, "drawing trumps until >> they >> are all gone". He has failed to say that he will "draw twice if >> they are >> 2-2, thrice if they are 3-1, and four times if they are 4-0". He has >> failed to say "I have nine trumps so there are 4 trumps out". >> According to Sven, the director should assume that the player was >> unaware of all these facts. > > I question whether we are really supposed to presume that a player > who claims with "drawing trumps" would stop at the point at which he > has seen all of the outstanding trumps, as opposed to his taking as > many rounds of the suit as would be required to handle any break. > Imagine a player claiming all at trick one holding AKQJ2 opposite > 6543 in trumps. He claims with, "I will pull all the trumps, and > have the rest in high cards." He has miscounted, and is, in fact, a > trick short in high cards, and if trumps are 4-0 the hand cannot be > made. But trumps are 3-1, and were he to stop pulling them after > three rounds, it would be patently irrational for him to go down by > failing to simply trump a loser with the trump 6 remaining in dummy. > > I would be inclined to rule that he goes down. ISTM that if a > player's claim is stated so as to involve drawing all of the > outstanding trumps regardless of how they are breaking, he should be > presumed to play as many rounds of trumps as that would require, > rather than be permitted to take advantage of a subsequently > discovered favorable trump break in ways not mentioned in his > original statement. > > Of course, to make my point, I postulated trumps 3-1. If they're > 2-2, one might consider it irrational to continue to pull them once > both opponents have shown out. But that's really a separate issue > from what "drawing trumps" should be presumed to imply. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3244 - Release Date: 11/08/10 08:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Nov 9 09:53:56 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:53:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CF27395-8095-4E45-B62D-D049778514AC@btinternet.com> On 9 Nov 2010, at 04:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > George Jesner passed away for the last time in October 2010. ??? > > It is a little known fact that the Stayman convention was actually > invented by Sam Stayman's partner, George Rapee. I thought it was a well-known fact that it was invented by Jack Marx. Gordon Rainsford From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 9 14:55:25 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:55:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4D8727C1C21C-E7C-11C9@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred><845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred><8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com><4CD80519.2090504@ulb.ac.be> <8CD4D8727C1C21C-E7C-11C9@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Nov 8, 2010, at 1:09 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Eric Landau] > In the original thread case, it would be absurd to assume that the > player didn't mean what he said but was keeping it a secret. I don't > see how Paul can conclude that it was "an obvious slip of the tongue" > given that the player involved has at no point spoken up to say so. > IME, someone who makes an obvious slip of the tongue cannot be > stopped from stating so even when it is inappropriate for him to do > so. At no point was there any suggestion of the player in the > original scenario asserting that he meant to say "spade finesse" > rather than "club finesse", so why would anyone think to assume so? > > [Paul Lamford] The absurdity is in what your write. The original > thread > stated: > > "West stated that it did not fall, and he presumed declarer meant the > spade finesse" > > This would have immediately drawn attention to the claimer's slip of > the tongue, but in any case someone who thought he said "spade > finesse" > would not have any reason to stated that he said something else unless > he was told that he had. > > The whole principle of the Laws is that mechanical errors in bidding > and spoken errors in calling for cards from dummy are corrected. It > would be absurd to assume that Eric Landau didn't mean what he wrote > but was keeping it a secret as well. > > "Why would anyone think to assume so", you ask? Because of the way he > phrased it. I concede that I may have misread the original example. If, in the actual case, when declarer's odd claim statement was first challenged by an opponent, his immediate response was something along the lines of, "Oh, I meant to say spade finesse," then we have a whole different case (several, actually). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 9 15:10:48 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:10:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4D87C5D0158E-E7C-12FE@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><93986259-1F5F-4AB0-845F-A9F5CFF967B3@starpower.net> <000801cb7f54$b4bdd030$1e397090$@no><8CD4D710D1F7640-1040-1F7D1@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> <000c01cb7f5f$411d21c0$c3576540$@no> <8CD4D87C5D0158E-E7C-12FE@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <626F1659-3AD7-40CF-B5FF-864B460ED4C9@starpower.net> On Nov 8, 2010, at 1:13 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > Fine. Abolish claims. But until we do, let us decide on them > equitably, > and in accordance with the Laws. > > It is truly ridiculous that one might get a different ruling depending > on whether de Wael or Burn comes to your table. It's bad enough that de Wael and Burn may produce different rulings because they disagree on the interpretation of the laws governing adjudication of claims. But that's why we have TD courses, WBFLC minutes, "Ruling the Game", and BLML, along with many other sources of interpretation. With effort and sufficiently broad participation, relatively unambiguous language can be developed and incorporated into TFLB. To the extent that our TDs are open-minded and informed, this is largely a solvable problem. Far worse would be if de Wael and Burn, despite being totally in accord as to the meaning and interpretation of the laws and the procedure for adjudicating claims, produced different rulings based solely on their differing evaluations of "the class of player involved". That's not something that can be resolved by better interpretation or education. And yet there are still some who argue that far from being truly ridiculous, it is what the law requires. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 9 15:29:01 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:29:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji In-Reply-To: <5CF27395-8095-4E45-B62D-D049778514AC@btinternet.com> References: <5CF27395-8095-4E45-B62D-D049778514AC@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <172DE6D5-0AEC-44FC-9FF2-DD6EA16AD8AC@starpower.net> On Nov 9, 2010, at 3:53 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 9 Nov 2010, at 04:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> It is a little known fact that the Stayman convention was actually >> invented by Sam Stayman's partner, George Rapee. > > I thought it was a well-known fact that it was invented by Jack Marx. The ACBL's "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" credits Rapee. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 9 17:39:24 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 17:39:24 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji In-Reply-To: <172DE6D5-0AEC-44FC-9FF2-DD6EA16AD8AC@starpower.net> References: <172DE6D5-0AEC-44FC-9FF2-DD6EA16AD8AC@starpower.net> <5CF27395-8095-4E45-B62D-D049778514AC@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <498337410.1289320764155.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 9, 2010, at 3:53 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > On 9 Nov 2010, at 04:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >> It is a little known fact that the Stayman convention was actually > >> invented by Sam Stayman's partner, George Rapee. > > > > I thought it was a well-known fact that it was invented by Jack Marx. > > The ACBL's "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" credits Rapee. wikipedia claim that is was Ewart Kempson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Marx_%28bridge%29 "Marx is often said to be the first player to devise the idea of bidding 2C over 1NT to ask for 4-card major suits, though it is known that Ewart Kempson had used it in the early thirties. Marx worked out his version in 1939, before Stayman was invented, but published it only in 1946, so losing out to the American" I can find a few more hits that claim Kempson was the first. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 9 17:50:56 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:50:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CD97BF0.6050001@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/11/2010 5:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The Aussie Acol bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Jesner Richard Hills > --- 1S Pass 1NT > Pass Pass Pass > > Dummy > KQT42 > K > AT6 > QJ94 > > Declarer > A7 > 7653 > 9873 > AT8 > > Dorothy led the nine of spades to dummy's deuce, my five and > declarer's ace. At that point declarer asked me about the > systemic meaning of the nine of spades. I replied that Dorothy > was promising the ten of spades but denying any higher honour. > > So at this point all four players know that Dorothy's opening > lead was a false card. > > At trick two declarer led the seven of spades, and the trey > appeared from Dorothy. Declarer now had to decide whether > Dorothy's opening lead was a falsecard from: > > (a) 9863 (systemic opening lead eight of spades), or > (b) 973 (systemic opening lead seven of spades), or > (c) J983 (systemic opening lead trey of spades). What about 9x ? Is there any reason to imagine anything else ? (in which case you just play on clubs) From gampas at aol.com Tue Nov 9 18:20:18 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:20:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred><845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred><8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com><4CD80519.2090504@ulb.ac.be><8CD4D8727C1C21C-E7C-11C9@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD4E49843A7205-17E0-290B@webmail-m050.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] I concede that I may have misread the original example. If, in the actual case, when declarer's odd claim statement was first challenged by an opponent, his immediate response was something along the lines of, "Oh, I meant to say spade finesse," then we have a whole different case (several, actually). [Paul Lamford] Indeed. And when he says, not wishing to take advantage of the obvious slip of the tongue, "assuming you mean spade finesse, that also fails", you can fall back on your last chance of the club finesse. As you say, we have several new cases - an Irrational Claim Coup, a distant cousin of the Alcatraz Coup." From gampas at aol.com Tue Nov 9 18:25:11 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:25:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5CF27395-8095-4E45-B62D-D049778514AC@btinternet.com> References: <5CF27395-8095-4E45-B62D-D049778514AC@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <8CD4E4A32C926E5-17E0-2A6D@webmail-m050.sysops.aol.com> > It is a little known fact that the Stayman convention was actually > invented by Sam Stayman's partner, George Rapee. I thought it was a well-known fact that it was invented by Jack Marx. Gordon Rainsford [Paul Lamford] The initial concept was employed by Ewart Kempson, 1895-1966, of England and was further developed by Mr. Seca Jascha Skidelsky, or Mr. S. J. Simon, better known as Skid, born 1904, in Harbin, Manchuria. At least that appears to be the majority view - which I have not checked. From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 9 18:36:45 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:36:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CD97BF0.6050001@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CD97BF0.6050001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <736980061.3672491289324205831.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/11/2010 5:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > Imps > > Dlr: North > > Vul: North-South > > > > The Aussie Acol bidding went: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Dorothy Jesner Richard Hills > > --- 1S Pass 1NT > > Pass Pass Pass > > > > Dummy > > KQT42 > > K > > AT6 > > QJ94 > > > > Declarer > > A7 > > 7653 > > 9873 > > AT8 > > > > Dorothy led the nine of spades to dummy's deuce, my five and > > declarer's ace. At that point declarer asked me about the > > systemic meaning of the nine of spades. I replied that Dorothy > > was promising the ten of spades but denying any higher honour. > > > > So at this point all four players know that Dorothy's opening > > lead was a false card. > > > > At trick two declarer led the seven of spades, and the trey > > appeared from Dorothy. Declarer now had to decide whether > > Dorothy's opening lead was a falsecard from: > > > > (a) 9863 (systemic opening lead eight of spades), or > > (b) 973 (systemic opening lead seven of spades), or > > (c) J983 (systemic opening lead trey of spades). > What about 9x ? Is there any reason to imagine anything else ? Makes me wonder what Richard leads from a SINGLETON 9 against NT. I am inclined to rule MI ;-). Thomas From gampas at aol.com Tue Nov 9 18:49:15 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:49:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Ha(nd)mman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CD4E4D8F6204A5-17E0-30A5@webmail-m050.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] So one advantage of claiming is that the claimer is deemed to play better than a World Champion (unless the claimer lays down his cards in a mis-sorted state, as once fortunately happened at my table, see below). [Paul Lamford] Indeed, quite a few players at our club should always claim at trick one, both as a defender and declarer. Silently, pleading the fifth amendment and the right to avoid self-incrimination when asked for a line of play. This way, they will get the least favourable rational line, which, in my experience is about a trick better than the irrational line they would have chosen or stated. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 9 18:55:08 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:55:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <8CD4E49843A7205-17E0-290B@webmail-m050.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com><4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be><0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred><845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred><8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com><4CD80519.2090504@ulb.ac.be><8CD4D8727C1C21C-E7C-11C9@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> <8CD4E49843A7205-17E0-290B@webmail-m050.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CD98AFC.9090705@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/11/2010 18:20, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [Eric Landau] > I concede that I may have misread the original example. If, in the > actual case, when declarer's odd claim statement was first challenged > by an opponent, his immediate response was something along the lines > of, "Oh, I meant to say spade finesse," then we have a whole > different case (several, actually). > > [Paul Lamford] Indeed. And when he says, not wishing to take advantage > of the obvious slip of the tongue, "assuming you mean spade finesse, > that also fails", you can fall back on your last chance of the club > finesse. As you say, we have several new cases - an Irrational Claim > Coup, a distant cousin of the Alcatraz Coup." Notice that by sticking to the wording, you avoid any pelicanism. That's as good a reason as any. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 9 19:00:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:00:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Ha(nd)mman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD4E4D8F6204A5-17E0-30A5@webmail-m050.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD4E4D8F6204A5-17E0-30A5@webmail-m050.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CD98C4E.3060105@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/11/2010 18:49, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > So one advantage of claiming is that the claimer is deemed to play > better than a World Champion (unless the claimer lays down his cards in > a mis-sorted state, as once fortunately happened at my table, see > below). > > [Paul Lamford] Indeed, quite a few players at our club should always > claim at trick one, both as a defender and declarer. Silently, pleading > the fifth amendment and the right to avoid self-incrimination when > asked for a line of play. This way, they will get the least favourable > rational line, which, in my experience is about a trick better than the > irrational line they would have chosen or stated. AG : still wrong, Paul. The specific thing about an irrational line is that no sane being chooses it. That's what "irrational" means. From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 9 20:43:20 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:43:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment Message-ID: <1325316301.3714961289331800553.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:21:57 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: [...] > >> But in general, are you saying that the phrase "the Director adjudicates > >> the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" is > >> irrelevant given the rest of the claiming law? > > > > There is no statement "the Director adjudicates > > the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" in TFLB. > > The statement is > > "the Director adjudicates the > > result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any > > doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." > > Sorry, I can't see how this last sentence doesn't contain the phrase that > you say is not in the law book. You must take the whole applicable law into account, not just one half of one sentence and then ignore everything else. L68ff describe lots of scenarios each of while will be ruled automatically against claimer, and not "equitable". For example, the claim statement "I get everything except the HA" did not say anything about unblocking the HQ, thus in case E continues with a club rather than the deadly D, the "careless" line of trumping in hand and discarding a D rather than unblocking the HQ gets imposed upon declarer. But that is all immaterial, the main point is that the non-claiming side is assumed to perform brilliantly after the claim, regardless of their actual ability; the claimer is assumed to follow the claim statement, and once that breaks down, to make any small mistake that can possibly be made, but no huge blunders. What you are saying is basically that if a player claims against horribly bad players, the director should award the claimer some extra tricks based upon the expectation that bad players are expected to make lots of mistakes. You have five tricks out of the remaining 8, and you claim that you get six or seven, because opponents are horribly bad players. No, that's not how it works. If you need them to blunder, you have to play it out. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 9 20:54:37 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:54:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: <1325316301.3714961289331800553.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <1325316301.3714961289331800553.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:43:20 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:21:57 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > [...] > >> >> But in general, are you saying that the phrase "the Director >> adjudicates >> >> the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" is >> >> irrelevant given the rest of the claiming law? >> > >> > There is no statement "the Director adjudicates >> > the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" in >> TFLB. >> > The statement is >> > "the Director adjudicates the >> > result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any >> > doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." >> >> Sorry, I can't see how this last sentence doesn't contain the phrase >> that >> you say is not in the law book. > > You must take the whole applicable law into account, not just one half > of one sentence and then > ignore everything else. L68ff describe lots of scenarios each of while > will be ruled > automatically against claimer, and not "equitable". > > For example, the claim statement "I get everything except the HA" > did not say anything about unblocking the HQ, thus > in case E continues with a club rather than the deadly D, the "careless" > line of trumping in hand and discarding a D rather than unblocking the > HQ gets imposed upon declarer. > > But that is all immaterial, the main point is that > the non-claiming side is assumed to perform brilliantly after the claim, > regardless of their actual ability; the claimer is assumed to follow the > claim statement, and once that breaks down, to make any > small mistake that can possibly be made, but no huge blunders. > > What you are saying is basically that if a player claims against > horribly bad players, the director should award the claimer > some extra tricks based upon the expectation that bad players > are expected to make lots of mistakes. You have five tricks > out of the remaining 8, and you claim that you get six or > seven, because opponents are horribly bad players. No, that's > not how it works. If you need them to blunder, you > have to play it out. Hi Thomas. Just to be clear, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that you, me and probably everyone follows the principle that "the non-claiming side is assumed to perform brilliantly after the claim". Furthermore, this takes precedence over the injunction to make an equitable ruling, which is in the rules. The relevance for Minute 10 is that they use parallel form to the laws. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 9 20:59:56 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:59:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: <1325316301.3714961289331800553.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <1325316301.3714961289331800553.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:43:20 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:21:57 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > [...] > >> >> But in general, are you saying that the phrase "the Director >> adjudicates >> >> the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" is >> >> irrelevant given the rest of the claiming law? >> > >> > There is no statement "the Director adjudicates >> > the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" in >> TFLB. >> > The statement is >> > "the Director adjudicates the >> > result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any >> > doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." >> >> Sorry, I can't see how this last sentence doesn't contain the phrase >> that >> you say is not in the law book. > > You must take the whole applicable law into account, not just one half > of one sentence and then > ignore everything else. L68ff describe lots of scenarios each of while > will be ruled > automatically against claimer, and not "equitable". > > For example, the claim statement "I get everything except the HA" > did not say anything about unblocking the HQ, thus > in case E continues with a club rather than the deadly D, the "careless" > line of trumping in hand and discarding a D rather than unblocking the > HQ gets imposed upon declarer. > > But that is all immaterial, the main point is that > the non-claiming side is assumed to perform brilliantly after the claim, > regardless of their actual ability; the claimer is assumed to follow the > claim statement, and once that breaks down, to make any > small mistake that can possibly be made, but no huge blunders. > > What you are saying is basically that if a player claims against > horribly bad players, the director should award the claimer > some extra tricks based upon the expectation that bad players > are expected to make lots of mistakes. You have five tricks > out of the remaining 8, and you claim that you get six or > seven, because opponents are horribly bad players. No, that's > not how it works. If you need them to blunder, you > have to play it out. Sorry, sent without finishing Hi Thomas. Just to be clear, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that you, me and probably everyone follows the principle that "the non-claiming side is assumed to perform brilliantly after the claim". Furthermore, this takes precedence over the injunction to make an equitable ruling, which is in the rules. The relevance for Minute 10 is that they use parallel form to the laws. If the phrase ("adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides") carries little to no weight in the actual laws, then one could (and perhaps should) read the same phrase as carrying little weight in Minute 10. If the WBFLC meant for considerations of equity to take precedence (which would have been a great idea), they should have said so, and using parallel form to the laws was a horrible choice. From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 9 21:42:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 21:42:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment Message-ID: <1683304934.3736101289335352351.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Hi Thomas. Just to be clear, that is not what I am saying. I am saying > that you, me and probably everyone follows the principle that "the > non-claiming side is assumed to perform brilliantly after the claim". > Furthermore, this takes precedence over the injunction to make an > equitable ruling, which is in the rules. > > The relevance for Minute 10 is that they use parallel form to the laws. If > the phrase ("adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible > to both sides") carries little to no weight in the actual laws, then one > could (and perhaps should) read the same phrase as carrying little weight > in Minute 10. If the WBFLC meant for considerations of equity to take > precedence (which would have been a great idea), they should have said so, > and using parallel form to the laws was a horrible choice. Minute 10 addresses the scenario where there is a non-established revoke. I.e., an irregulation, that moreover likely is the cause for the flawed claim. The claimer in not responsible for any flaw in the claim that was directly caused by a preceding irregularity. Totally different ballpark. Usually it will be "likely" that the flawed claim would not have happened had the irregularity (such as the revoke) not occurred. With respect to your hand, an L12C 1(c) type assigned adjusted score (20% resp. 30% of two tricks to the defense, 80% resp. 70% of one trick to the defense, assuming your partner is really that horrible) might be more reasonable that either giving the defense one tricks (deprives your partner of the opportunity to make a play) or giving the defense two tricks (which they would have gotten only rarely if the hand had been played out). Unfortunately, TFLB contains quite a few flaws: o many laws are worded in a way that leaves room for interpretation and misunderstandings o some laws are worded somewhat differently to how they are intended, or to how the rulings have been made for decades o various regulation authorities (especially the ACBL) then add their own modifications and interpretations o all those interpretations, misunderstandings and opinions then lead to inconsistent ruling, and sometimes to unjust rulings So, yes, I see significant room for improvement. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 10 00:53:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:53:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3) In-Reply-To: <4CD98AFC.9090705@ulb.ac.be> References: <8CD4A4875422076-DF8-BAC3@webmail-d060.sysops.aol.com> <4CD2D1F2.2020102@ulb.ac.be> <0862C84E68544E6CBBD37A6923A0117F@Mildred> <845831.21382.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0A286D5652E745ED8EDA381E854417D2@Mildred> <8CD4D5FADB70CC5-1040-1DE06@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> <4CD80519.2090504@ulb.ac.be> <8CD4D8727C1C21C-E7C-11C9@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> <8CD4E49843A7205-17E0-290B@webmail-m050.sysops.aol.com> <4CD98AFC.9090705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:55:08 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/11/2010 18:20, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : >> [Eric Landau] >> I concede that I may have misread the original example. If, in the >> actual case, when declarer's odd claim statement was first challenged >> by an opponent, his immediate response was something along the lines >> of, "Oh, I meant to say spade finesse," then we have a whole >> different case (several, actually). >> >> [Paul Lamford] Indeed. And when he says, not wishing to take advantage >> of the obvious slip of the tongue, "assuming you mean spade finesse, >> that also fails", you can fall back on your last chance of the club >> finesse. As you say, we have several new cases - an Irrational Claim >> Coup, a distant cousin of the Alcatraz Coup." > Notice that by sticking to the wording, you avoid any pelicanism. > That's as good a reason as any. Right, but Paul already had the example where we probably aren't going to insist on the wording, when declarer says he would take the heart finesse. So we accept the claim as stated wrong when there is no possible Irrational Claim Coup, but do not allow the claim when the Irrational Claim Coup might have worked. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 10 03:10:12 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:10:12 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? Message-ID: Steve, As to your agreement that leading the king instead of the ace from AK means the card you switch to is a singleton. Did they refer to your agreement as an "encrypted signal" as a reason for barring it? I hope not, because an encrypted signal is something entirely different. By the way, if you were to lead the king from KQ, winning, and then switch to the low card from Kx, AQJ10 in dummy, how would it benefit declarer to know about your agreement? It wouldn't, it would hurt, and that is why pre-disclosure would be wrong. Your play is an Alarm Clock Signal (ACS), telling partner to wake up and do something. These are very common among good players, and amount to common sense rather than a convention. For instance during the play against a suit contract, you have KQ doubleton, three to the jack in dummy on your right, and you think partner has the ace. You lead the queen and then the king, an unusual sequence that is an ACS that can only mean you want partner to overtake and give you a ruff. Or you might have the AK98 in a suit, defending a 1NT contract. Dummy is on your right with QJ and you want partner to unblock the 10 if he has it. So you play the ace and then the king, telling him he is to do something he might not normally do. I could give many more examples, but they all amount to one well-known principle: When partners play high cards in a strange way they want to wake you up to the fact that something is expected of you. This is just common sense, not a special partnership agreement. You would play an ACS with an expert stranger without any previous discussion and expect him/her to heed the alarm.. Bridge World Standard says "unusual play throughout the defense shows unusual holding or requests unusual play." Peter Boyd was puzzled as to why Steve Robinson had not ruffed his third-round winner to lead up to dummy's weakness in a side suit. When Steve discarded the jack in that suit, highly unusual, Peter got the message: Lead more of your suit, giving declarer a sluff-ruff, because I have Qx over dummy's AK of trumps. This had never been discussed, but good players make plays like that. Should that be barred??? There is no way that it is legal to bar a simple ACS at any level of play. I am copying this to Matt Smith for his comments, and to Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML) for their comments.. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5605 (20101109) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Wed Nov 10 04:49:17 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:49:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CD802CC.9030904@skynet.be> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> <4CD802CC.9030904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CDA163D.6010008@gmail.com> On 11/8/2010 9:01 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Which is precisely why I am talking about "clearly" inferior lines, or > "lines that the player cannot fail to recognize as inferior". If a line > has a strategic reason for being better, then it does not fall within > the scope of what I am trying to make people see. > > If there is a 25% line, can one call it irrational - surely not. But if > there is also a 75% line, surely we should say it is irrational for the > claimer to chose that one? > And if the 25% line is the one that happens to be successful while the 75% line fails, could you really rule the successful line to be irrational with a straight face? If it came to that point in a ruling, could you look a good player in the eye and tell him that he's going to go minus on a hand because the successful line would be "irrational" for a player of his ability? Say, in a case where he's the NOS and you have to give an adjusted score under L12C1ei, an "irrational" play could hardly be considered to be a possible result (and therefore not at all likely) if the irregularity had not occurred... Hirsch From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 10 09:16:26 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:16:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Slip of the Ha(nd)mman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CD98C4E.3060105@ulb.ac.be> References: <8CD4E4D8F6204A5-17E0-30A5@webmail-m050.sysops.aol.com> <4CD98C4E.3060105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4CDA54DA.20104@skynet.be> Wrong Alain, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> asked for a line of play. This way, they will get the least favourable >> rational line, which, in my experience is about a trick better than the >> irrational line they would have chosen or stated. > AG : still wrong, Paul. > > The specific thing about an irrational line is that no sane being > chooses it. That's what "irrational" means. Wrong Alain. No sane player would revoke, bu sometimes players revoke. No sane player would miscount trumps, but sometimes players miscount trumps. No sane player would fail to see a discard, but sometimes players fail to see a discard. All these are irrational plays, and they must be kept out of claim adjustments (or every claim should be adjusted to zero tricks). And yet all of these plays happen at the table. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 10 09:27:40 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:27:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CDA163D.6010008@gmail.com> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> <4CD802CC.9030904@skynet.be> <4CDA163D.6010008@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CDA577C.5090707@skynet.be> Yes I could, Hirsh, yes I could. Hirsch Davis wrote: > On 11/8/2010 9:01 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> Which is precisely why I am talking about "clearly" inferior lines, or >> "lines that the player cannot fail to recognize as inferior". If a line >> has a strategic reason for being better, then it does not fall within >> the scope of what I am trying to make people see. >> >> If there is a 25% line, can one call it irrational - surely not. But if >> there is also a 75% line, surely we should say it is irrational for the >> claimer to chose that one? >> > > And if the 25% line is the one that happens to be successful while the > 75% line fails, could you really rule the successful line to be > irrational with a straight face? If it came to that point in a ruling, > could you look a good player in the eye and tell him that he's going to > go minus on a hand because the successful line would be "irrational" for > a player of his ability? Say, in a case where he's the NOS and you have > to give an adjusted score under L12C1ei, an "irrational" play could > hardly be considered to be a possible result (and therefore not at all > likely) if the irregularity had not occurred... > If I have to rule a MI case, and NOS get to a stage where they need to play a contract, and those two lines are available, I will not say "since there is a 75% line and a 25% one, I shall give you 75% of the one result and 25% of the other". No, I shall give him 100% of the first line, even if that one is the less successful. The one percentage is a degree of llikelihood of success, the other percentage is a degree of likelihood of being chosen. I believe that 100% of the players would choose a 75% line over a 25% one. Consider it for yourself, with a even greater example. You give declarer xx opp AQJT9, and have to determine how many tricks he'll make. Surely you'll award 4 tricks if the king is off-side, even when that happens to be a singleton. > Hirsch -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 10 09:36:07 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:36:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CDA163D.6010008@gmail.com> References: <4CDA163D.6010008@gmail.com> <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be><4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> <4CD802CC.9030904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <240528710.1289378167052.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Hirsch Davis wrote: > On 11/8/2010 9:01 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > Which is precisely why I am talking about "clearly" inferior lines, or > > "lines that the player cannot fail to recognize as inferior". If a line > > has a strategic reason for being better, then it does not fall within > > the scope of what I am trying to make people see. > > > > If there is a 25% line, can one call it irrational - surely not. But if > > there is also a 75% line, surely we should say it is irrational for the > > claimer to chose that one? > > > > And if the 25% line is the one that happens to be successful while the > 75% line fails, could you really rule the successful line to be > irrational with a straight face? If it came to that point in a ruling, > could you look a good player in the eye and tell him that he's going to > go minus on a hand because the successful line would be "irrational" for > a player of his ability? Say, in a case where he's the NOS and you have > to give an adjusted score under L12C1ei, an "irrational" play could > hardly be considered to be a possible result (and therefore not at all > likely) if the irregularity had not occurred... For the scope of the claim laws L68ff, I think that if the claimer specified a line, and the director has the impression that this is the line claimer wanted to use, rather than some sort of language usage error when expressing the claim, then that line stands. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 10 09:56:53 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:56:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational Message-ID: <216638977.1289379413978.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> I wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > Herman, > > > > > > > > > I do not disagree with your intent. I disagree with your opinion > > > that your suggested wording > > > "A line which is inferior to another line, to such a degree that the > > > claimer cannot fail to recognize that inferiority, shall be considered > > > irrational." > > > reflects your intent in a sufficiently clear way. > > > > > > > Then can you please suggest wording that more clearly reflects our > > apparently correct intent? > > I think the word irrational actually is not necessary. > Thus I propose getting rid of it: > > "L70 E1: > 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the > success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other > with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of > that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow > to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless the line is the only > remaining normal* line > when the original clarification statement cannot be carried out." It occurs to me that maybe I should add my rationale for this. L70 E1 deals with unstated lines of play by the claimer, i.e., lines not embraced by the clarified claim statement, especially those that might be used in case the line from the claim statement fails. I think that any language errors the claimer made while stating the claim, such as saying hearts when he meant to say spades, should be dealt with when the director asks the claimer to repeat his claim statement. I furthermore think that there always exists at least one "normal" line, and that a "normal" line cannot be irrational, and that selecting a line that is not "normal" over a line that is "normal" is not allowed if that line is not embraced by the claim statement. Then, when the director evaluates the claim, there exist the following possibilities: o the line of play stated in the claim can be carried out. Then that line is what is done. o the line of play stated in the claim cannot be carried out, and at the point of time this line breaks down, there exists only one normal line to continue. Then that one normal line will be carried out, it is irrational not to take that one normal line, and the claimer is not allowed to specify or choose any additional line, as that was not embraced in the claim statement. o the line of play stated in the claim cannot be carried out, and at the point of time this line breaks down, there exist several normal lines. Then each of those normal lines is not irrational, but any non-normal line cannot be imposed upon the claimer. The claimer does not get to choose between those multiple normal lines. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 10 14:00:58 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:00:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational In-Reply-To: <4CDA577C.5090707@skynet.be> References: <4CD55530.1010903@skynet.be> <4CD53032.5020301@skynet.be> <481910534.2780421289048210513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1585120065.2786791289050221368.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <4CD58170.5050301@skynet.be> <055C0566377B4D169B02BA6CB02607CC@Mildred> <4CD7F430.1000303@ulb.ac.be> <4CD802CC.9030904@skynet.be> <4CDA163D.6010008@gmail.com> <4CDA577C.5090707@skynet.be> Message-ID: Just to be clear, what is rational depends on what a person knows. Walking into the grocery store to by milk is irrational if you know they are out of milk or the grocery store it is on fire; if you don't know these, then it is rational. So what lines of play are rational depend on what knowledge you are going to give claimer. I can construct a hand where if declarer claims for 9 tricks he gets 9 tricks and if he claims for 10 tricks he gets 10 (because there is an obvious sure-trick play for 10 tricks, but the first claim implies that declarer either didn't see it or for some reason is choosing not to do it). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 10 15:33:44 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:33:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: ; Cc: Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:10 AM Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? > Steve, > > As to your agreement that leading the king instead of the ace from > AK means the card you switch to is a singleton. Did they refer to > your agreement as an "encrypted signal" as a reason for barring it? > I hope not, because an encrypted signal is something entirely > different. > > By the way, if you were to lead the king from KQ, winning, and then > switch to the low card from Kx, AQJ10 in dummy, how would it benefit > declarer to know about your agreement? It wouldn't, it would hurt, > and that is why pre-disclosure would be wrong. > .......................OMISSIS...................... > > There is no way that it is legal to bar a simple ACS at any level of > play. I am copying this to Matt Smith for his comments, and to > Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML) for their comments.. > +=+ If there is an 'agreement' (sic) then the players must disclose the partnership understanding in the manner prescribed by the RA. If the RA lists such an understanding as a 'special partnership understanding' it may be regulated; this includes the power to ban its use. I would think it remarkable if this last were the case here but Marv must not be too sweeping in his assertions. It would be interesting to learn more. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 10 15:41:40 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:41:40 -0000 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4CD97BF0.6050001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <52768A28A30746DD8AF51D656B93707E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Le 9/11/2010 5:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The Aussie Acol bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Jesner Richard Hills > --- 1S Pass 1NT > Pass Pass Pass > > Dummy > KQT42 > K > AT6 > QJ94 > > Declarer > A7 > 7653 > 9873 > AT8 > > Dorothy led the nine of spades to dummy's deuce, my five and > declarer's ace. At that point declarer asked me about the > systemic meaning of the nine of spades. I replied that Dorothy > was promising the ten of spades but denying any higher honour. > > So at this point all four players know that Dorothy's opening > lead was a false card. > > At trick two declarer led the seven of spades, and the trey > appeared from Dorothy. Declarer now had to decide whether > Dorothy's opening lead was a falsecard from: > > (a) 9863 (systemic opening lead eight of spades), or > (b) 973 (systemic opening lead seven of spades), or > (c) J983 (systemic opening lead trey of spades). What about 9x ? Is there any reason to imagine anything else ? (in which case you just play on clubs) .............................................. +=+ Could I ask whether the T was considered at trick 1 ? ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 10 16:15:18 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:15:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CDAB706.5050109@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/11/2010 15:33, Grattan a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "Football is not all about highs" > ~ Liverpool FC Captain. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To:; > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:10 AM > Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? > > >> Steve, >> >> As to your agreement that leading the king instead of the ace from >> AK means the card you switch to is a singleton. Did they refer to >> your agreement as an "encrypted signal" as a reason for barring it? >> I hope not, because an encrypted signal is something entirely >> different. >> >> By the way, if you were to lead the king from KQ, winning, and then >> switch to the low card from Kx, AQJ10 in dummy, how would it benefit >> declarer to know about your agreement? It wouldn't, it would hurt, >> and that is why pre-disclosure would be wrong. >> > .......................OMISSIS...................... >> There is no way that it is legal to bar a simple ACS at any level of >> play. I am copying this to Matt Smith for his comments, and to >> Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML) for their comments.. >> > +=+ If there is an 'agreement' (sic) then the players must disclose > the partnership understanding in the manner prescribed by the RA. > If the RA lists such an understanding as a 'special partnership > understanding' it may be regulated; this includes the power to ban > its use. > I would think it remarkable if this last were the case here but > Marv must not be too sweeping in his assertions. > It would be interesting to learn more. BTW: a Belgian committee has ruled "not encrypted" for this very sugnal. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 10 16:19:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:19:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52768A28A30746DD8AF51D656B93707E@Mildred> References: <4CD97BF0.6050001@ulb.ac.be> <52768A28A30746DD8AF51D656B93707E@Mildred> Message-ID: <4CDAB80D.6080203@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/11/2010 15:41, Grattan a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "Football is not all about highs" > ~ Liverpool FC Captain. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Cc:;; > > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 4:50 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Le 9/11/2010 5:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: North-South >> >> The Aussie Acol bidding went: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Dorothy Jesner Richard Hills >> --- 1S Pass 1NT >> Pass Pass Pass >> >> Dummy >> KQT42 >> K >> AT6 >> QJ94 >> >> Declarer >> A7 >> 7653 >> 9873 >> AT8 >> >> Dorothy led the nine of spades to dummy's deuce, my five and >> declarer's ace. At that point declarer asked me about the >> systemic meaning of the nine of spades. I replied that Dorothy >> was promising the ten of spades but denying any higher honour. >> >> So at this point all four players know that Dorothy's opening >> lead was a false card. >> >> At trick two declarer led the seven of spades, and the trey >> appeared from Dorothy. Declarer now had to decide whether >> Dorothy's opening lead was a falsecard from: >> >> (a) 9863 (systemic opening lead eight of spades), or >> (b) 973 (systemic opening lead seven of spades), or >> (c) J983 (systemic opening lead trey of spades). > What about 9x ? Is there any reason to imagine anything else ? > > (in which case you just play on clubs) > .............................................. > +=+ Could I ask whether the T was considered at trick 1 ? > ~ G ~ +=+ > Indeed. It seems like declarer has no cause here - not that he wanted to, apparently. We were told that this declarer was too weak to play the ten IIRC. Was playing the 2 "irrational ?" But surely the following sentence : Declarer now had to decide whether Dorothy's opening lead was a falsecard from (etc): is true only about this declarer. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 10 18:44:46 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:44:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to knowing both wrong and right explanation Message-ID: Last week there was a mistaken explanation which was not corrected by declarer until after the hand. The opps claimed damage on opening lead. The question became whether they were entitled to know *only* the correct meaning or the correct meaning *and* the fact that there was a mistaken explanation. I took refuge from the "(only)" in this 2009 minute: that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call ?could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player?. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. But now I am thinking that the failure to correct the mistaken explanation before play was a second infraction and that the defenders were entitled to whatever they would have likely done with both the correct and wrong explanation. True? Of course that logic suggests that the last call should be based on having both the correct and incorrect information. Which contradicts the minute. Maybe the WBFLC could clarify their minute? It does not address plays. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 10 19:40:46 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:40:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? References: Message-ID: From: "Grattan" >> [Marv] (in re Alarm Clock Signals) >> There is no way that it is legal to bar a simple ACS at any level >> of >> play. I am copying this to Matt Smith for his comments, and to >> Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML) for their comments.. >> > +=+ If there is an 'agreement' (sic) then the players must > disclose > the partnership understanding in the manner prescribed by the RA. So there is an agreement to play good bridge, which includes an occasional ACS to alert partner that something is expected of him/her. We should pre-disclose that we play good bridge?. State on the converntion card: "Alarm Clock Signals"? Not required in ACBL-land. > If the RA lists such an understanding as a 'special > partnership > understanding' it may be regulated; this includes the power to ban > its use. The ACBL controls bidding and play agreements via the Alert Procedure and ACBL Convention Charts, the latter controlling agreements differently for different levels of play. Neither document says anything that would require pre-disclosure of this type of signal. >I would think it remarkable if this last were the case here but > Marv must not be too sweeping in his assertions. I don't like to pussy-foot when I am sure of my facts. > It would be interesting to learn more. Stay tuned, more will be forthcoming. I have asked Steve Johnson for details on his experience, requesting that he forward them to Matt Smith (as Matt requests). Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5608 (20101110) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 10 23:20:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:20:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CDAB80D.6080203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>Dorothy Jesner Richard Hills >>--- 1S Pass 1NT >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>Dummy >>KQT42 >>K >>AT6 >>QJ94 >> >>Declarer >>A7 >>7653 >>9873 >>AT8 >> >>Dorothy led the nine of spades to dummy's deuce ..... Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Could I ask whether the T was considered at trick 1 ? > ~ G ~ +=+ Alain Gottcheiner: > ..... We were told that this declarer was too weak to play the >ten IIRC. Richard Hills: No, my original post merely stated that this was the penultimate Swiss match of the Consolation of a Canberra Bridge Club teams event. However, the two teams who avoided the Consolation to play each other in the Final were chock full with Aussie international players. Thus the actual declarer in this Consolation deal was of Unlucky Expert standard. Alain Gottcheiner: > > >Was playing the 2 "irrational ?" ..... Richard Hills: By asking this question, Alain is either demonstrating "There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers" or demonstating that Alain is even more flamboyant than Grattan in framing a Devil's Advocate question. An entirely normal lie of the cards, which actually occurred at the table (declarer's LHO holding 9863 of spades and also holding the king of clubs), makes a trick-one play of the ten of spades a losing line, thus by my lights the alternative play of the spade deuce was not irrational. The actual declarer's actual decision to take a trick-two finesse of the ten of spades was also not irrational, but was single- dummy inferior, putting all the eggs in one basket. A better line (if South had ignored the compromised data about the East-West opening lead methods) would be to combine spade and club chances by cashing the three top spades and then, if necessary, finesse against the king of clubs. Thomas Dehn: >Makes me wonder what Richard leads from a SINGLETON 9 against NT. > >I am inclined to rule MI ;-). Richard Hills: The Hills-Jesner partnership has a firm Law 40A1(a) implicit partnership understanding that we do not make an opening lead of a singleton in dummy's suit versus a notrump contract (unless pard has perpetrated a Lightner Double). We do, however, frequently select an opening lead of a void. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 11 00:37:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:37:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French, rhetorical question: >We should pre-disclose that we play good bridge? ABF Alert regulation, Pre-Alerts, clause 3.12: "This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them..." Richard Hills, rhetorical answer: I am always surprised when my opponents have an unusual agreement to play the good bridge of Journalist Leads instead of the traditional-but-inferior methods of overleading honour sequences and fourth-best from non-sequential honours. Ron Johnson, 27th May 2005, actual answer: >>...early in my bridge playing days I played against Heitner and >>Lowenthal in the side game at a regional. >> >>The last place you'd expect to find players who were about as >>good as you can be and basically unknown by most bridge >>players. (They were well known by the top players) >> >>Not that we were damaged by it, but there's no way of >>disclosing that both were extremely imaginative and unorthodox >>players. (one of Lowenthal's partners came up with a series of >>rules for playing with Lowenthal. Among them was that when >>Lowenthal led a trump, he probably had a singleton some place. >>Another was that the lead of an honor *denied* a touching >>honor, if he had an honor sequence he'd probably have led a low >>card.) >> >>Lowenthal didn't psyche much, but his decision making process >>and the inferences that he drew were, to put it mildly, >>unexpected. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 11 01:58:50 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:58:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>...I am saying that you, me and probably everyone follows the >>principle that "the non-claiming side is assumed to perform >>brilliantly after the claim". Richard Hills: "Probably everyone" counter-example; this unprincipled principle is not followed by me. Robert Frick: >>Furthermore, this takes precedence over the injunction to make >>an equitable ruling, which is in the rules... Richard Hills: No, Law 70A requires equity to take precedence. If the Director is uncertain as to where equity lies, such a "doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "doubtful a., feeling or giving rise to doubt, uncertain" Thomas Dehn: >...With respect to your hand, an L12C1(c) type assigned >adjusted score (20% resp. 30% of two tricks to the defense, 80% >resp. 70% of one trick to the defense, assuming your partner is >really that horrible) might be more reasonable that either >giving the defense one tricks (deprives your partner of the >opportunity to make a play) or giving the defense two tricks >(which they would have gotten only rarely if the hand had been >played out)... WBF Laws Committee minutes, 4th September 2009, item 9(a): "It was agreed that in no circumstances can the application of Law 69B2 lead to a weighted score. The law requires that 'such trick' shall be transferred or not transferred as determined by the Director's ascertainment of facts." Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 11 02:29:06 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:29:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:58:50 -0500, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >>> ...I am saying that you, me and probably everyone follows the >>> principle that "the non-claiming side is assumed to perform >>> brilliantly after the claim". > > Richard Hills: > > "Probably everyone" counter-example; this unprincipled principle > is not followed by me. Hi Richard. Does that mean you give the defense only one trick in the original example, when there is a defense, found by the defenders after the claim, that would allow them to take two tricks? Just checking. How far do you take this? The defense has to show that there is some reasonable probability they would have found the better defense? > > Robert Frick: > >>> Furthermore, this takes precedence over the injunction to make >>> an equitable ruling, which is in the rules... > > Richard Hills: > > No, Law 70A requires equity to take precedence. If the Director > is uncertain as to where equity lies, such a "doubtful point as > to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". There were no doubtful points in my example. For sure the defense could take two tricks; for sure, they would not have found their way to that defense and they even volunteered that was true. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > "doubtful a., feeling or giving rise to doubt, uncertain" > > Thomas Dehn: > >> ...With respect to your hand, an L12C1(c) type assigned >> adjusted score (20% resp. 30% of two tricks to the defense, 80% >> resp. 70% of one trick to the defense, assuming your partner is >> really that horrible) might be more reasonable that either >> giving the defense one tricks (deprives your partner of the >> opportunity to make a play) or giving the defense two tricks >> (which they would have gotten only rarely if the hand had been >> played out)... > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 4th September 2009, item 9(a): > > "It was agreed that in no circumstances can the application of > Law 69B2 lead to a weighted score. The law requires that 'such > trick' shall be transferred or not transferred as determined by > the Director's ascertainment of facts." > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 06:03:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:03:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >Hi Richard. Does that mean you give the defense only one trick >in the original example, when there is a defense, found by the >defenders after the claim, that would allow them to take two >tricks? Just checking. David Burn, 9th December 2008: >> ... I am aware of a strongly-held view within our Laws and >>Ethics Committee to the effect that the purpose of alerting >>is to comply with the regulations, and not necessarily to >>tell the opponents anything useful. ... Richard Hills: The actual principle behind the ABF Alert regulation is -> "Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can." And the actual principle behind the WBF Claim Laws is that the number of tricks scored by the claimer should be no more than the number of tricks she would have scored had her claim not occurred, and in particular had the objection to her claim therefore not occurred. (i.e. the fact that an opponent has objected to her claim is UI to her, hence Law 70C etc.) Robert Frick: >How far do you take this? The defense has to show that there is >some reasonable probability they would have found the better >defense? Richard Hills: No, the _Director_ adjudicates on reasonable possibilities, assessing the borderline between clear-cut points of equity vis- a-vis doubtful points of equity. Note that Edgar Kaplan recommended that Directors and/or Appeals Committees should not take overly draconian action against claimers (definitely not "the non-claiming side is assumed to perform _brilliantly_ after the claim"), since Edgar argued that claimers were "on the side of the angels", saving time on many routine deals for those frequent cases when the claim was un- disputed. Edgar's key point was any Director and/or Appeals Committee who arbitrarily assumed that "the non-claiming side is assumed to perform _brilliantly_ after the claim" would then incentivate nil claims, thus make sessions looong and boooring. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 11 07:37:32 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:37:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:03:55 -0500, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> Hi Richard. Does that mean you give the defense only one trick >> in the original example, when there is a defense, found by the >> defenders after the claim, that would allow them to take two >> tricks? Just checking. > > David Burn, 9th December 2008: > >>> ... I am aware of a strongly-held view within our Laws and >>> Ethics Committee to the effect that the purpose of alerting >>> is to comply with the regulations, and not necessarily to >>> tell the opponents anything useful. ... > > Richard Hills: > > The actual principle behind the ABF Alert regulation is -> > > "Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you > must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can." > > And the actual principle behind the WBF Claim Laws is that the > number of tricks scored by the claimer should be no more than > the number of tricks she would have scored had her claim not > occurred, and in particular had the objection to her claim > therefore not occurred. (i.e. the fact that an opponent has > objected to her claim is UI to her, hence Law 70C etc.) Where does it say this? I mean, your conclusion follows logically from it, you just need to prove that is their intended principle. > > Robert Frick: > >> How far do you take this? The defense has to show that there is >> some reasonable probability they would have found the better >> defense? > > Richard Hills: > > No, the _Director_ adjudicates on reasonable possibilities, > assessing the borderline between clear-cut points of equity vis- > a-vis doubtful points of equity. > > Note that Edgar Kaplan recommended that Directors and/or Appeals > Committees should not take overly draconian action against > claimers (definitely not "the non-claiming side is assumed to > perform _brilliantly_ after the claim"), since Edgar argued that > claimers were "on the side of the angels", saving time on many > routine deals for those frequent cases when the claim was un- > disputed. Edgar's key point was any Director and/or Appeals > Committee who arbitrarily assumed that "the non-claiming side is > assumed to perform _brilliantly_ after the claim" would then > incentivate nil claims, thus make sessions looong and boooring. I don't think that is relevant. If I was with my regular partner, I would expect two tricks. It was a bad claim and declarer should not be making bad claims just to save time. