From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 1 00:12:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:12:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <30131422.1285752089790.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: ..... >>"Oh, the people I cheated didn't notice, thus the cheating >>was fine". ..... >Yes, "cheating" is too strong a word. But we had been talking >around for days, I simply deemed it necessary to clarify the >overall situation. Richard Hills: We have discussed how East-West pair C might be unhappy if they notice that they descended from first place to second place due to an intentionally illegal Director's ruling at another table. We have not yet discussed how East-West pair B might be unhappy if they notice that they ascended from second place to first place due to an intentionally illegal Director's ruling at their own table. Why might East-West pair B be unhappy in victory? Lois McMaster Bujold, A Civil Campaign, pages 196-197: The Armsmen used to play cross-ball with him, and sometimes Elena and Ivan: a low-impact game, of minimum threat to his then-fragile bones, but requiring quick reflexes and good timing. He'd been elated the first time he'd won a match against an actual adult, in this case Armsman Esterhazy. He'd shaken with rage, when a not-meant-to-be-overheard remark had revealed to him the game had been a setup. ..... "I still remember how furious you were when you figured out he'd _let_ you win. Did you ever carry on about that one. We thought you'd do yourself a harm." "He stole my victory from me," grated Miles, "as surely as if he'd cheated to win. _And_ he poisoned every subsequent real victory with doubt. I had a _right_ to be mad." Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Fri Oct 1 01:01:02 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 01:01:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 1 04:55:57 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:55:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:10:55 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:29 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:23:32 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> 1H 1S 2NT >>>> >>>> 2NT was explained as showing heart support. This is not Standard >>>> American >>>> (which they agreed upon). Misexplanation. >>> >>> If the person who bid 2NT thought it showed heart support, and had >>> heart support, and his partner thought it showed heart support, and >>> explained it as showing heart support, how can it possibly be a >>> misexplanation? How does their mutual mistaken belief that this >>> meaning is unambiguously defined in Standard American (or, indeed, >>> that any meaning is) turn it into a misexplanation? >> >> Good point. But for this hand, the 2NT bidder meant it as natural, >> spade >> stopper, not showing heart support. > > If they had different ideas from the get-go (as opposed to having > agreed one way and someone forgot), the TD/AC should rule that they > had no agreement, and adjust accordingly. The question then is what happens legally when we agree verbally on "Standard American". One could say that for legal purposes we have agreed on the meanings of particular bids. For example that opening 1S shows 5 or more spades. Another point of view is that we create a mutual awareness, and for legal purposes our agreements for legal purposes are created by our mutual awareness. (Thus we must reveal to opponents only our verbal agreement and our mutual awareness.) I am not sure why Eric thinks I should not have done something differently at the table. If Eric is correct, then if she learned the proper meaning of this bid and then forgot it before making her agreement with partner, then they had no agreement and should have been allowed to tell the opponents that. If she learned the proper meaning of this bid and forgot it after making an agreement with Eric, then they are required to tell the opponents the correct meaning of the 2NT bid. (And [Aside to RF: This does > not imply that anyone should have done anything differently at the > table!] Such a finding would be based entirely on their failure to > have (ever) agreed on what 2NT means. Whether or not either or both > meanings are "Standard American" doesn't matter. Whether or not the > words "Standard American" were used in their explicit discussion > doesn't matter. > > Besides, anyone who thinks "Standard American" defines any specific > agreement in any specific auction has been living in a bubble for at > least 40 years. > > > 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 -- somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 1 05:15:58 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:15:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Good-Good In-Reply-To: <1205B36B5F1942A3815F7B0BA371B1E1@MARVLAPTOP> References: <1205B36B5F1942A3815F7B0BA371B1E1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:23:58 -0400, Marvin French wrote: > For many years, especially here in the Southwest USA, Good-Good > rulings were common. An irregularity went unrectified for the > offenders and the other side was given Ave+. Both sides were > relieved and happy, so this was good PR for the TD. The damage done > to others in the field was unnoticed, of course. > > We had a recent Good-Good at my table, when my partner didn't know > what my passed-hand 1NT overcall of 1S meant. That was doubled and > opener bid 3S, just making because my lead from Q108xx found partner > with a singleton and a ruff was unavoidable. Seeing 109xx hearts in > dummy, opposite his AKxx, declarer could see that they missed a > heart game. He called the TD, claiming that the MI interfered with > their reaching a heart contract. The TD believed that tentatively > and gave him +420, leaving our -140 intact. I only discovered this > (to my amazement) when checking the results on the website (having > left the game promptly to watch a ball game). After my strong e-mail > objection, the TD said he would consult with others. After doing > that he changed the score to +/- 140. > > The meaning of 1NT was plainly shown on our CC under Notrump > Overcalls-- "Nat'l by UPH, any 2 unbid by PH". Neither the > opponents nor the TD bothered to look at our CC. I think John > Probst would have said, "Why didn't you look at their card? Why are > you wasting my time?" Note that I could have had hearts and a minor, > if that matters. > > A TD consultant for him told me that Good-Good rulings were not > illegal as I had stated, pointing to the Director Error situation in > which both sides can do well. Of course I was referring only to > L12C1(e) adjustments in case of damage, which must necessarily > reduce the table result of at least one side. She was right about > Director Error, but her example was a poor one: > > The late Gene Freed was not given the chance to call after an MI > irregularity. When the contract went down one, he complained and > said he would have doubled if given the chance. Since this was > Director Error, the TD gave him the double but did not change the > other side's score, a Good-Good ruling. She said that since she did > not know whether Gene would have doubled, she gave both sides the > benefit of doubt and that was a legal Good-Good ruling. > > My reply was that if she was pretty sure (don't take his word for > it) that Gene would have doubled, then down one for both sides > would be an acceptable adjustment ("a rectification will allow the > board to be scored normally" -- Law 82C.) Otherwise, I wrote, Avg+ > for both sides. > > Was I right? > Yes. But as you found, it is not easy to convince people of that. Consider this ruling: 1NT 2H X(1) meant as a negative double but not alerted. The opponents claim damage. According to the ACBL, this double is not alertable. According to the club owner (well, now manager) where I direct, it should be alerted. That's a reasonable position, because using this double to show spades is very unexpected and quite different from how almost everyone at our club will interpret it. So how do you rule if the players making the negative double are new to the club and knew the ACBL rules? I doubt anyone here has much enthusiasm for either "rectify against the pair following the ACBL regulations" or "rectify against the pair following the club regulations". If you are director, you should not feel good about either ruling, and you should think it quite appropriate that whoever you rule against thinks your ruling is unfair. Because it is. Good-good is a relatively straightforward ruling, it's a fair ruling, and I expect most club directors will find it easily. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Oct 1 05:59:31 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:59:31 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Good-Good References: <1205B36B5F1942A3815F7B0BA371B1E1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Robert Frick wrote: > Consider this ruling: > > 1NT 2H X(1) > > meant as a negative double but not alerted. The opponents claim > damage. > > According to the ACBL, this double is not alertable. According to > the club > owner (well, now manager) where I direct, it should be alerted. > That's a > reasonable position, because using this double to show spades is > very > unexpected and quite different from how almost everyone at our > club will > interpret it. > > So how do you rule if the players making the negative double are > new to > the club and knew the ACBL rules? > > I doubt anyone here has much enthusiasm for either "rectify > against the > pair following the ACBL regulations" or "rectify against the pair > following the club regulations". > > If you are director, you should not feel good about either ruling, > and you > should think it quite appropriate that whoever you rule against > thinks > your ruling is unfair. Because it is. > > Good-good is a relatively straightforward ruling, it's a fair > ruling, and > I expect most club directors will find it easily. Yes, club directors love this sort of ruling. I think this could be called Director Errror, avg+ to both sides, as the club owner/director is obligated to post rules about non-agreement with ACBL regulations, calling attention to that especially for strangers. They don't do that,, of course, but it should be required of them by the ACBL. My club does not enforce the Stop Card regulation, and the Stop Card does not affect the speed of the next person's call. No one objects, knowing it would be futile. That is legal for the club (which should throw all the Stop Cards out, actually), but this exception from ACBL regs should be made known to all players. However, I would add (big sign on the wall), players are expected to refrain from communicating with partners by their bidding tempo in any situation, not just over jump bids. But they will still do it. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5493 (20100930) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 1 07:50:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:50:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pass the parcel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <16331141.1285846952574.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 3rd June 2006: +=+ One of my fonder reminiscences comes from the early 1950's. Playing, as a callow youth, in a district tournament against a couple of seasoned local players I required four tricks from AQx in dummy and in hand KTxx. I led the third round of the suit towards KT, RHO played smoothly and then I saw that LHO already had a card in hand to contribute. I switched my play from K to T, noted by RHO who, as we scored nine tricks in 3NT, enquired about my change of card and why. "Well", I explained, "I had to decide whether the Knave was in your partner's hand or in his chair." ~ G ~ +=+ Canberra Bridge Club Walk-in butler pairs Tuesday 30th August 2005 Dlr: West 54 Vul: East-West 5 843 Q875432 AJT3 92 AKQJ972 T4 J6 AQT752 --- KT6 KQ876 863 K9 AJ9 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Knavish Hills Klavs Kalejs Pass(1) Pass 1D 2C (2) 6H (3) Pass(4) Pass Pass (1) Not a Law 25A unintended call (2) Yes a Law 25A unintended call (3) In tempo, fortunately (4) In tempo, unfortunately, as Law 25A no longer applies Knavish Hills: When I picked up the West cards, I knew that they had slam potential. However, since Klavs and I played rather simple natural methods, I could not describe all of the various features (solid hearts, worthless doubleton diamonds, club void, useful ace-high secondary spades) of my hand to him for him to make an informed choice about whether or not to bid slam. Therefore, I thought it better to listen to the unforced bids in the auction selected by my three opponents, and make the final choice myself. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : double, if for take-out... Knavish Hills: The Larry Cohen philosophy is to aVoid low-level takeout doubles with Voids. Why score -180 (after East's reluctant pass of the takeout double) when +1430 is available? Paul Lamford: >Six Hearts; Seven Hearts > >Having either accidentally passed originally (or having recently >been released from a hospital for the criminally insane) I would >not risk any other bid at this stage; exploring a grand has now >become impossible. Knavish Hills: Yes, the value bid for West on the auction so far is 6H, given that East's 1D opening bid is opposite West's doubleton, and also South's 2C overcall is opposite West's void. North deduced from the bidding and her hand that West held a club void, so North led a spade to South's queen and my ace. I drew trumps in three rounds, discarding dummy's six of clubs. Now I exited with the three of spades to dummy's nine and South's queen. Due to the uninformative auction to slam, South attempted to cash the ace of clubs. +1430 and 13 imps to the good guys. (In my opinion, South's attempted cash would be a Law 12C1(b) serious error if South had been an expert.) Paul Lamford: >Ah, I just realised my partner refused to play a strong pass >system, where partner's 1D would show any invitational hand ... >Perhaps I should just bid 4H ... No, that might be using the lack >of an alert. I think I need to know more before I can answer >fully. Knavish Hills: I have perpetrated this pass-with-strong-distributional-values as dealer several times, but each time in a different partnership. This is because this weird psyche is so atypical, and therefore so memorable, that doing it twice in the same partnership would create a Law 40C1 implicit understanding that we were playing an unLawful HUM Strong Pass system. Best wishes Not-so-knavish 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Oct 1 11:07:12 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:07:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> Message-ID: On 30 Sep 2010, at 10:17, Sven Pran wrote: > > Examples on my understanding: > The 2H bid after partner's multi 2D opening bid does not show > anything other > than lack of interest to go further in case partner has a > traditional weak > 2H opening. It shows willingness to play in 2H, but it also shows at least as great, or greater, willingness to play in spades if partner has a 2S opening. With any significant difference in the two suits, responder will bid the weaker. > The 3C bid after partner's Michael overcall showing the opposite > major and > an unknown minor does not show anything other than willingness to > play in > clubs if that is partner's minor suit It shows a preference for playing in clubs rather than the major, but also a preference for playing in diamonds rather than the major. If that were not the case, one would usually play in the major (especially if the major is spades which could be bid at the two level). > The 3H bid after partners artificial call showing Diamonds and a > major suit > shows nothing else than willingness to play in hearts if that is > partner's > major suit. It shows a willingness to play in hearts, but also a willingness to play in spades. Lacking that (a mediocre 1435 hand for example) one would not bid 3H but would bid 3D instead. All of these are pieces of information other than willingness to play in the denomination named. Gordon Rainsford From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 1 11:41:42 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:41:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CA446C5.8080705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4CA5ACD6.4020600@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/09/2010 18:27, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 30, 2010, at 4:13 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 29/09/2010 14:38, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : >> >>> [Alain Gottcheiner] >>> >>> easier ... take three cards at random from your hand, shuffle them, >>> pick one, and if you picked the highest ... >>> I'm sure no TD would disallow you to handle your cards. >>> Of course, if you're a defender, there could be UI that you were in a >>> position to use a mixed strategy. >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> If looking at your watch is cheating, then surely this is a more >>> subtle form. >>> But why would the director treat a such an isolated "random >>> result" as >>> "information"? >> AG : there is no need to consider information. It is said that the >> players have no right to outside help to their memory or computing >> abilities. >> Well, we aren't able to produce a random result with our brains, so >> this >> is helping our abilities. > I'll grant that a disembodied brain kept alive in a bell jar might > have trouble producing a random result, but surely we're allowed to > use our senses as well. Unless Alain is suggesting that *anything* > you see or hear that is not explicitly permitted by TFLB is UI, which > would seem to be stretching into previously unexplored territory. > AG : if you need to produce a random result with some precise probability, your senses will have either : - to focus on some precise mechanism (like a watch) : disallowed - to draw at random : can it be prohibited ? You're allowed to handle your cards. Looking whether the sky is blue or grey doesn't produce the right probability ;-) Notice that there is a pseudo-random criterion which produces a 1/3 probability : who was the last player (except myself) to have played a contract ? And who can disallow this ? Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 1 13:18:19 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:18:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> Message-ID: <002101cb615a$5bf51390$13df3ab0$@no> I am sorry, but I don't buy these. Maybe it is just our styles that are different, but see my comments below: On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > On 30 Sep 2010, at 10:17, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Examples on my understanding: > > The 2H bid after partner's multi 2D opening bid does not show anything > > other than lack of interest to go further in case partner has a > > traditional weak 2H opening. > > It shows willingness to play in 2H, but it also shows at least as great, or greater, > willingness to play in spades if partner has a 2S opening. With any significant > difference in the two suits, responder will bid the weaker. IMO the 2H bid shows nothing but willingness to play in hearts at the two-level. If opener corrects to 2S he will then invite to game with a 3S bid if that is justified. An immediate 2S response to the Multi opening not only shows better hearts than spades but is a direct invitation to game. > > The 3C bid after partner's Michael overcall showing the opposite major > > and an unknown minor does not show anything other than willingness to > > play in clubs if that is partner's minor suit > > It shows a preference for playing in clubs rather than the major, but also a > preference for playing in diamonds rather than the major. If that were not the > case, one would usually play in the major (especially if the major is spades which > could be bid at the two level). I don't understand this logic. The 3C bid certainly shows preference for clubs rather than the major, but why it also shows diamonds rather than the major is beyond me. What do you respond with max 3 diamonds and 5 clubs together with say 3 cards in partner's major suit? Wouldn't 3C followed by 3 in partner's major suit be reasonable if partner corrects to 3D? > > The 3H bid after partners artificial call showing Diamonds and a major > > suit shows nothing else than willingness to play in hearts if that is > > partner's major suit. > > It shows a willingness to play in hearts, but also a willingness to play in spades. > Lacking that (a mediocre 1435 hand for example) one would not bid 3H but would > bid 3D instead. This is the only one I am willing to accept. It means that the partnership is likely to miss a favorable heart fit and instead land in a mediocre diamond contract. I would not be happy with this agreement and would prefer it to imply that the artificial 2NT or 3C call showing diamonds and a major should be prepared for an auction like: ? - 3H 3S - 4D showing responders preference for hearts, but diamonds over spades. If the hand cannot tolerate play in 4D after such a sequence the agreement should IMO not be used. This would in my opinion again make the 3H bid not artificial as it does not show anything other than preference for hearts at the time the bid is made. > > All of these are pieces of information other than willingness to play in the > denomination named. You have not convinced me, I certainly hope for some clarification from WBFLC representatives. Regards Sven From henk at ripe.net Fri Oct 1 13:21:08 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:21:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201010011121.o91BL85x021967@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for September 2010 Posts From ----- ---- 112 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 72 ehaa (at) starpower.net 70 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 60 blml (at) arcor.de 56 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 52 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 27 gampas (at) aol.com 16 svenpran (at) online.no 15 hirsch9000 (at) gmail.com 13 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 10 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 9 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 8 henk (at) ripe.net 8 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 7 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 7 swillner (at) nhcc.net 7 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 5 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 5 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 sater (at) xs4all.nl 4 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au 4 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 3 schoderb (at) msn.com 3 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 3 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 3 bpark56 (at) comcast.net 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 p.j.m.smulders (at) home.nl 2 mikopera (at) nyc.rr.com 2 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 2 bridge (at) vwalther.de 2 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 avivnyc (at) gmail.com 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 jfchevalier (at) ffbridge.net 1 info (at) honorsbridgeclub.org 1 henk (at) rtflb.org 1 dpb3 (at) fastmail.fm 1 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 1 ciska.zuur (at) planet.nl 1 cibor (at) poczta.fm From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Oct 1 13:48:47 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:48:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <002101cb615a$5bf51390$13df3ab0$@no> References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <002101cb615a$5bf51390$13df3ab0$@no> Message-ID: On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:18, "Sven Pran" wrote: > I am sorry, but I don't buy these. Maybe it is just our styles that are > different, but see my comments below: > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford >> On 30 Sep 2010, at 10:17, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> Examples on my understanding: >>> The 2H bid after partner's multi 2D opening bid does not show anything >>> other than lack of interest to go further in case partner has a >>> traditional weak 2H opening. >> >> It shows willingness to play in 2H, but it also shows at least as great, > or greater, >> willingness to play in spades if partner has a 2S opening. With any > significant >> difference in the two suits, responder will bid the weaker. > > IMO the 2H bid shows nothing but willingness to play in hearts at the > two-level. > > If opener corrects to 2S he will then invite to game with a 3S bid if that > is justified. > An immediate 2S response to the Multi opening not only shows better hearts > than spades but is a direct invitation to game. You could play it that way but most players I know use 2NT if they want to invite game. However, playing it your way, 2H denies a game invitational hand with better hearts than spades. > >>> The 3C bid after partner's Michael overcall showing the opposite major >>> and an unknown minor does not show anything other than willingness to >>> play in clubs if that is partner's minor suit >> >> It shows a preference for playing in clubs rather than the major, but also > a >> preference for playing in diamonds rather than the major. If that were not > the >> case, one would usually play in the major (especially if the major is > spades which >> could be bid at the two level). > > I don't understand this logic. > The 3C bid certainly shows preference for clubs rather than the major, but > why it also shows diamonds rather than the major is beyond me. What do you > respond with max 3 diamonds and 5 clubs together with say 3 cards in > partner's major suit? > > Wouldn't 3C followed by 3 in partner's major suit be reasonable if partner > corrects to 3D? That would be a tough way to get to play in 2S! > >>> The 3H bid after partners artificial call showing Diamonds and a major >>> suit shows nothing else than willingness to play in hearts if that is >>> partner's major suit. >> >> It shows a willingness to play in hearts, but also a willingness to play > in spades. >> Lacking that (a mediocre 1435 hand for example) one would not bid 3H but > would >> bid 3D instead. > > This is the only one I am willing to accept. It means that the partnership > is likely to miss a favorable heart fit and instead land in a mediocre > diamond contract. > > I would not be happy with this agreement and would prefer it to imply that > the artificial 2NT or 3C call showing diamonds and a major should be > prepared for an auction like: > > ? - 3H > 3S - 4D > showing responders preference for hearts, but diamonds over spades. > If the hand cannot tolerate play in 4D after such a sequence the agreement > should IMO not be used. > > This would in my opinion again make the 3H bid not artificial as it does not > show anything other than preference for hearts at the time the bid is made. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101001/87a9d317/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 1 16:15:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:15:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The question then is what happens legally when we agree verbally on > "Standard American". Nothing really, except that you now have a disclosable understanding that you have agreed to play something you call "Standard American", whatever that means. > One could say that for legal purposes we have agreed > on the meanings of particular bids. I can't think of any. > For example that opening 1S shows 5 or > more spades. Not even this one. As it happens, the closest thing we have to a codified "Standard American", Bridge World Standard, allows 1S on four in 3rd or 4th. Of course, if 1S promises five in all positions, that's "Standard American" too. And for players of a certain age, four-card majors all around is "Standard American" as well. > Another point of view is that we create a mutual awareness, > and for legal purposes our agreements for legal purposes are > created by > our mutual awareness. For your "awareness" to be "mutual" (or your "agreement" to be "partnership") you must share a common understanding. When you are each "aware" of contradictory assumptions, that is not "mutual" and is therefore not an agreement for legal purposes. > (Thus we must reveal to opponents only our verbal > agreement and our mutual awareness.) Right, and routine. Where we have problems, and what we're discussing, is when a member of the partnership believes that a mutual awareness exists, but he is wrong. > I am not sure why Eric thinks I should not have done something > differently > at the table. Because at the table, you cannot distinguish between the cases in which you believe you have a mutual understanding and are correct and the cases in which you believe you have a mutual understanding and are wrong, and therefore cannot treat them differently. (The TD or AC, however, can.) > If Eric is correct, then if she learned the proper meaning > of this bid and then forgot it before making her agreement with > partner, > then they had no agreement and should have been allowed to tell the > opponents that. If she learned the proper meaning of this bid and > forgot > it after making an agreement with Eric, then they are required to > tell the > opponents the correct meaning of the 2NT bid. If Eric is correct, this scenario is fruitcake-nutty. Let's see. She knew it. Then she forgot it. But then, when she made her so- called "agreement", she still hadn't remembered it, but she forgot that she forgot it, so she thought she did remember it, so she agreed to it, even though she had forgotten it. But then she remembered that she forgot it, so she relearned it. Unless, of course, she remembered when she made the agreement that she had forgotten it, and agreed to play something that she knew she had forgotten. Alternatively, if she didn't know it in the first place, then she knowingly agreed to play something she didn't know (perhaps I should stop right there), which her partner either realized (revealing two fruitcakes in the scenario) or didn't (we hope!), and Bob seems to think that if she then learns it and forgets it, that that should affect her partner's disclosure obligations, even though he cannot be aware of it. That's even nuttier. To keep the discussion sane, we must reject any scenario that violates either of the following premises: (1) If you believe you have a partnership understanding, whether you are right or wrong cannot change how you disclose it. (2) People do not pretend to make agreements knowing that they have no idea what they have purportedly agreed to. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 1 17:07:34 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:07:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <4CA5ACD6.4020600@ulb.ac.be> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CA446C5.8080705@ulb.ac.be> <4CA5ACD6.4020600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <52178F57-8ACF-48CB-AD96-41A581E17171@starpower.net> On Oct 1, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 30/09/2010 18:27, Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> I'll grant that a disembodied brain kept alive in a bell jar might >> have trouble producing a random result, but surely we're allowed to >> use our senses as well. Unless Alain is suggesting that *anything* >> you see or hear that is not explicitly permitted by TFLB is UI, which >> would seem to be stretching into previously unexplored territory. > > AG : if you need to produce a random result with some precise > probability, your senses will have either : > - to focus on some precise mechanism (like a watch) : disallowed Or, say, the time clock, which the regulations *demand* that I "focus on" from time to time. > - to draw at random : can it be prohibited ? You're allowed to handle > your cards. Right: you can't stop me from shuffling my hand. Althernatively, without handling anything, I can "draw" at random from the players who happen to be at the adjacent table(s) this round. > Looking whether the sky is blue or grey doesn't produce the right > probability ;-) But looking at the sun might, if it tells you which way lies the Genesee. > Notice that there is a pseudo-random criterion which produces a 1/3 > probability : who was the last player (except myself) to have played a > contract ? And who can disallow this ? There's a whole family, encompassing almost any common fraction: last of you and your partner (1/2), last at the table (1/4), divided by strain (1/5) or by suit (ignoring NT contracts) (1/4), or by red- black (ditto) (1/2), and on and on. Or it might just be easier to use the board number (any integer factor of the total number of boards). Or... or... or... It is neither practical nor desirable to "disallow" a player from following a mixed strategy that requires him to "generate" a random value. It is, however, practical is to disallow him from doing it in such a way that the other players at the table are aware that he is doing it (as in the thread case, where the player wanted to flip a coin). Whether the latter is desirable is an open question, and an appropriate one for this forum. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 1 17:41:48 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:41:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <52178F57-8ACF-48CB-AD96-41A581E17171@starpower.net> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CA446C5.8080705@ulb.ac.be> <4CA5ACD6.4020600@ulb.ac.be> <52178F57-8ACF-48CB-AD96-41A581E17171@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CA6013C.2@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/10/2010 17:07, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > There's a whole family, encompassing almost any common fraction: last > of you and your partner (1/2), last at the table (1/4), divided by > strain (1/5) Won't produce uniform probability; Fewer contracts are played in a minor. > or by suit (ignoring NT contracts) (1/4), or by red- > black (ditto) (1/2) Could be different from 50-50, to be checked. > It is neither practical nor desirable to "disallow" a player from > following a mixed strategy that requires him to "generate" a random > value. It is, however, practical is to disallow him from doing it in > such a way that the other players at the table are aware that he is > doing it (as in the thread case, where the player wanted to flip a > coin). Whether the latter is desirable is an open question, and an > appropriate one for this forum. AG : whether it is desirable to issue rules that don't serve any purpose is within the socpe of this forum (guess what my answer is), and to expose those which don't is something we can and should do. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 1 18:00:27 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:00:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <002101cb615a$5bf51390$13df3ab0$@no> Message-ID: <000901cb6181$c44ae830$4ce0b890$@no> I don?t know why you changed from Plain text to HTML; the effect is that I must insert all my comments here instead of next to where they apply. After Multi my answers (common as I know): 2NT: Demand bid, requests specification on the opening bid. Responses to 2NT show the classic 20-21 2NT hand or a classical weak 2 in major. For the weak responses the answer also specifies if it is a ?stronger? or ?weaker? weak 2 in major. 2S: A ?pass or correct? bid suggesting pass if opener has a weak 2 in spades and invites to game if opener has a weak2 in hearts. 2H: A ?pass or correct? bid giving no other information than absence of any interest in any of the other bids available. Any possible further interest will be revealed with the player?s next call in case opener calls anything but Pass. A typical situation occurs when opener corrects to 2S; then responder can bid 3S as invitation to game in spades. There is no reason for him to reveal any spade interest until he learns that opener has a spade hand (or the strong NT hand).. In my opinion 2H is not artificial (as the only bid among these alternative responses). About responses to Michael?s we must obviously distinguish between bids showing spades + minor and hearts + minor. I agree that if partner holds spades + minor then I should not bid 3D at all and 3C only if I have fit to both minors (unless I am so strong I want to reach at least game) However, if partner holds hearts + minor I can easily bid either minor being ready to ?park? in 3H. However, I am still hoping for some clarification from WBFLC people if (and in case when) a genuine ?pass or correct? bid on which the bidder is fully prepared for a Pass from partner shall be deemed artificial according to the definition on artificial calls. (Another example: 2NT showing 5-5 in minors. Is either of the responses 3C or 3d artificial?) From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: 1. oktober 2010 13:49 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:18, "Sven Pran" wrote: I am sorry, but I don't buy these. Maybe it is just our styles that are different, but see my comments below: On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford On 30 Sep 2010, at 10:17, Sven Pran wrote: Examples on my understanding: The 2H bid after partner's multi 2D opening bid does not show anything other than lack of interest to go further in case partner has a traditional weak 2H opening. It shows willingness to play in 2H, but it also shows at least as great, or greater, willingness to play in spades if partner has a 2S opening. With any significant difference in the two suits, responder will bid the weaker. IMO the 2H bid shows nothing but willingness to play in hearts at the two-level. If opener corrects to 2S he will then invite to game with a 3S bid if that is justified. An immediate 2S response to the Multi opening not only shows better hearts than spades but is a direct invitation to game. You could play it that way but most players I know use 2NT if they want to invite game. However, playing it your way, 2H denies a game invitational hand with better hearts than spades. The 3C bid after partner's Michael overcall showing the opposite major and an unknown minor does not show anything other than willingness to play in clubs if that is partner's minor suit It shows a preference for playing in clubs rather than the major, but also a preference for playing in diamonds rather than the major. If that were not the case, one would usually play in the major (especially if the major is spades which could be bid at the two level). I don't understand this logic. The 3C bid certainly shows preference for clubs rather than the major, but why it also shows diamonds rather than the major is beyond me. What do you respond with max 3 diamonds and 5 clubs together with say 3 cards in partner's major suit? Wouldn't 3C followed by 3 in partner's major suit be reasonable if partner corrects to 3D? That would be a tough way to get to play in 2S! The 3H bid after partners artificial call showing Diamonds and a major suit shows nothing else than willingness to play in hearts if that is partner's major suit. It shows a willingness to play in hearts, but also a willingness to play in spades. Lacking that (a mediocre 1435 hand for example) one would not bid 3H but would bid 3D instead. This is the only one I am willing to accept. It means that the partnership is likely to miss a favorable heart fit and instead land in a mediocre diamond contract. I would not be happy with this agreement and would prefer it to imply that the artificial 2NT or 3C call showing diamonds and a major should be prepared for an auction like: ? - 3H 3S - 4D showing responders preference for hearts, but diamonds over spades. If the hand cannot tolerate play in 4D after such a sequence the agreement should IMO not be used. This would in my opinion again make the 3H bid not artificial as it does not show anything other than preference for hearts at the time the bid is made. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101001/67e73efb/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Fri Oct 1 18:53:56 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:53:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <4CA5ACD6.4020600@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CA5ACD6.4020600@ulb.ac.be> <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CA446C5.8080705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <628127354.881331285952036690.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : if you need to produce a random result with some precise > probability, your senses will have either : > - to focus on some precise mechanism (like a watch) : disallowed > - to draw at random : can it be prohibited ? You're allowed to handle > your cards. > > Looking whether the sky is blue or grey doesn't produce the right > probability ;-) > > Notice that there is a pseudo-random criterion which produces a 1/3 > probability : who was the last player (except myself) to have played a > contract ? And who can disallow this ? I don't think that is 1/3 probability. For example, all my partnerships open and compete aggressively, and we usually declared 55-65% of all hands. Thomas From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Oct 2 02:05:04 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 01:05:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <000901cb6181$c44ae830$4ce0b890$@no> References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <002101cb615a$5bf51390$13df3ab0$@no> <000901cb6181$c44ae830$4ce0b890$@no> Message-ID: <24FA7D4F-7A1B-4929-9D1E-A882413438B5@btinternet.com> On 1 Oct 2010, at 17:00, Sven Pran wrote: > I don?t know why you changed from Plain text to HTML; the effect is > that I must insert all my comments here instead of next to where > they apply. > I was replying on my iPhone, so it must have done it. It's easy enough to change back as I have just done. > > > However, I am still hoping for some clarification from WBFLC people > if (and in case when) a genuine ?pass or correct? bid on which the > bidder is fully prepared for a Pass from partner shall be deemed > artificial according to the definition on artificial calls. > > > > (Another example: 2NT showing 5-5 in minors. Is either of the > responses 3C or 3d artificial?) > I don't see why this is another example - it's not pass/correct. From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 2 06:06:30 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 06:06:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <24FA7D4F-7A1B-4929-9D1E-A882413438B5@btinternet.com> References: <24FA7D4F-7A1B-4929-9D1E-A882413438B5@btinternet.com> <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <002101cb615a$5bf51390$13df3ab0$@no> <000901cb6181$c44ae830$4ce0b890$@no> Message-ID: <20210580.1285992390316.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 1 Oct 2010, at 17:00, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I don?t know why you changed from Plain text to HTML; the effect is > > that I must insert all my comments here instead of next to where > > they apply. > > > > I was replying on my iPhone, so it must have done it. It's easy > enough to change back as I have just done. You previous sent a multipart message where the mail was sent both in plain text with encoding quoted-printable, and in HTML. The quoted-printable version contained some messed up quotation levels which are painful to fix manually, but apart from that a plain text mail client should be able to handle it fine. I am surprised that it gave Sven trouble, maybe his mail client can't handle multipart. However, here is how that nice little HTML appears in a plain test mail reader:
On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:18, "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no> wrote:

I am sorry, but I don't buy these. Maybe it is just our styles that are
different, but see my comments below:
On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford
On 30 Sep 2010, at 10:17, Sven Pran wrote:

Examples on my understanding:
The 2H bid after partner's multi 2D opening bid does not show anything
other than lack of interest to go further in case partner has a
traditional weak 2H opening.
[....] Please understand that if I receive gibberish like that, I'll just delete it. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 2 06:29:52 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 06:29:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] odd/even In-Reply-To: <0CB36E41861C431AA71608CA6B606DD2@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0CB36E41861C431AA71608CA6B606DD2@MARVLAPTOP> <4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com> <919770942.618281285875865161.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <19110987.1285993792481.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Marvin French wrote: > "standard" indeed is insufficient. What is it supposed to mean, > for discards??? > > In my ACBL world, "standard" is high encourages, low discourages, > with no other meaning for defensive carding. The ACBL has a box for > checking Standard, followed by Except: with boxes for upside-down, > odd-even, Lavinthal, Smith Echo, Trump Suit Pref, and Foster Echo. > Also a couple of blank lines for adding anything else. Ah, so there is a checkbox for a method which actually isn't played by anybody except for the first one or two discards, and that is then called "standard". Whereas there isn't a checkbox for the much more popular "most of my discards don't mean anything, high is encouraging in those rare situations where I try to make a meaningful discard" approach. > There are pairs who play Standard but throw a high card from a suit > they don't like for the first discard in a notrump contract. There > is a blank line and a box for such things, but most opponents don't > see that. This agreement should be barred, as there is no purpose > but deception for it. This method has technical merit. If you have to discard from the suit where you can cash or developer some tricks, you don't want to discard one of your potential winners to show that you like the suit. Say, dummy has S Kx, H AT876 remaining, you still have S QJT, H KQJ92 behind dummy, declarer has the S A, and now you have to make your first discard, and partner is winning this trick. If you "discard low from a suit you don't like", you now have to discard the H9, a potential winner. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 2 06:49:12 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 00:49:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:15:05 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> The question then is what happens legally when we agree verbally on >> "Standard American". > > Nothing really, except that you now have a disclosable understanding > that you have agreed to play something you call "Standard American", > whatever that means. > >> One could say that for legal purposes we have agreed >> on the meanings of particular bids. > > I can't think of any. > >> For example that opening 1S shows 5 or >> more spades. > > Not even this one. As it happens, the closest thing we have to a > codified "Standard American", Bridge World Standard, allows 1S on > four in 3rd or 4th. Of course, if 1S promises five in all positions, > that's "Standard American" too. And for players of a certain age, > four-card majors all around is "Standard American" as well. > >> Another point of view is that we create a mutual awareness, >> and for legal purposes our agreements for legal purposes are >> created by >> our mutual awareness. > > For your "awareness" to be "mutual" (or your "agreement" to be > "partnership") you must share a common understanding. When you are > each "aware" of contradictory assumptions, that is not "mutual" and > is therefore not an agreement for legal purposes. > >> (Thus we must reveal to opponents only our verbal >> agreement and our mutual awareness.) > > Right, and routine. Where we have problems, and what we're > discussing, is when a member of the partnership believes that a > mutual awareness exists, but he is wrong. > >> I am not sure why Eric thinks I should not have done something >> differently >> at the table. > > Because at the table, you cannot distinguish between the cases in > which you believe you have a mutual understanding and are correct and > the cases in which you believe you have a mutual understanding and > are wrong, and therefore cannot treat them differently. (The TD or > AC, however, can.) > >> If Eric is correct, then if she learned the proper meaning >> of this bid and then forgot it before making her agreement with >> partner, >> then they had no agreement and should have been allowed to tell the >> opponents that. If she learned the proper meaning of this bid and >> forgot >> it after making an agreement with Eric, then they are required to >> tell the >> opponents the correct meaning of the 2NT bid. > > If Eric is correct, this scenario is fruitcake-nutty. Let's see. > She knew it. Then she forgot it. But then, when she made her so- > called "agreement", she still hadn't remembered it, but she forgot > that she forgot it, so she thought she did remember it, so she agreed > to it, even though she had forgotten it. But then she remembered > that she forgot it, so she relearned it. Unless, of course, she > remembered when she made the agreement that she had forgotten it, and > agreed to play something that she knew she had forgotten. > > Alternatively, if she didn't know it in the first place, then she > knowingly agreed to play something she didn't know (perhaps I should > stop right there), which her partner either realized (revealing two > fruitcakes in the scenario) or didn't (we hope!), and Bob seems to > think that if she then learns it and forgets it, that that should > affect her partner's disclosure obligations, even though he cannot be > aware of it. That's even nuttier. > > To keep the discussion sane, we must reject any scenario that > violates either of the following premises: > > (1) If you believe you have a partnership understanding, whether you > are right or wrong cannot change how you disclose it. > > (2) People do not pretend to make agreements knowing that they have > no idea what they have purportedly agreed to. I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. For example that my 2D bid shows the majors. Then my partner explains it as natural. At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a mutual awareness. I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. Maybe not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D means in Cappelletti. This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. 1NT P P 2D (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I have to mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? We do not have a mutual awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 2 07:55:19 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 07:55:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick > On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:15:05 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > To keep the discussion sane, we must reject any scenario that > > violates either of the following premises: > > > > (1) If you believe you have a partnership understanding, whether you > > are right or wrong cannot change how you disclose it. > > > > (2) People do not pretend to make agreements knowing that they have > > no idea what they have purportedly agreed to. > > I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. For > example that my 2D bid shows the majors. > > Then my partner explains it as natural. > > At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a > mutual awareness. > > I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. Maybe > not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D means in > Cappelletti. > > This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. > > 1NT P P 2D > > (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I have to > mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? We do not have a mutual > awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. This is a scenario where multiple opinions exist. I think that you have to explain the auction according to your own interpretation of the auction, and continue bidding according to that. This will frequently make opponents aware of your side's misunderstanding. It will also create UI which your side must bend over backwards to avoid using. Say, if partner now passes your "natural" 2D, you have to assume that he has 6+ diamonds because that is what it means in your version of the system where your 2D showed the majors. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 2 10:09:41 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:09:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <24FA7D4F-7A1B-4929-9D1E-A882413438B5@btinternet.com> References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <002101cb615a$5bf51390$13df3ab0$@no> <000901cb6181$c44ae830$4ce0b890$@no> <24FA7D4F-7A1B-4929-9D1E-A882413438B5@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000301cb6209$2cffcb20$86ff6160$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > > > > (Another example: 2NT showing 5-5 in minors. Is either of the > > responses 3C or 3d artificial?) > > > > I don't see why this is another example - it's not pass/correct. No, of course not - my mistake From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 2 10:13:55 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:13:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <20210580.1285992390316.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <24FA7D4F-7A1B-4929-9D1E-A882413438B5@btinternet.com> <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <002101cb615a$5bf51390$13df3ab0$@no> <000901cb6181$c44ae830$4ce0b890$@no> <20210580.1285992390316.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000401cb6209$c20d2460$46276d20$@no> On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn > You previous sent a multipart message > where the mail was sent both in plain text with encoding > quoted-printable, and in HTML. The quoted-printable version contained > some messed up quotation levels which are painful to fix manually, > but apart from that a plain text mail client should be able to handle it fine. > I am surprised that it gave Sven trouble, maybe his mail client can't handle > multipart. My MS Office Outlook automatically adapts to HTML presentation. If I change that to plain text (as I very well can do) I lose all the indications on what is original and what are my comments so the message becomes difficult to read (see what is what). From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Oct 2 15:24:53 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 14:24:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <20210580.1285992390316.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <24FA7D4F-7A1B-4929-9D1E-A882413438B5@btinternet.com> <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <002101cb615a$5bf51390$13df3ab0$@no> <000901cb6181$c44ae830$4ce0b890$@no> <20210580.1285992390316.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <270DBB20-AC9C-41C1-9BEC-C50437102461@btinternet.com> OK, so now I know not to respond on my iPhone. Gordon On 2 Oct 2010, at 05:06, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> On 1 Oct 2010, at 17:00, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> I don?t know why you changed from Plain text to HTML; the effect is >>> that I must insert all my comments here instead of next to where >>> they apply. >>> >> >> I was replying on my iPhone, so it must have done it. It's easy >> enough to change back as I have just done. > > > You previous sent a multipart message > where the mail was sent both in plain text with encoding > quoted-printable, and in HTML. The quoted-printable version contained > some messed up quotation levels which are painful to fix manually, > but apart from that a plain text mail client should be able to > handle it fine. > I am surprised that it gave Sven trouble, maybe his mail client > can't handle > multipart. > > > However, here is how that nice little HTML appears > in a plain test mail reader: > >
span" style=3D"-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, > 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, > 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, > 0.230469); ">On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:18, "Sven Pran" < href=3D"mailto:svenpran at online.no">svenpran at online.no> > wrote:

type=3D"cite">
I am sorry, but I don't buy these. Maybe > it is just our styles that are
different, but see > my comments below:
On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford span>
On 30 Sep 2010, at 10:17, > Sven Pran wrote:
type=3D"cite">

blockquote>
type=3D"cite">Examples on my understanding:
blockquote>
type=3D"cite">The 2H bid after partner's multi 2D opening bid > does not show anything
blockquote>
type=3D"cite">other than lack of interest to go further in > case partner has a
type=3D"cite">
traditional weak 2H > opening.