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Nov 11 08:26:05 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:26:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to knowing both wrong and right explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ab01cb8171$b3ffbb80$1bff3280$@nl> As far as I understand this subject(it has been explained again at the last EBL TD course) the director can assign an adjusted score if he judges that having had the correct information only the result might well have been different. Whether the action is a call or a play makes no difference. The example given was South 2H(alerted "strong"), North 4H, all pass. Now South says the agreement was weak two's. Now West wants to double. The idea is that if West can explain that his hand warrants a double after 2H(weak)-4H but not after 2H(strong)-4H he can do so. But if the only reason he wants to double is he now has the extra info that opps have a misunderstanding he is not allowed to do so. Same would apply to opening leads. Another issue is if during the bidding it becomes clear opps have a misunderstanding, whether that info is legal. The answer to that must be yes. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: woensdag 10 november 2010 18:45 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] entitlement to knowing both wrong and right explanation Last week there was a mistaken explanation which was not corrected by declarer until after the hand. The opps claimed damage on opening lead. The question became whether they were entitled to know *only* the correct meaning or the correct meaning *and* the fact that there was a mistaken explanation. I took refuge from the "(only)" in this 2009 minute: that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call ?could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player?. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. But now I am thinking that the failure to correct the mistaken explanation before play was a second infraction and that the defenders were entitled to whatever they would have likely done with both the correct and wrong explanation. True? Of course that logic suggests that the last call should be based on having both the correct and incorrect information. Which contradicts the minute. Maybe the WBFLC could clarify their minute? It does not address plays. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 11 09:38:08 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:38:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to knowing both wrong and right explanation In-Reply-To: <00ab01cb8171$b3ffbb80$1bff3280$@nl> References: <00ab01cb8171$b3ffbb80$1bff3280$@nl> Message-ID: <4CDBAB70.5010806@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > As far as I understand this subject(it has been explained again at > the last EBL TD course) the director can assign an adjusted score if > he judges that having had the correct information only the result > might well have been different. Whether the action is a call or a > play makes no difference. > > The example given was South 2H(alerted "strong"), North 4H, all pass. > Now South says the agreement was weak two's. Now West wants to > double. > > The idea is that if West can explain that his hand warrants a double > after 2H(weak)-4H but not after 2H(strong)-4H he can do so. But if > the only reason he wants to double is he now has the extra info that > opps have a misunderstanding he is not allowed to do so. > This one was indeed addressed at Sanremo earlier this year. > Same would apply to opening leads. > But this one hasn't. And the logic is not the same. The laws explicitely state that the declaring side must correct the explanation before the lead (where it also explicitely states they should not do so any time earlier). That means, IMO, that opponents are entitled to the two "meanings" during the play, including for the opening lead. Also look at another difference between the two rulings: the final pass has already occurred, and in order to change it, the TD has to make a decision as to whether or not the wrong explanation has lead to the pass. And it hasn't. OTOH, the opening lead has not yet been made at the time of the infraction of not correcting. That infraction is a new one, and it damages the opponents. FWIW, I don't really agree that this is how the laws should be, but I accept that they are like that and I do believe they are reasonably fair like this. > Another issue is if during the bidding it becomes clear opps have a > misunderstanding, whether that info is legal. The answer to that must > be yes. > info can never be illegal, it can only be authorized or unauthorized. This info is indeed authorized. > Hans > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 11 14:13:25 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:13:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1701979556.2032941289481205568.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Thomas Dehn: > > >Makes me wonder what Richard leads from a SINGLETON 9 against NT. > > > >I am inclined to rule MI ;-). > > Richard Hills: > > The Hills-Jesner partnership has a firm Law 40A1(a) implicit > partnership understanding that we do not make an opening lead of > a singleton in dummy's suit versus a notrump contract (unless pard > has perpetrated a Lightner Double). > > We do, however, frequently select an opening lead of a void. I have a lead problem for you. You hold: KJxx,KJxx,KJxx,x. You are on lead against 6NT. After a convoluted auction, you know the following: Dummy has seven or more solid clubs. Declarer has the other three aces, and not a club void. Do you lead away from one of your KJ holdings because you "never an opening lead of a singleton in dummy's suit versus a notrump contract"? Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 11 17:43:41 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:43:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [offlist] entitlement to knowing both wrong and right explanation In-Reply-To: <4CDBAB70.5010806@skynet.be> References: <00ab01cb8171$b3ffbb80$1bff3280$@nl> <4CDBAB70.5010806@skynet.be> Message-ID: Hey, clear answer. Thanks. I think you are right. Can I ask on the claiming question? Declarer claims, say for the rest of the tricks. Once a defender sees all of the cards, he can find a clever defense that gives him another trick. He freely admits that they would not have found it without the claim. Do the nonclaimers get this defense they found? Or not. *I don't care what the laws say*, I want to know what directors rule. > Hans van Staveren wrote: >> As far as I understand this subject(it has been explained again at >> the last EBL TD course) the director can assign an adjusted score if >> he judges that having had the correct information only the result >> might well have been different. Whether the action is a call or a >> play makes no difference. >> >> The example given was South 2H(alerted "strong"), North 4H, all pass. >> Now South says the agreement was weak two's. Now West wants to >> double. >> >> The idea is that if West can explain that his hand warrants a double >> after 2H(weak)-4H but not after 2H(strong)-4H he can do so. But if >> the only reason he wants to double is he now has the extra info that >> opps have a misunderstanding he is not allowed to do so. >> > > This one was indeed addressed at Sanremo earlier this year. > >> Same would apply to opening leads. >> > > But this one hasn't. > > And the logic is not the same. > > The laws explicitely state that the declaring side must correct the > explanation before the lead (where it also explicitely states they > should not do so any time earlier). > > That means, IMO, that opponents are entitled to the two "meanings" > during the play, including for the opening lead. > > Also look at another difference between the two rulings: the final pass > has already occurred, and in order to change it, the TD has to make a > decision as to whether or not the wrong explanation has lead to the > pass. And it hasn't. > OTOH, the opening lead has not yet been made at the time of the > infraction of not correcting. That infraction is a new one, and it > damages the opponents. > > FWIW, I don't really agree that this is how the laws should be, but I > accept that they are like that and I do believe they are reasonably fair > like this. > >> Another issue is if during the bidding it becomes clear opps have a >> misunderstanding, whether that info is legal. The answer to that must >> be yes. >> > > info can never be illegal, it can only be authorized or unauthorized. > This info is indeed authorized. > >> Hans >> > -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 22:02:16 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:02:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1701979556.2032941289481205568.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >> ... We do, however, frequently select an opening lead of a void. Thomas Dehn: >I have a lead problem for you. > >You hold: >KJxx,KJxx,KJxx,x. > >You are on lead against 6NT. > >After a convoluted auction, you know the following: > >Dummy has seven or more solid clubs. >Declarer has the other three aces, and not a club void. > > >Do you lead away from one of your KJ holdings because you "never >an opening lead of a singleton in dummy's suit versus a notrump >contract"? Richard Hills: I do not lead AWAY from one of my KJ holdings. Rather, I lead the king of hearts. Not only does this pin dummy's singleton queen of hearts, it also cuts communications for the otherwise ineluctable double Vienna Coup and triple squeeze. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 12 00:14:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:14:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Porpoise of the Lores [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills (earlier post): >>The actual principle behind the ABF Alert regulation is -> >> >>"Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you >>must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can." Richard Hills (current post): The ABF correctly embeds the porpoise of its Alert Regulation into the above statement from its Introduction. Richard Hills (earlier post): >>And the actual principle behind the WBF Claim Laws is that the >>number of tricks scored by the claimer should be no more than >>the number of tricks she would have scored had her claim not >>occurred, and in particular had the objection to her claim >>therefore not occurred. (i.e. the fact that an opponent has >>objected to her claim is UI to her, hence Law 70C etc.) Robert Frick: >Where does it say this? I mean, your conclusion follows logically >from it, you just need to prove that is their intended principle. Richard Hills (current post): Likewise, the overall guiding porpoise of the Lores is listed in the opening paragraph of the Lorebook's Introduction: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director." Richard Hills (current post): When a disputed claim occurs, both the claiming side and the non- claiming side are usually non-offenders, so therefore both sides are entitled to "rectification of" their claim "situations" so neither will "otherwise be damaged". What's the problem? Is blml's problem irrelevant application of logic-chopping, as in Heidi Bond's intentionally irrelevant (and hilarious) post below? Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets The Lores of Contract -> J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, "The Council of Elrond" "As a small token of your friendship Sauron asks this," he said: "that you should find this thief," such was his word, "and get from him, willing or no, a little ring, the least of rings, that once he stole. It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies, and an earnest of your good will. Find it, and three rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old shall be returned to you, and the realm of Moria shall be yours for ever. Find only news of the thief, whether he still lives and where, and you shall have great reward and lasting friendship from the Lord. Refuse, and things will not seem so well. Do you refuse?" Heidi Bond, 9th December 2003: It seems to me that's really two, maybe three separate offers. The first seems to be unambiguously an offer for a unilateral contract (to find the supposedly piddling ring for three of the Dwarf rings of power plus the estate of Moria), to be completed by performance. Dain wouldn't want to bind himself to produce a ring; it's too risky. This seems like the straight-forward reward scenario envisioned as a prototypical offer for a unilateral contract. A few comments on material facts: You might say that Sauron should have disclosed the Balrog living in the deeps of Moria. But the Dwarves had ancient records of Moria which probably mention this, and Sauron is old enough to imagine that the Dwarves knew. It seems silly to require disclosure of a fact which, though admittedly material, is known to both parties, even though they never actually mention it to each other. The same sort of reasoning applies to the fact that the Dwarven rings are actually tainted (although Dwarves tend to resist his power a little better than men). The second (offer to exchange news of the whereabouts of the ring and owner in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship) also seems like a unilateral contract, for the same reason; it's not clear that the Dwarf-lords would be able to get information about the ring, and so again, it looks like a standard reward scenario. But then we get to the last statement. "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." There are (at least) two ways I can think of to view this. One possibility is that Sauron is not actually proposing unilateral contracts at all. After all, a reasonable interpretation of his offers would be that they were unilateral, but we're talking about Dark Lord Sauron who really wants to enslave all the free peoples. He might not contemplate reasonable contracts. In fact, given the ease with which agents of the Dark exact damages from lackeys who fail them, it seems possible that in Mordor, where the shadows lie, all contracts are bilateral, no matter how ridiculous it seems to contemplate such a thing. So maybe what he's saying is that if they fail to produce the ring or any information, he'll exact expectation damages. But this reading doesn't really make sense given the express language of the offer. The Messenger from Mordor isn't claiming that if they fail to deliver the ring they'll suffer expectation damages unto the fourth generation. He's saying "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." The "Refuse" comment modifies the offer. The law doesn't contemplate expectation damages if you don't accept an offer, although Sauron might. So it seems to me that the proper reading of this is that there are three bilateral contracts. You give me the One Ring in exchange for these three tainted Dwarven rings and Moria (bilateral contract) if you find the One Ring (condition precedent). You give me information about the One Ring in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship (bilateral contract) if you find such information (condition precedent). You promise to make a good faith effort to find the One Ring or information about it, or I march my Wargs and goblin hordes to your doorstep and make mincemeat of you all (bilateral contract; if the Dwarves agreed to it, but wanted out they could argue duress). Now suppose Dain agrees to this, and finds the One Ring. Could Sauron enforce this contract to get the One Ring? If the contract were valid, this might be one of those things where specific performance would be allowed. The item is unique. And damages are nearly impossible to calculate. If they produce the One Ring, Sauron rules over all the peoples of Middle Earth and orcs overrun everything. Sauron gets his body back. He can _blink_ his eyes. He can use eye drops. If your eye had been wreathed in flame for millennia, how would you value that? Damages are clearly uncertain. And enforcing the contract wouldn't require that the court do much by way of babysitting. So it seems like a straight-forward contract for a unique item, where specific performance may be contemplated. On the other hand, there's a little problem with the One Ring. See, Sauron can use it to enslave everybody. And courts don't like specific performance in cases which smack of personal servitude. The problem is, though, this is a case of first impression. Normally they eschew specific performance in the case of, say, employment contracts, where the proximate result of the contract is that someone is forced to do work they don't want to. We've never had a case of supernatural exchange, where you're forced to give over something that would enslave all the Free Peoples of the earth. Some courts might understandably balk at this result. But others would say that what Sauron does with the One Ring to enslave people really doesn't matter. After all, if this were a standard employment contract, and all you could do was collect money damages, you might very well use the money to employ someone else. The Dwarves would argue that this is disanalogous in the extreme, since you'd be employing someone who freely chose to be there. The One Ring, they'd say, would rob Men, Hobbits, and Elves of their free will. Ultimately, I don't think Sauron should win this one; even the most conservative judges would balk at the idea that the right of contract is so sacred that we should throw away everyone's collective ability to make free choices. If anything should be void on grounds of public policy, this contract's it. But we can't underestimate the corrupting power of the Ring. It wants to go back to him, my preciousss. [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Nov 12 00:38:16 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:38:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CDA163D.6010008@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: >And if the 25% line is the one that happens to be successful >while the 75% line fails, could you really rule the successful >line to be irrational with a straight face? [snip] Richard Hills: Straight-faced scenario -> It is the first board of the Grand Final of the Vanderbilt. As luck would have, both finalist teams are evenly matched (they were initially seeded 12th and 14th), and neither team contains a sponsor. The declarers in both rooms calculate that Line A has a 75% chance and Line B has a 25% chance. In this straight-faced scenario it would indeed be irrational for either declarer to select the luckily successful Line B. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 12 01:05:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:05:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Porpoise of the Lores [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: > ..... Unfortunately, TFLB contains quite a few flaws: Richard Hills: Yes, but -> Thomas Dehn: >o many laws are worded in a way that leaves room for > interpretation and misunderstandings Richard Hills: -> But for this aspect, the 2007 Laws are less flawed than the 1997 Laws. Thomas Dehn: >o some laws are worded somewhat differently to how they are > intended, or to how the rulings have been made for decades Richard Hills: -> But for this aspect, the 2007 Laws are less flawed than the 1997 Laws. Thomas Dehn: >o various regulation authorities (especially the ACBL) then > add their own modifications and interpretations Richard Hills: -> But for this aspect, the 2007 Laws are less flawed than the 1997 Laws. Thomas Dehn: >o all those interpretations, misunderstandings and opinions > then lead to inconsistent ruling, and sometimes to unjust > rulings Richard Hills: -> But for this aspect, the 2007 Laws are less flawed than the 1997 Laws. Thomas Dehn: >So, yes, I see significant room for improvement. Richard Hills: While the 1997 Laws were bad and the 2007 Laws are better, one can optimistically hope that the 2017 Laws will be best. Indeed, I have already forwarded Thomas' suggested rewording of the 2017 Law 70E1 to the WBF powers-that-be for their mature consideration and reflection. Among my personal hobby-horses are -> abolition of Law 26 (because Law 26 not only overlaps the scope of Law 16D, Law 26 may also lead to ridiculously inequitable outcomes) -> reversal of Law 72B2 (or at the very least clarification of Law 72B2 - is one legally concealing one's revoke if one puts one's cards face down back into the slot after an opponent claims???) -> WBF LC minutes from 1997 onwards which are still intended to be valid to be specifically incorporated into the Laws -> regarding insufficient bids, a massive simplification by abolishing Law 27B and 27C, but retaining Law 27A and 27D Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 12 10:44:30 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:44:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CDD0C7E.7080800@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/11/2010 19:40, Marvin French a ?crit : > From: "Grattan" > [Marv] (in re Alarm Clock Signals) > >>> There is no way that it is legal to bar a simple ACS at any level >>> of >>> play. I am copying this to Matt Smith for his comments, and to >>> Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML) for their comments.. >>> >> +=+ If there is an 'agreement' (sic) then the players must >> disclose >> the partnership understanding in the manner prescribed by the RA. > So there is an agreement to play good bridge, which includes an > occasional ACS to alert partner that something is expected of > him/her. > > We should pre-disclose that we play good bridge?. State on the > converntion card: "Alarm Clock Signals"? Not required in ACBL-land. AG : not required, but I think it should be (and BTW I mention them in some partnerships). Opponents have a right to know what it means when you change the normal order of cards. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 12 10:48:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:48:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] For the love of Benji [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CDD0D7E.60509@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/11/2010 23:20, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> Dorothy Jesner Richard Hills >>> --- 1S Pass 1NT >>> Pass Pass Pass >>> >>> Dummy >>> KQT42 >>> K >>> AT6 >>> QJ94 >>> >>> Declarer >>> A7 >>> 7653 >>> 9873 >>> AT8 >>> >>> Dorothy led the nine of spades to dummy's deuce ..... > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ Could I ask whether the T was considered at trick 1 ? >> ~ G ~ +=+ > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> ..... We were told that this declarer was too weak to play the >> ten IIRC. > Richard Hills: > > No, my original post merely stated that this was the penultimate > Swiss match of the Consolation of a Canberra Bridge Club teams > event. However, the two teams who avoided the Consolation to > play each other in the Final were chock full with Aussie > international players. Thus the actual declarer in this > Consolation deal was of Unlucky Expert standard. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> >> >> Was playing the 2 "irrational ?" ..... > Richard Hills: > > By asking this question, Alain is either demonstrating "There are > no stupid questions, only stupid answers" or demonstating that > Alain is even more flamboyant than Grattan in framing a Devil's > Advocate question. > > An entirely normal lie of the cards, which actually occurred at > the table (declarer's LHO holding 9863 of spades and also holding > the king of clubs), makes a trick-one play of the ten of spades a > losing line, thus by my lights the alternative play of the spade > deuce was not irrational. > > The actual declarer's actual decision to take a trick-two finesse > of the ten of spades was also not irrational, but was single- > dummy inferior, putting all the eggs in one basket. A better line > (if South had ignored the compromised data about the East-West > opening lead methods) would be to combine spade and club chances > by cashing the three top spades and then, if necessary, finesse > against the king of clubs. AG : I don't understand this. At teams, and given opponents' inactivity (no 6-card heart suit), playing AC and C is nearly sure. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 12 03:23:25 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:23:25 -0000 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to knowing both wrong and right explanation References: <00ab01cb8171$b3ffbb80$1bff3280$@nl> <4CDBAB70.5010806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <031872C4B783460A883009EA63BB6F5E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] entitlement to knowing both wrong and right explanation > Hans van Staveren wrote: >> As far as I understand this subject(it has been explained again at >> the last EBL TD course) the director can assign an adjusted score if >> he judges that having had the correct information only the result >> might well have been different. Whether the action is a call or a >> play makes no difference. >> >> The example given was South 2H(alerted "strong"), North 4H, all pass. >> Now South says the agreement was weak two's. Now West wants to >> double. >> >> The idea is that if West can explain that his hand warrants a double >> after 2H(weak)-4H but not after 2H(strong)-4H he can do so. But if >> the only reason he wants to double is he now has the extra info that >> opps have a misunderstanding he is not allowed to do so. >> > > This one was indeed addressed at Sanremo earlier this year. > >> Same would apply to opening leads. >> > > But this one hasn't. > > And the logic is not the same. > > The laws explicitely state that the declaring side must correct the > explanation before the lead (where it also explicitely states they > should not do so any time earlier). > > That means, IMO, that opponents are entitled to the two "meanings" > during the play, including for the opening lead. > > Also look at another difference between the two rulings: the final pass > has already occurred, and in order to change it, the TD has to make a > decision as to whether or not the wrong explanation has lead to the > pass. And it hasn't. > OTOH, the opening lead has not yet been made at the time of the > infraction of not correcting. That infraction is a new one, and it > damages the opponents. > > FWIW, I don't really agree that this is how the laws should be, but I > accept that they are like that and I do believe they are reasonably fair > like this. > >> Another issue is if during the bidding it becomes clear opps have a >> misunderstanding, whether that info is legal. The answer to that must >> be yes. >> > > info can never be illegal, it can only be authorized or unauthorized. > This info is indeed authorized. > >> Hans > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > +=+ However, if North has explained South's bid correctly in accordance with the partnership agreement South is under no obligation to reveal that he has misbid. South is only required to act as Law 20F(b) requires if his partner "has given a mistaken explanation"(sic). See Law 75C but note that the Director will presume guilt in the absence of evidence to the contrary. For a play based on an incorrect explanation please see Law 47E. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 12 11:15:18 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:15:18 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? References: <4CDD0C7E.7080800@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal signal? Le 10/11/2010 19:40, Marvin French a ?crit : > From: "Grattan" > [Marv] (in re Alarm Clock Signals) > There is no way that it is legal to bar a simple ACS at any level of play. I am copying this to Matt Smith for his comments, and to Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML) for their comments.. >>> +=+ If there is an 'agreement' (sic) then the players must disclose the partnership understanding in the manner prescribed by the RA. So there is an agreement to play good bridge, which includes an occasional ACS to alert partner that something is expected of him/her.+=+ > We should pre-disclose that we play good bridge?. State on the converntion card: "Alarm Clock Signals"? Not required in ACBL-land. AG : not required, but I think it should be (and BTW I mention them in some partnerships). Opponents have a right to know what it means when you change the normal order of cards. +=+ Law 40A1b should be studied. It prescribes a duty for the partnership and lays upon the RA also a duty to prescribe how this duty shall be fulfilled. If the RA fails in this duty there is surely a default method of disclosure; normally I would expect this to be via the System Card. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 12 16:59:36 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:59:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5F3D23EC-EC08-4A66-9919-1E65905D6A74@starpower.net> On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Marvin French" > >> There is no way that it is legal to bar a simple ACS at any level of >> play. I am copying this to Matt Smith for his comments, and to >> Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML) for their comments.. > > +=+ If there is an 'agreement' (sic) then the players must disclose > the partnership understanding in the manner prescribed by the RA. > If the RA lists such an understanding as a 'special partnership > understanding' it may be regulated; this includes the power to ban > its use. > I would think it remarkable if this last were the case here but > Marv must not be too sweeping in his assertions. > It would be interesting to learn more. Sadly, Grattan appears to be right. Under the new L40, there is no longer no way that it is legal to bar anything whatsoever at any level of play. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 12 17:25:15 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Grattan" > > [Marv] (in re Alarm Clock Signals) > >>> There is no way that it is legal to bar a simple ACS at any level >>> of >>> play. I am copying this to Matt Smith for his comments, and to >>> Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML) for their comments.. >> >> +=+ If there is an 'agreement' (sic) then the players must >> disclose >> the partnership understanding in the manner prescribed by the RA. > > So there is an agreement to play good bridge, which includes an > occasional ACS to alert partner that something is expected of > him/her. > > We should pre-disclose that we play good bridge?. State on the > converntion card: "Alarm Clock Signals"? Not required in ACBL-land. > >> If the RA lists such an understanding as a 'special >> partnership >> understanding' it may be regulated; this includes the power to ban >> its use. > > The ACBL controls bidding and play agreements via the Alert > Procedure and ACBL Convention Charts, the latter controlling > agreements differently for different levels of play. Neither > document says anything that would require pre-disclosure of this > type of signal. > >> I would think it remarkable if this last were the case here but >> Marv must not be too sweeping in his assertions. > > I don't like to pussy-foot when I am sure of my facts. > >> It would be interesting to learn more. > > Stay tuned, more will be forthcoming. I have asked Steve Johnson > for details on his experience, requesting that he forward them to > Matt Smith (as Matt requests). Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not allowed to do it again. Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Nov 12 18:09:31 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:09:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> Message-ID: <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau] Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not allowed to do it again. Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. [Nigel] Declared WBFLC policy is to off-load responsibility to directors and local legislatures. Especially in the case of system regulation. If Eric deplores this trend to foster a tower of Babel, then I am among the many players who support his stand. Fundamentally, however, I agree with Grattan about the obligation to disclose. Even if Eric finds that appalling in the case of Alarm-clock signals. I suppose the gist of Alarm-Clock Signals is: if you do something peculiar, you are probably trying to send an unusual message). But Alarm-clock signals aren't "general Bridge knowledge" because not everybody uses them and different players agree different variants. This thread is an Alarm-clock to me, to try to explain them on our system-card. Anyway, I think such understandings should impose an obligation to disclose, rather than an obligation to protect yourself. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 14 02:44:34 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:44:34 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [Eric Landau] > > Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, > you > think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only > sensible > reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, > and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. > But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based > on > pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result > can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you > now > have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a > partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to > stop > your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, > which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not > allowed to do it again. We have two worlds, ACBL-land and WBF-land (which does not include the ACBL anymore). I should preface my posts with the declaration that I am only talking about ACBL-land unless I indicate otherwise. Anyhoo, the word "special" has always been ignored when discussing this subject, even going back to L75C in the 97 Laws. People write about agreements as if the word "special" is meaningless or absent. "Special" means out of the ordinary, in case that needs to be said. I agree with partners that my lead of the Ace from AK in a suit contract means I have a doubleton. This is general knowledge, and has been for 70 years or more. Partnership experience may reinforce that agreement, but no amount of partnership experience makes this agreement "special." Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5617 (20101113) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 14 04:39:32 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 03:39:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net><951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <6D4C03A198FE4517AFA169DA1D125A53@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 1:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal signal? <> .....................omissis........................ > Anyhoo, the word "special" has always been ignored when discussing > this subject, even going back to L75C in the 97 Laws. People write > about agreements as if the word "special" is meaningless or absent. > "Special" means out of the ordinary, in case that needs to be said. > > I agree with partners that my lead of the Ace from AK in a suit > contract means I have a doubleton. This is general knowledge, and > has been for 70 years or more. Partnership experience may reinforce > that agreement, but no amount of partnership experience makes this > agreement "special." > +=+ See Law 40B1(a) for the definition of "a special partnership understanding" and note that the RA decides whether a particular partnership understanding falls into this category. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 14 14:23:48 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:23:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal signal? > [Eric Landau] > > Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you > think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible > reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, > and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. > But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on > pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result > can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now > have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a > partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop > your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, > which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not > allowed to do it again. > Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. > [Nigel] > Declared WBFLC policy is to off-load responsibility to directors and local > legislatures. Especially in the case of system regulation. If Eric > deplores this > trend to foster a tower of Babel, then I am among the many players who > support > his stand. > > Fundamentally, however, I agree with Grattan about the obligation to > disclose. > Even if Eric finds that appalling in the case of Alarm-clock signals. > > > I suppose the gist of Alarm-Clock Signals is: if you do something > peculiar, you > are probably trying to send an unusual message). But Alarm-clock signals > aren't > "general Bridge knowledge" because not everybody uses them and different > players > agree different variants. > > > This thread is an Alarm-clock to me, to try to explain them on our > system-card. > > Anyway, I think such understandings should impose an obligation to > disclose, > rather than an obligation to protect yourself. <<< +=+ Nigel, is there not a place on the system card for a note saying "a variation from normal treatment in play is likely to invite abnormal action by partner" ? Eric deplores the failure of the WBF to lay down universal system regulations. This cannot be achieved. There are widely diverse bridge cultures around the world and in nothing is the divergence so great as in systems and system policy. Even within Zone 1 we have great differences between the attitudes in Scandinavia, those in the Latin countries, in eastern Europe, and within 'Western Europe' we have our own mini series of differences - England having a different approach from, say, the Netherlands or again France. Then of course, Zone 2 tends to be a law to itself, the South Pacific has its ideas, and the 'Far East' has its mysteries. Any attempt to create a 'one size fits all' set of system regulations would not be accepted. Instead the WBF seeks to progress via the slow grind of influence and of experience in play internationally and other international contacts. Recognition of the facts of life is a crucial element in revising the laws of the game. No longer can the laws be written on the model of a single culture with a nodding courtesy to the wishes of others. At least, it would appear, not unless you choose to set your own peculiar divergences in a recondite regional code of law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sun Nov 14 22:58:24 2010 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 06:58:24 +0900 Subject: [BLML] an advantage for the offender? Message-ID: <4CE05B80.3060504@nifty.com> L16B3?reads as follows: ******************* The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender. ******************* How does L16B3 apply to the following case? Suppose that, as a result of UI, EW (non-vul, at IMPS) have bid to 5D, making (+400), whereas the director determines that without the UI they would have stopped at 3D (+150). How (if at all) should the director assign an adjusted score in either of the following two cases. CASE I: 5D is cold. CASE II: 5D requires a finesse against a king, and a two-way guess for a queen, so it has about a 25% chance of success. But the king is on-side, and the declarer happens to guess the 2-way finesse, so 5D makes. Presumably in the first case the score is adjusted to +150 for EW. No problem. It seems to me that the decision in the second case hinges on the definition of "advantage for the offender" in L16B3. On a single dummy basis the NOS have a 75% chance of being +50, and only a 25% chance of being -400, so the NOS actually have a positive expectation value as a result of the OS overbidding to 5D. So when 5D goes down should the score be allowed to stand, whereas when 5D makes should this (only) be adjusted? Or should the score always be allowed to stand regardless of the table result, as the NOS (statistically) are already in an advantageous position when the opponents overbid to 5D and whatever happens (the table result) is just "the rub of the green"? Has this question (whether "advantage" means the actual table result, or the statistical expectation on a single dummy basis) ever been discussed by the WBFLC or a similar rull-making body? -Bob From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 14 23:33:12 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 23:33:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] an advantage for the offender? In-Reply-To: <4CE05B80.3060504@nifty.com> References: <4CE05B80.3060504@nifty.com> Message-ID: <000001cb844b$ece252a0$c6a6f7e0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Geller > L16B3?reads as follows: > ******************* > The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an > infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender. > ******************* > > How does L16B3 apply to the following case? > > Suppose that, as a result of UI, EW (non-vul, at IMPS) have bid to 5D, making > (+400), whereas the director determines that without the UI they would have > stopped at 3D (+150). How (if at all) should the director assign an adjusted score > in either of the following two cases. > > CASE I: 5D is cold. > > CASE II: 5D requires a finesse against a king, and a two-way guess for a queen, > so it has about a 25% chance of success. But the king is on-side, and the > declarer happens to guess the 2-way finesse, so 5D makes. > > Presumably in the first case the score is adjusted to +150 for EW. No problem. > > It seems to me that the decision in the second case hinges on the definition of > "advantage for the offender" in L16B3. On a single dummy basis the NOS have a > 75% chance of being +50, and only a 25% chance of being -400, so the NOS > actually have a positive expectation value as a result of the OS overbidding to 5D. > So when 5D goes down should the score be allowed to stand, whereas when 5D > makes should this (only) be > adjusted? Or should the score always be allowed to stand regardless of > the table result, as the NOS (statistically) are already in an advantageous position > when the opponents overbid to 5D and whatever happens (the table result) is just > "the rub of the green"? > > Has this question (whether "advantage" means the actual table result, or the > statistical expectation on a single dummy basis) ever been discussed by the > WBFLC or a similar rull-making body? Our directors are instructed to investigate if an infraction of law has resulted in the offending side reaching a contract they would (reasonably) not have reached without the infraction, and whether the outcome of this contract gave them an advantage compared to the normal result in the "legal" contract. If the answer is "yes" then adjust. An example from my own TD qualifying exam back in 1984 may illustrate: Because of an irregularity the offenders bid a grand slam that made on playing for a lucky lie of the cards while the normal contract would otherwise be a small slam that was cold for 12 tricks on a safety play. As this was teams play (scored in IMPs) the correct adjustment was from grand slam just made to small slam just made, NOT made with an overtrick! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 14 23:35:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:35:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] an advantage for the offender? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CE05B80.3060504@nifty.com> Message-ID: Bob Geller: >L16B3 reads as follows: >******************* >The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he >considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage >for the offender. >******************* > >How does L16B3 apply to the following case? > >Suppose that, as a result of UI, EW (non-vul, at IMPS) have bid >to 5D, making (+400), whereas the director determines that >without the UI they would have stopped at 3D (+150). How (if at >all) should the director assign an adjusted score in either of >the following two cases. > >CASE I: 5D is cold. > >CASE II: 5D requires a finesse against a king, and a two-way >guess for a queen, so it has about a 25% chance of success. But >the king is on-side, and the declarer happens to guess the 2-way >finesse, so 5D makes. > >Presumably in the first case the score is adjusted to +150 for >EW. No problem. > >It seems to me that the decision in the second case hinges on >the definition of "advantage for the offender" in L16B3. On a >single dummy basis the NOS have a 75% chance of being +50, and >only a 25% chance of being -400, so the NOS actually have a >positive expectation value as a result of the OS overbidding to >5D. So when 5D goes down should the score be allowed to stand, Richard Hills: Yes. Bob Geller: >whereas when 5D makes should this (only) be adjusted? Richard Hills: Yes. Bob Geller: >Or should the score always be allowed to stand regardless of >the table result, Richard Hills: No. Bob Geller: >as the NOS (statistically) are already in an advantageous >position when the opponents overbid to 5D and whatever >happens (the table result) is just "the rub of the green"? Richard Hills: No. A "rub of the green" result occurs _after_ an infraction has been rectified (typically the rectification is that pard is required to pass for one or all of the rounds of the auction), _then_ the infractor has to guess a unilateral action, _and_ that is a lucky unilateral action _plus_ Law 23 (Awareness of Potential Damage) does not apply. In Bob Geller's CASE II the contract of 5D has been reached _before_ any rectification of the infraction (indeed the infraction is in fact reaching 5D). Bob Geller: >Has this question (whether "advantage" means the actual table >result, or the statistical expectation on a single dummy >basis) ever been discussed by the WBFLC or a similar rule- >making body? Richard Hills: Yes. Law 12B1: "...Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." Richard Hills: Even though it is highly unlikely "a priori" that the non- offending side would be damaged by the offending side bidding to 5D, "a posteriori" the non-offending side's Table Result is -400, and that Table Result of -400 is much less favourable than the -150 or -130 (possible safety play in a diamond partscore) that "would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred". Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 15 00:06:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:06:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pervect [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >There are widely diverse bridge cultures around the world and in >nothing is the divergence so great as in systems and system >policy. Even within Zone 1 we have great differences between >the attitudes in Scandinavia, those in the Latin countries, in >eastern Europe, and within 'Western Europe' we have our own mini >series of differences - England having a different approach >from, say, the Netherlands or again France. Then of course, Zone >2 tends to be a law to itself, the South Pacific has its ideas, >and the 'Far East' has its mysteries. > >Any attempt to create a 'one size fits all' set of system >regulations would not be accepted. [snip] ACBL woman: "Hello Eddie. Could you please tell me what you think of the Island Club convention?" Eddie Kantar: "I have never heard of that convention. It must be some sort of regional perversion." ACBL woman: "Tell me what you think anyway. I play bridge with a bunch of perverts." Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 15 01:18:23 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:18:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Devolution In-Reply-To: References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <987872.64421.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Grattan Endicott] Eric deplores the failure of the WBF to lay down universal system regulations. This cannot be achieved. There are widely diverse bridge cultures around the world and in nothing is the divergence so great as in systems and system policy. Even within Zone 1 we have great differences between the attitudes in Scandinavia, those in the Latin countries, in eastern Europe, and within 'Western Europe' we have our own mini series of differences - England having a different approach from, say, the Netherlands or again France. Then of course, Zone 2 tends to be a law to itself, the South Pacific has its ideas, and the 'Far East' has its mysteries. Any attempt to create a 'one size fits all' set of system regulations would not be accepted. Instead the WBF seeks to progress via the slow grind of influence and of experience in play internationally and other international contacts. Recognition of the facts of life is a crucial element in revising the laws of the game. No longer can the laws be written on the model of a single culture with a nodding courtesy to the wishes of others. At least, it would appear, not unless you choose to set your own peculiar divergences in a recondite regional code of law. [Nigel] Sorry Eric. I'd better correct the impression that Eric Landau and I share the same views, when, unfortunately, I suspect that we disagree about many aspects of Bridge Law. Personally, I think system-regulation is a "dog in the manger" phenomenon -- protecting the old-guard and national interests -- from innovation and foreigners. I would prefer two tiers of competition: - Standard system - Anything goes (including encrypted bids/signals and so-called Brown-sticker/HUMs) For example, to beginner-class, a "Forcing Pass" is less peculiar than opening a "Short club" with a four card major. But given the chauvinism of NBOs, I concede that system de-regulation is unlikely. There are simple measures, however, that are now within the power of the WBFLC: Improve disclosure. For example - Define a *standard system* (For instance, bring the WBF system up-to-date). This would be a godsend for pick-up partners. It might revive interest in individual contests. It would improve public understanding of extravaganza like the Buffet-Cup. - Improve the WBF convention card, explain how to complete it, and specify that it is an adequate initial disclosure medium (even when an NBO prefers a local-system-card -- designed by local-people -- for local-people). - Simplify disclosure protocol. For the normal (screen-less) game, I suggest: a. When partner makes any call, you announce its meaning to opponents. This would speed up the game, saving the time (and unathorised information) resulting from alerts and from questions. (Limited announcements have been tried by the EBU and most players rate them as a success story). b. To facilitate announcements, there would be a card on the table, with common explanations (For example point counts, suit lengths, "Weak", "Limit", "F1", "FG, "take-out", "penalty", "lead-directing" "asking" "relay" "cue" "trial" and so on). For most calls by partner, you would just point to the appropriate boxes, rather than say anything. c. At the end of the auction, each partner of the declaring side explains what his partner's bids have told him about his hand. On request, a defender must divulge similar information. (i.e. the answer to the Sven Pran question). d. This the most important bit: opponents should be allowed to display a "don't announce" card. For those like me who would display such a card, the game would be even speedier and unauthorised information would be further reduced. (We would look forward to a couple of tops per session from opponents who rely on their own alerts and explanations to prevent their auctions from spiralling out of control). To begin with, the WBF would specify this as the *default* law, which NBOs would be free to over-ride. With luck, at least one NBO would implement it. The WBFLC could turn long-term defeat into short-term victory: It could take advantage of local autonomy to ask an NBO to conduct a controlled experiment with *any* radical suggestion that it deems to have merit. The WBF could ask that NBO to monitor performance and player reaction. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 15 02:04:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:04:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Devolution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <987872.64421.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >- Simplify disclosure protocol. For the normal (screen-less) game, >I suggest: > >a. When partner makes any call, you announce its meaning to >opponents. This would speed up the game, saving the time (and un- >authorised information) resulting from alerts and from questions. >(Limited announcements have been tried by the EBU and most players >rate them as a success story). [snip] Richard Hills: Like Adam Wildavsky, Nigel Guthrie is purist in his philosophy. Adam's libertarian philosophy (_all_ government is bad) causes Adam to therefore disbelieve in HCCC (human-caused climate change), notwithstanding the overwhelming scientific evidence which supports HCCC. This is because a solution to HCCC necessarily involves international cooperation by the world's "unnecessary" governments. Nigel's uniformitarian philosophy likewise causes Nigel to believe that if limited Announcements have been successful in the EBU, then universal Announcements used by every Regulating Authority are _necessarily_ a Good Thing. Not so. What is needed is a cost-benefit analysis of Announcements, because circumstances alter cases. In the EBU an Announcement of pard's 1NT opening as 16-20 hcp prevents the former four-way UI of: (a) immediately bid in tempo over 1NT = strong hand (b) ask about 1NT range then bid in tempo = medium hand (c) ask about 1NT range than Pass in temp = weak hand (d) immediately Pass in tempo over 1NT = yarborough So far, so good for Announcements. Suppose on the fifth round of the auction a bid of 4D is Announced as Kickback Blackwood in Clubs. In this case the Announcement is likely to increase rather than diminish UI, since very many players will misunderstand their own complex methods if they are unprompted by Announcements from their partners. Worse still, partnerships who lack any partnership understanding on the fifth round of a complex auction can use an Announcement to create such an understanding in the middle of such an auction. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 15 09:54:56 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:54:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] an advantage for the offender? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CE0F560.3010005@skynet.be> Richard is right in his facts, and in his analysis. It does not matter how it pans out, but whenever the OS get to +400, that score should be taken away. The NOS should also get a score correction, unless they have contributed to the bad result, as by revoking (in that case they retain the -400). However, Bob made one error in his question. The expected result of the board, when played in 3D, is not 25%of 150, 75% of 130 (in fact, that should be 50% of 130 and 25% of 110), but rather 50% of 150 and 50% of 130. Because the King is always placed where it is, and so the result only hinges on the finding of the queen. That is also the weighted score that ought to be awarded, unless one is of the opinion that declarer would play the hand the same and will find the queen 100% of the time, thus giving him 150. Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Bob Geller: > >> L16B3 reads as follows: >> ******************* >> The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he >> considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage >> for the offender. >> ******************* >> >> How does L16B3 apply to the following case? >> >> Suppose that, as a result of UI, EW (non-vul, at IMPS) have bid >> to 5D, making (+400), whereas the director determines that >> without the UI they would have stopped at 3D (+150). How (if at >> all) should the director assign an adjusted score in either of >> the following two cases. >> >> CASE I: 5D is cold. >> >> CASE II: 5D requires a finesse against a king, and a two-way >> guess for a queen, so it has about a 25% chance of success. But >> the king is on-side, and the declarer happens to guess the 2-way >> finesse, so 5D makes. >> >> Presumably in the first case the score is adjusted to +150 for >> EW. No problem. >> >> It seems to me that the decision in the second case hinges on >> the definition of "advantage for the offender" in L16B3. On a >> single dummy basis the NOS have a 75% chance of being +50, and >> only a 25% chance of being -400, so the NOS actually have a >> positive expectation value as a result of the OS overbidding to >> 5D. So when 5D goes down should the score be allowed to stand, > > Richard Hills: > > Yes. > > Bob Geller: > >> whereas when 5D makes should this (only) be adjusted? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes. > > Bob Geller: > >> Or should the score always be allowed to stand regardless of >> the table result, > > Richard Hills: > > No. > > Bob Geller: > >> as the NOS (statistically) are already in an advantageous >> position when the opponents overbid to 5D and whatever >> happens (the table result) is just "the rub of the green"? > > Richard Hills: > > No. A "rub of the green" result occurs _after_ an infraction > has been rectified (typically the rectification is that pard is > required to pass for one or all of the rounds of the auction), > _then_ the infractor has to guess a unilateral action, _and_ > that is a lucky unilateral action _plus_ Law 23 (Awareness of > Potential Damage) does not apply. > > In Bob Geller's CASE II the contract of 5D has been reached > _before_ any rectification of the infraction (indeed the > infraction is in fact reaching 5D). > > Bob Geller: > >> Has this question (whether "advantage" means the actual table >> result, or the statistical expectation on a single dummy >> basis) ever been discussed by the WBFLC or a similar rule- >> making body? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes. > > Law 12B1: > > "...Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent > side obtains a table result less favourable than would have > been the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." > > Richard Hills: > > Even though it is highly unlikely "a priori" that the non- > offending side would be damaged by the offending side bidding > to 5D, "a posteriori" the non-offending side's Table Result > is -400, and that Table Result of -400 is much less favourable > than the -150 or -130 (possible safety play in a diamond > partscore) that "would have been the expectation had the > infraction not occurred". > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > 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 > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3257 - Release Date: 11/14/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 15 10:04:11 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:04:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Devolution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CE0F78B.3010103@skynet.be> Again, I have to agree with Richard. (must be something I ate ..) I want to add one point. The EBU satisfaction with announcements is not just because of its limit of use, but because of a special circumstance regarding that limit. In Belgium, 95% of pairs play 1NT as 15-17. This means that the 5% who play weak NT don't mind alerting it. And it also means that the alert is helpful, because players know what the alert means. But in a country where roughly half the field plays one system and half play another, it is not fair on either half to ask them to alert and not the other half. Plus that it may become blurred which one should be alerted. By announcing, everyone is happy. But that is only the case for this one part of system. Not for every other one. Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > >> - Simplify disclosure protocol. For the normal (screen-less) game, >> I suggest: >> >> a. When partner makes any call, you announce its meaning to >> opponents. This would speed up the game, saving the time (and un- >> authorised information) resulting from alerts and from questions. >> (Limited announcements have been tried by the EBU and most players >> rate them as a success story). > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Like Adam Wildavsky, Nigel Guthrie is purist in his philosophy. > > Adam's libertarian philosophy (_all_ government is bad) causes Adam > to therefore disbelieve in HCCC (human-caused climate change), > notwithstanding the overwhelming scientific evidence which supports > HCCC. This is because a solution to HCCC necessarily involves > international cooperation by the world's "unnecessary" governments. > > Nigel's uniformitarian philosophy likewise causes Nigel to believe > that if limited Announcements have been successful in the EBU, then > universal Announcements used by every Regulating Authority are > _necessarily_ a Good Thing. > > Not so. > > What is needed is a cost-benefit analysis of Announcements, > because circumstances alter cases. > > In the EBU an Announcement of pard's 1NT opening as 16-20 hcp > prevents the former four-way UI of: > > (a) immediately bid in tempo over 1NT = strong hand > (b) ask about 1NT range then bid in tempo = medium hand > (c) ask about 1NT range than Pass in temp = weak hand > (d) immediately Pass in tempo over 1NT = yarborough > > So far, so good for Announcements. > > Suppose on the fifth round of the auction a bid of 4D is Announced > as Kickback Blackwood in Clubs. In this case the Announcement is > likely to increase rather than diminish UI, since very many > players will misunderstand their own complex methods if they are > unprompted by Announcements from their partners. Worse still, > partnerships who lack any partnership understanding on the fifth > round of a complex auction can use an Announcement to create such > an understanding in the middle of such an auction. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > 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 > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3257 - Release Date: 11/14/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 15 11:19:18 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:19:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CE10926.4010902@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/11/2010 18:09, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Eric Landau] > > Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you > think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible > reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, > and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. > But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on > pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result > can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now > have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a > partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop > your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, > which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not > allowed to do it again. > Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. > [Nigel] > Declared WBFLC policy is to off-load responsibility to directors and local > legislatures. Especially in the case of system regulation. If Eric deplores this > trend to foster a tower of Babel, then I am among the many players who support > his stand. > > Fundamentally, however, I agree with Grattan about the obligation to disclose. > Even if Eric finds that appalling in the case of Alarm-clock signals. > AG : the main problem isn't there. You're right. But Eric says that such signals might be disallowed, which isn't the same thing, and I too don't find a word that'd be strong enough. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 15 15:27:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:27:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Nov 13, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: [Eric Landau] > >> Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, >> you >> think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only >> sensible >> reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, >> and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. >> But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based >> on >> pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result >> can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you >> now >> have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a >> partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to >> stop >> your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, >> which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not >> allowed to do it again. > > We have two worlds, ACBL-land and WBF-land (which does not include > the ACBL anymore). I should preface my posts with the declaration > that I am only talking about ACBL-land unless I indicate otherwise. > > Anyhoo, the word "special" has always been ignored when discussing > this subject, even going back to L75C in the 97 Laws. People write > about agreements as if the word "special" is meaningless or absent. That's because the word "special" (in L40B) *is* meaningless. "*In its discretion* the RA may designate certain partnership understandings as "special partnership understandings. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, *in the opinion of the RA*..." [emphasis mine]. So the full and complete operative definition of "special" is "designated as special by the RA". Nothing in TFLB limits their "discretion". > "Special" means out of the ordinary, in case that needs to be said. Only in the dictionary, not in L40. > I agree with partners that my lead of the Ace from AK in a suit > contract means I have a doubleton. This is general knowledge, and > has been for 70 years or more. Partnership experience may reinforce > that agreement, but no amount of partnership experience makes this > agreement "special." I recall from my early days long ago the time when a world-class expert described to me the theory behind passed-hand jumps. Passed- hand jumps, he explained, show a hand that wasn't worth an opening bid on its own, but has been promoted to the value of an opening bid by virtue of partner's opening, and therefore serve to invite game unless partner has a sub-minimum opening. He went on to note that misfitting hands are demoted, not promoted, in value, so it is logically implicit in the definition of a passed-hand jump that it must have support for the suit partner opened. This was presented as a pure exercise in bridge logic. But in today's ACBL, this straightforward piece of logic has morphed into the "Jumps By Passed Hand Promise Support Convention", written on CCs, alertable, and subject to regulation or prohibition. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 15 15:54:23 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Nov 14, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > >> [Eric Landau] >> >> Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you >> think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible >> reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, >> and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. >> But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on >> pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result >> can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now >> have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a >> partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop >> your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, >> which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not >> allowed to do it again. >> Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. >> >> [Nigel] >> Declared WBFLC policy is to off-load responsibility to directors >> and local >> legislatures. Especially in the case of system regulation. If Eric >> deplores this >> trend to foster a tower of Babel, then I am among the many players >> who >> support >> his stand. >> >> Fundamentally, however, I agree with Grattan about the obligation to >> disclose. >> Even if Eric finds that appalling in the case of Alarm-clock signals. >> >> I suppose the gist of Alarm-Clock Signals is: if you do something >> peculiar, you >> are probably trying to send an unusual message). But Alarm-clock >> signals >> aren't >> "general Bridge knowledge" because not everybody uses them and >> different >> players >> agree different variants. >> >> This thread is an Alarm-clock to me, to try to explain them on our >> system-card. >> >> Anyway, I think such understandings should impose an obligation to >> disclose, >> rather than an obligation to protect yourself. > > +=+ Nigel, is there not a place on the system card for a note > saying "a variation from normal treatment in play is likely to > invite abnormal action by partner" ? > Eric deplores the failure of the WBF to lay down universal > system regulations. This cannot be achieved. There are widely > diverse bridge cultures around the world and in nothing is the > divergence so great as in systems and system policy. Even within > Zone 1 we have great differences between the attitudes in > Scandinavia, those in the Latin countries, in eastern Europe, and > within 'Western Europe' we have our own mini series of differences > - England having a different approach from, say, the Netherlands > or again France. Then of course, Zone 2 tends to be a law to itself, > the South Pacific has its ideas, and the 'Far East' has its mysteries. > Any attempt to create a 'one size fits all' set of system regulations > would not be accepted. Instead the WBF seeks to progress via the > slow grind of influence and of experience in play internationally > and other international contacts. > Recognition of the facts of life is a crucial element in revising > the laws of the game. No longer can the laws be written on the > model of a single culture with a nodding courtesy to the wishes > of others. At least, it would appear, not unless you choose to set > your own peculiar divergences in a recondite regional code of law. I resent Nigel randomly pointing his favority hobby-horse in my direction. For the record, I most definitively do not "deplore this trend" [towards regulatory decentralization] nor "deplore the failure of the WBF" [to reverse it] -- quite the contrary, as I've made clear many times in this forum -- and find myself at a total loss to imagine how Nigel or Grattan could possibly have read such a position into the passage Nigel cites. Allow me to recommend more careful reading before replying to posts in the future. The cited passage was deploring, in support of Marv's post on alarm- clock signals, the notion that if two bridge players, starting from common general bridge knowledge, follow a clear chain of logic to an inevitable conclusion, that by merely sharing their thinking they thereby create an implicit partnership understanding that perforce may be declared special by their RA, and thus prohibited. How it could possibly have been read as having anything to do with Nigel's deprecation or Grattan's defense of regulatory decentralization is beyond my comprehension. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 15 16:13:51 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:13:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] an advantage for the offender? In-Reply-To: <4CE05B80.3060504@nifty.com> References: <4CE05B80.3060504@nifty.com> Message-ID: <1F14AC75-D3F3-46EB-B383-22D1E98435D8@starpower.net> On Nov 14, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > L16B3?reads as follows: > ******************* > The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he > considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage > for the > offender. > ******************* > > How does L16B3 apply to the following case? > > Suppose that, as a result of UI, EW (non-vul, at IMPS) have bid to 5D, > making (+400), whereas the director determines that without the UI > they > would have stopped at 3D (+150). How (if at all) should the director > assign an adjusted score in either of the following two cases. > > CASE I: 5D is cold. > > CASE II: 5D requires a finesse against a king, and a two-way guess > for a > queen, so it has about a 25% chance of success. But the king is > on-side, and the declarer happens to guess the 2-way finesse, so 5D > makes. > > Presumably in the first case the score is adjusted to +150 for EW. No > problem. > > It seems to me that the decision in the second case hinges on the > definition of "advantage for the offender" in L16B3. On a single > dummy > basis the NOS have a 75% chance of being +50, and only a 25% chance of > being -400, so the NOS actually have a positive expectation value as a > result of the OS overbidding to 5D. So when 5D goes down should the > score be allowed to stand, whereas when 5D makes should this (only) be > adjusted? Or should the score always be allowed to stand > regardless of > the table result, as the NOS (statistically) are already in an > advantageous position when the opponents overbid to 5D and whatever > happens (the table result) is just "the rub of the green"? > > Has this question (whether "advantage" means the actual table > result, or > the statistical expectation on a single dummy basis) ever been > discussed > by the WBFLC or a similar rull-making body? "Advantage" (and its opposite, "damage") manifest strictly in the actual result, so the two cases are indistinguishable in that regard. The concepts of a priori advantage and "rub of the green" do not apply to rectifications by score adjustment; they protect a lucky result obtained after the mechanical rectification of an (earlier) infraction has created an a priori disadvantage for the OS (such as a lucky stab at a final contract opposite a partner who is barred from the auction). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 15 13:41:46 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:41:46 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Devolution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4CE0F78B.3010103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <135E24F2E949481C84A0AF0335A24C32@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Devolution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Again, I have to agree with Richard. (must be something I ate ..) > > I want to add one point. The EBU satisfaction with announcements is not > just because of its limit of use, but because of a special circumstance > regarding that limit. > In Belgium, 95% of pairs play 1NT as 15-17. This means that the 5% who > play weak NT don't mind alerting it. And it also means that the alert is > helpful, because players know what the alert means. > > But in a country where roughly half the field plays one system and half > play another, it is not fair on either half to ask them to alert and not > the other half. Plus that it may become blurred which one should be > alerted. By announcing, everyone is happy. > But that is only the case for this one part of system. Not for every > other one. > > Herman. > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Nigel Guthrie: >> >> [snip] >> >>> - Simplify disclosure protocol. For the normal (screen-less) game, >>> I suggest: >>> >>> a. When partner makes any call, you announce its meaning to >>> opponents. This would speed up the game, saving the time (and un- >>> authorised information) resulting from alerts and from questions. >>> (Limited announcements have been tried by the EBU and most players >>> rate them as a success story). >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Like Adam Wildavsky, Nigel Guthrie is purist in his philosophy. >> >> Adam's libertarian philosophy (_all_ government is bad) causes Adam >> to therefore disbelieve in HCCC (human-caused climate change), >> notwithstanding the overwhelming scientific evidence which supports >> HCCC. This is because a solution to HCCC necessarily involves >> international cooperation by the world's "unnecessary" governments. >> >> Nigel's uniformitarian philosophy likewise causes Nigel to believe >> that if limited Announcements have been successful in the EBU, then >> universal Announcements used by every Regulating Authority are >> _necessarily_ a Good Thing. >> >> Not so. >> >> What is needed is a cost-benefit analysis of Announcements, >> because circumstances alter cases. >> >> In the EBU an Announcement of pard's 1NT opening as 16-20 hcp >> prevents the former four-way UI of: >> >> (a) immediately bid in tempo over 1NT = strong hand >> (b) ask about 1NT range then bid in tempo = medium hand >> (c) ask about 1NT range than Pass in temp = weak hand >> (d) immediately Pass in tempo over 1NT = yarborough >> >> So far, so good for Announcements. >> >> Suppose on the fifth round of the auction a bid of 4D is Announced >> as Kickback Blackwood in Clubs. In this case the Announcement is >> likely to increase rather than diminish UI, since very many >> players will misunderstand their own complex methods if they are >> unprompted by Announcements from their partners. Worse still, >> partnerships who lack any partnership understanding on the fifth >> round of a complex auction can use an Announcement to create such >> an understanding in the middle of such an auction. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> Work Experience coordinator >> Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 >> Phone: 6223 8453 >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3257 - Release Date: 11/14/10 >> 20:34:00 >> > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 15 17:39:23 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:39:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Pervect [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480918228.5272171289839163535.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > ACBL woman: "Hello Eddie. Could you please tell me what you > think of the Island Club convention?" > > Eddie Kantar: "I have never heard of that convention. It must > be some sort of regional perversion." > > ACBL woman: "Tell me what you think anyway. I play bridge > with a bunch of perverts." The natives of the planet Perv are called Pervects. Calling them "perverts" can get you in serious trouble. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 15 17:44:46 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:44:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR baromether event? In-Reply-To: <001c01cb7eb8$1c259b60$5470d220$@no> References: <001b01cb7eb6$39f33960$add9ac20$@no> <001c01cb7eb8$1c259b60$5470d220$@no> Message-ID: <000901cb84e4$69aa27c0$3cfe7740$@no> There have been a few comments on this situation, some of which seem to mainly focus on penalizing the pairs guilty of seating themselves incorrectly. Our prime interest is to save the possibility of playing bridge and obtain fair results as far as possible, and although we apparently have a consensus that no law is directly applicable I feel that our original approach is tenable: A "schedule" is not only a specification on which board(s) a pair shall play in a certain round, a schedule also specifies at what table and against which opponents this play shall occur. Consequently we may read Law 15 as if it has been written something like: "If players play a board not designated for them to play and/or against opponents not designated for them to meet in the current round . . . . ." This understanding of Law 15 could be adapted in a WBFLC resolution not awaiting the next major law revision. (A matter for Grattan's notebook?) In the meantime we shall probably have some sort of a regulation to this very effect. Regards Sven > > I have become involved in a discussion on an irregular situation for > > which > no law > > appears applicable and should appreciate views/opinions on how to > > handle: > > > > Consider a Round Robin barometer tournament for pairs: Each contestant > meets > > each other contestant in the event once (and once only). The same set > > of > boards > > are played at all tables during the same round and is scored (and > > published) immediately at the end of each round so all contestants > > know > exactly > > how they are placed continuously during the event. > > > > Example: If we have 100 pairs the event will consist of 99 rounds, and > > if > we play 3 > > boards per round all tables will play boards 1-3 in the first round, > boards 4-6 in the > > second round and so on (for a total of 297 boards). > > > > This event will obviously be broken up in sessions, and say that in > > the > first round > > after a session break pairs W and X are scheduled to play each other > > at > table A > > while pairs Y and Z are scheduled to play each other at table B. > > > > Players are human so nobody should be surprised that in spite of all > > announcements pair W incorrectly finds their way to and sits down at > > table > B > > where pair Y is already seated. (W has not yet met Y in the event so > neither of > > them catches the error immediately). They start on their first board > > in > that round > > and then pair Z arrives (a few seconds late) at the table where they > > find > their > > seats occupied by pair W. > > > > All the time pair X sits at table A waiting for their opponents (pair > > W) > to show up, > > and now the Director is called to sort out things. > > > > We have had a tradition for handling this situation under Law 15, > considering the > > clause "If players play a board not designated for them to play in the > current > > round" to be understood to also cover the situation where although the > board was > > designated for them to play in the current round it was designated to > > be > played > > against some other pair than the one they actually play against. > > > > We have a feeling, and fear that this use of law 15 can best be > > described > as > > abuse of the law. > > > > So which law (if any) can be applicable to the situation described, > > and > how should > > the director rule in order to minimize undesirable consequences? > > > > Note that even if X has not yet played against Z we cannot just change > > the schedule by swapping W and Z in this round as that will severely > > upset > later rounds > > in the schedule. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 15 18:30:33 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:30:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:54:23 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 14, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Nigel Guthrie" >> >>> [Eric Landau] >>> >>> Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you >>> think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible >>> reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, >>> and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. >>> But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on >>> pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result >>> can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now >>> have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a >>> partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop >>> your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, >>> which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not >>> allowed to do it again. >>> Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> Declared WBFLC policy is to off-load responsibility to directors >>> and local >>> legislatures. Especially in the case of system regulation. If Eric >>> deplores this >>> trend to foster a tower of Babel, then I am among the many players >>> who >>> support >>> his stand. >>> >>> Fundamentally, however, I agree with Grattan about the obligation to >>> disclose. >>> Even if Eric finds that appalling in the case of Alarm-clock signals. >>> >>> I suppose the gist of Alarm-Clock Signals is: if you do something >>> peculiar, you >>> are probably trying to send an unusual message). But Alarm-clock >>> signals >>> aren't >>> "general Bridge knowledge" because not everybody uses them and >>> different >>> players >>> agree different variants. >>> >>> This thread is an Alarm-clock to me, to try to explain them on our >>> system-card. >>> >>> Anyway, I think such understandings should impose an obligation to >>> disclose, >>> rather than an obligation to protect yourself. >> >> +=+ Nigel, is there not a place on the system card for a note >> saying "a variation from normal treatment in play is likely to >> invite abnormal action by partner" ? >> Eric deplores the failure of the WBF to lay down universal >> system regulations. This cannot be achieved. There are widely >> diverse bridge cultures around the world and in nothing is the >> divergence so great as in systems and system policy. Even within >> Zone 1 we have great differences between the attitudes in >> Scandinavia, those in the Latin countries, in eastern Europe, and >> within 'Western Europe' we have our own mini series of differences >> - England having a different approach from, say, the Netherlands >> or again France. Then of course, Zone 2 tends to be a law to itself, >> the South Pacific has its ideas, and the 'Far East' has its mysteries. >> Any attempt to create a 'one size fits all' set of system regulations >> would not be accepted. Instead the WBF seeks to progress via the >> slow grind of influence and of experience in play internationally >> and other international contacts. >> Recognition of the facts of life is a crucial element in revising >> the laws of the game. No longer can the laws be written on the >> model of a single culture with a nodding courtesy to the wishes >> of others. At least, it would appear, not unless you choose to set >> your own peculiar divergences in a recondite regional code of law. > > I resent Nigel randomly pointing his favority hobby-horse in my > direction. For the record, I most definitively do not "deplore this > trend" [towards regulatory decentralization] nor "deplore the failure > of the WBF" [to reverse it] -- quite the contrary, as I've made clear > many times in this forum -- and find myself at a total loss to > imagine how Nigel or Grattan could possibly have read such a position > into the passage Nigel cites. Allow me to recommend more careful > reading before replying to posts in the future. > > The cited passage was deploring, in support of Marv's post on alarm- > clock signals, the notion that if two bridge players, starting from > common general bridge knowledge, follow a clear chain of logic to an > inevitable conclusion, that by merely sharing their thinking they > thereby create an implicit partnership understanding that perforce > may be declared special by their RA, and thus prohibited. How it > could possibly have been read as having anything to do with Nigel's > deprecation or Grattan's defense of regulatory decentralization is > beyond my comprehension. To give another example that Eric will probably appreciate. My requirements for overcalling 2C (how many points, how good of suit) are lighter for overcalling 1D than 1S. To me this is just good bridge. It never crossed my mind to disclose it. Now that I think about it, I don't know how I could disclose it. I made up a convention name for my tendency to preempt opposite a passed partner, but I am sure no one sees it. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Nov 15 18:41:36 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:41:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau] I recall from my early days long ago the time when a world-class expert described to me the theory behind passed-hand jumps. Passed- hand jumps, he explained, show a hand that wasn't worth an opening bid on its own, but has been promoted to the value of an opening bid by virtue of partner's opening, and therefore serve to invite game unless partner has a sub-minimum opening. He went on to note that misfitting hands are demoted, not promoted, in value, so it is logically implicit in the definition of a passed-hand jump that it must have support for the suit partner opened. This was presented as a pure exercise in bridge logic. But in today's ACBL, this straightforward piece of logic has morphed into the "Jumps By Passed Hand Promise Support Convention", written on CCs, alertable, and subject to regulation or prohibition. {Nigel] Another good example that can be adduced for or against disclosure. (Again, I tend to plump for the latter). We all know partnerships who use passed-hand suit-jumps to show weak pre-empts, splinters, or fits. And some regard their conventions as perfectly logical and natural. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Mon Nov 15 18:47:26 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:47:26 -0800 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CE1722E.5080503@gmail.com> On 11/11/2010 3:38 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hirsch Davis: > > >> And if the 25% line is the one that happens to be successful >> while the 75% line fails, could you really rule the successful >> line to be irrational with a straight face? >> > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Straight-faced scenario -> > > It is the first board of the Grand Final of the Vanderbilt. As > luck would have, both finalist teams are evenly matched (they > were initially seeded 12th and 14th), and neither team contains > a sponsor. > > The declarers in both rooms calculate that Line A has a 75% > chance and Line B has a 25% chance. In this straight-faced > scenario it would indeed be irrational for either declarer to > select the luckily successful Line B. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > But you have the scenario slightly wrong. This was the final session, and one Declarer has his team down by a large margin. The 25% option would allow a vulnerable game swing if the 75% chance was going down. Might be bad bridge, but irrational? But I was referring to something like this: IMPS all vul N S: xx H: Kxx D: AQx C: AKJxx S S: Ax H: AJxx D: Kxxx C: T9x Both tables are under slow play warnings and must finish quickly. At both tables, a low spade is led and the second round won. Carding indicates W has six spades. A high club is played and E shows out. both players now claim ten tricks on the club finesse (eleven if diamonds break). Alas, E actually had a club, and the TD must rule at both tables... At table 1, declarer is just out of the novice game. She knows enough to finesse, and that's about it. She was always going to take the club finesse, which actually happens to work. Diamonds don't break, so she take ten tricks. At table 2, declarer is the club expert. In the absence of the revoke, he would see a much better line. Try to drop the queen in the longest suit (clubs). Then look for a 3-3 diamond break. Finally, finesse in hearts (slightly higher probability than clubs since it's against the hand known to be shorter in spades). Since this gives him two extra chances to bring home the contract, it is the line that would normally be chosen in the absence of the revoke. Alas, all of these chances fail, so this declarer is down one. We can't allow a good declarer the club finesse, since for him this line would be irrational... If taking a lower percentage play is "irrational", this is what we are stuck with. Hirsch From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Nov 15 18:47:51 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:47:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <396606.87781.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau] I resent Nigel randomly pointing his favority hobby-horse in my direction. For the record, I most definitively do not "deplore this trend" [towards regulatory decentralization] nor "deplore the failure of the WBF" [to reverse it] -- quite the contrary, as I've made clear many times in this forum -- and find myself at a total loss to imagine how Nigel or Grattan could possibly have read such a position into the passage Nigel cites. Allow me to recommend more careful reading before replying to posts in the future. [Nigel] I have already apologised for this misunderstanding; but I now do so again. I wrote "If Eric deplores this trend to foster a tower of Babel, then I am among the many players who support his stand". I was not sure of Eric's position on this matter. Hence the qualifier "if". Sorry. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Nov 15 18:49:56 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:49:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <338027.17145.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Corrected... [Eric Landau] I recall from my early days long ago the time when a world-class expert described to me the theory behind passed-hand jumps. Passed- hand jumps, he explained, show a hand that wasn't worth an opening bid on its own, but has been promoted to the value of an opening bid by virtue of partner's opening, and therefore serve to invite game unless partner has a sub-minimum opening. He went on to note that misfitting hands are demoted, not promoted, in value, so it is logically implicit in the definition of a passed-hand jump that it must have support for the suit partner opened. This was presented as a pure exercise in bridge logic. But in today's ACBL, this straightforward piece of logic has morphed into the "Jumps By Passed Hand Promise Support Convention", written on CCs, alertable, and subject to regulation or prohibition. {Nigel] Another good example that can be adduced for or against disclosure. (Again, I tend to plump for the former). We all know partnerships who use passed-hand suit-jumps to show weak pre-empts, splinters, or fits. And some regard their conventions as perfectly logical and natural. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Nov 15 19:07:26 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:07:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <338027.17145.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <338027.17145.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >From what I can tell, the crux of the matter is whether or not "competence"/ is a disclosable agreement. If so, is it only disclosable in certain types of events? -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101115/78a97a28/attachment-0001.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 15 19:16:55 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:16:55 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net><951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <9E0BFE1A874C47408EF273528A9D73C5@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > > > I recall from my early days long ago the time when a world-class > expert described to me the theory behind passed-hand jumps. > Passed- > hand jumps, he explained, show a hand that wasn't worth an opening > bid on its own, but has been promoted to the value of an opening > bid > by virtue of partner's opening, and therefore serve to invite game > unless partner has a sub-minimum opening. He went on to note that > misfitting hands are demoted, not promoted, in value, so it is > logically implicit in the definition of a passed-hand jump that it > must have support for the suit partner opened. This was presented > as > a pure exercise in bridge logic. But in today's ACBL, this > straightforward piece of logic has morphed into the "Jumps By > Passed > Hand Promise Support Convention", written on CCs, alertable, and > subject to regulation or prohibition. > All fit jumps are Alertable. That is the only regulation, and they may not be restricted or prohibited at any level except by the insane. The ACBL decided that opponents must know about this agreement because it is a convention, but it is permitted it at all levels of play. This has nothing to do with Alarm Clock Signals, which is our subject. Vs suit contracts: --The opening lead from a very long suit is the deuce. Void in some suit! --The opening lead from someone playing Rusinow is king, then queen. Doubleton! -- Mid-hand, declarer's LHO plays ace, then queen of a side suit, jack-third in dummy. Doubleton! And so on, there are many examples. All are just good bridge play, nothing "special." Can we not play cards in a common sense way without hindrance? Wisely, the ACBL has NOT designated ACS's as special partnership agreements that may be regulated. The ACBL Convention Charts for all levels of play, General, Standard, Mid-Chart, and Super Chart are identical in regard to what is allowed under "CARDING," and there is no suggestion of ACS control. The Convention Charts and ACBLLC minutes are the only authoritative sources for control of specific partnership agreements. Any other source is unofficial and unreliable. Just because some ignorant TD at an NABC states that a simple ACS is restricted to Super Chart play does not make it so. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5621 (20101115) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 15 22:08:20 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:08:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pervect [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <480918228.5272171289839163535.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: >The natives of the planet Perv are called Pervects. >Calling them "perverts" can get you in serious trouble. > > >Thomas Yes, blmlers who enjoy comic fantasy novels with lots of bad (= good) puns should read "Another Fine Myth" by Robert Asprin. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 15 22:40:43 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:40:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Devolution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <987872.64421.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:04 AM, wrote: > Like Adam Wildavsky, Nigel Guthrie is purist in his philosophy. > Pure I aspire to! > Adam's libertarian philosophy I am not now, nor have a ever been a libertarian. What gave you that idea? > (_all_ government is bad) To be fair the the libertarians, they are not anarchists, at least not most of them. > causes Adam > to therefore disbelieve in HCCC (human-caused climate change), > notwithstanding the overwhelming scientific evidence which supports > HCCC. I think you have the wrong mailing list. But for the record, yes, I am profoundly skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. > This is because a solution to HCCC necessarily involves > international cooperation by the world's "unnecessary" governments. > Now you are assuming facts not in evidence. I am skeptical on a number of grounds, though none of them are relevant to BLML. Further, I find government most necessary, though I would prefer its extent were more circumscribed. > Nigel's uniformitarian philosophy likewise causes Nigel to believe > that if limited Announcements have been successful in the EBU, then > universal Announcements used by every Regulating Authority are > _necessarily_ a Good Thing. > I don't think this follows, but I'll let Nigel answer. What is needed is a cost-benefit analysis of Announcements, > because circumstances alter cases. > Here I agree on both counts. I'll stop now -- who knows when that might happen again! -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101115/15a819dd/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 15 22:43:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:43:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Devolution In-Reply-To: <987872.64421.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <987872.64421.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1313219388.5371871289857412657.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Personally, I think system-regulation is a "dog in the manger" phenomenon -- > protecting the old-guard and national interests -- from innovation and > foreigners. > > > I would prefer two tiers of competition: > - Standard system > - Anything goes (including encrypted bids/signals and so-called > Brown-sticker/HUMs) I disagree. A "standard system only" tournament really is suitable for beginners only. Forcing players who prefer a weak NT and four card majors into playing a strong NT and five card majors, or vice versa would be a) frustrating b) a huge competitive disadvantage for those who won't get to regularly practice their normal methods but would have to waste their energy on learning a system they don't intend to play when it counts. OTOH, playing against a HUM requires preparation. I am confident that I can device a suitable defense against a HUM in two to four hours of work, but I cannot create one in two minutes at the table. Say, you sit down at their table, and they tell you they play a strong pass, 1H=8-12 HCP, either 0-2 hearts or 6+ hearts. 1D is a fert. The rest of their systems looks similar. You need to have a defense ready for that, you cannot make it up on the fly. You'd need at least three categories: o standard system - a tournament designer for beginners and eternal beginners o anything reasonable goes. Canape is ok. Multi is ok. Mini NT is ok. Forcing pass is not. 1S showing clubs or hearts is not. o anything goes. Only sessions of 12+ boards against the same opponents. Systems must be submitted 6+ weeks in advance etc. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 15 23:24:24 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:24:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Come pea tense [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Eric Landau, May 2006: Everything Nigel writes is true. But money, power and sex are serious business. Bridge, OTOH, is a game we play for fun. Grattan Endicott, May 2006: +=+ Personally I have always found money, power and sex to be fun as well. ~ G ~ +=+ * * * Richard Willey: >>From what I can tell, the crux of the matter is whether or not >>"competence" is a disclosable agreement. >> >>If so, is it only disclosable in certain types of events? Robert Frick: >My requirements for overcalling 2C (how many points, how good >of suit) are lighter for overcalling 1D than 1S. To me this is >just good bridge. It never crossed my mind to disclose it. Now >that I think about it, I don't know how I could disclose it. Richard Hills: How about Bob writing on his partnership's System Cards "the greater the bidding space consumed by our overcall, the lighter our overcall will be"??? But I disagree that the Frick style is "just good" bridge. Board 42, matchpoint pairs, Dealer: West, Vul: None WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D Pass 1H Pass 1NT Pass Pass(1) Pass (1) Insufficient strength for a New Minor Forcing convention Result: East-West +120, a below-average score for them Board 42, matchpoint pairs, Dealer: West, Vul: None WEST Frick EAST SOUTH 1D 2C X (2) Pass 2S Pass Pass Pass (2) Negative double, promising both majors Result: East-West +140, an above-average score for them Different players will have different beliefs about what constitutes "competent" bridge or "just good" bridge. So no matter how "competent" or "just good" your methods are, they still need to be disclosed. For example, leading the ace followed by the king to show AK doubleton may be one person's "just good" bridge. But..... The majority of Canberra semi-experts play the "overlead all" style, so leading the ace followed by the king neither confirms nor denies a doubleton AK (but a few of the "over- lead all" players include this footnote on their System Cards "except we lead the king from AK doubleton"). Thus for those Canberra semi-experts it would be important that one gave timely disclosure of one's "just good" bridge pre- existing mutual partnership understanding that ace-then-king shows a doubleton. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 16 01:03:27 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:03:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR barometer event? References: <001b01cb7eb6$39f33960$add9ac20$@no><001c01cb7eb8$1c259b60$5470d220$@no> <000901cb84e4$69aa27c0$3cfe7740$@no> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR barometer event? > There have been a few comments on this situation, > some of which seem to mainly focus on penalizing the > pairs guilty of seating themselves incorrectly. > > Our prime interest is to save the possibility of playing > bridge and obtain fair results as far as possible, and > although we apparently have a consensus that no law > is directly applicable I feel that our original approach > is tenable: > > A "schedule" is not only a specification on which board(s) > a pair shall play in a certain round, a schedule also specifies > at what table and against which opponents this play shall > occur. > > Consequently we may read Law 15 as if it has been written > something like: "If players play a board not designated for > them to play and/or against opponents not designated for > them to meet in the current round . . . . ." > > This understanding of Law 15 could be adapted in a WBFLC > resolution not awaiting the next major law revision. > (A matter for Grattan's notebook?) > +=+ OK. So I have a note of it. However, in setting forth the above solution, is not Sven simply explaining a procedure by which the Director may use his Law 81B1 powers to fulfil his duty under Law 81C1? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 16 01:27:40 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:27:40 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Devolution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <987872.64421.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F1E50E9071E4F85BABD8BA0568BD8A5@MARVLAPTOP> Adam Wildavsky: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:04 AM, > wrote: >> Adam's libertarian philosophy > I am not now, nor have a ever been a libertarian. What gave you > that idea? > Adam is a fan of the philosophy known as Objectivism, created by Ayn Rand. >From Wikipedia: Its principle is that human knowledge and values are objective: they are not created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by man's mind. Andrew Corsello maintains that it is a philosophy that mainly appeals to those in a post-adolescent stage, most of whom eventually reject it. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5622 (20101115) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 16 01:36:23 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:36:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Devolution - "to the Bastille!!" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <987872.64421.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <338027.17145.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <131613.83212.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Willey] From what I can tell, the crux of the matter is whether or not "competence"/ is a disclosable agreement. If so, is it only disclosable in certain types of events? [Nigel] What is sensible & logical & natural in Bridge varies --- from time to time -- place to place -- and person to person. Two of many examples: - In the early days of contract, according to Terence Reese and Hubert Philips, a double of 1N was clearly take-out. Then, for about fifty years, experts were adamant that, logically, it must be penalty. Nowadays, take-out doubles are again back in fashion. - It amuses me that in their seminal book on Partnership Bidding, Robson and Segal class most of their radical ideas (e.g. fit non-jumps) as logical and natural. Actually, they do make a good case -- but there are still many experts who disparage their theories. If the players at a table are all members of the same incestuous coven, then disclosure may be redundant. More typically, opponents may be beginners, strangers, foreigners, or simply adherents of a different cult. Just in case they don't share all your certainties, it is safer to disclose. System-regulation is different: A Pandora's box that legislative bodies should leave well alone. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 16 01:52:35 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:52:35 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Come pea tense - serious fun and self-assessment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:24 PM Subject: [BLML] Come pea tense [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Eric Landau, May 2006: > > Everything Nigel writes is true. But money, power and sex are > serious business. Bridge, OTOH, is a game we play for fun. > > Grattan Endicott, May 2006: > > +=+ Personally I have always found money, power and sex to be > fun as well. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > * * * > > Richard Willey: > >>>From what I can tell, the crux of the matter is whether or not >>>"competence" is a disclosable agreement. >>> +=+ Lord Nosehoo: "If competence is your utmost desire. My Dear, then I have it in abundance". +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 16 02:02:45 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:02:45 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR barometer event? In-Reply-To: References: <001b01cb7eb6$39f33960$add9ac20$@no><001c01cb7eb8$1c259b60$5470d220$@no><000901cb84e4$69aa27c0$3cfe7740$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 18:03 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair in RR barometer event? > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Culture is perishing in overproduction, in > an avalanche of words, in the madness of > quantity." [Milan Kundera, 1991 > 'Immortality'] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:44 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrectly seated pair > in RR barometer event? > > >> There have been a few comments on this situation, >> some of which seem to mainly focus on penalizing the >> pairs guilty of seating themselves incorrectly. >> >> Our prime interest is to save the possibility of playing >> bridge and obtain fair results as far as possible, and >> although we apparently have a consensus that no law >> is directly applicable I feel that our original approach >> is tenable: >> >> A "schedule" is not only a specification on which board(s) >> a pair shall play in a certain round, a schedule also specifies >> at what table and against which opponents this play shall >> occur. >> >> Consequently we may read Law 15 as if it has been written >> something like: "If players play a board not designated for >> them to play and/or against opponents not designated for >> them to meet in the current round . . . . ." >> >> This understanding of Law 15 could be adapted in a WBFLC >> resolution not awaiting the next major law revision. >> (A matter for Grattan's notebook?) >> > +=+ OK. So I have a note of it. However, in setting forth the > above solution, is not Sven simply explaining a procedure by > which the Director may use his Law 81B1 powers to fulfil his > duty under Law 81C1? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It is not particularly clear what the above means but I should believe that there is a requirement that the event be conducted in accordance with law as provided by L81 B. 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. As such there is the matter of not acting in contravention [either by ruling or creation of regulation] of LAW 15 A. If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round (but see** C): 1. The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have previously played the board. **It having been demonstrated that L15C has no bearing as there have been attempts at contortions to alter its meaning. regards roger pewick From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 16 03:30:41 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 02:30:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? - daring speculation. References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net><951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP><928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><338027.17145.qm@web28503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <131613.83212.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal signal? > [Nigel] What is sensible & logical & natural in Bridge varies --- from time to time -- place to place -- and person to person. Two of many examples: - In the early days of contract, according to Terence Reese and Hubert Philips, a double of 1N was clearly take-out. Then, for about fifty years, experts were adamant that, logically, it must be penalty. Nowadays, take-out doubles are again back in fashion. - It amuses me that in their seminal book on Partnership Bidding, Robson and Segal class most of their radical ideas (e.g. fit non-jumps) as logical and natural. Actually, they do make a good case -- but there are still many experts who disparage their theories. > If the players at a table are all members of the same incestuous coven, then disclosure may be redundant. More typically, opponents may be beginners, strangers, foreigners, or simply adherents of a different cult. Just in case they don't share all your certainties, it is safer to disclose. > System-regulation is different: A Pandora's box that legislative bodies should leave well alone. > +=+ (Act I Sc 1) "Law 12B2(a)(i) The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally any special partnership understanding. (ii) The Regulating Authority may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets for the prior listing of a partnership's understandings and may regulate its use. (iii) In default of adequate provision for disclosure of understandings with which some players in the tournament are probably unacquainted, players may accompany system cards with a single sheet of equivalent size on which are listed such understandings together with brief explanations. (If no system cards are in use these understandings should be made known to fresh opponents before removing cards from their slots at the beginning of each round.) (iv) Except as the Regulating Authority may allow the meaning of a call or play shall not vary by reference to the member of the partnership by whom the call is made (but there shall be no restriction of judgement or style, only of method)." (exeunt) +=+ ~ G ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101116/8caf47b5/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 16 04:14:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:14:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? - daring speculation. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt, page 34: Doubt is crucial to science -- in the version we call curiosity or healthy skepticism, it drives science forward -- but it also makes science vulnerable to misrepresentation, because it is easy to take uncertainties out of context and create the impression that _everything_ is unresolved. This was the tobacco industry's key insight: that you could use _normal_ scientific uncertainty to undermine the status of actual scientific knowledge. As in jujitsu, you could use science against itself. "Doubt is our product," ran the infamous memo written by one tobacco industry executive in 1969, "since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public." Grattan Endicott: >+=+ (Act I Sc 1) > >"Law 12B2(a)(i) The Regulating Authority is empowered without >restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally any >special partnership understanding. >(ii) The Regulating Authority may prescribe a System Card with >or without supplementary sheets for the prior listing of a >partnership's understandings and may regulate its use. >(iii) In default of adequate provision for disclosure of >understandings with which some players in the tournament are >probably unacquainted, players may accompany system cards >with a single sheet of equivalent size on which are listed such >understandings together with brief explanations. (If no system >cards are in use these understandings should be made known to >fresh opponents before removing cards from their slots at the >beginning of each round.) >(iv) Except as the Regulating Authority may allow the meaning >of a call or play shall not vary by reference to the member of >the partnership by whom the call is made (but there shall be no >restriction of judgement or style, only of method)." > (exeunt) +=+ ~ G ~ Richard Hills: Grattan Endicott's suggestion " ... these understandings should be made known to fresh opponents before removing cards from their slots at the beginning of each round ... " could perhaps be expanded to read -> Act One, Scene Zero: 3.1 Pre-alerts 3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of their one level openings and the strength and style of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded as unauthorised information. 3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer preempts, unusual two level openings, canap? style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over the opponents' 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents' suit, etc. Pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre-alerted. 3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from doubletons) should also be pre-alerted at this stage. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Tue Nov 16 10:21:12 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:21:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CE1722E.5080503@gmail.com> References: <4CE1722E.5080503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CE24D08.8060000@skynet.be> Hirsch, why do you write posts like this? Is it really just to annoy? Because you seem to be giving an example in which a well-meant rule appears to be contra-productive (by not awarding a claim we may wish to award), but then you do it in such a clumsy way that your example is actually completely wrong. After all, you have the defenders revoke, so you should be giving this claim to both the novice and the expert. And then your counter-example is suddenly meaningless. But seriously, what if in a hypothetical case you would rule in favour of a novice, because she would not find any other line than a winning one, and rule against an expert, because he would not fail to play the winning line since there is a far better (sadly losing) one available? Do you really think that either the novice, or the expert, would complain? Also remember that if you want to rule against the claimer (expert or novice), you must have the doubt against him (so no revoke by opponents), which means that for the expert, all you need to do is to say that the superior (but failing) line is a normal one, which it certainly is. So basically, all you have succeeded to say here is that we might not make a novice go down when a difficult, superior line would fail, when the claimer would certainly not play it. Not a very interesting conclusion, really. Herman. Hirsch Davis wrote: > On 11/11/2010 3:38 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Hirsch Davis: >> >> >>> And if the 25% line is the one that happens to be successful >>> while the 75% line fails, could you really rule the successful >>> line to be irrational with a straight face? >>> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Straight-faced scenario -> >> >> It is the first board of the Grand Final of the Vanderbilt. As >> luck would have, both finalist teams are evenly matched (they >> were initially seeded 12th and 14th), and neither team contains >> a sponsor. >> >> The declarers in both rooms calculate that Line A has a 75% >> chance and Line B has a 25% chance. In this straight-faced >> scenario it would indeed be irrational for either declarer to >> select the luckily successful Line B. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> Work Experience coordinator >> Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 >> Phone: 6223 8453 >> DIAC Social Club movie tickets >> >> >> > But you have the scenario slightly wrong. This was the final session, > and one Declarer has his team down by a large margin. The 25% option > would allow a vulnerable game swing if the 75% chance was going down. > Might be bad bridge, but irrational? > > But I was referring to something like this: > > IMPS > all vul > > N > S: xx > H: Kxx > D: AQx > C: AKJxx > > S > S: Ax > H: AJxx > D: Kxxx > C: T9x > > Both tables are under slow play warnings and must finish quickly. At > both tables, a low spade is led and the second round won. Carding > indicates W has six spades. A high club is played and E shows out. both > players now claim ten tricks on the club finesse (eleven if diamonds > break). Alas, E actually had a club, and the TD must rule at both tables... > > At table 1, declarer is just out of the novice game. She knows enough > to finesse, and that's about it. She was always going to take the club > finesse, which actually happens to work. Diamonds don't break, so she > take ten tricks. > > At table 2, declarer is the club expert. In the absence of the revoke, > he would see a much better line. Try to drop the queen in the longest > suit (clubs). Then look for a 3-3 diamond break. Finally, finesse in > hearts (slightly higher probability than clubs since it's against the > hand known to be shorter in spades). Since this gives him two extra > chances to bring home the contract, it is the line that would normally > be chosen in the absence of the revoke. Alas, all of these chances fail, > so this declarer is down one. We can't allow a good declarer the club > finesse, since for him this line would be irrational... > > If taking a lower percentage play is "irrational", this is what we are > stuck with. > > Hirsch > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3258 - Release Date: 11/15/10 08:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 16 12:18:26 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:18:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] inferior and irrational [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CE1722E.5080503@gmail.com> References: <4CE1722E.5080503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CE26882.9090008@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/11/2010 18:47, Hirsch Davis a ?crit : > > But I was referring to something like this: > > IMPS > all vul > > N > S: xx > H: Kxx > D: AQx > C: AKJxx > > S > S: Ax > H: AJxx > D: Kxxx > C: T9x > > Both tables are under slow play warnings and must finish quickly. At > both tables, a low spade is led and the second round won. Carding > indicates W has six spades. A high club is played and E shows out. both > players now claim ten tricks on the club finesse (eleven if diamonds > break). Alas, E actually had a club, and the TD must rule at both tables... So East revoked, the revoke is established, and play proceeds. If East has Qx(x) in clubs, he'll make a trick with it, two tricks will be transferred, and this will result in 3NT making. If East has bare Q, or only small ones, no problem. The problem will arise if declarer does state that one would have made more tricks had East followed suit, than the corrected amount (which can happen only n the case of Qx in East's hand). In that case, adjust the score to 11 tricks (or 12 if the HQ falls or possibly in the case of a squeeze between diamonds and HQ.. I fail to see this as a problem. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 16 14:45:25 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:45:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0EE58087-6B2C-409C-87B0-28F7DA6414EE@starpower.net> On Nov 15, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > I recall from my early days long ago the time when a world-class > > expert described to me the theory behind passed-hand jumps. Passed- > hand jumps, he explained, show a hand that wasn't worth an opening > bid on its own, but has been promoted to the value of an opening bid > by virtue of partner's opening, and therefore serve to invite game > unless partner has a sub-minimum opening. He went on to note that > misfitting hands are demoted, not promoted, in value, so it is > logically implicit in the definition of a passed-hand jump that it > must have support for the suit partner opened. This was presented as > a pure exercise in bridge logic. But in today's ACBL, this > straightforward piece of logic has morphed into the "Jumps By Passed > Hand Promise Support Convention", written on CCs, alertable, and > subject to regulation or prohibition. > > {Nigel] > Another good example that can be adduced for or against disclosure. > (Again, I > tend to plump for the latter). We all know partnerships who use > passed-hand > suit-jumps to show weak pre-empts, splinters, or fits. And some > regard their > conventions as perfectly logical and natural. Disclosure isn't the issue here. It is the chain of logic: if it is disclosable, it must be a partnership understanding; if it's a partnership understanding it may be designated "special" at the behest of the RA; if it is designated "special" it may be regulated or prohibited. That means that any method for which an RA can require disclosure may just as easily (and just as arbitrarily) be banned entirely. It is this that I (and several others) have called "appalling". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 16 15:06:36 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:06:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? - daring speculation. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:14 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott's suggestion " ... these understandings should > be made known to fresh opponents before removing cards from > their slots at the beginning of each round ... " could perhaps > be expanded to read -> > > Act One, Scene Zero: > > 3.1 Pre-alerts > > 3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should acquaint > each other with their basic system, length of their one level > openings and the strength and style of their opening 1NT. > Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded > as unauthorised information. > > 3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' > attention to any unusual agreements you have which might > surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. > > Examples: transfer preempts, unusual two level openings, canap? > style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over the > opponents' 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the > opponents' suit, etc. > > Pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These > should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally > pre-alerted. > > 3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from doubletons) > should also be pre-alerted at this stage. Adopting such a protocol for ordinary matchpoint games would require us to choose between doubling the length of sessions or halving the number of boards played. It takes orders of magnitude more time to describe everything than to describe only what happens to come up in a 2- or 3-board round. It would work well for full-day knockout matches. But IME, it pretty much happens that way at full-day knockout matches even without a formal protocol. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Tue Nov 16 16:03:49 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:03:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Reno NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/NewOrleans2010.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. I'll post my comments here shortly. Other panelist comments are not yet available. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Tue Nov 16 16:09:48 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:09:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/NewOrleans2010.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. > > I'll post my comments here shortly. Other panelist comments are not > yet available. Darn! I meant to change the Subject line. Doing so now. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 16 16:17:53 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:17:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau 1] Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not allowed to do it again. Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. [Eric2] I recall from my early days long ago the time when a world-class expert described to me the theory behind passed-hand jumps. Passed- hand jumps, he explained, show a hand that wasn't worth an opening bid on its own, but has been promoted to the value of an opening bid by virtue of partner's opening, and therefore serve to invite game unless partner has a sub-minimum opening. He went on to note that misfitting hands are demoted, not promoted, in value, so it is logically implicit in the definition of a passed-hand jump that it must have support for the suit partner opened. This was presented as a pure exercise in bridge logic. But in today's ACBL, this straightforward piece of logic has morphed into the "Jumps By Passed Hand Promise Support Convention", written on CCs, alertable, and subject to regulation or prohibition. [Eric3] For the record, I most definitively do not "deplore this trend" [towards regulatory decentralization] nor "deplore the failure of the WBF" [to reverse it] -- quite the contrary, as I've made clear many times in this forum -- and find myself at a total loss to imagine how Nigel or Grattan could possibly have read such a position into the passage Nigel cites. Allow me to recommend more careful reading before replying to posts in the future. [Eric4] Disclosure isn't the issue here. It is the chain of logic: if it is disclosable, it must be a partnership understanding; if it's a partnership understanding it may be designated "special" at the behest of the RA; if it is designated "special" it may be regulated or prohibited. That means that any method for which an RA can require disclosure may just as easily (and just as arbitrarily) be banned entirely. It is this that I (and several others) have called "appalling". {Nige1] After grovelling for getting the wrong end of the stick, I'm still puzzled... Eric1 and Eric2 complain that the WBFLC has devolved power to RA's - to insist that alarm-clock signals be disclosed. - to insist that passed-hand jumps be alerted. - to regulate and ban such conventions. but... Eric2 endorses regulatory decentralization. Eric3 insists that disclosure isn't an issue here. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 16 17:24:49 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:24:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [RENO NABC #1] http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/01-NABC+.pdf LM pairs. SF. #15. S/NS. West: QJT2 7 53 KT94 (1N) 2C (_X) 3C (3S) _P (4S) .P (_P) _X AP 2C alerted as clubs and a major. _X alerted as Stayman. RESULT 4SX-1 +200 to EW. NS alleged an approx 10 sec bit by East over 4S. EW dispute this. DIRECTOR ruled that there was a noticeable BIT by East providing UI to West. Pass was considered to be a logical alternative for the West hand. Thus, the score was adjusted to 4S undoubled down 1, +100 to East-West pursuant to Laws 12C and 16B. NS Appealed. Only they attended the hearing. They disputed the facts as recorded by the director. COMMITTEE decided by applying Laws 16 and 12 that the alleged ?hitch? after 4S did not qualify as a BIT. The East hand is allowed 3-5 seconds in this competitive auction at these colors, and there was nothing really to think about with the given hand. East had already shown 4+ clubs and some values with his 3C bid. West?s double appeared to be a reasonable shot at procuring extra matchpoints. The Committee reasoned that any potential BIT by East would demonstrably suggest sacrificing in 5C, not doubling 4S since West?s club values would probably be useless on defense. The result was changed to 4S doubled, down 1 for +200 East-West. The committee. [Nigel] IMO, the committee got this wrong. They discredited the director's account of events without questioning him. Also, their argument seems mistaken, since, presumably, the BIT advertised additional strength rather than shape. However this ruling reinforces the ACBL Club Director Handbook advice: normally, to choose the call you would have made, without the hesitation. Seemingly sound advice, followed by an increasing number of players, because under current laws, such an action may show a profit but never appears to lose. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 16 17:27:51 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:27:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <256559.78817.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Correction Eric3 endorses regulatory decentralization. Eric4 insists that disclosure isn't an issue here. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Nov 16 17:35:20 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:35:20 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? - daring speculation. References: Message-ID: <622669E880AD4986AA1E4C1B69CF5F8C@acer> Act One Scene zero is what happens at pairs sessions all across Australia every day at about 20 minutes per set of 3 boards cheers bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal signal? - daring speculation. On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:14 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott's suggestion " ... these understandings should > be made known to fresh opponents before removing cards from > their slots at the beginning of each round ... " could perhaps > be expanded to read -> > > Act One, Scene Zero: > > 3.1 Pre-alerts > > 3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should acquaint > each other with their basic system, length of their one level > openings and the strength and style of their opening 1NT. > Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded > as unauthorised information. > > 3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' > attention to any unusual agreements you have which might > surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. > > Examples: transfer preempts, unusual two level openings, canap? > style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over the > opponents' 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the > opponents' suit, etc. > > Pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These > should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally > pre-alerted. > > 3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from doubletons) > should also be pre-alerted at this stage. Adopting such a protocol for ordinary matchpoint games would require us to choose between doubling the length of sessions or halving the number of boards played. It takes orders of magnitude more time to describe everything than to describe only what happens to come up in a 2- or 3-board round. It would work well for full-day knockout matches. But IME, it pretty much happens that way at full-day knockout matches even without a formal protocol. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 16 17:36:16 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:36:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Come pea tense [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:24:24 -0500, wrote: > > Eric Landau, May 2006: > > Everything Nigel writes is true. But money, power and sex are > serious business. Bridge, OTOH, is a game we play for fun. > > Grattan Endicott, May 2006: > > +=+ Personally I have always found money, power and sex to be > fun as well. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > * * * > > Richard Willey: > >>> From what I can tell, the crux of the matter is whether or not >>> "competence" is a disclosable agreement. >>> >>> If so, is it only disclosable in certain types of events? > > Robert Frick: > >> My requirements for overcalling 2C (how many points, how good >> of suit) are lighter for overcalling 1D than 1S. To me this is >> just good bridge. It never crossed my mind to disclose it. Now >> that I think about it, I don't know how I could disclose it. > > Richard Hills: > > How about Bob writing on his partnership's System Cards "the > greater the bidding space consumed by our overcall, the lighter > our overcall will be"??? > > But I disagree that the Frick style is "just good" bridge. > > Board 42, matchpoint pairs, Dealer: West, Vul: None > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D Pass 1H Pass > 1NT Pass Pass(1) Pass > > (1) Insufficient strength for a New Minor Forcing convention > > Result: East-West +120, a below-average score for them > > Board 42, matchpoint pairs, Dealer: West, Vul: None > > WEST Frick EAST SOUTH > 1D 2C X (2) Pass > 2S Pass Pass Pass > > (2) Negative double, promising both majors > > Result: East-West +140, an above-average score for them > > Different players will have different beliefs about what > constitutes "competent" bridge or "just good" bridge. So no > matter how "competent" or "just good" your methods are, they > still need to be disclosed. I think you have gone way too far down the slippery slope. Let me get this straight. I read Lawrence's book on overcalls. It has a number of ideas that change how I make overcalls. I have to write all of those on my convention card? I pay more attention to 8's and 9's than most people, say for selecting my opening lead against no trump. Do I have to disclose that? Some people will lead differently depending on whether the auction is 1NT P 3NT or 2NT P 3NT. Do they have to disclose that? I am not fond of Axx as a stopper in the opponents suit at notrump. I will try to avoid being declarer at no trump if I don't have any tenaces in the suits they might lead. It goes on and on. The fact of the matter is, I accept that the opponents know what they are doing better than I do. And nothing is going to change that. If you want to fight a worthy battle, I would like to have some way of knowing what a player needs to make a takeout double. (Sunday, someone make a takeout double of spades holding AJxxxx of spades.) > > For example, leading the ace followed by the king to show AK > doubleton may be one person's "just good" bridge. But..... > > The majority of Canberra semi-experts play the "overlead > all" style, so leading the ace followed by the king neither > confirms nor denies a doubleton AK (but a few of the "over- > lead all" players include this footnote on their System > Cards "except we lead the king from AK doubleton"). Thus > for those Canberra semi-experts it would be important that > one gave timely disclosure of one's "just good" bridge pre- > existing mutual partnership understanding that ace-then-king > shows a doubleton. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 16 17:42:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:42:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CE2B481.7090409@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/11/2010 16:17, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Eric Landau 1] > Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you > think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible > reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, > and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. > But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on > pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result > can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now > have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a > partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop > your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, > which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not > allowed to do it again. Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. > > [Eric2] > > I recall from my early days long ago the time when a world-class > expert described to me the theory behind passed-hand jumps. Passed- > hand jumps, he explained, show a hand that wasn't worth an opening > bid on its own, but has been promoted to the value of an opening bid > by virtue of partner's opening, and therefore serve to invite game > unless partner has a sub-minimum opening. He went on to note that > misfitting hands are demoted, not promoted, in value, so it is > logically implicit in the definition of a passed-hand jump that it > must have support for the suit partner opened. This was presented as > a pure exercise in bridge logic. But in today's ACBL, this > straightforward piece of logic has morphed into the "Jumps By Passed > Hand Promise Support Convention", written on CCs, alertable, and > subject to regulation or prohibition. AG : I don't see why they shouldn't be alertable. By another logic, at least as logical, one might say that when you bid 1C-2S, you hold a had too strong to risk partner passing on a moderate hand, say a 3334 13-count. One might even argue that a jump in a major shows 64 majors, as you didn't open a (constructive) weak 2-bid. e.g. KJ10xxx - Axxx - xx - x By still another logic, and at least as logical in a land where strong jumps and weak jumps are concurrent since the fifties, a jump that can't be strong because you have passed is weak, weaker than a weak two-bid if you happen to play any. As there are concurrent logics, the bid is alertable when it isn't straightforward (i.e. a good suit, a maximum and nothing else promised) This doesn't mean bannable, of course. Of course, every player will tell you that his logic is the one oigic, but that doesn't hold in alertability cases. Having played all three treatments, I can tell you that every one of them has been called obvious by some players, and strange by others. Isn't that why we should alert ? Best regards Alain From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 16 18:04:09 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:04:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC 2 In-Reply-To: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <175440.28043.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [RENO NABC 2] http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/02-Non-NABC+.pdf Similar to NABC1 except that the committee and director agreed on what seems to me a peculiar ruling. The gist: LM Pairs Final E/None West AK9 AK85 873 KJ5 East Q5 J7 KQJ96 9642 -- ---- _P (1D) _X (_P) _P (XX) _P (1H) _P (_P) _X (1S) _P (_P) _X (_P) 1N (_P) 3N AP West's first 2 doubles were in tempo. Before doubling 1S, however, West remarked "I'm running out of red cards" and hesitated for 20-25 secs (NS claim) or 7-10 secs (West admits). {Nige1] The message (intentional or not) seems clear. The double of 1H is penalty and automatic. The double of 1S is more competitive. But neither the director nor the committee see it that way. They both allowed the table result of 3N+2 to stand. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 16 18:19:13 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:19:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC 3 In-Reply-To: <175440.28043.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <175440.28043.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <583792.86096.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [RENO NABC 3] http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/03-NABC+.pdf [Nigel] Much Better. But hard to understand why the committee rule that the OS play double-dummy while the NOS play misere. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 16 18:46:56 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:46:56 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC 1 References: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <50D0E4C3BEC24D4CB951ED4374CA1AA2@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > However this ruling reinforces the ACBL Club Director Handbook > advice: normally, > to choose the call you would have made, without the hesitation. > Seemingly sound advice, followed by an increasing number of > players, because > under current laws, such an action may show a profit but never > appears to lose. Advising players to violate the Laws, in this case L16B1(a), is rather pitiful. It can lose heavily if the infraction is caught, as it is often, because the adjusted score for the OS will assume inferior play on their part. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5622 (20101115) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 16 19:27:51 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:27:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ Case 3 Message-ID: Hesitation led to an adjusted score, but the TD's score for the OS, +110 in 3D, was changed to +130 by the AC without an explanation. The most unfavorable result at all probable looks like +110, since a losing finesse for the heart queen is inferior, perhaps, but not illogical. Trump leads assumed, of course, vs a two-suiter. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5622 (20101115) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 16 20:21:16 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:21:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ 2 In-Reply-To: <175440.28043.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <175440.28043.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1745447120.4385671289935276554.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [RENO NABC 2] > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/02-Non-NABC+.pdf I think you ended up copying the wrong link, and mean this one: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/02-NABC+.pdf > Similar to NABC1 except that the committee and director agreed on what seems > to > me a peculiar ruling. The gist: > LM Pairs Final E/None > West AK9 AK85 873 KJ5 > East Q5 J7 KQJ96 9642 > -- ---- _P (1D) > _X (_P) _P (XX) > _P (1H) _P (_P) > _X (1S) _P (_P) > _X (_P) 1N (_P) > 3N AP > West's first 2 doubles were in tempo. Before doubling 1S, however, West > remarked > "I'm running out of red cards" and hesitated for 20-25 secs (NS claim) or > 7-10 > secs (West admits). > > > {Nige1] > The message (intentional or not) seems clear. The double of 1H is penalty > and > automatic. The double of 1S is more competitive. But neither the director > nor > the committee see it that way. They both allowed the table result of 3N+2 to > stand. I don't like this decision. Clearly E got the message. Why else did he sit 1HX but took out 1SX to 1NT? I think both the TD and the AC got that one wrong. Thomas From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 16 20:37:56 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:37:56 -0800 Subject: [BLML] New Orleand NABC+ case 5 Message-ID: <29C13C7D23D54333847E3553F320F8DD@MARVLAPTOP> Following a 1NT opening, only a 2C bid yielding no useful information interfering, responder bids 2H, forgetting that this is a transfer to spades. Opener bids 2S and responder bids 3H, passed by opener, who has K42 spades and A93 hearts. This was acceptable to both the TD and AC. The opponents belatedly said that the 3H bid card was put down in a suggestive way, but they were not believed. Does that really matter? 3H is played as natural and forcing by most pairs, and the TD/AC should have inquired about their system. Even if non-forcing, why no 3S preference? Prima facie evidence is that opener got some message out of responder's body language, and he should have to explain why he passed 3H. But no one asked! Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5624 (20101116) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 16 21:18:16 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:18:16 -0800 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ case 8 Message-ID: <8BBBBF937D5E4C8FB02763935667D878@MARVLAPTOP> After responder forces to game with a 4th suit 2D bid after bidding 1S, opener with 10x AKQxx 9x AKxx marks time with 2S and raises an eventual slow 3NT (agreed) to 4NT, whereupon responder bids 5NT with AKQ42 void AQJ103 Q54. Opener goes on to 6NT, making. After 3NT there were no breaks in tempo.. The AC disagreed with the TD about the effect of the UI, one of them saying that their teammate "did in fact pass on the same auction." The contract was put back to 3NT making six. There could be a case for saying that opener did enough with the 4NT bid and had no reason to bid on when responder bid 5NT (which might have been "pick a slam."). But that case wasn't made. It's hard to see how these two hands can stop short of a slam. Each with an AKQxx suit, one with an AQJ10x suit, and AKxx in opener's hand opposite responder's Qxx, 34 HCP in all . That "teammate" must have been a novice! Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5624 (20101116) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 16 22:01:34 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:01:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] New Orleand NABC+ case 5 In-Reply-To: <29C13C7D23D54333847E3553F320F8DD@MARVLAPTOP> References: <29C13C7D23D54333847E3553F320F8DD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <361064.48904.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Marvin French] Following a 1NT opening, only a 2C bid yielding no useful information interfering, responder bids 2H, forgetting that this is a transfer to spades. Opener bids 2S and responder bids 3H, passed by opener, who has K42 spades and A93 hearts. This was acceptable to both the TD and AC. The opponents belatedly said that the 3H bid card was put down in a suggestive way, but they were not believed. Does that really matter? 3H is played as natural and forcing by most pairs, and the TD/AC should have inquired about their system. Even if non-forcing, why no 3S preference? Prima facie evidence is that opener got some message out of responder's body language, and he should have to explain why he passed 3H. But no one asked! [Nigel] Sorry I put "Reno" not "New Orleans" in the titles of my posts. If anybody replies to them, please would they correct my mistake. On case 5, Agree with Marvin. This is the most amusing set of appeals for a long time! The interesting question is, without alerts and explanations, what would the final contract have been? If the NOS hold their nerve, might they get to double a contract at the five-level or more? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 16 22:39:20 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:39:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC 7 Message-ID: <741301.42113.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Thank you Adam Wildavski for a fascinating set of appeals! [New Orleans NABC #7 Roth Swiss teams Q1 Board 3 S/EW] http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/07-NABC+.pdf West. AKT 97 K74 KJ965 North J83 AT84 982 T72 South Q9652 J4 A643 Q8 -- -- -- 2S _P 3D .P _P 3N AP 2S Alerted as 3-9 HCP with a five-card suit 3D Alerted as 0-18 HCP, natural and non-forcing .P Undisputed break in tempo RESULT 3N+1 EW +630 East asked South about the alerted 3D bid. The explanation was a bit unclear with North urging South to give a complete explanation of their agreement. East may have asked more than one question. He then took about five seconds before passing. West said that he did not believe East took that long to pass. When it was his turn to bid, West also asked more than one question, with North again contributing to the exchange. He noted to the committee North-South?s reputation for light action. Considering those facts, West stated that he believed 3N was a gamble worth risking. North-South maintained that there was a clear break in tempo of about ten seconds Brief summary of director/committee... DIRECTOR 3D-5 EW + 250 (because of UI from BIT) COMMITTEE 3N+1 EW +630 (because the hesitation was consistent with an unusual auction) [Nigel] I don't like the committee's reasoning although their conclusion may be right. The explanation of North's 3D call is interesting: "0-18 HCP, natural and non-forcing". That explanation seems strange, especially in the light of North's persistent prompts. Is it not more likely that North was trying to persuade South to admit that it was "Pass or Correct" or something similar? East's hesitation and West's 3N may have been the result of trying to get their heads round a garbled and confusing explanations. Come back Mr Wolff. All is forgiven! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 16 23:41:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:41:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nothing to lose but [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Attributed to Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965), American statesman: "Eggheads of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your yolks." Eric Landau: >Disclosure isn't the issue here. It is the chain of logic: >if it is disclosable, it must be a partnership understanding; [snip] Richard Hills: Blmlers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but Eric Landau's chains of logic. It is not "if it disclosable, then it is a partnership understanding". Rather, it is "if it is a partnership understanding, then it is disclosable". Law 40A1(a): "Partnership understandings ... may be reached ... implicitly through mutual ... awareness of the players." Law 40A1(b): " ... a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents ... " Robert Frick: >> ... I read Lawrence's book on overcalls. It has a number of >>ideas that change how I make overcalls. I have to write all >>of those on my convention card? ... Attributed to Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965), American statesman: "The trouble with Americans is that they haven't read the minutes of the previous meeting." Richard Hills: The trouble with Frickicans is that they haven't read the principles of the current Lawbook. I too have read Mike Lawrence's book on overcalls. In one section he recommends a partnership understanding that in some frequent circumstances an overcall could be made on a 4-card suit. Such a Lawrencian understanding would be unusual and surprising to Sven Pran, who comes from a bridge environment in which all overcalls guarantee at least a 5-card suit. So the Lawrencian 4-card overcall partnership understanding needs to be disclosed at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way (not necessarily by writing it on the System Card) to a Svenish opponent. Robert Frick, statement of principle: >> ... The fact of the matter is, I accept that the opponents >>know what they are doing better than I do. And nothing is >>going to change that. ... Richard Hills, statement of principle: The fact of the matter is, your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can. The Frick and Hills statements of principle are not in any way logically incompatible. But the two statements of principle approach Full Disclosure from opposite directions, with the Frick statement emphasising that "Full" is an impossible ideal, while the Hills statement emphasises that "Full" is an Excelsior! goal worth striving for. ABF Alert Regulations: "If you make a _positive effort_ to meet your obligations under full disclosure, you will rarely if ever fall foul of these regulations." Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Wed Nov 17 00:33:13 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:33:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ case 8 In-Reply-To: <8BBBBF937D5E4C8FB02763935667D878@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8BBBBF937D5E4C8FB02763935667D878@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <163949.30176.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Marvin French] After responder forces to game with a 4th suit 2D bid after bidding 1S, opener with 10x AKQxx 9x AKxx marks time with 2S and raises an eventual slow 3NT (agreed) to 4NT, whereupon responder bids 5NT with AKQ42 void AQJ103 Q54. Opener goes on to 6NT, making. After 3NT there were no breaks in tempo.. The AC disagreed with the TD about the effect of the UI, one of them saying that their teammate "did in fact pass on the same auction." The contract was put back to 3NT making six. There could be a case for saying that opener did enough with the 4NT bid and had no reason to bid on when responder bid 5NT (which might have been "pick a slam."). But that case wasn't made. It's hard to see how these two hands can stop short of a slam. Each with an AKQxx suit, one with an AQJ10x suit, and AKxx in opener's hand opposite responder's Qxx, 34 HCP in all . That "teammate" must have been a novice! [Nigel] Or perhaps they did indeed have an *identical* auction ... Opener... S:Tx H:AKQxx D:9x C:AKxx Responder S:AKQxx H- D:AQJTx C:Qxx 1H - 1S 2C - 2D 2S - 3D 3H - 3N ?? Responder may have hesitated before bidding 3N on his 18 count, so that opener felt ethically bound to pass. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 17 00:42:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:42:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nothing to lose but [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882): "Try not the Pass!" the old man said; "Dark lowers the tempest overhead, The roaring torrent is deep and wide!" And loud that clarion voice replied, Excelsior! >Are there things which are disclosable but are not >partnership agreements? (1) Partnership understandings create a need for disclosure. A need for disclosure does not create partnership understandings. (2) Law 5B requires the Director to clearly disclose her instructions. (3) Law 78D prohibits the Tournament Organizer from creating secret Conditions of Contest; instead the CoC must be disclosed in advance of the event. (4) Despite UI from the old man, I will select the only legal logical alternative of trying the Pass. Excelsior! Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 jrmayne at mindspring.com Wed Nov 17 01:38:49 2010 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:38:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC 7 Message-ID: <1348115.1289954330203.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Nigel Guthrie >Sent: Nov 16, 2010 1:39 PM >To: BLML >Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC 7 > >Thank you Adam Wildavski for a fascinating set of appeals! >[New Orleans NABC #7 Roth Swiss teams Q1 Board 3 S/EW] >http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/07-NABC+.pdf > >West. AKT 97 K74 KJ965 >North J83 AT84 982 T72 >South Q9652 J4 A643 Q8 >-- -- -- 2S >_P 3D .P _P >3N AP >2S Alerted as 3-9 HCP with a five-card suit >3D Alerted as 0-18 HCP, natural and non-forcing >.P Undisputed break in tempo >RESULT 3N+1 EW +630 >East asked South about the alerted 3D bid. The explanation was a bit unclear >with North urging South to give a complete explanation of their agreement. East >may have asked more than one question. He then took about five seconds before >passing. West said that he did not believe East took that long to pass. When it >was his turn to bid, West also asked more than one question, with North again >contributing to the exchange. He noted to the committee North-South?s reputation >for light action. Considering those facts, West stated that he believed 3N was a >gamble worth risking. North-South maintained that there was a clear break in >tempo of about ten seconds >Brief summary of director/committee... >DIRECTOR 3D-5 EW + 250 (because of UI from BIT) >COMMITTEE 3N+1 EW +630 (because the hesitation was consistent with an unusual >auction) > >[Nigel] >I don't like the committee's reasoning although their conclusion may be right. >The explanation of North's 3D call is interesting: "0-18 HCP, natural and >non-forcing". That explanation seems strange, especially in the light of North's >persistent prompts. Is it not more likely that North was trying to persuade >South to admit that it was "Pass or Correct" or something similar? East's >hesitation and West's 3N may have been the result of trying to get their heads >round a garbled and confusing explanations. Come back Mr Wolff. All is >forgiven! >_ I found this to be the toughest of the set. The committee called these agreements "highly unusual," which I think is an overbid, perhaps because I play them myself (and have for many years.) A non-forcing, wide-ranging 3D isn't *that* unusual. The question I have is just how garbled the explanation was. It sounds like it was pretty murky. If it took multiple questions to get a clean explanation, then a hesitation after that ought to be viewed as normal; the questioner might well have been thinking of more questions. Information, perhaps conflicting, from both of N-S sounds difficult to parse. But I would have liked a write-up with as many specifics as possible. As a director, I'd try to get as close to a verbatim recitation of the Q&A as I could. If E had a lot of questions after it was explained as 0-18, nf, natural, and there was no confusion in the responses, I'd consider that UI. The murkiness in the write-up makes this situation much tougher to read. --JRM ______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 17 04:50:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:50:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Sufficient bidding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1S Pass Pass 2H 3S 3H You, South, hold: K874 A82 T86 985 Scenario One What call do you make if West does not accept your insufficient bid? Scenario Two The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1S Pass Pass 2H 3S 3H 3S 4H 4S ? What sufficient call do you make now? Scenario Three In either Scenario One or Scenario Two above have you, South, infracted Law 23? Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 17 06:58:51 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:58:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ case 8 References: <8BBBBF937D5E4C8FB02763935667D878@MARVLAPTOP> <163949.30176.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2FA08C17EDBB4B43883E42361E3B0F14@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Or perhaps they did indeed have an *identical* auction ... > Opener... S:Tx H:AKQxx D:9x C:AKxx > Responder S:AKQxx H- D:AQJTx C:Qxx > 1H - 1S > 2C - 2D > 2S - 3D > 3H - 3N > ?? > Responder may have hesitated before bidding 3N on his 18 count, so > that opener felt ethically bound to pass. Yes, that was the auction. There is no ethical problem with bidding on with an extra ace, quality HCP, and a strong suit, despite what the AC thought. 4NT had to be cold, no matter what responder holds for his game-forcing auction. 3NT is a wide-range bid, anything from 13 to 18 HCP. Opener had to investigate with a 4NT bid, no question about it. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5625 (20101116) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 17 09:03:07 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:03:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC 1 In-Reply-To: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/11/16 Nigel Guthrie : > [RENO NABC #1] http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/01-NABC+.pdf > LM pairs. SF. #15. S/NS. > West: QJT2 7 53 KT94 > (1N) 2C (_X) 3C > (3S) _P (4S) .P > (_P) _X AP > 2C alerted as clubs and a major. > _X alerted as Stayman. > RESULT 4SX-1 +200 to EW. > NS alleged an approx 10 sec bit by East over 4S. EW dispute this. > DIRECTOR ruled that there was a noticeable BIT by East providing UI to West. > Pass was considered to be a logical alternative for the West hand. Thus, the > score was adjusted to 4S undoubled down 1, +100 to East-West pursuant to Laws > 12C and 16B. This is rather appaling. One crucial point in the ruling is totally missing. Only if bidding 5C could demonstrably have been suggested over passing by the BIT there's cause for an adjustment of the score. > NS Appealed. Only they attended the hearing. They disputed the facts as recorded > by the director. > COMMITTEE decided by applying Laws 16 and 12 that the alleged ?hitch? after 4S > did not qualify as a BIT. The East hand is allowed 3-5 seconds in this > competitive auction at these colors, and there was nothing really to think about > with the given hand. East had already shown 4+ clubs and some values with his 3C > bid. West?s double appeared to be a reasonable shot at procuring extra > matchpoints. The Committee reasoned that any potential BIT by East would > demonstrably suggest sacrificing in 5C, not doubling 4S since West?s club values > would probably be useless on defense. The result was changed to 4S doubled, down > 1 for +200 East-West. The committee. > [Nigel] > IMO, the committee got this wrong. They discredited the director's account of > events without questioning him. Also, their argument seems mistaken, since, > presumably, the BIT advertised additional strength rather than shape. I agree that the AC should have questioned the TD. I find it surprising that the TD wasn't present at the AC hearing. In Norway (and internationally), the TD is always present at AC hearings. I agree with the AC ruling. It's not clear if a BIT is caused by east thinking about doubling of saving. I'd think the latter is more probable. > > However this ruling reinforces the ACBL Club Director Handbook advice: normally, > to choose the call you would have made, without the hesitation. > > > Seemingly sound advice, followed by an increasing number of players, because > under current laws, such an action may show a profit but never appears to lose. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 17 09:09:34 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:09:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC 2 In-Reply-To: <175440.28043.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <175440.28043.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/11/16 Nigel Guthrie : > [RENO NABC 2] http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/02-Non-NABC+.pdf > Similar to NABC1 except that the committee and director agreed on what seems to > me a peculiar ruling. The gist: > LM Pairs Final E/None > West AK9 AK85 873 KJ5 > East Q5 J7 KQJ96 9642 > -- ---- _P (1D) > _X (_P) _P (XX) > _P (1H) _P (_P) > _X (1S) _P (_P) > _X (_P) 1N (_P) > 3N AP > West's first 2 doubles were in tempo. Before doubling 1S, however, West remarked > "I'm running out of red cards" and hesitated for 20-25 secs (NS claim) or 7-10 > secs (West admits). > > > {Nige1] > The message (intentional or not) seems clear. The double of 1H is penalty and > automatic. The double of 1S is more competitive. But neither the director nor > the committee see it that way. They both allowed the table result of 3N+2 to > stand. I find this ruling peculiar too. ISTM that pass over 1Sx is a LA to east, and that bidding has been demonstrably suggested by the BIT. The comment by west doesn't suggest anything to me. I'd have ruled 1Sx-2. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 17 09:14:46 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:14:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC 3 In-Reply-To: <583792.86096.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <175440.28043.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <583792.86096.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/11/16 Nigel Guthrie : > [RENO NABC 3] http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/03-NABC+.pdf > > [Nigel] > Much Better. But hard to understand why the committee rule that the OS play > double-dummy while the NOS play misere. Misere is too hard. But I agree that the TD got this one right. Two rounds of trump from the start makes it far from obvious tomake ten tricks. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 17 09:31:37 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:31:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ case 8 In-Reply-To: <8BBBBF937D5E4C8FB02763935667D878@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8BBBBF937D5E4C8FB02763935667D878@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2010/11/16 Marvin French : > After responder forces to game with a 4th suit 2D bid after bidding > 1S, opener with 10x ?AKQxx 9x AKxx marks time with 2S and raises an > eventual slow 3NT (agreed) to 4NT, whereupon responder bids 5NT with > AKQ42 void AQJ103 Q54. Opener goes on to 6NT, making. It would never occur to me to pass 3NT with Tx AKQxx 9x AKxx on this auction. Ruling pass to be a LA feel wrong to me. > > After 3NT there were no breaks in tempo.. > > The AC disagreed with the TD about the effect of the UI, one of them > saying that their teammate "did in fact pass on the same auction." > The contract was put back to 3NT making six. > > There could be a case for saying that opener did enough with the 4NT > bid and had no reason to bid on when responder bid 5NT (which might > have been "pick a slam."). But that case wasn't made. > > It's hard to see how these two hands can stop short of a slam. Each > with an AKQxx suit, one with an AQJ10x suit, and AKxx in opener's > hand opposite responder's Qxx, 34 HCP in all . That "teammate" must > have been a novice! > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5624 (20101116) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 17 09:38:40 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:38:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ 2 In-Reply-To: <1745447120.4385671289935276554.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <175440.28043.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1745447120.4385671289935276554.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: 2010/11/16 Thomas Dehn : > Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> [RENO NABC 2] >> http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/02-Non-NABC+.pdf > > I think you ended up copying the wrong link, and mean this one: > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/02-NABC+.pdf > > >> Similar to NABC1 except that the committee and director agreed on what seems >> to >> me a peculiar ruling. The gist: >> LM Pairs Final E/None >> West AK9 AK85 873 KJ5 >> East Q5 J7 KQJ96 9642 >> -- ---- _P (1D) >> _X (_P) _P (XX) >> _P (1H) _P (_P) >> _X (1S) _P (_P) >> _X (_P) 1N (_P) >> 3N AP >> West's first 2 doubles were in tempo. Before doubling 1S, however, West >> remarked >> "I'm running out of red cards" and hesitated for 20-25 secs (NS claim) or >> 7-10 >> secs (West admits). >> >> >> {Nige1] >> The message (intentional or not) seems clear. The double of 1H is penalty >> and >> automatic. The double of 1S is more competitive. But neither the director >> nor >> the committee see it that way. They both allowed the table result of 3N+2 to >> stand. > > I don't like this decision. Clearly E got the message. Why > else did he sit 1HX He didn't. Nort bid 1S directly over the double > but took out 1SX to 1NT? > > I think both the TD and the AC got that one wrong. Agree. > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 17 09:40:56 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:40:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New Orleand NABC+ case 5 In-Reply-To: <29C13C7D23D54333847E3553F320F8DD@MARVLAPTOP> References: <29C13C7D23D54333847E3553F320F8DD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2010/11/16 Marvin French : > Following a 1NT opening, only a 2C bid yielding no useful > information interfering, responder bids 2H, forgetting that this is > a transfer to spades. Opener bids 2S and responder bids 3H, passed > by opener, who has K42 spades and A93 hearts. This was acceptable to > both the TD and AC. > > The opponents belatedly said that the 3H bid card was put down in a > suggestive way, but they were not believed. > > Does that really matter? 3H is played as natural and forcing by most > pairs, and the TD/AC should have inquired about their system. Even > if non-forcing, why no 3S preference? > > Prima facie evidence is that opener got some message out of > responder's body language, and he should have to explain why he > passed 3H. But no one asked! Agree completely. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5624 (20101116) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Nov 17 09:43:04 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:43:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Sufficient bidding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9CD14F6C-084E-42C8-A64D-01155D88CC78@btinternet.com> I'd pass in the first case, double in the second. We don't have enough information to know whether we've gained an advantage through the insufficient bid, though even if we have it seems unlikely that I could have known that we might. Gordon Rainsford On 17 Nov 2010, at 03:50, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1S Pass > Pass 2H 3S 3H > > You, South, hold: > > K874 > A82 > T86 > 985 > > Scenario One > > What call do you make if West does not accept your > insufficient bid? > > Scenario Two > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1S Pass > Pass 2H 3S 3H > 3S 4H 4S ? > > What sufficient call do you make now? > > Scenario Three > > In either Scenario One or Scenario Two above have you, > South, infracted Law 23? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, > please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 17 15:37:28 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:37:28 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC 1 In-Reply-To: References: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <791295145.1290004648206.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2010/11/16 Nigel Guthrie : > > [RENO NABC #1] http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/01-NABC+.pdf > > LM pairs. SF. #15. S/NS. > > West: QJT2 7 53 KT94 > > (1N) 2C (_X) 3C > > (3S) _P (4S) .P > > (_P) _X AP > > 2C alerted as clubs and a major. > > _X alerted as Stayman. > > RESULT 4SX-1 +200 to EW. > > NS alleged an approx 10 sec bit by East over 4S. EW dispute this. > > DIRECTOR ruled that there was a noticeable BIT by East providing UI to West. > > Pass was considered to be a logical alternative for the West hand. Thus, the > > score was adjusted to 4S undoubled down 1, +100 to East-West pursuant to Laws > > 12C and 16B. > > This is rather appaling. One crucial point in the ruling is totally missing. > Only if bidding 5C could demonstrably have been suggested over passing > by the BIT there's cause for an adjustment of the score. W did not bid 5C. W doubled. Only if doubling 4S could demonstrably have been suggested ... Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 17 16:01:44 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:01:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <36B0646F-A2BC-4A97-8336-206E3B5944D0@starpower.net> On Nov 16, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau 1] > Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you > think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible > reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, > and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. > But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on > pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result > can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now > have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a > partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop > your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, > which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not > allowed to do it again. Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. > > [Eric2] > > I recall from my early days long ago the time when a world-class > expert described to me the theory behind passed-hand jumps. Passed- > hand jumps, he explained, show a hand that wasn't worth an opening > bid on its own, but has been promoted to the value of an opening bid > by virtue of partner's opening, and therefore serve to invite game > unless partner has a sub-minimum opening. He went on to note that > misfitting hands are demoted, not promoted, in value, so it is > logically implicit in the definition of a passed-hand jump that it > must have support for the suit partner opened. This was presented as > a pure exercise in bridge logic. But in today's ACBL, this > straightforward piece of logic has morphed into the "Jumps By Passed > Hand Promise Support Convention", written on CCs, alertable, and > subject to regulation or prohibition. > > [Eric3] > For the record, I most definitively do not "deplore this > trend" [towards regulatory decentralization] nor "deplore the failure > of the WBF" [to reverse it] -- quite the contrary, as I've made clear > many times in this forum -- and find myself at a total loss to > imagine how Nigel or Grattan could possibly have read such a position > into the passage Nigel cites. Allow me to recommend more careful > reading before replying to posts in the future. > > [Eric4] > Disclosure isn't the issue here. It is the chain of logic: if it is > > disclosable, it must be a partnership understanding; if it's a > partnership understanding it may be designated "special" at the > behest of the RA; if it is designated "special" it may be regulated > or prohibited. That means that any method for which an RA can > require disclosure may just as easily (and just as arbitrarily) be > banned entirely. It is this that I (and several others) have called > "appalling". > > {Nige1] > After grovelling for getting the wrong end of the stick, I'm still > puzzled... > Eric1 and Eric2 complain that the WBFLC has devolved power to RA's > - to insist that alarm-clock signals be disclosed. > - to insist that passed-hand jumps be alerted. > - to regulate and ban such conventions. > but... > Eric2 endorses regulatory decentralization. > Eric3 insists that disclosure isn't an issue here. First, let me apologize to Nigel for my having raised an objection to his misunderstanding of my position after he had already posted a correction, which I had not yet seen. His confusion reflects precisely the nature of my problem with the current state of the law. Let me start by clarifying my position on the two issues involved. I am very liberal on the subject of required disclosure. I believe that disclosure requirements should be subject to decentralized regulation, with RAs given carte blanche to set those requirements based on local practices and preferences, and that RAs should use that power liberally. I am rather conservative on the subject of restricting or prohibiting specific partnership agreements. I believe that the power of the regulatory authorities (at any level) to enact such rules should be clearly circumscribed by law. I also believe that the limited power the law ought to provide in this area should be exercised on a decentralized basis based on local practices and preferences, but that the WBF should step in with the weight of its moral authority when local jurisdictions attempt to exercise powers beyond what the law permits. My problem with the current state of the law is that the new L40 sets the bar for the applicability of both of those areas of regulation in exactly the same place. Any method may be designated "special" under L40B1, and thus become subject to L40B2, which allows the RA to regulate both its use and its disclosure. I argue that these should be decoupled. Until they are, we have a catch-22 situation, which Nigel's confusion over my position illustrates. Because of the way L40 works, to advocate that a particular method be subject to disclosure is perforce to argue that it be subject to prohibition, and to argue that it should not be subject to prohibition is perforce to argue that it not be subject to disclosure. I believe there should be a class of partnership agreements which RAs should be given the authority to regulate the disclosure of at will, but which they should not be allowed to prohibit altogether. Current law does not allow for this possibility. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 17 16:07:40 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:07:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Reno NABC 1 In-Reply-To: <791295145.1290004648206.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <979335.41989.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <791295145.1290004648206.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: 2010/11/17 Thomas Dehn : > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> 2010/11/16 Nigel Guthrie : >> > [RENO NABC #1] http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/NewOrleans2010/01-NABC+.pdf >> > LM pairs. SF. #15. S/NS. >> > West: QJT2 7 53 KT94 >> > (1N) 2C (_X) 3C >> > (3S) _P (4S) .P >> > (_P) _X AP >> > 2C alerted as clubs and a major. >> > _X alerted as Stayman. >> > RESULT 4SX-1 +200 to EW. >> > NS alleged an approx 10 sec bit by East over 4S. EW dispute this. >> > DIRECTOR ruled that there was a noticeable BIT by East providing UI to West. >> > Pass was considered to be a logical alternative for the West hand. Thus, the >> > score was adjusted to 4S undoubled down 1, +100 to East-West pursuant to Laws >> > 12C and 16B. >> >> This is rather appaling. One crucial point in the ruling is totally missing. >> Only if bidding 5C could demonstrably have been suggested over passing >> by the BIT there's cause for an adjustment of the score. > > W did not bid 5C. W doubled. Only if doubling 4S could demonstrably have been suggested ... Sure, my bad. Hopefully everone understood that I really meant double. :-) > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 17 16:20:20 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:20:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <4CE2B481.7090409@ulb.ac.be> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CE2B481.7090409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <7B252D26-DC1E-4BCB-8ACB-413EBDC8400B@starpower.net> On Nov 16, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 16/11/2010 16:17, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > >> [Eric Landau 1] >> Appalling, isn't it? Partner does something noticeably peculiar, you >> think to yourself, "Now why did he do that? Aha! The only sensible >> reason is that he has... he wants me to...", you play accordingly, >> and it works. Thoughtfulness and logic triumph again. >> But once partner has induced you to take the desired action based on >> pure logic, both of you can be 100% confident that the same result >> can be replicated if the situation arises again, which means you now >> have an implicit partnership understanding, which means you have a >> partnership understanding, which means that there's nothing to stop >> your RA from declaring it a "special" partnership understanding, >> which means you have no recourse if they tell you that you're not >> allowed to do it again. Perhaps appalling is too weak a word. >> >> [Eric2] >> >> I recall from my early days long ago the time when a world-class >> expert described to me the theory behind passed-hand jumps. Passed- >> hand jumps, he explained, show a hand that wasn't worth an opening >> bid on its own, but has been promoted to the value of an opening bid >> by virtue of partner's opening, and therefore serve to invite game >> unless partner has a sub-minimum opening. He went on to note that >> misfitting hands are demoted, not promoted, in value, so it is >> logically implicit in the definition of a passed-hand jump that it >> must have support for the suit partner opened. This was presented as >> a pure exercise in bridge logic. But in today's ACBL, this >> straightforward piece of logic has morphed into the "Jumps By Passed >> Hand Promise Support Convention", written on CCs, alertable, and >> subject to regulation or prohibition. > > AG : I don't see why they shouldn't be alertable. They should. > By another logic, at least as logical, one might say that when you bid > 1C-2S, you hold a had too strong to risk partner passing on a moderate > hand, say a 3334 13-count. > One might even argue that a jump in a major shows 64 majors, as you > didn't open a (constructive) weak 2-bid. > e.g. KJ10xxx - Axxx - xx - x > > By still another logic, and at least as logical in a land where strong > jumps and weak jumps are concurrent since the fifties, a jump that > can't > be strong because you have passed is weak, weaker than a weak two- > bid if > you happen to play any. > > As there are concurrent logics, the bid is alertable when it isn't > straightforward (i.e. a good suit, a maximum and nothing else > promised) All true. > This doesn't mean bannable, of course. But it does! Read L40. If they can make it alertable, they can just as legally ban it. *That's* what I've been going on about. > Of course, every player will tell you that his logic is the one oigic, > but that doesn't hold in alertability cases. > Having played all three treatments, I can tell you that every one of > them has been called obvious by some players, and strange by others. > Isn't that why we should alert ? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 17 16:35:27 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:35:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nothing to lose but In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 16, 2010, at 5:41 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> Disclosure isn't the issue here. It is the chain of logic: >> if it is disclosable, it must be a partnership understanding; > > Richard Hills: > > Blmlers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but Eric > Landau's chains of logic. > > It is not "if it disclosable, then it is a partnership > understanding". Rather, it is "if it is a partnership > understanding, then it is disclosable". These are, of course, equivalent, given the additional premise that if it is not a partnership understanding, then it is not disclosable. I may have erred in thinking that this was obvious enough not to need stating. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Wed Nov 17 17:25:19 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:25:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Sufficient bidding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1S Pass > Pass 2H 3S 3H > > You, South, hold: > > K874 > A82 > T86 > 985 Ooh. A nice welcome back to BLML. > > Scenario One > > What call do you make if West does not accept your insufficient bid? Ick. I know at the table I'd pass. In tempo, accepting that I've passed a ton of UI. (3H is a massive overbid -- notwithstanding the potentially useful SK -- the way I play) > Scenario Two > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1S Pass > Pass 2H 3S 3H > 3S 4H 4S ? > > What sufficient call do you make now? Well this won't be the common auction. West won't have that useful 3S invitation available and doesn't seem to be worth a 4S call. I'd pass (hopefully) in tempo. > Scenario Three > > In either Scenario One or Scenario Two above have you, South, infracted Law 23? Well not in Scenario Two. In Scenario One it's certainly a live possibility. I wouldn't be surprised to be ruled against. (If partner has the wrong hand I can see a penalty in 5HX being the adjusted score) From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 17 17:54:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:54:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The question is whether the defenders are allowed to produce a double-dummy defense after declarer claims. The alternative is that director tries to determine how play might have gone had their been no claim. In the presented example, the defenders adamantly claimed that they would not have produced the double-dummy defense. Thomas said that they got the double dummy defense. In the absence of any disagreement from blml, I concluded that the defense gets the double dummy defense. Richard then demurred, saying he does not follow that principle. So I asked on rec.games.bridge. I think everyone decided that the defense gets the double dummy line of play. (Some people noted that defender might accidentally produce the right play, say by accidentally dropping a card to the table. This comes to the same outcome, albeit by a slightly different route.) I also asked the ACBL rulings. Mike Flader was very clear that the defense gets the double dummy defense. So I conclude that the widespread practice is to give the nonclaimers the best line of play they can find (with the director possibly helping). (That assumes all cards are exposed, which is probably considered a right.) I would be eager to hear if any directors other than Richard do not rule this way. Bob > Robert Frick: > >>> ...I am saying that you, me and probably everyone follows the >>> principle that "the non-claiming side is assumed to perform >>> brilliantly after the claim". > > Richard Hills: > > "Probably everyone" counter-example; this unprincipled principle > is not followed by me. > > Robert Frick: > >>> Furthermore, this takes precedence over the injunction to make >>> an equitable ruling, which is in the rules... > > Richard Hills: > > No, Law 70A requires equity to take precedence. If the Director > is uncertain as to where equity lies, such a "doubtful point as > to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > "doubtful a., feeling or giving rise to doubt, uncertain" > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 17 18:21:27 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:21:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net><951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP><928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <36B0646F-A2BC-4A97-8336-206E3B5944D0@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal signal? +=+ The following belief is expressed by Eric: <" I believe there should be a class of partnership agreements which RAs should be given authority to regulate the disclosure of at will, but which they should not be allowed to prohibit altogether. Current law does not allow for this possibility. "> > This arrangement would probably arouse heated argument, argumentatively debated and almost certainly no committee consensus achievable to make provision in the laws. But would anyone care to experiment with wording to delineate this class of NSS (not-so-special) understandings? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 17 18:27:34 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:27:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <287835071.4667031290014854840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > The question is whether the defenders are allowed to produce a > double-dummy defense after declarer claims. The alternative is that > director tries to determine how play might have gone had their been no > claim. In the presented example, the defenders adamantly claimed that they > would not have produced the double-dummy defense. > > Thomas said that they got the double dummy defense. I said they get excellent defense. That's not the same as double dummy. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 17 18:50:43 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:50:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <287835071.4667031290014854840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <287835071.4667031290014854840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:27:34 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> The question is whether the defenders are allowed to produce a >> double-dummy defense after declarer claims. The alternative is that >> director tries to determine how play might have gone had their been no >> claim. In the presented example, the defenders adamantly claimed that >> they >> would not have produced the double-dummy defense. >> >> Thomas said that they got the double dummy defense. > > I said they get excellent defense. > That's not the same as double dummy. Can you explain? Or give the difference? The rec.games.bridge people discussed if the defenders could get an expert opinion or a computer-generated double dummy defense. I am guessing that current practice is that defenders get the best defense they can find or the director can find. (I am pretty sure I sometimes find defenses that the nonclaimers haven't yet found.) Is there more than that? From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 17 19:09:37 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:09:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <287835071.4667031290014854840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <249475213.4681211290017377103.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:27:34 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> The question is whether the defenders are allowed to produce a > >> double-dummy defense after declarer claims. The alternative is that > >> director tries to determine how play might have gone had their been no > >> claim. In the presented example, the defenders adamantly claimed that > >> they > >> would not have produced the double-dummy defense. > >> > >> Thomas said that they got the double dummy defense. > > > > I said they get excellent defense. > > That's not the same as double dummy. > > Can you explain? Or give the difference? "double dummy" would include plays which usually would not be considered by anybody with the information available absent the claim, such as any plays which are "irrational", but which happen to work when knowing all cards. Say, a defense against a doubled partscore contract where a defender can see one down, and there exists a 1% chance for an extremely unlikely layout that yields two down if successful, and gives away the contract if unsuccessful. (Here, I am assuming an ordinary state of match, not something like last board and we need 15 IMPs). Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 17 20:04:31 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:04:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <249475213.4681211290017377103.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <287835071.4667031290014854840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <249475213.4681211290017377103.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:09:37 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:27:34 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> The question is whether the defenders are allowed to produce a >> >> double-dummy defense after declarer claims. The alternative is that >> >> director tries to determine how play might have gone had their been >> no >> >> claim. In the presented example, the defenders adamantly claimed that >> >> they >> >> would not have produced the double-dummy defense. >> >> >> >> Thomas said that they got the double dummy defense. >> > >> > I said they get excellent defense. >> > That's not the same as double dummy. >> >> Can you explain? Or give the difference? > > "double dummy" would include plays which usually > would not be considered by anybody anybody? If the nonclaimants don't challenge a claim and later in the day they find a defense that would have given them an extra trick, then they are out luck. But if they challenge the claim, and I don't see a way to get more tricks and they don't see a way to get more tricks, then if they find a line of play that Garazzo would have found, is it director error? > with the information available absent the claim, > such as any plays which are "irrational", > but which happen to work when knowing all cards. That would add an extra level of work to adjudicating a claim. I distinctly remember one claim where I found a defense to get an extra trick. It wasn't too obvious, but neither was it easy to find. It never crossed my mind to make sure all of the defense's plays were rational given .... (all of in the information they could possibly have?) > > Say, a defense against a doubled partscore contract where a defender > can see one down, and there exists a 1% > chance for an extremely unlikely layout > that yields two down if successful, and gives > away the contract if unsuccessful. (Here, I am > assuming an ordinary state of match, not > something like last board and we need 15 IMPs). > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 17 21:52:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:52:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Sufficient bidding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- 1S Pass >>Pass 2H 3S 3H >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>K874 >>A82 >>T86 >>985 >>Scenario Two >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- 1S Pass >>Pass 2H 3S 3H >>3S 4H 4S ? >> >>What sufficient call do you make now? Ron Johnson: >Well this won't be the common auction. West won't have that >useful 3S invitation available and doesn't seem to be worth >a 4S call. Richard Hills: Precisely. For any insufficient bid auction _in general_ the insufficient bidder "could have been aware" that the IB might give the non-offending side more bidding space. But for this insufficient bid auction _in particular_, the insufficient bidder "could have been aware" that the only way that West is likely to be able to afford to show spade support to East is after a condoned insufficient bid, plus South's hand and the auction tells South that West's possible 3S after a condonation "could well damage the non- offending side". Gordon Rainsford: >I'd pass in the first case, double in the second. Richard Hills: At the table Scenario Two did in fact occur, South did in fact double 4S, and the result was a matchpoint pairs kiss- of-death +200 top score for North-South. Gordon Rainsford: >We don't have enough information to know whether we've >gained an advantage through the insufficient bid, Richard Hills: On this fuller statement of the facts, the offending side did gain an advantage, improving a nondescript score of -140 to a cold top of +200. Gordon Rainsford: >though even if we have it seems unlikely that I could have >known that we might. Richard Hills: This is the nub of the issue. My $0.02 worth is that Law 23 was not infracted, as the East-West debacle was too idiosyncratic to be reasonably anticipated by South. But my assessment is one-eyed, since I was South at the table. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 17 22:16:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:16:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nothing to lose but [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Blmlers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but Eric >>Landau's chains of logic. >> >>It is not "if it disclosable, then it is a partnership >>understanding". Rather, it is "if it is a partnership >>understanding, then it is disclosable". Eric Landau: >These are, of course, equivalent, given the additional premise >that if it is not a partnership understanding, then it is not >disclosable. I may have erred in thinking that this was >obvious enough not to need stating. Richard Hills: The "of course, equivalent" does not apply in the ACBL, which has created an "obvious" but unLawful regulation mandating that all partnerships must have already created mutual partnership understandings in "to be expected" situations. In one of Mike Lawrence's books (I believe it was an over-the- shoulder simulated two-session pairs tournament), he related how he had frequently encountered win-at-all-costs grey ethics players who pretended not to have a partnership understanding in answer to Mike's question. In one over-the-top case, the opponent pretended not to understand English. The Lawful way for the ACBL to resolve this situation would have been to instruct its Directors to make Law 85 assessments of "You're a liar!" against these grey ethics players. But this was all too hard for those ACBL TDs who wanted to be loved by all without making any difficult decisions, so the ACBL instead decided to unLawfully penalise highly ethical novice partnerships and highly ethical new partnerships. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 17 23:10:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:10:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] NSSPUs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: +=+ The following belief is expressed by Eric: <" I believe there should be a class of partnership agreements which RAs should be given authority to regulate the disclosure of at will, but which they should not be allowed to prohibit altogether. Current law does not allow for this possibility. "> > This arrangement would probably arouse heated argument, argumentatively debated and almost certainly no committee consensus achievable to make provision in the laws. But would anyone care to experiment with wording to delineate this class of NSS (not-so-special) understandings? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 2018 Law 40B - Partnership Understandings (PUs) A. Common or Garden Partnership Understandings (CGPUs) 1. The Regulating Authority may neither prohibit nor regulate the use of Common or Garden Partnership Understandings. A CGPU is a PU universally understood within its local environment. Examples: A Regulating Authority may neither prohibit nor regulate the use of a 15-17 hcp 1NT opening bid in Long Island, New York. A Regulating Authority may neither prohibit nor regulate the use of RCO Two Bids on Tuesday nights at the Canberra Bridge Club. 2. However, the Regulating Authority may require some or all of a partnership's CGPUs to be disclosed in some or all specific ways (Pre-Alerts, Alerts, Post- Alerts, Announcements, System Cards, Supplementary Sheets, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera). B. Not-So-Special Partnership Understandings (NSSPUs) 1. The Regulating Authority may not prohibit, but may regulate the use of, Not-So-Special Partnership Understandings. An NSSPU is a PU commonly understood within its local environment. Examples: A Regulating Authority may not prohibit, but may regulate the use of a 12-14 hcp 1NT opening bid in Long Island, New York. A Regulating Authority may not prohibit but may regulate the use of the Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) system on Tuesday nights at the Canberra Bridge Club. 2. However, the Regulating Authority may require some or all of a partnership's NSSPUs to be disclosed in some or all specific ways (Pre-Alerts, Alerts, Post- Alerts, Announcements, System Cards, Supplementary Sheets, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera). C. Highly Unusual Methods (HUMs) 1. The Regulating Authority may prohibit and/or regulate the use of Highly Unusual Methods. A HUM is a PU which the ACBL Board of Directors does not like. Example: The ACBL BoD may prevail upon the WBF to prohibit the use of RCO Two Bids in the qualifying rounds of all World Championships. 2. However, the Regulating Authority MUST require ALL of a partnership's HUMs to be disclosed in AT LEAST ONE specific way (Pre-Alerts, Alerts, Post-Alerts, Announcements, System Cards, Supplementary Sheets, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera). Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 18 00:42:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:42:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Sufficient bidding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>In either Scenario One or Scenario Two above have you, South, >>infracted Law 23? Ron Johnson: >Well not in Scenario Two. > >In Scenario One it's certainly a live possibility. I wouldn't >be surprised to be ruled against. (If partner has the wrong >hand I can see a penalty in 5Hx being the adjusted score) Richard Hills: Interesting point. The first sentence of Law 23 refers to "at the time of his irregularity". This phrase suggests that Law 23 has been infracted in both Scenario One and also Scenario Two, or in neither Scenario One nor Scenario Two. But this phrase also suggests that it is logically impossible to deem that a Law 23 infraction occurs in Scenario One, but not in Scenario Two. On the other hand, the second sentence of Law 23 refers to "gained an advantage", which suggests that Law 23 has never been infracted if the non-offending side never receives any not-already-rectified damage. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 18 06:02:36 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:02:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nothing to lose but [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6) Anne Jones, 30th May 2006: >>Reminds me of the hand that I played in 1978 with a wise old >>bird in a cut in rubber. I led my singleton and he switched. >>What a pratt, I had my trump out ready to ruff !!!! We lost >>the rubber and he moved on. >> >>He explained to me in the bar after why he had done that, at >>considerable cost to himself I hasten to add. >> >>Probably the reason I am now a TD and the chair of Wales L&EC. Robert Frick, 17th November 2010: >I think you have gone way too far down the slippery slope. >..... >I pay more attention to 8's and 9's than most people, say for >selecting my opening lead against no trump. Do I have to >disclose that? >..... Richard Hills, 18th November 2010: The wise old bird Edgar Kaplan may well have thought that Bob's instinctive flinch away from Full Disclosure was going way too far down the slippery slope. After a question on this very issue, partnership understandings about preferred cards selected and unpreferred cards not selected for opening leads, Edgar Kaplan wrote a comprehensive Bridge World Editorial. He said because the defence benefited from both negative and also positive inferences due to their agreed leading methods, declarer was also entitled to benefit by being informed about the leading methods (e.g. with QT in dummy and Ax in hand, declarer was entitled to guess right if the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding of the defenders was that they almost never led away from a jack, but very frequently led away from a king). The questioner claimed that this rule was unfair, since such "excessive" disclosure effectively was equivalent to them placing their hands face up on the table. Edgar Kaplan riposted that they were being unfair to themselves by binding themselves to such rigid and detailed methods. No doubt Edgar Kaplan would have mentioned TANSTAAFL if he did not instinctively flinch away from neologisms. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 18 09:12:11 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:12:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <7B252D26-DC1E-4BCB-8ACB-413EBDC8400B@starpower.net> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CE2B481.7090409@ulb.ac.be> <7B252D26-DC1E-4BCB-8ACB-413EBDC8400B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CE4DFDB.7080405@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > >> This doesn't mean bannable, of course. > > But it does! Read L40. If they can make it alertable, they can just > as legally ban it. *That's* what I've been going on about. > And so what? If you object to something being banned, talk to the RA who baans it. Don't criticize the WBF for allowing something to be banned! Herman. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 18 10:19:00 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:19:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: <4CE4DFDB.7080405@skynet.be> References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net> <951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP> <928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CE2B481.7090409@ulb.ac.be> <7B252D26-DC1E-4BCB-8ACB-413EBDC8400B@starpower.net> <4CE4DFDB.7080405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <489656.58482.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Herman De Wael] And so what? If you object to something being banned, talk to the RA who bans it. Don't criticize the WBF for allowing something to be banned! Herman. [Nigel] Herman is right that protesting to the the WBF is useless. So all we can do is protest to all the different RAs. Unfortunately, that has no effect either :( Effectively, the wBF colludes with local people to restrict players to the chauvinistic local "fairy" bridge, preferred by the local old-guard. Typical examples ... Under EBU jurisdiction, players may not use "Moscito" at normal levels :( Under ACBL jurisdiction, when you are permitted to use "Multi", each opposing pair is allowed to consult, at the table, a different concoction of home-brew counter-measures of any degree of complexity :( From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 18 11:11:48 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:11:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sufficient bidding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CE4FBE4.9000407@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/11/2010 21:52, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- 1S Pass >>> Pass 2H 3S 3H >>> >>> You, South, hold: >>> >>> K874 >>> A82 >>> T86 >>> 985 >>> Scenario Two >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- 1S Pass >>> Pass 2H 3S 3H >>> 3S 4H 4S ? >>> >>> What sufficient call do you make now? > Ron Johnson: > >> Well this won't be the common auction. West won't have that >> useful 3S invitation available and doesn't seem to be worth >> a 4S call. > Richard Hills: > > Precisely. For any insufficient bid auction _in general_ > the insufficient bidder "could have been aware" that the IB > might give the non-offending side more bidding space. > > But for this insufficient bid auction _in particular_, the > insufficient bidder "could have been aware" that the only > way that West is likely to be able to afford to show spade > support to East is after a condoned insufficient bid, plus > South's hand and the auction tells South that West's > possible 3S after a condonation "could well damage the non- > offending side". > AG : true, but very thin. When you hold 4 spades, the chances aren't high that LHO will find a raise. I would be much more aware that partner could bid 4H after my bid has been condoned, and be doubled, and I wouldn't like it. > Gordon Rainsford: > >> We don't have enough information to know whether we've >> gained an advantage through the insufficient bid, > Richard Hills: > > On this fuller statement of the facts, the offending side > did gain an advantage, improving a nondescript score of > -140 to a cold top of +200. AG : indded, but you can't pretend it was foreseeable. When you pay your penalty (LHO's choice of actions in this case), you're allowed to get a good score thereafter ("rub of the green"), unless it's easily arguable that you could have foreseen how it would happen ("could have known") and this isn't one of those cases IMNSHO. t. Richard Hills: > This is the nub of the issue. My $0.02 worth is that Law > 23 was not infracted, as the East-West debacle was too > idiosyncratic to be reasonably anticipated by South. > AG : beter said than I would have. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 18 13:16:58 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:16:58 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net><951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP><928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4CE2B481.7090409@ulb.ac.be><7B252D26-DC1E-4BCB-8ACB-413EBDC8400B@starpower.net><4CE4DFDB.7080405@skynet.be> <489656.58482.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal signal? > [Herman De Wael] > And so what? If you object to something being banned, talk to the RA who bans it. Don't criticize the WBF for allowing something to be banned! > [Nigel] Herman is right that protesting to the the WBF is useless. So all we can do is protest to all the different RAs. Unfortunately, that has no effect either :( > Effectively, the wBF colludes with local people to restrict players to the chauvinistic local "fairy" bridge, preferred by the local old-guard. Typical examples ... > Under EBU jurisdiction, players may not use "Moscito" at normal levels :( > Under ACBL jurisdiction, when you are permitted to use "Multi", each opposing pair is allowed to consult, at the table, a different concoction of home-brew counter-measures of any degree of complexity :( > +=+ Hmmm......... it may be supposed that the majority of members of these organizations are content with the grass growing in the field into which they have wandered. They do not seek a change of diet. It is not the role of the WBF to stimulate discontent among the larger part of an NBO's membership. On balance subscribers to blml do tend to air minority points of view. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 18 13:44:49 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:44:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net><951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP><928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4CE2B481.7090409@ulb.ac.be><7B252D26-DC1E-4BCB-8ACB-413EBDC8400B@starpower.net><4CE4DFDB.7080405@skynet.be> <489656.58482.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <167666.61927.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> {GrattanEndicott] +=+ Hmmm......... it may be supposed that the majority of members of these organizations are content with the grass growing in the field into which they have wandered. They do not seek a change of diet. It is not the role of the WBF to stimulate discontent among the larger part of an NBO's membership. On balance subscribers to blml do tend to air minority points of view. [Nigel] Possibly :) but since neither the WBF nor local RAs poll players on such subjects, how can we be sure? Grattan says the WBF is a dog wagged by its tail. But perhaps the WBFLC could produce a *complete set of default rules* (laws + regulations + etc). Local legislatures could be still allowed to over-ride them. But there would then be a level-playing field for all players under those legislatures, sufficiently compliant or lazy to conform. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 18 15:49:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:49:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? In-Reply-To: References: <5E149B47-871F-444A-9AB0-D2220A568154@starpower.net><951715.34363.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4AD8833590A4402AB7AA4AD2F5AA8BD1@MARVLAPTOP><928937.30593.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><223657.28733.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <36B0646F-A2BC-4A97-8336-206E3B5944D0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <7C5C9B63-3097-4AB3-973C-55DD24ACDD25@starpower.net> On Nov 17, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ The following belief is expressed by Eric: > <" I believe there should be a class of partnership > agreements which RAs should be given authority > to regulate the disclosure of at will, but which > they should not be allowed to prohibit altogether. > Current law does not allow for this possibility. "> > > This arrangement would probably arouse heated > argument, argumentatively debated and almost > certainly no committee consensus achievable to > make provision in the laws. But would anyone > care to experiment with wording to delineate > this class of NSS (not-so-special) understandings? "The RA may regulate or prohibit the use of artificial calls or plays." TFLB already has a definition of "artificial call", and defining "artificial play" shouldn't be all that hard. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu Nov 18 17:02:25 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:02:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? Message-ID: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> We have a Law reading problem : Decl LHO Dummy RHO 1S P 2NT* 2S** 2NT* shows invitational fit 2S** = insufficient bid, "ho, i saw 1NT, not 1NT and 2S is a strong one suiter in our system" then Decl LHO Dummy RHO 1S P 2NT* 3C 4S end do you apply L27B1b? is LHO allowed to bid (even is he passes)? do you apply L26 lead restrictions? if you do, what are the forbidden suit(s)? can declarer ask for a suit to be led? can RHO psyched with 3C? do you rule differently if he has D or H? Thanks ... Olivier Beauvillain http://www.lebridgeur.com/shopping-bridge/livres/commentaires-code-2007.html Pour commander : me contacter par courriel 29,5€+port __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5630 (20101118) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101118/37a06dea/attachment.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Nov 18 17:40:28 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:40:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?L26_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> References: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <1PJ7XB-1OLuE40@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Hi Olivier, From: "olivier.beauvillain" > ? We have a Law reading problem : Decl LHO Dummy > RHO 1S P 2NT* 2S** 2NT* shows > invitational fit 2S** = insufficient bid, "ho, i saw 1NT, not 1NT and > 2S is a strong one suiter in our system" then Decl LHO > Dummy RHO 1S P 2NT* 3C 4S end > do you apply L27B1b? is LHO allowed to bid (even is he passes)? mmh.. it depends ... "would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?" - _if_ 3C shows an onesuiter in that system and _if_ that onesuiter is supposed to be strong, then I _will_ apply L27B1b - _if_ 3C shows a onesuiter on that system, but need not be strong, _but_ if the respective RA gave some allowance to lenient application, I _might_ apply L27B1b - otherwise I _probably_ will not apply L27B1b > do you apply L26 lead restrictions? mmh.. it depends ... ;-) - if I applied L27B1b there are no lead restrictions (see Minute #3 from the WBF LC at Beijing, Okt 10 2008): "It was also agreed that where it says in Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) that ?the auction proceeds without further rectification? this is interpreted as meaning that the auction and play continue without further rectification." - if I did not apply L27B1b then I apply L26B > if you do, what are the forbidden suit(s)? any single one suit may be forbidden > can declarer ask for a suit to be led? no > can RHO psyched with 3C? mmh.. here I'm not sure I think there is no law that forbids psyching here but the TD might get a feeling to apply L23 in that situation. > do you rule differently if he has D or H? no, as long as he replaces with 3D or 3H resp. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu Nov 18 18:09:52 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:09:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? V Message-ID: <40F0EADB70414188971A577702679F5D@PCdeOlivier> without the trap ... We have a Law reading problem : Decl LHO Dummy RHO 1S P 2NT* 2S** 2NT* shows invitational fit 2S** = insufficient bid, "ho, i saw 1NT, not 1NT and 2S is one suiter in our system" then Decl LHO Dummy RHO 1S P 2NT* 3C*** 3C*** = natural clubs 4S end do you apply L27B1b? is LHO allowed to bid (even is he passes)? do you apply L26 lead restrictions? if you do, what are the forbidden suit(s)? can declarer ask for a suit to be led? can RHO psyched with 3C? do you rule differently if he has D or H? Thanks ... Olivier Beauvillain http://www.lebridgeur.com/shopping-bridge/livres/commentaires-code-2007.html Pour commander : me contacter par courriel 29,5€+port __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5630 (20101118) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101118/924a3e91/attachment-0001.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Nov 18 18:23:44 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:23:44 -0800 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ 5 and non-NABC+6 Message-ID: <741511B8B1524C4C93D4633159C307A5@MARVLAPTOP> Both cases involved a player who mistakenly bid 2H (transfer) in response to a 1NT opening when it was intended as natural, and then bid 3H, passed out, when partner bid 2S. In NABC+ 5 the 3H bid was allowed, the AC not believing the opponents' belated claim that it was made with body language. We don't know if 2H was announced as a transfer but note (3) for that bid says "Transfer to Spades," so it was part of their system whether announced or not. The issue of whether 3H was forcing in their system was not brought up. Doesn't that matter? Most pairs play it forcing. The partner did have two spades and three hearts. In non-NABC+ 6 the score was adjusted by a TD Panel to 4HX down two. The partner was 3-3 in the majors. Again, no discussion as to whether 3H was forcing in their system, but 2H was Announced as a transfer. Evidently the TD panel did a better job than the AC. Am I missing something? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5630 (20101118) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 18 18:47:35 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:47:35 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ 5 and non-NABC+6 In-Reply-To: <741511B8B1524C4C93D4633159C307A5@MARVLAPTOP> References: <741511B8B1524C4C93D4633159C307A5@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <516887912.1290102455065.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Marvin French wrote: > Both cases involved a player who mistakenly bid 2H (transfer) in > response to a 1NT opening when it was intended as natural, and then > bid 3H, passed out, when partner bid 2S. > > In NABC+ 5 the 3H bid was allowed, the AC not believing the > opponents' belated claim that it was made with body language. We > don't know if 2H was announced as a transfer but note (3) for that > bid says "Transfer to Spades," so it was part of their system > whether announced or not. The issue of whether 3H was forcing in > their system was not brought up. Doesn't that matter? Most pairs > play it forcing. The partner did have two spades and three hearts. > > In non-NABC+ 6 the score was adjusted by a TD Panel to 4HX down > two. The partner was 3-3 in the majors. Again, no discussion as to > whether 3H was forcing in their system, but 2H was Announced as a > transfer. > > Evidently the TD panel did a better job than the AC. > > Am I missing something? I think that overall the TD panels did a better job than the ACs. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 18 18:57:41 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:57:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? In-Reply-To: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> References: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:02 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: > We have a Law reading problem : > > Decl LHO Dummy RHO > 1S P 2NT* 2S** 2NT* shows invitational fit > 2S** = insufficient bid, > "ho, i saw 1NT, not 1NT and 2S is a strong one suiter in our system" > then > Decl LHO Dummy RHO > 1S P 2NT* 3C > 4S end > > do you apply L27B1b? Only insofar as it tells me to proceed to L27B2. > is LHO allowed to bid (even is he passes)? No. > do you apply L26 lead restrictions? Yes. > if you do, what are the forbidden suit(s)? > can declarer ask for a suit to be led? L26B applies. Declarer can forbid any suit, but cannot require one. > can RHO psyched with 3C? At his own risk, but he will not gain from it. > do you rule differently if he has D or H? Yes. A psych in this position could so easily have been premeditated that this is an obvious case for adjusting the score per L23 if it gains. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Nov 18 19:30:27 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:30:27 -0800 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans non-NABC+ case 9 Message-ID: <4A6D61F370914FC6B1627400363BB5C7@MARVLAPTOP> An interesting case. North breaks tempo seriously over a 3D opening and partner bids 4S with Q109876 KJ107 void QT4. North says she was waiting for the Stop Card to be picked up, not proper procedure in ACBL-land. East doubled 4S with Ax xxx QJx AJ987, which strikes me as a "wild or gambling" action. Where did he/she think 4 tricks were coming from?? However, he was very inexperienced, going by his masterpoint holding (486), so perhaps this does not qualify as a WOG action. The TD panel decided that South's bid should be 3S passed by North, who held KJx A9842 1065 K5. Six out of seven players polled said they would pass the balancing 3S bid. Sure, having shown about that much by the tempo break, this North might have passed. This illustrates the problem with small-sample polling. I doubt that 100 players polled would have found 6 of 7 passing 3S. Anyhoo, the TD Panel decided that East would bid 4D over 3S, and North would then re-evaluate her hand and bid 4S, which East would double. So table result stands, but a PP for North's "unsubstantial nature of his reason for hesitating." No poll was taken asking whether or not 3S would be passed with East's hand. Bidding 4D would be rather stupid, but this "class of player" is dumb enough to do that, I suppose, going by his actual double of 4S. Having pushed the opponents to 4S, would those polled double 4S? I doubt it. The rational course is to pass and hope it goes down, mission accomplished, but again this East would surely double. There are times when you don't employ a poll because you know what a player would do based on his/her actions at the table. This is one such case. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5630 (20101118) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 18 19:34:16 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:34:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? In-Reply-To: References: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <001601cb874f$3550b940$9ff22bc0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > olivier.beauvillain wrote: > > > We have a Law reading problem : > > > > Decl LHO Dummy RHO > > 1S P 2NT* 2S** 2NT* shows invitational fit > > 2S** = insufficient bid, > > "ho, i saw 1NT, not 1NT and 2S is a strong one suiter in our system" > > then > > Decl LHO Dummy RHO > > 1S P 2NT* 3C > > 4S end > > > > do you apply L27B1b? > > Only insofar as it tells me to proceed to L27B2. If (according to agreements) the 3C bid shows THE suit among the possible long suits indicated by the 2S bid and a strength within the limits of the strength indicated by the 2S bid THEN the 3C bid is "more precise" than the 2S bid and we shall apply Law 27B1b. If these conditions are not satisfied then (and only then) do we proceed to Law 27B2. > > > is LHO allowed to bid (even is he passes)? > > No. Yes, if my above referenced conditions are satisfied. > > > do you apply L26 lead restrictions? > > Yes. No, if my above referenced conditions are satisfied. > > > if you do, what are the forbidden suit(s)? > > can declarer ask for a suit to be led? > > L26B applies. Declarer can forbid any suit, but cannot require one. > > > can RHO psyched with 3C? > > At his own risk, but he will not gain from it. > > > do you rule differently if he has D or H? > > Yes. A psych in this position could so easily have been premeditated that this is > an obvious case for adjusting the score per L23 if it gains. RHO can replace his IB with whatever call he wants to try, but if he selects a call that forces his partner to pass from then on a Law 23 adjustment will be almost automatic if opponents can show consequential damage. If RHO selects a call that does not force partner to pass then application of Law 23 is not so automatic. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 18 19:57:52 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:57:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans non-NABC+ case 9 In-Reply-To: <4A6D61F370914FC6B1627400363BB5C7@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4A6D61F370914FC6B1627400363BB5C7@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <261028.94664.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Marvin French] An interesting case. North breaks tempo seriously over a 3D opening and partner bids 4S with Q109876 KJ107 void QT4. North says she was waiting for the Stop Card to be picked up, not proper procedure in ACBL-land. East doubled 4S with Ax xxx QJx AJ987, which strikes me as a "wild or gambling" action. Where did he/she think 4 tricks were coming from?? However, he was very inexperienced, going by his masterpoint holding (486), so perhaps this does not qualify as a WOG action. The TD panel decided that South's bid should be 3S passed by North, who held KJx A9842 1065 K5. Six out of seven players polled said they would pass the balancing 3S bid. Sure, having shown about that much by the tempo break, this North might have passed. This illustrates the problem with small-sample polling. I doubt that 100 players polled would have found 6 of 7 passing 3S. Anyhoo, the TD Panel decided that East would bid 4D over 3S, and North would then re-evaluate her hand and bid 4S, which East would double. So table result stands, but a PP for North's "unsubstantial nature of his reason for hesitating." No poll was taken asking whether or not 3S would be passed with East's hand. Bidding 4D would be rather stupid, but this "class of player" is dumb enough to do that, I suppose, going by his actual double of 4S. Having pushed the opponents to 4S, would those polled double 4S? I doubt it. The rational course is to pass and hope it goes down, mission accomplished, but again this East would surely double. There are times when you don't employ a poll because you know what a player would do based on his/her actions at the table. This is one such case. {Nigel] In another New Orleans appeal, the committee decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the OS in the *play*. Now this committee decide to give the benefit of the doubt to the OS in the *bidding*. A poll establishes that North would pass a hypothetical 3S balance by South so, in their wisdom, the committee impose an insane 4D reopening bid on the poor non-offending East. The committee appear to have judged it unfair that a player with so few master-points should ever be allowed a good score, no matter what his opponents get up to. The ACBL stop-card regulations are silly and that is another story: A PP may be appropriate. But not for North's prolonged pause over the pre-empt. Rather for South seeming to take such crude advantage. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 18 23:26:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:26:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nothing to lose but [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >..... >The questioner claimed that this rule was unfair, since such >"excessive" disclosure effectively was equivalent to them placing >their hands face up on the table. Edgar Kaplan riposted that >they were being unfair to themselves by binding themselves to >such rigid and detailed methods. No doubt Edgar Kaplan would >have mentioned TANSTAAFL if he did not instinctively flinch away >from neologisms. The neologism TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) was popularised by Robert A. Heinlein in his Hugo Award winning novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". The Ali-Hills partnership have these agreements on count when declarer leads a card in a notrump contract: (a) we imprimis give natural present count, but (b) we secundus give frequent false count, but (c) we tertius are more likely to give false count when currently holding an even number of cards, and are less likely to give false count when currently holding an odd number of cards. These three count agreements versus notrump contracts are a very nourishing Free Lunch for our partnership, giving us both positive and negative inferences. But since There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, we pay the price for our Free Lunch by recording these three count agreements as a footnote on our System Cards, thus permitting declarer to draw the same useful positive and negative inferences. Robert Frick: >>..... >>Some people will lead differently depending on whether the >>auction is 1NT P 3NT or 2NT P 3NT. Do they have to disclose >>that? >>..... Yes. TANSTAAFL. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 18 23:54:39 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:54:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] NSSPUs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >> ..... But would anyone care to experiment with wording to >>delineate this class of NSS (not-so-special) understandings? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Eric Landau: >"The RA may regulate or prohibit the use of artificial calls >or plays." > >TFLB already has a definition of "artificial call", and >defining "artificial play" shouldn't be all that hard. Richard Hills: Not so fast. David Burn has already pointed out that the definition of "artificial call" is a load of bollocks. 2007 Definition of "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." Richard Hills: And also Grattan Endicott once expressed a highly unofficial personal opinion that it might have been best to omit from the Definitions any mention of the word "artificial", instead relying upon the standard dictionary meaning of "artificial". Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 19 00:04:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:04:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <167666.61927.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Possibly :) but since neither the WBF nor local RAs poll players >on such subjects, how can we be sure? Richard Hills: Possibly; but since neither Nigel nor Guthrie poll players on his hobby-horses, how can we be sure? :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 19 00:58:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:58:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nothing to lose but [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>"fairy" bridge, preferred by the local old-guard. >>Typical examples ... >> >>Under EBU jurisdiction, players may not use "Moscito" at >>normal levels :( [snip] Richard Hills: Even under the laissez-faire jurisdiction of the Canberra Bridge Club, RCO Twos may not be used at the normal level of walk-in pairs, since they are resented by the many novice players who infest those walk-in sessions. Since some of those novice players have been attending the club regularly for twenty years(1) or more, their old-guard preferences are entitled to be respected. I, of course, do not play in those walk-in sessions, not because my favourite toy of RCO Twos is banned, but rather because I do not get any pleasure out of shooting fish in a barrel. Instead I play in multi-session imps events on Tuesday and Thursday nights. Permission to use RCO Twos in those events is a very minor pleasure; the major pleasure is the chance to test my skills against other semi-experts plus also some real Aussie champion experts. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Hmmm......... it may be supposed that the majority of >members of these organizations are content with the grass >growing in the field into which they have wandered. They >do not seek a change of diet. It is not the role of the >WBF to stimulate discontent among the larger part of an >NBO's membership. On balance subscribers to blml do tend >to air minority points of view. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: On balance Grattan Endicott, a subscriber to blml, tends to air the minority point of view that there are and also should be Real Rights under the Rule of Real Laws. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), English philosopher: "from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, blmlers, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights(2), a bastard brood of monsters." Best wishes Richard Hills (1) It has been said that Australia has not had fifty-four years of television, but instead has had one year fifty- four times. (2) Such as the imaginary right to benefit from a subtle partnership understanding, but to avoid disclosure of that partnership understanding because it is too subtle to disclose. TANSTAAFL!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Fri Nov 19 00:59:39 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:59:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <997176.69099.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Nigel Guthrie1] Possibly :) but since neither the WBF nor local RAs poll players on such subjects, how can we be sure? [Richard Hills] Possibly; but since neither Nigel nor Guthrie poll players on his hobby-horses, how can we be sure? :-) :-) [Nige2] Since official bodies rarely consult ordinary players, I've attempted to do so. I've conducted on-line polls on "hobby-horses" in other discussion-groups. Few voted and most who offered an opinion were dedicated directors. Sadly, their reaction was mainly negative. I console myself that it seems that more players have now begun to stick their heads above the parapet to propose radical rule-simplification. It may be too little too late to save our wonderful game :( From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 19 03:25:10 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 02:25:10 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? V References: <40F0EADB70414188971A577702679F5D@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <201011190352.oAJ3qTZ9027278@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> Richard: At 09:26 AM 19/11/2010, you wrote: > >..... > >The questioner claimed that this rule was unfair, since such > >"excessive" disclosure effectively was equivalent to them placing > >their hands face up on the table. Edgar Kaplan riposted that > >they were being unfair to themselves by binding themselves to > >such rigid and detailed methods. No doubt Edgar Kaplan would > >have mentioned TANSTAAFL if he did not instinctively flinch away > >from neologisms. > >The neologism TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free >Lunch) was popularised by Robert A. Heinlein in his Hugo Award >winning novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". > >The Ali-Hills partnership have these agreements on count when >declarer leads a card in a notrump contract: > >(a) we imprimis give natural present count, but >(b) we secundus give frequent false count, but >(c) we tertius are more likely to give false count when currently > holding an even number of cards, and are less likely to give > false count when currently holding an odd number of cards. > >These three count agreements versus notrump contracts are a very >nourishing Free Lunch for our partnership, giving us both positive >and negative inferences. But since There Ain't No Such Thing As >A Free Lunch, we pay the price for our Free Lunch by recording >these three count agreements as a footnote on our System Cards, >thus permitting declarer to draw the same useful positive and >negative inferences. If you are playing last to the trick and you know that partner has probably given false count, then I presume that you also have to give false count? or is this just general bridge knowledge. Regards Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 19 05:42:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:42:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Illegal signal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <997176.69099.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>>Possibly :) but since neither the WBF nor local RAs poll >>>players on such subjects, how can we be sure? Richard Hills: >>Possibly; but since neither Nigel nor Guthrie poll players on >>his hobby-horses, how can we be sure? :-) :-) Nigel Guthrie: >Since official bodies rarely consult ordinary players, I've >attempted to do so. Richard Hills: In my opinion, and also in my anecdotal experience, "rarely" is a huge over-statement, particularly when talking about Guthrie's EBU official body or Hills' ABF official body. For example, in response to complaints by players, many years ago the ABF introduced new and simplified Alert regulations, whose key technological advance was the introduction of "self-alerting" calls. But the responsiveness of the ABF did not stop there. After some players complained that those opponents using Three- Level Transfer Preempts (a 3H opening bid showed long weak spades, a 3D opening bid showed long weak hearts, etc) gained an unfair advantage due to the highly unexpected nature of their bids, the ABF removed preempts from their categories of "self- alerting" calls. And in response to further complaints, the ABF completely redesigned its official System Card, which redesign included a Pre-Alert box being prominently displayed on the front page of the new System Card. Nigel Guthrie: >I've conducted on-line polls on "hobby-horses" in other >discussion-groups. Few voted Richard Hills: This is a straw in the wind which supports my anecdotal experience, that the vast majority of Duplicate Bridge players could not care less about the exact nature of the Laws, preferring instead to correctly guess two-way finesses at their local bridge clubs. Rather, the vast majority of Duplicate Bridge players have an attitude to Laws amendments of, "Let the experts do it." Indeed, of all the vast multiplicity of changes between the 1997 and 2007 Lawbooks, only one change has been noticeable to grass- roots players in Canberra, the new 2007 Law 65B3: "Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply." Nigel Guthrie: >and most who offered an opinion were dedicated directors. Sadly, >their reaction was mainly negative. Richard Hills: Surely that should be "happily, their reaction was mainly negative." A basic principle of the scientific method is testing hypotheses to determine whether or not they were valid. Here, the hypothesis that Nigel was testing was, "Are what I think are beneficial changes to the Laws deemed to be beneficial by those who have relevant expertise? Do the pros exceed the cons?" Nigel Guthrie: >I console myself that it seems that more players have now begun >to stick their heads above the parapet to propose radical rule- >simplification. Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Ireland from being a Burden to their Parents or Country (1729): "I have been assured by a very knowing blmler of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout." :-) :-) Best wishes Gulliver -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Nov 19 06:40:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:40:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nothing to lose but [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201011190352.oAJ3qTZ9027278@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: If you are playing last to the trick and you know that partner has probably given false count, then I presume that you also have to give false count? or is this just general bridge knowledge. Regards Tony (Sydney) In the classic Grosvenor Gambit declarer is in a hopeless contract (but declarer does not yet know that the contract is hopeless) and a defender intentionally makes a gross error. Declarer can either assume that the defender has made a gross error, or declarer can take the percentage play and go down. After declarer takes the losing percentage play, dummy criticises declarer for not making the contract, and the Grosvenor Gambit side has a psychological edge for the rest of the match. Likewise, when Ali gives false count, Hills can now make the gross error of giving true count. While this wakes up declarer to the fact that a defender is false-carding, declarer also knows that one and only one defender is false-carding, so declarer has to guess which. After declarer automatically guesses wrong(1), dummy criticises declarer for not making the contract, and the Ali-Hills partnership has a psychological edge for the rest of the match. Best wishes Richard (Canberra) (1) For some strange reason each and every opposing declarers will always assume that _if_ there is a false-carder, _then_ the false- carder must be Hills. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 19 08:58:19 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:58:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? In-Reply-To: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> References: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <4CE62E1B.2040800@skynet.be> Olivier raises a very interesting question. We did have the following construction, under the previous laws: Offender bids an insufficient Multi 2D. He corrects to 3H. Of course partner had to pass. NOS go to 3NT. L26 applies, but some directors misapplied it saying that hearts had been repeated, so no more lead penalties. Other Directors applied L26 on hearts only. Offender had psyched, partner led spades, 3 down. The true application of L26 is that they remain on all suits, since the bid that dissapeared did not point to a known suit. In the new laws, this gets an added twist. If the replacement bid is narrower than the original, it should be allowed. That means 3Cl could be allowed. But if it is allowed, there are no more lead restrictions, so the psychic 3Cl becomes a possibility once again. Good case, Olivier, and I'm not giving an answer. Herman. olivier.beauvillain wrote: > We have a Law reading problem : > Decl LHO Dummy RHO > 1S P 2NT* 2S** 2NT* shows invitational fit > 2S** = insufficient bid, > "ho, i saw 1NT, not 1NT and 2S is a strong one suiter in our system" > then > Decl LHO Dummy RHO > 1S P 2NT* 3C > 4S end > do you apply L27B1b? > is LHO allowed to bid (even is he passes)? > do you apply L26 lead restrictions? > if you do, what are the forbidden suit(s)? > can declarer ask for a suit to be led? > can RHO psyched with 3C? > do you rule differently if he has D or H? > Thanks ... > Olivier Beauvillain > http://www.lebridgeur.com/shopping-bridge/livres/commentaires-code-2007.html > Pour commander : me contacter par courriel > 29,5?+port > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la > base des signatures de virus 5630 (20101118) __________ > > 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 > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3263 - Release Date: 11/17/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Nov 19 09:23:08 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:23:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? In-Reply-To: <4CE62E1B.2040800@skynet.be> References: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> <4CE62E1B.2040800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <201011190823.oAJ8NAo8006690@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Herman: At 06:58 PM 19/11/2010, you wrote: >Olivier raises a very interesting question. > >We did have the following construction, under the previous laws: >Offender bids an insufficient Multi 2D. He corrects to 3H. Of course >partner had to pass. NOS go to 3NT. L26 applies, but some directors >misapplied it saying that hearts had been repeated, so no more lead >penalties. Other Directors applied L26 on hearts only. Offender had >psyched, partner led spades, 3 down. The true application of L26 is that >they remain on all suits, since the bid that dissapeared did not point >to a known suit. > >In the new laws, this gets an added twist. If the replacement bid is >narrower than the original, it should be allowed. That means 3Cl could >be allowed. But if it is allowed, there are no more lead restrictions, >so the psychic 3Cl becomes a possibility once again. > >Good case, Olivier, and I'm not giving an answer. > >Herman. We are going to wheel out the "could have known" Law so fast it will make their eyes water, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 19 09:40:50 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:40:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? In-Reply-To: <201011190823.oAJ8NAo8006690@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> <4CE62E1B.2040800@skynet.be> <201011190823.oAJ8NAo8006690@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000901cb87c5$78a3f830$69ebe890$@no> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > Herman: > > At 06:58 PM 19/11/2010, you wrote: > >Olivier raises a very interesting question. > > > >We did have the following construction, under the previous laws: > >Offender bids an insufficient Multi 2D. He corrects to 3H. Of course > >partner had to pass. NOS go to 3NT. L26 applies, but some directors > >misapplied it saying that hearts had been repeated, so no more lead > >penalties. Other Directors applied L26 on hearts only. Offender had > >psyched, partner led spades, 3 down. The true application of L26 is > >that they remain on all suits, since the bid that dissapeared did not > >point to a known suit. > > > >In the new laws, this gets an added twist. If the replacement bid is > >narrower than the original, it should be allowed. That means 3Cl could > >be allowed. But if it is allowed, there are no more lead restrictions, > >so the psychic 3Cl becomes a possibility once again. > > > >Good case, Olivier, and I'm not giving an answer. > > > >Herman. > > We are going to wheel out the "could have known" > Law so fast it will make their eyes water, It should not matter whether the 3C bid is a psyche or not so long as it by agreement is ruled "more precise" than the IB and therefore does not force partner to pass. 3C is fully legal like all other psychic calls and there is no reason to invoke law 23 unless there are other irregularities in the situation. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Nov 19 09:46:42 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:46:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?L26_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000901cb87c5$78a3f830$69ebe890$@no> References: <000901cb87c5$78a3f830$69ebe890$@no> Message-ID: <1PJMcF-24gKzw0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > > We are going to wheel out the "could have known" > > Law so fast it will make their eyes water, > > > > It should not matter whether the 3C bid is a psyche or not so long as > it by agreement is ruled "more precise" than the IB and therefore does > not force partner to pass. 3C is fully legal like all other psychic > calls and there is no reason to invoke law 23 unless there are other > irregularities in the situation. eh?? Bidding 2S (after the auction had reached 2NT) is not only an irregularity, it _is_ even an infraction. And psyching after that may - of course - invoke Law 23. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 19 10:18:40 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:18:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? In-Reply-To: <201011190823.oAJ8NAo8006690@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <338B2728D9CF410C8AB5613F2CB185FF@PCdeOlivier> <4CE62E1B.2040800@skynet.be> <201011190823.oAJ8NAo8006690@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4CE640F0.5050700@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > Herman: > > At 06:58 PM 19/11/2010, you wrote: >> Olivier raises a very interesting question. >> >> We did have the following construction, under the previous laws: >> Offender bids an insufficient Multi 2D. He corrects to 3H. Of course >> partner had to pass. NOS go to 3NT. L26 applies, but some directors >> misapplied it saying that hearts had been repeated, so no more lead >> penalties. Other Directors applied L26 on hearts only. Offender had >> psyched, partner led spades, 3 down. The true application of L26 is that >> they remain on all suits, since the bid that dissapeared did not point >> to a known suit. >> >> In the new laws, this gets an added twist. If the replacement bid is >> narrower than the original, it should be allowed. That means 3Cl could >> be allowed. But if it is allowed, there are no more lead restrictions, >> so the psychic 3Cl becomes a possibility once again. >> >> Good case, Olivier, and I'm not giving an answer. >> >> Herman. > > We are going to wheel out the "could have known" > Law so fast it will make their eyes water, > I'm not so sure about that. Don't forget that when performing the psyche, one takes the risk of having partner raise that suit, or of playing there in the first place. That may well be a risk one is willing to take after the infraction, but very unlikely before the infraction. This is the "Rottweiler" coup, after the nickname of Richard, son of "Mad Dog" Probst. Even John was not certain he would rule against Richard there. > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3264 - Release Date: 11/18/10 08:37:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 19 10:23:54 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:23:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? In-Reply-To: <1PJMcF-24gKzw0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <000901cb87c5$78a3f830$69ebe890$@no> <1PJMcF-24gKzw0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4CE6422A.1040004@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" >> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove >>> We are going to wheel out the "could have known" >>> Law so fast it will make their eyes water, >>> >> >> It should not matter whether the 3C bid is a psyche or not so long as >> it by agreement is ruled "more precise" than the IB and therefore does >> not force partner to pass. 3C is fully legal like all other psychic >> calls and there is no reason to invoke law 23 unless there are other >> irregularities in the situation. > > eh?? > > Bidding 2S (after the auction had reached 2NT) is not only an > irregularity, it _is_ even an infraction. And psyching after that > may - of course - invoke Law 23. > "may - of course" is not the same as "will". Drop the "of course" (we all know it does) in your sentence above and listen how it sounds. Quite the reverse of what you are trying to convey, I guess. Sven is right. There is, at current, no disincentive against psyching the "more precise" bid after a conventional IB. Maybe this ought to be looked at again. I favour the approach of giving very little leniency to the words "more precise". Herman. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Nov 19 10:35:03 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:35:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?L26_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4CE6422A.1040004@skynet.be> References: <4CE6422A.1040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1PJNN2-0JQ9AG0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Peter Eidt wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > >> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > >>> We are going to wheel out the "could have known" > >>> Law so fast it will make their eyes water, > >>> > >> > >> It should not matter whether the 3C bid is a psyche or not so long > as >> it by agreement is ruled "more precise" than the IB and > therefore does >> not force partner to pass. 3C is fully legal like > all other psychic >> calls and there is no reason to invoke law 23 > unless there are other >> irregularities in the situation. > > > > > eh?? > > > > Bidding 2S (after the auction had reached 2NT) is not only an > > irregularity, it _is_ even an infraction. And psyching after that > > may - of course - invoke Law 23. > > > > "may - of course" is not the same as "will". > Drop the "of course" (we all know it does) in your sentence above and > listen how it sounds. Quite the reverse of what you are trying to > convey, I guess. > Sven is right. There is, at current, no disincentive against psyching > the "more precise" bid after a conventional IB. > Maybe this ought to be looked at again. > > I favour the approach of giving very little leniency to the words > "more precise". IMO it is accepted (and wanted by the WBFLC) practice to allow the IBer to "misdescribe" his hand to fulfill the requirements for Law 27B1. But that's not the same to allow him to fool the table afterwards through deliberate psyching when he - instead - could "escape" with a "normal" call. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Nov 19 11:00:27 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:00:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? V In-Reply-To: References: <40F0EADB70414188971A577702679F5D@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <003a01cb87d0$97f84a50$c7e8def0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hello all, You better read Sven for the right answers on these questions. Taking the story told by Olivier does reflect the facts L 26B does not apply. If I remember well the LC in Beijing did decide that if a substituted call confirms either the restrictions given in 27B1a or b bidding and play continues normally (without any further restriction). Of course L23 might apply, but that only becomes relevant after the play. ton Grattan Endicott <003a01cb87d0$97f84a50$c7e8def0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <053778D01C1246FCB148797168C287C3@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <003a01cb87d0$97f84a50$c7e8def0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: <1PJNN2-0JQ9AG0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <4CE6422A.1040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <698569462.4266991290167210066.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael > > Peter Eidt wrote: > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > >> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > > >>> We are going to wheel out the "could have known" > > >>> Law so fast it will make their eyes water, > > >>> > > >> > > >> It should not matter whether the 3C bid is a psyche or not so long > > as >> it by agreement is ruled "more precise" than the IB and > > therefore does >> not force partner to pass. 3C is fully legal like > > all other psychic >> calls and there is no reason to invoke law 23 > > unless there are other >> irregularities in the situation. > > > > > > > > eh?? > > > > > > Bidding 2S (after the auction had reached 2NT) is not only an > > > irregularity, it _is_ even an infraction. And psyching after that > > > may - of course - invoke Law 23. > > > > > > > "may - of course" is not the same as "will". > > Drop the "of course" (we all know it does) in your sentence above and > > listen how it sounds. Quite the reverse of what you are trying to > > convey, I guess. > > Sven is right. There is, at current, no disincentive against psyching > > the "more precise" bid after a conventional IB. > > Maybe this ought to be looked at again. > > > > I favour the approach of giving very little leniency to the words > > "more precise". > > IMO it is accepted (and wanted by the WBFLC) practice to > allow the IBer to "misdescribe" his hand to fulfill the > requirements for Law 27B1. But that's not the same to allow > him to fool the table afterwards through deliberate psyching > when he - instead - could "escape" with a "normal" call. Do you want to imply that it is "wanted by the WBLFC" that the IBer grossly misdescribes his hand in case he cannot "escape" with a "normal" call? Lets say RHO opens 2NT. I misread it as 1NT, and overcall 2C, showing any of a) a one-suiter in clubs b) a one-suiter in diamonds c) both majors d) spades and clubs. I have 4-4 in the majors, which I cannot show over 2NT. Do you think it is "wanted by the WBLFC" that I can now escape various penalties by overcalling 2NT with a natural 3C? Thomas From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Nov 19 13:35:13 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:35:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?L26_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <698569462.4266991290167210066.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <698569462.4266991290167210066.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1PJQBN-1QLeEa0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> From: Thomas Dehn > Peter Eidt wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > > Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > >> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > > > >>> We are going to wheel out the "could have known" > > > >>> Law so fast it will make their eyes water, > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> It should not matter whether the 3C bid is a psyche or not so > > > long as >> it by agreement is ruled "more precise" than the IB and > > > therefore does >> not force partner to pass. 3C is fully legal > > > like all other psychic >> calls and there is no reason to invoke > > > law 23 unless there are other >> irregularities in the situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eh?? > > > > > > > > Bidding 2S (after the auction had reached 2NT) is not only an > > > > irregularity, it _is_ even an infraction. And psyching after > > > > that may - of course - invoke Law 23. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "may - of course" is not the same as "will". > > > Drop the "of course" (we all know it does) in your sentence above > > > and listen how it sounds. Quite the reverse of what you are trying > > > to convey, I guess. > > > Sven is right. There is, at current, no disincentive against > > > psyching the "more precise" bid after a conventional IB. > > > Maybe this ought to be looked at again. > > > > > > I favour the approach of giving very little leniency to the words > > > "more precise". > > > > > > > IMO it is accepted (and wanted by the WBFLC) practice to > > allow the IBer to "misdescribe" his hand to fulfill the > > requirements for Law 27B1. But that's not the same to allow > > him to fool the table afterwards through deliberate psyching > > when he - instead - could "escape" with a "normal" call. > > Do you want to imply that it is "wanted by the WBLFC" > that the IBer grossly misdescribes his hand in case > he cannot "escape" with a "normal" call? > > Lets say RHO opens 2NT. I misread it as 1NT, and overcall > 2C, showing any of a) a one-suiter in clubs b) a one-suiter > in diamonds c) both majors d) spades and clubs. > I have 4-4 in the majors, which I cannot show over > 2NT. Do you think it is "wanted by > the WBLFC" that I can now escape various penalties by > overcalling 2NT with a natural 3C? Hu?? I never intended to imply such silly things ... perhaps you read my post again ... From: 2008 EBL TDs Seminar, Lecture by Max Bavin: "[...]Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) work on the assumption that when the IB-er selects a call which does not silence partner, his hand actually conforms to the newly selected bid. However, this will not necessarily be the case. For example, it may make perfect bridge sense to make a slight misbid in order to keep the auction open rather than gamble on a final contract by making a call which silences partner. It may also make perfect bridge sense for partner to assume that the IB-er may be ?misbidding?, and to cater for (?field?) this possibility. All this is entirely legal ? it is general bridge knowledge covered by Law 16A1(d). This is why Law 27D exists. [...]" Peter From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Nov 19 13:56:13 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:56:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Director interests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <292110.93166.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Nigel1] ... most who offered an opinion were dedicated directors. Sadly, their reaction was mainly negative. [Richard Hills] Surely that should be "happily, their reaction was mainly negative." A basic principle of the scientific method is testing hypotheses to determine whether or not they were valid. Here, the hypothesis that Nigel was testing was, "Are what I think are beneficial changes to the Laws deemed to be beneficial by those who have relevant expertise? Do the pros exceed the cons?" [Nigel2] Richard makes an good point. I criticise laws and law-committees not directors. I admire directors. They do a hard job under difficult circumstances, with tact and good humour. Most directors are also Bridge-players, so of course, their opinion is relevant; but I feel that directors have s slightly different agenda from normal players. For example... - A principle concern of law-makers is to devolve power and responsibility to directors. Sophisticated and inconsistent laws are a rich source of intriguing and testing problems, that enhance the job-interest of directors. BLML illustrates this well. - Another main aim of law-makers is to devolve power and responsibility to local jurisdictions. Devising and refining all the different local regulations and law-variants is another source of employment and job interest. This would disappear with a complete and unified set of rules. - It may not the most brilliant career move for a director to stick his head above the parapet and criticise a law or regulation proudly conceived or endorsed by a director or administrator higher in the pecking order. - Directors invest time studying the peculiarities and anomalies of current laws. Simplified laws would render much of that expertise irrelevant. It is not surprising that some directors object even to renumbering laws. - Current laws enhance the director-role. The laws rely heavily on director-judgement These can empower a director to decide the result of a competition on a whim. Such a delicate judgement is hard to appeal. (Unless you can get hold of New Orleans NABC committee members :) - Current laws make life easier for directors by pandering to law-breakers. Most directors interpret the law to mean that they should wait until called, rather than pro-activ1ely intervene to prevent law-breaking. When directors are called, Equity laws mean that the worst that will normally happen to law-breakers is restoration of the status-quo (or less with score-weighting). PPs and DPs are rarely imposed and almost never on top-players. All this guarantees a long term profit for law-breakers. Hence the director can expect little hassle from them. This also reduces the incentive to the law-breakers' victims to call the director. Victims would prefer laws to be more deterrent and to provide adequate redress but they tend to lick their wounds in silence. And NO. I don't expect directors to agree with any of that :) From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Nov 19 14:32:41 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:32:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? V In-Reply-To: References: <40F0EADB70414188971A577702679F5D@PCdeOlivier><003a01cb87d0$97f84a50$c7e8def0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <3F13686D5E4A4F38BCB6643D32FCF0DD@PCdeOlivier> Well, i have : Axx Kxx AKQJxxx --- over 1S 1NT i have a 2S to show this i certainly don't want to bare my partner if i "see" 1S 2NT so L23 is far away ... now, i made an IB with 2S, an error, yes, not "wanted", TD explains me the ruling, i bid 3C, psychic, and over 4S, my partner lead a club, witch i ruff, saving a trick, may be defeating the contract, how do you feel with this? i clearly "couldn't have known" etc. may be 5D is a good save over 4S then you must let the score without the IB i could have bid 3C, ready to remove NC to ND just to take the chance of a "good lead" by my partner (once in a time ...) leaving till monday morning, Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L26 or not? V Grattan Endicott References: <1PJNN2-0JQ9AG0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <4CE6422A.1040004@skynet.be> <698569462.4266991290167210066.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CE6874A.5090708@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Peter Eidt wrote: >> >> IMO it is accepted (and wanted by the WBFLC) practice to >> allow the IBer to "misdescribe" his hand to fulfill the >> requirements for Law 27B1. But that's not the same to allow >> him to fool the table afterwards through deliberate psyching >> when he - instead - could "escape" with a "normal" call. > > Do you want to imply that it is "wanted by the WBLFC" > that the IBer grossly misdescribes his hand in case > he cannot "escape" with a "normal" call? > > Lets say RHO opens 2NT. I misread it as 1NT, and overcall > 2C, showing any of a) a one-suiter in clubs b) a one-suiter > in diamonds c) both majors d) spades and clubs. > I have 4-4 in the majors, which I cannot show over > 2NT. Do you think it is "wanted by > the WBLFC" that I can now escape various penalties by > overcalling 2NT with a natural 3C? > I don't think Peter ever suggested that is what he "wanted". Peter did not understand the warning I was issueing. It is true, as Peter says, that the WBFLC have said that they prefer more corrected bids to be acceptable. For that reason a small leeway should be given. However, if that leeway includes psyching, unwanted consequences may occur. Which was my warning. > > Thomas -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 19 15:18:19 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:18:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] NSSPUs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <989DB557-A2B9-4028-A1CE-371F5E7412BB@starpower.net> On Nov 18, 2010, at 5:54 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > >>> ..... But would anyone care to experiment with wording to >>> delineate this class of NSS (not-so-special) understandings? > > Eric Landau: > >> "The RA may regulate or prohibit the use of artificial calls >> or plays." >> >> TFLB already has a definition of "artificial call", and >> defining "artificial play" shouldn't be all that hard. > > Richard Hills: > > Not so fast. David Burn has already pointed out that the > definition of "artificial call" is a load of bollocks. > > 2007 Definition of "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." It's a starting point. As I see it, it has two significant flaws. The parenthetical is nonsense -- that 99.999% of bridge players recognize 1S-X as a takeout double makes it no less artificial. And it needs additional words to express the intent that "conveys information" refers to information conveyed directly, not by some indirect negative inference -- but IIRC the WBF already has a minute with wording to express this, which corresponds with the intent of the lawmakers. Sure, the language would need work, but that's nothing new. > Richard Hills: > > And also Grattan Endicott once expressed a highly unofficial > personal opinion that it might have been best to omit from > the Definitions any mention of the word "artificial", instead > relying upon the standard dictionary meaning of "artificial". By the dictionary meaning of "artifical", the game of bridge and everything relating to it is "artificial", so relying on the dictionary definition would render the term meaningless in the context of TFLB. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 19 15:26:43 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:26:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? V In-Reply-To: <3F13686D5E4A4F38BCB6643D32FCF0DD@PCdeOlivier> References: <40F0EADB70414188971A577702679F5D@PCdeOlivier><003a01cb87d0$97f84a50$c7e8def0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <3F13686D5E4A4F38BCB6643D32FCF0DD@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <000601cb87f5$c9fefe20$5dfcfa60$@no> Exactly what is the (complete) partnership agreement on the 2S bid? And exactly what is the (complete) partnership agreement on the 3C bid? And finally: Is it possible from your partner?s cards that he ?fielded? your psyche? If the answers to these three questions are that your 2S bid would indicate a long unidentified suit, that your 3C bid indicated a long club suit with hand strength within the borders for the 2S bid, and that your partner?s calls and play are consistent with you having indicated a long club suit then I see no reason for any adjustment. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain Sent: 19. november 2010 14:33 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L26 or not? V Well, i have : Axx Kxx AKQJxxx --- over 1S 1NT i have a 2S to show this i certainly don't want to bare my partner if i "see" 1S 2NT so L23 is far away ... now, i made an IB with 2S, an error, yes, not "wanted", TD explains me the ruling, i bid 3C, psychic, and over 4S, my partner lead a club, witch i ruff, saving a trick, may be defeating the contract, how do you feel with this? i clearly "couldn't have known" etc. may be 5D is a good save over 4S then you must let the score without the IB i could have bid 3C, ready to remove NC to ND just to take the chance of a "good lead" by my partner (once in a time ...) leaving till monday morning, Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L26 or not? V Grattan Endicott To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L26 or not? V Hello all, You better read Sven for the right answers on these questions. Taking the story told by Olivier does reflect the facts L 26B does not apply. If I remember well the LC in Beijing did decide that if a substituted call confirms either the restrictions given in 27B1a or b bidding and play continues normally (without any further restriction). Of course L23 might apply, but that only becomes relevant after the play. ton Grattan Endicott References: <40F0EADB70414188971A577702679F5D@PCdeOlivier> <003a01cb87d0$97f84a50$c7e8def0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4CE68962.1090408@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > +=+ On the question of Law 23, if at the time > of his insufficient bid offender could have been > aware, in the opinion of the Director, that by > linking it to a psyche he could well damage > the NOS then the conditions for Law 23 are > present. That is a judgement to be made after > the play is over. > ~ G ~ +=+ Unhelpful, Grattan. We are all aware, now, and therefore at the time of the infraction we are about to be committing, that we may escape from our infraction with a psyche. So if that is all that is needed, the psyche will always be disallowed. The question we need to ask is NOT: "does the offender, after having made the offence, believe that a psyche will gather him more points than a normal rescue bid?". Because that will always be the case, whenever the offender in fact does choose the psyche. The question we need to ask is also NOT: "does the offender, before making the offence, believe that an offence and a psyche will gather him more points than an offence and a normal rescue bid?". Because that too will be the case, certainly for an offender that indeed chooses the psyche. No, the question we need to ask is: "does the offender, before making the offence, believe that an offence and a psyche will gather him more points than a normal, non offending bid?". Only then do we need to apply L23. And of course, please interpret my words "gather points" as "is likely to produce a higher expected final gain in either money or masterpoints, or both". If the player realizes he needs an absolute top to win, while a zero will drop him from fourth to fifth, the gain is more substantial than a mere 50% of matchpoints. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Nov 19 16:54:44 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:54:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?L26_or_not=3F_V?= In-Reply-To: <3F13686D5E4A4F38BCB6643D32FCF0DD@PCdeOlivier> References: <3F13686D5E4A4F38BCB6643D32FCF0DD@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <1PJTIT-0veUkK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: "olivier.beauvillain" > Well, i have : Axx Kxx AKQJxxx --- over 1S 1NT i have a 2S to show > this i certainly don't want to bare my partner if i "see" 1S 2NT so > L23 is far away ... now, i made an IB with 2S, an error, yes, not > "wanted", TD explains me the ruling, i bid 3C, psychic, and over > 4S, my partner lead a club, witch i ruff, saving a trick, may be > defeating the contract, how do you feel with this? Well, this is one of the intended cases where Law 27D comes into effect. "whithout the help of the IB the outcome for the non-offending side could well have been different". So, the TD will (hopefully) adjust the score Peter > i clearly > "couldn't have known" etc. may be 5D is a good save over 4S then > you must let the score without the IB i could have bid 3C, ready to > remove NC to ND just to take the chance of a "good lead" by my > partner (once in a time ...) leaving till monday morning, Olivier > Beauvillain > ----- ORIGINAL MESSAGE ----- FROM: Grattan [1] TO: > Bridge Laws Mailing List [2] SENT: Friday, November 19, 2010 12:00 > PM SUBJECT: Re: [BLML] L26 or not? V > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Culture is perishing in overproduction, in > an avalanche of words, in the madness of > quantity." [Milan Kundera, 1991 > 'Immortality'] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +=+ On the question of Law > 23, if at the time of his insufficient bid offender could have been > aware, in the opinion of the Director, that by linking it to a > psyche he could well damage the NOS then the conditions for Law 23 > are present. That is a judgement to be made after the play is > over. ~ G ~ +=+ > ........................................................ ----- > ORIGINAL MESSAGE ----- FROM: ton [4] TO: 'Bridge Laws > Mailing List' [5] SENT: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:00 AM > SUBJECT: Re: [BLML] L26 or not? V > > Hello all, > > You better read Sven for the right answers on these questions. > > > Taking the story told by Olivier does reflect the facts L 26B > does not apply. > > If I remember well the LC in Beijing did decide that if a > substituted call confirms either the restrictions given in 27B1a > or b bidding and play continues normally (without any further > restriction). > > Of course L23 might apply, but that only becomes relevant after > the play. > > ton > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Culture is perishing in overproduction, in > an avalanche of words, in the madness of > quantity." [Milan Kundera, 1991 > 'Immortality'] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ To me it appears 3C has a more precise meaning > than the insufficient bid. The auction continues; LHO > > is not barred. I suggest Law 26B applies. If 3C turns > > out to have been psyched and I consider that the NOS > > is affected by it, getting a poor result, I would reach > > > for Law 23. > > Additionally, at the end of the play the Director > > > must judge whether there is cause to apply Law 27D. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ................................................................. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: olivier.beauvillain > To: Laws > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:09 PM > Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? V > > without the trap ... > > We have a Law reading problem : > > Decl LHO Dummy RHO > 1S P 2NT* 2S** 2NT* shows > invitational fit > 2S** = insufficient bid, > "ho, i saw 1NT, not 1NT and 2S is one suiter in our system" > then > Decl LHO Dummy RHO > 1S P 2NT* 3C*** 3C*** = > natural clubs > 4S end > > do you apply L27B1b? > is LHO allowed to bid (even is he passes)? > > do you apply L26 lead restrictions? > if you do, what are the forbidden suit(s)? > can declarer ask for a suit to be led? > > can RHO psyched with 3C? > do you rule differently if he has D or H? > > Thanks ... > Olivier Beauvillain > > Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 9.0.869 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/3265 - datum van > uitgifte: 11/18/10 20:34:00 > > ------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 5632 (20101119) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com [6] > > ------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 5632 (20101119) __________ > > Le message a iti virifii par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de > la base des signatures de virus 5633 (20101119) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com [7] > > Links: > ------ > [1] mailto:grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk > [2] mailto:blml at rtflb.org > [3] mailto:grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk > [4] mailto:t.kooyman at worldonline.nl > [5] mailto:blml at rtflb.org > [6] http://www.eset.com > [7] http://www.eset.com > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Nov 19 17:14:56 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:14:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? V In-Reply-To: <1PJTIT-0veUkK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <3F13686D5E4A4F38BCB6643D32FCF0DD@PCdeOlivier> <1PJTIT-0veUkK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <007501cb8804$e8551d50$b8ff57f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Well, this is one of the intended cases where Law 27D comes into effect. "whithout the help of the IB the outcome for the non-offending side could well have been different". So, the TD will (hopefully) adjust the score Peter ton: I am not so sure that the drafting committee had such a case in mind when it included 27D to the laws. And I do not like to use L23 for such a case, though I would not hesitate to do it if necessary. The player could have bid 3C at once with the same effect. I think that a player committing an infraction should be happy to escape from a penalty and should not be allowed to do something tricky when making a legal choice. But the laws do not cover my feeling (yet). So I call for Grattan to make a note. ton From blml at arcor.de Fri Nov 19 17:28:47 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:28:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? V In-Reply-To: <007501cb8804$e8551d50$b8ff57f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <007501cb8804$e8551d50$b8ff57f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <3F13686D5E4A4F38BCB6643D32FCF0DD@PCdeOlivier> <1PJTIT-0veUkK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <2004792819.1290184127392.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> ton wrote: > Well, this is one of the intended cases where Law 27D > comes into effect. "whithout the help of the IB the outcome for > the non-offending side could well have been different". > > So, the TD will (hopefully) adjust the score > > Peter > > ton: > > I am not so sure that the drafting committee had such a case in mind when it > included 27D to the laws. > And I do not like to use L23 for such a case, though I would not hesitate to > do it if necessary. The player could have bid 3C at once with the same > effect. > > I think that a player committing an infraction should be happy to escape > from a penalty and should not be allowed to do something tricky when making > a legal choice. But the laws do not cover my feeling (yet). So I call for > Grattan to make a note. I first of all agree with Herman that at minimum some clarification might be necessary. I then think that while in Olivier's scenario the IBer has some valid bridge reason to psyche 3C, I still don't like it, because over 1S 1NT he could have psyched 2C with the same reasoning, but instead chose to bid 2S. Thomas From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Nov 19 18:43:30 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:43:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 or not? V In-Reply-To: <007501cb8804$e8551d50$b8ff57f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3F13686D5E4A4F38BCB6643D32FCF0DD@PCdeOlivier><1PJTIT-0veUkK0@fw d00.aul.t-online.de> <007501cb8804$e8551d50$b8ff57f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4CE6B742.5090607@meteo.fr> ton a ?crit : > Well, this is one of the intended cases where Law 27D comes into > effect. "whithout the help of the IB the outcome for the > non-offending side could well have been different". > > So, the TD will (hopefully) adjust the score > > Peter > > ton: > > I am not so sure that the drafting committee had such a case in mind > when it included 27D to the laws. And I do not like to use L23 for > such a case, though I would not hesitate to do it if necessary. The > player could have bid 3C at once with the same effect. indeed. with a different action, the outcome could always differ. maybe i am wrong but i understand the intent is to adjust in cases where the outcome would have been impossible to reach without the IB. jpr > > I think that a player committing an infraction should be happy to > escape from a penalty and should not be allowed to do something > tricky when making a legal choice. But the laws do not cover my > feeling (yet). So I call for Grattan to make a note. > > ton -- _______________________________________________ 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 20 04:56:10 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:56:10 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Illegal Signal - Resolution Message-ID: The subject is whether a certain Alarm Clock Signal is barred from low-level or mid-level play in ACBL-land, as a TD stated in Philadelphia. Grattan asked for more info, and here it is. I have an answer from top-level ACBL TD Matt Smith, who is on the ACBL Laws Commission: ########### I don't recall being asked this question myself, although I do have a vague memory of being told about this method's existence. In any case, I am fairly confident telling you that it has not been officially barred in the ACBL. Some particular director may have done so at a tournament, but it was not done as a general policy and in my opinion if it was done at all it shouldn't have been. I agree with you that it is certainly not encrypted, and that it makes no difference whether the event is GCC or Mid-Chart. Feel free to share that it has not been officially barred in the ACBL ############# Presumably that goes for all simple Alarm Clock Signals, those that any good player would understand when playing for the first time with another of the same class. There is nothing special about them, as they are "readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5634 (20101119) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 20 07:08:22 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:08:22 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 Message-ID: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> 5. An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 spades reached after a slow signoff by partner. The contract should go one light but defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious error unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error and be awarded -980. The declaring side will be put back to the five level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director will assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower level it may be that declarer and/or defender would have reason to play differently.) ############ Going by L12C1(b), shouldn't this be -50 for the OS, the resulting score had there been no serious error? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5634 (20101119) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 20 07:15:53 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:15:53 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 correction Oct 12 References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: > 5. An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 spades reached > after > a slow signoff by partner. The contract should go one light but > defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious > error > unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. > > The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error > and be awarded -980. The declaring side will be put back to the > five > level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director > will > assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower > level it may be that declarer and/or defender would have reason to > play differently.) > ############ > > Going by L12C1(b), shouldn't this be -50 for the OS, the resulting > score had there been no serious error? > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5634 (20101119) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 20 16:49:52 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:49:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <922283.1804.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [WBF minute] 5. An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 spades reached after a slow signoff by partner. The contract should go one light but defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious error unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error and be awarded -980. The declaring side will be put back to the five level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director will assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower level it may be that declarer and/or defender would have reason to play differently.) ############ [Marvin French] Going by L12C1(b), shouldn't this be -50 for the OS, the resulting score had there been no serious error? [Nigel] Presumably, in a team match, without the infraction, the result would be something like +-450 or +-480 *Assuming no PP* is the WBF ruling: +450 for the law-breakers and -980 for the victims of the infraction Have I got that right? "Equity" law guarantees a long-term profit for the law-breaker. The "Serious error" law awards the law-breaker a substantial extra incentive. Can no other BLMLEr see *why* WBFLC Emperors have no clothes? The clothes-thief is rewarded not punished! From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 20 18:03:20 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:03:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> <922283.1804.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2A2A149DAE7449E29105110A8FD0BFFA@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [WBF minute] > 5. An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 spades reached > after > a slow signoff by partner. The contract should go one light but > defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious > error > unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. > > The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error > and be awarded -980. The declaring side will be put back to the > five > level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director > will > assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower > level it may be that declarer and/or defender would have reason to > play differently.) > ############ > > [Marvin French] > Going by L12C1(b), shouldn't this be -50 for the OS, the resulting > score had there been no serious error? > > [Nigel] > Presumably, in a team match, without the infraction, the result > would be > something like > +-450 or +-480 > > *Assuming no PP* is the WBF ruling: > +450 for the law-breakers and > -980 for the victims of the infraction > > Have I got that right? > > "Equity" law guarantees a long-term profit for the law-breaker. > The "Serious > error" law awards the law-breaker a substantial extra incentive. > > Can no other BLMLEr see *why* WBFLC Emperors have no clothes? The > clothes-thief > is rewarded not punished! If those in charge would be willing to adjust the OS score to post-infraction possibilities the thieves would be punished more often. It's as if "had the irregularity not occurred" is being applied to the OS as welll as the NOS, and not just in ACBL-land. In the case cited by item 5, the general rule that the consequence of serious error must be borne by the NOS, but may not benefit the OS, should mean that you pretend the revoke didn't happen when considering a score adjustment for the OS. So, -50. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5634 (20101119) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Nov 20 18:39:27 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:39:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 Message-ID: <000901cb88d9$e13ad0c0$a3b07240$@no> Simple question, possibly not so simple answer: A player makes a second call in an attempt to change his first call. However, the second call is made too late for a correction under Law 25 (i.e. after partner has subsequently called in case of an unintended first call, or after LHO and possibly also partner has subsequently called in case of an intended first call). Do we apply Law 25 (change of call) or Law 29 (call out of turn), and what is the correct rectification? From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Nov 20 19:08:15 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:08:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_25_versus_Law_29?= In-Reply-To: <000901cb88d9$e13ad0c0$a3b07240$@no> References: <000901cb88d9$e13ad0c0$a3b07240$@no> Message-ID: <1PJrrD-0ZPjWa0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > Simple question, possibly not so simple answer: > > A player makes a second call in an attempt to change his first call. > > However, the second call is made too late for a correction under Law > 25 (i.e. after partner has subsequently called in case of an > unintended first call, or after LHO and possibly also partner has > subsequently called in case of an intended first call). > > Do we apply Law 25 (change of call) or Law 29 (call out of turn), and > what is the correct rectification? IMO the laws are not clearly written here. The main parts to answer your question(s) seem to be Law 25 A2 and the word "substitute". Although A2 is written under the headline "Unintended Call" I believe it is an "universal" law stating that _any_ substitution of a call after partner has called is simply not possible. Besides that it may be important whether the OOTer thought he was substituting his last call (in which case Law 25 applies) or whether he thought it was his turn (in which case Laws 29ff apply). But IMO Law 25 B should either forbid substitutions of intended calls after LHO has called or handle with the case that LHO has called over the first call and now wants to accept the substituted call. Peter From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 20 19:38:11 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 13:38:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Suggesting change in claiming procedure for 2017 Message-ID: Declarer claims on opening lead for all 13 tricks. There are 13 tricks off the top, but there is one blocked suit: KQ opposite AJxx. If the blocked suit is left until the end, the contract is not made. Do you allow the claim? I think any director would feel like a fool not giving Jeff Meckstroth his 13 tricks. But what about a much lesser player? It is also very awkward if Jeff gets the 13 tricks and the lesser player doesn't. And if you are still giving that much lesser player 13 tricks, suppose there are two blocked suits. Or suppose there are three. There has to be some level at which you comfortably give Jeff the claim and uncomfortably give it to the much lesser player. One thing that could be helpful here is if director could ask the claimer how he or she was going to play the hand. This would be used when the director otherwise would feel obligated to allow the claim. In other words, it is an additional hurdle for the claimer that director is allowed to impose. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 20 19:44:38 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 13:44:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] claiming question (penalty cards) Message-ID: Just to check. Declarer claims for the rest of the tricks, the opps have no reason to question this. But when they look at each others' hands, they see there is a reasonable defense to take a trick. So they object to the claim and the director is called. If you just follow the lawbook, are the defender's hands all penalty cards? ("The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table" But this only kicks in once the claim is contested. These players did not contest the claim until after seeing each others hand. Anyway, the director did not require this in the example; the defenders did it before the director was called.) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Nov 20 19:47:48 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:47:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?claiming_question_=28penalty_cards=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1PJsTU-1huqxM0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > Just to check. Declarer claims for the rest of the tricks, the opps > have no reason to question this. But when they look at each others' > hands, they see there is a reasonable defense to take a trick. So they > object to the claim and the director is called. > > If you just follow the lawbook, are the defender's hands all penalty > cards? > ("The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face > up on the table" But this only kicks in once the claim is contested. > These players did not contest the claim until after seeing each others > hand. > Anyway, the director did not require this in the example; the > defenders did it before the director was called.) bullshit :( From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 20 20:00:30 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:00:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 In-Reply-To: <000901cb88d9$e13ad0c0$a3b07240$@no> References: <000901cb88d9$e13ad0c0$a3b07240$@no> Message-ID: <1316777107.1290279630858.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > Simple question, possibly not so simple answer: > > A player makes a second call in an attempt to change his first call. > > However, the second call is made too late for a correction under Law 25 > (i.e. after partner has subsequently called in case of an unintended first > call, or after LHO and possibly also partner has subsequently called in > case > of an intended first call). > > Do we apply Law 25 (change of call) or Law 29 (call out of turn), and what > is the correct rectification? I agree with your observation that TFLB fails to explicitly handle this situation. I think with the current state of TFLB, the TD has to decide: o TD considers it a call out of turn -> L29 o TD considers it an attempt to change call, but too late -> L25. In that case, the call is canceled, and L16D applies par L25B3. Thomas From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Nov 20 20:12:27 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:12:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <922283.1804.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> <922283.1804.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > Can no other BLMLEr see *why* WBFLC Emperors have no clothes? The > clothes-thief > is rewarded not punished! > _______________________________________________ > My understanding is that "Punishing the wicked" isn't a design goal for the existing legal system. Rather, WBF legal procedures are intended to restore equity. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101120/4894b75d/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Nov 20 20:38:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:38:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4E1DE4AE-CFDF-4308-B3FE-7057F08F2CC7@starpower.net> On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Marvin French wrote: > 5. An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 spades reached after > a slow signoff by partner. The contract should go one light but > defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious error > unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. > > The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error > and be awarded -980. The declaring side will be put back to the five > level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director will > assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower > level it may be that declarer and/or defender would have reason to > play differently.) > ############ > > Going by L12C1(b), shouldn't this be -50 for the OS, the resulting > score had there been no serious error? Maybe. But Marv's formulation, like L12C1(b) itself, is ambiguous. It could mean had the NOS not made the particular serious error that invoked L12C1(b), leading to a different result, or it could mean had the NOS not made any serious error, leading to L12C1(b) not coming into play. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Sat Nov 20 20:51:04 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:51:04 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] claiming question (penalty cards) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <631474003.1290282664532.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Just to check. Declarer claims for the rest of the tricks, the opps have > no reason to question this. But when they look at each others' hands, they > see there is a reasonable defense to take a trick. So they object to the > claim and the director is called. > > If you just follow the lawbook, are the defender's hands all penalty cards? Nah. Neither are declarer's cards, or defender's cards in case a defender claims. Oh, and dummy's cards are not penalty cards either. See also L68 B2. Jeez. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Nov 20 21:23:44 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:23:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 In-Reply-To: <000901cb88d9$e13ad0c0$a3b07240$@no> References: <000901cb88d9$e13ad0c0$a3b07240$@no> Message-ID: <987A2952-7B28-46E1-8638-1FC5FB44319A@starpower.net> On Nov 20, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Simple question, possibly not so simple answer: > > A player makes a second call in an attempt to change his first call. > > However, the second call is made too late for a correction under > Law 25 > (i.e. after partner has subsequently called in case of an > unintended first > call, or after LHO and possibly also partner has subsequently > called in case > of an intended first call). > > Do we apply Law 25 (change of call) or Law 29 (call out of turn), > and what > is the correct rectification? Since we've stipulated that it was an attempt to change the original call, there's no reason not to straightfowardly proceed from L25A to L25B. If the timing of the call mattered, L25B1 could explicitly refer to "a substituted call not permitted by A1 above". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Sat Nov 20 22:04:13 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:04:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 In-Reply-To: <987A2952-7B28-46E1-8638-1FC5FB44319A@starpower.net> References: <000901cb88d9$e13ad0c0$a3b07240$@no> <987A2952-7B28-46E1-8638-1FC5FB44319A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001001cb88f6$7ccd1ae0$766750a0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 > > On Nov 20, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Simple question, possibly not so simple answer: > > > > A player makes a second call in an attempt to change his first call. > > > > However, the second call is made too late for a correction under Law > > 25 (i.e. after partner has subsequently called in case of an > > unintended first call, or after LHO and possibly also partner has > > subsequently called in case of an intended first call). > > > > Do we apply Law 25 (change of call) or Law 29 (call out of turn), and > > what is the correct rectification? > > Since we've stipulated that it was an attempt to change the original call, there's no > reason not to straightfowardly proceed from L25A to L25B. If the timing of the call > mattered, L25B1 could explicitly refer to "a substituted call not permitted by A1 > above". So how do we handle the situation when a player has made a call at RHO's turn to call and claims that he really wanted to change his last previous call and there is no easy answer to the question: "What shall we believe"? The consequence of Law 29 is so much more severe than the consequence of law 25. A player that is aware of this could very well try to save as much as possible by trying to get a law 25 ruling rather than a Law 29 ruling. On the other side, I (for one) am extremely reluctant to accuse anybody of lying to me without solid evidence. From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Nov 20 22:11:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:11:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Suggesting change in claiming procedure for 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D68E7FD-CE0D-4534-91A8-6870C3FCC70F@starpower.net> On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer claims on opening lead for all 13 tricks. There are 13 > tricks off > the top, but there is one blocked suit: KQ opposite AJxx. If the > blocked > suit is left until the end, the contract is not made. Do you allow the > claim? Possibly, if entries are plentiful and the only way to go down is literally to leave the blocked suit for last. Certainly, if the claimer uttered some variant of the word "block" or specifically mentioned the problem suit. Otherwise, not if there's anything even vaguely subtle or tricky to the timing. > I think any director would feel like a fool not giving Jeff > Meckstroth his > 13 tricks. But what about a much lesser player? It is also very > awkward if > Jeff gets the 13 tricks and the lesser player doesn't. A lot worse than very awkward if Jeff happens to be a friend of the director -- and Jeff has a lot of friends. I can assure you, though, that if Jeff claimed them all in this situation without adding anything along the lines of "obvious unblock", he would be the first to tell a director who ruled him down one not to feel like a fool, he had done the right thing. > And if you are still giving that much lesser player 13 tricks, suppose > there are two blocked suits. Or suppose there are three. There has > to be > some level at which you comfortably give Jeff the claim and > uncomfortably > give it to the much lesser player. Not for me; I have the opposite problem. There is a level (of relatively low complexity) at which I would comfortably deny Jeff the claim but only uncomfortably deny it to the much lesser player. Jeff has made more than a few claims in his day, and knows what's expected of him. The lesser player might think that "but it's obvious" should matter. > One thing that could be helpful here is if director could ask the > claimer > how he or she was going to play the hand. This would be used when the > director otherwise would feel obligated to allow the claim. In other > words, it is an additional hurdle for the claimer that director is > allowed > to impose. I suppose that might be useful if one were sufficiently lenient in allowing defective claims to make that additional hurdle something other than rather low to the ground. Personally, I don't worry about "giving" hands that play themselves to rank novices who, if they actually played it, might well find a way to screw it up somehow -- and they never claim anyhow. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Nov 20 22:53:08 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:53:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] claiming question (penalty cards) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87503C2B-207A-4B09-B240-9C0081167EAA@starpower.net> On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Just to check. Declarer claims for the rest of the tricks, the opps > have > no reason to question this. But when they look at each others' > hands, they > see there is a reasonable defense to take a trick. So they object > to the > claim and the director is called. > > If you just follow the lawbook, are the defender's hands all > penalty cards? Of course not. Play has ceased [L68D], whether or not the director is called. > ("The Director may require players to put their remaining cards > face up on > the table" But this only kicks in once the claim is contested. These > players did not contest the claim until after seeing each others hand. > Anyway, the director did not require this in the example; the > defenders > did it before the director was called.) A defender is not expected to out-analyze declarer single-dummy as a prerequisite for calling the director after a claim. It may be necessary for the defenders to see both hands in order to determine to their satisfaction that there is no reason to call the director. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 21 01:11:36 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:11:36 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> <4E1DE4AE-CFDF-4308-B3FE-7057F08F2CC7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6AF4041C6EE7433C85034C960F4813AD@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Marvin French wrote: > >> 5. An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 spades reached >> after >> a slow signoff by partner. The contract should go one light but >> defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious >> error >> unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. >> >> The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error >> and be awarded -980. The declaring side will be put back to the >> five >> level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director >> will >> assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower >> level it may be that declarer and/or defender would have reason >> to >> play differently.) >> ############ >> >> Going by L12C1(b), shouldn't this be -50 for the OS, the >> resulting >> score had there been no serious error? > > Maybe. But Marv's formulation, like L12C1(b) itself, is > ambiguous. > It could mean had the NOS not made the particular serious error > that > invoked L12C1(b), leading to a different result, or it could mean > had > the NOS not made any serious error, leading to L12C1(b) not coming > into play. > Where is the ambiguity? I am rather slow-witted, so forgive me. Per L12C1(b) the NOS suffer -980, as the minutes say. They pay the consequence of their serious error, the revoke. L12C1(b) is a little fuzzy, but pretty clearly the second sentence is in apposition to the first sentence. The NOS do not get redress for their self-inflicted damage, [on the other hand] the OS may not benefit from such damage. In this case the OS gained from the revoke, so the revoke didn't happen in their 6S contract, ergo down one. A broader issue is whether potential bad results post-infraction may be considered in the OS score adjustment. At the Washington NABC an illegal hesitation-inspired 5S bid pushed the other side to 6C down one. Had the 5S bid been doubled it would have gone for 800. That is the score that should have been awarded the OS, not 5C making five against. I thought we all agreed to that principle. Otherwise, "had the irregularity not occurred" applies to the OS as well as the NOS, and the ACBL addition of that phrase to L12C1(e)(ii) makes no difference. It was omitted by the WBFLC for a reason, after all. To rule otherwise, as in ACBL-land, gives offenders *carte blanche* to work their will with no repercussions. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5635 (20101120) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 21 01:22:47 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:22:47 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP><922283.1804.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <312C598202BE418290CB74B7057B19BE@MARVLAPTOP> From: "richard willey >Nigel Guthrie >> >> Can no other BLMLEr see *why* WBFLC Emperors have no clothes? The >> clothes-thief >> is rewarded not punished! >> _______________________________________________ >> > > > My understanding is that "Punishing the wicked" isn't a design > goal for the > existing legal system. > Rather, WBF legal procedures are intended to restore equity. > Only when so stated. The revoke law penalizes with no regard for equity (unless the result is grossly unfair). L12C does not say that score adjustments for both sides should restore equity. It speaks of "most favorable result that was likely," (which may not be a likely result) and of the "most unfavorable result that was at all probable." Both adjustments may not reflect the initial equity of each side in the deal. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5635 (20101120) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 21 15:30:34 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:30:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans non-NABC+ case 9 In-Reply-To: <261028.94664.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4A6D61F370914FC6B1627400363BB5C7@MARVLAPTOP> <261028.94664.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Marvin French] > > An interesting case. North breaks tempo seriously over a 3D opening > and partner bids 4S with Q109876 KJ107 void QT4. North says she was > waiting for the Stop Card to be picked up, not proper procedure in > ACBL-land. > > East doubled 4S with Ax xxx QJx ?AJ987, which strikes me as a "wild > or gambling" action. Where did he/she think 4 tricks were coming > from?? However, he was very inexperienced, going by his masterpoint > holding (486), so perhaps this does not qualify as a WOG action. > > The TD panel decided that South's bid should be 3S passed by North, > who held KJx A9842 1065 K5. Six out of seven players polled said > they would pass the balancing 3S bid. Sure, having shown about that > much by the tempo break, this North might have passed. > > This illustrates the problem with small-sample polling. I doubt that > 100 players polled would have found 6 of 7 passing 3S. > > Anyhoo, the TD Panel decided that East would bid 4D over 3S, and > North would then re-evaluate her hand and bid 4S, which East would > double. So table result stands, but a PP for North's "unsubstantial > nature of his reason for hesitating." > > No poll was taken asking whether or not 3S would be passed with > East's hand. Bidding 4D would be rather stupid, but this "class of > player" is dumb enough to do that, I suppose, going by his actual > double of 4S. Having pushed the opponents to 4S, would those polled > double 4S? I doubt it. The rational course is to pass and hope it > goes down, mission accomplished, but again this East would surely > double. > > There are times when you don't employ a poll because you know what a > player would do based on his/her actions at the table. This is one > such case. > > {Nigel] > In another New Orleans appeal, the committee ?decided to give the benefit of the > doubt to the OS in the *play*. > > Now this committee decide to give the benefit of the doubt to the OS in the > *bidding*. > A poll establishes that North would pass a hypothetical 3S balance by South so, > in their wisdom, the committee impose an insane 4D reopening bid on the poor > non-offending East. The committee appear to have judged it unfair that a player > with so few master-points should ever be allowed a good score, no matter what > his opponents get up to. > The ACBL stop-card regulations are silly and that is another story: A PP may be > appropriate. But not for North's prolonged pause over the pre-empt. Rather for > South seeming to take such crude advantage. My draft comment on the case: So many issues here I scarcely know where to start! I'm glad it came up, though -- it could be instructive. The ACBL's Stop Card policy is both deeply flawed and poorly understood. Here is my 2003 proposal to replace it with the WBF policy: http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html North's contention that she was waiting for West to remove the Stop Card is eminiently plausible. Her hand gives no indication that she was considering a bid. I've found many opponents become annoyed if I make a call before the Stop Card is removed. I take the precaution of telling them that I'm waiting. Sometimes that annoyes them as well -- tough! The panel's projection of what would have occurred after a 3S balance is misleading. The laws do not require us to know with certainly what would have happened in a hypothetical situation -- that is usually impossible. Rather, Law 12c1e instructs the TD to assess the possibilities and categogize them as "likely" and "at all probable". These two rulings are legal only if the TD judged that it was not even at all probable that NS would reach 4S after a balance of 3S, and the Panel judged that it was not even at all probable that NS would stay out of 4S. That's quite a difference. Neither contention is supported by a poll. Since I don't believe there was any UI I prefer the Panel's adjustment, though not their reasoning. I do not understand the procedural penalty. North's violation of procedure was caused by West's violation of procedure. The ACBL Stop Card policy states explicitly that there should be no penalty for West's violation. Well and good, but then there should be no penalty for North's either. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 21 16:20:08 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:20:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Link for WBF Laws Committee minutes Message-ID: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/LawsCmteMinutes/cmte_minutes.asp 1998 (Lille) through 2010 (Philadelphia) are posted. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 21 16:34:55 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:34:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <6AF4041C6EE7433C85034C960F4813AD@MARVLAPTOP> References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> <4E1DE4AE-CFDF-4308-B3FE-7057F08F2CC7@starpower.net> <6AF4041C6EE7433C85034C960F4813AD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Marvin French wrote: >> >>> 5. An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 spades reached >>> after >>> a slow signoff by partner. The contract should go one light but >>> defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious >>> error >>> unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. >>> >>> The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error >>> and be awarded -980. The declaring side will be put back to the >>> five >>> level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director >>> will >>> assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower >>> level it may be that declarer and/or defender would have reason >>> to >>> play differently.) >>> ############ >>> >>> Going by L12C1(b), shouldn't this be -50 for the OS, the >>> resulting >>> score had there been no serious error? >> >> Maybe. ?But Marv's formulation, like L12C1(b) itself, is >> ambiguous. >> It could mean had the NOS not made the particular serious error >> that >> invoked L12C1(b), leading to a different result, or it could mean >> had >> the NOS not made any serious error, leading to L12C1(b) not coming >> into play. >> > Where is the ambiguity? I am rather slow-witted, ?so forgive me. Per > L12C1(b) the NOS suffer ?-980, as the minutes say. They pay the > consequence of their serious error, the revoke. > > L12C1(b) is a little fuzzy, but pretty clearly the second sentence > is in apposition to the first sentence. The NOS do not get redress > for their self-inflicted damage, [on the other hand] the OS may not > benefit from such damage. In this case the OS gained from the > revoke, so the revoke didn't happen in their 6S contract, ergo down > one. > > A broader issue is whether potential bad results post-infraction may > be considered ?in the OS score adjustment. At the Washington NABC an > illegal ?hesitation-inspired 5S bid pushed the other side to 6C down > one. Had the 5S bid ?been doubled it would have gone for 800. That > is the score that should have been awarded the OS, not 5C making > five against. > > I thought we all agreed to that principle. Otherwise, "had the > irregularity not occurred" applies to the OS as well as the NOS, > and ?the ACBL addition of that phrase to L12C1(e)(ii) makes no > difference. It was omitted by the WBFLC for a ?reason, after all. > > To rule otherwise, as in ACBL-land, gives offenders *carte blanche* > to work their will with no repercussions. "We all agreed to that principle" is rather an overbid. Certainly I have not agreed. I don't know that all of BLML has ever agreed to anything! Claiming that the ACBL's wording of the law gives offenders *carte blanche* is likewise an overbid. Law 12 is already quite severe regarding the OS. In any case you should note item 7 from the Oct 12 meeting: 'The absence of the words ?had the irregularity not occurred? from Law 12C1(c)(ii) rarely has consequences for the ruling and how this law is dealt with is in the hands of Regulating Authorities and Directors.' (sic) This perhaps should have been "rarely if ever" since the committee did not agree on an example where it would have consequences. Per conversations with several members I know that some of them believe that the law ought to be interpreted as if the missing clause were present. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 21 17:01:49 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:01:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ 5 and non-NABC+6 In-Reply-To: <741511B8B1524C4C93D4633159C307A5@MARVLAPTOP> References: <741511B8B1524C4C93D4633159C307A5@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Both cases involved a player who mistakenly bid 2H (transfer) in > response to a 1NT opening when it was intended as natural, and then > bid 3H, passed out, when partner bid 2S. > > In NABC+ 5 the 3H bid was allowed, the AC not believing the > opponents' belated claim that it was made with body language. We > don't know if 2H was announced as a transfer but note (3) for that > bid says "Transfer to Spades," so it was part of their system > whether announced or not. The issue of whether 3H was forcing in > their system was not brought up. Doesn't that matter? Most pairs > play it forcing. The partner did have two spades and three hearts. > > In non-NABC+ 6 the score was adjusted by a TD Panel ?to 4HX down > two. The partner was 3-3 in the majors. Again, no discussion as to > whether 3H was forcing in their system, but 2H was Announced as a > transfer. > > Evidently the TD panel did a better job than the AC. > > Am ?I missing something? Circumstances alter cases. The facts were different in the two cases. That's not to say that I agree with both rulings, but certainly the facts should be taken into account. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 21 20:41:16 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 20:41:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/NewOrleans2010.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. >> >> I'll post my comments here shortly. Other panelist comments are not >> yet available. > > Darn! I meant to change the Subject line. Doing so now. Here are my draft comments on the Non-NABC+ cases. Comments, suggestions, and corrections welcome as always. 1. Was the Stop Card used? It doesn't affect this ruling, but enquiring minds want to know! That said, this was a fine effort by the TD. Kudos to NS for calling him and giving him a change to make it. Not only has the appeal no merit, I'd have assessed a procedural penalty against West for his failure to follow prescribed procedures. Apparently he has not been called to account for such violations often enough. How many of his 4658 MPs were won with actions like this one? 2. The panel applied the wrong standard for assessing an AWMW. A player who intended 3D as a game try would always pass 3S, and we have no way of judging whether South intended his bid that way. Given his hand it seems unlikely. Spades will take an extra trick much more often than not, and opener will not be well placed to judge whether this is one of the rare exceptions since he will not be able to picture South's singleton. In any case his actual intent is not relevant. We are not mind readers. Since we have no way to be certain we must adjust his score just as we would that of a player who had made a game try, when a game try is plausible. Certainly it is here. 3. Given West's interpretation of the double it surprises me that he did not bid 3C over 2S. That said, I have no quarrel with the TD and Panel rulings. I don't see the merit in the appeal. The only reason I have to doubt that the explanation was accurate is West's failure to bid, and that was not mentioned in the appeal. In any case while misunderstandings about these doubles are common out and out deceit is rare. Did NS really believe that EW had a secret agreement to play this double as penalty while explaining it as card showing? 4. No merit. None. None. None! If this doesn't deserve an AWMW, what appeal will? 5. I disagree that there is no logical alternative to bidding 2S. Pass would be logical enough. That is not relevant here. East has no UI, so he was entitled to bid as he pleased. I wonder whether North might have learned his bridge on foreign shores. The English Bridge Union has a rule, foolish in my opinion, that asking and then passing is deemed to convey UI. Since our rule is the opposite, and was clearly explained as such, there was no merit and finally the panel agrees. That's one for five so far. 6. All fair enough. I wonder why the contract was not adjusted to 4Sx or 5Hx though. I'm also surprised E/W appealed. They had a perfect right to, but the change from +200 to +500 cannot have gained them much. 7. South caused this mess by his violation of proper procedure, so the procedural penalty was perfectly in order. Well done by the Panel for assessing it. As for the score adjustment, the Panel decision was far superior to the TD's. The Panel has the reasoning exactly right. Correct information would not have made the winning action more attractive. There is an inconsistency in the facts presented as to when the TD was called. Fortunately it does not affect the ruling here. 8. I see no merit to this appeal. The ruling is cut and dried. 9. So many issues here I scarcely know where to start! I'm glad it came up, though -- it could be instructive. The ACBL's Stop Card policy is both deeply flawed and poorly understood. Here is my 2003 proposal to replace it with the WBF policy: http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html North's contention that she was waiting for West to remove the stop card is eminently plausible. Her hand gives no indication that she was considering a call. I've found many opponents become annoyed if I bid before the stop card is removed. I take the precaution of telling them that I'm waiting. Sometimes that annoys them as well -- tough! The panel's projection of what would have occurred after a 3S balance is misleading. The laws do not require us to know with certainly what would have happened in a hypothetical situation -- that is usually impossible. Rather, Law 12c1e instructs the TD to assess the possibilities and categorize them as "likely" and "at all probable". These two rulings are legal only if the TD judged that it was not even at all probable that NS would reach 4S after a balance of 3S, and the Panel judged that it was not even at all probable that NS would stay out of 4S. That's quite a difference. Neither contention is supported by a poll. Since I don't believe there was any UI I prefer the Panel's adjustment, though not their reasoning. I do not understand the procedural penalty. North's violation of procedure was caused by West's violation of procedure. ACBL policy states explicitly that there should be no penalty for West's violation. Well and good, but then there should be no penalty for North's either. 10. Good rulings. I see no merit in the appeal. 11. I see no shred of merit here. I wish I understood why the panel disagreed. 12. The TD got this one right. The panel ruling was unjust. Everyone would agree that correct information makes Pass more attractive. That is all we need to know to adjust the EW score -- they cannot be allowed to profit through MI, per Law 21B3. Normally we adjust the score for the NOS as well, unless we judge that the call was a serious error per law 12C1(b). The New Orleans ACBL LC minutes follow the lead of the WBF and instruct us that the standard for "serious error" is high, something like a revoke or failure to cash the setting trick against a slam, not a mere error in judgment. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 21 20:49:19 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 20:49:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ 5 and non-NABC+6 In-Reply-To: <516887912.1290102455065.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <741511B8B1524C4C93D4633159C307A5@MARVLAPTOP> <516887912.1290102455065.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > I think that overall the TD panels did a better > job than the ACs. Why do you say so? I know you disagree with the AC ruling in this case -- were there others? I found that ACs clearly improved on the TD's ruling in three cases (1, 6, and 7) without not worsening any, while Panels made a clear improvement in one ruling (7) and worsened another (12). The real contrast comes when we look at merit, though. 6 of the 8 cases before ACs had merit, compared to 4 of the 12 heard by panels. That means that ACs had the more difficult job on average. Further, ACs assessed one of the two AWMWs deserved, while Panels assessed only one out of the eight deserved. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 21 20:54:45 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:54:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] claiming question (penalty cards) In-Reply-To: <87503C2B-207A-4B09-B240-9C0081167EAA@starpower.net> References: <87503C2B-207A-4B09-B240-9C0081167EAA@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:53:08 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Just to check. Declarer claims for the rest of the tricks, the opps >> have >> no reason to question this. But when they look at each others' >> hands, they >> see there is a reasonable defense to take a trick. So they object >> to the >> claim and the director is called. >> >> If you just follow the lawbook, are the defender's hands all >> penalty cards? > > Of course not. Play has ceased [L68D], whether or not the director > is called. The rule for penalty cards makes no reference to play. > >> ("The Director may require players to put their remaining cards >> face up on >> the table" But this only kicks in once the claim is contested. These >> players did not contest the claim until after seeing each others hand. >> Anyway, the director did not require this in the example; the >> defenders >> did it before the director was called.) > > A defender is not expected to out-analyze declarer single-dummy as a > prerequisite for calling the director after a claim. It may be > necessary for the defenders to see both hands in order to determine > to their satisfaction that there is no reason to call the director. Of course. I was not asking a question about what should happen. -- somepsychology.com From blml at arcor.de Sun Nov 21 21:12:45 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:12:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ 5 and non-NABC+6 In-Reply-To: References: <741511B8B1524C4C93D4633159C307A5@MARVLAPTOP> <516887912.1290102455065.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2069294919.1290370365375.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > I think that overall the TD panels did a better > > job than the ACs. > > Why do you say so? I know you disagree with the AC ruling in this case > -- were there others? I am not convinced that the AC got #1 right. You'd have to have been there to decide that. Both the TD and the AC got #2 wrong. The AC got #3 wrong when it awarded the OS an undeserved extra trick in 2D. I already stated what I think about #5. I finally think the AC might have gotten #8 wrong. But again you'd have to have been there and ask your own questions on what exactly the auction implied about the hands. Thomas From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 21 21:13:52 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:13:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It seems I never posted my draft comments on the NABC+ cases. Here they are: 1. The well-reasoned AC decision was an improvement over the TD?s ruling. 2. The TD?s statement improperly compounds two separate issues, whether there was UI and, if there was, whether that UI could demonstrably suggest one action over another. The comment clearly constituted UI ? the question is whether it was suggestive. I agree with Bart and disagree with the TD and the AC. The comment, though improper, does not suggest anything. A slow double, however, clearly suggests three trump rather than four and makes defending relatively less attractive. A pass, while it might not be the majority choice, is certainly not a clear mistake ? it would be right quite often. On the facts as presented I would have adjusted the score for both sides to NS -300 in 1S doubled. 3. I don?t know why the AC decided on 130 instead of 110, but at IMPs that?s not a significant issue. I see no merit to the appeal. A committee should be prepared to consider an action logical if even one member asserts that given the testimony regarding the bridge logic of the situation he would have taken that action, or if he strongly believes that a significant number of the player?s peers would take it. Following this principle would have avoided a number of poor decisions over the years. I can?t think of any cases where it would have resulted in changing a correct ruling. 4. West is a member of the NABC Appeals Committee. He apologized to me for bringing this case, which he later realized was without merit. I told him no apology is necessary. Being objective about one?s own case is a difficult matter. An AWMW is not a moral condemnation, just a warning to consider more carefully in the future. When in doubt as to whether to appeal I recommend consulting with knowledgeable friends or acquaintances, so long as there?s no possibility that they?ll be serving on the committee. I try to make myself available for such consultations. 5. I have no quarrel with these rulings. Note that they do not set a precedent ? a slightly different set of facts would likely have resulted in a different outcome. 6. I do not understand the basis of the TD?s ruling, since it appears that, although North misunderstood, he was provided with accurate information. The AC seems to have been more thorough. 7. I prefer the AC?s ruling to the TD?s. Their reasoning is compelling. 8. This decision involved my teammates. As I noted in case 4, being objective about one?s own cause is a difficult matter. I won?t attempt it here. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 21 21:30:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 07:30:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- 2C (1) 2NT(2) X 3D (3) Pass Pass ? (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts You, East, hold: QJ9865 94 KQ64 2 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 21 22:11:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:11:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1316777107.1290279630858.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>..... >>Do we apply Law 25 (change of call) or Law 29 (call out of >>turn), and what is the correct rectification? Thomas Dehn: >I agree with your observation that TFLB fails to explicitly >handle this situation. >..... Richard Hills: Actually the Lawbook does explicitly handle this situation, but in examining Law 29 Sven and Thomas are looking in the wrong place. Instead they should have examined the footnote to Law 31B: **Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. Best wishes Richard Hills SEASONAL WORDS The New Oxford American Dictionary (which ought to lose the "new", as it was first published ten years ago and is now on its third edition) is as usual first out of the gate with its words of 2010. The runners-up included TEA PARTY, VUVUZELA, WEBISODE, and CROWDSOURCING. The winner is Sarah Palin's error in July of writing REFUDIATE in a Twitter posting when she meant "repudiate". The editors say they won't add it to the dictionary, though they commented that "From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used 'refudiate', we have concluded that neither 'refute' nor 'repudiate' seems consistently precise, and that 'refudiate' more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of 'reject'." I think that means they see some merit in it. They also make the point, not passed on in news reports, that Sarah Palin wasn't the first user - there are examples in books and newspapers going back decades. Incidentally, the Huffington Post take on the story was headlined "Palin Exonerized by New Oxford American Dictionary". ---------------------------------------------------- World Wide Words is copyright (c) Michael Quinion 2010. All rights reserved. The Words website is at http://www.worldwidewords.org . ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 21 22:24:16 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:24:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1316777107.1290279630858.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000601cb89c2$758062c0$60812840$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >>..... > >>Do we apply Law 25 (change of call) or Law 29 (call out of turn), and > >>what is the correct rectification? > > Thomas Dehn: > > >I agree with your observation that TFLB fails to explicitly handle this > >situation. > >..... > > Richard Hills: > > Actually the Lawbook does explicitly handle this situation, but in examining Law 29 > Sven and Thomas are looking in the wrong place. Instead they should have > examined the footnote to Law 31B: > > **Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 > applies. Sorry, but you cannot have noticed that the question applies to change of call at RHO's turn to call or (when there is no question of an unintended first call) at partner's turn to call. There is no problem with later calls at LHO's turn to call. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 21 23:04:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:04:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601cb89c2$758062c0$60812840$@no> Message-ID: the footnote to Law 31B: **Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. Sven Pran: >Sorry, but you cannot have noticed that the question applies >to change of call at RHO's turn to call or (when there is no >question of an unintended first call) at partner's turn to >call. > >There is no problem with later calls at LHO's turn to call. Richard Hills: The footnote to Law 31B defines a particular call out of rotation as sui generis, to which Law 25 applies. Since there is not any cross-reference to Law 25 in the other clauses of Laws 28 to 32, for all other calls out of rotation the Director applies the relevant clause of Laws 28 to 32. What's the problem? The problem is a Director redefining "a call out of rotation" as "a change of call". But defining "a leg" as "an arm" does not make it so, except in Lois McMaster Bujold's Nebula Award winning novel Falling Free. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 21 23:16:19 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:16:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000601cb89c2$758062c0$60812840$@no> Message-ID: <000f01cb89c9$b9998930$2ccc9b90$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > the footnote to Law 31B: > > **Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 > applies. > > Sven Pran: > > >Sorry, but you cannot have noticed that the question applies to change > >of call at RHO's turn to call or (when there is no question of an > >unintended first call) at partner's turn to call. > > > >There is no problem with later calls at LHO's turn to call. > > Richard Hills: > > The footnote to Law 31B defines a particular call out of rotation as sui generis, to > which Law 25 applies. Since there is not any cross-reference to Law 25 in the > other clauses of Laws 28 to 32, for all other calls out of rotation the Director > applies the relevant clause of Laws 28 to 32. > > What's the problem? > > The problem is a Director redefining "a call out of rotation" > as "a change of call". But defining "a leg" as "an arm" does not make it so, except > in Lois McMaster Bujold's Nebula Award winning novel Falling Free. An interesting view which comes a long way with me. However, Law 25A explicitly defines a particular call out of rotation (at partner's turn to call) to be a change of (an unintended) call. So whichever way we look at this we can end up in some obscurity. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 22 02:12:24 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:12:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01cb89c9$b9998930$2ccc9b90$@no> Message-ID: Lois McMaster Bujold, Falling Free (1988): "Those who can; do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach go into administration." Richard Hills: And those who can't administer write logically fallacious blml posts insinuating that Nigel Guthrie: >>>..... >>>Sophisticated and inconsistent laws are a rich source of >>>intriguing and testing problems, that enhance the job- >>>interest of directors. BLML illustrates this well. >>>..... Richard Hills: The logical fallacy of the biased sample. Blml illustrates nothing; the delight that Herman De Wael and Richard Hills share in solving logic puzzles is not representative of the vast majority of Real Directors in the Real World, who prefer a quiet life with ZERO "intriguing and testing problems". Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Hmmm......... it may be supposed that the majority of >>members of these organizations are content with the grass >>growing in the field into which they have wandered. >>..... >>On balance subscribers to blml do tend to air minority >>points of view. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Richard Hills: >>>>..... >>>>The problem is a Director redefining "a call out of >>>>rotation" as "a change of call". But defining "a leg" >>>>as "an arm" does not make it so, except in Lois McMaster >>>>Bujold's Nebula Award winning novel Falling Free. Sven Pran: >An interesting view which comes a long way with me. > >However, Law 25A explicitly defines a particular call out >of rotation (at partner's turn to call) to be a change of >(an unintended) call. > >So whichever way we look at this we can end up in some >obscurity. Richard Hills: In my personal opinion, the way to deobscurify is to rule that Law 25A takes precedence over the call-out-of- rotation Laws, but that (except for the Law 31B footnote), the call-out-of-rotation Laws take precedence over Law 25B. In my personal opinion, a Law 25A unintended call is merely a Platonic ideal of a call, unless and until partner calls -- whereupon the Platonic ideal of a call metamorphoses into a Real Call. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 22 06:12:14 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:12:14 -0600 Subject: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Adam Wildavsky" Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 13:41 To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Adam Wildavsky >> wrote: >>> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/NewOrleans2010.html > 12. The TD got this one right. The panel ruling was unjust. > > Everyone would agree that correct information makes Pass more > attractive. That is all we need to know > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com I find it inconsiderate to lumped with 'everyone' because the above amounts to rubbish. One of the primary features of sound hand evaluation is the ability to picture where one's tricks are coming from; and considering that what S has learned from the auction amounts to partner being broke then it is imperative to consider that should the hand to be declared in Spades then it will be south that is endplayed in which case upwards of 90% of the time the limit of the hand will be 4-6 tricks and that S will have no opportunity to distinguish whether he will land on the 10% side** of the cases where he will take more than the suggested 5 tricks. That being said, there is no warranty that the NS best trump fit is in spades whether the EW heart fit is 7 or 9 cards. Now, that S claims that the difference between 7 and 9 hearts was the difference between Pass and 3S is the difference between not taking a 5% action but taking an action that is 10%- which is what he will have everyone believe- it may well in truth be. But in bridge a 10% action deserves to be punished and no grief is deserved when it is. And a player is entitled to take those 10% actions but his opponents should not be inconvenienced when they are proved the bits of the folly they are. Conversely, in light of the above the south hand is chunky with plenty of defensive prospects and to me that is ample impetus to stay out leaving open the [unlikely] possibility of a speculative double of a higher contract. I personally expected more from EW than a mere: "East-West argued that whatever the meaning of 3H, bidding at this vulnerability was very risky." Because I want to know why it was very risky, and, what very risky means- in This Case. In fact I am next to flabbergasted that the committee would extend its own interpretation and come to the conclusion it did given the disposition of previous committees and the flakiness of polls***. For instance, this business of the difference between 9 hearts making 3S a positive expectation to this NS. The more hearts E has the more entries to West's long hearts which means that S will be tapped and EW won't be endplayed [south's most prospectively valuable feature, his tenaces, won't be worth so much] No, the issue is not the contention that it is easier to like 3S when E promises 4H [a dubious contention]. It is sufficient reason to rule no damage when the number of hearts promised is immaterial to what caused the 3S call ** such as those times when east doesn't have nearly as much as would be expected for his bidding *** if such polls were constructed in the form of "what range of tricks are expected in 3SS [at least 50% of the time]" it would be a whole lot easier to see why none of these pollees would bid 3S regards roger pewick From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 22 08:54:30 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:54:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/11/21 : > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH ? ? WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST > --- ? ? ? 2C (1) ? ?2NT(2) ? ?X > 3D (3) ? ?Pass ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?? > > (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major > (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced > (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts > > You, East, hold: > > QJ9865 > 94 > KQ64 > 2 > > What call do you make? It looks like RHO has a weak doubleton (or singleton??) heart and 6-card diamonds. Partner is a favourite to hold 4-card hearts, though it is possible LHO has 6+ hearts. I'm doubling. > What other calls do you consider making? None, though pass might prove to be the winning call (I doubt it). > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 22 08:54:30 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:54:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/11/21 : > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH ? ? WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST > --- ? ? ? 2C (1) ? ?2NT(2) ? ?X > 3D (3) ? ?Pass ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?? > > (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major > (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced > (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts > > You, East, hold: > > QJ9865 > 94 > KQ64 > 2 > > What call do you make? It looks like RHO has a weak doubleton (or singleton??) heart and 6-card diamonds. Partner is a favourite to hold 4-card hearts, though it is possible LHO has 6+ hearts. I'm doubling. > What other calls do you consider making? None, though pass might prove to be the winning call (I doubt it). > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 22 09:26:50 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:26:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 versus Law 29 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000f01cb89c9$b9998930$2ccc9b90$@no> Message-ID: <000901cb8a1f$033c16c0$09b44440$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > In my personal opinion, the way to deobscurify is to rule that Law 25A takes > precedence over the call-out-of- rotation Laws, but that (except for the Law 31B > footnote), the call-out-of-rotation Laws take precedence over Law 25B. > > In my personal opinion, a Law 25A unintended call is merely a Platonic ideal of a > call, unless and until partner calls > -- whereupon the Platonic ideal of a call metamorphoses into a Real Call. That is an understanding with which I would heartily agree! From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 22 10:28:56 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 04:28:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CD583ECFDF0FFE-DFC-46C0@webmail-d051.sysops.aol.com> Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- 2C (1) 2NT(2) X 3D (3) Pass Pass ? (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts You, East, hold: QJ9865 94 KQ64 2 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Paul Lamford] Agree with Harald, double seems a stand-out, even at the vulnerability. Hope partner can double 3H if they run. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Nov 22 13:26:36 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:26:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD583ECFDF0FFE-DFC-46C0@webmail-d051.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD583ECFDF0FFE-DFC-46C0@webmail-d051.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <565458.92767.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Imps West/East-West You, East, hold: QJ9865 94 KQ64 2 --- 2C (1) 2NT(2) X 3D(3) Pass Pass ? (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Paul Lamford] Agree with Harald, double seems a stand-out, even at the vulnerability. Hope partner can double 3H if they run. [Nigel] IMO (Over 2N) 3S = 10, _P = 9, _X = 5. (Over 3D) _P = 10, 3S = 6, _X = 4. Content), hoping that RHO has taken a wrong view. High card strength seem roughly even but opponents may still have a heart game or slam. If you double or bid, then LHO has another bite at the cherry. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Mon Nov 22 18:29:10 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:29:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- 2C (1) 2NT(2) X > 3D (3) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major > (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced > (3) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts > > You, East, hold: > > QJ9865 > 94 > KQ64 > 2 > > What call do you make? Wow, I'm torn. I think it's close between pass and double without the alert. And with the alert, there's a serious chance that the hand will play better in hearts. And a serious chance that they're scrambling -- that any undoubled contract will do. Since I'm not concerned with protecting a plus our way I'd pass. I have considered doubling and had a fleeting glance at my spades. But that's a ship that has sailed. From adam at tameware.com Mon Nov 22 20:48:16 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:48:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ 5 and non-NABC+6 In-Reply-To: <2069294919.1290370365375.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <741511B8B1524C4C93D4633159C307A5@MARVLAPTOP> <516887912.1290102455065.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2069294919.1290370365375.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> > I think that overall the TD panels did a better >> > job than the ACs. >> >> Why do you say so? I know you disagree with the AC ruling in this case >> -- were there others? > > I am not convinced that the AC got #1 right. > You'd have to have been there to decide that. > > Both the TD and the AC got #2 wrong. > > The AC got #3 wrong when it awarded the OS an undeserved > extra trick in 2D. > > I already stated what I think about #5. > > I finally think the AC might have gotten #8 wrong. But again you'd > have to have been there and ask your own questions on > what exactly the auction implied about the hands. I agree that the AC got #2 wrong. I agree that the extra overtrick was wrong on #3, but the AC got the main part of the ruling right. The others were close. I never worry about how an AC rules on a close case. I'd be delighted if we always decided the clear-cut ones correctly. Do you agree that the Panel decided case 12 incorrectly, and that they had a much easier set of cases? -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Nov 22 20:57:10 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:57:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 13:41 > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted > >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Adam Wildavsky >>> wrote: >>>> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/NewOrleans2010.html > >> 12. The TD got this one right. The panel ruling was unjust. >> >> Everyone would agree that correct information makes Pass more >> attractive. That is all we need to know > >> Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com > > I find it inconsiderate to lumped with 'everyone' because the above amounts > to rubbish. Sorry to lump you in like that! Thanks for speaking up. Your disagreement makes me wonder whether I got my point across. I did not mean assert that 3S is the correct bid on the information provided, or even that it was a good or a reasonable bid. All I intended to suggest was that it is more likely to be successful when RHO has four hearts than when he has two. Surely the more spades partner has the more tricks we're likely to take in 3S, and the fewer hearts partner has the more room he has for spades. Similarly, on the explanation given at the table partner is likely to hold more HCP than was likely with accurate information. What do you make the odds of success of the 3S bid in each of the two cases? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 22 21:27:42 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:27:42 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP><4E1DE4AE-CFDF-4308-B3FE-7057F08F2CC7@starpower.net><6AF4041C6EE7433C85034C960F4813AD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: >From Adam Wildavsky:: Marv French wrote: > A broader issue is whether potential bad results post-infraction > may > be considered in the OS score adjustment. At the Washington NABC > an > illegal hesitation-inspired 5S bid pushed the other side to 6C > down > one. Had the 5S bid been doubled it would have gone for 800. That > is the score that should have been awarded the OS, not 5C making > five against. Except in ACBL-land, I should have added, where the actual adjustment was correct. > > I thought we all agreed to that principle. Otherwise, "had the > irregularity not occurred" applies to the OS as well as the NOS, > and the ACBL addition of that phrase to L12C1(e)(ii) makes no > difference. It was omitted by the WBFLC for a reason, after all. > > To rule otherwise, as in ACBL-land, gives offenders *carte > blanche* > to work their will with no repercussions. [Adam] "We all agreed to that principle" is rather an overbid. Certainly I have not agreed. I don't know that all of BLML has ever agreed to anything! [Marv] I meant to exclude ACBL citizens from that statement, sorry. I don't remember that anyone else disagreed. [Adam] Claiming that the ACBL's wording of the law gives offenders *carte blanche* is likewise an overbid. Law 12 is already quite severe regarding the OS. [Marv] Disagree. The repercussions are seldom serious. The death penalty is seldom invoked in the USA, but a state law providing for it remains in force nevertheless, despite the fact that alternative punishments are "already quite severe." [Adam] In any case you should note item 7 from the Oct 12 meeting: 'The absence of the words ?had the irregularity not occurred? from Law 12C1(c)(ii) rarely has consequences for the ruling and how this law is dealt with is in the hands of Regulating Authorities and Directors.' (sic) [Marv] Sick! A cop-out sop to the ACBL for writing their own law. Elsewhere "had the irregularity not occurred" is not in that law and therefore does not apply (no option). The WBFLC has repeatedly told you Adam, that these words were omitted deliberately, and were not to be "understood," as you convinced your LC members. One occasion was the WBFLC meeting 27 August 2002: "Mr Wildavsky put forth his view that this law should be interpreted as though it read "had the irregularity not occurred''....on a previous occasion the subject had been discussed and the Committee had agreed that the law does not attach this limitation to the adjustment for the offending side." "Agreed," Adam. Which means that post-infraction results that were "at all probable" may be used for an OS score adjustment if they are more serious than a mere application of "had the irregularity not occurred." What else can it mean?? Another cop-out in Item 5 is the failure to state clearly that the revoke may not be included in the OS score adjustment. Did they not want to offend the ACBL, which says the play of the cards is not changed (except for level of contract or other effect)? [Adam] This perhaps should have been "rarely if ever" since the committee did not agree on an example where it would have consequences. Per conversations with several members I know that some of them believe that the law ought to be interpreted as if the missing clause were present. [Marv] "Rarely if ever" are your words not theirs, and are not pertinent anyway. A law whose application is infrequent does not make it inapplicable. That "some of them" don't accept the opinion of their own committee (if that is true) is lamentable but typical of all committees. Majority rules. If the dissenters were ACBL members, a bias is likely. For those who think -50 is wrong for the item 5 example, please explain why. It is wrong in ACBL-land, of course, but should be right elsewhere. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5640 (20101122) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 22 21:49:34 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:49:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ 5 and non-NABC+6 In-Reply-To: References: <741511B8B1524C4C93D4633159C307A5@MARVLAPTOP> <516887912.1290102455065.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <2069294919.1290370365375.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1241136359.1290458974014.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Do you agree that the Panel decided case 12 incorrectly, and that they > had a much easier set of cases? I would have let the TD's decision stand, but I consider #12 to be a close one. S's bidding doesn't make much sense to me at unfavorable. Thomas From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 22 21:51:09 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:51:09 -0800 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans non-NABC+ case 9 References: <4A6D61F370914FC6B1627400363BB5C7@MARVLAPTOP><261028.94664.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: "Adam Wildavsky" North's contention that she was waiting for West to remove the Stop Card is eminiently plausible. Her hand gives no indication that she was considering a bid. I've found many opponents become annoyed if I make a call before the Stop Card is removed. I take the precaution of telling them that I'm waiting. Sometimes that annoys them as well -- tough! The ACBL says this about use of the Stop Card: "The skip bid is made. The Stop Card is replaced in the bidding box." Leaving it on the table is not proper procedure, although there is no penalty for that.. I would abolish the Stop Card altogether, especially since the mandated 10-second pause hardly ever happens unless LHO has a problem.. Not to mention that 10 seconds is a very long time. Hesitators get away with their slow calls over a skip bid, saying that they are mandated. Okay. But the same people don't wait that long without a problem, or do not simulate deep thought when they do wait. UI has many faces other than tempo. There are many more tempo-sensitive siutations than skip bids, and proper tempo should be required at all such times, but not in tempo-irrelevant situations as when a vulnerable passed hand hears a 2NT opening on his right. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5640 (20101122) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 22 22:00:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 08:00:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 2C (1) 2NT(2) X (3) 3D (4) Pass Pass X (3) ? (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced (3) Penalty double (4) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts You, South, hold: T7 T87632 A53 J6 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 22 22:10:33 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:10:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans Non-NABC #12 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <327958.98072.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Adam Wildavsky] New Orleans Non-NABC #12. The TD got this one right. The panel ruling was unjust. Everyone would agree that correct information makes Pass more attractive. That is all we need to know. [Adam Wildavsky] What do you make the odds of success of the 3S bid in each of the two cases? [Nigel] FWIW, if I was conned in the same way as South, I would regard 3S as automatic. IAC, the director had already conducted a poll that showed South's logic to be acceptable. The victims might have adduced any modern exposition of Jean-Ren? Vernes "Law of Total Number of Tricks" to prove to the panel that opponents' (falsely) advertised fit improves the likely outcome of a 3S bid: - Since opponents have at least a 9-card fit, your side must have at least an 8-card fit. - If both sides have 10-card fit then 4S is likely to make or be a good sacrifice. - In any case you would like a spade lead. From jjlbridge at free.fr Mon Nov 22 22:15:45 2010 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:15:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/11/22 Adam Wildavsky : > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 13:41 >> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted >> >>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Adam Wildavsky >>>> wrote: >>>>> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/NewOrleans2010.html >> >>> 12. The TD got this one right. The panel ruling was unjust. >>> >>> Everyone would agree that correct information makes Pass more >>> attractive. That is all we need to know >> >>> Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com >> >> I find it inconsiderate to lumped with 'everyone' because the above amounts >> to rubbish. > > Sorry to lump you in like that! Thanks for speaking up. Your > disagreement makes me wonder whether I got my point across. > > I did not mean assert that 3S is the correct bid on the information > provided, or even that it was a good or a reasonable bid. All I > intended to suggest was that it is more likely to be successful when > RHO has four hearts than when he has two. > > Surely the more spades partner has the more tricks we're likely to > take in 3S, and the fewer hearts partner has the more room he has for > spades. Similarly, on the explanation given at the table partner is > likely to hold more HCP than was likely with accurate information. I completely agree that 3S is much less attractive given correct explanation (more H and less HCP in partner's hand), and therefore that the Panel was wrong (and the TD right). However, I fail to see the difference with case #10 : 5H is (very) probably wrong, but it is simply an impossible bid to choose with correct information. So I really feel there was damage, and would have corrected to 5CX (probably down 4, although it might be argued that sloppy defense could let it escape for down 3). Jean-Jacques. -- From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 22 22:18:48 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:18:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1877734802.1290460728797.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 2C (1) 2NT(2) X (3) 3D (4) > Pass Pass X (3) ? > > (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major > (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced > (3) Penalty double > (4) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts > > You, South, hold: > > T7 > T87632 > A53 > J6 > > What call do you make? Pass. > What other calls do you consider making? If I am not restricted by UI, I consider the possibility that either partner or me forgot system. Thomas From adam at tameware.com Mon Nov 22 23:19:04 2010 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:19:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Jean-Jacques wrote: > 2010/11/22 Adam Wildavsky : >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 13:41 >>> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Adam Wildavsky >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/NewOrleans2010.html >>> >>>> 12. The TD got this one right. The panel ruling was unjust. >>>> >>>> Everyone would agree that correct information makes Pass more >>>> attractive. That is all we need to know >>> >>>> Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com >>> >>> I find it inconsiderate to lumped with 'everyone' because the above amounts >>> to rubbish. >> >> Sorry to lump you in like that! Thanks for speaking up. Your >> disagreement makes me wonder whether I got my point across. >> >> I did not mean assert that 3S is the correct bid on the information >> provided, or even that it was a good or a reasonable bid. All I >> intended to suggest was that it is more likely to be successful when >> RHO has four hearts than when he has two. >> >> Surely the more spades partner has the more tricks we're likely to >> take in 3S, and the fewer hearts partner has the more room he has for >> spades. Similarly, on the explanation given at the table partner is >> likely to hold more HCP than was likely with accurate information. > > I completely agree that 3S is much less attractive given correct > explanation (more H and less HCP in partner's hand), and therefore > that the Panel was wrong (and the TD right). > > However, I fail to see the difference with case #10 : 5H is (very) > probably wrong, but it is simply an impossible bid to choose with > correct information. So I really feel there was damage, and would have > corrected to 5CX (probably down 4, although it might be argued that > sloppy defense could let it escape for down 3). You make an excellent point regarding case 10. I shall have to reconsider my comments there. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 23 00:28:45 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:28:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28973.54807.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Imps West/East-West You, South, hold: T7 T87632 A53 J6 2C (1) 2NT(2) X (3) 3D (4) Pass Pass X (3) ? (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced (3) Penalty double (4) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] IMO _P = 10, 3H = 5, XX (Blood) = 3. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 23 00:49:02 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:49:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans Non NABC #10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <971072.76811.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Jean-Jacques] However, I fail to see the difference with case #10 : 5H is (very) probably wrong, but it is simply an impossible bid to choose with correct information. So I really feel there was damage, and would have corrected to 5CX (probably down 4, although it might be argued that sloppy defense could let it escape for down 3). [Adam Wildavsky] You make an excellent point regarding case 10. I shall have to reconsider my comments there. [Nigel] I agree that West's 5H bid is impossible with the correct explanation. Also, some semblance of the truth rather than gratuitous misinformation would deter East from bidding 5C. "Equity" done and seen to be done: rewarding law-breakers and heaping further humiliation on their victims :( From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Nov 23 02:13:26 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:13:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia minute 6 Message-ID: <4CEB1536.5040308@nhcc.net> ----- 6. The committee discussed a situation in which a defender seized the first trick and switched rapidly to a singleton in another suit, partner returning the lead for a ruff. An appeal committee had considered ?inappropriate? the speed with which the lead was made. Concurring with that view the committee remarked that it is never necessary to make a play quickly. A player may not be mindful of the potential for unauthorized information but if on a rare occasion the creation of unauthorized information is deemed intentional an infraction has occurred. ----- Does the above strike anyone else as bizarre? Obviously UI exists in the example case, and creating it intentionally is an infraction (L73B1 if nothing else) whether it's done on a "rare occasion" or otherwise. In fact, I'd say it's an infraction whenever there's no good bridge reason for it, regardless of intention, but I wouldn't expect unanimous agreement on that. From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 23 07:39:02 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 07:39:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] New Orleans Non NABC #10 In-Reply-To: <971072.76811.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <971072.76811.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1528151500.1290494342181.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Jean-Jacques] > However, I fail to see the difference with case #10 : 5H is (very) probably > wrong, but it is simply an impossible bid to choose with correct > information. So > I really feel there was damage, and would have corrected to 5CX (probably > down 4, although it might be argued that > sloppy defense could let it escape for down 3). > > [Adam Wildavsky] > You make an excellent point regarding case 10. I shall have to reconsider my > > comments there. > > [Nigel] > I agree that West's 5H bid is impossible with the correct explanation. Also, > some semblance of the truth rather than gratuitous misinformation would > deter East from bidding 5C. "Equity" done and seen to be done: rewarding > law-breakers and heaping further humiliation on their victims :( I think East is *more* likely to bid 5C over the correct explanation (Blackwood) than over the false explanation he got (splinter). Thomas From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Nov 23 08:51:07 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 08:51:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/11/22 : > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > 2C (1) ? ?2NT(2) ? ?X (3) ? ? 3D (4) > Pass ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?X (3) ? ? ? > > (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major > (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced > (3) Penalty double > (4) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts > > You, South, hold: > > T7 > T87632 > A53 > J6 > > What call do you make? I'm certain that both my partner and I know our methods in this sort of auction. Alerts/non-alerts don't affect my bidding. With Axx in partners suit and only T8xxxxx in my own suit, I'm always passing here. Partner knows what he's doing and I've got a great fit for him. > What other calls do you consider making? None. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > 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 Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca Tue Nov 23 15:20:17 2010 From: Ron.Johnson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca (Johnson, Ron) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:20:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 2C (1) 2NT(2) X (3) 3D (4) > Pass Pass X (3) ? > > (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major > (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced > (3) Penalty double > (4) Alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts > > You, South, hold: > > T7 > T87632 > A53 > J6 > > What call do you make? Pass. In context I have a great hand for diamonds. > What other calls do you consider making? 3H. I can imagine the hand playing better in a 6-2 in hearts. And Diamonds might not be breaking on the auction. Mind you, we'll get killed in hearts if they break badly. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 23 23:01:51 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:01:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes, October 12th 2010, item 5: An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 Spades reached after a slow signoff by the partner. The contract should go one light but defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious error unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error and be awarded ?980. The declaring side will be put back to the five level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director will assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower level it may be that declarer and/or defender would have reason to play differently.) Simultaneous with the release of the 2010 WBF minutes was the release of the 2010 WBF Code of Practice. Law 33 establishes the principle that a simultaneous call is deemed to be a subsequent call, so likewise the 2010 WBF CoP could be deemed to be a subsequent official WBF interpretation which supersedes the formerly official 2010 WBF LC minutes. The relevant superseding clause of the 2010 Code of Practice: Score adjustment The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C1) is appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent side (although the extent of redress to this side may be affected, see below, if it has contributed to its own damage by wild or gambling action subsequent to the infraction). Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred (see Law 12B1). If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke. See Law 12C1(b). Thus while in the Laws Committee example the seriously erring non-offending side gets -980 and the offending side gets +420 on a safety play, if the example is resolved according to the Code of Practice guidance the seriously erring non-offending side gets only -480 ("such **part** of the damage as is self- inflicted") and the offending side gets -50 on a non-revoke. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 24 06:28:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:28:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Rule of 25 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Previous 2006 Orange Book, previous clause 10B4: "...unless it clearly has equivalent playing strength..." Richard Hills, 12th March 2008: >>So the Rules of 18, 19 and 25 have been clarified by >>permitting other openings. I think it was David Burn >>who gave an example of this ilk: >> >>7532 >>7532 >>753 >>75 >> >>because the 75 tenaces were clearly of equivalent >>playing strength. Nige1 Guthrie, 12th March 2008: >This dispute was *before* the 2006 amendment, Richard. >David Stevenson and several directors thought it was OK >to use their "judgement" in 3rd position when >interpreting the Orange book definition of "Rule of 18". >Some pleaded, reasonably enough, that they just wanted >to "play Bridge". > >David Burn demonstrated the flaw in this approach. As >far as I remember, he claimed that "85", in his >experience, was a much undervalued combination :) > >I don't think he attempted to stretch our credulity by >claiming that a mere "75" was worth extra points :) Richard Hills, 24th November 2010: The EBU has now sensibly reversed the position of its 2006 Orange Book, so a diligent player by careful study can work out _beforehand_ (not _after_ the Director's judgemental ruling on the disputed value of 85 tenaces vis-a-vis 75 tenaces) whether or not her planned call will comply with the Rule of 25. Current 2010 Orange Book, current clause 10B4: "Strong openings are often described as 'Extended Rule of 25' which means the minimum allowed is any of: a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks, or b) any hand meeting the Rule of 25, or c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs Examples: AKQJxxxx xx xx x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks. AKQxxxxx xx xx x does not. Clear-cut tricks are clarified as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner's hand and the second-best suit break. Further examples: AKQxxxxx (7 CCT), KQJxxxx (5), AQJ98xx (5), KQJTx (3), KQJTxxx (6), AKT9xxxxx (8), KJTxxx (2)" Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 24 08:33:15 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:33:15 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <2AC36488A30242E2B44CD6EA6FD4E573@MARVLAPTOP> >From Richard Hills > WBF Laws Committee minutes, October 12th 2010, item 5: > > An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 > Spades reached after a slow signoff by the > partner. The contract should go one light but > defender revokes allowing it to make, an > example of a serious error unrelated to the > infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. > The defending side will bear the consequence > of its serious error and be awarded ?980. The > declaring side will be put back to the five > level and as to the number of tricks to be > awarded the Director will assess what would > have happened in that contract. (At the lower > level it may be that declarer and/or defender > would have reason to play differently.) > > Simultaneous with the release of the 2010 WBF minutes was the > release of the 2010 WBF Code of Practice. > > Law 33 establishes the principle that a simultaneous call is > deemed to be a subsequent call, so likewise the 2010 WBF CoP > could be deemed to be a subsequent official WBF interpretation > which supersedes the formerly official 2010 WBF LC minutes. > > The relevant superseding clause of the 2010 Code of Practice: > > Score adjustment > > The award of an assigned adjusted score (see > Law 12C1) is appropriate when a violation of > law causes damage to an innocent side > (although the extent of redress to this side > may be affected, see below, if it has > contributed to its own damage by wild or > gambling action subsequent to the infraction). > Damage exists when, because of an infraction, > an innocent side obtains a table result less > favourable than would have been the > expectation had the infraction not occurred > (see Law 12B1). If the damaged side has wholly > or partly caused its own damage by wild or > gambling action, it does not receive relief in > the adjustment for such part of the damage as > is self-inflicted. The offending side, > however, should be awarded the score that it > would have been allotted as the normal > consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the > innocent side subsequent to the infraction > will affect its own score but again the > infractor's score is to be adjusted as before > without regard to the revoke. > See Law 12C1(b). > > Thus while in the Laws Committee example the seriously erring > non-offending side gets -980 and the offending side gets +420 > on a safety play, if the example is resolved according to the > Code of Practice guidance the seriously erring non-offending > side gets only -480 ("such **part** of the damage as is self- > inflicted") and the offending side gets -50 on a non-revoke. The contract is at the five level, so +450 if the same play is assumed, excluding the revoke. I guess 420 was a typo. Okay, so -50 is right, very good. Please explain that to the WBFLC sometime. Now I must understand the -480. Normal redress removes the -980 score and substitutes -450, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. That is 530 points of compensation. >From that must be taken the cost of the self-inflicted damage, which is 1030 points (-980 instead of +50). Since that exceeds the amount of normal compensation, there is no redress, table result stands for the NOS. Evidently you get -480 by tacking the revoke cost, considered as the loss of the 50 points they could have scored, onto the normal adjusted score of -450. I don't say you are wrong, but why isn't the cost of the self-inflicted damage 1030 points rather than 50 points? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5643 (20101123) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 24 08:50:42 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:50:42 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 References: <2AC36488A30242E2B44CD6EA6FD4E573@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: From: "Marvin French," correcting an error of mine at the bottom > > From Richard Hills > >> >> Thus while in the Laws Committee example the seriously erring >> non-offending side gets -980 and the offending side gets +420 >> on a safety play, if the example is resolved according to the >> Code of Practice guidance the seriously erring non-offending >> side gets only -480 ("such **part** of the damage as is self- >> inflicted") and the offending side gets -50 on a non-revoke. > > The contract is at the five level, so +450 if the same play is > assumed, excluding the revoke. I guess 420 was a typo. > > Okay, so -50 is right, very good. Please explain that to the WBFLC > sometime. > > Now I must understand the -480. Normal redress removes the -980 > score and substitutes -450, the most favorable result that was > likely had the irregularity not occurred. That is 530 points of > compensation. > > From that must be taken the cost of the self-inflicted damage, > which > is 1030 points (-980 instead of +50). Since that exceeds the > amount > of normal compensation, there is no redress, table result stands > for > the NOS. > > Evidently you get -480 by tacking the revoke cost, considered as > the > loss of the 50 points they could have scored, onto the normal > adjusted score of -450. [marv] That doesn't make sense because -450 and -50 is -500, not -480. > > I don't say you are wrong, but why isn't the cost of the > self-inflicted damage 1030 points rather than 50 points? [make that 30 points, I guess, the cost in points of a single major suit trick] > > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5643 (20101123) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Nov 24 13:49:34 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:49:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <005201cb8bd6$0c03a9e0$240afda0$@nl> This rings a bell, but the non-offending side was not damaged by the infraction, only by their revoke, so -980 to them. There was damage, according to 12B1, so an adjusted score is needed for the infractors. Without the infraction they would have scored something like 4S+x for a small value of x, so they get that score, probably weighted if necessary(rounded away for their disconvenience). A score of 6S-1 seems to me impossible: it was not reached as a table result, and could not have been reached through any legal bidding/play. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Marvin French Sent: zaterdag 20 november 2010 7:08 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 5. An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 spades reached after a slow signoff by partner. The contract should go one light but defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious error unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error and be awarded -980. The declaring side will be put back to the five level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director will assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower level it may be that declarer and/or defender would have reason to play differently.) ############ Going by L12C1(b), shouldn't this be -50 for the OS, the resulting score had there been no serious error? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5634 (20101119) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 25 00:34:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:34:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005201cb8bd6$0c03a9e0$240afda0$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >This rings a bell, but the non-offending side was not damaged >by the infraction, only by their revoke, so -980 to them. [snip] Richard Hills: Consider that useful idealisation "the Probst cheat", in this case assumed to be playing in the final round of a Barometer Howell movement in which the direct opponents of "the Probst cheat" are the only remaining obstacle between "the Probst cheat" and first place. Case One - Neither "the Probst cheat" nor their opponents infracts any Law. Result of +450 to "the Probst cheat", which results in a decisive victory for the opponents of "the Probst cheat". Case Two - "The Probst cheat" does not commit an infraction but an opponent revokes. Result of +480 to "the Probst cheat", which results in a narrow victory for the opponents of "the Probst cheat". Case Three - Thanks to authorised Law 16A information from the Barometer and unauthorised Law 16B information from pard "the Probst cheat" illegally bids slam to increase the cost of a revoke by an opponent. That is, -480 after a revoke is merely a below-average score for the opponents of "the Probst cheat", but -980 is a zero degrees Kelvin bottom. What's the [snip]? Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Nov 25 06:42:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:42:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This deal featured in a panel discussion in the January 2010 edition of the Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin. If interested in subscribing, visit: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html Imps AK32 Dlr: West AJ Vul: East-West J98 K983 4 QJ9865 KQ5 94 T72 KQ64 AQT754 2 T7 T87632 A53 J6 The bidding actually went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 2C (1) 2NT(2) X (3) 3D (4) Pass Pass 3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced (3) Penalty double (4) Not Alerted and not explained as a transfer to hearts Result: 4S by East-West -200 Three of the ten panellists thought that South had misbid (North- South were a junior partnership without an explicit pre-existing mutual partnership understanding about (2C) - 2NT - (X) - 3D = ?) and six of the ten panellists thought that North had misexplained (North-South were a junior partnership with an analogous pre- existing mutual partnership understanding about (1C) - 1NT - (X) - 2D = transfer to hearts) plus one panellist could see no evidence either way so therefore he applied Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." However, while that panellist used Law 21B1(b) to deem that there had been an MI infraction, he also deemed that the MI had not caused damage, predicting that with the correct information East's class of player would still bid 3S. But if East and South were of the blml class of player (with South rigorously following the kamikaze mandate of Law 75A), then a plausible legal contract would be South declaring 3Dx in the 3-3 fit. For what it is worth, I was one of the three panellists ruling that an infraction had not occurred. My reasoning was that there was not any analogy between running from 1NTx and running from 2NTx -- the extra level of bidding space already consumed makes transfers (and Stayman) impractical after pard's 2NTx. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 sater at xs4all.nl Thu Nov 25 09:03:35 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:03:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <005201cb8bd6$0c03a9e0$240afda0$@nl> Message-ID: <006d01cb8c77$45923e00$d0b6ba00$@nl> This is an interesting observation, however it has little practical value to the Cheat. To gain from this he has to have a more than 50% chance of his opponents revoking, else the loss is his, since if they do not revoke the 6S-1 score stands. It seems to me unlikely that a pair that revokes more than half the boards can be in contention for first place. So this is not a Cheat strategy. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: donderdag 25 november 2010 0:34 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hans van Staveren: >This rings a bell, but the non-offending side was not damaged >by the infraction, only by their revoke, so -980 to them. [snip] Richard Hills: Consider that useful idealisation "the Probst cheat", in this case assumed to be playing in the final round of a Barometer Howell movement in which the direct opponents of "the Probst cheat" are the only remaining obstacle between "the Probst cheat" and first place. Case One - Neither "the Probst cheat" nor their opponents infracts any Law. Result of +450 to "the Probst cheat", which results in a decisive victory for the opponents of "the Probst cheat". Case Two - "The Probst cheat" does not commit an infraction but an opponent revokes. Result of +480 to "the Probst cheat", which results in a narrow victory for the opponents of "the Probst cheat". Case Three - Thanks to authorised Law 16A information from the Barometer and unauthorised Law 16B information from pard "the Probst cheat" illegally bids slam to increase the cost of a revoke by an opponent. That is, -480 after a revoke is merely a below-average score for the opponents of "the Probst cheat", but -980 is a zero degrees Kelvin bottom. What's the [snip]? Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 25 09:04:14 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:04:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CEE187E.3070105@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > This deal featured in a panel discussion in the January 2010 > edition of the Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin. > > If interested in subscribing, visit: > http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html > > Imps AK32 > Dlr: West AJ > Vul: East-West J98 > K983 > 4 QJ9865 > KQ5 94 > T72 KQ64 > AQT754 2 > T7 > T87632 > A53 > J6 > > The bidding actually went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 2C (1) 2NT(2) X (3) 3D (4) > Pass Pass 3S Pass > 4S Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major > (2) 16-18 hcp, club stopper and balanced or semi-balanced > (3) Penalty double > (4) Not Alerted and not explained as a transfer to hearts > > Result: 4S by East-West -200 > > Three of the ten panellists thought that South had misbid (North- > South were a junior partnership without an explicit pre-existing > mutual partnership understanding about (2C) - 2NT - (X) - 3D = ?) I can understand a Director at the table being influenced by what the players tell him at the table and ruling this way. I cannot understand panellists afterwards coming up with this ruling. There is no evidence for this. > and six of the ten panellists thought that North had misexplained > (North-South were a junior partnership with an analogous pre- > existing mutual partnership understanding about (1C) - 1NT - (X) > - 2D = transfer to hearts) This seems the correct way of ruling, giving the information that we have. > plus one panellist could see no > evidence either way so therefore he applied Law 21B1(b): > > "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > Again, that is what the Director should have done, and the panellists should have followed the Director's decision. There is no reason for a panellist to take that route, unless he's merely expressing what he believes the director should have done. > However, while that panellist used Law 21B1(b) to deem that > there had been an MI infraction, he also deemed that the MI had > not caused damage, predicting that with the correct information > East's class of player would still bid 3S. > You know I am very strict about the information about a misunderstanding not being unauthorized information. Thus, if it were West who had bid, I would have ruled that he would have bid just as likely over 3D for diamonds as over 3D for hearts. But for East, after North has passed, the situation is different. East has the right to the information that South wants to play in diamonds. He also sees North (who has shown a balanced hand) pass. He can deduce that it is quite likely that they are having a misunderstanding, and passing is a possibility for him. > But if East and South were of the blml class of player (with > South rigorously following the kamikaze mandate of Law 75A), East yes, South no. South has UI that partner has not alerted, but South also has AI that partner (who has shown a balanced hand) has passed. There is, IMO, no LA to pulling 3Dx to 3H. > then a plausible legal contract would be South declaring 3Dx in > the 3-3 fit. > No, just 3D undoubled. > For what it is worth, I was one of the three panellists ruling > that an infraction had not occurred. My reasoning was that > there was not any analogy between running from 1NTx and running > from 2NTx -- the extra level of bidding space already consumed > makes transfers (and Stayman) impractical after pard's 2NTx. > You are speaking in lieu of N-S. It is up to them, not up to you, to provide this evidence. It is up to the Director to rule upon this evidence, and upon him to transmit the evidence he received to the AC. Since the writing above does not say anything about this, I presume the evidence was not presented. You should not do so in their place. > Best wishes > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Nov 25 10:07:20 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:07:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreements outside the ordinary Message-ID: <007401cb8c80$2b61bfc0$82253f40$@nl> I was just reading a second-level TD course book in preparation for the course I am supposed to teach, and there was the following assertion: Bidding goes West 1S, North pass, and now South passes OOT. Now it is stated that West is of course allowed to accept, and make various bids he deems to be handy, but that he can only do that as long as EW have no agreements about this. Now I must admit I never made agreements about these sequences, but under which law would it be illegal for me make such agreements? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101125/d9bc4723/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Nov 25 10:20:21 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:20:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Agreements outside the ordinary In-Reply-To: <007401cb8c80$2b61bfc0$82253f40$@nl> References: <007401cb8c80$2b61bfc0$82253f40$@nl> Message-ID: 40B3. Presumably this publication you were reading came from a Regulating Authority that has disallowed such agreements. Gordon Rainsford On 25 Nov 2010, at 09:07, Hans van Staveren wrote: > I was just reading a second-level TD course book in preparation for > the course I am supposed to teach, and there was the following > assertion: > > > > Bidding goes West 1S, North pass, and now South passes OOT. Now it > is stated that West is of course allowed to accept, and make > various bids he deems to be handy, but that he can only do that as > long as EW have no agreements about this. > > > > Now I must admit I never made agreements about these sequences, but > under which law would it be illegal for me make such agreements? > > > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 25 10:20:36 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:20:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreements outside the ordinary In-Reply-To: <007401cb8c80$2b61bfc0$82253f40$@nl> References: <007401cb8c80$2b61bfc0$82253f40$@nl> Message-ID: <4CEE2A64.9000907@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > I was just reading a second-level TD course book in preparation for the > course I am supposed to teach, and there was the following assertion: > > Bidding goes West 1S, North pass, and now South passes OOT. Now it is > stated that West is of course allowed to accept, and make various bids > he deems to be handy, but that he can only do that as long as EW have no > agreements about this. > > Now I must admit I never made agreements about these sequences, but > under which law would it be illegal for me make such agreements? > I don't see any law that would make this illegal. Besides, such a law would be extremely problematic. Suppose West decides to accept, and bid 1H. East can deduce what he wants from this, and he may be right or wrong. But anyway, they will talk about this later. Then next week, the exact same sequence happens. Again, West accepts and bids 1H. East alerts. To everyone's amazement, east explains: "last week, he held ...". As he should! But this is an agreement, isn't it? And similarly, if West does not accept, East should alert and explain "last week he held ... and he accepted". Again, there is an agreement. So waht are East/West supposed to do if there is a bid OOT? Recuse themselves and step out of the tournament for holding illegal agreements? Should they put on their SC: since last we week had a BOOT against us, this week we are forced to retire if you bid OOT against us? IMO not a workable law. > Hans > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 25 10:40:42 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:40:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreements outside the ordinary In-Reply-To: <4CEE2A64.9000907@skynet.be> References: <007401cb8c80$2b61bfc0$82253f40$@nl> <4CEE2A64.9000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002501cb8c84$d41f3da0$7c5db8e0$@no> I agree completely with Herman. As I remember there was a discussion about this some time ago, but with no real outcome. >From my own experience I was called (nearly 30 years ago) to the table where Arild Torp and Helge Vinje (yes, THE Vinje) played in the Norwegian premier league and had an insufficient bid against them. Arild had jumped to 4NT (Culbertson 4-5NT) and his LHO bid 4D. It is still one of my favorite memories how Helge's eyes started twinkling as I explained his options. He and Arild had system understandings good enough to in the flight modify their answers to 4NT so that Helge could take advantage of the 5 extra calls made available to them, and most important that Helge could trust Arild to correctly understand their new "agreements" for this situatioin. Helge accepted the IB! Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 25. november 2010 10:21 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreements outside the ordinary > > Hans van Staveren wrote: > > I was just reading a second-level TD course book in preparation for > > the course I am supposed to teach, and there was the following assertion: > > > > Bidding goes West 1S, North pass, and now South passes OOT. Now it is > > stated that West is of course allowed to accept, and make various bids > > he deems to be handy, but that he can only do that as long as EW have > > no agreements about this. > > > > Now I must admit I never made agreements about these sequences, but > > under which law would it be illegal for me make such agreements? > > > > I don't see any law that would make this illegal. > Besides, such a law would be extremely problematic. > Suppose West decides to accept, and bid 1H. East can deduce what he wants > from this, and he may be right or wrong. But anyway, they will talk about this later. > Then next week, the exact same sequence happens. > Again, West accepts and bids 1H. East alerts. To everyone's amazement, east > explains: "last week, he held ...". As he should! But this is an agreement, isn't it? > And similarly, if West does not accept, East should alert and explain "last week he > held ... and he accepted". Again, there is an agreement. > So waht are East/West supposed to do if there is a bid OOT? Recuse themselves > and step out of the tournament for holding illegal agreements? Should they put on > their SC: since last we week had a BOOT against us, this week we are forced to > retire if you bid OOT against us? > IMO not a workable law. > > > Hans > > > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Nov 25 11:22:17 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:22:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreements outside the ordinary In-Reply-To: References: <007401cb8c80$2b61bfc0$82253f40$@nl> Message-ID: <008201cb8c8a$a3233480$e9699d80$@nl> Reading this law it is beginning to look like it meant to be able to forbid agreements after an irregularity *by your own side*, however this is not stated clearly. Furthermore, as Herman has clearly stated, even in that case it becomes impossible for pairs not to have explicit agreements in this case if it happens often enough. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: donderdag 25 november 2010 10:20 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreements outside the ordinary 40B3. Presumably this publication you were reading came from a Regulating Authority that has disallowed such agreements. Gordon Rainsford On 25 Nov 2010, at 09:07, Hans van Staveren wrote: > I was just reading a second-level TD course book in preparation for > the course I am supposed to teach, and there was the following > assertion: > > > > Bidding goes West 1S, North pass, and now South passes OOT. Now it > is stated that West is of course allowed to accept, and make > various bids he deems to be handy, but that he can only do that as > long as EW have no agreements about this. > > > > Now I must admit I never made agreements about these sequences, but > under which law would it be illegal for me make such agreements? > > > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Nov 25 18:25:12 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:25:12 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <005201cb8bd6$0c03a9e0$240afda0$@nl> <006d01cb8c77$45923e00$d0b6ba00$@nl> Message-ID: <9351952ABC114B3CBF548C93EE48CEAB@MARVLAPTOP> Hans van Staveren: > This is an interesting observation, however it has little > practical value to > the Cheat. To gain from this he has to have a more than 50% chance > of his > opponents revoking, else the loss is his, since if they do not > revoke the > 6S-1 score stands. It seems to me unlikely that a pair that > revokes more > than half the boards can be in contention for first place. > The issue is the cost of self-inflicted damage by the OS in this and similar cases. Is it (1) the 30 points that the revoke cost, or (2) 980 + 50 = 1030 points for letting the slam make because of a revoke when it was easily down one. If (1), the NOS adjusted score is -450 plus -30 = -480. If (2), no redress because the self-inflicted damage exceeds the normal amount of compensation. So BLML, which is it, (1) or (2)? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5648 (20101125) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 25 23:27:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:27:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9351952ABC114B3CBF548C93EE48CEAB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Robert Morley (1908-1992), English actor: "The French are a logical people, which is one reason why the English dislike them so intensely. The other is that they own France, a country we have always judged to be too good for them." Hans van Staveren, a logical person (but not French): >>This is an interesting observation, however it has little >>practical value to the Cheat. Richard Hills, an English monoglot (but not English): Infrequent, yes. Impractical, no. "The Probst cheat" is merely going for an illegal version of the standard strategy of trying for a swing when behind on the last board. Hans van Staveren: >>To gain from this he has to have a more than 50% chance of >>his opponents revoking, else the loss is his, since if >>they do not revoke the 6S-1 score stands. It seems to me >>unlikely that a pair that revokes more than half the >>boards can be in contention for first place. Richard Hills: A misreading of the problem. No matter what happens on the last board "the Probst cheat" is assured of at least second place. If "the Probst cheat" legally stops in game, they will be a distant second (+450 without a revoke) or a close second (+480 with a revoke). The only hope for "the Probst cheat" to get first place is to illegally bid slam, luckily get a revoke, and get a WBF LC split score of +450 to them and -980 to the other side. In short, it is a chance to nothing for "the Probst cheat" to intentionally infract the Laws by bidding a hopeless slam hoping for a revoke or other serious error. Marvin French, a logical person (but not French): >The issue is the cost of self-inflicted damage by the NOS >in this and similar cases. > >Is it > >(1) the 30 points that the revoke cost, or > >(2) 980 + 50 = 1030 points for letting the slam make >because of a revoke when it was easily down one. > >If (1), the NOS adjusted score is -450 plus -30 = -480. > >If (2), no redress because the self-inflicted damage >exceeds the normal amount of compensation. > >So BLML, which is it, (1) or (2)? Richard Hills: There are actually three options. X) +450 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the "WBF LC minutes 5th October item 5" rectifying option. Y) -50 for the OS, -480 for the NOS, which is "the Probst cheat" rectifying option a la the WBF Code of Practice. Note that no matter how Law 12C1(b) is interpreted, the application of Law 12C1(b) necessarily requires the OS and the NOS to be awarded split scores. Z) +980 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the ACBL "can't be bothered to read the new Lawbook" error. Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 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 Thu Nov 25 23:39:34 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:39:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <122866.74616.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Regards and best wishes, Nigel Guthrie 41 Hamilton Road, Glasgow G32 9QD Home 0141 573 5424 Cell 0757 862 6916 ----- Original Message ---- From: "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thu, 25 November, 2010 22:27:09 Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Robert Morley (1908-1992), English actor: "The French are a logical people, which is one reason why the English dislike them so intensely. The other is that they own France, a country we have always judged to be too good for them." Hans van Staveren, a logical person (but not French): >>This is an interesting observation, however it has little >>practical value to the Cheat. Richard Hills, an English monoglot (but not English): Infrequent, yes. Impractical, no. "The Probst cheat" is merely going for an illegal version of the standard strategy of trying for a swing when behind on the last board. Hans van Staveren: >>To gain from this he has to have a more than 50% chance of >>his opponents revoking, else the loss is his, since if >>they do not revoke the 6S-1 score stands. It seems to me >>unlikely that a pair that revokes more than half the >>boards can be in contention for first place. Richard Hills: A misreading of the problem. No matter what happens on the last board "the Probst cheat" is assured of at least second place. If "the Probst cheat" legally stops in game, they will be a distant second (+450 without a revoke) or a close second (+480 with a revoke). The only hope for "the Probst cheat" to get first place is to illegally bid slam, luckily get a revoke, and get a WBF LC split score of +450 to them and -980 to the other side. In short, it is a chance to nothing for "the Probst cheat" to intentionally infract the Laws by bidding a hopeless slam hoping for a revoke or other serious error. Marvin French, a logical person (but not French): >The issue is the cost of self-inflicted damage by the NOS >in this and similar cases. > >Is it > >(1) the 30 points that the revoke cost, or > >(2) 980 + 50 = 1030 points for letting the slam make >because of a revoke when it was easily down one. > >If (1), the NOS adjusted score is -450 plus -30 = -480. > >If (2), no redress because the self-inflicted damage >exceeds the normal amount of compensation. > >So BLML, which is it, (1) or (2)? [Richard Hills] There are actually three options. X) +450 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the "WBF LC minutes 5th October item 5" rectifying option. Y) -50 for the OS, -480 for the NOS, which is "the Probst cheat" rectifying option a la the WBF Code of Practice. Note that no matter how Law 12C1(b) is interpreted, the application of Law 12C1(b) necessarily requires the OS and the NOS to be awarded split scores. Z) +980 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the ACBL "can't be bothered to read the new Lawbook" error. {Nigel] Meeting a main aim of the law-book: to devolve power & responsibility to local RAs to make local laws for local people :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 26 05:30:39 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:30:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CEE187E.3070105@skynet.be> Message-ID: [snippage of other issues discussed by Hills and De Wael] Richard Hills: >>For what it is worth, I was one of the three panellists ruling >>that an infraction had not occurred. My reasoning was that >>there was not any analogy between running from 1NTx and running >>from 2NTx -- the extra level of bidding space already consumed >>makes transfers (and Stayman) impractical after pard's 2NTx. Herman De Wael: >You are speaking in lieu of N-S. It is up to them, not up to you, >to provide this evidence. It is up to the Director to rule upon >this evidence, and upon her to transmit the evidence she received >to the AC. > >Since the writing above does not say anything about this, I >presume the evidence was not presented. Richard Hills: A false premise implies any conclusion. Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, January 2010, page 16: "East maintains he would not have competed if he had known that 3D was a transfer. North apologizes and explains that whereas his partnership has a firm agreement about transfers in the sequence 1C; 1NT; X, he was less sure about the status of 3D after the actual sequence commenced at the 2-level." Richard Hills: And those Directors, such as Herman De Wael, who rule that verbal evidence is not evidence are misapplying Law 85A1: "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." As the European Bridge League TD David Stevenson has correctly observed in the past, self-serving verbal evidence has little weight, but _not_ zero weight. Herman De Wael: >You should not do so in their place. Richard Hills: Hypothetical scenario. A coffee-housing expert East, playing against a bunny North-South, declares 3NT. He notices that as soon as dummy goes down in 3NT that there are eight certain tricks but no hope of a ninth. So he claims N/S -430 at trick one. The bunnies object to the claim, wanting the result altered to N/S -400 instead. How should the Director rule? (a) She should rule N/S -400, because the defenders should not be entitled to have the Director defend the contract "in their place". (b) Although the bunny defenders are unable to visualise five defensive tricks at the time dummy was spread, even they would get five tricks had there been no claim, so she may defend the contract "in their place" for N/S +50. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 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 Nov 26 06:23:20 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 21:23:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] More on L12C1(b) Message-ID: Marv wrote to Adam Wildavsky:: > A hesitation-inspired 4S over an opposing 4H makes an overtrick > due to a > one-trick revoke by the NOS. Both vulnerable, and 4H would have > made. > Who gets what? Adam's reply (he allows himself to be quoted): The WBF LC did not discuss this. Myself I think it's 4H making for both sides. The NOS are lucky here in that their revoke does not cost. Having been told that the intent of the law was to implement Kaplan's consequent/subsequent doctrine I am giving answers straight from his 1973 editorial. [Marv] A revoke that doesn't cost, that's interesting. I would rule 4H for the OS, -620, and +590 for the NOS (subtracting the cost of the revoke from their compensation). L12C1(b) [the non-offenders] "do not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted." Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5649 (20101125) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 26 07:21:27 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:21:27 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 12 Item 5 References: Message-ID: <2202F7013A61442AACA4B4F17E048247@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills > Marvin French, a logical person (but not French): > >>The issue is the cost of self-inflicted damage by the NOS >>in this and similar cases. >> >>Is it >> >>(1) the 30 points that the revoke cost, or >> >>(2) 980 + 50 = 1030 points for letting the slam make >>because of a revoke when it was easily down one. >> >>If (1), the NOS adjusted score is -450 plus -30 = -480. >> >>If (2), no redress because the self-inflicted damage >>exceeds the normal amount of compensation. >> >>So BLML, which is it, (1) or (2)? > > Richard Hills: > > There are actually three options. > > X) +450 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the "WBF LC > minutes 5th October item 5" rectifying option. > > Y) -50 for the OS, -480 for the NOS, which is "the Probst > cheat" rectifying option a la the WBF Code of Practice. > > Note that no matter how Law 12C1(b) is interpreted, the > application of Law 12C1(b) necessarily requires the OS and > the NOS to be awarded split scores. > > Z) +980 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the ACBL > "can't be bothered to read the new Lawbook" error. > One high-level TD I know, who works on TD Panels, would say +/- 450, as "the NOS should not have been put in that position." (actual words regarding a similar example). Another prominent ACBLer would say +/- 480, following the ACBL policy of not changing the actual play of the cards in the slam contract (assuming level of play not a factor), but ignoring ACBL policy that says -980 for the NOS. My choice is none of the above, label it ZZ:: -980 for the NOS, -50 for the OS. Per L12C1(b) the former get no redress, and the latter do not get the revoke. Now I'm off to the Orlando NABC for a week. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com . __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5649 (20101125) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 26 08:16:00 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:16:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CEF5EB0.20209@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > [snippage of other issues discussed by Hills and De Wael] > > Richard Hills: > >>> For what it is worth, I was one of the three panellists ruling >>> that an infraction had not occurred. My reasoning was that >>> there was not any analogy between running from 1NTx and running >> >from 2NTx -- the extra level of bidding space already consumed >>> makes transfers (and Stayman) impractical after pard's 2NTx. > > Herman De Wael: > >> You are speaking in lieu of N-S. It is up to them, not up to you, >> to provide this evidence. It is up to the Director to rule upon >> this evidence, and upon her to transmit the evidence she received >> to the AC. >> >> Since the writing above does not say anything about this, I >> presume the evidence was not presented. > > Richard Hills: > > A false premise implies any conclusion. > > Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, January 2010, page 16: > > "East maintains he would not have competed if he had known that 3D > was a transfer. North apologizes and explains that whereas his > partnership has a firm agreement about transfers in the sequence > 1C; 1NT; X, he was less sure about the status of 3D after the > actual sequence commenced at the 2-level." > "less sure" That is certainly not evidence for the misbid, rather the reverse! > Richard Hills: > > And those Directors, such as Herman De Wael, who rule that verbal > evidence is not evidence are misapplying Law 85A1: > > "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." > > As the European Bridge League TD David Stevenson has correctly > observed in the past, self-serving verbal evidence has little > weight, but _not_ zero weight. > Indeed, but here the evidence that the player gives points in the opposite direction from the ruling you want to make! > Herman De Wael: > >> You should not do so in their place. > > Richard Hills: > > Hypothetical scenario. A coffee-housing expert East, playing > against a bunny North-South, declares 3NT. He notices that as > soon as dummy goes down in 3NT that there are eight certain > tricks but no hope of a ninth. So he claims N/S -430 at trick > one. The bunnies object to the claim, wanting the result > altered to N/S -400 instead. How should the Director rule? > > (a) She should rule N/S -400, because the defenders should not > be entitled to have the Director defend the contract "in > their place". > > (b) Although the bunny defenders are unable to visualise five > defensive tricks at the time dummy was spread, even they > would get five tricks had there been no claim, so she may > defend the contract "in their place" for N/S +50. > (b) of course, and what has that got to do with the current thread? > Best wishes > > Richard Hills -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Nov 26 09:24:22 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:24:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CEF6EB6.3000309@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Robert Morley (1908-1992), English actor: > > "The French are a logical people, which is one reason why > the English dislike them so intensely. The other is that > they own France, a country we have always judged to be too > good for them." > > Hans van Staveren, a logical person (but not French): > >>> This is an interesting observation, however it has little >>> practical value to the Cheat. > > Richard Hills, an English monoglot (but not English): > > Infrequent, yes. Impractical, no. "The Probst cheat" is > merely going for an illegal version of the standard strategy > of trying for a swing when behind on the last board. > > Hans van Staveren: > >>> To gain from this he has to have a more than 50% chance of >>> his opponents revoking, else the loss is his, since if >>> they do not revoke the 6S-1 score stands. It seems to me >>> unlikely that a pair that revokes more than half the >>> boards can be in contention for first place. > > Richard Hills: > > A misreading of the problem. No matter what happens on the > last board "the Probst cheat" is assured of at least second > place. If "the Probst cheat" legally stops in game, they > will be a distant second (+450 without a revoke) or a close > second (+480 with a revoke). The only hope for "the Probst > cheat" to get first place is to illegally bid slam, luckily > get a revoke, and get a WBF LC split score of +450 to them > and -980 to the other side. > i fail to see logic in the premise: we have a player who has a wire telling him to illegaly call a slam and in the same time he knows the slam is hopeless. how can it be that UI is so contradictory? with illogical premise, it's not a surprise that application of laws may be problematic. impossible problems leading to stupid solutions is quite normal. jpr > In short, it is a chance to nothing for "the Probst cheat" > to intentionally infract the Laws by bidding a hopeless > slam hoping for a revoke or other serious error. > > Marvin French, a logical person (but not French): > >> The issue is the cost of self-inflicted damage by the NOS >> in this and similar cases. >> >> Is it >> >> (1) the 30 points that the revoke cost, or >> >> (2) 980 + 50 = 1030 points for letting the slam make >> because of a revoke when it was easily down one. >> >> If (1), the NOS adjusted score is -450 plus -30 = -480. >> >> If (2), no redress because the self-inflicted damage >> exceeds the normal amount of compensation. >> >> So BLML, which is it, (1) or (2)? > > Richard Hills: > > There are actually three options. > > X) +450 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the "WBF LC > minutes 5th October item 5" rectifying option. > > Y) -50 for the OS, -480 for the NOS, which is "the Probst > cheat" rectifying option a la the WBF Code of Practice. > > Note that no matter how Law 12C1(b) is interpreted, the > application of Law 12C1(b) necessarily requires the OS and > the NOS to be awarded split scores. > > Z) +980 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the ACBL > "can't be bothered to read the new Lawbook" error. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Work Experience coordinator > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > -- _______________________________________________ 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 zecurado at gmail.com Fri Nov 26 12:33:14 2010 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:33:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Demonstrably suggested Message-ID: Hello! Vulnerable against not, paying Matchpoints with screens, you hold: ? 943 ? 42 ? A104 ? Q10853 The auction goes: LHO CHO RHO YOU 1D 4H 4S Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass 5S Pass Pass ? After the 5S bid the tray went to the other side, taking some time to come back. 1 - What call do you make? What other calls would you consider making? 2 - Playing without screens, what call do you make? What other calls would you consider making? if: a) Partner hesitated before passing b) RHO hesitated before passing Thanks in advance for your comments, Jose Curado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101126/ab688a9a/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Fri Nov 26 13:19:24 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 07:19:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Demonstrably suggested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CD5B7B4BF3CE4D-1F44-1E6B1@Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com> Vulnerable against not, paying Matchpoints with screens, you hold: S 943 H 42 D A104 C Q10853 The auction goes: LHO CHO RHO YOU 1D 4H 4S Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass 5S Pass Pass ? After the 5S bid the tray went to the other side, taking some time to come back. 1 - What call do you make? What other calls would you consider making? 2 - Playing without screens, what call do you make? What other calls would you consider making? if: a) Partner hesitated before passing b) RHO hesitated before passing Thanks in advance for your comments, Jose Curado [Paul Lamford] 1 Pass; consider double 2 a) Pass; consider double 2 b) Pass; consider calling the TD if RHO could have known that the BIT would stop me doubling and that was the right action Paul Lamford From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 26 15:25:44 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:25:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Demonstrably suggested In-Reply-To: <8CD5B7B4BF3CE4D-1F44-1E6B1@Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD5B7B4BF3CE4D-1F44-1E6B1@Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CEFC368.4060208@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/11/2010 13:19, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > Vulnerable against not, paying Matchpoints with screens, you hold: > > S 943 > H 42 > D A104 > C Q10853 > > The auction goes: > LHO CHO RHO YOU > 1D 4H 4S Pass > Pass 5H Pass Pass > 5S Pass Pass ? > > After the 5S bid the tray went to the other side, taking some time to > come back. Given the vulnerability, RHO's pass surely wasn't forcing, whence he can't be thinking about bidding 6 over 5, whence partner has used the time, unless they practise random timing (which is legal) > 1 - What call do you make? What other calls would you consider making? Passing is normal. 5S might go down (far from certain, however), and 6H surely does (down two certainly is possible) You might double, but that would be logical only if you thought 5H was making, and I don't know whether it's the case. However, doubling seems to be a LA. Notice that the vulnerability cuts both ways : partner might well have gotten them, letting them believe that he was bidding 5H to make. > 2 - Playing without screens, what call do you make? Pass, for exactly the same reasons. Pass in all cases. RHO hesitating is verging on the impossible for the abovementioned reasons. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Nov 26 16:55:30 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:55:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Demonstrably suggested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1615080778.19439.1290786930410.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Jos? J?lio Curado wrote: > Hello! > > Vulnerable against not, paying Matchpoints with screens, you hold: > > > S 943 > > H 42 > > D A104 > > C Q10853 I think those are the suits, right? > The auction goes: > > LHO CHO RHO YOU > > 1D 4H 4S Pass > > Pass 5H Pass Pass > > 5S Pass Pass ? > > > > After the 5S bid the tray went to the other side, taking some time to come > back. > > 1 - What call do you make? What other calls would you consider making? Assuming we do not have an agreement that partner's bidding creates a forcing situation, I pass, but I consider double. > 2 - Playing without screens, what call do you make? What other calls would > you consider making? if: > > a) Partner hesitated before passing Pass. Now action is "demonstrably" suggested over pass by the UI. Thomas From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Nov 26 21:15:34 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:15:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Demonstrably suggested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <995336.23172.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Jos? J?lio Curado] Vulnerable against not, paying Matchpoints with screens, you hold: S:943 H:42 D:A104 C:Q10853 LHO__CHO__RHO__YOU 1D___4H___4S___Pass Pass_5H___Pass_Pass 5S___Pass_Pass_? After the 5S bid the tray went to the other side, taking some time to come back. 1 - What call do you make? What other calls would you consider making? 2 - Playing without screens, what call do you make? What other calls would you consider making? if: a) Partner hesitated before passing b) RHO hesitated before passing [Nigel] IMO (b) - Without a hesitation OR - if only RHO hesitated before passing OR - (with screens) if you suspect that only RHO hesitated before passing then P = 10, X = 6, 6H = 4. (a) - If partner hesitated before passing OR - (with screens) if you suspect that partner hesitated before passing, that suggests to me that 6H will be more successful than pass or double. In the bar at a recent congress, a large group of players discussed the common situation where partner hesitates and then passes. What is this more likely to indicate: - indecision between doubling and passing? OR - indecision between passing and going on? The consensus is that is is almost always the latter. Although directors and appeals committees often rule that both explanations are equally likely. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Nov 27 00:35:51 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 00:35:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: standard/consensus? Message-ID: <4CF04457.9090203@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101126/52be8b7f/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 27 03:07:08 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:07:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: standard/consensus? In-Reply-To: <4CF04457.9090203@aol.com> References: <4CF04457.9090203@aol.com> Message-ID: <659270.22276.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Jeff Easterson] 2 hearts* 2 spades double** * = weak two **Unpassed partner Is there a standard meaning for the double? A consensus? Does vulnerability influence this? [Nigel] IMO, for most players, this double is penalty at all vulnerabilities and forms of scoring. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Nov 27 11:22:43 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:22:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: standard/consensus? In-Reply-To: <659270.22276.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4CF04457.9090203@aol.com> <659270.22276.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'm happy to be able to agree with Nigel without reservation! Gordon Rainsford On 27 Nov 2010, at 02:07, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Jeff Easterson] > 2 hearts* 2 spades double** > * = weak two > **Unpassed partner > Is there a standard meaning for the double? A consensus? > Does vulnerability influence this? > > [Nigel] > IMO, for most players, this double is penalty at all > vulnerabilities and forms > of scoring. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Nov 27 18:37:50 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:37:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <005201cb8bd6$0c03a9e0$240afda0$@nl> References: <55DBB0CD7EA5431BB217EC125E9924BB@MARVLAPTOP> <005201cb8bd6$0c03a9e0$240afda0$@nl> Message-ID: <4CF141EE.3090908@nhcc.net> [illegally-bid slam makes because of revoke or other serious error] On 11/24/2010 7:49 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > There was damage, according to 12B1, so an adjusted score is needed for the > infractors. Without the infraction they would have scored something like > 4S+x for a small value of x, so they get that score, probably weighted if > necessary(rounded away for their disconvenience). A score of 6S-1 seems to > me impossible: it was not reached as a table result, and could not have been > reached through any legal bidding/play. Marvin's point -- with which I agree -- is that L12C1d(ii) does not contain the words "had the irregularity not occurred" (except in the ACBL). Thus you can assign the OS (only) a result that does include an illegal auction. It just has to be "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable," and considering a revoke not at all probable seems reasonable to me. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Nov 28 16:10:30 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:10:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] stupid question seeks intelligent answer Message-ID: <4CF270E6.8030508@aol.com> At the local club (I am not the TD, only play there occasionally.) there is a (stubborn) player who always leaves his private score open (and thus readable for all opponents) on the table. It is difficult to avoid seeing the results of hands he has played and the opponents have not yet played. This is obviously incorrect procedure/behaviour. When he is made aware of this he refuses to conceal the results and demands to know what rule expressly forbids his action. (The rule of common sense is considered insufficient he seems to believe.) When I check the TBR I find no law expressly forbidding this (although it is obviously incorrect). One could apply: ?74A2, ?81C1, ?81C3, ?90A, ?90B3 or ?91A although none of them directly deals with this specific stupidity. Probably because it is too obviously incorrect to be worthwhile mentioning. Any suggestions? And what would you suggest as a penalty? I suppose anything from 20% of a top to a full top (it is pairs) to exclusion. But remember the owner of the club does not want to lose players if he can avoid doing so. Thanks, JE From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Nov 28 16:47:09 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:47:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] stupid question seeks intelligent answer In-Reply-To: <4CF270E6.8030508@aol.com> References: <4CF270E6.8030508@aol.com> Message-ID: <4CF2797D.3040504@skynet.be> I could cite 90B3, 90B4, 90B8 (after you have given the instruction) As a penalty, I propose to count, every time you notice the card lying open, the number of boards his opponents have yet to play, and tell him that since these boards have now become unplayable, they require the award of an adjusted score at another table, and according to L90A you may assess a PP. So, during the second round, you penalize him (4 boards per round?) 40% of a top. During the third round, his opponents will have seen 8 results of boards they have yet to play, so you award 80% of a top. If he really still does it during the fourth round, ... Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > At the local club (I am not the TD, only play there occasionally.) > there is a (stubborn) player who always leaves his private score open > (and thus readable for all opponents) on the table. It is difficult to > avoid seeing the results of hands he has played and the opponents have > not yet played. > This is obviously incorrect procedure/behaviour. > When he is made aware of this he refuses to conceal the results and > demands to know what rule expressly forbids his action. (The rule of > common sense is considered insufficient he seems to believe.) > When I check the TBR I find no law expressly forbidding this (although > it is obviously incorrect). One could apply: ?74A2, ?81C1, ?81C3, ?90A, > ?90B3 or ?91A although none of them directly deals with this specific > stupidity. Probably because it is too obviously incorrect to be > worthwhile mentioning. > > Any suggestions? > > And what would you suggest as a penalty? I suppose anything from 20% of > a top to a full top (it is pairs) to exclusion. But remember the owner > of the club does not want to lose players if he can avoid doing so. > > Thanks, JE > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3284 - Release Date: 11/27/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 28 17:07:40 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:07:40 -0600 Subject: [BLML] stupid question seeks intelligent answer In-Reply-To: <4CF270E6.8030508@aol.com> References: <4CF270E6.8030508@aol.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Easterson" Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 09:10 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] stupid question seeks intelligent answer > At the local club (I am not the TD, only play there occasionally.) > there is a (stubborn) player who always leaves his private score open > (and thus readable for all opponents) on the table. It is difficult to > avoid seeing the results of hands he has played and the opponents have > not yet played. > This is obviously incorrect procedure/behaviour. > When he is made aware of this he refuses to conceal the results and > demands to know what rule expressly forbids his action. (The rule of > common sense is considered insufficient he seems to believe.) > When I check the TBR I find no law expressly forbidding this (although > it is obviously incorrect). One could apply: ?74A2, ?81C1, ?81C3, ?90A, > ?90B3 or ?91A although none of them directly deals with this specific > stupidity. Probably because it is too obviously incorrect to be > worthwhile mentioning. > > Any suggestions? > > And what would you suggest as a penalty? I suppose anything from 20% of > a top to a full top (it is pairs) to exclusion. But remember the owner > of the club does not want to lose players if he can avoid doing so. > > Thanks, JE L80B2f provides for regulations and I should think that a well crafted one would be appropriate. It should be prominently posted so that if there is no special mention of it the players can be expected to be aware. Notably, exposing scores taints comparisons- which is being disrespectful of other players. The behavior should be discouraged vigorously and a PP should be at least one board [which is an important reason for constructing the regulation well] with no gimmes.** ** gimme- a term in a similar vein as freebie regards roger pewick From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Nov 28 17:37:17 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:37:17 -0000 Subject: [BLML] stupid question seeks intelligent answer References: <4CF270E6.8030508@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D0D54F4B9184D6D97BF92AEF81E141F@woe9f427cae481> Well, a series of 16C1 s should get it stopped PDQ. LL At the local club (I am not the TD, only play there occasionally.) there is a (stubborn) player who always leaves his private score open (and thus readable for all opponents) on the table. It is difficult to avoid seeing the results of hands he has played and the opponents have not yet played. This is obviously incorrect procedure/behaviour. When he is made aware of this he refuses to conceal the results and demands to know what rule expressly forbids his action. (The rule of common sense is considered insufficient he seems to believe.) When I check the TBR I find no law expressly forbidding this (although it is obviously incorrect). One could apply: ?74A2, ?81C1, ?81C3, ?90A, ?90B3 or ?91A although none of them directly deals with this specific stupidity. Probably because it is too obviously incorrect to be worthwhile mentioning. Any suggestions? And what would you suggest as a penalty? I suppose anything from 20% of a top to a full top (it is pairs) to exclusion. But remember the owner of the club does not want to lose players if he can avoid doing so. Thanks, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 28 23:30:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:30:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] standard/consensus? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Lloyd and John Mitchinson, Advanced Banter, page 43: "If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur." Jeff Easterson: >>>2 hearts* 2 spades double** >>> >>>* = weak two >>>**Unpassed partner >>> >>>Is there a standard meaning for the double? A consensus? >>>Does vulnerability influence this? Nigel Guthrie: >>IMO, for most players, this double is penalty at all >>vulnerabilities and forms of scoring. Gordon Rainsford: >I'm happy to be able to agree with Nigel without reservation! Richard Hills: I'm unhappy to disagree with Nigel and Gordon with reservations. The textbook meaning of the double is penalties, since the text- book states that a preempt describes one's hand so precisely (no intent to voluntarily call again) that partner is now captain of the auction. But a significant number of The Bridge World's expert MSC panellists elected to open a weak 2H holding 6/5 in the reds, with an intent of fracturing captaincy by freely bidding again. Likewise the most popular bridge teacher and bridge author in Australia, Ron Klinger, is addicted to negative doubles. Ron recommends these fracturings of captaincy: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT 2H Pass Pass X (1) (1) Takeout, heart doubleton. So instead of -140, East must now choose between -800 and -870 (2Hx with an overtrick). WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 4H 4S Pass Pass X (2) (2) Takeout, spade void. So instead of -650, East must now choose between -1400 and -1480 (4Sxx with an overtrick). Ergo I would expect many if not most players to be unaware of the textbook theory of captaincy, thus many if not most players would have a partnership understanding in Jeff's auction that the double of 2S is negative. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 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 Nov 29 03:54:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:54:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Electronic scoresheets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>Marvin's point -- with which I agree -- is that L12C1(e)(ii) >>does not contain the words "had the irregularity not >>occurred" (except in the ACBL). Thus you can assign the OS >>(only) a result that does include an illegal auction. It >>just has to be "the most unfavourable result that was at all >>probable," and considering a revoke not at all probable >>seems reasonable to me. Richard Hills: Even for those Regulating Authorities who use Law 12C1(c) as a over-riding eradication of Law 12C1(e), it seem to me to be entirely legal for a Director to assign to the offending side (only) a result that does include an illegal auction. Law 12C1(b), final sentence: "The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." Richard Hills: For example, in a classic Hesitation Blackwood infraction the offending side's "consequence of its infraction" may be very detrimental to itself. Poetic justice may have happened when UI is used to bid a small slam which is great contract single- dummy, but as the cards lie has no chance double-dummy due to a 5-0 trump break. The score in that shooting-themselves-in-the-foot Hesitation Blackwood case is of course offending side -50 and non- offending +50. If, however, the non-offending side commits a subsequent serious error it seems to me that the shooting- themselves-in-the-foot offending side retains their -50, as it is "the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only". Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >i fail to see logic in the premise: we have a player who has >a wire telling him to illegally call a slam and in the same >time he knows the slam is hopeless. how can it be that UI is >so contradictory? with illogical premise, it's not a surprise >that application of laws may be problematic. impossible >problems leading to stupid solutions is quite normal. Richard Hills: The key aspect of the problem was very flawed Conditions of Contest; the event was run as a Barometer Matchpoint Pairs, with progress scores visible to all. Thus "the Probst cheat" had authorised information that a big swing was needed on the last board. The unauthorised information that "the Probst cheat" gained from her partner's break in tempo was that slam might have some play. (As the cards lay, the "some play" - a need for a serious error by a non-offending defender - was less than "the Probst cheat" might perhaps have hoped; but a very lucky illegal call does not convert a Law 73C infraction into a non-infraction.) An entirely non-hypothetical problem was electronic scoring devices used at the Mollymook Congress Teams. Initially they were configured in travelling scoresheet mode, so although you were playing a one-on-one Swiss Teams match you could get a general idea of how many imps your latest result was likely to win or lose. But at one table they scored a slam against the wrong board number. At another table a switched-on expert reading the electronic scoresheet summoned the Director under Law 16C1, since the switched-on expert had not yet played the slam deal at his table. Fortunately the software of the electronic scoring devices permitted the Director to switch off the scoresheets. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 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 madam at civilradio.hu Mon Nov 29 12:24:13 2010 From: madam at civilradio.hu (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFneWFyIMFk4W0=?=) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:24:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a bergen on a timbouktou Message-ID: <417515A399DC4294A17E287A9DED3C0B@adam> Hit here, Look at this board: http://mezhon.bridzs.hu/10oimp1-20.htm Screens, IMP pairs. The bidding has gone: W N E S p p 1c(1) 1h(2) p 3d(3) 3s p 4h p 5c p 5h p p p (1) precision, 16+, any distribution (2) Timbouktou, spades or both minors, alerted by South (3) alerted as weak bergen - North actually didn't notice the 1c bid, so supposed his partner opened 1h. South alerts this bid as spade tolerance and diamonds, and willingness to play at the three level. Result: 5h by West, -3, -300 After the 3s bid has passed to the other side (but the tray didn't return yet), North discovers her error, and gives correct explanation both of 1h, and the meaning of the 3d bid, and also reveals that she had made an error. When East wants to call the director, North tells that in her opinion he shouldn't, since it will help NS more than EW. According to EW, 3s was not forcing, and West thought that 5c was a cue-bid agreeing hearts, East thought West had long hearts. Your desision, please! Thanks: Adam Magyar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101129/3337d060/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 29 15:03:10 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:03:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a bergen on a timbouktou In-Reply-To: <417515A399DC4294A17E287A9DED3C0B@adam> References: <417515A399DC4294A17E287A9DED3C0B@adam> Message-ID: <4CF3B29E.2000701@skynet.be> Nice one, Adam! Magyar ?d?m wrote: > Hit here, > > Look at this board: http://mezhon.bridzs.hu/10oimp1-20.htm > > Screens, IMP pairs. > > The bidding has gone: > > W N E S > > p p 1c(1) 1h(2) > > p 3d(3) 3s p > > 4h p 5c p > > 5h p p p > > (1) precision, 16+, any distribution > > (2) Timbouktou, spades or both minors, alerted by South > > (3) alerted as weak bergen ? North actually didn?t notice the 1c bid, so > supposed his partner opened 1h. South alerts this bid as spade tolerance > and diamonds, and willingness to play at the three level. > > Result: 5h by West, -3, -300 > > After the 3s bid has passed to the other side (but the tray didn?t > return yet), North discovers her error, and gives correct explanation > both of 1h, and the meaning of the 3d bid, and also reveals that she had > made an error. When East wants to call the director, North tells that in > her opinion he shouldn?t, since it will help NS more than EW. > From the story, we may assume North did indeed make a misbid (and only the Dutch are crazy enough to still rule misinformation in a case like this). However, North explained her misbid incorrectly, and so, although East did receive a correct explanation of North's hand, he did not get a correct explanation of the "system", which is what he should realize his partner will receive from South. So East is potentially damaged in his selection of the call of 3S. What would East bid if he hears that South potentially has spades (he was not told this either, we presume) and North has shown spades? Probably infer that South does not have spades, and bid them at this junction. So the bidding would likely have gone the same. Possibly one could award some percentage of the misfit NS will reach when East does pass. > According to EW, 3s was not forcing, and West thought that 5c was a > cue-bid agreeing hearts, East thought West had long hearts. > irrelevant, since the only infraction has already occured and has been corrected. > Your desision, please! > > Thanks: > > Adam Magyar > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3286 - Release Date: 11/28/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From henk at ripe.net Mon Nov 29 15:47:48 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:47:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a bergen on a timbouktou In-Reply-To: <4CF3B29E.2000701@skynet.be> References: <417515A399DC4294A17E287A9DED3C0B@adam> <4CF3B29E.2000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CF3BD14.3040301@ripe.net> On 29/11/2010 15:03, Herman De Wael wrote: > Magyar ?d?m wrote: > From the story, we may assume North did indeed make a misbid (and only > the Dutch are crazy enough to still rule misinformation in a case like > this). No (to the crazy) and No (to the misinformation). > However, North explained her misbid incorrectly, and so, although > East did receive a correct explanation of North's hand, he did not get a > correct explanation of the "system", which is what he should realize his > partner will receive from South. East did not have a correct explanation when he bid 3S. At this point, 1H was natural and 3D a raise. > So East is potentially damaged in his selection of the call of 3S. > What would East bid if he hears that South potentially has spades (he > was not told this either, we presume) and North has shown spades? > Probably infer that South does not have spades, and bid them at this > junction. So the bidding would likely have gone the same. I have my doubts about this. East bid 3S when the auction showed hearts. It is then corrected (after the tray is pushed to the other side and it is too late to correct) to show S or minors in south. This is an entirely different situation. If south has the minors, then I think east wants to defend and the best way to accomplish that is to pass. If south has spades, then NS have a 5-3 spade fit with QTxxx in front of the spade bidder. A 3S bid by east then isn't very attractive either. So, with the correct explanation, east will most likely pass. What happens then is anybody's guess. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 29 16:13:18 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:13:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a bergen on a timbouktou In-Reply-To: <4CF3BD14.3040301@ripe.net> References: <417515A399DC4294A17E287A9DED3C0B@adam> <4CF3B29E.2000701@skynet.be> <4CF3BD14.3040301@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4CF3C30E.8030903@skynet.be> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > On 29/11/2010 15:03, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Magyar ?d?m wrote: > >> From the story, we may assume North did indeed make a misbid (and only >> the Dutch are crazy enough to still rule misinformation in a case like >> this). > > No (to the crazy) and No (to the misinformation). > There was a case like that in Holland a few years back - I'm sure you remember. >> However, North explained her misbid incorrectly, and so, although >> East did receive a correct explanation of North's hand, he did not get a >> correct explanation of the "system", which is what he should realize his >> partner will receive from South. > > East did not have a correct explanation when he bid 3S. At this > point, 1H was natural and 3D a raise. > Isn't that what I wrote? >> So East is potentially damaged in his selection of the call of 3S. >> What would East bid if he hears that South potentially has spades (he >> was not told this either, we presume) and North has shown spades? >> Probably infer that South does not have spades, and bid them at this >> junction. So the bidding would likely have gone the same. > > I have my doubts about this. > > East bid 3S when the auction showed hearts. It is then corrected (after > the tray is pushed to the other side and it is too late to correct) to > show S or minors in south. This is an entirely different situation. If > south has the minors, then I think east wants to defend and the best way > to accomplish that is to pass. If south has spades, then NS have a 5-3 > spade fit with QTxxx in front of the spade bidder. A 3S bid by east then > isn't very attractive either. So, with the correct explanation, east > will most likely pass. What happens then is anybody's guess. > > Henk > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From henk at ripe.net Mon Nov 29 16:23:22 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:23:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a bergen on a timbouktou In-Reply-To: <4CF3C30E.8030903@skynet.be> References: <417515A399DC4294A17E287A9DED3C0B@adam> <4CF3B29E.2000701@skynet.be> <4CF3BD14.3040301@ripe.net> <4CF3C30E.8030903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CF3C56A.2090408@ripe.net> > There was a case like that in Holland a few years back - I'm sure you > remember. Yes, but the rules regarding misbids and misinformation have changed since then. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 29 16:24:50 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:24:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a bergen on a timbouktou In-Reply-To: <4CF3C30E.8030903@skynet.be> References: <417515A399DC4294A17E287A9DED3C0B@adam> <4CF3B29E.2000701@skynet.be> <4CF3BD14.3040301@ripe.net> <4CF3C30E.8030903@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2010/11/29 Herman De Wael : > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> On 29/11/2010 15:03, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> Magyar ?d?m wrote: >> >>> ? ?From the story, we may assume North did indeed make a misbid (and only >>> the Dutch are crazy enough to still rule misinformation in a case like >>> this). >> >> No (to the crazy) and No (to the misinformation). >> > > There was a case like that in Holland a few years back - I'm sure you > remember. > >>> ? However, North explained her misbid incorrectly, and so, although >>> East did receive a correct explanation of North's hand, he did not get a >>> correct explanation of the "system", which is what he should realize his >>> partner will receive from South. >> >> East did not have a correct explanation when he bid 3S. ?At this >> point, 1H was natural and 3D a raise. >> > > Isn't that what I wrote? No Herman. You only commented on the explanation of norths 3D, not on the non-alert of souths conventional 1H overcall. You have to rule on what would have happened if east had the correct explanation of souths 1H overcall, not only the correct explanation of norths 3D bid. > >>> So East is potentially damaged in his selection of the call of 3S. >>> What would East bid if he hears that South potentially has spades (he >>> was not told this either, we presume) and North has shown spades? >>> Probably infer that South does not have spades, and bid them at this >>> junction. So the bidding would likely have gone the same. >> >> I have my doubts about this. >> >> East bid 3S when the auction showed hearts. ?It is then corrected (after >> the tray is pushed to the other side and it is too late to correct) to >> show S or minors in south. ?This is an entirely different situation. ?If >> south has the minors, then I think east wants to defend and the best way >> to accomplish that is to pass. ?If south has spades, then NS have a 5-3 >> spade fit with QTxxx in front of the spade bidder. ?A 3S bid by east then >> isn't very attractive either. ?So, with the correct explanation, east >> will most likely pass. ? What happens then is anybody's guess. >> >> Henk >> > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 29 17:23:07 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:23:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a bergen on a timbouktou In-Reply-To: <4CF3C56A.2090408@ripe.net> References: <417515A399DC4294A17E287A9DED3C0B@adam> <4CF3B29E.2000701@skynet.be> <4CF3BD14.3040301@ripe.net> <4CF3C30E.8030903@skynet.be> <4CF3C56A.2090408@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4CF3D36B.4030409@skynet.be> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > >> There was a case like that in Holland a few years back - I'm sure you >> remember. > > Yes, but the rules regarding misbids and misinformation have changed since > then. > I'm glad to hear it - the ruling certainly was crazy. > Henk > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3286 - Release Date: 11/28/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 29 17:24:28 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:24:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a bergen on a timbouktou In-Reply-To: References: <417515A399DC4294A17E287A9DED3C0B@adam> <4CF3B29E.2000701@skynet.be> <4CF3BD14.3040301@ripe.net> <4CF3C30E.8030903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CF3D3BC.9000803@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >> Isn't that what I wrote? > > No Herman. You only commented on the explanation of norths 3D, not on > the non-alert of souths conventional 1H overcall. > You have to rule on what would have happened if east had the correct > explanation of souths 1H overcall, not only the correct explanation of > norths 3D bid. >> please reread my original below: >>>> So East is potentially damaged in his selection of the call of 3S. >>>> What would East bid if he hears that South potentially has spades (he >>>> was not told this either, we presume) and North has shown spades? >>>> Probably infer that South does not have spades, and bid them at this >>>> junction. So the bidding would likely have gone the same. >>> -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 29 23:42:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:42:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Colossus of Rhodes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", page 102: "My next move, therefore, was to talk to the Cypriots. I located the husband and wife who bid the grand slam and asked them about the distribution of the diamond suit. They assured me dummy had AJxxxx and declarer held Kxx. I advised them to appeal the ruling. They were an older couple -- very nice people. Their first reaction was one of horror. Oh, no, they protested, they couldn't do that -- no matter what! Cyprus was going to lose the match anyway and it mattered little to them whether they got another 3 VPs. Furthermore, they didn't want to cause anyone grief or appear to be accusing their opponents of anything bordering on cheating. I'm not sure they fully grasped the import of what I was suggesting. I told the pair that it was their duty to appeal the decision -- that they owed it to the sanctity of the tournament and all of their fellow competitors not to let this ruling go unchallenged. I guess you could say that I intimidated them." Maximilian Robespierre (1758-1794), French revolutionary: "Intimidation without virtue is disastrous; virtue without intimidation is powerless." Richard Hills, 15th December 2009: I'm not sure that Bobby Wolff fully grasped the import of what he did at the 1996 Olympiad in Rhodes. He made a Colossal error in acting as both prosecutor and judge. The sanctity of the tournament was affected when Bobby Wolff did not realise that it was his duty to recuse himself as Chairman of the Appeals Committee. When Bobby did not do so, this had the import of suggesting that Bobby Wolff might have approached the appeal with a closed mind. WBF Code of Practice 2010, page 4: Withdrawal A committee member who has prior knowledge of the subject matter of an appeal, of a kind that may affect his objective participation, should recuse himself from the committee and will preferably be substituted. In an international tournament a committee member may decide to recuse himself because he feels too closely involved, or feels he may be biased, or has discussed the matter with interested parties, or has pre- decided the outcome. It is expected that co-nationals of players involved in the appeal will constitute at most a minority of the committee. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 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 Nov 30 00:43:27 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:43:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Colossus of Rhodes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <692747.63133.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [richard.hills] quotes: [1. Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", page 102] "My next move, therefore, was to talk to the Cypriots. I located the husband and wife who bid the grand slam and asked them about the distribution of the diamond suit. They assured me dummy had AJxxxx and declarer held Kxx. I advised them to appeal the ruling. They were an older couple -- very nice people. Their first reaction was one of horror. Oh, no, they protested, they couldn't do that -- no matter what! Cyprus was going to lose the match anyway and it mattered little to them whether they got another 3 VPs. Furthermore, they didn't want to cause anyone grief or appear to be accusing their opponents of anything bordering on cheating. I'm not sure they fully grasped the import of what I was suggesting. I told the pair that it was their duty to appeal the decision -- that they owed it to the sanctity of the tournament and all of their fellow competitors not to let this ruling go unchallenged. I guess you could say that I intimidated them." [2. Maximilian Robespierre (1758-1794), French revolutionary] "Intimidation without virtue is disastrous; virtue without intimidation is powerless." [Richard Hills, 15th December 2009] I'm not sure that Bobby Wolff fully grasped the import of what he did at the 1996 Olympiad in Rhodes. He made a Colossal error in acting as both prosecutor and judge. The sanctity of the tournament was affected when Bobby Wolff did not realise that it was his duty to recuse himself as Chairman of the Appeals Committee. When Bobby did not do so, this had the import of suggesting that Bobby Wolff might have approached the appeal with a closed mind. [WBF Code of Practice 2010, page 4, Withdrawal] A committee member who has prior knowledge of the subject matter of an appeal, of a kind that may affect his objective participation, should recuse himself from the committee and will preferably be substituted. In an international tournament a committee member may decide to recuse himself because he feels too closely involved, or feels he may be biased, or has discussed the matter with interested parties, or has pre- decided the outcome. It is expected that co-nationals of players involved in the appeal will constitute at most a minority of the committee. [Nige1] I agree. The activities to which top players admit in their autobiographies, often with righteous self-congratulation, are shocking. (e.g. Sontag, Hamman, Wolff). IMO, they should have consulted Bridge-Lawyers and Libel-Lawyers, prior to publication :) :) :) From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 30 01:34:09 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:34:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Multi system regs Message-ID: <452019.89428.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [EBU Orange Book 2010, introduction, Following published regulations] 1 C 1 Players entering events are *expected* to submit themselves to the published regulations. 1 C 2 Players are *expected* to comply with regulations even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge). [EBU Orange Book 2010, 11 permitted Agrements, G6 Multi 2D, v] (v)Responder is *expected* to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. Questions: Q1 Does *expected* in the Introduction have the same meaning as in 11G6(v)? I ask, because, last year, at an EBU national event, with this regulation in force, directors, after consultation, allowed the partner of a multi-bidder to pass on a hand that would obviously make a game good opposite one of the weak options and make a slam likely opposite the strong option. Also there was a new addition in 2010 [EBU Orange Book 2010, 11 permitted Agrements, G6 Multi, vi] (vi). It is only permitted to pass a Multi 2D if responder has good reason to believe that 2D is the partnership?s best contract. Q2. What does this mean? Does it alter the meaning of (v)? Such confusion is inevitable in the Tower of Babel that is local system regulation. Hence... Q3. Should the EBU scrap this regulation? Q4. All system-restrictions? Q5. Should other RAs follow suit? Q6. Until RAs see sense, can the WBFLC do anything to mitigate the handicap suffered by the few masochists who still try to comply with such regulations? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 01:58:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:58:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Colossus of Rhodes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <692747.63133.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Interviewer from Paris Review (1967): "E.M. Forster speaks of his major characters sometimes taking over and dictating the course of his novels. Has this ever been a problem for you, or are you in complete command?" Vladimir Nabokov's reply: "My knowledge of Mr Forster's works is limited to one novel, which I dislike; and anyway, it was not he who fathered that trite little whimsy about characters getting out of hand; it is as old as the quills, although of course one sympathises with his people if they try to wriggle out of that trip to India or wherever he takes them. My characters are galley slaves." Nigel Guthrie, 15th December 2009: >>>Obviously Richard is right that Bobby Wolff is a law unto >>>himself. Morally and legally he should have recused himself >>>from the committee. Legally Bobby should not have interfered >>>at all. But IMO, he did have some moral obligations. Richard Hills, 30th November 2010: Yes, no-one would describe Bobby Wolff as a galley slave bound by the chains of the Lawbook. If I am interpreting Nigel Guthrie's position (of a year ago; Nigel may have had second thoughts since) correctly, Nigel was stating: (a) morally and legally Bobby Wolff should have recused himself from being the Colossal Chairman of the Rhodes Appeals Committee, and (b) legally Bobby Wolff should not acted as the Colossal Prosecutor against the Rhodes Director's ruling, by saying to the non-offending side that they had a duty to the field to launch an appeal, but (c) morally Bobby Wolff was very correct to act as the Colossal Prosecutor against the Rhodes Director's ruling, by saying to the non-offending side that they had a duty to the field to launch an appeal. I disagree. In my opinion, bridge morality is defined by The Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Bobby Wolff's concept of "a duty to the field" is fictitious. As is stated in Law 92A: "A contestant or his captain may appeal ..... " and the Introduction: " ..... 'may' do (failure to do it is not wrong) ..... " and further clarified in the WBF Code of Practice, page 4: " ..... No account is to be taken of the interests of other contestants in the outcome ..... " Nigel Guthrie, 15th December 2009: [snip] >>>I feel that the laws should mandate a director call from >>>any player who is aware of an infraction: even if he is not >>>in contention; and even if he is the perpetrator. [snip] Richard Hills: But this is a horse of a different colour. It is obvious (or rather should be obvious) that bridge morality -- what is Right and Wrong in a bridge game -- is defined by the Lawbook and subordinate regulations. However, if the Laws were amended as Nigel Guthrie suggests, then bridge morality would consequently be also redefined. Adam Beneschan, 15th December 2009: >>Be careful about how that's worded. There are probably tons >>of technical infractions being committed constantly that >>don't have an effect on anything. >> >>A law that requires us to call the director for *every* >>infraction would not only drive directors crazy, it would >>also drive everyone out of the game who already thinks the >>game is getting so unfriendly that it's no fun any more. >> >>Or say that declarer wins a trick, and LHO revokes on the >>trick, then declarer realizes he has all the high trumps and >>claims. So the revoke is meaningless because the other side >>wasn't going to win any tricks anyway. Do you want to >>require a director call? >> >>Make it "The laws should mandate a director call from any >>player who is aware of an infraction that could reasonably >>affect the result on the board", and maybe it would be worth >>considering. Richard Hills, 15th December 2009: >hypothetical 2018 Law 72B2: > >"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). However, if >the offending player believes that her infraction has damaged >(see Law 12B1) the non-offending side, the offending player >must summon the Director after a member of the non-offending >side has made a call on the subsequent deal, or after the >round has ended (see Laws 64B4, 64B5 and 64C)." Adam Beneschan, 15th December 2009: >>On rec.games.bridge, we're talking about how some players who >>want to pass out after a non-pass is followed by two passes >>will simply tap the table to indicate that they're passing >>and the auction is over. This is probably an infraction, but >>a meaningless one. Richard Hills, 15th December 2009: >This is _definitely_ an infraction, but _usually_ a >meaningless one. > >For example, in Wales before the introduction of bidding >boxes, it was proper procedure to Alert by tapping the table. >An old-school Welsh player may therefore be startled by an >opponent prematurely leading before she has chosen her call. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 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 Nov 30 03:58:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:58:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Multi system regs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <452019.89428.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: John Mortimer (creator of "Rumpole of the Bailey"): "No brilliance is required in law, just common sense and relatively clean fingernails." EBU Orange Book 2010, Permitted Agreements, Multi, clause G6: (v) Responder is _expected_ to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener's Multi 2D. (vi) It is only permitted to pass a Multi 2D if responder has _good reason_ to believe that 2D is the partnership's best contract. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] What does this mean? [snip] >I ask, because, last year, at an EBU national event, with this >regulation in force, directors, after consultation, allowed >the partner of a multi-bidder to pass on a hand that would >obviously make a game good opposite one of the weak options >and make a slam likely opposite the strong option. [snip] >Until RAs see sense, can the WBF LC do anything to mitigate the >handicap suffered by the few masochists who still try to comply >with such regulations? Richard Hills: Common sense (and relatively clean fingernails) make me expect "expected" has its dictionary definition, and I would also believe with good reason "good reason" has its dictionary definition. Best wishes Claude Erskine-Brown -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------