> [....] > > Please understand that if I receive gibberish like that, I'll just > delete it. > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 2 16:01:18 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 10:01:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:55:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick >> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:15:05 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> > To keep the discussion sane, we must reject any scenario that >> > violates either of the following premises: >> > >> > (1) If you believe you have a partnership understanding, whether you >> > are right or wrong cannot change how you disclose it. >> > >> > (2) People do not pretend to make agreements knowing that they have >> > no idea what they have purportedly agreed to. >> >> I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. For >> example that my 2D bid shows the majors. >> >> Then my partner explains it as natural. >> >> At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a >> mutual awareness. >> >> I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. >> Maybe >> not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D means in >> Cappelletti. >> >> This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. >> >> 1NT P P 2D >> >> (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I have >> to >> mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? We do not have a mutual >> awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. > > This is a scenario where multiple opinions exist. > > I think that you have to explain the auction according > to your own interpretation of the auction, and continue > bidding according to that. I ruled the same way. But how do we get that ruling? The laws seem to require only that "a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience." (L40B6(a)) So if there is an agreement that 2D means the majors, it has to be explained; if there is no agreement, then it doesn't have to be explained. (Assume partnership experience isn't relevant.) Right? > > This will frequently make opponents aware of your side's > misunderstanding. > It will also create UI which your side must bend over backwards to avoid > using. > > Say, if partner now passes your > "natural" 2D, you have to assume that he has 6+ diamonds because > that is what it means in your version of the system where your 2D > showed the majors. > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 2 19:58:00 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 19:58:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <29159885.1286042280888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:55:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick > >> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:15:05 -0400, Eric Landau > >> wrote: > >> > To keep the discussion sane, we must reject any scenario that > >> > violates either of the following premises: > >> > > >> > (1) If you believe you have a partnership understanding, whether you > >> > are right or wrong cannot change how you disclose it. > >> > > >> > (2) People do not pretend to make agreements knowing that they have > >> > no idea what they have purportedly agreed to. > >> > >> I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. For > >> example that my 2D bid shows the majors. > >> > >> Then my partner explains it as natural. > >> > >> At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a > >> mutual awareness. > >> > >> I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. > >> Maybe > >> not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D means in > >> Cappelletti. > >> > >> This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. > >> > >> 1NT P P 2D > >> > >> (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I have > > >> to > >> mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? We do not have a mutual > >> awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. > > > > This is a scenario where multiple opinions exist. > > > > I think that you have to explain the auction according > > to your own interpretation of the auction, and continue > > bidding according to that. > > I ruled the same way. But how do we get that ruling? The laws seem to > require only that "a player shall disclose all special information > conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience." > (L40B6(a)) So if there is an agreement that 2D means the majors, it has to > be explained; if there is no agreement, then it doesn't have to be > explained. (Assume partnership experience isn't relevant.) Right? L16B1(a). After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information ... for example ... a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested. When the player picked up his hand, he thought they were playing that 2D shows the majors. Partner's alerts, non alerts etc. are UI. Using that UI is disallowed. It is disallowed even if the UI makes you remember that two hours ago you actually agreed to change your system and now play 2D as natural. Thomas From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 2 19:59:30 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:59:30 -0800 Subject: [BLML] odd/even References: <0CB36E41861C431AA71608CA6B606DD2@MARVLAPTOP><4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com><919770942.618281285875865161.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <19110987.1285993792481.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: From: "Thomas Dehn" > > Marvin French >> >> In my ACBL world, "standard" is high encourages, low discourages, >> with no other meaning for defensive carding. The ACBL has a box >> for >> checking Standard, followed by Except: with boxes for >> upside-down, >> odd-even, Lavinthal, Smith Echo, Trump Suit Pref, and Foster >> Echo. >> Also a couple of blank lines for adding anything else. > > Ah, so there is a checkbox for a method which actually isn't > played > by anybody except for the first one or two discards, > and that is then called "standard". Most players are signalling attitude in standard fashion multiple times during the defense. And everyone gives standard high-even low-odd count when it is likely partner wants to know count. > > Whereas there isn't a checkbox for the much more popular > "most of my discards don't mean anything, high is encouraging > in those rare situations where I try to make a meaningful discard" > approach. My favorite partner says it well: "Standard, but we don't signal much." > >> There are pairs who play Standard but throw a high card from a >> suit >> they don't like for the first discard in a notrump contract. >> There >> is a blank line and a box for such things, but most opponents >> don't >> see that. This agreement should be barred, as there is no purpose >> but deception for it. > > This method has technical merit. If you have to discard from the > suit where you can cash or developer some tricks, you don't want > to discard one of your potential winners to show that you like the > suit. Of course, but why not play the deuce from a suit you don't like? > > Say, dummy has S Kx, H AT876 remaining, > you still have S QJT, H KQJ92 behind dummy, declarer has the S A, > and now you have to make your first discard, and partner is > winning this trick. > If you "discard low from a suit you don't like", you now have to > discard the H9, a potential winner. On my convention card under Defensive Carding I show three priorities for signalling: 2. Attitude 3. Count 4. Suit Preference When opponents ask what prioirity 1 is I say, "Trick preservation, isn't that understood?." Or actually I might say that, but no one asks. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5496 (20101001) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 2 20:28:18 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:28:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: <29159885.1286042280888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <29159885.1286042280888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:58:00 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:55:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick >> >> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:15:05 -0400, Eric Landau >> >> wrote: >> >> > To keep the discussion sane, we must reject any scenario that >> >> > violates either of the following premises: >> >> > >> >> > (1) If you believe you have a partnership understanding, whether >> you >> >> > are right or wrong cannot change how you disclose it. >> >> > >> >> > (2) People do not pretend to make agreements knowing that they have >> >> > no idea what they have purportedly agreed to. >> >> >> >> I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. >> For >> >> example that my 2D bid shows the majors. >> >> >> >> Then my partner explains it as natural. >> >> >> >> At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a >> >> mutual awareness. >> >> >> >> I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. >> >> Maybe >> >> not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D >> means in >> >> Cappelletti. >> >> >> >> This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. >> >> >> >> 1NT P P 2D >> >> >> >> (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I >> have >> >> >> to >> >> mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? We do not have a >> mutual >> >> awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. >> > >> > This is a scenario where multiple opinions exist. >> > >> > I think that you have to explain the auction according >> > to your own interpretation of the auction, and continue >> > bidding according to that. >> >> I ruled the same way. But how do we get that ruling? The laws seem to >> require only that "a player shall disclose all special information >> conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership >> experience." >> (L40B6(a)) So if there is an agreement that 2D means the majors, it has >> to >> be explained; if there is no agreement, then it doesn't have to be >> explained. (Assume partnership experience isn't relevant.) Right? > > L16B1(a). After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information ... > for example ... a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to > alert ... the partner > may not choose from among logical alternatives one > that could demonstrably have been suggested. > > > When the player picked up his hand, he thought they were playing > that 2D shows the majors. Partner's alerts, non alerts etc. are UI. > Using that UI is disallowed. It is disallowed even if the UI makes > you remember that two hours ago you actually agreed to change > your system and now play 2D as natural. Actually, it is standard cant at blml that you can use partner's alerts and explanations to improve the quality of your own alerts and explanations. I was surprised. But it was nearly universal. Maybe others can help me; I think it is a De Wael issue. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 2 20:40:50 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:40:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <29159885.1286042280888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:28:18 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:58:00 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:55:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>> > Robert Frick >>> >> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:15:05 -0400, Eric Landau >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > To keep the discussion sane, we must reject any scenario that >>> >> > violates either of the following premises: >>> >> > >>> >> > (1) If you believe you have a partnership understanding, whether >>> you >>> >> > are right or wrong cannot change how you disclose it. >>> >> > >>> >> > (2) People do not pretend to make agreements knowing that they >>> have >>> >> > no idea what they have purportedly agreed to. >>> >> >>> >> I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. >>> For >>> >> example that my 2D bid shows the majors. >>> >> >>> >> Then my partner explains it as natural. >>> >> >>> >> At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a >>> >> mutual awareness. >>> >> >>> >> I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. >>> >> Maybe >>> >> not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D >>> means in >>> >> Cappelletti. >>> >> >>> >> This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. >>> >> >>> >> 1NT P P 2D >>> >> >>> >> (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I >>> have >>> >>> >> to >>> >> mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? We do not have a >>> mutual >>> >> awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. >>> > >>> > This is a scenario where multiple opinions exist. >>> > >>> > I think that you have to explain the auction according >>> > to your own interpretation of the auction, and continue >>> > bidding according to that. >>> >>> I ruled the same way. But how do we get that ruling? The laws seem to >>> require only that "a player shall disclose all special information >>> conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership >>> experience." >>> (L40B6(a)) So if there is an agreement that 2D means the majors, it has >>> to >>> be explained; if there is no agreement, then it doesn't have to be >>> explained. (Assume partnership experience isn't relevant.) Right? >> >> L16B1(a). After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >> information ... >> for example ... a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to >> alert ... the partner >> may not choose from among logical alternatives one >> that could demonstrably have been suggested. >> >> >> When the player picked up his hand, he thought they were playing >> that 2D shows the majors. Partner's alerts, non alerts etc. are UI. >> Using that UI is disallowed. It is disallowed even if the UI makes >> you remember that two hours ago you actually agreed to change >> your system and now play 2D as natural. > > Actually, it is standard cant at blml that you can use partner's alerts > and explanations to improve the quality of your own alerts and > explanations. I was surprised. But it was nearly universal. Maybe others > can help me; I think it is a De Wael issue. I just remembered that it is in the BLML minutes for 2008 There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner?s prior explanation was mistaken. The words ?nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made? (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings. So there seems to be no reason why a player would have to explain the meaning of his correct Cappelletti 2D except if that is part of their agreement. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 3 06:41:06 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:41:06 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Good-Good In-Reply-To: <1205B36B5F1942A3815F7B0BA371B1E1@MARVLAPTOP> References: <1205B36B5F1942A3815F7B0BA371B1E1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4CA80962.2060805@nhcc.net> Marvin French wrote: > The late Gene Freed was not given the chance to call after an MI > irregularity. When the contract went down one, he complained and > said he would have doubled if given the chance. His was the final pass? And the OS properly corrected the MI before the opening lead? Then as you say, the TD should have given him a chance to change his call. Failing to do this is a very common TD error in the ACBL. > Director Error, the TD gave him the double but did not change the > other side's score, a Good-Good ruling. She said that since she did > not know whether Gene would have doubled, she gave both sides the > benefit of doubt and that was a legal Good-Good ruling. Could be. The TD is supposed to judge "what would have happened" if she had given a proper ruling. Of course this judgment is in the L12C1 sense using either weights or the "likely/at all probable" standard. If double is obvious, give that result to both sides. If it looks highly unlikely, don't give it to either. The only thing "both sides non-offending" changes is that (in the ACBL) "likely" is used for both sides, or (elsewhere) both sides get a bit of benefit of doubt in the weights. For example, if the TD thinks the double is 50-50, she might give 60% of undoubled to the OS and 60% of doubled to the NOS. In the ACBL, she would give 100% of undoubled to the OS and 100% of doubled to the NOS. But this _only_ applies if both doubled and undoubled reach the standard of "likely." It's worth noticing the difference between the above and what would have happened if the OS failed to correct the MI before the opening lead. In that situation, Gene was never going to be able to double at the table, and TD error is irrelevant. The OS score is judged by "at all probable," and if double was even, say, a 20% chance, the OS are going to be stuck with it, even though the NOS won't benefit. If weighted scores are given, they will probably balance with the NOS getting some sympathy in the weighting. For example, in the 50-50 case, both sides might get 60% of doubled and 40% of undoubled. So it pays to correct MI at the proper time. > My reply was that if she was pretty sure (don't take his word for > it) that Gene would have doubled, then down one for both sides > would be an acceptable adjustment I thought the contract was always down 1 for both sides. Of course if the play might have gone differently if the contract were doubled, the TD would have to consider that in deciding "what would have happened if...." > Otherwise, I wrote, Avg+ for both sides. I'm surprised no one else has commented on this. The board was played, so the TD should always give _assigned_ adjusted scores, never artificial ones. After all, it may turn out that both doubled and undoubled are similar scores; why would you want to give an artificial good result to a side who earned a bad one? Giving artificial scores instead of assigned ones is another TD blunder common in the ACBL. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 4 07:46:10 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:46:10 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Good-Good References: <1205B36B5F1942A3815F7B0BA371B1E1@MARVLAPTOP> <4CA80962.2060805@nhcc.net> Message-ID: From: "Steve Willner" > >> My reply was that if she was pretty sure (don't take his word >> for it) that Gene would have doubled, then down one for both >> sides would be an acceptable adjustment > > I thought the contract was always down 1 for both sides. I should have written down one *doubled*, sorry . > > I'm surprised no one else has commented on this. The board was > played, > so the TD should always give _assigned_ adjusted scores, never > artificial ones. After all, it may turn out that both doubled and > undoubled are similar scores; why would you want to give an > artificial good result to a side who earned a bad one? Even if a board is played, TD error can cancel a board if there is no way the board can be scored normally. Gene should have been offered a chance to take back his pass, but he wasn't. That is TD error. I think Gene was smart enough to know he had a call coming if he wished, but he let matters proceed in order to see what would happen. He had been playing bridge since 1948 (when he had a game with me at the club). Then he is risk-free, saying nothing if the contract makes and claiming he would have doubled if it goes down.. Experts should not be given that opportunity. I would like to know all the circumstances. Did Gene go to the TD right after the hand and claim he would have doubled if given the chance? He could not have been eager to double or he would have asked for the chance at the time. To adjust we would have to consider Gene's double "at all probable." It wasn't, IMO. But you are right, a TD error need not necessarily make rectification of an irregularity impossible. It was possible in this case, if not appropriate. However, "if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for the purpose." (L82C) And that means avg+ for both sides. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5500 (20101003) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 4 08:02:25 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:02:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy Message-ID: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> L68A begins: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed...." 'Contestant' is defined as "In an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as teammates." Now the problem: during play, with a few tricks to go (and perhaps lots of high cards visible in dummy), dummy says "We win the rest." On some lines of play the declaring side does win all the tricks, but on others some tricks will be lost. 1. Is dummy's statement a claim, to be ruled on via L70? If not, why not? If it is, would a similar statement by a spectator also be a claim? If not, why not? 2. If the statement is not a claim, what is it, and on what basis do you rule when deciding the number of tricks scored? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 4 08:18:11 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 22:18:11 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <087CFF6CC97545D8AD018C00E0C5792B@MARVLAPTOP> > L68A begins: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will > win a > specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant > also > claims when he suggests that play be curtailed...." > > 'Contestant' is defined as "In an individual event, a player; in a > pair > event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a > team > event, four or more players playing as teammates." > > Now the problem: during play, with a few tricks to go (and perhaps > lots > of high cards visible in dummy), dummy says "We win the rest." On > some > lines of play the declaring side does win all the tricks, but on > others > some tricks will be lost. > > 1. Is dummy's statement a claim, to be ruled on via L70? If not, > why > not? Dummy can only do what is allowed by Law 42 and 43, and that ain't one of his rights. L43C - Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. Claiming is participating, surely. >If it is, would a similar statement by a spectator also be a > claim? If not, why not? Because of Law 76B5 - A spectator shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5500 (20101003) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Oct 4 08:40:42 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:40:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Good-Good In-Reply-To: References: <1205B36B5F1942A3815F7B0BA371B1E1@MARVLAPTOP> <4CA80962.2060805@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9B3DA30F-2D4A-4004-A092-AE98F89F249E@btinternet.com> On 4 Oct 2010, at 06:46, Marvin French wrote: > However, "if no rectification will allow the board to be scored > normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as > non-offending for the purpose." (L82C) > > And that means avg+ for both sides. Not necessarily, no. It might mean a split assigned score. Gordon Rainsford From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 4 09:55:22 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:55:22 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Good-Good In-Reply-To: References: <1205B36B5F1942A3815F7B0BA371B1E1@MARVLAPTOP> <4CA80962.2060805@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4CA9886A.60606@nhcc.net> Marvin French wrote: > Even if a board is played, TD error can cancel a board if there is > no way the board can be scored normally. Yes, but that's for something like a fouled board. It's in no way applicable to this sort of case, which is just a normal adjusted score. > But you are right, a TD error need not necessarily make > rectification of an irregularity impossible. It was possible in this > case, if not appropriate. Exactly. The TD will score the contract either doubled or not, possibly differently for the two sides or weighted, but nothing prevents the board from being scored normally. This is nearly always the outcome when a result is obtained. > Then he is risk-free, saying nothing if the > contract makes and claiming he would have doubled if it goes down.. > Experts should not be given that opportunity. Opponents can avoid that by not giving MI. And the TD can avoid it by giving a proper ruling in the first place. And of course even after the mistake, the TD has to judge whether the double was likely or not. If the TD knows that Gene knows the relevant Law, that would be evidence that double was unlikely. > To adjust we would have to consider Gene's double "at all probable." He was non-offending, so the double needs to be "likely" for him to gain the benefit. Normally the opponents would get the loss from the double if it's "at all probable," but because of the TD error, they are considered non-offending for this purpose. Therefore, they get the benefit of "no double" if "no double" is "likely." That's a bit convoluted, but using the old standard of 1/3 for "likely" it comes out: if the TD thinks double is > 2/3 chance: doubled for both sides between 1/3 and 2/3: doubled for Gene, undoubled for his opponents <1/3: undoubled for both sides. Giving weighted scores is in some ways simpler, though it means the probability estimate has to be quantitative. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 4 10:02:16 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:02:16 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <087CFF6CC97545D8AD018C00E0C5792B@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <087CFF6CC97545D8AD018C00E0C5792B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4CA98A08.9090204@nhcc.net> Marvin French wrote: > L43C - Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he > communicate anything about the play to declarer. Claiming is > participating, surely. There's no doubt what dummy did was illegal, but how do you score the board? Stop play and rule under L70, or let play continue? If the latter, in what circumstances if any would you later adjust the score, and why? Of course dummy might well get a PP, but that's a separate matter from scoring the board. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 4 10:50:04 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:50:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001cb63a1$240bf900$6c23eb00$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > L68A begins: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific > number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he > suggests that play be curtailed...." > > 'Contestant' is defined as "In an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two > players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more > players playing as teammates." > > Now the problem: during play, with a few tricks to go (and perhaps lots of high > cards visible in dummy), dummy says "We win the rest." On some lines of play the > declaring side does win all the tricks, but on others some tricks will be lost. > > 1. Is dummy's statement a claim, to be ruled on via L70? If not, why not? If it is, > would a similar statement by a spectator also be a claim? If not, why not? > > 2. If the statement is not a claim, what is it, and on what basis do you rule when > deciding the number of tricks scored? The statements are not claims; they are extraneous information to be ruled on under law 16. Play continues. When dummy was the offender then Law 16B applies and declarer is restricted during his continued play in that he may not choose any successful line of play that could have been suggested over another logical alternative by this information. When a spectator was the offender then Law 16C applies and declarer is not necessarily directly restricted by law. However, if regulation and/or CoC include rules that make the presence of the spectator at the table the responsibility of the declaring side then he is restricted just as if the information came from dummy. From blml at arcor.de Mon Oct 4 12:19:20 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 12:19:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <000001cb63a1$240bf900$6c23eb00$@no> References: <000001cb63a1$240bf900$6c23eb00$@no> <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <23085586.1286187560569.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > L68A begins: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific > > number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he > > suggests that play be curtailed...." > > > > 'Contestant' is defined as "In an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two > > players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more > > players playing as teammates." > > > > Now the problem: during play, with a few tricks to go (and perhaps lots of high > > cards visible in dummy), dummy says "We win the rest." On some lines of play the > > declaring side does win all the tricks, but on others some tricks will be lost. > > > > 1. Is dummy's statement a claim, to be ruled on via L70? If not, why not? If it is, > > would a similar statement by a spectator also be a claim? If not, why not? > > > > 2. If the statement is not a claim, what is it, and on what basis do you rule when > > deciding the number of tricks scored? > > The statements are not claims; they are extraneous information to be ruled > on under law 16. > > Play continues. > > When dummy was the offender then Law 16B applies and declarer is restricted > during his continued play in that he may not choose any successful line of > play that could have been suggested over another logical alternative by > this information. > > When a spectator was the offender then Law 16C applies and declarer is not > necessarily directly restricted by law. However, if regulation and/or CoC > include rules that make the presence of the spectator at the table the > responsibility of the declaring side then he is restricted just as if the > information came from dummy. I agree with Sven. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 4 17:37:38 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:37:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements Message-ID: It seems to be accepted by most people here that if I look at opponent's card and it says odd-even on first discard, I can trust that odd shows liking the suit and get rectification if it does not. But what about a high even card showing liking for the higher of the two remaining suits? I suspect not everyone knows that part of the convention. But, if I get rectification if my opponents aren't playing the convention they describe (as in odd not showing a liking for the suit), I should get rectification for this. Then I think there is something about if I have to throw an odd card from a suit I don't like, the size of the odd card signals something. I hope the opponents aren't counting on my to know that. I guess the solution is for the regulating authority to dictate what a conventional name means. (And hence what agreements are created by agreeing on the convention name.) I don't think the ACBL does this, but I can do it at the club level. Right? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 4 19:50:06 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:50:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <393098.31540.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Robert Frick] I guess the solution is for the regulating authority to dictate what a conventional name means. (And hence what agreements are created by agreeing on the convention name.) I don't think the ACBL does this, but I can do it at the club level. Right? {Nige1] I'm sure Robert may do this. In clubs, where most players employ a similar system, the club could post "club standard conventions" on the notice board and provide a club "card". It would reduce disclosure problems. Pity the WBF don't publish a default WBF standard system and save some of us trouble :) From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Oct 4 21:20:15 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 21:20:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <4CA98A08.9090204@nhcc.net> References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <087CFF6CC97545D8AD018C00E0C5792B@MARVLAPTOP> <4CA98A08.9090204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Am 04.10.2010, 10:02 Uhr, schrieb Steve Willner : > > There's no doubt what dummy did was illegal, but how do you score the > board? Stop play and rule under L70, or let play continue? If the > latter, in what circumstances if any would you later adjust the score, > and why? > > Of course dummy might well get a PP, but that's a separate matter from > scoring the board. I have put a similar case to the list in May (thread: "a new sort of claim") which you might like to look up in the archives. David Burn tended to call it a claim, while Ton and Grattan disagreed with this interpretation. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 4 22:20:08 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 16:20:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] odd/even In-Reply-To: <19110987.1285993792481.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <0CB36E41861C431AA71608CA6B606DD2@MARVLAPTOP> <4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com> <919770942.618281285875865161.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <19110987.1285993792481.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <87392BD4-CC13-49B2-9470-616950FE7F86@starpower.net> On Oct 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Marvin French wrote: > >> "standard" indeed is insufficient. What is it supposed to mean, >> for discards??? >> >> In my ACBL world, "standard" is high encourages, low discourages, >> with no other meaning for defensive carding. The ACBL has a box for >> checking Standard, followed by Except: with boxes for upside-down, >> odd-even, Lavinthal, Smith Echo, Trump Suit Pref, and Foster Echo. >> Also a couple of blank lines for adding anything else. > > Ah, so there is a checkbox for a method which actually isn't played > by anybody except for the first one or two discards, > and that is then called "standard". > > Whereas there isn't a checkbox for the much more popular > "most of my discards don't mean anything, high is encouraging > in those rare situations where I try to make a meaningful discard" > approach. Those checkboxes aren't for your plays, they're for your signals. You don't have an agreement about which card you will play to every trick, you have an agreement about which card you will play when you choose to signal. That you signal only when you think doing so will/ should/might help your partner more than it will help declarer, and discard randomly (or deceptively) otherwise is, IMO, a "matter[] generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)]. But there is a reasonable case for a row of checkboxes for signaling on the CC of the sort once provided for psyching, with options never/rare/ occasional/frequent. >> There are pairs who play Standard but throw a high card from a suit >> they don't like for the first discard in a notrump contract. There >> is a blank line and a box for such things, but most opponents don't >> see that. This agreement should be barred, as there is no purpose >> but deception for it. > > This method has technical merit. If you have to discard from the > suit where you can cash or developer some tricks, you don't want > to discard one of your potential winners to show that you like the > suit. > > Say, dummy has S Kx, H AT876 remaining, > you still have S QJT, H KQJ92 behind dummy, declarer has the S A, > and now you have to make your first discard, and partner is winning > this trick. > If you "discard low from a suit you don't like", you now have to > discard the H9, a potential winner. Throwing a high card from a suit one doesn't like at one's first discard is what one routinely does playing upside-down attitude signals, a method of sufficient technical merit to be preferred by the majority of expert players in my part of the world. I'd have thought that the old canard that "there is no purpose but deception" in upside-down signals was put to rest decades ago. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 4 23:00:23 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:00:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <9778B768-E554-4298-88FF-BCB4025DA96D@starpower.net> On Oct 2, 2010, at 12:49 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. For > example that my 2D bid shows the majors. > > Then my partner explains it as natural. > > At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a > mutual awareness. Right. > I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. Right again. Just because you have no mutual awareness of the meaning of 2D doesn't mean that the agreement regarding "Cappelletti" -- whether or not meaningful or useful -- didn't happen. It is still your explicit agreement, whether you, or your partner, can explain it or not. > Maybe > not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D > means in > Cappelletti. No, because you do not have a mutual (i.e. "partnership") understanding. > This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. > > 1NT P P 2D > > (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I > have to > mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? Of course. Partner's misunderstanding doesn't relieve you of your obligation to disclose your explicit agreements. Just the facts, ma'am, as Sgt. Friday would say. The best I can do here is something like, "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but we did not agree specifically on the meaning of 2D, and apparently do not have a mutual understanding as to what it means." What I earlier called "nutty" was the scenario in which you were fully aware of that last bit *before* partner opened his mouth. You and your opponents might just have a "mutual understanding" of what 2D means in Cappelletti, so they are entitled to disclosure of your explicit agreement. If they (think they) know the convention, and could work out that your partner doesn't, they're entitled to assume -- at their own risk, of course -- that you hold a "real" Cappelletti 2D hand. But you are not obliged to share your views on what a "'real' Cappelletti 2D hand" is. > We do not have a mutual > awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. You mean you not only neglected to discuss what Cappelletti is, but when it applies? Not even "Cappelletti over notrump", just the one word "Cappelletti", the entirety of your explicit agreement? (It's tempting to throw in another "fruitcake-nutty" here, but I'll refrain.). Still, it's not at all hard if you keep Sgt. Friday in mind: "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but we did not come to any specific understanding on whether Cappelletti applies over your 1NT opening, nor did we specifically discuss what 2D would mean if it did apply." Just the facts, ma'am. I'd urge Bob, in the future, to take a bit more time ensuring that his partners understand his chosen agreements and vice versa. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 5 00:17:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:17:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: <9778B768-E554-4298-88FF-BCB4025DA96D@starpower.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> <9778B768-E554-4298-88FF-BCB4025DA96D@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:00:23 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 2, 2010, at 12:49 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. For >> example that my 2D bid shows the majors. >> >> Then my partner explains it as natural. >> >> At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a >> mutual awareness. > > Right. > >> I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. > > Right again. Just because you have no mutual awareness of the > meaning of 2D doesn't mean that the agreement regarding "Cappelletti" > -- whether or not meaningful or useful -- didn't happen. It is still > your explicit agreement, whether you, or your partner, can explain it > or not. > >> Maybe >> not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D >> means in >> Cappelletti. > > No, because you do not have a mutual (i.e. "partnership") understanding. > >> This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. >> >> 1NT P P 2D >> >> (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I >> have to >> mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? > > Of course. Partner's misunderstanding doesn't relieve you of your > obligation to disclose your explicit agreements. Just the facts, > ma'am, as Sgt. Friday would say. The best I can do here is something > like, "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but we did not agree > specifically on the meaning of 2D, and apparently do not have a > mutual understanding as to what it means." > > What I earlier called "nutty" was the scenario in which you were > fully aware of that last bit *before* partner opened his mouth. > > You and your opponents might just have a "mutual understanding" of > what 2D means in Cappelletti, so they are entitled to disclosure of > your explicit agreement. If they (think they) know the convention, > and could work out that your partner doesn't, they're entitled to > assume -- at their own risk, of course -- that you hold a "real" > Cappelletti 2D hand. But you are not obliged to share your views on > what a "'real' Cappelletti 2D hand" is. > >> We do not have a mutual >> awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. > > You mean you not only neglected to discuss what Cappelletti is, but > when it applies? Not even "Cappelletti over notrump", just the one > word "Cappelletti", the entirety of your explicit agreement? (It's > tempting to throw in another "fruitcake-nutty" here, but I'll > refrain.). Still, it's not at all hard if you keep Sgt. Friday in > mind: "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but we did not come to any > specific understanding on whether Cappelletti applies over your 1NT > opening, nor did we specifically discuss what 2D would mean if it did > apply." Just the facts, ma'am. This is actually a common situation -- if you agree to play Cappelletti, is it on in the balancing seat? This isn't the heart of the issue, but I am not sure of the consistency of Eric's position. In this auction, I have bid 2D intending it as Cappelletti, my partner has not understood it that way, and Eric claims we have no mutual awareness and hence no mutual agreement. So if we have not agreed that Cappelletti is on in this situation, why do I have to mention it? I don't mention that we are playing Stayman on this auction. How is Capelletti any different? > > I'd urge Bob, in the future, to take a bit more time ensuring that > his partners understand his chosen agreements and vice versa. Not very practical for me. But there is an issue here. If the laws cannot handle the situation where players discuss just convention names, it is natural to get uposet at them for doing that and ask them to behave in a way that makes the laws easier to apply. But the laws should be able to handle what players do. There is no infraction in saying "Cappelletti?" "yes". From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Oct 5 03:26:42 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:26:42 +0800 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements References: <393098.31540.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] regulating agreements > [Robert Frick] > > I guess the solution is for the regulating authority to dictate what a > conventional name means. (And hence what agreements are created by > agreeing on > the convention name.) I don't think the ACBL does this, but I can do it at > the > club level. Right? > > {Nige1] > I'm sure Robert may do this. In clubs, where most players employ a similar > system, the club could post "club standard conventions" on the notice > board and > provide a club "card". It would reduce disclosure problems. Pity the WBF > don't > publish a default WBF standard system and save some of us trouble :) For World standard card see http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/ConventionCards/WBFStandardCard/WBFCard+notes.pdf bill > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 5 11:18:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:18:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] infractions vs irregularities Message-ID: <4CAAED56.6090803@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, I beg to disagree with the editorial in the last /Bridge World/ issue. The editorialist wants L72 to be changed so that it will be compulsory to signal one's own infraction. As an example, he gives the case of the player having seen a card in one's opponent's hand. I consider the wording as dangerous. Seeing a card shouldn't be deemed an infraction. Not because it is inadvertent (paying a bill too late can be inadvertent, and is nevertheless an infraciton), but because it can be caused by someone else's action, someone you aren't responsible of, and who can have interest in making you an infractor. Now, if we were compelled to signal any departure from normal procedure that could affect the deal, this could be right. For example, we want a pair who played the whole deal with 14 cards facing 12 to be compelled to signal it (and be penalized) rather than conceding, looking at the sheet and correcting the deal. And we could be compelled to signal our own infraction (like a revoke), although I don't have the faintest idea of how it could be enforced and therefore wouldn't like it. But this is completely different from calling infractions facts that we're not responsible of, in order to make them fall under some specific law. Your opinions please ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101005/345a97cb/attachment.html From madam at civilradio.hu Tue Oct 5 12:33:43 2010 From: madam at civilradio.hu (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFneWFyIMFk4W0=?=) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:33:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a help in opening lead Message-ID: <19FCFC27D3FE4E9D876A9BA7C78246AD@adam> Dear all, In a team match, during the bidding, four players at a table overhear a remark : "6 hearts goes down on a spade lead, why didn't you lead the Q, top of sequence?" TD is called. What is your decision, if: (1) This board has not yet been started at the other table? (2) This board has already been played at the other room, and 6 hearts was made on a non-spade lead? Actually, TD ruled the play to continue (a mistake, in my opinion, but that happened). EW stopped in 5 hearts, SQ was led, and 5 hearts was one off. East, West and also North, the opening leader admits having heard the remark. What is your decision if: (3) This board has not been yet played at the other table, but when they will play it after this incident, 6 hearts will be made on a non-spade lead? (4) This board has already been played at the other table, and 6 hearts was made on a non-spade lead? Thanks for your comments: Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101005/81c81a41/attachment.html From henk at ripe.net Tue Oct 5 13:13:10 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:13:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a help in opening lead In-Reply-To: <19FCFC27D3FE4E9D876A9BA7C78246AD@adam> References: <19FCFC27D3FE4E9D876A9BA7C78246AD@adam> Message-ID: <4CAB0846.7060706@ripe.net> On 05/10/2010 12:33, Magyar ?d?m wrote: > Dear all, > > > > In a team match, during the bidding, four players at a table overhear a remark : > ?6 hearts goes down on a spade lead, why didn?t you lead the Q, top of > sequence?? TD is called. > > > > What is your decision, if: > > > > (1) This board has not yet been started at the other table? > > (2) This board has already been played at the other room, and 6 hearts was > made on a non-spade lead? > > > > Actually, TD ruled the play to continue (a mistake, in my opinion, but that > happened). EW stopped in 5 hearts, SQ was led, and 5 hearts was one off. East, > West and also North, the opening leader admits having heard the remark. What is > your decision if: > > > > (3) This board has not been yet played at the other table, but when they > will play it after this incident, 6 hearts will be made on a non-spade lead? > > (4) This board has already been played at the other table, and 6 hearts was > made on a non-spade lead? I assume that this is a set of team matches, with all teams playing the same boards. I don't think the board can be sensibly played after the remark. EW will know not to bid the slam, NS will know what to lead if they do. In case (1) and (3), it is easy: replace the board by a new one. In (2) and (4), you will have to throw out the board at this table. If time permits, play a replacement board, if not award an artificial score. 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 blml at arcor.de Tue Oct 5 13:46:35 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 13:46:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] a help in opening lead In-Reply-To: <4CAB0846.7060706@ripe.net> References: <4CAB0846.7060706@ripe.net> <19FCFC27D3FE4E9D876A9BA7C78246AD@adam> Message-ID: <252094296.502601286279195308.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > On 05/10/2010 12:33, Magyar ?d?m wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > In a team match, during the bidding, four players at a table overhear a remark : > > ?6 hearts goes down on a spade lead, why didn?t you lead the Q, top of > > sequence?? TD is called. > > > > > > > > What is your decision, if: > > > > > > > > (1) This board has not yet been started at the other table? > > > > (2) This board has already been played at the other room, and 6 hearts was > > made on a non-spade lead? > > > > > > > > Actually, TD ruled the play to continue (a mistake, in my opinion, but that > > happened). EW stopped in 5 hearts, SQ was led, and 5 hearts was one off. East, > > West and also North, the opening leader admits having heard the remark. What is > > your decision if: > > > > > > > > (3) This board has not been yet played at the other table, but when they > > will play it after this incident, 6 hearts will be made on a non-spade lead? > > > > (4) This board has already been played at the other table, and 6 hearts was > > made on a non-spade lead? > > I assume that this is a set of team matches, with all teams playing the > same boards. > > I don't think the board can be sensibly played after the remark. EW > will know not to bid the slam, NS will know what to lead if they do. In > case (1) and (3), it is easy: replace the board by a new one. In (2) and > (4), you will have to throw out the board at this table. If time permits, > play a replacement board, if not award an artificial score. First, I think a PP must be administered to the loudmouths. I then disagree with Henk, the TD cannot simply through out the board in all scenarios. Say, the tournament is scored using VPs (rather than knockout teams), and you have scenario (2) above. Both sides a NOS here. The TD should not just take away the existing good result of 6H made at the other table because of an infraction by other players. I'd consider awarding a split score, where in the end this match would then get more than 30 total VPs. (To be fair to other contestants, the PP to the loudmouths will have to be at least as large as the surplus VPs on this match due to the split score). Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 5 15:40:15 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:40:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2010, at 1:55 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick >> >> I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. >> For >> example that my 2D bid shows the majors. >> >> Then my partner explains it as natural. >> >> At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a >> mutual awareness. >> >> I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I >> guess. Maybe >> not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D >> means in >> Cappelletti. >> >> This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. >> >> 1NT P P 2D >> >> (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I >> have to >> mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? We do not have a >> mutual >> awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. > > This is a scenario where multiple opinions exist. > > I think that you have to explain the auction according > to your own interpretation of the auction, and continue > bidding according to that. > > This will frequently make opponents aware of your side's > misunderstanding. > It will also create UI which your side must bend over backwards to > avoid using. > > Say, if partner now passes your > "natural" 2D, you have to assume that he has 6+ diamonds because > that is what it means in your version of the system where your 2D > showed the majors. TFLB may be unclear, but looking to Kaplan's original paradigm for disclosure should resolve any ambiguity. From that perspective, your obligation is always to explain your actual partnership understandings to the best of your ability as you understand them. That remains the case even if you find yourself in circumstances where you are required by law to bid and play as though your agreements were otherwise. IOW, possession of UI may constrain your bids or plays, but does not affect your theoretical disclosure obligation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 5 15:51:59 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:51:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <072EBD76-A998-49F2-9822-2C9936191BD9@starpower.net> On Oct 4, 2010, at 2:02 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > L68A begins: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a > specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant > also > claims when he suggests that play be curtailed...." > > 'Contestant' is defined as "In an individual event, a player; in a > pair > event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team > event, four or more players playing as teammates." > > Now the problem: during play, with a few tricks to go (and perhaps > lots > of high cards visible in dummy), dummy says "We win the rest." On > some > lines of play the declaring side does win all the tricks, but on > others > some tricks will be lost. > > 1. Is dummy's statement a claim, to be ruled on via L70? If not, why > not? If it is, would a similar statement by a spectator also be a > claim? If not, why not? > > 2. If the statement is not a claim, what is it, and on what basis > do you > rule when deciding the number of tricks scored? It is two things: (1) A violation of L43A1(c), subject to penalty per L90 (L43B1). The same law makes it clear that there is no such thing as a claim by dummy. (2) "Extraneous information from partner" subject to L16B, which provides the basis for determining the adjudicated number of tricks scored. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 5 16:18:34 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:18:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > It seems to be accepted by most people here that if I look at > opponent's > card and it says odd-even on first discard, I can trust that odd shows > liking the suit and get rectification if it does not. > > But what about a high even card showing liking for the higher of > the two > remaining suits? I suspect not everyone knows that part of the > convention. > But, if I get rectification if my opponents aren't playing the > convention > they describe (as in odd not showing a liking for the suit), I > should get > rectification for this. > > Then I think there is something about if I have to throw an odd > card from > a suit I don't like, the size of the odd card signals something. I > hope > the opponents aren't counting on my to know that. > > I guess the solution is for the regulating authority to dictate what a > conventional name means. (And hence what agreements are created by > agreeing on the convention name.) I don't think the ACBL does this, > but I > can do it at the club level. Right? IMO, the solution for the regulating authority is to dictate that convention names (other than those pre-printed on the CC) do not consitute descriptions of one's agreements and should not be used. As it happens, that is precisely what the ACBL has done. The ACBL's de facto (I don't know whether it's "official" per some extant written statement, given that the contents of the ACBL Bulletin aren't so acknowledged) policy on system regulation at the club level is that it's your club, you can do what you want. I see no reason why that wouldn't be the case here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 5 16:53:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:53:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> <9778B768-E554-4298-88FF-BCB4025DA96D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <14675CB4-3DCA-4CA3-96DF-1E5DCCE916DA@starpower.net> On Oct 4, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:00:23 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Oct 2, 2010, at 12:49 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual >>> understanding. For >>> example that my 2D bid shows the majors. >>> >>> Then my partner explains it as natural. >>> >>> At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a >>> mutual awareness. >> >> Right. >> >>> I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. >> >> Right again. Just because you have no mutual awareness of the >> meaning of 2D doesn't mean that the agreement regarding "Cappelletti" >> -- whether or not meaningful or useful -- didn't happen. It is still >> your explicit agreement, whether you, or your partner, can explain it >> or not. >> >>> Maybe >>> not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D >>> means in >>> Cappelletti. >> >> No, because you do not have a mutual (i.e. "partnership") >> understanding. >> >>> This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. >>> >>> 1NT P P 2D >>> >>> (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I >>> have to >>> mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? >> >> Of course. Partner's misunderstanding doesn't relieve you of your >> obligation to disclose your explicit agreements. Just the facts, >> ma'am, as Sgt. Friday would say. The best I can do here is something >> like, "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but we did not agree >> specifically on the meaning of 2D, and apparently do not have a >> mutual understanding as to what it means." >> >> What I earlier called "nutty" was the scenario in which you were >> fully aware of that last bit *before* partner opened his mouth. >> >> You and your opponents might just have a "mutual understanding" of >> what 2D means in Cappelletti, so they are entitled to disclosure of >> your explicit agreement. If they (think they) know the convention, >> and could work out that your partner doesn't, they're entitled to >> assume -- at their own risk, of course -- that you hold a "real" >> Cappelletti 2D hand. But you are not obliged to share your views on >> what a "'real' Cappelletti 2D hand" is. >> >>> We do not have a mutual >>> awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. >> >> You mean you not only neglected to discuss what Cappelletti is, but >> when it applies? Not even "Cappelletti over notrump", just the one >> word "Cappelletti", the entirety of your explicit agreement? (It's >> tempting to throw in another "fruitcake-nutty" here, but I'll >> refrain.). Still, it's not at all hard if you keep Sgt. Friday in >> mind: "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but we did not come to any >> specific understanding on whether Cappelletti applies over your 1NT >> opening, nor did we specifically discuss what 2D would mean if it did >> apply." Just the facts, ma'am. > > This is actually a common situation -- if you agree to play > Cappelletti, > is it on in the balancing seat? > > This isn't the heart of the issue, but I am not sure of the > consistency of > Eric's position. In this auction, I have bid 2D intending it as > Cappelletti, my partner has not understood it that way, and Eric > claims we > have no mutual awareness and hence no mutual agreement. So if we > have not > agreed that Cappelletti is on in this situation, why do I have to > mention > it? I don't mention that we are playing Stayman on this auction. > How is > Capelletti any different? You are required to disclose the entirety of your explicit agreements. The paradigmatic ideal way to do this would be to supply your opponents with a tape recording of the entire discussion in which those agreements were reached. You are obliged to do your best to provide any potentially relevant or useful information that such a recording would reveal. Given that you bid 2D intending it as Cappelletti, your explicit discussion of "Cappelletti" -- even if no more than a single word -- is manifestly potentially relevant or useful information for your opponents. Disclosure of aspects of your agreement that you have not explicitly discussed, such as whether Cappelletti applies in the balancing seat, or what 2D shows, depends in theory on what your implicit agreements are, and in practice on what you believe them to be. But this in no way affects your obligation to reveal anything you have explicitly agreed to. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 5 17:03:27 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:03:27 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Miscellaneous information Message-ID: <17394924.1286291007656.JavaMail.root@ps31> Here in Philadelphia attention is drawn to the Thailand Women's Bridge Festival, Jan 22-27, 2011. Contact Anna Malakul at ann7749 at gmail.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 5 19:50:56 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:50:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:18:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> It seems to be accepted by most people here that if I look at >> opponent's >> card and it says odd-even on first discard, I can trust that odd shows >> liking the suit and get rectification if it does not. >> >> But what about a high even card showing liking for the higher of >> the two >> remaining suits? I suspect not everyone knows that part of the >> convention. >> But, if I get rectification if my opponents aren't playing the >> convention >> they describe (as in odd not showing a liking for the suit), I >> should get >> rectification for this. >> >> Then I think there is something about if I have to throw an odd >> card from >> a suit I don't like, the size of the odd card signals something. I >> hope >> the opponents aren't counting on my to know that. >> >> I guess the solution is for the regulating authority to dictate what a >> conventional name means. (And hence what agreements are created by >> agreeing on the convention name.) I don't think the ACBL does this, >> but I >> can do it at the club level. Right? > > IMO, the solution for the regulating authority is to dictate that > convention names (other than those pre-printed on the CC) do not > consitute descriptions of one's agreements and should not be used. > As it happens, that is precisely what the ACBL has done. I am looking at an ACBL convention card that has boxes to check. On it I find Stayman, Smolen, Puppet, Lebensohl, Drury, Jacoby, Texas, Negative doubles,responsive doubles, support doubles, Michaels, Gerber, Blackwood, RKC, 1430, DOPI, DEPO, ROPI, New Minor Forcing, Lavinthal,Odd/Even, Smith Echo, Foster Echo. Fourth suit forcing and weak jump shifts have descriptive names but mean more than their names. There is empty room where players write more convention names. Why I don't like this policy: If I understand a convention, I would rather hear the convention name than the description of the bid. So I don't even like the ACBL policy. "Puppet" allows me to understand the bid and the rest of the auction. "Asking for a 5-card major" forces me to think and translate into "They are probably playing Puppet". > > The ACBL's de facto (I don't know whether it's "official" per some > extant written statement, given that the contents of the ACBL > Bulletin aren't so acknowledged) policy on system regulation at the > club level is that it's your club, you can do what you want. I see > no reason why that wouldn't be the case here. > > > 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 -- somepsychology.com From blml at arcor.de Tue Oct 5 20:35:33 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:35:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1297127.1286303733427.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Robert Frick > On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:18:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> It seems to be accepted by most people here that if I look at > >> opponent's > >> card and it says odd-even on first discard, I can trust that odd shows > >> liking the suit and get rectification if it does not. > >> > >> But what about a high even card showing liking for the higher of > >> the two > >> remaining suits? I suspect not everyone knows that part of the > >> convention. > >> But, if I get rectification if my opponents aren't playing the > >> convention > >> they describe (as in odd not showing a liking for the suit), I > >> should get > >> rectification for this. > >> > >> Then I think there is something about if I have to throw an odd > >> card from > >> a suit I don't like, the size of the odd card signals something. I > >> hope > >> the opponents aren't counting on my to know that. > >> > >> I guess the solution is for the regulating authority to dictate what a > >> conventional name means. (And hence what agreements are created by > >> agreeing on the convention name.) I don't think the ACBL does this, > >> but I > >> can do it at the club level. Right? > > > > IMO, the solution for the regulating authority is to dictate that > > convention names (other than those pre-printed on the CC) do not > > consitute descriptions of one's agreements and should not be used. > > As it happens, that is precisely what the ACBL has done. > > I am looking at an ACBL convention card that has boxes to check. On it I > find Stayman, Smolen, Puppet, Lebensohl, Drury, Jacoby, Texas, Negative > doubles,responsive doubles, support doubles, Michaels, Gerber, Blackwood, > RKC, 1430, DOPI, DEPO, ROPI, New Minor Forcing, Lavinthal,Odd/Even, Smith > Echo, Foster Echo. > > Fourth suit forcing and weak jump shifts have descriptive names but mean > more than their names. > > There is empty room where players write more convention names. > > Why I don't like this policy: If I understand a convention, I would rather > hear the convention name than the description of the bid. You say that only because you do not yet have first hand experience how differently convention names, meanings and details are in different places. Travel a bit, play bridge in various countries. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Tue Oct 5 20:41:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:41:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <29159885.1286042280888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <28975181.1286304092581.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:58:00 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:55:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> > >> > Robert Frick > >> >> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:15:05 -0400, Eric Landau > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > To keep the discussion sane, we must reject any scenario that > >> >> > violates either of the following premises: > >> >> > > >> >> > (1) If you believe you have a partnership understanding, whether > >> you > >> >> > are right or wrong cannot change how you disclose it. > >> >> > > >> >> > (2) People do not pretend to make agreements knowing that they have > >> >> > no idea what they have purportedly agreed to. > >> >> > >> >> I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. > >> For > >> >> example that my 2D bid shows the majors. > >> >> > >> >> Then my partner explains it as natural. > >> >> > >> >> At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not have a > >> >> mutual awareness. > >> >> > >> >> I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I guess. > >> >> Maybe > >> >> not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D > >> means in > >> >> Cappelletti. > >> >> > >> >> This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. > >> >> > >> >> 1NT P P 2D > >> >> > >> >> (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I > >> have > >> > >> >> to > >> >> mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? We do not have a > >> mutual > >> >> awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. > >> > > >> > This is a scenario where multiple opinions exist. > >> > > >> > I think that you have to explain the auction according > >> > to your own interpretation of the auction, and continue > >> > bidding according to that. > >> > >> I ruled the same way. But how do we get that ruling? The laws seem to > >> require only that "a player shall disclose all special information > >> conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership > >> experience." > >> (L40B6(a)) So if there is an agreement that 2D means the majors, it has > > >> to > >> be explained; if there is no agreement, then it doesn't have to be > >> explained. (Assume partnership experience isn't relevant.) Right? > > > > L16B1(a). After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > > information ... > > for example ... a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to > > > alert ... the partner > > may not choose from among logical alternatives one > > that could demonstrably have been suggested. > > > > > > When the player picked up his hand, he thought they were playing > > that 2D shows the majors. Partner's alerts, non alerts etc. are UI. > > Using that UI is disallowed. It is disallowed even if the UI makes > > you remember that two hours ago you actually agreed to change > > your system and now play 2D as natural. > > Actually, it is standard cant at blml that you can use partner's alerts > and explanations to improve the quality of your own alerts and > explanations. I was surprised. But it was nearly universal. Maybe others > can help me; I think it is a De Wael issue. As I wrote above, there exist different opinions. I have outlined mine above. Eric has outlined his which is slightly different to mine. Herman's is very different, and I believe on this issue he is in a minority position of not many more than one. Thomas From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 5 22:17:37 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:17:37 -0800 Subject: [BLML] infractions vs irregularities References: <4CAAED56.6090803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6C9676E4C9C64598B8CBD42DF275C0EC@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Dear blmlists, > > I beg to disagree with the editorial in the last /Bridge World/ > issue. > > The editorialist wants L72 to be changed so that it will be > compulsory > to signal one's own infraction. > As an example, he gives the case of the player having seen a card > in > one's opponent's hand. Not an infraction, of course, but L16C1 says that the TD should be notified forthwith if a player sees a card belonging to another player before the auction begins. Why not during the auction or during the play also? I have witnessed experts sneaking peeks, both when I was kibitzing and when playing with them as a partner. Not many, just a few. Law 74C5 says "looking intently at any other player...for the purpose of seeing his cards" is a Violation of Procedure. Peekers are not "looking intently," but that doesn't make peeking okay. I wish the Laws would require a TD call when such UI is received. Unenforceable, but at least the culprits would have on their consciences (if they have any) that they are violating the Laws and are cheating. So what should we do when an opponent is careless about holding their cards? My policy is to tell them, and if they continue I call the TD. The majority believe cards must be held back, but a better instruction is that they not tilt their hands, holding them more vertically. When handicapped players have their hands on the table in a card holder, they are vertical and not easily seen. The usual response when I ask a player to stop showing cards is, "Don't look!" My response is that I never look, while adding that there are people who make their living looking (and listening). Holding cards under the table is best, but not an option for many oldsters. There is a good trick for them, easily learned, which is to put the little finger in front of the cards. This forces sufficient verticality. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5506 (20101005) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 5 22:22:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:22:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:18:34 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> IMO, the solution for the regulating authority is to dictate that >> convention names (other than those pre-printed on the CC) do not >> consitute descriptions of one's agreements and should not be used. >> As it happens, that is precisely what the ACBL has done. > > I am looking at an ACBL convention card that has boxes to check. On > it I > find Stayman, Smolen, Puppet, Lebensohl, Drury, Jacoby, Texas, > Negative > doubles,responsive doubles, support doubles, Michaels, Gerber, > Blackwood, > RKC, 1430, DOPI, DEPO, ROPI, New Minor Forcing, Lavinthal,Odd/Even, > Smith > Echo, Foster Echo. > > Fourth suit forcing and weak jump shifts have descriptive names but > mean > more than their names. > > There is empty room where players write more convention names. > > Why I don't like this policy: If I understand a convention, I would > rather > hear the convention name than the description of the bid. So I > don't even > like the ACBL policy. "Puppet" allows me to understand the bid and the > rest of the auction. "Asking for a 5-card major" forces me to think > and > translate into "They are probably playing Puppet". Disclosure regulations do not depend on whether Bob (or anyone else not on the ACBL Board of Directors) understands a convention or not. If he wishes to accept his opponents' disclosure in convention-name shorthand he is welcome to do so, but at his own risk. A 35-year-old compendium of popular conventions includes Sharples, Murray, August, Flint, Weisberger, Gladiator, Conot, Boland, Baron, Ogust, McCabe, Herbert, Schenken, Clarac, Lea, Fane, Culbertson, San Francisco, Culwood, Lebovic, Fulwiler, Malowan, R/H, Wang, Copenhagen, Truscott, Landy, Ripstra, Astro, Brozel, Herbert, Kock- Werner, Weiss, Fishbein, Leghorn, and Fisher (bidding), Rusinow and Journalist (leads), and Foster and Bechgaard (signals), among many others. It has only gotten longer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 6 02:51:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:51:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:22:43 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:18:34 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> IMO, the solution for the regulating authority is to dictate that >>> convention names (other than those pre-printed on the CC) do not >>> consitute descriptions of one's agreements and should not be used. >>> As it happens, that is precisely what the ACBL has done. >> >> I am looking at an ACBL convention card that has boxes to check. On >> it I >> find Stayman, Smolen, Puppet, Lebensohl, Drury, Jacoby, Texas, >> Negative >> doubles,responsive doubles, support doubles, Michaels, Gerber, >> Blackwood, >> RKC, 1430, DOPI, DEPO, ROPI, New Minor Forcing, Lavinthal,Odd/Even, >> Smith >> Echo, Foster Echo. >> >> Fourth suit forcing and weak jump shifts have descriptive names but >> mean >> more than their names. >> >> There is empty room where players write more convention names. >> >> Why I don't like this policy: If I understand a convention, I would >> rather >> hear the convention name than the description of the bid. So I >> don't even >> like the ACBL policy. "Puppet" allows me to understand the bid and the >> rest of the auction. "Asking for a 5-card major" forces me to think >> and >> translate into "They are probably playing Puppet". > > Disclosure regulations do not depend on whether Bob (or anyone else > not on the ACBL Board of Directors) understands a convention or not. > If he wishes to accept his opponents' disclosure in convention-name > shorthand he is welcome to do so, but at his own risk. Obviously, I would not like to play in a club where 1. someone can play that odd shows a liking for the higher of the two remaining suits and even shows a liking for the lower suits 2. They can call this odd-even and describe it to me as odd-even to see if they can fool me. 3. The director protects them, not me. I am happy to play in a club where a bid is described as Landy and if I fail to ask what it means and get it wrong, I am not protected. My fault, my problem. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 6 03:14:18 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:14:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: <28975181.1286304092581.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> <13177226.1285998919603.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <29159885.1286042280888.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <28975181.1286304092581.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:41:32 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:58:00 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:55:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Robert Frick >> >> >> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:15:05 -0400, Eric Landau >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > To keep the discussion sane, we must reject any scenario that >> >> >> > violates either of the following premises: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > (1) If you believe you have a partnership understanding, whether >> >> you >> >> >> > are right or wrong cannot change how you disclose it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > (2) People do not pretend to make agreements knowing that they >> have >> >> >> > no idea what they have purportedly agreed to. >> >> >> >> >> >> I start out thinking my partner and I have a mutual understanding. >> >> For >> >> >> example that my 2D bid shows the majors. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then my partner explains it as natural. >> >> >> >> >> >> At this point it is logical for me to conclude that we do not >> have a >> >> >> mutual awareness. >> >> >> >> >> >> I have to tell the opps that we have agreed on Capelletti, I >> guess. >> >> >> Maybe >> >> >> not. The question is whether or not I have to tell them what 2D >> >> means in >> >> >> Cappelletti. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is not nutty or fruitcake. It is very common. >> >> >> >> >> >> 1NT P P 2D >> >> >> >> >> >> (1) meant as Cappelletti but described by partner as natural. Do I >> >> have >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> mention Cappelletti when I explain my own bid? We do not have a >> >> mutual >> >> >> awareness that Cappelletti applies in this situation. >> >> > >> >> > This is a scenario where multiple opinions exist. >> >> > >> >> > I think that you have to explain the auction according >> >> > to your own interpretation of the auction, and continue >> >> > bidding according to that. >> >> >> >> I ruled the same way. But how do we get that ruling? The laws seem to >> >> require only that "a player shall disclose all special information >> >> conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership >> >> experience." >> >> (L40B6(a)) So if there is an agreement that 2D means the majors, it >> has >> >> >> to >> >> be explained; if there is no agreement, then it doesn't have to be >> >> explained. (Assume partnership experience isn't relevant.) Right? >> > >> > L16B1(a). After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >> > information ... >> > for example ... a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure >> to >> >> > alert ... the partner >> > may not choose from among logical alternatives one >> > that could demonstrably have been suggested. >> > >> > >> > When the player picked up his hand, he thought they were playing >> > that 2D shows the majors. Partner's alerts, non alerts etc. are UI. >> > Using that UI is disallowed. It is disallowed even if the UI makes >> > you remember that two hours ago you actually agreed to change >> > your system and now play 2D as natural. >> >> Actually, it is standard cant at blml that you can use partner's alerts >> and explanations to improve the quality of your own alerts and >> explanations. I was surprised. But it was nearly universal. Maybe others >> can help me; I think it is a De Wael issue. > > As I wrote above, there exist different opinions. > > I have outlined mine above. Just to make sure. My partner and I agree to Cappelletti, I overcall 2D then, I hear my partner alert and explain that he does not know Capelletti. That means, according to you and Eric and Richard, that we have no legal meaning assigned to the 2D bid and no L20 or L40 requirements to explain what 2D means in Cappeletti. But you say I nonetheless do have to explain what 2D means in Cappelletti, because otherwise I am using my partner's explanation to aid my own explanation, which you feel is an infraction. And you are aware that the WBFLC has minuted the exact opposite. > Eric has outlined his which is slightly different to mine. > > Herman's is very different, and I believe on this issue he > is in a minority position of not many more than one. I don't believe you ever said how agreements are formed by the exchange of convention names. So I cannot compare you to Eric on that. You seem to disagree completely with Eric on this particular 2D issue. I am not sure what Herman believes. If he takes the same position as you on this particular issue, then there are at least two people on blml with this belief. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 6 08:21:41 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 22:21:41 -0800 Subject: [BLML] odd/even References: <0CB36E41861C431AA71608CA6B606DD2@MARVLAPTOP><4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com><919770942.618281285875865161.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net><19110987.1285993792481.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <87392BD4-CC13-49B2-9470-616950FE7F86@starpower.net> Message-ID: <3EB7CD1C475A48FABFEAF6A2F7B6E3E8@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > > Throwing a high card from a suit one doesn't like at one's first > discard is what one routinely does playing upside-down attitude > signals, a method of sufficient technical merit to be preferred by > the majority of expert players in my part of the world. I'd have > thought that the old canard that "there is no purpose but > deception" > in upside-down signals was put to rest decades ago. > If up-side downers' first discard is a small card from a suit they don't like, as a partnership agreement, the only purpose is deception. If standard players' first discard is a high card from a suit they don't like, as a partnership agreement, the only purpose is deception. Since the disclosure of this one discard agreement is not easily noticed on the convention card (if it's there), the agreement should be barred. I overheard a pro telling his LOL client before starting play, "Make your first discard in notrump a high card from a suit you don't like." When I mentioned that this was not on their convention card, he added it. The way people of this type disclose the agreement on the ACBL convention card is often a single word "discouraging" on the blank line under FIRST DISCARD. That isn't very clear. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5507 (20101006) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 6 14:47:53 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 08:47:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Obviously, I would not like to play in a club where > > 1. someone can play that odd shows a liking for the higher of the two > remaining suits and even shows a liking for the lower suits They cannot do this, but only because "odd/even" appears on the ACBL CC, and therefore is, at least in theory, defined by the ACBL (although given that the ACBL insists that what appears in their "official publication" isn't official, it's not clear where). > 2. They can call this odd-even Were "odd/even" not on the CC, they would be perfectly entitled to do so... > and describe it to me as odd-even to see if > they can fool me. ...but would not be allowed to do this... > 3. The director protects them, not me. ...and the director should protect you accordingly. > I am happy to play in a club where a bid is described as Landy and > if I > fail to ask what it means and get it wrong, I am not protected. My > fault, > my problem. As it should be, for names that do not appear on the CC. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 6 15:31:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:31:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CAC7A1B.1070309@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/10/2010 14:47, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Obviously, I would not like to play in a club where >> >> 1. someone can play that odd shows a liking for the higher of the two >> remaining suits and even shows a liking for the lower suits > They cannot do this, but only because "odd/even" appears on the ACBL > CC, and therefore is, at least in theory, defined by the ACBL > (although given that the ACBL insists that what appears in their > "official publication" isn't official, it's not clear where). > > AG : I don't understand this. Because there is something named "odd/even", they can't give another meaning to their odd & even cards ? Are we disallowed to play Italian discards, then ? From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 6 15:33:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 15:33:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] odd/even In-Reply-To: <3EB7CD1C475A48FABFEAF6A2F7B6E3E8@MARVLAPTOP> References: <3EB7CD1C475A48FABFEAF6A2F7B6E3E8@MARVLAPTOP> <0CB36E41861C431AA71608CA6B606DD2@MARVLAPTOP><4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com><919770942.618281285875865161.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net><19110987.1285993792481.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <87392BD4-CC13-49B2-9470-616950FE7F86@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8063177.1286372012440.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Marvin French wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > > > Throwing a high card from a suit one doesn't like at one's first > > discard is what one routinely does playing upside-down attitude > > signals, a method of sufficient technical merit to be preferred by > > the majority of expert players in my part of the world. I'd have > > thought that the old canard that "there is no purpose but > > deception" > > in upside-down signals was put to rest decades ago. > > > If up-side downers' first discard is a small card from a suit they > don't like, as a partnership agreement, the only purpose is > deception. > > If standard players' first discard is a high card from a suit they > don't like, as a partnership agreement, the only purpose is > deception. That is different to what you wrote before. Before, you wrote that the agreement for discards is that high is discouraging for a suit, and low is encouraging for a suit. There is technical merit in this. Now you describe an agreement where on the first discard a player must always discard a high card from a suit he doesn't like. There is no technical merit in that. Thomas From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Wed Oct 6 16:29:47 2010 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:29:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication Message-ID: I was East. N was declarer in 3N and the play began HJ H5 H6 HA H4 H7 H8 H3 D2 DQ D4 D3 C4 CK C3 C7 BD: 7 S-6 Dlr: S H-AQ84 Vul: Both D-J54 C-KQ652 S-AQ85 S-T932 H-63 H-JT72 D-QT86 D-3 C-A94 C-JT83 S-KJ74 H-K95 D-AK972 C-7 Leaving this BD: 7 S-6 Dlr: S H-Q8 Vul: Both D-J5 C-Q652 S-AQ85 S-T932 H- H-T2 D-T86 D- C-A9 C-JT8 S-KJ74 H-K D-AK97 C- At this point declarer faced his hand saying "I can claim". I asked him to state a line of play. Should I have done so? He said: H to the K D to the J HQ CQ What should the result be? My partner got flustered in what followed and said she would cash the SA before coming to my good clubs. Director ended up ruling only down 1. Is that how it should be decided? Thanks Collins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101006/13ccc06c/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 6 17:05:24 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 08:05:24 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:29:47 EDT." Message-ID: <201010061449.HAA03565@mailhub.irvine.com> Collins wrote: > I was East. N was declarer in 3N and the play began > > HJ H5 H6 HA > H4 H7 H8 H3 ^ should be H9 > D2 DQ D4 D3 > C4 CK C3 C7 > > > BD: 7 S-6 Dlr: S > H-AQ84 Vul: Both > D-J54 > C-KQ652 > S-AQ85 S-T932 > H-63 H-JT72 > D-QT86 D-3 > C-A94 C-JT83 > S-KJ74 > H-K95 > D-AK972 > C-7 > Leaving this > > > BD: 7 S-6 Dlr: S > H-Q8 Vul: Both > D-J5 > C-Q652 > S-AQ85 S-T932 > H- H-T2 > D-T86 D- > C-A9 C-JT8 > S-KJ74 > H-K > D-AK97 > C- > > At this point declarer faced his hand saying "I can claim". I asked him to > state a line of play. > Should I have done so? You should have called the director. You can lose rights by trying to resolve things yourself, without the director's help. As it is, though, I think what you did worked out OK, but next time please just call the director. (On the other hand, this particular director didn't seem to understand the laws. I don't have any advice for how to deal with that case.) Not that I always take my own advice here. Once, an expert declarer, after a succession of wrong guesses, laid down his hand and claimed down 1 while I was on lead. After looking at the hand, I just led a card and made it clear that this would trap him in dummy and force him to give up an extra trick; he agreed to down 2 and the director didn't get involved. But normally I recommend just calling the director. > He said: > H to the K > D to the J > HQ > CQ > > What should the result be? > > My partner got flustered in what followed and said she would cash the SA > before coming to my good clubs. > Director ended up ruling only down 1. Is that how it should be decided? No. Doubtful points are supposed to be resolved in favor of the non-claimer. The director is supposed to decide based on the declarer's stated line of play and by looking at the hands; the defense is no longer playing the hand and should not be allowed to make a mistake, even if it seems like they might have based on what they say. So I'd rule that once declarer errs by trying to cash the CQ, he gets no more tricks. The defense can cash clubs, and will take the rest if declarer pitches two of dummy's spades on the clubs, which is not an irrational play. (Or he pitches one spade on his HQ---note that he didn't say what he would discard on that, which is a problem---and one on the clubs.) Down three is the correct ruling. -- Adam From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 6 18:02:14 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:02:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> Message-ID: <15376411.1286380934890.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:22:43 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:18:34 -0400, Eric Landau > >> wrote: > >> > >>> IMO, the solution for the regulating authority is to dictate that > >>> convention names (other than those pre-printed on the CC) do not > >>> consitute descriptions of one's agreements and should not be used. > >>> As it happens, that is precisely what the ACBL has done. > >> > >> I am looking at an ACBL convention card that has boxes to check. On > >> it I > >> find Stayman, Smolen, Puppet, Lebensohl, Drury, Jacoby, Texas, > >> Negative > >> doubles,responsive doubles, support doubles, Michaels, Gerber, > >> Blackwood, > >> RKC, 1430, DOPI, DEPO, ROPI, New Minor Forcing, Lavinthal,Odd/Even, > >> Smith > >> Echo, Foster Echo. > >> > >> Fourth suit forcing and weak jump shifts have descriptive names but > >> mean > >> more than their names. > >> > >> There is empty room where players write more convention names. > >> > >> Why I don't like this policy: If I understand a convention, I would > >> rather > >> hear the convention name than the description of the bid. So I > >> don't even > >> like the ACBL policy. "Puppet" allows me to understand the bid and the > >> rest of the auction. "Asking for a 5-card major" forces me to think > >> and > >> translate into "They are probably playing Puppet". > > > > Disclosure regulations do not depend on whether Bob (or anyone else > > not on the ACBL Board of Directors) understands a convention or not. > > If he wishes to accept his opponents' disclosure in convention-name > > shorthand he is welcome to do so, but at his own risk. > > Obviously, I would not like to play in a club where > > 1. someone can play that odd shows a liking for the higher of the two > remaining suits and even shows a liking for the lower suits I'd expect that there exists some part of the world where "odd-even discards" show exactly that. Thomas From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Oct 6 18:14:33 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:14:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CACA069.70801@meteo.fr> Collins Williams a ?crit : > I was East. N was declarer in 3N and the play began > > HJ H5 H6 HA > H4 H7 H9 H3 > D2 DQ D4 D3 > C4 CK C3 C7 > > > BD: 7 S-6 Dlr: S > H-AQ84 Vul: Both > D-J54 > C-KQ652 > S-AQ85 S-T932 > H-63 H-JT72 > D-QT86 D-3 > C-A94 C-JT83 > S-KJ74 > H-K95 > D-AK972 > C-7 > Leaving this > > > BD: 7 S-6 Dlr: S > H-Q8 Vul: Both > D-J5 > C-Q652 > S-AQ85 S-T932 > H- H-T2 > D-T86 D- > C-A9 C-JT8 > S-KJ74 > H-K > D-AK97 > C- > > At this point declarer faced his hand saying "I can claim". I asked him to > state a line of play. > Should I have done so? it's debatable but i think yes. a line of play is part of a claim and you call tell him: if you can claim, claim. you should first have asked him how many tricks he did claim. > > He said: > H to the K > D to the J > HQ > CQ > > What should the result be? obviously down 3, nothing can prevent you from the last 6 tricks: 3 clubs, 2 spades and 1 diamond or spade via a squeeze. > > My partner got flustered in what followed and said she would cash the SA > before coming to my good clubs. irrelevant, she was no more required to do anything after completion of the claim. > Director ended up ruling only down 1. Is that how it should be decided? i don't think. jpr > > Thanks > > Collins > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 6 18:32:27 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:32:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 08:47:53 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Obviously, I would not like to play in a club where >> >> 1. someone can play that odd shows a liking for the higher of the two >> remaining suits and even shows a liking for the lower suits > > They cannot do this, but only because "odd/even" appears on the ACBL > CC, and therefore is, at least in theory, defined by the ACBL > (although given that the ACBL insists that what appears in their > "official publication" isn't official, it's not clear where). So you are saying that odd-even in theory is defined by the ACBL and you will protect me if players do not follow this in-theory definition. I think one position is that if the ACBL has defined certain conventions, you protect me if players use the convention names but do not follow the definitions. I think you are saying that you will also protect me for convention names that the ACBL should have in theory defined. That makes it more appealing to go to your club. The practical details escape me, because I have looked at the ACBL website and not yet found where conventions were defined. It seems even less likely that there is an official definition. So the opps say they are playing odd-even, and it turns out that a low even card does not signal liking for the lower of the two remaining suits. Do you protect me? > >> 2. They can call this odd-even > > Were "odd/even" not on the CC, they would be perfectly entitled to do > so... > >> and describe it to me as odd-even to see if >> they can fool me. > > ...but would not be allowed to do this... Is this a rule at your club? > >> 3. The director protects them, not me. > > ...and the director should protect you accordingly. > >> I am happy to play in a club where a bid is described as Landy and >> if I >> fail to ask what it means and get it wrong, I am not protected. My >> fault, >> my problem. > > As it should be, for names that do not appear on the CC. So I am allowed to put Bergen raises on my card and have that mean whatever I want. I could switch the meanings of the responses. I could in fact be playing Rosenkrantz Doubles and just changing that name to Bergen raises. That would make for an interesting bridge game. To make a serious point, it simplifies ruling and interpreting laws if we say that (1) players should not accept just convention names and (2) if they do, that is at their own risk. Thomas perhaps is still holding to that position. But it is not how we play bridge and it is not how we want to play bridge. Players should be protected. But then we get into a confusing issue of how that protection actually occurs. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 6 22:04:04 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:04:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <072EBD76-A998-49F2-9822-2C9936191BD9@starpower.net> References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <072EBD76-A998-49F2-9822-2C9936191BD9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CACD634.6030708@nhcc.net> >> 1. Is dummy's statement a claim On 10/5/2010 9:51 AM, Eric Landau (and Sven and Thomas similarly) wrote: > It is two things: (1) A violation of L43A1(c), subject to penalty > per L90 (L43B1). The same law makes it clear that there is no such > thing as a claim by dummy. I'm afraid this isn't conclusive, or at least it doesn't seem so to me. Everyone knows that the statement is an infraction; the question is how to proceed afterwards. Is it via L70 or some other route? As an analogy, a revoke is an infraction, but there are nevertheless specific Laws spelling out what happens if one occurs. The problem is that I don't see anything analogous here, and dummy's statement does fit the explicit definition of a claim. Just to be clear, "other route" seems far more logical to me than "claim," but I'm having trouble reconciling that with the text. > (2) "Extraneous information from partner" I'm afraid I don't see that either. The only information dummy will have (assuming he hasn't looked at a defender's hand) is from the legal calls and plays, and that is explicitly AI to declarer. _If_ you deem the statement not a claim, it seems to me you could let play proceed and use L12A1 to rectify. The end result will often be the same as rectifying under L16B, but the basis is quite different. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 6 22:19:12 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 21:19:12 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] New England Sports Ventures Message-ID: <2869648.1286396352401.JavaMail.root@ps24> The Boston Red Sox owners are buying my favourite football (soccer) team. Would any Red Sox fans please contact me privately (Grattan References: <4CACD634.6030708@nhcc.net> <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <072EBD76-A998-49F2-9822-2C9936191BD9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5466423.1286397475411.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Steve Willner wrote: > >> 1. Is dummy's statement a claim > > On 10/5/2010 9:51 AM, Eric Landau (and Sven and Thomas similarly) wrote: I actually didn't, but I wouldn't have disagreed. > > It is two things: (1) A violation of L43A1(c), subject to penalty > > per L90 (L43B1). The same law makes it clear that there is no such > > thing as a claim by dummy. > > I'm afraid this isn't conclusive, or at least it doesn't seem so to me. > Everyone knows that the statement is an infraction; the question is > how to proceed afterwards. Is it via L70 or some other route? > > As an analogy, a revoke is an infraction, but there are nevertheless > specific Laws spelling out what happens if one occurs. The problem is > that I don't see anything analogous here, and dummy's statement does fit > the explicit definition of a claim. > > Just to be clear, "other route" seems far more logical to me than > "claim," but I'm having trouble reconciling that with the text. > > > (2) "Extraneous information from partner" > > I'm afraid I don't see that either. The only information dummy will > have (assuming he hasn't looked at a defender's hand) is from the legal > calls and plays, and that is explicitly AI to declarer. But dummy's conclusions aren't AI. Remember all those times you were dummy, you know exactly how to make the contract (you might have have known during the bidding), and yet partner somehow messed it up, missed the dummy reversal, tried a dummy reversal instead of a crossruff, overlooked the endplay, ran into a ruff, mistimed the squeeze, even overlooked that he had 12 tricks from the top and took a losing finesse? Thomas From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 6 22:38:49 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:38:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <087CFF6CC97545D8AD018C00E0C5792B@MARVLAPTOP> <4CA98A08.9090204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4CACDE59.3030304@nhcc.net> On 10/4/2010 3:20 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > I have put a similar case to the list in May (thread: "a new sort of > claim") which you might like to look up in the archives. Yes, I had forgotten that one. Especially pertinent posts seem to me: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/2010-May/005740.html http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/2010-May/005765.html http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/2010-May/005750.html http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/2010-May/005713.html (In the above thread, declarer is North; don't be confused by that.) It seems the intention of the lawmakers was most likely for L68A to read something like: "Any statement by declarer or either defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. Declarer or a defender also claims...." If this had been the actual text, I think we'd be in L12A1 territory: an adjusted score based on "what would have happened if" dummy's statement had not been made. L43A1c or 45F in effect take us to the same place. Unfortunately, the L68A text we have is different, though I don't think a Director who rules on the basis of the "intended" text can be criticized. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 6 22:44:47 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:44:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <5466423.1286397475411.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <4CACD634.6030708@nhcc.net> <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <072EBD76-A998-49F2-9822-2C9936191BD9@starpower.net> <5466423.1286397475411.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4CACDFBF.3020606@nhcc.net> On 10/6/2010 4:37 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > I actually didn't, but I wouldn't have disagreed. Sorry... You wrote "I agree with Sven," but I must have misunderstood what you were agreeing with. > Remember all those times you were dummy, you > know exactly how to make the contract (you might > have have known during the bidding), and yet > partner somehow messed it up, As I wrote, if dummy says something, that's not a L16B problem, it's a L43A1c problem. Illegal, yes; rectification, yes; but not via L16 unless dummy conveys actual UI (such as a defender's cards). Yes, it's also a L90 problem. :-) From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Oct 6 22:46:46 2010 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steven Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:46:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] New England Sports Ventures In-Reply-To: <2869648.1286396352401.JavaMail.root@ps24> References: <2869648.1286396352401.JavaMail.root@ps24> Message-ID: <4CACE036.3040509@cfa.harvard.edu> > The Boston Red Sox owners are buying my favourite football (soccer) team. > Would any Red Sox fans please contact me privately (Grattan co.uk). Hi, Grattan. I'm afraid I qualify, but I thought the sale had not gone through and is doubtful. Did I miss something? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 6 22:51:43 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:51:43 -0800 Subject: [BLML] odd/even References: <3EB7CD1C475A48FABFEAF6A2F7B6E3E8@MARVLAPTOP><0CB36E41861C431AA71608CA6B606DD2@MARVLAPTOP><4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com><919770942.618281285875865161.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net><19110987.1285993792481.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><87392BD4-CC13-49B2-9470-616950FE7F86@starpower.net> <8063177.1286372012440.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: From: "Thomas Dehn" > > That is different to what you wrote before. > Before, you wrote that the agreement for discards is > that high is discouraging for a suit, and low is encouraging > for a suit. There is technical merit in this. I thought I was talking about first discards only, so this was just a clarification, not a change. Sorry for confusing things.l > > Now you describe an agreement where on the first discard a player > must always > discard a high card from a suit he doesn't like. > There is no technical merit in that. Upside-down is uncommon in San Diego, but odd-even is popular among the weaker players. Whether using either or both, it would be good if the users would have their convention cards on the table, one each corner, legible and complete, as required by the ACBL (but not enforced) in other than club games. I often want to know their carding agreements without letting them know I am interested, which I can do with a glance if the cc is within view. Why not let them know? Well, as an example I may want to follow to the opening lead from AK with either the 8 or the 2 from Q82, third hand playing the five, depending on whether their signals are standard or upside-down. If I were to ask before playing, the opening leader would perhaps know what I am doing. Yes, I can carefully examine opposing CCs before the first board begins, but I should not have to do that for leads and signals. My partnerships are always in time trouble, so saving time is important for us. It happens that at our club the upside-down players, a small minority, do get advantages when naive opponents assume a count or discard signal is standard. If I had a club, oral pre-disclosure of non-standard leads or carding (ACBL defined) would be required. As it is now, the only practice that is pre-Alertable is the lead of the smaller card from a weak doubleton against a suit contract. My paranoid leanings make me suspect that this is only because *I* lead that way! :-)) Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5510 (20101006) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Wed Oct 6 23:05:32 2010 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 17:05:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <201010061449.HAA03565@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201010061449.HAA03565@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Collins wrote: > > > I was East. N was declarer in 3N and the play began > > > > HJ H5 H6 HA > > H4 H7 H8 H3 > ^ should be H9 > > D2 DQ D4 D3 > > C4 CK C3 C7 > > > > > > BD: 7 S-6 Dlr: S > > H-AQ84 Vul: Both > > D-J54 > > C-KQ652 > > S-AQ85 S-T932 > > H-63 H-JT72 > > D-QT86 D-3 > > C-A94 C-JT83 > > S-KJ74 > > H-K95 > > D-AK972 > > C-7 > > Leaving this > > > > > > BD: 7 S-6 Dlr: S > > H-Q8 Vul: Both > > D-J5 > > C-Q652 > > S-AQ85 S-T932 > > H- H-T2 > > D-T86 D- > > C-A9 C-JT8 > > S-KJ74 > > H-K > > D-AK97 > > C- > > > > At this point declarer faced his hand saying "I can claim". I asked him > to > > state a line of play. > > Should I have done so? > > You should have called the director. You can lose rights by trying to > resolve things yourself, without the director's help. As it is, > though, I think what you did worked out OK, but next time please just > call the director. (On the other hand, this particular director > didn't seem to understand the laws. I don't have any advice for how > to deal with that case.) > > Not that I always take my own advice here. Once, an expert declarer, > after a succession of wrong guesses, laid down his hand and claimed > down 1 while I was on lead. After looking at the hand, I just led a > card and made it clear that this would trap him in dummy and force him > to give up an extra trick; he agreed to down 2 and the director didn't > get involved. But normally I recommend just calling the director. > > > So to be clear.... When someone claims. I have 2 lawful courses of action: 1) Say "OK" 2) Say "Director Please" Thanks for your time Collins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101006/e9a72045/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 6 23:23:39 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:23:39 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:05:32 EDT." Message-ID: <201010062107.OAA07598@mailhub.irvine.com> Collins wrote: > > So to be clear.... When someone claims. I have 2 lawful courses of action: > 1) Say "OK" > 2) Say "Director Please" I think that's what Law 68D says: After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. But I suppose someone could argue that this law doesn't prohibit some discussion; it says that Law 69 applies if the claim is agreed but it doesn't explicitly say that the players aren't allowed to ask for clarification before agreeing. Still, even if one could argue that the Laws allow this, it's better to call the Director---you can ask for clarification with the Director present. That way, you're protected in case your question suddenly wakes declarer up to something he missed. If this happens when the Director is there, the Director will be able to handle it properly, and won't allow declarer to take a trick that he was about to blow until your question woke him up. If you ask that kind of question before calling the Director, you may not get the same level of protection. -- Adam From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 6 23:37:52 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 23:37:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy Message-ID: <1792157.1286401072423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/6/2010 4:37 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > I actually didn't, but I wouldn't have disagreed. > > Sorry... You wrote "I agree with Sven," but I must have misunderstood > what you were agreeing with. Sven's statements were that dummy's actions create extraneous information and L16 applies. Eric's statements which I did not comment were on a different angle. > > Remember all those times you were dummy, you > > know exactly how to make the contract (you might > > have have known during the bidding), and yet > > partner somehow messed it up, > > As I wrote, if dummy says something, that's not a L16B problem, it's a > L43A1c problem. Illegal, yes; rectification, yes; but not via L16 > unless dummy conveys actual UI (such as a defender's cards). I disagree with that. If dummy says "we make the rest on a dummy reversal and a subsequent compound squeeze" then the recommendation to try a dummy reversal rather than any alternate lines is UI, not AI. Yes, L43A1c plus L43B1 plus L90 plus L12A1 also apply. Thomas From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 6 23:40:03 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:40:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CACECB3.503@nhcc.net> [from a couple of weeks ago...] ... >>> (c) the correct ruling is North-South Ave+ and East-West Ave-, and ... On 9/23/2010 10:07 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > I imagine that if Pair C [not at the table for the original ruling] > were allowed to appeal the ruling, they > would find themselves fighting Catch-22. The AC would conclude that > awarding A+ to both sides was an incorrect ruling, apply L82C, and > award A+ to both sides. I don't think that's how L82C works. It doesn't cancel the original infraction. It just says that for purpose of any _subsequent_ judgment matters (which because of Director's error can no longer be determined by the players' choices at the table), treat both sides as non- offending. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 6 23:46:38 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:46:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <1792157.1286401072423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <1792157.1286401072423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4CACEE3E.7080606@nhcc.net> On 10/6/2010 5:37 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > If dummy says "we make the rest on a dummy reversal > and a subsequent compound squeeze" > then the recommendation to try a dummy reversal rather than > any alternate lines is UI, not AI. This seems to be the same view as Eric and Sven have expressed, but it isn't mine. I say the statement itself is illegal, but it has nothing to do with UI. The resulting adjusted score may or may not differ depending on which view you adopt. From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 6 23:49:47 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 23:49:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] odd/even In-Reply-To: References: <3EB7CD1C475A48FABFEAF6A2F7B6E3E8@MARVLAPTOP><0CB36E41861C431AA71608CA6B606DD2@MARVLAPTOP><4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com><919770942.618281285875865161.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net><19110987.1285993792481.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><87392BD4-CC13-49B2-9470-616950FE7F86@starpower.net> <8063177.1286372012440.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <3702231.1286401787753.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Marvin French wrote: > From: "Thomas Dehn" > > > > That is different to what you wrote before. > > Before, you wrote that the agreement for discards is > > that high is discouraging for a suit, and low is encouraging > > for a suit. There is technical merit in this. > > I thought I was talking about first discards only, so this was just > a clarification, not a change. Sorry for confusing things.l That isn't the difference. The difference is between "high is discouraging, you are not allowed to discard a small card" and "high is discouraging, low is encouraging". > > Now you describe an agreement where on the first discard a player > > must always discard a high card from a suit he doesn't like. > > There is no technical merit in that. > > Upside-down is uncommon in San Diego, but odd-even is popular among > the weaker players. [...] > Well, as an example I may want to follow to > the opening lead from AK with either the 8 or the 2 from Q82, third > hand playing the five, depending on whether their signals are > standard or upside-down. If I were to ask before playing, the > opening leader would perhaps know what I am doing. > > Yes, I can carefully examine opposing CCs before the first board > begins, but I should not have to do that for leads and signals. Checking opponents' methods immediately after you sit down at the table is normal practice over here. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 7 00:21:25 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy Message-ID: <20098379.1286403685010.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/6/2010 5:37 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > If dummy says "we make the rest on a dummy reversal > > and a subsequent compound squeeze" > > then the recommendation to try a dummy reversal rather than > > any alternate lines is UI, not AI. > > This seems to be the same view as Eric and Sven have expressed, but it > isn't mine. I say the statement itself is illegal, but it has nothing > to do with UI. I'm willing to try make it a bit more obvious. E/W are defending. E has the S4, which is high, but E is not aware that the S4 is high. If E doesn't cash the S4 immediately, the contract will make. E, loud: do I play a H or a D? H or D? H or D? Diamonds are forever, but the queen of diamonds will beat you if she's able. W: you fool, don't hand him then contract, cash the S4. You cannot possibly apply L43 plus L90 here. I apply L16B1(a) here, not L12A1. And the class of players consists of those who didn't notice the S4 is high. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 7 00:30:28 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:30:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat In-Reply-To: <4CACECB3.503@nhcc.net> References: <4CACECB3.503@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <20852993.1286404228099.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Steve Willner wrote: > [from a couple of weeks ago...] > ... > >>> (c) the correct ruling is North-South Ave+ and East-West Ave-, and > ... > > On 9/23/2010 10:07 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > I imagine that if Pair C [not at the table for the original ruling] > > were allowed to appeal the ruling, they > > would find themselves fighting Catch-22. The AC would conclude that > > awarding A+ to both sides was an incorrect ruling, apply L82C, and > > award A+ to both sides. > > I don't think that's how L82C works. It doesn't cancel the original > infraction. It just says that for purpose of any _subsequent_ judgment > matters (which because of Director's error can no longer be determined > by the players' choices at the table), treat both sides as non- offending. I'm with Eric on this one. Not necessarily on the actual hand, but on the general principle. "82 C Director's Error If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non- offending for that purpose." A+/A+ after an infraction was an incorrect ruling. That meets one of the conditions. In case the TD or AC then indeed is no longer able to rectify such that the board can be scored normally (just assume that meanwhile the board was shuffled again and there are no hand records), I see no way out of A+/A+ even though there was an infraction. Thomas From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 7 00:29:32 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:29:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <20098379.1286403685010.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <20098379.1286403685010.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4CACF84C.10407@nhcc.net> On 10/6/2010 6:21 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > W: you fool, don't hand him the contract, cash the S4. > I apply L16B1(a) here, not L12A1. Good example, but again I disagree with your approach. I use L73A1 and then 12A1. Quite likely we will reach the same result, but maybe not. PP or DP too, of course; I expect we agree on that. From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 7 00:39:05 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:39:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <4CACEE3E.7080606@nhcc.net> References: <1792157.1286401072423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <4CACEE3E.7080606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001201cb65a7$48f5c040$dae140c0$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve > Willner > Sent: 6. oktober 2010 23:47 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy > > On 10/6/2010 5:37 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > If dummy says "we make the rest on a dummy reversal and a subsequent > > compound squeeze" > > then the recommendation to try a dummy reversal rather than any > > alternate lines is UI, not AI. > > This seems to be the same view as Eric and Sven have expressed, but it isn't > mine. I say the statement itself is illegal, but it has nothing to do with UI. The > resulting adjusted score may or may not differ depending on which view you > adopt. To sum up and settle the question of AI or UI: Law 16A explicitly defines what information a player may use in the auction or play. Information derived from illegal activities by dummy is not included in this definition. Declarer is therefore specifically prohibited (in both Law 16A3 and Law 16B) from using such information in his (auction and) play. Any attempt by dummy to claim is illegal and void as violating Law 43A1c, and any information that can be derived from such violation of law is extraneous and unauthorized for declarer. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 7 00:39:34 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:39:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat In-Reply-To: <20852993.1286404228099.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <4CACECB3.503@nhcc.net> <20852993.1286404228099.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4CACFAA6.3060504@nhcc.net> On 10/6/2010 6:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > I'm with Eric on this one. Not necessarily on the actual hand, > but on the general principle. > > "82 C Director's Error > > If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be > incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored > normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non- > offending for that purpose." I have enormous respect for both Thomas and Eric, but they seem to be having a blind spot here. > A+/A+ after an infraction was an incorrect ruling. Yes, by the conditions of the original problem setting, A+/A- was the correct ruling. The initial TD ruling at the table was A+/A+. > That meets one of the conditions. > In case the TD or AC then indeed is no longer able to rectify > such that the board can be scored normally Why not? Normal rectification was (by stipulation of the problem) A+/A-. All they have to do is restore that. This is just a matter of an AC giving a different ruling than the table director, an entirely normal result of an appeal. In your version, any time the AC overturns a TD ruling, they would cancel the infraction. That can't be right. > (just assume that > meanwhile the board was shuffled again and there are no hand records), > I see no way out of A+/A+ even though there was an infraction. In some other case where enough information about the board is lost, you might get to A+/A+, but usually you would have enough to give assigned scores. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Oct 7 00:42:22 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:42:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?New_England_Sports_Ventures?= In-Reply-To: <4CACE036.3040509@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4CACE036.3040509@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <1P3cgo-0L34760@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: Steven Willner > > The Boston Red Sox owners are buying my favourite football (soccer) > > team. > > Would any Red Sox fans please contact me privately > > (Grattan > > > Hi, Grattan. I'm afraid I qualify, but I thought the sale had not > gone through and is doubtful. Did I miss something? Yes, you missed the word "privately". From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 7 00:44:49 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:44:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <001201cb65a7$48f5c040$dae140c0$@no> References: <1792157.1286401072423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <4CACEE3E.7080606@nhcc.net> <001201cb65a7$48f5c040$dae140c0$@no> Message-ID: <4CACFBE1.9070801@nhcc.net> On 10/6/2010 6:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Law 16A explicitly defines what information a player may use in the auction > or play. Information derived from illegal activities by dummy is not > included in this definition. But the only _information_ dummy has (absent peeking) is covered by L16A1. Such information is authorized for declarer. I don't see how this could be any plainer. L16 is not the only Law in TFLB! Dummy has done something illegal; the question is how to rectify it. L16 isn't the way. If you think about it, L12A1 leads to exactly the result you would like to see. From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 7 00:48:27 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:48:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <201010062107.OAA07598@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:05:32 EDT." <201010062107.OAA07598@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001301cb65a8$97815de0$c68419a0$@no> On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Collins wrote: > > > > So to be clear.... When someone claims. I have 2 lawful courses of action: > > 1) Say "OK" > > 2) Say "Director Please" > > I think that's what Law 68D says: > > After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If > the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is > doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be > summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken > pending the Director's arrival. > > But I suppose someone could argue that this law doesn't prohibit some discussion; > it says that Law 69 applies if the claim is agreed but it doesn't explicitly say that > the players aren't allowed to ask for clarification before agreeing. Still, even if one > could argue that the Laws allow this, it's better to call the Director---you can ask > for clarification with the Director present. That way, you're protected in case your > question suddenly wakes declarer up to something he missed. If this happens > when the Director is there, the Director will be able to handle it properly, and won't > allow declarer to take a trick that he was about to blow until your question woke > him up. If you ask that kind of question before calling the Director, you may not > get the same level of protection. Technically a claim shall be accompanied by a claim statement; opponents have no reason to ask for it. In fact opponents may jeopardize rights if they do (or enter into discussion). Opponents should give the claimer sufficient time to complete his claim with his claim statement and may then call the director who shall adjudicate the claim on the facts, the given claim statement if any, and whatever question or objection opponents might have. Once opponents call the director it is too late for the claimer to "invent" a claim statement. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 7 00:47:47 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:47:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] New England Sports Ventures In-Reply-To: <1P3cgo-0L34760@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <4CACE036.3040509@cfa.harvard.edu> <1P3cgo-0L34760@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4CACFC93.4080604@nhcc.net> On 10/6/2010 6:42 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: > Yes, you missed the word "privately". Actually I didn't miss it, but the (censored) behavior of the mailing list "reply" function led me to an addressing blunder. Of course this is self-serving testimony, so you can discount it all you want. :-) From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 7 01:46:01 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 01:46:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <4CACFBE1.9070801@nhcc.net> References: <1792157.1286401072423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <4CACEE3E.7080606@nhcc.net> <001201cb65a7$48f5c040$dae140c0$@no> <4CACFBE1.9070801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001401cb65b0$a211b4f0$e6351ed0$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > On 10/6/2010 6:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Law 16A explicitly defines what information a player may use in the > > auction or play. Information derived from illegal activities by dummy > > is not included in this definition. > > But the only _information_ dummy has (absent peeking) is covered by L16A1. > Such information is authorized for declarer. I don't see how this could be any > plainer. Law 16A1 states: A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or (b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or (c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or (d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information. I cannot see how any information derived from dummy's violation of law 43A1c can be considered matching any of the specifications in Law 16A1a thru 16A1d. Law 16A3 states: 3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous). And Law 16A4 states: If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C. Law 16B further emphasizes the consequences when a player "could have used" extraneous information received from his partner > L16 is not the only Law in TFLB! Dummy has done something illegal; the question > is how to rectify it. L16 isn't the way. If you think about it, L12A1 leads to exactly > the result you would like to see. There is no need for the director to apply Law 12A1; he has all the power he needs in Law 16 leading directly to Law 12C From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 7 01:57:11 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:57:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <001301cb65a8$97815de0$c68419a0$@no> References: <201010062107.OAA07598@mailhub.irvine.com> <001301cb65a8$97815de0$c68419a0$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:48:27 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan >> Collins wrote: >> >> > > So to be clear.... When someone claims. I have 2 lawful courses of > action: >> > 1) Say "OK" >> > 2) Say "Director Please" >> >> I think that's what Law 68D says: >> >> After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If >> the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is >> doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be >> summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken >> pending the Director's arrival. >> >> But I suppose someone could argue that this law doesn't prohibit some > discussion; >> it says that Law 69 applies if the claim is agreed but it doesn't > explicitly say that >> the players aren't allowed to ask for clarification before agreeing. > Still, even if one >> could argue that the Laws allow this, it's better to call the > Director---you can ask >> for clarification with the Director present. That way, you're protected > in case your >> question suddenly wakes declarer up to something he missed. If this > happens >> when the Director is there, the Director will be able to handle it > properly, and won't >> allow declarer to take a trick that he was about to blow until your > question woke >> him up. If you ask that kind of question before calling the Director, >> you > may not >> get the same level of protection. > > Technically a claim shall be accompanied by a claim statement; opponents > have no reason to ask for it. In fact opponents may jeopardize rights if > they do (or enter into discussion). I don't understand why the opponents jeopardize their rights by asking declarer how he might play it. I wouldn't rule that way. I have seen it done, but I thought it was director error. > > Opponents should give the claimer sufficient time to complete his claim > with > his claim statement and may then call the director who shall adjudicate > the > claim on the facts, the given claim statement if any, and whatever > question > or objection opponents might have. > > Once opponents call the director it is too late for the claimer to > "invent" > a claim statement. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 7 06:51:13 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:51:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <4CACF84C.10407@nhcc.net> References: <4CACF84C.10407@nhcc.net> <20098379.1286403685010.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <18538223.1286427073557.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Steve Willner > On 10/6/2010 6:21 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > W: you fool, don't hand him the contract, cash the S4. > > > I apply L16B1(a) here, not L12A1. > > Good example, but again I disagree with your approach. I use L73A1 and > then 12A1. Quite likely we will reach the same result, but maybe not. Of course it is also a violation of L73A1. I then use L73C, too, rather than jump to L12A1. L73C then gets me to L16. L12A1 is the fallback which the director may use when everything else is insufficient. It isn't the place to start. > PP or DP too, of course; I expect we agree on that. Sure. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 7 07:22:06 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:22:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat Message-ID: <26429891.1286428926219.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/6/2010 6:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > I'm with Eric on this one. Not necessarily on the actual hand, > > but on the general principle. > > > > "82 C Director's Error > > > > If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be > > incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored > > normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non- > > offending for that purpose." > > I have enormous respect for both Thomas and Eric, but they seem to be > having a blind spot here. > > > A+/A+ after an infraction was an incorrect ruling. > > Yes, by the conditions of the original problem setting, A+/A- was the > correct ruling. The initial TD ruling at the table was A+/A+. As I wrote, I do not necessarily agree with Eric on that one very specific scenario laid out by Richard. > > That meets one of the conditions. > > In case the TD or AC then indeed is no longer able to rectify > > such that the board can be scored normally > > Why not? Normal rectification was (by stipulation of the problem) > A+/A-. A+/A+ per L12C2 can be assigned only if the irregularity itself is the reason no result can be obtained on the board. "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained ..." That was the case in the scenario Richard constructed, but if the director's error is the reason no result can be obtained, then L12C2 does not apply. > All they have to do is restore that. This is just a matter of > an AC giving a different ruling than the table director, an entirely > normal result of an appeal. > > In your version, any time the AC overturns a TD ruling, they would > cancel the infraction. That can't be right. The AC has the full power of the director as long as the AC does not attempt to overrule the director's interpretation of law or regulations, L93C3. I think the situation might be even worse than you think it is. When the director applies his private extra law, L99 "The director had the right to award A+/A+ if he thinks that increases the club's profitability" then that is a wrong interpretation of TFLB, rather than a wrong analysis of any perceived or actual infraction. Unfortunately, I don't see any basis for the AC to overrule that wrong ruling other than merely recommending the director change his own ruling. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 7 11:03:53 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:03:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: References: <201010062107.OAA07598@mailhub.irvine.com> <001301cb65a8$97815de0$c68419a0$@no> Message-ID: <000801cb65fe$91527570$b3f76050$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > > Technically a claim shall be accompanied by a claim statement; > > opponents have no reason to ask for it. In fact opponents may > > jeopardize rights if they do (or enter into discussion). > > I don't understand why the opponents jeopardize their rights by asking declarer > how he might play it. I wouldn't rule that way. I have seen it done, but I thought it > was director error. Opponents' questions may alert claimer that there could be some problem with the claim. If the claimer then "invents" a statement before the director is called it will be very difficult to refuse that statement as not been given together with the claim. The director should not ask the claimer how he intends to play the remaining cards; he should ask what claim statement has been given and then hear opponents' objections if any after all hands are exposed. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 7 16:37:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:37:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5E9C30B3-E076-4C09-9416-F98D73BC0D74@starpower.net> On Oct 6, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 08:47:53 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Obviously, I would not like to play in a club where >>> >>> 1. someone can play that odd shows a liking for the higher of the >>> two >>> remaining suits and even shows a liking for the lower suits >> >> They cannot do this, but only because "odd/even" appears on the ACBL >> CC, and therefore is, at least in theory, defined by the ACBL >> (although given that the ACBL insists that what appears in their >> "official publication" isn't official, it's not clear where). > > So you are saying that odd-even in theory is defined by the ACBL > and you > will protect me if players do not follow this in-theory definition. > > I think one position is that if the ACBL has defined certain > conventions, > you protect me if players use the convention names but do not > follow the > definitions. > > I think you are saying that you will also protect me for convention > names > that the ACBL should have in theory defined. I am saying you are entitled to protection if an opponent simply marks a checkbox on his CC but is not playing one of the "standard" variations of that agreement -- whatever those may be. > That makes it more appealing to go to your club. > > The practical details escape me, because I have looked at the ACBL > website > and not yet found where conventions were defined. It seems even less > likely that there is an official definition. Those definitions are readily found in either The Bridge Bulletin, which calls itself the official publication of the ACBL, or in the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, which calls itself authorized by the ACBL. It is a problem that the ACBL has also stated repeatedly that it doesn't actually consider either of its "official" publications as "officially official". It is also a problem that a particular article, particularly in the Bulletin, may describe only one of the "standard" variations of a given agreement. > So the opps say they are playing odd-even, and it turns out that a low > even card does not signal liking for the lower of the two remaining > suits. > Do you protect me? If it "signals" something other than that. You cannot assume that any given card is intended as a signal. >>> 2. They can call this odd-even >> >> Were "odd/even" not on the CC, they would be perfectly entitled to do >> so... >> >>> and describe it to me as odd-even to see if >>> they can fool me. >> >> ...but would not be allowed to do this... > > Is this a rule at your club? My club takes a very dim view of anyone doing anything "to see if they can fool" anyone else other than with their bidding or play. >>> 3. The director protects them, not me. >> >> ...and the director should protect you accordingly. >> >>> I am happy to play in a club where a bid is described as Landy and >>> if I >>> fail to ask what it means and get it wrong, I am not protected. My >>> fault, >>> my problem. >> >> As it should be, for names that do not appear on the CC. > > So I am allowed to put Bergen raises on my card and have that mean > whatever I want. I could switch the meanings of the responses. I > could in > fact be playing Rosenkrantz Doubles and just changing that name to > Bergen > raises. No you are not. That does not mean, however, that if someone, having done nothing to "protect himself", calls me to the table and claims to have been misled they will automatically get protection from me (although they undoubtedly would in a case as egregious as Bob's example). But I will require you to provide a description of your methods, and penalize you if you fail to comply. I will also require you to remove the offending name from your CC if I think it might be misleading, or take disciplinary action it I think it was a deliberate attempt to mislead (as I undoubtedly would in a case as egregious as Bob's example). > That would make for an interesting bridge game. > > To make a serious point, it simplifies ruling and interpreting laws > if we > say that (1) players should not accept just convention names and > (2) if > they do, that is at their own risk. Thomas perhaps is still holding to > that position. But it is not how we play bridge and it is not how > we want > to play bridge. Players should be protected. But then we get into a > confusing issue of how that protection actually occurs. "We", of course, want to play bridge where convention names "we" are familiar with describe methods "we" know. But we also want protection from the TD when the opponents insist that they have agreed to play Lichtenheimer with no further discussion. The only way to resolve these disparate objectives is to define a specific set of methods that may be referred to by name among some particular "we" whom we expect will be sufficiently familiar with them, and require all others to be described. In the case of the ACBL, "we" are assumed to be generally familiar with the names that are pre-printed on the CC. Absent some such provision, however, the position you ascribe to Thomas is TFLB's, which calls for a "listing of a partnership's understandings", which is not satisfied by listing the names of some famous bridge players (no disrespect to Mr. Bergen or Mr. Rozenkrantz). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 7 16:58:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:58:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <4CACFBE1.9070801@nhcc.net> References: <1792157.1286401072423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <4CACEE3E.7080606@nhcc.net> <001201cb65a7$48f5c040$dae140c0$@no> <4CACFBE1.9070801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4D58343B-A8E0-402D-A51A-C0316EAA7F46@starpower.net> On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:44 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/6/2010 6:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Law 16A explicitly defines what information a player may use in >> the auction >> or play. Information derived from illegal activities by dummy is not >> included in this definition. > > But the only _information_ dummy has (absent peeking) is covered by > L16A1. Such information is authorized for declarer. I don't see how > this could be any plainer. > > L16 is not the only Law in TFLB! Dummy has done something illegal; > the > question is how to rectify it. L16 isn't the way. If you think about > it, L12A1 leads to exactly the result you would like to see. L16A1(a) requires two conditions for information to be authorized: "[1] it derives from the legal calls and plays... *and* [2] is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source", which includes "information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark" [L16B1(a)]. So the correct line of play may be AI for dummy (as it satisfies [1] and [2]) while at the same time UI for declarer (as it satisfies only [1] but not [2]). I argue that to suggest that declarer claim the rest is to "suggest a call or play" within the meaning of L16B1(a). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 7 17:29:04 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:29:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: References: <201010062107.OAA07598@mailhub.irvine.com> <001301cb65a8$97815de0$c68419a0$@no> Message-ID: <552E833E-B83E-472E-8CD9-073ED64D8DA0@starpower.net> On Oct 6, 2010, at 7:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:48:27 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> Technically a claim shall be accompanied by a claim statement; >> opponents >> have no reason to ask for it. In fact opponents may jeopardize >> rights if >> they do (or enter into discussion). > > I don't understand why the opponents jeopardize their rights by asking > declarer how he might play it. I wouldn't rule that way. I have > seen it > done, but I thought it was director error. The director may (and typically will) decide that any discussion prior to his being called, including declarer's statement as to how he intends to play the hand, qualifies as having been "made at the time of his claim" [L70B1], notwithstanding that the defenders may have participated in the discussion that took place between the first indication of declarer's claim and the accompanying statement of his intended play. L70D-E are generally interpreted by TDs as proscribing what "the director shall not" do after being summoned to the table. The alternative raises the specter of having adjudications depend on the outcome of the "race" between a defender asking for clarification and the declarer providing it unasked. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 7 17:45:59 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: <5E9C30B3-E076-4C09-9416-F98D73BC0D74@starpower.net> References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> <5E9C30B3-E076-4C09-9416-F98D73BC0D74@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CADEB37.2060909@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/10/2010 16:37, Eric Landau a ?crit : > e CC. >> So I am allowed to put Bergen raises on my card and have that mean >> whatever I want. I could switch the meanings of the responses. Well, that's indeed a problem. There are two versions of Bergen raises (not to mention Bromad), their popularity is comparable, and my fellow citizens have learned that mentioning 'Bergen raises' isn't enough, they'd also write 'C > D' or 'D > C'. Once again, it seems that the US are very much behind in this area. From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 7 18:54:05 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 18:54:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <4D58343B-A8E0-402D-A51A-C0316EAA7F46@starpower.net> References: <1792157.1286401072423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <4CACEE3E.7080606@nhcc.net> <001201cb65a7$48f5c040$dae140c0$@no> <4CACFBE1.9070801@nhcc.net> <4D58343B-A8E0-402D-A51A-C0316EAA7F46@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301cb6640$40e0b740$c2a225c0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > L16A1(a) requires two conditions for information to be authorized: > "[1] it derives from the legal calls and plays... *and* [2] is unaffected by > unauthorized information from another source", which includes "information that > may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark" [L16B1(a)]. So the > correct line of play may be AI for dummy (as it satisfies [1] and [2]) while at the > same time UI for declarer (as it satisfies only [1] but not [2]). I argue that to > suggest that declarer claim the rest is to "suggest a call or play" > within the meaning of L16B1(a). Any information derived from dummy's "claim" is NOT derived from a legal call or play, thus it is unauthorized for declarer. Simple as that. From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 7 19:02:51 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:02:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <552E833E-B83E-472E-8CD9-073ED64D8DA0@starpower.net> References: <201010062107.OAA07598@mailhub.irvine.com> <001301cb65a8$97815de0$c68419a0$@no> <552E833E-B83E-472E-8CD9-073ED64D8DA0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401cb6641$7a262a20$6e727e60$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> Technically a claim shall be accompanied by a claim statement; > >> opponents have no reason to ask for it. In fact opponents may > >> jeopardize rights if they do (or enter into discussion). > > > > I don't understand why the opponents jeopardize their rights by asking > > declarer how he might play it. I wouldn't rule that way. I have seen > > it done, but I thought it was director error. > > The director may (and typically will) decide that any discussion prior to his being > called, including declarer's statement as to how he intends to play the hand, > qualifies as having been "made at the time of his claim" [L70B1], notwithstanding > that the defenders may have participated in the discussion that took place > between the first indication of declarer's claim and the accompanying statement of > his intended play. L70D-E are generally interpreted by TDs as proscribing what > "the director shall not" do after being summoned to the table. > > The alternative raises the specter of having adjudications depend on the outcome > of the "race" between a defender asking for clarification and the declarer > providing it unasked. If such a "race" is found to have occurred then opponents will typically be ruled having interrupted an uncompleted claim which the director shall then allow the claimer to complete in his presence. That is why opponents shall not interrupt the claimer but give him time to complete his claim statement (preferably without any question or comment). From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 7 19:33:33 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 10:33:33 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:51:13 +0200." <18538223.1286427073557.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <201010071717.KAA17294@mailhub.irvine.com> Thomas wrote: > Of course it is also a violation of L73A1. I then use L73C, too, rather > than jump to L12A1. L73C then gets me to L16. I think you, and most of the other posters here, have jumped over the correct Law. Assuming that dummy's claim is not considered a "claim", so that play will continue, it is, I think, undeniable that dummy's actions have given some information to declarer, and that information could suggest the correct line play to declarer. But of course a claim is not the only way for dummy to provide this sort of information. Suppose that declarer leads towards dummy's A-Q, second hand follows low, declarer pauses for a bit, then dummy reaches for the queen. Dummy, who is better at card-reading than declarer, has already figured out that second hand has to have the king on the auction and based on inferences from the rest of the play. OK, so dummy has suggested a play to declarer, but he's also provided *information* to declarer about the correct line of play, just as much as the claim by dummy. So is this UI, and do we apply Law 16? Regardless of the answer to the first question (is this UI), I think the answer to the second question is "no", because we have a different law dealing with this specific situation, i.e. Law 45F. That law has a weaker standard than Law 16. It just lets director adjust if he believes the defenders were damaged. It doesn't make it illegal for declarer to play the queen, the way Law 16 probably would. Maybe some people here think playing the queen should be illegal, and I don't think that's an unreasonable point of view. But the Laws, as they are right now, tell us to apply 45F. So what about a claim by dummy? Although it's slightly different from the scenario in 45F, in that dummy did not specifically touch or indicate a card, the *information* provided by dummy is in the same category---it's a suggestion to declarer of how to play the hand (as opposed to most other kinds of unauthorized *information*, which are about a player having knowledge or information about the cards in a hand that's supposed to be hidden from the player). So I'd argue that we should treat this situation the same as the situation where dummy has suggested a play by indicating one of his own cards, i.e. by applying L45F and leaving L16 out of it. -- Adam From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 7 20:26:11 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 20:26:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <201010071717.KAA17294@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201010071717.KAA17294@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <29067456.1286475971692.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > Thomas wrote: > > > Of course it is also a violation of L73A1. I then use L73C, too, rather > > than jump to L12A1. L73C then gets me to L16. > > I think you, and most of the other posters here, have jumped over the > correct Law. > > Assuming that dummy's claim is not considered a "claim", so that play > will continue, it is, I think, undeniable that dummy's actions have > given some information to declarer, and that information could suggest > the correct line play to declarer. But of course a claim is not the > only way for dummy to provide this sort of information. Suppose that > declarer leads towards dummy's A-Q, second hand follows low, declarer > pauses for a bit, then dummy reaches for the queen. Dummy, who is > better at card-reading than declarer, has already figured out that > second hand has to have the king on the auction and based on > inferences from the rest of the play. OK, so dummy has suggested a > play to declarer, but he's also provided *information* to declarer > about the correct line of play, just as much as the claim by dummy. > So is this UI, and do we apply Law 16? > > Regardless of the answer to the first question (is this UI), I think > the answer to the second question is "no", because we have a different > law dealing with this specific situation, i.e. Law 45F. Yes, I agree with your point that in case dummy indicates a play or a card, L45F can be applied. If you re-read the thread, you'll find that in the subthread to which you replied, I had supplied my own example where a DEFENDER had suggested a play to his partner. I set up my example that way deliberately to bypass all those laws that apply to dummy only. Thomas From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 7 20:41:29 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:41:29 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:26:11 +0200." <29067456.1286475971692.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <201010071825.LAA18051@mailhub.irvine.com> Thomas wrote: > > Regardless of the answer to the first question (is this UI), I think > > the answer to the second question is "no", because we have a different > > law dealing with this specific situation, i.e. Law 45F. > > Yes, I agree with your point that in case dummy indicates a play or a card, > L45F can be applied. > > If you re-read the thread, you'll find that in the subthread to which you > replied, I had supplied my own example where a DEFENDER > had suggested a play to his partner. Sorry about that. I was trying to find the best post to respond to, and it looks like I ended up making it look like you were saying something you didn't. I guess I should have just made it a response to the original post in the thread. My apologies. -- Adam From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 7 20:49:53 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 20:49:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <201010071825.LAA18051@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201010071825.LAA18051@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <31722440.1286477393940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > Thomas wrote: > > > > Regardless of the answer to the first question (is this UI), I think > > > the answer to the second question is "no", because we have a different > > > law dealing with this specific situation, i.e. Law 45F. > > > > Yes, I agree with your point that in case dummy indicates a play or a card, > > L45F can be applied. > > > > If you re-read the thread, you'll find that in the subthread to which you > > replied, I had supplied my own example where a DEFENDER > > had suggested a play to his partner. > > Sorry about that. I was trying to find the best post to respond to, > and it looks like I ended up making it look like you were saying > something you didn't. I guess I should have just made it a response No problem, Adam. I don't think you created the impression I said something I didn't. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 7 22:08:27 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:08:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <201010071717.KAA17294@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:51:13 +0200." <18538223.1286427073557.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <201010071717.KAA17294@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000601cb665b$682603d0$38720b70$@no> On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > I think you, and most of the other posters here, have jumped over the correct Law. > > Assuming that dummy's claim is not considered a "claim", so that play will > continue, it is, I think, undeniable that dummy's actions have given some > information to declarer, and that information could suggest the correct line play to > declarer. But of course a claim is not the only way for dummy to provide this sort > of information. Suppose that declarer leads towards dummy's A-Q, second hand > follows low, declarer pauses for a bit, then dummy reaches for the queen. > Dummy, who is better at card-reading than declarer, has already figured out that > second hand has to have the king on the auction and based on inferences from > the rest of the play. OK, so dummy has suggested a play to declarer, but he's > also provided *information* to declarer about the correct line of play, just as much > as the claim by dummy. > So is this UI, and do we apply Law 16? > > Regardless of the answer to the first question (is this UI), I think the answer to the > second question is "no", because we have a different law dealing with this specific > situation, i.e. Law 45F. That law has a weaker standard than Law 16. It just lets > director adjust if he believes the defenders were damaged. It doesn't make it > illegal for declarer to play the queen, the way Law 16 probably would. Maybe > some people here think playing the queen should be illegal, and I don't think that's > an unreasonable point of view. But the Laws, as they are right now, tell us to > apply 45F. Honestly I fail to see the practical difference between applying Law 45F and applying law 16B3? In what way does Law 45F has a weaker standard than law 16B? There is never in law 16 any question of forbidding a player from making any particular call or play; the case is for the director to judge (after the fact) if a violation of Law 16B1 has damaged the non-offending side. This is precisely the same case as with Law 45F. > > So what about a claim by dummy? Although it's slightly different from the scenario > in 45F, in that dummy did not specifically touch or indicate a card, the > *information* provided by dummy is in the same category---it's a suggestion to > declarer of how to play the hand (as opposed to most other kinds of unauthorized > *information*, which are about a player having knowledge or information about the > cards in a hand that's supposed to be hidden from the player). So I'd argue that > we should treat this situation the same as the situation where dummy has > suggested a play by indicating one of his own cards, i.e. by applying L45F and > leaving L16 out of it. There is no need for Law 45F here. As I have pointed out above (and before) Law 16B fits the situation with precisely the same result without any legalistic virtuosity. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 8 03:10:37 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:10:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: <4CADEB37.2060909@ulb.ac.be> References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> <5E9C30B3-E076-4C09-9416-F98D73BC0D74@starpower.net> <4CADEB37.2060909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:45:59 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 7/10/2010 16:37, Eric Landau a ?crit : >> e CC. >>> So I am allowed to put Bergen raises on my card and have that mean >>> whatever I want. I could switch the meanings of the responses. > Well, that's indeed a problem. There are two versions of Bergen raises > (not to mention Bromad), their popularity is comparable, and my fellow > citizens have learned that mentioning 'Bergen raises' isn't enough, > they'd also write 'C > D' or 'D > C'. Once again, it seems that the US > are very much behind in this area. The point you could be making is that when "Bergen Raises" is ambiguous, the players learn that ambiguity and disambiguate when they explain. And, if you are just arguing with the example, you are not going to be happy if players play the 3C response as weak with clubs and call their convention Bergen Raises. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 8 03:36:20 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:36:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: <5E9C30B3-E076-4C09-9416-F98D73BC0D74@starpower.net> References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> <5E9C30B3-E076-4C09-9416-F98D73BC0D74@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 10:37:40 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 6, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 08:47:53 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> Obviously, I would not like to play in a club where >>>> >>>> 1. someone can play that odd shows a liking for the higher of the >>>> two >>>> remaining suits and even shows a liking for the lower suits >>> >>> They cannot do this, but only because "odd/even" appears on the ACBL >>> CC, and therefore is, at least in theory, defined by the ACBL >>> (although given that the ACBL insists that what appears in their >>> "official publication" isn't official, it's not clear where). >> >> So you are saying that odd-even in theory is defined by the ACBL >> and you >> will protect me if players do not follow this in-theory definition. >> >> I think one position is that if the ACBL has defined certain >> conventions, >> you protect me if players use the convention names but do not >> follow the >> definitions. >> >> I think you are saying that you will also protect me for convention >> names >> that the ACBL should have in theory defined. > > I am saying you are entitled to protection if an opponent simply > marks a checkbox on his CC but is not playing one of the "standard" > variations of that agreement -- whatever those may be. > >> That makes it more appealing to go to your club. >> >> The practical details escape me, because I have looked at the ACBL >> website >> and not yet found where conventions were defined. It seems even less >> likely that there is an official definition. > > Those definitions are readily found in either The Bridge Bulletin, > which calls itself the official publication of the ACBL, or in the > Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, which calls itself authorized by the > ACBL. It is a problem that the ACBL has also stated repeatedly that > it doesn't actually consider either of its "official" publications as > "officially official". It is also a problem that a particular > article, particularly in the Bulletin, may describe only one of the > "standard" variations of a given agreement. > >> So the opps say they are playing odd-even, and it turns out that a low >> even card does not signal liking for the lower of the two remaining >> suits. >> Do you protect me? > > If it "signals" something other than that. You cannot assume that > any given card is intended as a signal. > >>>> 2. They can call this odd-even >>> >>> Were "odd/even" not on the CC, they would be perfectly entitled to do >>> so... >>> >>>> and describe it to me as odd-even to see if >>>> they can fool me. >>> >>> ...but would not be allowed to do this... >> >> Is this a rule at your club? > > My club takes a very dim view of anyone doing anything "to see if > they can fool" anyone else other than with their bidding or play. > >>>> 3. The director protects them, not me. >>> >>> ...and the director should protect you accordingly. >>> >>>> I am happy to play in a club where a bid is described as Landy and >>>> if I >>>> fail to ask what it means and get it wrong, I am not protected. My >>>> fault, >>>> my problem. >>> >>> As it should be, for names that do not appear on the CC. >> >> So I am allowed to put Bergen raises on my card and have that mean >> whatever I want. I could switch the meanings of the responses. I >> could in >> fact be playing Rosenkrantz Doubles and just changing that name to >> Bergen >> raises. > > No you are not. That does not mean, however, that if someone, having > done nothing to "protect himself", calls me to the table and claims > to have been misled they will automatically get protection from me > (although they undoubtedly would in a case as egregious as Bob's > example). But I will require you to provide a description of your > methods, and penalize you if you fail to comply. I will also require > you to remove the offending name from your CC if I think it might be > misleading, or take disciplinary action it I think it was a > deliberate attempt to mislead (as I undoubtedly would in a case as > egregious as Bob's example). > >> That would make for an interesting bridge game. >> >> To make a serious point, it simplifies ruling and interpreting laws >> if we >> say that (1) players should not accept just convention names and >> (2) if >> they do, that is at their own risk. Thomas perhaps is still holding to >> that position. But it is not how we play bridge and it is not how >> we want >> to play bridge. Players should be protected. But then we get into a >> confusing issue of how that protection actually occurs. > > "We", of course, want to play bridge where convention names "we" are > familiar with describe methods "we" know. But we also want > protection from the TD when the opponents insist that they have > agreed to play Lichtenheimer with no further discussion. The only > way to resolve these disparate objectives is to define a specific set > of methods that may be referred to by name among some particular "we" > whom we expect will be sufficiently familiar with them, and require > all others to be described. In the case of the ACBL, "we" are > assumed to be generally familiar with the names that are pre-printed > on the CC. Absent some such provision, however, the position you > ascribe to Thomas is TFLB's, which calls for a "listing of a > partnership's understandings", which is not satisfied by listing the > names of some famous bridge players (no disrespect to Mr. Bergen or > Mr. Rozenkrantz). 1. The laws do not deal well with the situation where players describe their agreements/understandings using a convention name. 2. One solution is to try to get players to stop doing this. It seems, however, that the troops are not following. [From the ACBL Bulletin article on filling in convention cards, "If you have any other special agreements, such as ways to show a strong two-suited hands over a preempt (e.g.., Roman jump overcalls), write it in the space provided and Alert the opponents."] 3. When players don't follow this "bury-their-heads-in-the-sand approach, all of the original problems are unsolved. Including if their were ambiguities, which was the whole reason for this approach. 4. You seem to now be agreeing that a convention name like "odd-even" should have meaning. It is only a short-step to allowing that "Bergen raises" should have meaning. 5. I think that legally and rationally, either all convention names have meaning or convention names only acquire meaning by the specification of the regulating authority. 6. I do not think the relevant distinction is "listed on the approved convention card" Among other problems, that does not tell us what the approved meaning of the convention is. If I can figure out what odd-even means at my club, I can do the same for Bergan raises. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 8 04:30:40 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:30:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: <201010071717.KAA17294@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201010071717.KAA17294@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:33:33 -0400, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Thomas wrote: > >> Of course it is also a violation of L73A1. I then use L73C, too, rather >> than jump to L12A1. L73C then gets me to L16. > > I think you, and most of the other posters here, have jumped over the > correct Law. > > Assuming that dummy's claim is not considered a "claim", so that play > will continue, it is, I think, undeniable that dummy's actions have > given some information to declarer, and that information could suggest > the correct line play to declarer. But of course a claim is not the > only way for dummy to provide this sort of information. Suppose that > declarer leads towards dummy's A-Q, second hand follows low, declarer > pauses for a bit, then dummy reaches for the queen. Dummy, who is > better at card-reading than declarer, has already figured out that > second hand has to have the king on the auction and based on > inferences from the rest of the play. OK, so dummy has suggested a > play to declarer, but he's also provided *information* to declarer > about the correct line of play, just as much as the claim by dummy. > So is this UI, and do we apply Law 16? > > Regardless of the answer to the first question (is this UI), I think > the answer to the second question is "no", because we have a different > law dealing with this specific situation, i.e. Law 45F. That law has > a weaker standard than Law 16. It just lets director adjust if he > believes the defenders were damaged. It doesn't make it illegal for > declarer to play the queen, the way Law 16 probably would. Maybe some > people here think playing the queen should be illegal, and I don't > think that's an unreasonable point of view. But the Laws, as they are > right now, tell us to apply 45F. > > So what about a claim by dummy? Although it's slightly different from > the scenario in 45F, in that dummy did not specifically touch or > indicate a card, the *information* provided by dummy is in the same > category---it's a suggestion to declarer of how to play the hand (as > opposed to most other kinds of unauthorized *information*, which are > about a player having knowledge or information about the cards in a > hand that's supposed to be hidden from the player). So I'd argue that > we should treat this situation the same as the situation where dummy > has suggested a play by indicating one of his own cards, i.e. by > applying L45F and leaving L16 out of it. > > -- Adam I had an actual table situation where dummy said "dummy is good". Trump were out and dummy's other two cards were the king and queen of clubs. I decided following your principle, which I think is correct, that declarer surely knew that the ace of clubs was out and hence that the dummy's claim was not relevant. I still think that was the correct ruling. But... Delarer then led the king of clubs, threw his last loser on it, losing a trick to the offside ace. So declarer did not know whether or not the ace of clubs had been played, and declarer used the information given by dummy. So the assumptions behind my ruling were wrong. (In a fit of justice, declarer could have just cross-ruffed for the rest of the tricks.) From blml at arcor.de Fri Oct 8 08:04:50 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 08:04:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Claim(?) by dummy In-Reply-To: References: <201010071717.KAA17294@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <10230706.1286517890858.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > I had an actual table situation where dummy said "dummy is good". Trump > were out and dummy's other two cards were the king and queen of clubs. > > I decided following your principle, which I think is correct, that > declarer surely knew that the ace of clubs was out and hence that the > dummy's claim was not relevant. I still think that was the correct ruling. > > But... > > Delarer then led the king of clubs, threw his last loser on it, losing a > trick to the offside ace. So declarer did not know whether or not the ace > of clubs had been played, and declarer used the information given by > dummy. So the assumptions behind my ruling were wrong. (In a fit of > justice, declarer could have just cross-ruffed for the rest of the tricks.) That is one of the problems. The fact that dummy knows or claims to know which cards have already been played on previous tricks does not imply that declarer paid attention, too. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Fri Oct 8 08:23:40 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 08:23:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> <5E9C30B3-E076-4C09-9416-F98D73BC0D74@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6543087.1286519020237.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > 1. The laws do not deal well with the situation where players describe > their agreements/understandings using a convention name. It is more the ACBL that has a problem there, rather than TFLB. Or more precisely the ACBL convention card, which might be adequate if you have just a five minute discussion on system with a new partner, but is absurd for long term partnerships at any level of play. TFLB requires players to fully disclose their agreements. An "odd-even" checkbox on an ACBL convention card doesn't do that - not even if all four players at the table all think that "odd-even" implies that an odd card is encouraging. Look at the WBF convention card and compare the amount of information you get from a correctly filled in WBF convention card to the amount of information you get from a correctly filled in ACBL convention card. The systems I played the last 25 years, I typically could not have described on an ACBL convention card. Not even half of it. Simply not enough space. And lots of that space is taken away by checkboxes for methods I don't use. Thomas From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Oct 10 22:33:39 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:33:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ?? Message-ID: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> I haven't received any posting from blml in the last 3 or 4 days. Is something wrong with my computer or hasn't anything been sent out? Ciao, JE From craigstamps at comcast.net Sun Oct 10 22:50:17 2010 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:50:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ?? References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> Message-ID: <002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Testing...did u get this Jeff? Did it reach the whole list? Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 4:33 PM Subject: [BLML] ?? > I haven't received any posting from blml in the last 3 or 4 days. Is > something wrong with my computer or hasn't anything been sent out? > Ciao, JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Sun Oct 10 23:09:49 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:09:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Authorized information? In-Reply-To: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> Message-ID: <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> hello, Last saturday, i played the Cup against a friend's team, sitting NS in open room, i want to know if my direct seat opponent was the "offensive, imaginative" guy or his "following partner", this kind of pair is frequent, if you have the cards of the "moving" player, you can afford easilly some "strange bid" but if you have the others cards, you know this guy will not do anything outside of the book, my question : are you allowed to know witch opponents is sitting North and witch one is sitting South??? i know sometimes the board is turned 180? ... If somebody ask for, i give you a lead problem witch i really love :)) Thanks, Olivier Beauvillain __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5518 (20101009) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Oct 10 23:34:13 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:34:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> <002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> We are all here. You are not alone. Maybe you will wish you were as soon as the next thread is started.... Am 10.10.2010 22:50, schrieb craig: > Testing...did u get this Jeff? Did it reach the whole list? Craig > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 4:33 PM > Subject: [BLML] ?? > > >> I haven't received any posting from blml in the last 3 or 4 days. Is >> something wrong with my computer or hasn't anything been sent out? >> Ciao, JE >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 11 07:07:46 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:07:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Authorized information? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: Olivier Beauvillain: >..... >are you allowed to know which opponent is sitting North and >which one is sitting South??? >..... Richard Hills: Yes and no. In my opinion, the knowledge is not an entitlement under Law, but rather is an option for a Tournament Organizer regulation pursuant to Law 5 (Assignment of Seats). For example, the regulations for the Aussie Interstate Teams require each captain to inform the opposing captain of the exact compass direction (and room) of every specific player. More mundane team events lack such a regulation, so for those there is not any entitlement to know who is sitting where in the other room. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Mon Oct 11 14:34:31 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:34:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Authorized information? In-Reply-To: <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> References: <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> Message-ID: <28383216.1286800471115.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> "olivier.beauvillain" wrote: > Last saturday, i played the Cup against a friend's team, > > sitting NS in open room, i want to know if my direct seat opponent was the > "offensive, imaginative" guy or his "following partner", > this kind of pair is frequent, > if you have the cards of the "moving" player, you can afford easilly some > "strange bid" but if you have the others cards, you know this guy will not > do anything outside of the book, > > my question : > are you allowed to know witch opponents is sitting North and witch one is > sitting South??? > i know sometimes the board is turned 180? ... > > If somebody ask for, i give you a lead problem witch i really love :)) I see no obligation in TFLB for your opponents at your table to have that information. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 11 14:56:04 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:56:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Authorized information? In-Reply-To: <28383216.1286800471115.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> <28383216.1286800471115.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CB30964.2030203@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/10/2010 14:34, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > "olivier.beauvillain" wrote: >> Last saturday, i played the Cup against a friend's team, >> >> sitting NS in open room, i want to know if my direct seat opponent was the >> "offensive, imaginative" guy or his "following partner", >> this kind of pair is frequent, >> if you have the cards of the "moving" player, you can afford easilly some >> "strange bid" but if you have the others cards, you know this guy will not >> do anything outside of the book, >> >> my question : >> are you allowed to know witch opponents is sitting North and witch one is >> sitting South??? >> i know sometimes the board is turned 180? ... >> >> If somebody ask for, i give you a lead problem witch i really love :)) > I see no obligation in TFLB for your opponents at your table to have > that information. > That's what line-up sheets are for, but that's a matter of local organization. In other cases, nothing says this information should be available. There is a well-known player and TD in Brussels who is known to always hold the Spade Queen when it matters, and he seldom disappoints us. Once, in a pairs tournament, I asked where he was sitting , and played acordingly (the SQ wasn't an issue, but counting an opening bid was). Apparently, opponents felt they counldn't argue against it. What would you have told to the TD (who didn't know about that reputation), assuming that you don't want to look eccentric, or worse ? Best regards Alain From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Oct 11 15:20:29 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:20:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Authorized information? In-Reply-To: <4CB30964.2030203@ulb.ac.be> References: <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> <4CB22323.4030204 @aol.com><28383216.1286800471115.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net > <4CB30964.2030203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4CB30F1D.1070207@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 11/10/2010 14:34, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> "olivier.beauvillain" wrote: >>> Last saturday, i played the Cup against a friend's team, >>> >>> sitting NS in open room, i want to know if my direct seat opponent was the >>> "offensive, imaginative" guy or his "following partner", >>> this kind of pair is frequent, >>> if you have the cards of the "moving" player, you can afford easilly some >>> "strange bid" but if you have the others cards, you know this guy will not >>> do anything outside of the book, >>> >>> my question : >>> are you allowed to know witch opponents is sitting North and witch one is >>> sitting South??? >>> i know sometimes the board is turned 180? ... >>> >>> If somebody ask for, i give you a lead problem witch i really love :)) >> I see no obligation in TFLB for your opponents at your table to have >> that information. >> > That's what line-up sheets are for, but that's a matter of local > organization. > In other cases, nothing says this information should be available. > > There is a well-known player and TD in Brussels who is known to always > hold the Spade Queen when it matters, and he seldom disappoints us. > Once, in a pairs tournament, I asked where he was sitting , and played > acordingly (the SQ wasn't an issue, but counting an opening bid was). > Apparently, opponents felt they counldn't argue against it. What would > you have told to the TD (who didn't know about that reputation), > assuming that you don't want to look eccentric, or worse ? > i would have suggested to the TD that he prescribes you to follow a treatment for superstition. jpr > > Best regards > > Alain -- _______________________________________________ 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 11 15:35:13 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:35:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Authorized information? In-Reply-To: <4CB30F1D.1070207@meteo.fr> References: <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> <4CB22323.4030204 @aol.com><28383216.1286800471115.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net > <4CB30964.2030203@ulb.ac.be> <4CB30F1D.1070207@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4CB31291.4070707@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/10/2010 15:20, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >> Le 11/10/2010 14:34, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> "olivier.beauvillain" wrote: >>>> Last saturday, i played the Cup against a friend's team, >>>> >>>> sitting NS in open room, i want to know if my direct seat opponent was the >>>> "offensive, imaginative" guy or his "following partner", >>>> this kind of pair is frequent, >>>> if you have the cards of the "moving" player, you can afford easilly some >>>> "strange bid" but if you have the others cards, you know this guy will not >>>> do anything outside of the book, >>>> >>>> my question : >>>> are you allowed to know witch opponents is sitting North and witch one is >>>> sitting South??? >>>> i know sometimes the board is turned 180? ... >>>> >>>> If somebody ask for, i give you a lead problem witch i really love :)) >>> I see no obligation in TFLB for your opponents at your table to have >>> that information. >>> >> That's what line-up sheets are for, but that's a matter of local >> organization. >> In other cases, nothing says this information should be available. >> >> There is a well-known player and TD in Brussels who is known to always >> hold the Spade Queen when it matters, and he seldom disappoints us. >> Once, in a pairs tournament, I asked where he was sitting , and played >> acordingly (the SQ wasn't an issue, but counting an opening bid was). >> Apparently, opponents felt they counldn't argue against it. What would >> you have told to the TD (who didn't know about that reputation), >> assuming that you don't want to look eccentric, or worse ? >> > i would have suggested to the TD that he prescribes you to follow a > treatment for superstition. AG : so what ? There was a recent thread about what you're allowed to do to randomize play. You aren't allowed to use external help, and you can't randomize yourself. Surely playing for some card to have been in somebody's hand at another table isn't worse than playing for it to be on your left on sundays, tuesdays and wednesdays, on your right on mondays, wednesdays and fridays (and not breaking the Shabbat). I've always felt that a quick rule in such cases is better than trying to go random ; if you go wrong, at least you've spared some mental energy. (besides, the player in question really seems to hold said card rather often. I know this isn't rational -and I'm a diehard zetetician- but so it is) Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 11 22:17:51 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:17:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Authorized information? In-Reply-To: <4CB31291.4070707@ulb.ac.be> References: <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> <4CB22323.4030204 @aol.com><28383216.1286800471115.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net > <4CB30964.2030203@ulb.ac.be> <4CB30F1D.1070207@meteo.fr> <4CB31291.4070707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <16356017.57021286828271114.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> >----Original Message---- >From: agot at ulb.ac.be >Date: 11/10/2010 14:35 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Authorized information? > > Le 11/10/2010 15:20, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >>> Le 11/10/2010 14:34, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>> "olivier.beauvillain" wrote: >>>>> Last saturday, i played the Cup against a friend's team, >>>>> >>>>> sitting NS in open room, i want to know if my direct seat opponent was the >>>>> "offensive, imaginative" guy or his "following partner", >>>>> this kind of pair is frequent, >>>>> if you have the cards of the "moving" player, you can afford easilly some >>>>> "strange bid" but if you have the others cards, you know this guy will not >>>>> do anything outside of the book, >>>>> >>>>> my question : >>>>> are you allowed to know witch opponents is sitting North and witch one is >>>>> sitting South??? >>>>> i know sometimes the board is turned 180? ... >>>>> >>>>> If somebody ask for, i give you a lead problem witch i really love :)) >>>> I see no obligation in TFLB for your opponents at your table to have >>>> that information. >>>> >>> That's what line-up sheets are for, but that's a matter of local >>> organization. >>> In other cases, nothing says this information should be available. >>> >>> There is a well-known player and TD in Brussels who is known to always >>> hold the Spade Queen when it matters, and he seldom disappoints us. >>> Once, in a pairs tournament, I asked where he was sitting , and played >>> acordingly (the SQ wasn't an issue, but counting an opening bid was). >>> Apparently, opponents felt they counldn't argue against it. What would >>> you have told to the TD (who didn't know about that reputation), >>> assuming that you don't want to look eccentric, or worse ? >>> >> i would have suggested to the TD that he prescribes you to follow a >> treatment for superstition. >AG : so what ? There was a recent thread about what you're allowed to do >to randomize play. You aren't allowed to use external help, and you >can't randomize yourself. >Surely playing for some card to have been in somebody's hand at another >table isn't worse than playing for it to be on your left on sundays, >tuesdays and wednesdays, on your right on mondays, wednesdays and >fridays (and not breaking the Shabbat). >I've always felt that a quick rule in such cases is better than trying >to go random ; if you go wrong, at least you've spared some mental energy. > >(besides, the player in question really seems to hold said card rather >often. I know this isn't rational -and I'm a diehard zetetician- but so >it is) > >Best regards > > Alain > +=+ The subject is one of regulation but there may be no conflict with Law 40B2(a). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 11 22:30:13 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:30:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> <002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> Message-ID: <27291761.59741286829013189.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ Feeling lonely, Craig? Your every whisper reaches me. This is no guarantee of a quick response from me - I tend to get over a hundred daily and select very few for immediate response until I have seen some responses from elsewhere. ~ G ~ +=+ ...................................................... >----Original Message---- >From: ziffbridge at t-online.de >Date: 10/10/2010 22:34 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] ?? > >We are all here. You are not alone. Maybe you will wish you were as soon >as the next thread is started.... > >Am 10.10.2010 22:50, schrieb craig: >> Testing...did u get this Jeff? Did it reach the whole list? Craig >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jeff Easterson" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 4:33 PM >> Subject: [BLML] ?? >> >> >>> I haven't received any posting from blml in the last 3 or 4 days. Is >>> something wrong with my computer or hasn't anything been sent out? >>> Ciao, JE >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 12 07:57:36 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:57:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CA5ACD6.4020600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: > ... Notice that there is a pseudo-random criterion which produces >a 1/3 probability : who was the last player (except myself) to >have played a contract ? ... Richard Hills: The prefix "pseudo-" is correct. There is a 1/2 probability that my partner Hashmat Ali was the last player (except myself) to have played a contract. This is partly because we play the aggressive Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) style, whereby most 10 hcp holdings count as an opening bid. And partly because Hashmat Ali enjoys being a superb player of squeezes and endplays, so he manoeuvres to make me dummy whenever possible. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 tsvecfob at iol.ie Tue Oct 12 12:05:31 2010 From: tsvecfob at iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:05:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Does 28 lead to 26? References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <000001cb63a1$240bf900$6c23eb00$@no> Message-ID: Hi, We had this before but for clarification.... West is dealer but North opens 1D out of turn. Not noticing this, West opens 1S. The TD is called and gives a ruling. If the1S opening is passed out, there will be no lead penalties on South? Regards, Fearghal. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Oct 12 14:02:37 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does 28 lead to 26? In-Reply-To: References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <000001cb63a1$240bf900$6c23eb00$@no> Message-ID: Am 12.10.2010, 12:05 Uhr, schrieb Fearghal O'Boyle : > Hi, > We had this before but for clarification.... > West is dealer but North opens 1D out of turn. Not noticing this, West > opens 1S. The TD is called and gives a ruling. If the1S opening is > passed > out, there will be no lead penalties on South? Let me quote from Ton's commentary: "Assume that, with South as dealer, East opens the auction with 1H and South thereafter bids 1S. [...] It is possible that South noticed the bid out of turn and made an overcall, but it is also possible that he ignored the 1H-bid and wanted to open the auction. Both situations are legal options, so the TD has to ask South about his intentions. With an overcall the auction just continues, otherwise the 1H-bid is withdrawn and creates unauthorized information for West. [...] The TD has to understand that Law 29A does not prevail over Law 28B." So in your scenario, the applicable Law is 28B which says "Making such a call forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation. The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies." Therefore, no Law 26 lead restrictions, but UI restrictions on South. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 12 15:04:02 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:04:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Authorized information? In-Reply-To: <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> <0914022C75AC43C8A4766F1F24336B82@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <0466E138-EBD8-4454-9A4E-17067C4809AC@starpower.net> On Oct 10, 2010, at 5:09 PM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: > Last saturday, i played the Cup against a friend's team, > > sitting NS in open room, i want to know if my direct seat opponent > was the > "offensive, imaginative" guy or his "following partner", > this kind of pair is frequent, > if you have the cards of the "moving" player, you can afford > easilly some > "strange bid" but if you have the others cards, you know this guy > will not > do anything outside of the book, > > my question : > are you allowed to know witch opponents is sitting North and witch > one is > sitting South??? > i know sometimes the board is turned 180? ... TFLB does not address this question, so it depends on local regulations or CoCs. The usual rules in ACBL events desginate "seating rights" for one of the teams in each segment of a match. The other team seats itself first, and the team with the "rights" then seats itself as it wishes. That means that the team with the seating rights is entitled to know before the segment starts where each member of the opposing team is seated for that segment. Technically, the opposing team has no basis in the rules for a similar entitlement, but in practice I don't think I've ever encountered a situation in which the information was withheld. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Tue Oct 12 16:02:33 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:02:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> Message-ID: <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> S A1083 H Q86 D 83 C AJ32 S Q94 S J H J432 H 1097 D K975 D QJ1062 C 86 C 10974 S K7652 H AK5 D A4 C KQ5 Dealer South, Game All, IMPs South West North East 1S Pass 3S Pass 6S All Pass South, our club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, was in his element on the above hand. After a simple auction, West did very well to find the low diamond lead which ran to the ten and ace. South thought for a good ten minutes and then cashed the king of spades, noting the fall of the jack from East. He also noted East having a glance at his watch on this trick, worried that the p?t? de foie gras would have all gone by the time this table stopped for the hospitality break. South now had a classic triple shot. He crossed to the ace of spades and when the queen did not appear, he tried three rounds of clubs ending in dummy, but West ruffed and cashed the diamond. "Director!", bellowed the Secretary Bird. "East's glance at his watch prior to playing to the first round of spades was a a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit", he quoted, almost like a congregation reciting the Lord's player. "The action of looking at his watch might have been one of a player with QJ doubleton, wishing to play either card in a random order, and checking whether the second hand was to the left or right of the vertical at that time." East was furious and thought he had been stitched up by SB's long thought at trick one. "Not so", said SB, "as I had to calculate the chances of West having three clubs if he had three spades, compared with the restricted choice odds of the finesse." I made the finesse 17/23 or around 74%. Rising and cashing the clubs was a good 83%. However, when East looked his watch, I could virtually claim; either he had QJ doubleton and had breached 40C3(a) by using his watch, or he had a singleton jack and had breached 73F. "It is sufficient to show that I drew a false inference from the glance at the watch, and I do not regard his desire not to miss out on food as a demonstrable bridge reason", continued SB. "In fact, both lines, finessing or playing for the drop, would work, for different reasons!" "If you don't shut up, you will need stitches for that cut on the eye which you are about to get", replied East. SB began reciting 74A2, but the director waved that aside, but when all the table confirmed they had seen the glance at the watch, he still felt he had to rule in favour of SB. How would you have decided? And would you renew SB's membership? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 16:14:32 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:14:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> <002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: 2010/10/12 : > ? ? ? ? ?S A1083 > ? ? ? ? ?H Q86 > ? ? ? ? ?D 83 > ? ? ? ? ?C AJ32 > S Q94 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?S J > H J432 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? H 1097 > D K975 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? D QJ1062 > C 86 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? C 10974 > ? ? ? ? ?S K7652 > ? ? ? ? ?H AK5 > ? ? ? ? ?D A4 > ? ? ? ? ?C KQ5 > > Dealer South, Game All, IMPs > > South West ?North East > 1S ? ?Pass ?3S ? ?Pass > 6S ? ?All Pass > > South, our club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, was in his element > on the above hand. After a simple auction, West did very well to find > the low diamond lead which ran to the ten and ace. South thought for a > good ten minutes and then cashed the king of spades, noting the fall of > the jack from East. He also noted East having a glance at his watch on > this trick, worried that the p?t? de foie gras would have all gone by > the time this table stopped for the hospitality break. > > South now had a classic triple shot. He crossed to the ace of spades > and when the queen did not appear, he tried three rounds of clubs > ending in dummy, but West ruffed and cashed the diamond. "Director!", > bellowed the Secretary Bird. "East's glance at his watch prior to > playing to the first round of spades was a a remark, manner, tempo, or > the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the > action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, ?that the > action could work to his benefit", he quoted, almost like a > congregation reciting the Lord's player. "The action of looking at his > watch might have been one of a player with QJ doubleton, wishing to > play either card in a random order, and checking whether the second > hand was to the left or right of the vertical at that time." > > East was furious and thought he had been stitched up by SB's long > thought at trick one. "Not so", said SB, "as I had to calculate the > chances of West having three clubs if he had three spades, compared > with the restricted choice odds of the finesse." I made the finesse > 17/23 or around 74%. Rising and cashing the clubs was a good 83%. > However, when East looked his watch, I could virtually claim; either he > had QJ doubleton and had breached 40C3(a) by using his watch, or he had > a singleton jack and had breached 73F. "It is sufficient to show that I > drew a false inference from the glance at the watch, and I do not > regard his desire not to miss out on food as a demonstrable bridge > reason", continued SB. "In fact, both lines, finessing or playing for > the drop, would work, for different reasons!" > > "If you don't shut up, you will need stitches for that cut on the eye > which you are about to get", replied East. SB began reciting 74A2, but > the director waved that aside, but when all the table confirmed they > had seen the glance at the watch, he still felt he had to rule in > favour of SB. How would you have decided? And would you renew SB's > membership? Result stands, of course. The whole thing is ridiculous. I'd impose a severe disiplinary penalty on the SB for disruption of the game and for wasting my time. And tell him that any similar happenstance in the future would lead to him being expelled from the club. Forever. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gampas at aol.com Tue Oct 12 16:27:27 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:27:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com> [harald.skjaran] I'd impose a severe disiplinary penalty on the SB for disruption of the game and for wasting my time. And tell him that any similar happenstance in the future would lead to him being expelled from the club. Forever. [paul lamford] Under which Law(s)? Is there an offence of wasting police time in the Laws? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 20:28:58 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:28:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> <002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: 2010/10/12 : > [harald.skjaran] > I'd impose a severe disiplinary penalty on the SB for disruption of the > game and for wasting my time. > And tell him that any similar happenstance in the future would lead to > him being expelled from the club. Forever. > > [paul lamford] Under which Law(s)? Is there an offence of wasting > police time in the Laws? I don't think I've have any problem doing this under L74A1, L74A2 and L90A, separately or combined. L90A is very clear, however. "The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." Such behaviour as described in the OP delays and obstructs the game and inconveniences other contestants (not to speak of the TD). I'm very tolerant, but this kind of thing is totally unacceptable. And it's something I'll hit hard if it ever happens. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 12 22:24:28 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:24:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? Message-ID: I think blml probably discussed this last month, but it came up at the table today. Declarer made a LOOT, a small club. LHO had a major penalty card on the table, also a small club. L50D: "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity..." This was the first legal opportunity. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Oct 12 22:49:25 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:49:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CB4C9D5.8070406@t-online.de> Am 12.10.2010 22:24, schrieb Robert Frick: > I think blml probably discussed this last month, but it came up at the > table today. Declarer made a LOOT, a small club. LHO had a major penalty > card on the table, also a small club. > > L50D: "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal > opportunity..." This was the first legal opportunity. And your point is..? It becomes said opportunity only after accepting this LOOT, which LHO is not forced to do. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 00:09:15 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:09:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: > ... To make a serious point, it simplifies ruling and interpreting >laws if we say that (1) players should not accept just convention >names and (2) if they do, that is at their own risk. Thomas perhaps >is still holding to that position. Grattan Endicott, 16th September 2010: >> ... 3. If opponent looks at the System Card, sees the name of 'x' >>on the card but no explanation of it and without enquiry applies >>to it his own interpretation, then he is liable for his own >>misunderstanding since no opponent has given him misinformation >>(see Law 21A). The name of a convention is not an explanation of >>it. +=+ Law 21A - Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding: "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." Robert Frick: >But it is not how we play bridge and it is not how we want to play >bridge. Richard Hills: Yes Law 21A is how we play bridge and yes Law 21A is how we want to play bridge (except for a TD who intentionally illegally gives Ave+ to both sides instead of the TD correctly applying Law 21A). For example, many Canberra semi-experts have the convention SW1NE written on their system cards, a convention which Robert Frick is most unlikely to have heard of. But if Robert Frick was visiting Canberra he could simply enquire about SW1NE when perusing the opponents' system cards at the start of the round. Or, before travelling to Canberra, Robert Frick could look up SW1NE in the ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. Robert Frick: >Players should be protected. ... Richard Hills: Yes and no. Under ABF rules Canberra semi-experts are required to pre-alert unusual methods of significance. But the unusual Piglet convention (son of SW1NE) is so insignificant that players are required to protect themselves with an enquiry when seeing Piglet written on their opponents' system cards. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Oct 13 01:00:20 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:00:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com><8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD3878614A7A2A-1090-261A@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> [harald.skjaran] I don't think I've have any problem doing this under L74A1, L74A2 and L90A, separately or combined. L90A is very clear, however. "The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. [paul lamford] Indeed it is very clear. It uses the word "offence". I repeat, which law did SB break? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 01:41:18 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:41:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD3878614A7A2A-1090-261A@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >> ... the director waved that aside, but when all the table >>confirmed they had seen the glance at the watch, he still felt >>he had to rule in favour of SB. How would you have decided? Richard Hills: Incorrect Law 85 assessment of disputed facts by the table TD. My Law 85 assessment is that East's action was an aid to non- bridge food grazing, not a Law 40C3(a) aid to bridge technique. Paul Lamford: >>And would you renew SB's membership? Richard hills: As Club President, after accepting the Secretary Bird's payment for next year's membership, I would then suspend the Secretary Bird for twelve months under Law 80B2. Paul Lamford: > ... I repeat, which law did SB break? Richard Hills: As I recall, Sven Pran has the belief that it is never unLawful to summon the Director (with the obvious exception of Law 20F5 situations). I disagree. In real-life Law there are what are known as "vexatious litigants" who waste time mounting meritless court cases. I argue that the Secretary Bird's mere act of meritlessly calling for the Director is a classic example of "coffee-housing", and therefore an infraction of Law 74B5: As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants. That is, in my opinion, the Secretary Bird's summoning of the Director was in and of itself discourteous to the Director and the other side. Because the Secretary Bird knew or should have known that the other side had not been at all remotely close to perpetrating any infraction. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Wed Oct 13 01:44:05 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:44:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? In-Reply-To: <4CB4C9D5.8070406@t-online.de> References: <4CB4C9D5.8070406@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:49:25 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 12.10.2010 22:24, schrieb Robert Frick: >> I think blml probably discussed this last month, but it came up at the >> table today. Declarer made a LOOT, a small club. LHO had a major penalty >> card on the table, also a small club. >> >> L50D: "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal >> opportunity..." This was the first legal opportunity. > > And your point is..? > > It becomes said opportunity only after accepting this LOOT, which LHO is > not forced to do. > >> I agree with your ruling. But you are misstating the actual law in a critical way. "It becomes the correct lead if [defender] accepts it by making a statement to that effect, *or* if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead." So the player can either accept the lead OR play. The next sentence is more of the same implication: "If there is no such acceptance or play....." So "acceptance" does not precede opportunity to play, as the law is written. From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 13 01:56:20 2010 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:56:20 -0700 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:44:05 EDT." Message-ID: <201010122340.QAA06284@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:49:25 -0400, Matthias Berghaus > wrote: > > > Am 12.10.2010 22:24, schrieb Robert Frick: > >> I think blml probably discussed this last month, but it came up at the > >> table today. Declarer made a LOOT, a small club. LHO had a major penalty > >> card on the table, also a small club. > >> > >> L50D: "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal > >> opportunity..." This was the first legal opportunity. > > > > And your point is..? > > > > It becomes said opportunity only after accepting this LOOT, which LHO is > > not forced to do. > > > >> > > I agree with your ruling. But you are misstating the actual law in a > critical way. > > "It becomes the correct lead if [defender] accepts it by making a > statement to that effect, *or* if a play is made from the hand next in > rotation to the irregular lead." > > So the player can either accept the lead OR play. > > The next sentence is more of the same implication: "If there is no such > acceptance or play....." > > So "acceptance" does not precede opportunity to play, as the law is > written. LHO should point out that declarer made an LOOT. Law 9A2 gives him the right to do so. Once attention has been drawn, law 9B1-2 says that the Director should be summoned, and that no player may take any action until the Director has explained everything. So during that period, it is, technically, *not* legal to play a card---until the Director has explained all the options and LHO has chosen an option. So during that time, there is no legal opportunity to play a card, and thus LHO cannot be required to accept the lead by playing a card. Once LHO has chosen an option, if he does not choose the option to accept the lead, then the lead is retracted; declarer must lead from dummy, and LHO is now required to play the penalty card only if it's a legal play to the trick. -- Adam From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 13 02:17:57 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:17:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD388337C67B0F-18DC-C441@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> A Stitch in Time (2) S K1083 H K8 D 83 C K10932 S Q94 S J H J432 H Q1097 D K975 D QJ1062 C 86 C 754 S A7652 H A65 D A4 C AQJ Dealer South, Game All, IMPs South West North East 1S Pass 3S Pass 6S All Pass East, our club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, was in his element on the above hand. After a simple auction, West did very well to find the low diamond lead which ran to the ten and ace. South thought for a good ten minutes and then cashed the king of spades, noting the fall of the jack from East. He also noted East had shuffled his cards before playing to trick one, but had then selected the ten, presumably from QJ10. South had originally intended to play the best percentage line of finessing the spade - around 74% and much better than cashing two spades and hoping West had three clubs - around 63%. But he wondered why East had shuffled his cards. In the end he decided it was to make a random choice between the queen and jack of trumps, and decided to play the inferior percentage line of playing for the drop, fatally as you can see. South was furious and thought he had been stitched up by SB's shuffle at trick one. "Not so", said SB, "I have every right to shuffle my cards to make sure that you do not deduce my distribution from where I take any card - and, provided I have a demonstrable bridge reason, you draw any inference at your peril." If you check with others, I do so on pretty much every slam hand. South was miffed by the TD decision that the result stood. He was even more perplexed by the TD's ruling that calling the director was an infraction of Law 74B5 in that the other side had not been at all remotely close to perpetrating any infraction, especially as he had been most courteous despite his fury. In a previous case, the previous day, the director had ruled that looking at one's watch was not a demonstrable bridge reason, and he did not see why shuffling one's cards should be either. He was not arguing that East had breached Law 40C3(a) but he did think that the defender had breached Law 73F. The East who looked at his watch had admitted on appeal that he had tried to pretend he had QJ doubleton in trumps. He had felt guilty because his story about the refreshments had been attempt to con the SB, and his conscience had got the better of him. From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 13 02:27:35 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:27:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD388491471039-18DC-C8A6@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] Incorrect Law 85 assessment of disputed facts by the table TD. My Law 85 assessment is that East's action was an aid to non-bridge food grazing, not a Law 40C3(a) aid to bridge technique. [Paul Lamford] Incorrect reading of the hand record by the BLML contributor. My Law 85 assessment is that, given that he actually had a singleton jack of trumps, Law 40C3(a) is irrelevant. The only question is whether there was a Law 73F infraction. In fact East admitted the next day: a) that he did not have a demonstrable bridge reason for "the like" and that his glance at the watch was to deceive the SB into thinking that he was selecting randomly between equal cards. He was fully aware of a survey of Bridge Base and OKBridge hands which showed that all players, almost unavoidably, tend to play the higher of two touching honours - around 60% in fact. b) that not only could he have been aware that the action would work to his benefit, this was his express intention c) he also wished to get the SB banned if possible, and was hoping that the TD would be of the same view as one who has already responded to this thread. From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 13 02:40:03 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:40:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time (2) In-Reply-To: <8CD388337C67B0F-18DC-C441@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD38864F1C2DEF-18DC-CF53@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> A Stitch in Time (2) S K1083 H K8 D 83 C K10932 S Q94 S J H J432 H Q1097 D K975 D QJ1062 C 86 C 754 S A7652 H A65 D A4 C AQJ Dealer South, Game All, IMPs South West North East 1S Pass 3S Pass 6S All Pass East, our club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, was in his element on the above hand. After a simple auction, West did very well to find the low diamond lead which ran to the ten and ace. South thought for a good ten minutes and then cashed the ace of spades, noting the fall of the jack from East. He also noted East had shuffled his cards before playing to trick one, but had then selected the ten, presumably from QJ10. South had originally intended to play the best percentage line of finessing the spade - around 74% and much better than cashing two spades and hoping West had three clubs - around 63%. But he wondered why East had shuffled his cards. In the end he decided it was to make a random choice between the queen and jack of trumps, and decided to play the inferior percentage line of playing for the drop, fatally as you can see. South was furious and thought he had been stitched up by SB's shuffle at trick one. "Not so", said SB, "I have every right to shuffle my cards to make sure that you do not deduce my distribution from where I take any card - and, provided I have a demonstrable bridge reason, you draw any inference at your peril." If you check with others, I do so on pretty much every slam hand. South was miffed by the TD decision that the result stood. He was even more perplexed by the TD's ruling that calling the director was an infraction of Law 74B5 in that the other side had not been at all remotely close to perpetrating any infraction, especially as he had been most courteous despite his fury. In a previous case, the previous day, the director had ruled that looking at one's watch was not a demonstrable bridge reason, and he did not see why shuffling one's cards should be either. He was not arguing that East had breached Law 40C3(a) but he did think that the defender had breached Law 73F. The East who looked at his watch had admitted on appeal that he had tried to pretend he had QJ doubleton in trumps. He had felt guilty because his story about the refreshments had been attempt to con the SB, and his conscience had got the better of him. *The above corrects an error - declarer cashed the ace of spades, not the king.* From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 13 02:45:25 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:45:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD38870F53D76F-18DC-D232@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] As Club President, after accepting the Secretary Bird's payment for next year's membership, I would then suspend the Secretary Bird for twelve months under Law 80B2. [Paul Lamford] Which of (a) to (l)? I guess you could make it a condition of entry that no feathered entrants are permitted, using 85B2(d). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 03:14:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:14:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD38870F53D76F-18DC-D232@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>As Club President, after accepting the Secretary Bird's payment >>for next year's membership, I would then suspend the Secretary >>Bird for twelve months under Law 80B2. Paul Lamford: >Which of (a) to (l)? I guess you could make it a condition of >entry that no feathered entrants are permitted, using 80B2(d). Richard Hills: It is my Taswegian thrift which causes me to accept the annual subscription payment from the Secretary Bird before suspending him for a year. :-) :-) In addition to Law 80B2(d) it seems to me also relevant is Law 80B2(h), since arrangements for the acceptance of entries to my mind necessarily include arrangements for the non-acceptance of entries. Plus the catch-all Law 80B2(l) permits the Tournament Organizer to apply Law 91B: The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer. But in my opinion the hypothetical scenarios on these "Stitch in Time" threads are symbolic of blml's struggle against reality. Monty Python's Life of Brian: JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan? LORETTA: I want to have babies. REG: You want to have babies?! LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them. REG: But... you can't have babies. LORETTA: Don't you oppress me. REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?! JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies. FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry. REG: What's the point? FRANCIS: What? REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?! FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Wed Oct 13 03:51:15 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:51:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:09:15 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> ... To make a serious point, it simplifies ruling and interpreting >> laws if we say that (1) players should not accept just convention >> names and (2) if they do, that is at their own risk. Thomas perhaps >> is still holding to that position. > > Grattan Endicott, 16th September 2010: > >>> ... 3. If opponent looks at the System Card, sees the name of 'x' >>> on the card but no explanation of it and without enquiry applies >>> to it his own interpretation, then he is liable for his own >>> misunderstanding since no opponent has given him misinformation >>> (see Law 21A). The name of a convention is not an explanation of >>> it. +=+ > > Law 21A - Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding: > > "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the > basis of his own misunderstanding." > > Robert Frick: > >> But it is not how we play bridge and it is not how we want to play >> bridge. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes Law 21A is how we play bridge and yes Law 21A is how we want to > play bridge (except for a TD who intentionally illegally gives Ave+ > to both sides instead of the TD correctly applying Law 21A). > > For example, many Canberra semi-experts have the convention SW1NE > written on their system cards, a convention which Robert Frick is > most unlikely to have heard of. But if Robert Frick was visiting > Canberra he could simply enquire about SW1NE when perusing the > opponents' system cards at the start of the round. Or, before > travelling to Canberra, Robert Frick could look up SW1NE in the > ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. > > Robert Frick: > >> Players should be protected. ... > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and no. Under ABF rules Canberra semi-experts are required to > pre-alert unusual methods of significance. But the unusual Piglet > convention (son of SW1NE) is so insignificant that players are > required to protect themselves with an enquiry when seeing Piglet > written on their opponents' system cards. > Hi Richard. I think you missed the discussion on this. But I am happy to repeat it. Because what you are saying here -- that names of conventions are meaningless for legal purposes -- seems plausible at first. There is a convention called "odd-even". At the core, this means (at least) that on first discard, an odd card signals liking of a suit and an even card signals dislike of a suit. If I see on the opponent's convention card that odd-even is checked, I will assume that they are playing this core meaning. If they are not (they have switched the meaning, or they are playing Lavinthal and calling in odd-even, or whatever), I will expect to be protected. And the director will almost certainly protect me. That would not be my misunderstanding, that would be their misdescription. Same if the opponents *say* their discards are odd-even when I ask them. So that's what I mean when I say your position above is untenable. We don't play bridge that way, we don't want to play bridge that way, and if the WBFLC interpreted the law that way, no one would change what they do now. The other option is that there is a core meaning to a convention name and this core is legally binding. That option is merely difficult, as it requires establishing the core. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 13 04:06:36 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:06:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? In-Reply-To: <201010122340.QAA06284@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <201010122340.QAA06284@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:56:20 -0400, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:49:25 -0400, Matthias Berghaus >> wrote: >> >> > Am 12.10.2010 22:24, schrieb Robert Frick: >> >> I think blml probably discussed this last month, but it came up at >> the >> >> table today. Declarer made a LOOT, a small club. LHO had a major >> penalty >> >> card on the table, also a small club. >> >> >> >> L50D: "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal >> >> opportunity..." This was the first legal opportunity. >> > >> > And your point is..? >> > >> > It becomes said opportunity only after accepting this LOOT, which LHO >> is >> > not forced to do. >> > >> >> >> >> I agree with your ruling. But you are misstating the actual law in a >> critical way. >> >> "It becomes the correct lead if [defender] accepts it by making a >> statement to that effect, *or* if a play is made from the hand next in >> rotation to the irregular lead." >> >> So the player can either accept the lead OR play. >> >> The next sentence is more of the same implication: "If there is no such >> acceptance or play....." >> >> So "acceptance" does not precede opportunity to play, as the law is >> written. > > LHO should point out that declarer made an LOOT. Law 9A2 gives him > the right to do so. > > Once attention has been drawn, law 9B1-2 says that the Director should > be summoned, and that no player may take any action until the Director > has explained everything. So during that period, it is, technically, > *not* legal to play a card---until the Director has explained all the > options and LHO has chosen an option. So during that time, there is > no legal opportunity to play a card, and thus LHO cannot be required > to accept the lead by playing a card. Once LHO has chosen an option, > if he does not choose the option to accept the lead, then the lead is > retracted; declarer must lead from dummy, and LHO is now required to > play the penalty card only if it's a legal play to the trick. > > -- Adam Hi Adam. I think the laws would be a little better if they corresponded to how you describe them. But the fit isn't as good as I would like. Your first problem is that LHO is not required to draw attention to the regularity, whilst he is required to play his penalty card. So we are back to mandatory play of the penalty card. Once attention is drawn, then the director should be called. We can imagine that law taking precedence over playing a penalty card, though I cannot see any reason for being certain of that. But.... I was surprised, but I don't see anywhere in the laws where the director offers a choice of accepting or rejecting the LOOT. In addition to not being phrased in terms of choices, reject isn't listed as a choice. So technically, the director offers LHO a choice of (1) accepting the lead, (2) playing, or (3) doing nothing. And we are back to playing being required by law. So it's interesting to look at the actual law. From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 13 06:08:48 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:08:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24176360.1286942928463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:09:15 -0400, wrote: > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> ... To make a serious point, it simplifies ruling and interpreting > >> laws if we say that (1) players should not accept just convention > >> names and (2) if they do, that is at their own risk. Thomas perhaps > >> is still holding to that position. > > > > Grattan Endicott, 16th September 2010: > > > >>> ... 3. If opponent looks at the System Card, sees the name of 'x' > >>> on the card but no explanation of it and without enquiry applies > >>> to it his own interpretation, then he is liable for his own > >>> misunderstanding since no opponent has given him misinformation > >>> (see Law 21A). The name of a convention is not an explanation of > >>> it. +=+ > > > > Law 21A - Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding: > > > > "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the > > basis of his own misunderstanding." > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> But it is not how we play bridge and it is not how we want to play > >> bridge. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Yes Law 21A is how we play bridge and yes Law 21A is how we want to > > play bridge (except for a TD who intentionally illegally gives Ave+ > > to both sides instead of the TD correctly applying Law 21A). > > > > For example, many Canberra semi-experts have the convention SW1NE > > written on their system cards, a convention which Robert Frick is > > most unlikely to have heard of. But if Robert Frick was visiting > > Canberra he could simply enquire about SW1NE when perusing the > > opponents' system cards at the start of the round. Or, before > > travelling to Canberra, Robert Frick could look up SW1NE in the > > ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> Players should be protected. ... > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Yes and no. Under ABF rules Canberra semi-experts are required to > > pre-alert unusual methods of significance. But the unusual Piglet > > convention (son of SW1NE) is so insignificant that players are > > required to protect themselves with an enquiry when seeing Piglet > > written on their opponents' system cards. > > > > > Hi Richard. I think you missed the discussion on this. But I am happy to > repeat it. Because what you are saying here -- that names of conventions > are meaningless for legal purposes -- seems plausible at first. > > There is a convention called "odd-even". At the core, this means (at > least) that on first discard, an odd card signals liking of a suit and an > even card signals dislike of a suit. > > If I see on the opponent's convention card that odd-even is checked, I > will assume that they are playing this core meaning. If they are not (they > have switched the meaning, or they are playing Lavinthal and calling in > odd-even, or whatever), I will expect to be protected. And the director > will almost certainly protect me. That would not be my misunderstanding, > that would be their misdescription. Odd-even is a bit of a bad example because that appears to be same in different parts of the US. Lets say a pair from the US west coast states on their convention card they play "Standard American". What is called "Standard American" on the west coast is a bit different to what is called "Standard American" on the east coast. They now play against you, you see their card is marked "Standard American". You wrongly assume they play the east coast flavor with which you are familiar. They make one of those bids which have a different meaning on the west coast; you don't notice that and assume the east coast meaning with which you are familiar. That is your problem, they didn't misinform you. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 06:24:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:24:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <26429891.1286428926219.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >The AC has the full power of the director as long as the AC >does not attempt to overrule the director's interpretation of >law or regulations, L93B3. "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" Thomas Dehn: >I think the situation might be even worse than you think it >is. When the director applies his private extra law, L99 >"The director had the right to award A+/A+ if he thinks >that increases the club's profitability" Richard Hills: Or Law 98 -> "The Director has the right to award Ave+ to some offending sides, but only to please particularly potent people; Ave- punishment for peasants." Thomas Dehn: >then that is a wrong interpretation of TFLB, rather than a >wrong analysis of any perceived or actual infraction. >Unfortunately, I don't see any basis for the AC to overrule >that wrong ruling other than merely recommending the >director change his own ruling. Richard Hills: 1. The Appeals Committee discovers that the Director has perpetrated an intentionally illegal ruling. 2. The Appeals Committee recommends that the Director changes her intentionally illegal ruling. 3. In a logically inconsistent about-face, the Director now cites Law 93B3 as justification to refuse. 4. The Appeals Committee then chooses to "exercise all powers" of the Director, specifically the Law 81B1 "powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer". 5. The Tournament Organizer has omitted to Law 80B2(a) dis- appoint the intentionally illegal Director. 6. So the Appeals Committee now Law 80B2(a) appoints a sensible person as Director in charge, thus that new DIC follows the Appeals Committee recommendation to reverse the intentionally illegal ruling of her predecessor. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Wed Oct 13 06:56:22 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:56:22 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <8193D586311A477EB33E36D284FE688E@acer> To Thomas and Richard I admire your persistence good luck bill kemp ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Thomas Dehn: > >>The AC has the full power of the director as long as the AC >>does not attempt to overrule the director's interpretation of >>law or regulations, L93B3. > > "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers > assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the > committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point > of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 > disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the > Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" > > Thomas Dehn: > >>I think the situation might be even worse than you think it >>is. When the director applies his private extra law, L99 >>"The director had the right to award A+/A+ if he thinks >>that increases the club's profitability" > > Richard Hills: > > Or Law 98 -> > "The Director has the right to award Ave+ to some offending > sides, but only to please particularly potent people; Ave- > punishment for peasants." > > Thomas Dehn: > >>then that is a wrong interpretation of TFLB, rather than a >>wrong analysis of any perceived or actual infraction. >>Unfortunately, I don't see any basis for the AC to overrule >>that wrong ruling other than merely recommending the >>director change his own ruling. > > Richard Hills: > > 1. The Appeals Committee discovers that the Director has > perpetrated an intentionally illegal ruling. > > 2. The Appeals Committee recommends that the Director > changes her intentionally illegal ruling. > > 3. In a logically inconsistent about-face, the Director now > cites Law 93B3 as justification to refuse. > > 4. The Appeals Committee then chooses to "exercise all > powers" of the Director, specifically the Law 81B1 > "powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament > Organizer". > > 5. The Tournament Organizer has omitted to Law 80B2(a) dis- > appoint the intentionally illegal Director. > > 6. So the Appeals Committee now Law 80B2(a) appoints a > sensible person as Director in charge, thus that new DIC > follows the Appeals Committee recommendation to reverse > the intentionally illegal ruling of her predecessor. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 07:24:27 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:24:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ?? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <27291761.59741286829013189.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Feeling lonely, Craig? Your every whisper reaches me. >>This is no guarantee of a quick response from me - I tend to get >>over a hundred daily and select very few for immediate response >>until I have seen some responses from elsewhere. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Private email from a blml lurker: >...I love your posts because I understand the laws better than >before whenever I read your comments on the rules. Unlike Grattan >for example who is competent beyond any doubt but hard to read... Richard Hills: My quick and readable posts are not necessarily 100% accurate. Meanwhile, Grattan's hard-to-read posts carefully explore every nuance of the Law under debate with 110% accuracy. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Wed Oct 13 13:42:40 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 07:42:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <24176360.1286942928463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <24176360.1286942928463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:08:48 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:09:15 -0400, wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick: >> > >> >> ... To make a serious point, it simplifies ruling and interpreting >> >> laws if we say that (1) players should not accept just convention >> >> names and (2) if they do, that is at their own risk. Thomas perhaps >> >> is still holding to that position. >> > >> > Grattan Endicott, 16th September 2010: >> > >> >>> ... 3. If opponent looks at the System Card, sees the name of 'x' >> >>> on the card but no explanation of it and without enquiry applies >> >>> to it his own interpretation, then he is liable for his own >> >>> misunderstanding since no opponent has given him misinformation >> >>> (see Law 21A). The name of a convention is not an explanation of >> >>> it. +=+ >> > >> > Law 21A - Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding: >> > >> > "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the >> > basis of his own misunderstanding." >> > >> > Robert Frick: >> > >> >> But it is not how we play bridge and it is not how we want to play >> >> bridge. >> > >> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > Yes Law 21A is how we play bridge and yes Law 21A is how we want to >> > play bridge (except for a TD who intentionally illegally gives Ave+ >> > to both sides instead of the TD correctly applying Law 21A). >> > >> > For example, many Canberra semi-experts have the convention SW1NE >> > written on their system cards, a convention which Robert Frick is >> > most unlikely to have heard of. But if Robert Frick was visiting >> > Canberra he could simply enquire about SW1NE when perusing the >> > opponents' system cards at the start of the round. Or, before >> > travelling to Canberra, Robert Frick could look up SW1NE in the >> > ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. >> > >> > Robert Frick: >> > >> >> Players should be protected. ... >> > >> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > Yes and no. Under ABF rules Canberra semi-experts are required to >> > pre-alert unusual methods of significance. But the unusual Piglet >> > convention (son of SW1NE) is so insignificant that players are >> > required to protect themselves with an enquiry when seeing Piglet >> > written on their opponents' system cards. >> > >> >> >> Hi Richard. I think you missed the discussion on this. But I am happy to >> repeat it. Because what you are saying here -- that names of conventions >> are meaningless for legal purposes -- seems plausible at first. >> >> There is a convention called "odd-even". At the core, this means (at >> least) that on first discard, an odd card signals liking of a suit and >> an >> even card signals dislike of a suit. >> >> If I see on the opponent's convention card that odd-even is checked, I >> will assume that they are playing this core meaning. If they are not >> (they >> have switched the meaning, or they are playing Lavinthal and calling in >> odd-even, or whatever), I will expect to be protected. And the director >> will almost certainly protect me. That would not be my misunderstanding, >> that would be their misdescription. > > Odd-even is a bit of a bad example because that appears to be > same in different parts of the US. > > Lets say a pair from the US west coast states on their convention card > they play "Standard American". What is called "Standard American" > on the west coast is a bit different to what is called "Standard > American" > on the east coast. > > They now play against you, you see their card is marked "Standard > American". > You wrongly assume they play the east coast flavor with which you are > familiar. > They make one of those bids which have a different meaning on the west > coast; > you don't notice that and assume the east coast meaning with which you > are familiar. > > That is your problem, they didn't misinform you. We have switched from a real-life example to a hypothetical example because the real-life example isn't a good one? Suppose someone walks into your club, they say they are playing odd-even on first discard, and it turns out one of your players is damaged because everyone from my country plays that odd shows dislike of a suit. How do you rule? My point is that this is not an easy ruling. Find me a way to make this ruling easy? Meanwhile, there are convention names that people agree have a core meaning. You have not addressed the issue that it is completely unfeasible to allow players to violate the core meaning. Note that if the club had a well-defined "Standard American", the players from other places could read it and know what is unusual about their system and hence needs alerting or explanation. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 13 14:10:17 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:10:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? In-Reply-To: References: <4CB4C9D5.8070406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4CB5A1A9.1040909@t-online.de> Am 13.10.2010 01:44, schrieb Robert Frick: > I agree with your ruling. But you are misstating the actual law in a > critical way. > > "It becomes the correct lead if [defender] accepts it by making a > statement to that effect, *or* if a play is made from the hand next in > rotation to the irregular lead." Well, for one, _you_ are misstating the law. LAW 53 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead (but see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will require that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B). _May_ be treated, and _either_ defender. But we should better look at L55: LAW 55 - DECLARER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN A. Declarer?s Lead Accepted If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, _or require its retraction_ (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail. It doesn't get any clearer than this, does it? This right is absolute, and LHO of declarer may even overrule his partner, as his choice shall prevail. > > So the player can either accept the lead OR play. Or he can exercise his L55 rights and not accept, therefore not play. > > The next sentence is more of the same implication: "If there is no such > acceptance or play....." > > So "acceptance" does not precede opportunity to play, as the law is > written. Robert, what is your problem? The law is clear: Declarer plays out of turn, this can be rejected, penalty card notwithstanding. L55 says so. Clearly, to boot. only if the LOOT is accepted is defender forced to play said card if it is a legal play. We knew that. There is nothing unclear about that situation, and any attempt to muddy these waters is futile. LOOT --> not accepted -> end of case. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 13 14:22:40 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:22:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57617.99507.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> {Richard Hills quotes...] [Grattan Endicott, 16th September 2010] If opponent looks at the System Card, sees the name of 'x' on the card but no explanation of it and without enquiry applies to it his own interpretation, then he is liable for his own misunderstanding since no opponent has given him misinformation (see Law 21A). The name of a convention is not an explanation of it. [TFLB Law 21A] Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding: No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." [Robert Frick snipped] If I see on the opponent's convention card that odd-even is checked, I will assume that they are playing this core meaning. If they are not (they have switched the meaning, or they are playing Lavinthal and calling in odd-even, or whatever), I will expect to be protected. And the director will almost certainly protect me. That would not be my misunderstanding, that would be their misdescription. So that's what I mean when I say your position above is untenable. We don't play bridge that way, we don't want to play bridge that way, and if the WBFLC interpreted the law that way, no one would change what they do now. [Nigel Guthrie] IMO... Again it is a matter of semantics. You meet "Richard Hills" and "Grattan Endicott" at a convention. They have cunningly exchanged lapel badges. You believe what you read. Is your mistaken identification due to their misdescription or to your misinterpretation? Grattan and Richard would say the former. Robert and I would say the latter. Others might say both. But almost all would blame the confusion on Grattan and Richard -- except the culprits themselves :) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 13 14:43:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:43:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <9C98E79C-F18A-40F7-A802-8F064182908A@starpower.net> On Oct 12, 2010, at 10:27 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [harald.skjaran] > I'd impose a severe disiplinary penalty on the SB for disruption of > the > game and for wasting my time. > And tell him that any similar happenstance in the future would lead to > him being expelled from the club. Forever. > > [paul lamford] Under which Law(s)? Is there an offence of wasting > police time in the Laws? L90A: "The Director... may... assess... penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game..." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 13 14:53:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:53:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD3878614A7A2A-1090-261A@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com><8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com> <8CD3878614A7A2A-1090-261A@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <79377F48-34B0-4ADF-9560-B0C3BD4B48C9@starpower.net> On Oct 12, 2010, at 7:00 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [harald.skjaran] > I don't think I've have any problem doing this under L74A1, L74A2 and > L90A, separately or combined. L90A is very clear, however. "The > Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these > Laws, > may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly > delays > or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates > correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at > another table. > > [paul lamford] > Indeed it is very clear. It uses the word "offence". I repeat, which > law did SB break? He need not have broken any law as such. "Offense" is not a synonym for "infraction" or "irregularity" (TFLB could easily have used either term, both of which are defined therein; "offense" is not), and the SB's actions were indubitably "offensive". The TD has the power (and duty) to determine whether an action that "delays", "inconveniences", etc. rises to the level of an "offense" per se warranting action under L90A. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 13 15:01:00 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:01:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <57617.99507.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <57617.99507.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <793806.18991.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Nigel Guthrie] Former and latter mixed up :( corrected below :) Again it is a matter of semantics. You meet "Richard Hills" and "Grattan Endicott" at a convention. They have cunningly exchanged lapel badges. You believe what you read. Is your mistaken identification due to their misdescription or to your misinterpretation? Robert and I would say the former. Grattan and Richard would say the latter. Others might say both. But almost all would blame the confusion on Grattan and Richard -- except the culprits themselves :) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 13 15:18:28 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:18:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <24176360.1286942928463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Oct 13, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Suppose someone walks into your club, they say they are playing odd- > even > on first discard, and it turns out one of your players is damaged > because > everyone from my country plays that odd shows dislike of a suit. > How do > you rule? > > My point is that this is not an easy ruling. Find me a way to make > this > ruling easy? OK: Score stands. Pair claiming damage should have "protected themselves" per ACBL policy. It is not reasonable to assume that a pair from another country who walks into your club for the first time shares your local consensus on the designation or definition of their agreements. Of course, in real life, the foreigners, knowing they were foreigners, would presumably have been careful to describe their agreements rather than use their "home country" names for them. Wouldn't you, walking into a club in a foreign country for the first time? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 13 17:33:07 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:33:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? In-Reply-To: <4CB5A1A9.1040909@t-online.de> References: <4CB4C9D5.8070406@t-online.de> <4CB5A1A9.1040909@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:10:17 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 13.10.2010 01:44, schrieb Robert Frick: > >> I agree with your ruling. But you are misstating the actual law in a >> critical way. >> >> "It becomes the correct lead if [defender] accepts it by making a >> statement to that effect, *or* if a play is made from the hand next in >> rotation to the irregular lead." > > Well, for one, _you_ are misstating the law. > > LAW 53 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED > > A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead > > Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law > 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the > case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a > play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead (but > see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will > require that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B). > > _May_ be treated, and _either_ defender. > > But we should better look at L55: > > LAW 55 - DECLARER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN > > A. Declarer?s Lead Accepted > > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either > defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, _or require its > retraction_ (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders > choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall > prevail. > > It doesn't get any clearer than this, does it? This right is absolute, > and LHO of declarer may even overrule his partner, as his choice shall > prevail. > >> >> So the player can either accept the lead OR play. > > Or he can exercise his L55 rights and not accept, therefore not play. >> >> The next sentence is more of the same implication: "If there is no such >> acceptance or play....." >> >> So "acceptance" does not precede opportunity to play, as the law is >> written. > > Robert, what is your problem? The law is clear: Declarer plays out of > turn, this can be rejected, penalty card notwithstanding. L55 says so. > Clearly, to boot. only if the LOOT is accepted is defender forced to > play said card if it is a legal play. > > We knew that. There is nothing unclear about that situation, and any > attempt to muddy these waters is futile. > > LOOT --> not accepted -> end of case. > I think you are being illogical. I am not positive, but... I think that if I ask the question differently, a lot of people here will disagree with you. Illogical first. I read the laws as saying that the player can either play or accept the lead or not accept the lead. You find other laws that show the player can also reject the lead. Okay, right, defenders can reject the lead. We can add that the player can draw attention to the irregularity. That is a list of 5 things the player *can* do. HOWEVER, 'play' is still on the list. So the player has the opportunity to just play the penalty card. That is all L50D1(a) requires. So, of the 5 options, one is required. Now turning the question around. Declarer leads from the wrong hand. I want to decide whether to accept the lead, and it hinges upon a point in the bidding. Am I at this point allowed to ask the opponents about the meaning of one of their bids. I am pretty sure there are a lot of people here who will say "Yes, because it is this player's turn to play". (This discussion comes up more often for insufficient bids.) They will agree with you that the law is clear. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 13 17:43:30 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:43:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <24176360.1286942928463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:18:28 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 13, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Suppose someone walks into your club, they say they are playing odd- >> even >> on first discard, and it turns out one of your players is damaged >> because >> everyone from my country plays that odd shows dislike of a suit. >> How do >> you rule? >> >> My point is that this is not an easy ruling. Find me a way to make >> this >> ruling easy? > > OK: Score stands. Pair claiming damage should have "protected > themselves" per ACBL policy. It is not reasonable to assume that a > pair from another country who walks into your club for the first time > shares your local consensus on the designation or definition of their > agreements. > > Of course, in real life, the foreigners, knowing they were > foreigners, would presumably have been careful to describe their > agreements rather than use their "home country" names for them. > Wouldn't you, walking into a club in a foreign country for the first > time? I would have incentive to be careful except if you were directing. You give me disincentive, because I gain if I mislead the opponents. But you did make the ruling easy! I wonder what happens the second time they play at your club. But assuming you announced to everyone that it was their first time, they yes, nail the players who assumed a convention name checked on the ACBL convention card meant what they thought it meant. From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 13 17:46:27 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:46:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <9C98E79C-F18A-40F7-A802-8F064182908A@starpower.net> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com><8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com> <9C98E79C-F18A-40F7-A802-8F064182908A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CD3904EE992C3F-8E0-9B4@webmail-d084.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] L90A: "The Director... may... assess... penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game..." [Paul Lamford] Indeed. As I wrote to Harald, tell me which offence he comitted? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 18:08:26 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:08:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD3904EE992C3F-8E0-9B4@webmail-d084.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com> <002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com> <9C98E79C-F18A-40F7-A802-8F064182908A@starpower.net> <8CD3904EE992C3F-8E0-9B4@webmail-d084.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: 2010/10/13 : > [Eric Landau] > L90A: "The Director... may... assess... penalties for any offense that > unduly delays or obstructs the game..." > > [Paul Lamford] > Indeed. As I wrote to Harald, tell me which offence he comitted? You consider trying to get a trick all know he's not entitled to not to be an offense? I'd say this is far worse than accepting ownership of a trick you didn't win... (L79A2). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 13 18:53:24 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:53:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com><8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com><9C98E79C-F18A-40F7-A802-8F064182908A@starpower.net><8CD3904EE992C3F-8E0-9B4@webmail-d084.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD390E48F40D77-8E0-1D3C@webmail-d084.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] It is my Taswegian thrift which causes me to accept the annual subscription payment from the Secretary Bird before suspending him for a year. [Paul Lamford] Tasmanic seems a more appropriate adjective, as I suspect that Sagittarius Serpentius would behave like the Wyrm of Hell, rather than the traits of his star sign: Optimistic and freedom-loving Jovial and good-humored Honest and straightforward Intellectual and philosophical I expect that you would receive some legal notice the next morning from SB which might cost your club more than the subscription. [Richard Hills] REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?! FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality. [Paul Lamford] Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein (although I could not prove the attribution) Some contributors to BLML contribute only actual occurrences. Others contribute hypothetical occurrences. My contributions are largely, but not entirely, in the latter group. Some seem to think that a fictional occurrence at my club is an attack against their very existence, and they defend the failings of the Laws (when and if they do fail) by coming up with altogether more fanciful interpretations. [harald.skjaran] I'm very tolerant, but this kind of thing is totally unacceptable. And it's something I'll hit hard if it ever happens. [Paul Lamford] This was a ridiculous reaction to a perfectly legitimate call by the SB. Because I phrased the whole account in typical SB language, HS is unable to see the wood for the trees. Out of interest, I watched all of a table last night while a non-playing director. Over 24 boards, only one person looked at his watch the entire time, and that was when I asked people to hurry up and move if they wanted to get another round in. Let us go back to our situation where the defender had a singleton jack of trumps in a known sensitive situation. What would be cleverer than a glance at the watch - noticed by all four people, as I specified in the opening post - prior to following suit with a singleton jack? What are the chances that the one glance at the watch would occur at this very instance, in a situation where a defender could have known that with queen-jack doubleton he should play either card exactly 50% of the time, and the second hand of a watch is the best pseudo-random indicator that he could easily use. But we don't need to decide the motives for the glance at the watch. We just need to establish that the player could have known it would work to his benefit, that he did not have a demonstrable bridge reason for doing so, and that the declarer drew a false inference as a result. If he had had queen-jack doubleton, then we can discuss whether we should punish him under 40C3(a), but that would be another case. And the defender had plenty of time to work out his alibi. And he would have got past the hopeless probability estimates of both Hills and Skaeren under 85A1 - not that any probability is require to implement 73F - "could have known" is enough. In addition he has got past the hopeless reading of Law 73F of Hills and Skaeren. It is absolutely clear that the three basic requirements ("false inference", "no demonstrable bridge reason" and "could have known") are all manifestly present. A director ruling against SB in this case should be handled in the same way as referees blundering in the Premiership in English football - demotion to league two for a week or two. If I were SB, my reaction to Skjaran, when serving a writ against his club if he suspended me, would be "I'm very tolerant, but this kind of thing is totally unacceptable. And it's something I'll hit hard if it ever happens." Harald asks "what could be worse than trying to get a trick to which one is not entitled". I agree, but I don't think there is enough evidence to punish East - but if he thinks he merits a PP, I would not disagree. So let us move on to scenario 2 where the defender shuffled his cards instead at trick one. How do we rule here? From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 13 19:24:42 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:24:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <24176360.1286942928463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CD3912A87336C2-1A24-8F2@webmail-d028.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] OK: Score stands. Pair claiming damage should have "protected themselves" per ACBL policy. It is not reasonable to assume that a pair from another country who walks into your club for the first time shares your local consensus on the designation or definition of their agreements. Of course, in real life, the foreigners, knowing they were foreigners, would presumably have been careful to describe their agreements rather than use their "home country" names for them. Wouldn't you, walking into a club in a foreign country for the first time? [Paul Lamford] I tend to think that the main onus is on the pair giving the information, either on a CC or in response to a question, and this was stated to be the policy in San Remo. When asked about leads in Croatia, I responded "fourth or second from bad suits". When a Polish opponent thought this meant low from a doubleton, I realised that, although he was not damaged on this occasion, I should have added "and top of doubletons". I think it is a case of the director assessing the blame for the lack of full disclosure, taking into account language difficulties. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 13 19:28:38 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:28:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD390E48F40D77-8E0-1D3C@webmail-d084.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com><8CD3830BB2FC9C5-1464-A45F@webmail-m066.sysops.aol.com><9C98E79C-F18A-40F7-A802-8F064182908A@starpower.net><8CD3904EE992C3F-8E0-9B4@webmail-d084.sysops.aol.com> <8CD390E48F40D77-8E0-1D3C@webmail-d084.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <458489.32566.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Law-makers and directors really enjoy debating such fascinating points. Unfortunately for ordinary players, this means law-makers are unlikely to excise such anomalies and ambiguities from the law-book. Realistically, the best we can hope for is that law-makers will accelerate their quest to devolve powers and responsibilities to local legislators and eventually, some of them get round to doing something about it. Perhaps one of them will produce a simple comprehensive set of rules that the WBF can use to replace TFLB :) From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 13 19:31:18 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:31:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: <8CD3912A87336C2-1A24-8F2@webmail-d028.sysops.aol.com> References: <24176360.1286942928463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <8CD3912A87336C2-1A24-8F2@webmail-d028.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <464242.31525.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Paul Lamford] I tend to think that the main onus is on the pair giving the information, either on a CC or in response to a question, and this was stated to be the policy in San Remo. When asked about leads in Croatia, I responded "fourth or second from bad suits". When a Polish opponent thought this meant low from a doubleton, I realised that, although he was not damaged on this occasion, I should have added "and top of doubletons". I think it is a case of the director assessing the blame for the lack of full disclosure, taking into account language difficulties. [Nigel] You plough a lonely furrow, Paul. But IMO, as here, you are often right. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 13 20:49:25 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:49:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? In-Reply-To: References: <4CB4C9D5.8070406@t-online.de> <4CB5A1A9.1040909@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4CB5FF35.4040206@t-online.de> Am 13.10.2010 17:33, schrieb Robert Frick: > Illogical first. I read the laws as saying that the player can either play > or accept the lead or not accept the lead. Robert, either you can't read, or you so much on the wrong track that you can't see the forest for the trees. A player can either accept or reject the LOOT. Only if he accepts it is it his turn to play. He _may_ accept it _by_ playing if he happens to sit to the left of the player who led out of turn. > You find other laws that show > the player can also reject the lead. Okay, right, defenders can reject the > lead. We can add that the player can draw attention to the irregularity. > That is a list of 5 things the player *can* do. HOWEVER, 'play' is still > on the list. So the player has the opportunity to just play the penalty > card. That is all L50D1(a) requires. So, of the 5 options, one is required. > > Now turning the question around. Declarer leads from the wrong hand. I > want to decide whether to accept the lead, and it hinges upon a point in > the bidding. Am I at this point allowed to ask the opponents about the > meaning of one of their bids. I am pretty sure there are a lot of people > here who will say "Yes, because it is this player's turn to play". It is this player's turn to decide. It may become his turn to play. It is not his turn to play _before_ he accepts the lead, so he may not ask until he has, in fact, accepted. In fact, it still is dummy's turn to play, unless this LOOT is accepted. The LOOT does not change that, only opponent's choice may. Robert, again and again you set up situations, analyze them wrongly, and then draw conclusions from this. This leads nowhere. It is not my turn to play if someone leads out of turn. It may well become my turn in a couple of microseconds if I feel like it, but until I have so chosen it is not my turn. Therefore I may not ask questions. See the definitions. Turn ? the correct time at which a player is due to call or play. If the lead is in dummy the correct time for LHO of declarer is to play last, unless something happens, as someone leading out of turn and opponent accepting. So you build your argument on wrong assumptions. It is not that defender's turn to play _unless_ he accepts, at which point he would be forced to play that penalty card. >(This > discussion comes up more often for insufficient bids.) They will agree > with you that the law is clear. Oh, the law is very clear, no two ways about it. It just isn't like you seem to think it is. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 13 21:21:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:21:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? In-Reply-To: <4CB5FF35.4040206@t-online.de> References: <4CB4C9D5.8070406@t-online.de> <4CB5A1A9.1040909@t-online.de> <4CB5FF35.4040206@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:49:25 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 13.10.2010 17:33, schrieb Robert Frick: > >> Illogical first. I read the laws as saying that the player can either >> play >> or accept the lead or not accept the lead. > > Robert, either you can't read, or you so much on the wrong track that > you can't see the forest for the trees. A player can either accept or > reject the LOOT. Only if he accepts it is it his turn to play. He _may_ > accept it _by_ playing if he happens to sit to the left of the player > who led out of turn. Right, I am getting stuck reading the tree that the player can either accept *or* play. The tree does not say "accept it by playing". "It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, *or* if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead." If the forest point of view is just going my memory, then I had the same point as you before looking closely at the trees. If the forest is deciding on the ruling I think it should be, I come to the same point of view as you. > >> You find other laws that show >> the player can also reject the lead. Okay, right, defenders can reject >> the >> lead. We can add that the player can draw attention to the irregularity. >> That is a list of 5 things the player *can* do. HOWEVER, 'play' is still >> on the list. So the player has the opportunity to just play the penalty >> card. That is all L50D1(a) requires. So, of the 5 options, one is >> required. >> >> Now turning the question around. Declarer leads from the wrong hand. I >> want to decide whether to accept the lead, and it hinges upon a point in >> the bidding. Am I at this point allowed to ask the opponents about the >> meaning of one of their bids. I am pretty sure there are a lot of people >> here who will say "Yes, because it is this player's turn to play". > > It is this player's turn to decide. It may become his turn to play. > It > is not his turn to play _before_ he accepts the lead, so he may not ask > until he has, in fact, accepted. I am stuck in the trees again. We all know from our forest view that the penalty card has to be played if it is the players turn to play the card and it is legal to play the card. But the tree actually uses the word opportunity. "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity." So, as you can imagine, I am thinking the issue is whether the player has the opportunity to legally play his penalty card. Which he obviously does, right? In fact, it still is dummy's turn to > play, unless this LOOT is accepted. The LOOT does not change that, only > opponent's choice may. > > Robert, again and again you set up situations, analyze them wrongly, and > then draw conclusions from this. This leads nowhere. > > It is not my turn to play if someone leads out of turn. It may well > become my turn in a couple of microseconds if I feel like it, but until > I have so chosen it is not my turn. Therefore I may not ask questions. > See the definitions. > > Turn ? the correct time at which a player is due to call or play. > > If the lead is in dummy the correct time for LHO of declarer is to play > last, unless something happens, as someone leading out of turn and > opponent accepting. > > So you build your argument on wrong assumptions. It is not that > defender's turn to play _unless_ he accepts, at which point he would be > forced to play that penalty card. > >> (This >> discussion comes up more often for insufficient bids.) They will agree >> with you that the law is clear. > > Oh, the law is very clear, no two ways about it. It just isn't like you > seem to think it is. Here you are clear, but I am having trouble believing you mean it. You are saying that if there is an insufficient bid in front of me, I first have to decide whether or not to accept the bid and it is not until I decide to accept the bid that is my turn to bid? And that therefore I can't ask about explanations of bids until I have actively accepted the bid? And you are thinking that everyone agrees with this? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 13 22:11:38 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:11:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] obligatory play of a penalty card after a LOOT? In-Reply-To: References: <4CB4C9D5.8070406@t-online.de> <4CB5A1A9.1040909@t-online.de> <4CB5FF35.4040206@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4CB6127A.5090605@t-online.de> Am 13.10.2010 21:21, schrieb Robert Frick: > > I am stuck in the trees again. We all know from our forest view that the > penalty card has to be played if it is the players turn to play the card > and it is legal to play the card. We have no problem here. > > But the tree actually uses the word opportunity. "A major penalty card > must be played at the first legal opportunity." > > So, as you can imagine, I am thinking the issue is whether the player has > the opportunity to legally play his penalty card. Which he obviously does, > right? Wrong. He does not get the opportunity unless he accepts the LOOT first. Because - get this - it isn't his turn to play. It is dummy's turn. It just so happens that someone has usurped this prerogative, which gives him the _option_ of making it his turn by accepting this LOOT. It is a right, not a duty. It does not become a duty because he has a penalty card lying on the table. No one can make him accept the lead. > > > > In fact, it still is dummy's turn to >> play, unless this LOOT is accepted. The LOOT does not change that, only >> opponent's choice may. >> >> Robert, again and again you set up situations, analyze them wrongly, and >> then draw conclusions from this. This leads nowhere. >> >> It is not my turn to play if someone leads out of turn. It may well >> become my turn in a couple of microseconds if I feel like it, but until >> I have so chosen it is not my turn. Therefore I may not ask questions. >> See the definitions. >> >> Turn ? the correct time at which a player is due to call or play. >> >> If the lead is in dummy the correct time for LHO of declarer is to play >> last, unless something happens, as someone leading out of turn and >> opponent accepting. >> >> So you build your argument on wrong assumptions. It is not that >> defender's turn to play _unless_ he accepts, at which point he would be >> forced to play that penalty card. >> >>> (This >>> discussion comes up more often for insufficient bids.) They will agree >>> with you that the law is clear. >> >> Oh, the law is very clear, no two ways about it. It just isn't like you >> seem to think it is. > > Here you are clear, but I am having trouble believing you mean it. > > You are saying that if there is an insufficient bid in front of me, I > first have to decide whether or not to accept the bid and it is not until > I decide to accept the bid that is my turn to bid? And that therefore I > can't ask about explanations of bids until I have actively accepted the > bid? This is what the law says, unless I am wrong, which is always a posibility. Do not assume that because it is common practice to ask questions before accepting, that it is correct to do so. > > And you are thinking that everyone agrees with this? No. You for example do not. There are certainly others. But unless you can show me a law that says you can make it your turn,ask questions or do whatever it is you want to do, then "unmake" it by not accepting whatever happened I will continue to believe it. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 23:33:18 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:33:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD390E48F40D77-8E0-1D3C@webmail-d084.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford: > ... the hopeless probability estimates of both Hills and >Skj?ran under 85A1 - not that any probability is required >to implement 73F - "could have known" is enough. In >addition he has got past the hopeless reading of Law 73F >of Hills and Skj?ran. It is absolutely clear that the three >basic requirements ("false inference", "no demonstrable >bridge reason" and "could have known") are all manifestly >present. ... "He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!" Law 73F - Violation of Proprieties "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." Richard Hills: Now the phrase "a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law" is properly translated to mean "an infraction of a different clause of Law 73". It seems that the different Law 73 clause that the Secretary Bird claims her RHO infracted is Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure." Richard Hills: However, note that Law 73D2 does NOT say "may not mislead an opponent", and does NOT say "any deviation from correct procedure". Because of the words "attempt to" and "purposeful", the Director's determination whether or not Law 73D2 has been infracted necessarily involves a Law 85A1 probabilistic assessment. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Oct 14 00:33:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:33:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <793806.18991.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 16th September 2010: >>... 3. If opponent looks at the System Card, sees the name of 'x' >>on the card but no explanation of it and without enquiry applies >>to it his own interpretation, then he is liable for his own >>misunderstanding since no opponent has given him misinformation >>(see Law 21A). The name of a convention is not an explanation of >>it. +=+ Law 21A - Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding: "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." Richard Hills: One of the classical logical fallacies is "argument by weak analogy". Two examples below. Nigel Guthrie: >You meet "Richard Hills" and "Grattan Endicott" at a convention. >They have cunningly exchanged lapel badges. You believe what you >read. Is your mistaken identification due to their misdescription >or to your misinterpretation? Richard Hills: You meet Richard Hills at a convention. He is wearing a badge labelled HILLS. So you unleash your crampons and pitons in your attempt to ascend to the summit. Is your mistaken identification due to Richard's misdescription or to your misinterpretation? Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Oct 14 01:33:58 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:33:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <962884.92918.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] You meet Richard Hills at a convention. He is wearing a badge labelled HILLS. So you unleash your crampons and pitons in your attempt to ascend to the summit. Is your mistaken identification due to Richard's misdescription or to your misinterpretation? [Nigel] Good example. Suppose analogously, under defence to 1NT, Richard writes "Cappelletti" on his system-card. If you eat his card believing it to be pasta, or you put it on your head, then the fault is your misinterpretation. If you trust the card to mean that Richard and his partner are playing the Cappelleti defence, whereas, in fact, they don't know the convention and have switched cunningly to "Sharples" then the fault is Richard's misdescription :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 14 01:53:21 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:53:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:33:34 -0400, wrote: > Grattan Endicott, 16th September 2010: > >>> ... 3. If opponent looks at the System Card, sees the name of 'x' >>> on the card but no explanation of it and without enquiry applies >>> to it his own interpretation, then he is liable for his own >>> misunderstanding since no opponent has given him misinformation >>> (see Law 21A). The name of a convention is not an explanation of >>> it. +=+ > > Law 21A - Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding: > > "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the > basis of his own misunderstanding." > > Richard Hills: > > One of the classical logical fallacies is "argument by weak > analogy". Two examples below. > > Nigel Guthrie: > >> You meet "Richard Hills" and "Grattan Endicott" at a convention. >> They have cunningly exchanged lapel badges. You believe what you >> read. Is your mistaken identification due to their misdescription >> or to your misinterpretation? > > Richard Hills: > > You meet Richard Hills at a convention. He is wearing a badge > labelled HILLS. So you unleash your crampons and pitons in your > attempt to ascend to the summit. > > Is your mistaken identification due to Richard's misdescription > or to your misinterpretation? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > Hi Richard. No one is disagreeing with you on the point that if a player misunderstands a convention name and it is the player's fault, the player doesn't get protected. The issue is this: The player misunderstands a convention name and it is the opponent's fault, because they are not playing the core parts of the convention. In other words, when I tell the opponents I am playing odd-even discards, what are my legal commitments for accuracy? The answer "none" just doesn't work. I am glad that Grattan and others suggested it; it forwarded the discussion. But no one plays bridge that way and no one wants to play bridge that way. I have to be legally committing myself to using an odd card to encourage and an even card to discourage. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 14 03:08:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:08:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>You meet Richard Hills at a convention. He is wearing a badge >>labelled HILLS. So you unleash your crampons and pitons in your >>attempt to ascend to the summit. >> >>Is your mistaken identification due to Richard's misdescription >>or to your misinterpretation? Robert Frick: >Hi Richard. No one is disagreeing with you on the point that if >a player misunderstands a convention name and it is the player's >fault, the player doesn't get protected. Richard Hills: No, the player _does_ get protected if the answer to a question is merely a convention's name. For example -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT X Pass(1) ? (2) (3) (1) Alerted (2) "What is that?" (3) "SW1NE" = insufficient disclosure, contrary to ACBL regs Instead, consistent with ACBL regs -> (3) "This is part of the SW1NE convention. Partner holds either (a) a hand which wants me to declare 1NTxx, or (b) a weak hand with two touching 4+ suits, or (c) a weak 4333 hand which will later pretend to hold two touching 4+ suits (and if 3343 or 3334 will pretend to hold both minors) If you Pass, then a Redouble is 100% compulsory for me." Robert Frick: >The issue is this: The player misunderstands a convention name >and it is the opponent's fault, because they are not playing >the core parts of the convention. Richard Hills: In almost all cases there is no such thing as "the" core part of "the" convention. For example, let us examine "the" Crowhurst convention. If a system card of a Londoner contained the word CROWHURST, one would know the Londoner would open a 1NT with 12-14 hcp and rebids 1NT (after opening one of a suit) with 12-16 hcp. But if a system card of a Canberran contained the word CROWHURST, one would have to draw the contrary conclusion that the range of 1NT rebids was disjoint with the range of 1NT openings. Best wishes 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 14 03:43:26 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:43:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:08:02 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> You meet Richard Hills at a convention. He is wearing a badge >>> labelled HILLS. So you unleash your crampons and pitons in your >>> attempt to ascend to the summit. >>> >>> Is your mistaken identification due to Richard's misdescription >>> or to your misinterpretation? > > Robert Frick: > >> Hi Richard. No one is disagreeing with you on the point that if >> a player misunderstands a convention name and it is the player's >> fault, the player doesn't get protected. > > Richard Hills: > > No, the player _does_ get protected if the answer to a question > is merely a convention's name. > > For example -> > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT X Pass(1) ? (2) > (3) > > (1) Alerted > (2) "What is that?" > (3) "SW1NE" = insufficient disclosure, contrary to ACBL regs > > Instead, consistent with ACBL regs -> > > (3) "This is part of the SW1NE convention. Partner holds either > (a) a hand which wants me to declare 1NTxx, or > (b) a weak hand with two touching 4+ suits, or > (c) a weak 4333 hand which will later pretend to hold two > touching 4+ suits (and if 3343 or 3334 will pretend to > hold both minors) > If you Pass, then a Redouble is 100% compulsory for me." I do not know how much to trust your authoritative declaration of how directors rule in ACBL-land. In practice, players tend to be very concerned to explain conventions if they feel the opps don't understand them and usually lax about things if they feel the opps do know them. In this case, there was no reason to expect the players to know SW1NE, so it looks like bullying and you protect the opps. If it is a different convention name that the opps were likely to know, then they are responsible for protecting themselves and asking what it means. So no director here is going to protect me if I don't ask what Lavinthal means and then I get it wrong. (Example from two nights ago) Beginners might get protected, but you never know. > > Robert Frick: > >> The issue is this: The player misunderstands a convention name >> and it is the opponent's fault, because they are not playing >> the core parts of the convention. > > Richard Hills: > > In almost all cases there is no such thing as "the" core part > of "the" convention. > > For example, let us examine "the" Crowhurst convention. If a > system card of a Londoner contained the word CROWHURST, one > would know the Londoner would open a 1NT with 12-14 hcp and > rebids 1NT (after opening one of a suit) with 12-16 hcp. But > if a system card of a Canberran contained the word CROWHURST, > one would have to draw the contrary conclusion that the range > of 1NT rebids was disjoint with the range of 1NT openings. You say that in almost all cases, there is no such thing as the core part of a convention. I guess you are accepting my claim that odd-even has a core. Then, with supposedly your choice of any convention to use as an example, you pick, instead of Stayman or Jacoby transfers, or maybe 20 other common conventions, the Crowhurst Convention. Which I have never heard of. I am guessing you did that because you can't think of many conventions that do not have a core. Instead, you make me argue about a convention I never heard of. But one would think that at least part of the core of the Crowhurst Convention is a responder's rebid of 2C (over 1NT) asking opener to clarify his hand. Am I missing something? Does anyone call it Crowhurst and not play this? And even if we accept your example, it just means that Crowhurst has one meaning in London and another in Australia. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 14 04:48:40 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:48:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <729013.43240.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] For example, let us examine "the" Crowhurst convention. If a system card of a Londoner contained the word CROWHURST, one would know the Londoner would open a 1NT with 12-14 hcp and rebids 1NT (after opening one of a suit) with 12-16 hcp. But if a system card of a Canberran contained the word CROWHURST, one would have to draw the contrary conclusion that the range of 1NT rebids was disjoint with the range of 1NT openings.if a system card of a Canberran contained the word CROWHURST, one would have to draw the contrary conclusion that the rangeof 1NT rebids was disjoint with the range of 1NT openings. [Nigel] That is a better example! Crowhurst originated so many conventions that bear his name! Provided, however, they appear in appropriate system-card boxes, confusion should be minimal. I confess that, like Canberrans, some Reading Bridge club players play a 2C check-back with disjoint notrump opener/rebid ranges. Whether playing with or against Eric Crowhurst, they still declare it as "Crowhurst" on their card. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 14 05:33:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:33:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >I do not know how much to trust your authoritative declaration >of how directors rule in ACBL-land. ... Richard Hills: No, what I stated was an accurate (I am not an ACBL authority) paraphrase of the ACBL Alert reg. I did not make an authoritative declaration on how Directors rule in ACBL-land. While I have authoritative information that many ACBL Directors are competent, I also have authoritative information that at least one ACBL Director perverts the Laws due to being perverse. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: perverse, a. Obstinately or wilfully or unreasonably or unaccountably wrong, wayward. Richard Hills: Perverse also has the meaning of "peevish", so this somewhat ad hominem post qualifies me for perversity also. But I am extremely irritated when an ACBL Director implies that my paraphrase of the ACBL Alert reg is untrustworthy, when that ACBL Director is duty-bound to study ACBL regs and has obviously not done so. For the record -> ACBL Alert Procedures, page 1: * When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. * The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. * Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically. * The proper way to ask for information is "please explain." Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Oct 14 05:57:55 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:57:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:33:26 -0400, wrote: Okay, let's try to make some progress. I think that the only good solution is for the Regulating Authority to define the meaning of commonly used convention names. I think odd-even is a good example. It definitely should mean that odd encourages and even discourages (on first discard). I think a part of the core meaning is that the size of the even card indicates which of the two remaning suits is preferred. But I would guess (an uninformed guess) that 10% of the players at our club who play odd-even don't know this. What does this formal definition get us? I think some players might be playing that a high odd card can suggest that a player dislikes the suit but does not have any even cards to use. If a pair plays this, they would have to add it to "odd-even" when asked about their discards. So we get better communication. There is a problem with people who don't know that the size of the even card suggests which of the two remaining suits is preferred. (Or if that doesn't happen for this example, this problem arises for other examples.) Now it will be misexplanation if they say "odd-even" but they don't play that. So we get a more straightforward ruling and we get better communication because players have to learn what their convention names mean. If this looks difficult and awkward and messy, I agree. I just think it is better than anything else. The convention names have to have some legal meaning. If a Regulating Authority doesn't define them, then the director has to do it ad hoc as rulings arise. Which can lead to angry players who do not feel they have been treated fairly, like in the presenting problem. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 14 06:56:06 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:56:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8193D586311A477EB33E36D284FE688E@acer> Message-ID: >4. The Appeals Committee then chooses to "exercise all > powers" of the Director, specifically the Law 81B1 > "powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament > Organizer". > >5. The Tournament Organizer has omitted to Law 80B2(a) dis- > appoint the intentionally illegal Director. > >6. So the Appeals Committee now Law 80B2(a) appoints a > sensible person as Director in charge, thus that new DIC > follows the Appeals Committee recommendation to reverse > the intentionally illegal ruling of her predecessor. Richard Hills: A similar situation occurred in Melbourne's Victor Champion Cup a quarter-century ago. A then renowned ex-New Zealand partnership were not only playing somewhat complex methods, they also had a somewhat casual approach to disclosure. During one round the other side summoned the Director to query the legality of the somewhat complex methods. The Director incorrectly interpreted the system regulation, ruling that the somewhat complex methods were legal. The other side chose not to appeal. But when the Chair of the Appeals Committee heard about this unappealed ruling, he summoned the Appeals Committee, which then correctly ruled that the somewhat complex methods were illegal. The Director, enraged at the back-seat driving of the Appeals Committee, resigned his post in the middle of the tournament. Laws infracted by the Appeals Committee were Law 92C (all appeals through the Director), Law 92D (concurrence of players) and Law 93B3 (the Director may not be overruled on her interpretation of Law or regulation). However, this is not so simple. Do the ends justify the means? The outcome was that the no longer renowned ex-New Zealand partnership could no longer illegally "bunny-bash" with somewhat complex methods, but instead were now forced to adopt legal slightly complex methods (and they now consequently failed to continue to an illegal victory). Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Oct 14 08:04:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:04:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <79377F48-34B0-4ADF-9560-B0C3BD4B48C9@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >He need not have broken any law as such. "Offense" is not a >synonym for "infraction" or "irregularity" (TFLB could easily >have used either term, both of which are defined therein; >"offense" is not) [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, way back when David Stevenson also argued that the non- infracting side could be guilty of an "offence". Except that the Lawbook never refers to the non-infracting side, it instead refers to the non-offending side. Thus the use of the word "offence" instead of the word "infraction" in Law 90 butters no parsnips for me. Just as the use of the word "infringe" instead of the word "infract" in Law 72B1 butters no parsnips for me. In an ideal world The Fabulous Law Book would eschew any synonyms, uniformly using a single word for a single meaning. But the ACBL Laws Commission prohibited the 2007 Lawbook from being ideal, insisting that slabs of synonyms be xeroxed from the 1997 Lawbook. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu Oct 14 15:25:54 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:25:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Riccardi Message-ID: <032295FF06A84F3D8E321ACE61F395A3@PCdeOlivier> Hello, I need to contact Antonio Riccardi, if somedody can send me, directly, his email, it will be kind, Regards, 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 5530 (20101014) __________ 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/20101014/61fe599e/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 14 15:30:57 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:30:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6CEC995F-320F-4775-AD06-83DF5920064B@starpower.net> On Oct 13, 2010, at 5:33 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Paul Lamford: > >> ... the hopeless probability estimates of both Hills and >> Skj?ran under 85A1 - not that any probability is required >> to implement 73F - "could have known" is enough. In >> addition he has got past the hopeless reading of Law 73F >> of Hills and Skj?ran. It is absolutely clear that the three >> basic requirements ("false inference", "no demonstrable >> bridge reason" and "could have known") are all manifestly >> present. ... > > "He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!" > > Law 73F - Violation of Proprieties > > "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law > results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director > determines that an innocent player has drawn a false > inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an > opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the > action, and who could have known, at the time of the > action, that the action could work to his benefit, the > Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." > > Richard Hills: > > Now the phrase "a violation of the Proprieties described > in this Law" is properly translated to mean "an infraction > of a different clause of Law 73". It seems that the > different Law 73 clause that the Secretary Bird claims her > RHO infracted is Law 73D2: > > "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of > remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or > play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the > manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful > deviation from correct procedure." > > Richard Hills: > > However, note that Law 73D2 does NOT say "may not mislead > an opponent", and does NOT say "any deviation from correct > procedure". > > Because of the words "attempt to" and "purposeful", the > Director's determination whether or not Law 73D2 has been > infracted necessarily involves a Law 85A1 probabilistic > assessment. The principal lesson to be learned from Paul's elaborate scenario is that unethical players can avoid deserved adverse rulings by lying convincingly to the director about the nature of their deliberately unethical actions. But we knew this already. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 14 15:54:33 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:54:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <6CEC995F-320F-4775-AD06-83DF5920064B@starpower.net> References: <6CEC995F-320F-4775-AD06-83DF5920064B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CB70B99.40004@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/10/2010 15:30, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > The principal lesson to be learned from Paul's elaborate scenario is > that unethical players can avoid deserved adverse rulings by lying > convincingly to the director about the nature of their deliberately > unethical actions. But we knew this already. > AG : I suppose I missed some important element in this thread. I thought that the intent of the strange wording of L73F ("could have known") was to avoid most lenient-to-self explanations, including those that deliberately are, without needing to prove that they deliberately are. Now there are cases where there could exist some bridge reason, but in fact there was none in the player's mind ; to avoid this, some special cases (like giving a P signal) heve even been excluded from "valuable bridge reasons".. Apparently, you're stating that it doesn't work ? I've seldom encountered cases where there was serious doubt as to the intent of the player, or worse, yet he could find a valuable bridge reason. I can see one such class of cases : players who, facing a preempt, hesitate, avoiding the reopening, then pretend they were thinking about raising to increase preemptive effect. Perhaps this should be excluded too ? Best regards Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 14 16:34:08 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:34:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CB714E0.9090900@nhcc.net> On 10/12/2010 10:02 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > However, when East looked his watch, I could virtually claim; either he > had QJ doubleton... I'm a little confused about how East could have known "that the action could work to his benefit." At some level, I suppose East "could have known" anything -- even tomorrow's lottery number -- but I don't think it's normal to cast quite such a wide net as that. If South is thinking, and East looks at his watch a time or two, it doesn't seem obvious how that could lead South astray. On the other hand, if East sat motionless through South's entire 10-minute pause and then took the glance at his watch just as South led to trick 3, I think SB might have a good case. At any rate, it would be a difficult judgment for the Director. I think the people who want to apply conduct penalties to SB are going a little far unless there's more to the story than Paul wrote. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 14 16:43:11 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:43:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements In-Reply-To: References: <0B0802B2-EEA1-442A-9CD7-508404330B96@starpower.net> <5E9C30B3-E076-4C09-9416-F98D73BC0D74@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CB716FF.4040804@nhcc.net> On 10/7/2010 9:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 5. I think that legally and rationally, either all convention names have > meaning or convention names only acquire meaning by the specification of > the regulating authority. This seems wrong to me. In a specific venue, some convention names might have meaning and others not. In a different venue, the list would be different. Whether a name has meaning or not seems to me a matter for TD judgment in particular cases. From gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 14 16:56:32 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:56:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD39C7200DDF4C-F68-1B19@Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] Because of the words "attempt to" and "purposeful", the Director's determination whether or not Law 73D2 has been infracted necessarily involves a Law 85A1 probabilistic assessment. [Paul Lamford] Yes, but "could have known" indicates that the probability is set very low. Essentially we ask "is it all possible that X was trying a fast one, here?" From gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 14 17:13:01 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:13:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <4CB714E0.9090900@nhcc.net> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <4CB714E0.9090900@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8CD39C96D2E640A-F68-200E@Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com> [S.Willner] On the other hand, if East sat motionless through South's entire 10-minute pause and then took the glance at his watch just as South led to trick 3, I think SB might have a good case. At any rate, it would be a difficult judgment for the Director. [Paul Lamford] East stated, to the AC, that the glance at the watch was just as the declarer laid down the ace of spades, and he argued that he had waited until then because he did not want to be seen to be badgering SB by suggesting he was taking too long. I thought the above case was a routine adjustment, but I disagree with my partner, also a director, on the second example, where East shuffled all his cards before playing to trick one. That I regard as quite tough. I had one ruling on Tuesday where the SB with J109xx opposite AKxx led the jack and there was a break in tempo from the next gentleman, a cystic fibrosis sufferer in a wheelchair. I ruled against SB when he ran the jack unsuccessfully and claimed redress, although I am not sure the Laws allowed me to do so. I was forced to fall back on "The Law is an Ass". From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 14 17:15:29 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:15:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> Message-ID: <4CB71E91.1000409@nhcc.net> On 9/30/2010 5:17 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I have reached a stalemate in a discussion on whether or not a "pass or > correct" bid is artificial for the purpose of applying Law 27B Did this ever get settled? It seems to me a "pass or correct" bid is artificial if it gives some message about a different suit and not otherwise. So in response to, say, 2D multi, 2S is artificial because it shows good hearts. 2H is not artificial because it shows willingness to play in hearts and nothing special about any other suit. (All this assumes normal methods for responding to multi.) A more difficult problem might be accepting a transfer when a super- accept is available. The accept shows willingness to play but also shows minimum-range values or lack of support. I personally think that's still not artificial because it shows nothing in particular about any other suit, but I can imagine others disagreeing. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 14 17:29:58 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:29:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD39C96D2E640A-F68-200E@Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <4CB714E0.9090900@nhcc.net> <8CD39C96D2E640A-F68-200E@Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CB721F6.4030802@nhcc.net> On 10/14/2010 11:13 AM, [Paul Lamford] gampas at aol.com wrote: > East stated, to the AC, that the glance at the watch was just as the > declarer laid down the ace of spades, and he argued that he had waited > until then because he did not want to be seen to be badgering SB by > suggesting he was taking too long. It seems to me routine not to adjust here, though East hasn't given his best defense. A glance at the watch at that moment could be for timing South's delay in case there's a question about why the table is late. That's a valid bridge reason for me, and in fact I try to remember to do it whenever the situation arises. > on the second example, where East shuffled > all his cards before playing to trick one. That I regard as quite > tough. Seems pretty far-fetched that this could mislead, but I think you'd have to know your customers. I agree it could go either way. > I had one ruling on Tuesday where the SB with J109xx opposite > AKxx led the jack and there was a break in tempo from the next > gentleman, a cystic fibrosis sufferer in a wheelchair. Was it really a break in tempo _for that player_? Doesn't his normal tempo include random pauses? If he paused only this time, then it would seem normal to treat him just like anyone else. If he pauses frequently and randomly, I wouldn't treat a typical pause as a break in tempo at all. Of course if the pause was abnormally long, even for him, then we're back to "just like anyone else." This can be a difficult judgment if the Director wasn't at the table. From tedying at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 17:30:52 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <902709.507.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I actually think that the result from each side should be considered separately. The SB actually drew an inference from a variation of manner. As described in 73D1, he does so at his own risk. Thus, under no circumstances should SB be entitled to any redress. However, when considering the East-West result, you have to consider 73D2 and try to determine if East was attempting to mislead South based on the timing of his glance at the watch. From the followup comment: ===== [Paul Lamford] East stated, to the AC, that the glance at the watch was just as the declarer laid down the ace of spades, and he argued that he had waited until then because he did not want to be seen to be badgering SB by suggesting he was taking too long. ===== ...I would think that East has passed my test of not attempting to mislead South. Whether he did not not, he did not attempt to do so. If you feel that he was attempting to mislead South, then East-West deserve to be -1430 while North South deserve to be -100. East's argument is compelling to me that he was attempting to be courteous to South and not seem to rush him. I would allow the table result to stand for both sides. Then on a third and separate issue, you can consider whether or not South's attitude, complaint and disagreement with the director warrants a PP for a 74A violation of appropriate etiquette. Having faced things like this, I have informed such offenders that they need to play the next hand and they are welcome to come to see me at a break to discuss this further, but that any further discussion will warrant a PP for poor conduct. Either way, the offenders are often calmer after they play another hand, round or several rounds before and if they come to see me and the discussion is much easier. -Ted Ying. ----- Original Message ---- From: "gampas at aol.com" To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Tue, October 12, 2010 10:02:33 AM Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time S A1083 H Q86 D 83 C AJ32 S Q94 S J H J432 H 1097 D K975 D QJ1062 C 86 C 10974 S K7652 H AK5 D A4 C KQ5 Dealer South, Game All, IMPs South West North East 1S Pass 3S Pass 6S All Pass South, our club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, was in his element on the above hand. After a simple auction, West did very well to find the low diamond lead which ran to the ten and ace. South thought for a good ten minutes and then cashed the king of spades, noting the fall of the jack from East. He also noted East having a glance at his watch on this trick, worried that the p?t? de foie gras would have all gone by the time this table stopped for the hospitality break. South now had a classic triple shot. He crossed to the ace of spades and when the queen did not appear, he tried three rounds of clubs ending in dummy, but West ruffed and cashed the diamond. "Director!", bellowed the Secretary Bird. "East's glance at his watch prior to playing to the first round of spades was a a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit", he quoted, almost like a congregation reciting the Lord's player. "The action of looking at his watch might have been one of a player with QJ doubleton, wishing to play either card in a random order, and checking whether the second hand was to the left or right of the vertical at that time." East was furious and thought he had been stitched up by SB's long thought at trick one. "Not so", said SB, "as I had to calculate the chances of West having three clubs if he had three spades, compared with the restricted choice odds of the finesse." I made the finesse 17/23 or around 74%. Rising and cashing the clubs was a good 83%. However, when East looked his watch, I could virtually claim; either he had QJ doubleton and had breached 40C3(a) by using his watch, or he had a singleton jack and had breached 73F. "It is sufficient to show that I drew a false inference from the glance at the watch, and I do not regard his desire not to miss out on food as a demonstrable bridge reason", continued SB. "In fact, both lines, finessing or playing for the drop, would work, for different reasons!" "If you don't shut up, you will need stitches for that cut on the eye which you are about to get", replied East. SB began reciting 74A2, but the director waved that aside, but when all the table confirmed they had seen the glance at the watch, he still felt he had to rule in favour of SB. How would you have decided? And would you renew SB's membership? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 14 18:35:45 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:35:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <902709.507.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u><4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <902709.507.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CD39D4FBB47049-1870-20F@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> [Ted Ying] I actually think that the result from each side should be considered separately. The SB actually drew an inference from a variation of manner. As described in 73D1, he does so at his own risk. Thus,under no circumstances should SB be entitled to any redress. However, when considering the East-West result, you have to consider 73D2 and try to determine if East was attempting to mislead South based on the timing of his glance at the watch. From the followup comment: ===== [Paul Lamford] East stated, to the AC, that the glance at the watch was just as the declarer laid down the ace of spades, and he argued that he had waited until then because he did not want to be seen to be badgering SB by suggesting he was taking too long. ===== ...I would think that East has passed my test of not attempting to mislead South. Whetherhe did not not, he did not attempt to do so. If you feel that he was attempting to misleadSouth, then East-West deserve to be -1430 while North South deserve to be -100. East's argument is compelling to me that he was attempting to be courteous to South and not seem to rush him. I would allow the table result to stand for both sides. [Paul Lamford] Law 12C1(e) specifies: (i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a nonoffending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. So, if you decide that there was an irregularity, it would be +1430 for both sides, as declarer would have finessed on the second round, his normal percentage play. And it is clear that he knew that as he blurted out the percentages immediately after going off. I don't think there is a conflict between 73D1 and 73F. A common situation is when a player unintentionally had a break in tempo, for example with two or three small trumps, when his partner has the queen. Practice has always been that 73F is applied. 73D1 does state "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side". It is only "otherwise" that an opponent draws an inference at his own risk. In our example, East should have been particularly careful not to look at his watch at that moment, especially as it was the first time he had looked at his watch all session. It was clear that the "variation" might have worked to the benefit of his side. It did. There is no need for a test as to whether East attempted to mislead South. The three tests are specified in 73F, and he passed them all with flying colours in his Advanced Cheats Degree. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 14 18:40:38 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:40:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <4CB71E91.1000409@nhcc.net> References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <4CB71E91.1000409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4CB73286.1050902@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/10/2010 17:15, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 9/30/2010 5:17 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> I have reached a stalemate in a discussion on whether or not a "pass or >> correct" bid is artificial for the purpose of applying Law 27B > Did this ever get settled? It seems to me a "pass or correct" bid is > artificial if it gives some message about a different suit and not > otherwise. So in response to, say, 2D multi, 2S is artificial because > it shows good hearts. 2H is not artificial because it shows willingness > to play in hearts AG : or not > and nothing special about any other suit. (All this > assumes normal methods for responding to multi.) > AG : there are difficult cases. For example, over a "Crash" overcall of 1S (majors or minors), does 2H tell anything about majors ? Some would say that it does (didn't bid 2M, so has to include a minor-suit raise), some that it doesn't (being the only way to play in hearts at all costs : you bid 2H, then 3H), and it may depend on the system (some play that 2NT means "long own suit") > A more difficult problem might be accepting a transfer when a super- > accept is available. The accept shows willingness to play but also > shows minimum-range values or lack of support. AG : depends on system (weak NT might mean super-acceptances are quite exceptional) and style (some don't want to tell opponentes about their quality of fit) > I personally think > that's still not artificial because it shows nothing in particular about > any other suit AG : seems right anyway From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 14 18:42:51 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:42:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <4CB721F6.4030802@nhcc.net> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <4CB714E0.9090900@nhcc.net> <8CD39C96D2E640A-F68-200E@Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com> <4CB721F6.4030802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4CB7330B.6000502@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/10/2010 17:29, Steve Willner a ?crit : > > Was it really a break in tempo _for that player_? Doesn't his normal > tempo include random pauses? If he paused only this time, then it would > seem normal to treat him just like anyone else. If he pauses frequently > and randomly AG : absolutely right. And this means randomly in regard to bridge problems, of course, because there is a very precise reason. As is often the case, the laws are less of an ass after carefully checking all possibilities they offer. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 14 18:45:20 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:45:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <902709.507.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de> <8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <902709.507.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CB733A0.2080705@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/10/2010 17:30, Ted Ying a ?crit : > I actually think that the result from each side should be considered > separately. The > SB actually drew an inference from a variation of manner. As described in 73D1, > he > does so at his own risk. Thus, under no circumstances should SB be entitled to > any > redress. > > However, when considering the East-West result, you have to consider 73D2 and > try > to determine if East was attempting to mislead South based on the timing of his > glance > at the watch. AG : I really feel something is wrong here. Telling the TD that the player looked at one's watch only to get a pseudo-random result would be saying he acted irregularly (remember this isn't allowed), so you don't need L73 at all in case you believe SB. From gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 14 18:46:03 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:46:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <4CB721F6.4030802@nhcc.net> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <4CB714E0.9090900@nhcc.net><8CD39C96D2E640A-F68-200E@Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com> <4CB721F6.4030802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8CD39D66C8540B8-1870-4AB@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> [Steve Willner] It seems to me routine not to adjust here, though East hasn't given his best defense. A glance at the watch at that moment could be for timing South's delay in case there's a question about why the table is late. [Paul Lamford] Except that East stated in the original post that he was looking at this watch to see what time the hospitality break was - a clear non bridge reason. From gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 14 18:56:48 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:56:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <4CB7330B.6000502@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <4CB714E0.9090900@nhcc.net> <8CD39C96D2E640A-F68-200E@Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com><4CB721F6.4030802@nhcc.net> <4CB7330B.6000502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CD39D7E4EED156-1870-7E6@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> AG : absolutely right. And this means randomly in regard to bridge problems, of course, because there is a very precise reason. As is often the case, the laws are less of an ass after carefully checking all possibilities they offer. [Paul Lamford] Except I wrote "break in tempo". If his tempo had included random pauses, then it would not have been a break in tempo. The player in question normally played his cards in one to three seconds, but on this occasion, for a non-bridge reason - a medical reason in fact, he took ten seconds. The Law is An Ass when it is wrongly worded. It should read "has no demonstrable bridge reason or other unavaoidable reason" From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 14 19:32:24 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:32:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD39D7E4EED156-1870-7E6@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <4CB714E0.9090900@nhcc.net> <8CD39C96D2E640A-F68-200E@Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com><4CB721F6.4030802@nhcc.net> <4CB7330B.6000502@ulb.ac.be> <8CD39D7E4EED156-1870-7E6@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CB73EA8.6040603@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/10/2010 18:56, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > AG : absolutely right. And this means randomly in regard to bridge > problems, of course, because there is a very precise reason. As is > often the case, the laws are less of an ass after carefully checking > all possibilities they offer. > > [Paul Lamford] Except I wrote "break in tempo". If his tempo had > included random pauses, then it would not have been a break in tempo. > The player in question normally played his cards in one to three > seconds, but on this occasion, for a non-bridge reason - a medical > reason in fact, he took ten seconds. The Law is An Ass when it is > wrongly worded. It should read > > "has no demonstrable bridge reason or other unavaoidable reason" AG : not needed. Either the player breaks tempo for medical reasons only when it helps him, and in this case neither you, I or anybody would believe the medical reason, or he does it also at other times, and you don't need the added mention because it is no more unusual. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 14 23:13:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:13:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CB70B99.40004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I suppose I missed some important element in this thread. > >I thought that the intent of the strange wording of L73F ("could >have known") was to avoid most lenient-to-self explanations, >including those that deliberately are, without needing to prove >that they deliberately are. [snip] >Apparently, you're stating that it doesn't work ? [snip] Richard Hills: The important element is that Law 73F ("could have known") and Law 23 ("could have been aware") are not stand-alone Laws. The Director must first rule that another infraction has happened before the Director is permitted to apply Law 23 or Law 73F. Richard Hills (previous post): >>Because of the words "attempt to" and "purposeful", the >>Director's determination whether or not Law 73D2 has been >>infracted necessarily involves a Law 85A1 probabilistic >>assessment. Paul Lamford: >Yes, but "could have known" indicates that the probability is >set very low. Essentially we ask "is it all possible that X was >trying a fast one, here?" Richard Hills: Paul is putting the cart before the horse. First the Director resolves whether or not Law 73D2 has been infracted, for which the probability bar is set rather high. If and when the Director determines that Law 73D2 has been infracted, only then does the Director resolve whether Law 73F has also been infracted, for which the probability bar is set very low. Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Oct 15 00:03:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:03:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CB716FF.4040804@nhcc.net> Message-ID: ACBL Alert Procedures, page 1: * When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. * The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. * Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically. * The proper way to ask for information is "please explain." Robert Frick: >>5. I think that legally and rationally, either all convention >>names have meaning or convention names only acquire meaning >>by the specification of the regulating authority. Steve Willner: >This seems wrong to me. In a specific venue, some convention >names might have meaning and others not. In a different >venue, the list would be different. Whether a name has >meaning or not seems to me a matter for TD judgment in >particular cases. Richard Hills: This seems wrong to me. ACBL Declarer: "Please explain your partner's discard?" ACBL Defender: "Lavinthal." The declarer and the defender play different variants of the Lavinthal convention, so declarer fails in a contract she would have made if the defender had explained in accordance with the ACBL Alert Procedures. Thus declarer summons the Director. Alas, the Director's judgement is that in this specific venue the Lavinthal convention name has meaning in accordance with the defender's belief, not declarer's belief, and that the declarer should have known this. The Director's judgement regarding the fact that the declarer did not actually know about the venue- specific version of Lavinthal, is that this is irrelevant. In my opinion such an ACBL Director's ruling is unLawful, contrary to Law 40B2(a), third sentence: "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." and also contrary to Law 40B4: "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score." Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Fri Oct 15 01:15:38 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:15:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD3A0CD8D98514-D10-1E50@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> [RIchard Hills] Paul is putting the cart before the horse. First the Director resolves whether or not Law 73D2 has been infracted, for which the probability bar is set rather high. If and when the Director determines that Law 73D2 has been infracted, only then does the Director resolve whether Law 73F has also been infracted, for which the probability bar is set very low. [Paul Lamford] Sometimes it is is necessary to put the cart before the horse in order to be able to judge the probability bar. In 73D1: "However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction." The above suggests that the probability bar is set at the same low level in sensitive situations (for example a guess with KJx opposite xx in hand where even the slightest flicker can be punished if detected), but at a much higher level in non-sensitive situations (such as a variation in tempo making an opening lead against 1NT, where it would be hard to argue that this could deceive). 73D2 supplements 73D1 in that it covers things that are not tempo or manner. But, because it states "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture", it does not mean that a player may accidentally mislead his opponent by means of remark or gesture and get away with it. The converse does not apply. And even a demonstrable bridge reason will not save someone in a sensitive situation. Let us say that declarer leads towards KQ10x of a side suit in no-trumps and the person sitting over the dummy with Jxx of the suit breaks tempo, because he was considering whether to Smith Peter, then the accepted practice has been to not regard that as a demonstrable bridge reason, and an adjusted score will tend to be awarded. if declarer consequently gets the suit wrong on the next round. The "could have known" aspect of 73F is the first and only test in practice, and a demonstrable bridge reason has to be a very strong one. For example, declarer leads towards the AJ9x in a side-suit and there is break in tempo before the queen is (correctly) played from Q10x. Declarer now draws the inference that the person has KQx(x). The defender knew that the break in tempo might deceive, but practice again has decided that a "false card" is not a demonstrable bridge reason. So the bar is set very high, as it should be. And 73D1 and 73D2 are largely irrelevant, as the normal practice is to apply 73F first. And it is obviously nonsense to have two different standards of proof for the supplementary Laws! From gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 15 01:40:32 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:40:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <4CB73EA8.6040603@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CB22323.4030204@aol.com><002501cb68bc$beefad70$6501a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> <4CB23155.3020209@t-online.de><8CD382D408F1E3E-1E48-47245@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <4CB714E0.9090900@nhcc.net> <8CD39C96D2E640A-F68-200E@Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com><4CB721F6.4030802@nhcc.net> <4CB7330B.6000502@ulb.ac.be><8CD39D7E4EED156-1870-7E6@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> <4CB73EA8.6040603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CD3A10535832BA-D10-2388@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> AG : not needed. Either the player breaks tempo for medical reasons only when it helps him, and in this case neither you, I or anybody would believe the medical reason, or he does it also at other times, and you don't need the added mention because it is no more unusual. [Paul Lamford] There are many reasons why players may break tempo for medical reasons. The most common are various disorders of the nervous system, such as Parkinson's Disease or motor neurone's syndrome, or one of the muscular dystrophy or multiple sclerosis family. If there are no previous examples of a break in tempo for that player, known to his or her opponent, then it is "change in tempo". It may be the first time that this opponent has been encountered at that club or in that tournament for example. I have played against a couple of people with inconsistent tempo for medical reasons, as no doubt have all of you. Fortunately, no normal person would dream of claiming a BIT when the person is visibly disabled. And I would hope that most people would accept the answer that the BIT was involuntary, shrug and move on. Let us look at the situation where a player is just inattentive and does not realise it his play when you lead towards KJx in dummy. He has the queen but not the ace. Would you accept evidence that he has been inattentive on a number of previous occasions, and therefore this was not a break in tempo? No, a break in tempo must be compared with that observed by the opponent on this hand, and cannot be compared with hands which the opponent knows nothing about. And what if the person has a medical complaint such as ADHD? Currently, all "breaks in tempo" are infractions if there is no demonstrable *bridge* reason. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 15 01:50:49 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:50:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:03:32 -0400, wrote: > ACBL Alert Procedures, page 1: > > * When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of > the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the > convention is not sufficient. > * The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. > * Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents > need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant > disclosure should be given automatically. > * The proper way to ask for information is "please explain." > > Robert Frick: > >>> 5. I think that legally and rationally, either all convention >>> names have meaning or convention names only acquire meaning >>> by the specification of the regulating authority. > > Steve Willner: > >> This seems wrong to me. In a specific venue, some convention >> names might have meaning and others not. In a different >> venue, the list would be different. Whether a name has >> meaning or not seems to me a matter for TD judgment in >> particular cases. TD judgment is a way to handle this situation. But (one problem) it does not seem fair that a player does not find out the legally binding part of a convention name until after there is a director call and a claim of damage. If the player could read that information beforehand, that would seem to improve communication and make the rulings fairer and less acrimonious. Also, when I imagine actually writing out legal meanings for convention names, I am daunted by expected variations within my club, mostly caused by differences in ability. Of course I don't have to worry about regional variations. But I have not really seem much in the way of regional variations. And again the fairest thing to someone from a different region is that they can find out meanings beforehand. > > Richard Hills: > > This seems wrong to me. > > ACBL Declarer: "Please explain your partner's discard?" > ACBL Defender: "Lavinthal." Often, players just ask what they opps play for leads and discards. Then you almost certainly get an answer like "Lavinthal". When the player asks what a specific discard means, then you might get "Lavinthal" if the defenders think the declarer will understand that, but you are more likely to get a specific explanation. And of course the player might just read that Lavinthal is checked on the convention card. > > The declarer and the defender play different variants of the > Lavinthal convention, so declarer fails in a contract she would > have made if the defender had explained in accordance with the > ACBL Alert Procedures. Thus declarer summons the Director. > > Alas, the Director's judgement is that in this specific venue > the Lavinthal convention name has meaning in accordance with the > defender's belief, not declarer's belief, and that the declarer > should have known this. The Director's judgement regarding the > fact that the declarer did not actually know about the venue- > specific version of Lavinthal, is that this is irrelevant. > > In my opinion such an ACBL Director's ruling is unLawful, > contrary to Law 40B2(a), third sentence: > > "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures > and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." > > and also contrary to Law 40B4: > > "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' > failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play > as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the > award of an adjusted score." But you can't rule against someone just because the opponents had some crazy understanding of a convention. And the players are supposed to try to protect themselves. And you are stuck that they opps were given a correct explanation. So I think you are capturing the current situation for directors. Damned if you do, damned if you don't (and crucified on blml if you dither, except probably no one on blml will find out). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 15 02:25:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:25:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD3A10535832BA-D10-2388@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford asserted: [snip] >Currently, all "breaks in tempo" are infractions if there is >no demonstrable *bridge* reason. Richard Hills quibbles: Currently, _careless_ "breaks in tempo" _may be_ infractions if there is no demonstrable *bridge* reason. 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 Oct 15 02:29:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:29:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Grattan's multi [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 14th March 2006: >...if you read the laws all together the indisputable intent in >this matter may be inferred... Grattan Endicott, 15th March 2006: >...What the WBFLC established - even as long ago as under the >chairmanship of Ed Theus - is that, except it be so specified, >no one law is subject to another... Walt Whitman (1819-1892): Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) :-) 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 Fri Oct 15 02:46:51 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:46:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD3A199741EDC6-D10-33DE@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> Paul Lamford asserted: [snip] >Currently, all "breaks in tempo" are infractions if there is >no demonstrable *bridge* reason. Richard Hills quibbles: Currently, _careless_ "breaks in tempo" _may be_ infractions if there is no demonstrable *bridge* reason. [Paul Lamford] OK, I agree that - and careless "gestures and changes of manner" may be infractions if there is no demonstrable *bridge* reason. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 15 02:47:25 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:47:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD3A0CD8D98514-D10-1E50@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford: [snip] >And 73D1 and 73D2 are largely irrelevant, as the normal practice >is to apply 73F first. > >And it is obviously nonsense [unfair snip] Richard Hills: Yes, it is obviously nonsense for a Director to apply Laws in an illegal sequence. No doubt that illegal Director's "normal practice" would also be to first apply a Law 23 sentence before afterward delivering a verdict on whether or not there had been a relevant infracting crime. Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland: "No! No! Sentence first - verdict afterward." 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 Oct 15 03:09:15 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:09:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nixon in Alcatraz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: One of the campaign themes used by the Republican Party in the 1952 Presidential election was to return good language to the White House (an attempt to make political capital against the retiring Democratic President Harry S Truman, who was notorious for his salty language). However, after making the famous / notorious Checkers speech, Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon hypocritically used the salty phrase "s**t or get off the pot" to his own leader, Republican Presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower, because Eisenhower had until then been equivocal on whether he supported Nixon remaining on the Republican ticket. Nixon's memoir "Six Crises" bowdlerised his salty phrase to "fish or cut bait". On the other hand, Eisenhower must have been a gentleman, since Ike was a keen bridge player. :-) I also have qualms about Eric Landau (March 2006) drawing the line on Alcatraz Coups at "we're sure it was done entirely innocently". Suppose that during a session the TD is twice called to rule on a possible Alcatraz Coup on board 23, and in both cases the facts are identical. The TD rules that expert player A has perpetrated an Alcatrz Coup, so adjusts the score. The TD rules that expert player B has no perpetrated an Alcatraz Coup, so does not adjust the score. The only reason for the TD's differential rulings on identical facts is that expert player A is Richard Nixon, but expert player B is the surely entirely innocent Dwight Eisenhower. Richard Nixon then sues the ACBL for a zillion dollars because of the TD's inconsistently biased rulings. :-) 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 Oct 15 06:39:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:39:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From the BoardGameGeek discussion group: >Admin note: > >As a general reminder, users are always expected to express >themselves in a courteous and respectful way. Our policy is to >issue a warning on a first offense and to follow future offenses >with temporary posting suspensions of increasing length. Rather >than responding to content that you find offensive or otherwise >violates our Community Rules, please consider flagging any >offending posts as violations by using the icon. This serves two >functions - first, if enough users flag a post then it will be >collapsed from general view. Second, flagging posts helps bring >them to the attention of the forum moderators. > >Finally, in extreme circumstances you can hide all content posted >by a user from your view by using the Hide User's Posts option in >the menu found under the person's username. Please remember that >making any public mention of who is on your Hide List is >considered a zero tolerance offense. > >Thanks 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 Oct 15 06:59:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:59:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD3A199741EDC6-D10-33DE@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Currently, _careless_ "breaks in tempo" _may be_ infractions if >>there is no demonstrable *bridge* reason. Paul Lamford: >OK, I agree that - and careless "gestures and changes of manner" >may be infractions if there is no demonstrable *bridge* reason. Richard Hills: "May be" also implies "may be not". For example, the classic Law 73D2 indicative example of hesitating with a singleton is not an infraction of Law 73D2 if the hesitation occurs at trick 13 (but may be an unduly slow play infraction of Law 90B2 if the trick 13 hesitation with a singleton is prolonged). 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 Oct 15 10:23:42 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:23:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CB80F8E.2040303@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/10/2010 23:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : I suppose I missed some important element in this thread. >> >> I thought that the intent of the strange wording of L73F ("could >> have known") was to avoid most lenient-to-self explanations, >> including those that deliberately are, without needing to prove >> that they deliberately are. > [snip] > >> Apparently, you're stating that it doesn't work ? > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The important element is that Law 73F ("could have known") and > Law 23 ("could have been aware") are not stand-alone Laws. The > Director must first rule that another infraction has happened > before the Director is permitted to apply Law 23 or Law 73F. > AG : strange. I see it the other way round : the TD must only establish that some irregularity happened ; and then L73 tells him to consider it as an infraction. From gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 15 10:34:02 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 04:34:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD3A5ADAFADBDC-1718-ACE2@Webmail-m123.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] Currently, _careless_ "breaks in tempo" _may be_ infractions if there is no demonstrable *bridge* reason. [Paul Lamford] >OK, I agree that - and careless "gestures and changes of manner" may be infractions if there is no demonstrable *bridge* reason. [Richard Hills] "May be" also implies "may be not". For example, the classic Law 73D2 indicative example of hesitating with a singleton is not an infraction of Law 73D2 if the hesitation occurs at trick 13 (but may be an unduly slow play infraction of Law 90B2 if the trick 13 hesitation with a singleton is prolonged). [Paul Lamford] Indeed, and the only reason is that it cannot be found that the player could have known the hesitation would work to his benefit, nor could there be false inference. And even the Rabbit will be exempt from a penalty under 90B2 if the hesitation is the time taken for the TD to find the thirteenth card that he has invariably lost somewhere during the play. "May be" or "may be not" is indeed correct, and the three tests, broadly, are "could have known", "demonstrable bridge reason" and "false inference taken". Even leading the ace of trumps out of turn against a grand slam may be a 73F infraction if one is playing with the Rabbit who regularly revokes. From gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 15 10:41:04 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 04:41:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CB80F8E.2040303@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CB80F8E.2040303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CD3A5BD682BCFE-1718-ADBA@Webmail-m123.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] The important element is that Law 73F ("could have known") and Law 23 ("could have been aware") are not stand-alone Laws. The Director must first rule that another infraction has happened before the Director is permitted to apply Law 23 or Law 73F. AG : strange. I see it the other way round : the TD must only establish that some irregularity happened ; and then L73 tells him to consider it as an infraction. [Paul Lamford] But Law 73F is also used to define an infraction, as well as deciding that it is punished. As I think Grattan has said, Laws are stand-alone, but that does not mean they should not be read together. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 15 11:07:16 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:07:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does 28 lead to 26? In-Reply-To: References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <000001cb63a1$240bf900$6c23eb00$@no> Message-ID: <004401cb6c48$5e1aa240$1a4fe6c0$@no> On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > > Hi, > > We had this before but for clarification.... > > West is dealer but North opens 1D out of turn. Not noticing this, > > West opens 1S. The TD is called and gives a ruling. If the1S opening > > is passed out, there will be no lead penalties on South? > > Let me quote from Ton's commentary: > > "Assume that, with South as dealer, East opens the auction with 1H and South > thereafter bids 1S. [...] It is possible that South noticed the bid out of turn and > made an overcall, but it is also possible that he ignored the 1H-bid and wanted to > open the auction. Both situations are legal options, so the TD has to ask South > about his intentions. With an overcall the auction just continues, otherwise the 1H- > bid is withdrawn and creates unauthorized information for West. [...] The TD has to > understand that Law 29A does not prevail over Law 28B." > > So in your scenario, the applicable Law is 28B which says "Making such a call > forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation. The auction proceeds as > though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies." > > Therefore, no Law 26 lead restrictions, but UI restrictions on South. There is a very important different here from Ton's case: Ton handled the situation where the opening bid out of turn was made by dealer's RHO. In this case the opening bid out of turn is made by dealer's LHO followed by dealer's bid. IMHO the director must first of all try Law 33: "A call made simultaneously with one made by the player whose turn it was to call is deemed to be a subsequent call." If he judges that the two bids were "simultaneous" for the purpose of this law then North has made an insufficient bid, leading to Law 27. If instead he judges that (probably due to insufficient attention) dealer made his "opening" bid subsequent to the bid made by North then North's opening bid out of turn must be treated as accepted and West (Dealer) has made a bid out of turn, leading to Law 31B. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 15 11:27:39 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:27:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <4CB71E91.1000409@nhcc.net> References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <4CB71E91.1000409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004501cb6c4b$36a19fe0$a3e4dfa0$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > On 9/30/2010 5:17 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > I have reached a stalemate in a discussion on whether or not a "pass > > or correct" bid is artificial for the purpose of applying Law 27B > > Did this ever get settled? It seems to me a "pass or correct" bid is artificial if it > gives some message about a different suit and not otherwise. So in response to, > say, 2D multi, 2S is artificial because it shows good hearts. 2H is not artificial > because it shows willingness to play in hearts and nothing special about any other > suit. (All this assumes normal methods for responding to multi.) No, it has never been settled and i still hope for an authoritative comment from someone associated with WBFLC. > A more difficult problem might be accepting a transfer when a super- accept is > available. The accept shows willingness to play but also shows minimum-range > values or lack of support. I personally think that's still not artificial because it > shows nothing in particular about any other suit, but I can imagine others > disagreeing. I consider "willingness to play" to apply also when the call shows for instance lack of extra values. Just look at the auction: 1H - Pass - Pass - Pass. Is the pass by opener's partner artificial? It certainly shows willingness to play in hearts but it also denies "extra" values. However, I should be extremely surprised if anybody argued that the limiting properties of the pass make this call artificial. Bottom line is that it appears to me we are on the same track. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 15 15:26:03 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:26:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <8CD3A0CD8D98514-D10-1E50@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD3A0CD8D98514-D10-1E50@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <655909BD-8978-4B01-8415-2B6F459D20CB@starpower.net> On Oct 14, 2010, at 7:15 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > The "could have known" aspect of 73F is the first and only test in > practice, and a demonstrable bridge reason has to be a very strong > one. > For example, declarer leads towards the AJ9x in a side-suit and there > is break in tempo before the queen is (correctly) played from Q10x. > Declarer now draws the inference that the person has KQx(x). The > defender knew that the break in tempo might deceive, but practice > again > has decided that a "false card" is not a demonstrable bridge > reason. So > the bar is set very high, as it should be. And 73D1 and 73D2 are > largely irrelevant, as the normal practice is to apply 73F first. Paul must play in some very fine bridge games indeed. IME, at most 1% of players confronted with a position where it is right to put up the queen from Q10x in front of AJ9x in dummy will actually find the play, and at most 1% of that 1% will manage to play the Q smoothly without having to think about it first. A player who managed, after some thought, to find that play might better expect to be written up in the club newsletter for their "brilliancy" than to face an adverse ruling for their "potential deception". Indeed, a significant huddle from a player holding Q10x in this position is far more likely than one from KQx, as the player with the former holding has something significant to think about. So I'd actually be more readily inclined to protect if the player had huddled from KQx and declarer had played him for Q10x. You don't get L73F protection if you went wrong only because you chose to assume that an opponent's tempo break was a deliberate attempt to deceive, when you would have gotten it right had you assumed that the opponent huddled with a real problem. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 15:27:17 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:27:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does 28 lead to 26? In-Reply-To: <004401cb6c48$5e1aa240$1a4fe6c0$@no> References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <000001cb63a1$240bf900$6c23eb00$@no> <004401cb6c48$5e1aa240$1a4fe6c0$@no> Message-ID: 2010/10/15 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB >> > Hi, >> > We had this before but for clarification.... >> > West is dealer but North opens 1D out of turn. ?Not noticing this, >> > West opens 1S. ?The TD is called and gives a ruling. ?If the1S opening >> > is passed out, there will be no lead penalties on South? >> >> Let me quote from Ton's commentary: >> >> "Assume that, with South as dealer, East opens the auction with 1H and > South >> thereafter bids 1S. [...] It is possible that South noticed the bid out of > turn and >> made an overcall, but it is also possible that he ignored the 1H-bid and > wanted to >> open the auction. Both situations are legal options, so the TD has to ask > South >> about his intentions. With an overcall the auction just continues, > otherwise the 1H- >> bid is withdrawn and creates unauthorized information for West. [...] The > TD has to >> understand that Law 29A does not prevail over Law 28B." >> >> So in your scenario, the applicable Law is 28B which says "Making such a > call >> forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation. The > auction proceeds as >> though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies." >> >> Therefore, no Law 26 lead restrictions, but UI restrictions on South. > > There is a very important different here from Ton's case: > Ton handled the situation where the opening bid out of turn was made by > dealer's RHO. > > In this case the opening bid out of turn is made by dealer's LHO followed by > dealer's bid. > > IMHO the director must first of all try Law 33: "A call made simultaneously > with one made by the player whose turn it was to call is deemed to be a > subsequent call." > > If he judges that the two bids were "simultaneous" for the purpose of this > law then North has made an insufficient bid, leading to Law 27. > > If instead he judges that (probably due to insufficient attention) dealer > made his "opening" bid subsequent to the bid made by North then North's > opening bid out of turn must be treated as accepted and West (Dealer) has > made a bid out of turn, leading to Law 31B. Did you consider applying Law 28B here??? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 15 16:35:34 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:35:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time In-Reply-To: <655909BD-8978-4B01-8415-2B6F459D20CB@starpower.net> References: <8CD3A0CD8D98514-D10-1E50@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com> <655909BD-8978-4B01-8415-2B6F459D20CB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CD3A8D5C720164-C68-2EBA8@Webmail-m107.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] Indeed, a significant huddle from a player holding Q10x in this position is far more likely than one from KQx, as the player with the former holding has something significant to think about. So I'd actually be more readily inclined to protect if the player had huddled from KQx and declarer had played him for Q10x. [Paul Lamford] I agree with your sentiments here, and believe that the Law should be interpreted as it states, but certainly my reading of case law in both the US and the UK is that a BIT followed by a false card is generally ruled against. Perhaps others can confirm if my recollection is correct - I found one example in the EBU Appeals booklet, and there the opinions were split. A false card, to me, is clearly a bridge reason. But then so is a Smith Peter, and in the example where a defender broke tempo without the ace when over KQ10x, I am certain he would be ruled against. That is because a Smith Peter has become synonymous with a Smith Cheater. Whether such rulings have been lawful is another matter. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 15 17:16:07 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:16:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does 28 lead to 26? In-Reply-To: References: <4CA96DF1.1070006@nhcc.net> <000001cb63a1$240bf900$6c23eb00$@no> <004401cb6c48$5e1aa240$1a4fe6c0$@no> Message-ID: <000601cb6c7b$e5d83480$b1889d80$@no> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran > 2010/10/15 Sven Pran : > > On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > >> > Hi, > >> > We had this before but for clarification.... > >> > West is dealer but North opens 1D out of turn. Not noticing this, > >> > West opens 1S. The TD is called and gives a ruling. If the1S > >> > opening is passed out, there will be no lead penalties on South? > >> > >> Let me quote from Ton's commentary: > >> > >> "Assume that, with South as dealer, East opens the auction with 1H > >> and > > South > >> thereafter bids 1S. [...] It is possible that South noticed the bid > >> out of > > turn and > >> made an overcall, but it is also possible that he ignored the 1H-bid > >> and > > wanted to > >> open the auction. Both situations are legal options, so the TD has to > >> ask > > South > >> about his intentions. With an overcall the auction just continues, > > otherwise the 1H- > >> bid is withdrawn and creates unauthorized information for West. [...] > >> The > > TD has to > >> understand that Law 29A does not prevail over Law 28B." > >> > >> So in your scenario, the applicable Law is 28B which says "Making > >> such a > > call > >> forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation. The > > auction proceeds as > >> though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies." > >> > >> Therefore, no Law 26 lead restrictions, but UI restrictions on South. > > > > There is a very important different here from Ton's case: > > Ton handled the situation where the opening bid out of turn was made > > by dealer's RHO. > > > > In this case the opening bid out of turn is made by dealer's LHO > > followed by dealer's bid. > > > > IMHO the director must first of all try Law 33: "A call made > > simultaneously with one made by the player whose turn it was to call > > is deemed to be a subsequent call." > > > > If he judges that the two bids were "simultaneous" for the purpose of > > this law then North has made an insufficient bid, leading to Law 27. > > > > If instead he judges that (probably due to insufficient attention) > > dealer made his "opening" bid subsequent to the bid made by North then > > North's opening bid out of turn must be treated as accepted and West > > (Dealer) has made a bid out of turn, leading to Law 31B. > > Did you consider applying Law 28B here??? No, but of course I should have. My only "excuse" is that I had just woken up after getting home from a week in Scotland at 01:30 last night and was still rather sleepy. Thanks for your "rectification" 8-) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 16 18:19:27 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:19:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] News, provisionally speaking.[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25971068.47061287245967222.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ As given to me the 2010/2011 WBF Laws Committee comprises: J. Ortiz-Patino, Chairman Emeritus T. Kooijman, Chairman G. Endicott, Secretary M. Bavin M. Di Sacco J. Gerard A. Levy C. Martel J. Polisner W. Schoder J. Wignall ......................... D. Davenport, Consultant. _________________________ This represents the extent of my current information. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 16 20:20:14 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:20:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <795261194.1287253214244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:33:26 -0400, wrote: > > > > Okay, let's try to make some progress. > > I think that the only good solution is for the Regulating Authority to > define the meaning of commonly used convention names. Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it. > I think odd-even is a good example. It definitely should mean that odd > encourages and even discourages (on first discard). > > I think a part of the core meaning is that the size of the even card > indicates which of the two remaning suits is preferred. Yes. > But I would guess > (an uninformed guess) that 10% of the players at our club who play > odd-even don't know this. Those then are not allowed to call their method odd-even, because they are not playing the one and only officially sanctioned odd-even method. They have to called their method something else. They are not allowed to check the odd-even checkbox on the ACBL convention card. > What does this formal definition get us? > > I think some players might be playing that a high odd card can suggest > that a player dislikes the suit but does not have any even cards to use. > If a pair plays this, they would have to add it to "odd-even" when asked > about their discards. That still does not make their method the one and only officially sanctioned odd-even method. Calling that method odd-even when the regulating authority has defined odd-even as a somewhat different method would be MI. Thomas From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 16 21:52:49 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:52:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <795261194.1287253214244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: From: "Thomas Dehn" ] > Robert Frick wrote: > >> I think odd-even is a good example. It definitely should mean >> that odd >> encourages and even discourages (on first discard). >> >> I think a part of the core meaning is that the size of the even >> card >> indicates which of the two remaning suits is preferred. > > Yes. > >> But I would guess >> (an uninformed guess) that 10% of the players at our club who >> play >> odd-even don't know this. [Marv] Completely unknown in my club. >Then are not allowed to call their method > odd-even, because they are not playing the > one and only officially sanctioned odd-even method. > They have to called their method something else. > They are not allowed to check the odd-even checkbox > on the ACBL convention card. > >> What does this formal definition get us? >> >> I think some players might be playing that a high odd card can >> suggest >> that a player dislikes the suit but does not have any even cards >> to use. >> If a pair plays this, they would have to add it to "odd-even" >> when asked >> about their discards. > > That still does not make their method the one and only > officially sanctioned odd-even method. Calling that method > odd-even when the regulating authority has defined odd-even > as a somewhat different method would be MI. The ACBL has no "official" definition of odd-even, does it? The instructions for filling out the ACBL convention card ("Duplicate Decisions") say only that odd-even on first discard means an odd card says you like the suit and an even card says you don't. Those who play that card size carries an additional meaning must certainly add that under the odd-even boxes. Since appropriate card size may not be available, many players tend to hesitate a lot before choosing a first discard, even when playing simple odd-even. This is not permitted by the ACBL, and those doing that can be prohibited from playing the method. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5536 (20101016) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 16 22:29:55 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:29:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <795261194.1287253214244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1278204543.1287260995648.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Marvin French wrote: > From: "Thomas Dehn" ] > > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> What does this formal definition get us? > >> > >> I think some players might be playing that a high odd card can > >> suggest > >> that a player dislikes the suit but does not have any even cards > >> to use. > >> If a pair plays this, they would have to add it to "odd-even" > >> when asked > >> about their discards. > > > > That still does not make their method the one and only > > officially sanctioned odd-even method. Calling that method > > odd-even when the regulating authority has defined odd-even > > as a somewhat different method would be MI. > > The ACBL has no "official" definition of odd-even, does it? I don't think it does. Robert wants to have a list of officially sanctioned convention names, with meanings specified by the regulating authority. > The instructions for filling out the ACBL convention card ("Duplicate > Decisions") say only that odd-even on first discard means an odd > card says you like the suit and an even card says you don't. Those > who play that card size carries an additional meaning must certainly > add that under the odd-even boxes. The ACBL convention card does not provide sufficient space to add such information. So while players have such an obligation, I don't see how they can fulfil it. > Since appropriate card size may not be available, many players tend > to hesitate a lot before choosing a first discard, even when playing > simple odd-even. Yes, and that will provide UI which their partner then might use. Thomas From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 16 22:50:52 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:50:52 -0800 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <795261194.1287253214244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <1278204543.1287260995648.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: From: "Thomas Dehn" [Marv] >> The instructions for filling out the ACBL convention card >> ("Duplicate >> Decisions") say only that odd-even on first discard means an odd >> card says you like the suit and an even card says you don't. >> Those >> who play that card size carries an additional meaning must >> certainly >> add that under the odd-even boxes. > > The ACBL convention card does not provide > sufficient space to add such information. So while players > have such an obligation, I don't see how they > can fulfil it. Oral predisclosure. Or better, a little card describing the method, one copy on the table for each opponent. That is how I predisclose low leads from weak doubletons. For some reason oral disclosures are not understood by many opponents, who perhaps are burdened with mild aphasia. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5537 (20101016) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From lumenco at ono.com Sun Oct 17 13:17:05 2010 From: lumenco at ono.com (Lucas Mendoza) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:17:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1278204543.1287260995648.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <795261194.1287253214244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <1278204543.1287260995648.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <002201cb6dec$d4f64590$7ee2d0b0$@com> Hi all: Sorry for my bad English and for the inconvenience. Yes, to hesitate a lot but why? Is not easy to read the hesitation. I think there are so many situations (patterns?) in defensive play. Maybe you will put the stopcard [Yes, I know... :)] announcing "I go to discard and I go to hesitate in all the cases" Best wishes. Lucas He said: "...Since appropriate card size may not be available, many players tend to hesitate a lot before choosing a first discard, even when playing simple odd-even. Yes, and that will provide UI which their partner then might use. Thomas _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101017/99d4afca/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Sun Oct 17 18:54:02 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:54:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002201cb6dec$d4f64590$7ee2d0b0$@com> References: <002201cb6dec$d4f64590$7ee2d0b0$@com> <795261194.1287253214244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <1278204543.1287260995648.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <734841350.1287334442235.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Lucas Mendoza wrote: > Hi all: Sorry for my bad English and for the inconvenience. > > Yes, to hesitate a lot but why? Is not easy to read the hesitation. I think > there are so many situations (patterns?) in defensive play. It is relatively easy to read a hesitation on the first discard. Normally, if you wanted to encourage partner to lead a certain suit, and you have a suitable card you can discard, you just discard that suitable card. Say, when playing odd/even, an odd card from the suit you want partner to lead. So when a player hesitates before making an odd/even discard, his partner can be pretty confident that the discard should not be taken at face value. That hesitation is UI, or course. The point Marvin made and with which I agree is that some players illegally take advantage of such hesitations. Thomas From bpark56 at comcast.net Sun Oct 17 22:21:01 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:21:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <734841350.1287334442235.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <002201cb6dec$d4f64590$7ee2d0b0$@com> <795261194.1287253214244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <1278204543.1287260995648.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <734841350.1287334442235.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CBB5AAD.7020506@comcast.net> On 10/17/10 12:54 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Lucas Mendoza wrote: > >> Hi all: Sorry for my bad English and for the inconvenience. >> >> Yes, to hesitate a lot but why? Is not easy to read the hesitation. I think >> there are so many situations (patterns?) in defensive play. >> > It is relatively easy to read a hesitation on the first discard. > Normally, if you wanted to encourage partner to lead > a certain suit, and you have a suitable card you can discard, > you just discard that suitable card. Say, when playing > odd/even, an odd card from the suit you want partner > to lead. > > So when a player hesitates before making an odd/even > discard, his partner can be pretty confident that the > discard should not be taken at face value. > I don't think this is true. Almost invariably, when I or my partner hesitate, it's because we are trying to work out the best line of defense, not because odd-even is causing us a problem. We are helped here because we play that a high odd card is less odd that a low odd card. We also play that our discards are informative, not commands or promises...so we have outlets for our emotions when we don't have the discard we would like. I.e., if we would be hesitating when not playing odd-even, we would be hesitating now. So...if anyone (partner included) acts on an inference he thinks our odd-even hesitation may show, he will be wrong more often than right. > That hesitation is UI, or course. The point Marvin made > and with which I agree is that some players illegally > take advantage of such hesitations. > > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 17 23:09:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:09:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Stitch in Time [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CB80F8E.2040303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : strange. I see it the other way round : the TD must only >establish that some irregularity happened ; and then L73 tells >him to consider it as an infraction. Richard Hills: Strange. I see it the other way round. An irregularity committed by a player is necessarily an infraction (see the Definitions), so Law 73F merely tells the Director how to proceed if the pre-existing infraction meets the Law 73F criteria. 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 Oct 18 00:27:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:27:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Grattan's multi [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 15th March 2006: >...What the WBFLC established - even as long ago as under the >chairmanship of Ed Theus - is that, except it be so specified, >no one law is subject to another... Richard Hills, 18th October 2010: It seems to me that what was WBFLC policy under Ed Theus ceased to be WBFLC policy at Sao Paulo in 2009, when the WBFLC officially adopted Kojak's long-standing principle that a specific Law takes precedence over a more general Law. Score comparison at last Sunday's Mollymook Swiss Teams -> Team-mate: +90 Me: +2360 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 Mon Oct 18 05:55:57 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:55:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Grattan's multi [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills: > Grattan Endicott, 15th March 2006: > >>...What the WBFLC established - even as long ago as under the >>chairmanship of Ed Theus - is that, except it be so specified, >>no one law is subject to another... > > Richard Hills, 18th October 2010: > > It seems to me that what was WBFLC policy under Ed Theus ceased > to be WBFLC policy at Sao Paulo in 2009, when the WBFLC > officially adopted Kojak's long-standing principle that a > specific Law takes precedence over a more general Law. For instance, Law 12C1(b) dominates (c)and (e) Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5540 (20101017) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 18 08:01:00 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:01:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8193D586311A477EB33E36D284FE688E@acer> Message-ID: Law 81B2: "The Director applies, AND IS BOUND BY, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws." Nigel Guthrie, May 2006: >>>It gives even more power to directors to decide events on whim. >>>Such decisions are hard to dispute but generate discontent. Eric Landau, May 2006: >>In well over 40 years of playing organized duplicate, I've seen >>exactly one incident in which it is fair to say that a director >>(I make no comment on ACs) decided an event "on whim" (and that >>particular director is long deceased). The whimsical Robert Frick, September 2010: >Pair C is blaming their lower finish on making mistakes, >not the director. Nigel Guthrie, May 2006: >>>In BLML, directors have advanced contradictory opinions on this >>>issue. Some have claimed the right to break bridge rules that >>>they don't like or don't understand. Eric Landau, May 2006: >>I don't recall anyone "claim[ing] the right to break bridge >>rules". The "I have a dream" Robert Frick, September 2010: >I think there are people who panic when the rules aren't followed >and think civilization will collapse. But it doesn't. Here in >America which actually honor that rebel George Washington and that >lawbreaker Martin Luther King Eric Landau, May 2006: >>BLML gets into debates about what a particular rule means. Laws, >>of any kind, are subject to interpretation, and different members >>of this forum have different interpretations of the laws in TFLB. >>Unfortunately, some of us are too quick to say that others are >>"break[ing] bridge rules" when what they are doing is enforcing >>their interpretation of some rule rather than the interpretation >>of the person accusing them. Such statements have the semantic >>value of, "I'm right; you're wrong; nyah-nyah." The "nyah-nyah" Richard Hills, October 2010: In my opinion, a bridge player should "have a dream" of lawbreaking only in circumstances outside the game of Duplicate Bridge as such. For example, I believe that Jeff Rubens might have indulged in some minor lawbreaking in the 1960s when he joined other Young Turks in a successful campaign to desegregate the ACBL. But when refereeing a competitive* game, be it baseball, Aussie Rules football, or Duplicate Bridge, the only morality for an umpire is to strive to obey and apply the rules. For example, on Sunday my RHO unintentionally created a major penalty card. The Director did not keep her happy by allowing her to retract that penalty card. So I therefore used that penalty card to make a hopeless game, and won that 8-board Swiss match by 48 imps to nil instead of a lesser margin. (But my RHO and her team gained consolation happiness when in their next three rounds they Swissed through the bunnies to gain third place.) Best wishes Richard Hills Work Experience coordinator Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets * In a non-competitive game, for example a game of noughts-and- crosses (tic-tac-toe) with a five-year-old child, it is moral for a parent to dump to keep the child happy with a win. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Oct 18 09:51:27 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:51:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <734841350.1287334442235.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <002201cb6dec$d4f64590$7ee2d0b0$@com> <795261194.1287253214244. JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><1278204543.1287260995648.JavaMa il.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <734841350.1287334442235.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CBBFC7F.7050201@meteo.fr> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Lucas Mendoza wrote: >> Hi all: Sorry for my bad English and for the inconvenience. >> >> Yes, to hesitate a lot but why? Is not easy to read the hesitation. I think >> there are so many situations (patterns?) in defensive play. > > It is relatively easy to read a hesitation on the first discard. i have the opposite opinion. i think slow discards are not easy to interpret and resultant UI is overestimated. there may be 3 reasons to hesitate: a) which signal the player wants to transmit if any. b) which card is the most appropriate to transmit the signal or to be neutral, once the player knows what he wants to transmit. c) is it affordable to get rid of the selected card without damage. especially with rich discard methods, such as what you call odd-even, where various cards in various suits may transmit the same signal, hesitations are not easy to decipher. > Normally, if you wanted to encourage partner to lead > a certain suit, and you have a suitable card you can discard, > you just discard that suitable card. Say, when playing > odd/even, an odd card from the suit you want partner > to lead. maybe, fast discards are the ones which carry UI in those situations. it's very rare to have an obvious first discard. jpr > > So when a player hesitates before making an odd/even > discard, his partner can be pretty confident that the > discard should not be taken at face value. > > That hesitation is UI, or course. The point Marvin made > and with which I agree is that some players illegally > take advantage of such hesitations. > > > 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 18 14:34:32 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:34:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Whims and foibles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <262864.92114.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Richard Hills sometimes quotes my views to deride them but I'm grateful to him for informed criticism from which I can learn. The following are historical snips from a recent Richard post, with my current comments ... [Nigel Guthrie, May 2006] It gives even more power to directors to decide events on whim. Such decisions are hard to dispute but generate discontent. [Eric Landau, May 2006] In well over 40 years of playing organized duplicate, I've seen exactly one incident in which it is fair to say that a director (I make no comment on ACs) decided an event "on whim" (and that particular director is long deceased). [Nigel 2010] Such cases aren't usually clear-cut. But players may feel aggrieved in incidents such as the following BLML case: In an early board of the first match of the national-final of a multiple-teams competition, a pair from team-A complain to the director about alleged misinformation from a team-B pair. At the end of the first match and at the end of each subsequent match, team B ask the director for the ruling but no ruling has been made. After the last board of the last match, the director rules in favour of team-A and makes the worst possible adjustment against team-B, swinging several VP. Team-A wins, 1 VP ahead of team-B. [Nigel Guthrie, May 2006] In BLML, directors have advanced contradictory opinions on this issue. Some have claimed the right to break bridge rules that they don't like or don't understand. [Eric Landau, May 2006] I don't recall anyone "claim[ing] the right to break bridge rules". {Nigel 2010] BLML provides several examples where directors defend their allegedly illegal habits against other directors who claim they are breaking the law. Some accusers even use the "C" word - unjustifiably in my view: e.g. the "Herman Heart" convention. e.g. David Burn et al castigate David Stevenson and other directors for illegal "implicit agreements" to flout the Orange Book regulation on "rule of 18/19" hands. There have been accusations in other contexts, against eminent BLMLers who, as players, habitually break other rules. I can't remember the details but Richard has a better memory and may be able to quote some. Given the complexity, subjectivity, and fragmentation of Bridge rules, it is surprising that there aren't more schisms. I also agree, however, with those directors who deem that even official publications are sometimes heretical: e.g. ACBL director's handbook: "Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle." From zecurado at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 17:07:09 2010 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:07:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CBBFC7F.7050201@meteo.fr> References: <002201cb6dec$d4f64590$7ee2d0b0$@com> <734841350.1287334442235.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <4CBBFC7F.7050201@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Where I usualy direct, most people play "Total Odd/Even" (odd/even _signals_and_discards_). In theory it works like this: On partner's lead, if you don't cover his or dummy's card (whichever is higher), odd is encouraging and even shows preference for another suit (the higher the even the higher ranked suit prefered). The same applies when you discard, the first discard being the most imperative, er, I mean the most important one. They also tend to give standard count when following opponent's led suits. When you don't have as many choices as you would need, the following criteria apply: a) - the lower the odd, the more encouraging, meaning yhat high odd followed by low odd means "try another suit, partner". b) - even high followed by even low is usualy like the standard come on signal (unless you just want to tell partner something "Look, I could have signaled clubs, but I didn't, just play a heart" As you can imagine, because almost every card carries a message this has enormous potential for UI. Because these players are very used to playing this, they are very quick to sort odd from even and primary messages associated, so every BIT's carries extra information: 1 - _Slow_BIT_ -> Cooperative. For instance: "Take your time to sort it out, partner. Bridge is a thinking game", "I have a problem, I don't have a bread-and-butter information for you, partner", "Look, there is at least a lower odd card missing, I have it!", "I don't have an odd card, wait for my next card to confirm my come on signal", "I am not sure what to do, if you have no clue, maybe clubs is better... but unless we get a bad result because of it, I won't blame you for not finding the right switch", etc... 2 - _Fast_BIT_ -> Imperative. For instance: "The 9 is odd!!! Keep going, P, I want to scores a trick from my singleton trump deuce!" or "This is the 10, play a Spade already!" >From my experience both as a TD and as a player, a fast signal/discard will be followed by a fast play by the other defender. On the other side, a slow signal/discard will normaly send partner into a tank. The number of times I have seen this odd/even+time method work well _despite_ the face value information puts me in the field of those who believe that BIT's playing this method convey _understandable_ information, especialy in the first trick and first discard. Best regards, Jose Curado On 18 October 2010 08:51, Jean-Pierre Rocafort < jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr> wrote: > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Lucas Mendoza wrote: > >> Hi all: Sorry for my bad English and for the inconvenience. > >> > >> Yes, to hesitate a lot but why? Is not easy to read the hesitation. I > think > >> there are so many situations (patterns?) in defensive play. > > > > It is relatively easy to read a hesitation on the first discard. > > i have the opposite opinion. i think slow discards are not easy to > interpret and resultant UI is overestimated. there may be 3 reasons to > hesitate: > a) which signal the player wants to transmit if any. > b) which card is the most appropriate to transmit the signal or to be > neutral, once the player knows what he wants to transmit. > c) is it affordable to get rid of the selected card without damage. > especially with rich discard methods, such as what you call odd-even, > where various cards in various suits may transmit the same signal, > hesitations are not easy to decipher. > > > Normally, if you wanted to encourage partner to lead > > a certain suit, and you have a suitable card you can discard, > > you just discard that suitable card. Say, when playing > > odd/even, an odd card from the suit you want partner > > to lead. > maybe, fast discards are the ones which carry UI in those situations. > it's very rare to have an obvious first discard. > > jpr > > > > So when a player hesitates before making an odd/even > > discard, his partner can be pretty confident that the > > discard should not be taken at face value. > > > > That hesitation is UI, or course. The point Marvin made > > and with which I agree is that some players illegally > > take advantage of such hesitations. > > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101018/4fc9f1dc/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 18 17:09:52 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:09:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Whims and foibles In-Reply-To: <262864.92114.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <262864.92114.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:34:32 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Richard Hills sometimes quotes my views to deride them but I'm grateful > to him > for informed criticism from which I can learn. The following are > historical > snips from a recent Richard post, with my current comments ... > > [Nigel Guthrie, May 2006] > It gives even more power to directors to decide events on whim. Such > decisions > are hard to dispute but generate discontent. > > [Eric Landau, May 2006] > In well over 40 years of playing organized duplicate, I've seen exactly > one > incident in which it is fair to say that a director (I make no comment > on ACs) > decided an event "on whim" (and that particular director is long > deceased). > > [Nigel 2010] > Such cases aren't usually clear-cut. But players may feel aggrieved in > incidents > such as the following BLML case: In an early board of the first match of > the > national-final of a multiple-teams competition, a pair from team-A > complain to > the director about alleged misinformation from a team-B pair. At the end > of the > first match and at the end of each subsequent match, team B ask the > director for > the ruling but no ruling has been made. After the last board of the last > match, > the director rules in favour of team-A and makes the worst possible > adjustment > against team-B, swinging several VP. Team-A wins, 1 VP ahead of team-B. Once I was playing and I started asking players if they remembered rulings I had made against them. I think the universal answer is yes. When I go to the table, usually both sides think they are right and the natural instinct is for the side I rule against to feel wronged. Not always, but usually, it helps if the laws are crystal clear in support of my ruling. So one of my goals here at blml is to make the laws less ambiguous, less contradictory, and clearer. Hmm, and also to eliminate errors. Also to draw lines at the best place. One recent unpopular ruling revolved around what players agree to when they agree on a convention name. That goal requires pointing out the flaws in the laws. I would also like to change the process by which the laws are constructed, so I am motivated to point out as many flaws as I can. Hey, I would like to have laws I can follow. Why wouldn't I? > > [Nigel Guthrie, May 2006] > In BLML, directors have advanced contradictory opinions on this issue. > Some > have claimed the right to break bridge rules that they don't like or > don't > understand. > > [Eric Landau, May 2006] > I don't recall anyone "claim[ing] the right to break bridge rules". > > {Nigel 2010] > BLML provides several examples where directors defend their allegedly > illegal > habits against other directors who claim they are breaking the law. Some > accusers even use the "C" word - unjustifiably in my view: > > > e.g. the "Herman Heart" convention. > > e.g. David Burn et al castigate David Stevenson and other directors for > illegal > "implicit agreements" to flout the Orange Book regulation on "rule of > 18/19" > hands. > > There have been accusations in other contexts, against eminent BLMLers > who, as > players, habitually break other rules. I can't remember the details but > Richard > has a better memory and may be able to quote some. > > Given the complexity, subjectivity, and fragmentation of Bridge rules, > it is > surprising that there aren't more schisms. I also agree, however, with > those > directors who deem that even official publications are sometimes > heretical: > > > e.g. ACBL director's handbook: "Players are generally well advised to > take the > action they would have taken had there been no huddle." > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 18 18:16:22 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:16:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:33:26 -0400, > wrote: > > > > Okay, let's try to make some progress. > > I think that the only good solution is for the Regulating Authority to > define the meaning of commonly used convention names. > +=+ The thought is only a step away from applying, if there is one, the definition in the WBF Guide to Completion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 18 19:51:08 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:51:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Whims and foibles References: <262864.92114.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Given the complexity, subjectivity, and fragmentation of Bridge > rules, it is > surprising that there aren't more schisms. I also agree, however, > with those > directors who deem that even official publications are sometimes > heretical: > > > e.g. ACBL director's handbook: "Players are generally well advised > to take the > action they would have taken had there been no huddle." The only ACBL publications I regard as official are those approved by the LC or the BoD. These include the Alert Procedure and the Convention Charts, created by the Competition and Conventions (C&C) committee and approved by the BoD. Other publications to be found on the ACBL website are mere opinion, IMO, not "official." Also not "official" are the opinions of Mike Flager in his ACBL Bulletin column Ruling the Game. They are very good, but have not been passed by the LC for endorsement, as they should be. When such publications are in conflict with the publications approved by the BoD, what they say is not "official." I have suggested to Adam Wildavsky that he ask the BoD to require all laws/regulation-related material to be reviewed first by the LC (Laws) and the C&C committee (regulations). That should reduce the number of errors considerably. Also, just because a TD makes a statement does not mean the statement is "official,." as many players believe. The Chief Tournament Director (I think that was his title, but the office has been abolished) once told ACBL TDs that negative inferences are not Alertable. This despite the fact that the ACBL Alert procedure specifically identifies about five negative inferences that ARE Alertable, with no indication that they are exceptions. That strongly implies that all negative inferences associated with a convention (in a pertinent auction) should be Alerted. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5543 (20101018) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 19 01:02:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:02:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ The thought is only a step away from applying, if there is >one, the definition in the WBF Guide to Completion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Guide to Completion of the WBF System Card (incorporating the WBF Conventions Booklet) written and compiled by Eric Kokish, pages 2-3: " ... You are aiming for FULL DISCLOSURE, which is not the same as presenting your complete system. ... The early rounds of potentially contestable auctions are FAR more important to your opponents than later rounds of strictly constructive auctions. ... Please be aware that asking a question can have an adverse affect not only on the partnership asking the question ... If an opponent refrains from asking a question to which you should have provided the answer without prompting, and damage ensues, there is an a priori assumption that you have not provided full disclosure. ... " page 14: "1m-1M ARTIFICIAL ( ___ ) This is for things like 1D - 1H is either NAT or FG relay. You want to warn your opponents that they are dealing with an unusual scenario." Richard Hills: This gimmick appears on page 3 of the Ali-Hills system card (and is of course Alerted when 1D - (Pass) - 1H occurs at the table), but it does not appear in the Pre-Alert space of our system card since our experience is that it is a rather innocuous convention easily overcome by the most inexperienced opponents. page 23: "LAVINTHAL SIGNAL The signaller's card does not relate to the suit itself; by its size it says something about interest in the other suits." Richard Hills: Note that Eric Kokish is vague about what "Lavinthal" actually means. This is because there are (at least) three popular variations of "the" Lavinthal convention. 1. A high discard asks for the highest of the two remaining suits, and a low discard asks for the lowest of the two remaining suits. 2. SAYC OK Bridge Simplified states that if hearts are trumps and you cannot follow suit to a club, then a Lavinthal discard of either a low spade or a low diamond asks for a diamond, while a Lavinthal discard of either a high spade or a high diamond asks for a spade. 3. What is technically known as the Revolving Discard convention (a low club requests spades, a high spade requests clubs) is often misnamed "the" Lavinthal convention. ACBL Declarer: "Please explain your partner's discard?" ACBL Defender: "Lavinthal." The declarer and the defender play different variants of the Lavinthal convention, so declarer fails in a contract she would have made if the defender had explained in accordance with the ACBL Alert Procedures. Thus declarer summons the Director. Alas, the Director's judgement is that in this specific venue the Lavinthal convention name has meaning in accordance with the defender's belief, not declarer's belief, and that the declarer should have known this. The Director's judgement regarding the fact that the declarer did not actually know about the venue- specific version of Lavinthal, is that this is irrelevant. The Director is wrong because the defender failed to give unprompted full disclosure (as required by the ACBL Alert regulation), and damage ensued. The Director cannot rule that declarer failed to protect herself if the declarer believed that Variation 1 was "the" Lavinthal convention and was unaware that the norm for the rest of the field was Variation 3, since one cannot protect oneself against a convention that one does not know exists. (A similar illegal ruling by an ACBL Appeals Committee occurred when one side infracted ACBL Pre-Alert requirements, damaging the other side, but the other side gained no redress because the Appeals Committee ruled that the non-offending side should have known the convention concerned.) 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 Oct 19 01:26:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:26:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CBBFC7F.7050201@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >maybe, fast discards are the ones which carry UI in those >situations. >it's very rare to have an obvious first discard. > >jpr Richard Hills: Yes and no. In my particular case, my odd-even first discard is almost always played in tempo. Because while declarer is planning the play, I am planning the defence, including planning my odd-even first discard. But I agree that lazy defenders who use odd-even first discards live from trick to trick, so will often be forced to go into the tank when the discarding moment jumps up. 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 Oct 19 01:59:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:59:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Whims and foibles [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <262864.92114.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >BLML provides several examples where directors defend their >allegedly illegal habits against other directors who claim >they are breaking the law. Some accusers even use the "C" >word - unjustifiably in my view: Richard Hills: Publicly using the "C" word (except about deceased players, for example Terence Reese; or about players who have failed to appeal a Disciplinary Committee ruling, for example Buratti-Lanzarotti) is always unjustifiable under Law 74A2. Nigel Guthrie: >e.g. the "Herman Heart" convention. Through the Looking Glass, The White Knight: "It's my own invention." Richard Hills: The Herman Heart invention / pseudo-psyche occurs with very great rarity. If the White Knight had kept schtum about his own invention, it would be fully Lawful, since Alice would have "no more reason to be aware" about the 1H deviation than the opponents (Law 40C1), as Alice would have completely forgotten the last time it occurred. But because the White Knight frequently talks about his own invention, it is now fully unLawful, since it is now impossible for Alice to think that the Herman Heart pseudo-psyche was just a dream. 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 Oct 19 02:37:18 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:37:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:02:11 -0400, wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ The thought is only a step away from applying, if there is >> one, the definition in the WBF Guide to Completion. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Guide to Completion of the WBF System Card (incorporating the > WBF Conventions Booklet) written and compiled by Eric Kokish, > pages 2-3: > > " ... You are aiming for FULL DISCLOSURE, which is not the same > as presenting your complete system. ... The early rounds of > potentially contestable auctions are FAR more important to your > opponents than later rounds of strictly constructive auctions. > ... Please be aware that asking a question can have an adverse > affect not only on the partnership asking the question ... If > an opponent refrains from asking a question to which you should > have provided the answer without prompting, and damage ensues, > there is an a priori assumption that you have not provided full > disclosure. ... " > > page 14: > > "1m-1M ARTIFICIAL ( ___ ) > > This is for things like 1D - 1H is either NAT or FG relay. You > want to warn your opponents that they are dealing with an > unusual scenario." > > Richard Hills: > > This gimmick appears on page 3 of the Ali-Hills system card > (and is of course Alerted when 1D - (Pass) - 1H occurs at the > table), but it does not appear in the Pre-Alert space of our > system card since our experience is that it is a rather > innocuous convention easily overcome by the most inexperienced > opponents. > > page 23: > > "LAVINTHAL SIGNAL > > The signaller's card does not relate to the suit itself; by > its size it says something about interest in the other suits." > > Richard Hills: > > Note that Eric Kokish is vague about what "Lavinthal" actually > means. This is because there are (at least) three popular > variations of "the" Lavinthal convention. > > 1. A high discard asks for the highest of the two remaining > suits, and a low discard asks for the lowest of the two > remaining suits. > > 2. SAYC OK Bridge Simplified states that if hearts are trumps > and you cannot follow suit to a club, then a Lavinthal > discard of either a low spade or a low diamond asks for a > diamond, while a Lavinthal discard of either a high spade > or a high diamond asks for a spade. > > 3. What is technically known as the Revolving Discard > convention (a low club requests spades, a high spade > requests clubs) is often misnamed "the" Lavinthal > convention. > > ACBL Declarer: "Please explain your partner's discard?" > ACBL Defender: "Lavinthal." > > The declarer and the defender play different variants of the > Lavinthal convention, so declarer fails in a contract she would > have made if the defender had explained in accordance with the > ACBL Alert Procedures. Thus declarer summons the Director. > > Alas, the Director's judgement is that in this specific venue > the Lavinthal convention name has meaning in accordance with the > defender's belief, not declarer's belief, and that the declarer > should have known this. The Director's judgement regarding the > fact that the declarer did not actually know about the venue- > specific version of Lavinthal, is that this is irrelevant. > > The Director is wrong because the defender failed to give > unprompted full disclosure (as required by the ACBL Alert > regulation), and damage ensued. The Director cannot rule that > declarer failed to protect herself if the declarer believed > that Variation 1 was "the" Lavinthal convention and was unaware > that the norm for the rest of the field was Variation 3, since > one cannot protect oneself against a convention that one does > not know exists. > > (A similar illegal ruling by an ACBL Appeals Committee occurred > when one side infracted ACBL Pre-Alert requirements, damaging > the other side, but the other side gained no redress because the > Appeals Committee ruled that the non-offending side should have > known the convention concerned.) As I believe I have already noted, the ACBL convention card allows checking Lavinthal. And the declarer could have looked at the convention card instead of asking. Then blaming defender doesn't work and you will wish for a codified definition. Also, the player could ask about discards before or after a player has discarded. The second type of Lavinthal, which is an addition to regular Lavinthal, would be difficult to explain. I don't really see how you get confusion between the first two methods. The second seems to be just an addition to the first. I would guess that if this is a club game in the US, the director gives a split score. Don't shoot the messenger. But is there really an offending side? If the other side knew that the convention was being played, then the lack of pre-alert wouldn't have caused any damage, and the ruling by the committee would have been appropriate. And "legal". Overheard two seconds ago: "odd-even". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 19 02:54:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:54:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, June 2006: >>The explanation of "cue" was overly succinct. Since the >>partnership agreement was that 4H showed a first or second >>round control in hearts, the non-succinct explanation >>should have been "4H shows a first or second round >>control in hearts". Alain Gottcheiner, June 2006: >However, that's the sense which will be given to the word >'cue-bid' by moderate to strong players, at least above >3NT, so what's the misinformation ? (and you may always >enquire) Richard Hills, June 2006: An important reason why players inadvertently create MI is that they fallaciously assume that their opponents are clones of themselves, sharing the same so-called general knowledge. In this thread's stem case, Karel made the "clone" error and now Alain has repeated it. If a pair's only bridge reading has been "Goren's Bridge Complete", they will assume that a cue bid guarantees a first round control, so they will see no need further to enquire. 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 Oct 19 03:05:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:05:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Whims and foibles [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <262864.92114.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, 8th July 2006: Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of law, even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the law is frequently broken. Most of the time breaking the law won't matter. Driving on the left in Calais doesn't really matter much unless I have an accident, would be a good example. (Being the sort of person I am, I did drive on the left for a fair bit yesterday) So when it comes to the interpretation of an irregularity of some sort one must go back to the Law even if people think that the law is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the law is in force here and today. regards John 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Oct 19 05:21:14 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:21:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002201cb6dec$d4f64590$7ee2d0b0$@com><734841350.1287334442235.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net><4CBBFC7F.7050201@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <54771B7A28FB4C69B7AFA686E2BFAAD4@erdos> Your experience is the reason that the ACBL (and, I believe, many other jurisdictions) disallow signals with more than one message except on the first discard. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jos? J?lio Curado To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Where I usualy direct, most people play "Total Odd/Even" (odd/even _signals_and_discards_). In theory it works like this: On partner's lead, if you don't cover his or dummy's card (whichever is higher), odd is encouraging and even shows preference for another suit (the higher the even the higher ranked suit prefered). The same applies when you discard, the first discard being the most imperative, er, I mean the most important one. They also tend to give standard count when following opponent's led suits. The number of times I have seen this odd/even+time method work well _despite_ the face value information puts me in the field of those who believe that BIT's playing this method convey _understandable_ information, especialy in the first trick and first discard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101019/16305113/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 19 06:12:06 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:12:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <54771B7A28FB4C69B7AFA686E2BFAAD4@erdos> Message-ID: Jos? Curado: [snip] >>The number of times I have seen this odd/even+time method work >>well _despite_ the face value information puts me in the field >>of those who believe that BIT's playing this method convey >>_understandable_ information, especially in the first trick and >>first discard. David Grabiner: >Your experience is the reason that the ACBL (and, I believe, >many other jurisdictions) disallow signals with more than one >message except on the first discard. Richard Hills: The ABF (and, I believe, many European jurisdictions) does not disallow the equally accident-prone Ghestem convention. Although fortunately "Guessed 'em" is almost unknown in Australia. EBU Tangerine Book 2010, Level 4 (the highest level) prohibitions: Leads, Signals and Discards Any system of leads, signals and discards may be used as long as the convention card gives reasonable detail, with two specific restrictions: 1. Dual-meaning signals (when following suit) are not permitted. For example, it is not allowed to give one message (e.g. attitude) according to whether the card is odd or even and another message (e.g. suit preference) according to whether the card is high or low. Dual-meaning discards are permitted. 2. No form of encrypted carding is permitted (don't worry if you don't know what this means as you are very unlikely to be playing it unknowingly). Richard Hills: The ABF explicitly prohibits only encrypted signals. However, the ABF keeps dual-meaning signals (when following suit) on a very tight leash, thanks to the ABF Alert Regulation clause 13.6: "In explanations, do not use the names of conventions; give specific explanations. For example, do not just say 'Michaels', but explain the meaning of the bid by saying 'At least 5-5 in hearts and a minor suit, any strength'. Similarly, refrain from using the terms 'weak', 'strong', 'intermediate', 'natural' or 'standard' if there exist, from partnership experience, certain expectations of suit quality and/or point count. The opponents' views of these descriptive terms may differ from yours." and thanks to the ABF Alert Regulation introduction: "Your agreements include not only specific agreements appearing on your system card but also partnership understandings which have arisen through partnership discussion or experience. The opponents are entitled to know about these understandings." Of course, the above clauses merely militate against MI, giving the opponents the entitlement to know that an odd card when following suit is not always encouraging, and that an even card when following suit is not always discouraging. So if one partner's selection of a demonstrably suggested play after the other partner's tempo-break when giving an odd-even suit-following signal damages the non-offending side, in the ABF it is not the odd-even suit-following signal as such which is unLawful, thus Law 16B is applied in the normal way. 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 Oct 19 07:41:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:41:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Whims and foibles [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <262864.92114.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >There have been accusations in other contexts, against eminent >BLMLers who, as players, habitually break other rules. I can't >remember the details but Richard has a better memory and may be >able to quote some. [snip] Richard Hills: While I am not an eminent blmler, I am an eminence blmler (since one of the definitions of eminence is "rising ground" i.e. Hills). I well remember some accusations against myself. In my youth in Hobart I dared to perpetrate a one-level takeout double with less than the divinely mandated 12 hcp, prompting an opponent to call me a cheat (and prompting me to summon the highly capable Chief Director of Tasmania, the late Roger Penny, who required my opponent to withdraw). An equally spurious allegation of cheating happened during my middle-age at a Wagga Wagga Congress versus an opponent who had no idea that Law 27A existed, causing him to be miffed that my acceptance of his insufficient bid (rather than me issuing the divinely mandated command "Make it good") allowed my side to manoeuvre to our best partscore. Very recently in my old-age another blmler alleged "Richard, for example, is not a director, as far as I know" not realising that his allegation was logically identical to "Richard, for example, is indeed a director, as far as I know." (For what it is worth, I have had two decades of part-time experience directing grass-roots events in Hobart and Canberra. More importantly I have been mentored by some of Australia's most distinguished Directors: the late Roger Penny, Reg Busch, Laurie Kelso and Sean Mullamphy.) 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 Oct 19 12:49:36 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:49:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Early dawn. Message-ID: <3DD41282304A408DB3694EFE273626A5@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> I have just opened a folder for the gathering of items to look at when the next laws revision starts. This has gone into it. No doubt other contributions will appear. No-one need be shy. Herman says it is time to rewrite the laws completely - the stance I took in 2002 which was aborted after a complete rewrite was in fact on the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 19 14:36:25 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:36:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Early dawn. In-Reply-To: <3DD41282304A408DB3694EFE273626A5@Mildred> References: <3DD41282304A408DB3694EFE273626A5@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:49:36 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "" I thought of it by day and dreamed of it > by night."" > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > +=+ A well-wisher has sent me this: > > << It seems to me the first instance of 'contestant' in > L68A should really be 'side', and the second instance > should be 'player'. Also, there probably should be > some qualifier that only declarer or a defender can > claim. (As it reads now, it seems even a remark by > a spectator can be considered a claim.) The error > seems to have been around since 1987(!), so maybe > it is not important in practice, but I pass along the > comment for your consideration. >> > > I have just opened a folder for the gathering of items > to look at when the next laws revision starts. This has > gone into it. No doubt other contributions will appear. > No-one need be shy. Herman says it is time to rewrite > the laws completely - the stance I took in 2002 which > was aborted after a complete rewrite was in fact on > the table. I think: The process of deciding how the laws should *materially change* worked well in 2007. The change in L27B is brilliant and works well. I really like the change in L16C2, taking away the player's right to veto play. The change in the revoke law is practical and more fair. As far as I am concerned, whatever you did for 2007 you can do again. Then there is *making the laws say what we think they are supposed to say*. There are a lot of flaws. The reason there are a lot of flaws is that it is very difficult to write laws which say what you want them to say. So, whatever laws you try to make, you should present them for public criticism. You will get a good response -- people making lots of criticism. There will be a lot of garbage, but there will also be a lot of criticisms that hit the mark. Your committee alone simply does not have enough resources to check the laws for errors. Put another way, you do not want to rely on a few busy important people to check the laws in the way they should be checked. I would prefer a reorganization, at least of the parts of the law that are spread out in different places (such as the UI laws; L20, L40, and L75). Without public criticism, I worry that this project is unfeasible. An example would be L16A, which attempts to be a comprehensive description of what is AI and UI. That was a noble goal, but the actual attempt is unusable, and it turned out to be good that you left other UI laws spread throughout the book. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Oct 19 14:42:09 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:42:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Early dawn. In-Reply-To: <3DD41282304A408DB3694EFE273626A5@Mildred> References: <3DD41282304A408DB3694EFE273626A5@Mildred> Message-ID: <3641BEF635CA4204A2EB974D5489F82E@PCdeOlivier> hello, we have mis-translated this in the ffb-code 2007! The french book says that "any player who made a statement ..." and so on, so we restore the old version! i am pleased to see that may be we are just a little in advance for this :) yes, in the textbook, even the barmain can claim, it's clearly not lhe aim of this Law. Olivier Beauvillain http://www.lebridgeur.com/shopping-bridge/livres/commentaires-code-2007.html Pour commander : me contacter par courriel 29,5?+port ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:49 PM Subject: [BLML] Early dawn. > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "" I thought of it by day and dreamed of it > by night."" > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > +=+ A well-wisher has sent me this: > > << It seems to me the first instance of 'contestant' in > L68A should really be 'side', and the second instance > should be 'player'. Also, there probably should be > some qualifier that only declarer or a defender can > claim. (As it reads now, it seems even a remark by > a spectator can be considered a claim.) The error > seems to have been around since 1987(!), so maybe > it is not important in practice, but I pass along the > comment for your consideration. >> > > I have just opened a folder for the gathering of items > to look at when the next laws revision starts. This has > gone into it. No doubt other contributions will appear. > No-one need be shy. Herman says it is time to rewrite > the laws completely - the stance I took in 2002 which > was aborted after a complete rewrite was in fact on > the table. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 5544 (20101019) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 20 02:28:12 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:28:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Whims and foibles [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Whims and foibles [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > In my youth in Hobart I dared to perpetrate a one-level takeout > double with less than the divinely mandated 12 hcp, prompting an > opponent to call me a cheat (and prompting me to summon the highly > capable Chief Director of Tasmania, the late Roger Penny, who > required my opponent to withdraw). > +=+ From the room? +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 20 10:31:26 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:31:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). Message-ID: from Grattan Endicott .................................................................. Is it helpful? I have entered it in my folder of law matters for the next review. Should it be expanded? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 20 11:26:07 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:26:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Grattan Endicott] **************************************************** In Philadelphia a colleague drafted this and offered it as guidance: ................................................................ < ""If subsequent to the irregularity the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by reckless action or by an action from which if unsuccessful it hopes to recover through rectification of the infraction, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of its damage as is occasioned by that error or action. The offending side....etc." Is this not the intention? Is there any case that is not reckless or wild, other than the 'double shot', where 'gambling' is applicable? > .................................................................. Is it helpful? I have entered it in my folder of law matters for the next review. Should it be expanded? {nigel] In practice, all this serious error/gambling/double-shot nonsense is exploited by experienced secretary-birds to persuade gullible directors to deprive less experienced players of adequate redress, adding insult to injury. If we must have such daft laws, however then... 1. The most important thing is to define "serious error" as something like a revoke or worse. 2. Errors are almost always "related to the infraction". Hence "unrelated to the infraction" is too weak. More in keeping with the (daft) intention of the law would be "unless directly resulting from the infraction". 3. "hopes to recover" is too strong and (again) relies on the director's infallible telepathic abilities. Perhaps better would be "might hope to recover" "appears to be motivated by a hope to recover" or something weaker. 4. Although it would break with hallowed tradition, overly subjective laws like this scream for illustrative examples. Such examples must be "on the cusp", to give directors at least a slender chance of ruling consistently. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 20 11:50:56 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:50:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). In-Reply-To: <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <806552.19928.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> 5. The law must emphasise that the *original law-breaker* gets no remission because of subesequent errors by his victim. The error/double-shot penalty only applies only to the *victims* of the infraction. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 20 15:09:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:09:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] live case In-Reply-To: <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CBEEA15.2040304@ulb.ac.be> How do you rule ? Teams, none vul North is an expert under a bout of flu ; the other three players are reasonably competent. N E S W 1C 1D 1H X 1S p 2S 2NT p 3C p 3NT p p p K109x x AJ9x xxx Qx AK10xx Kxx QJ9x 1C is 1RF, ambiguous (more or less Polish) 1S shows a weak NT type or weak 4414 2NT was alerted. (double wasn't ; in Belgium, doubles aren't alertable) East summons the director about the strange look of the NS bidding, combined with the alert. South's statement : 2NT was of the good / bad type, whence the alert. There is no doubt that this is indeed NS's agreement. North's statement : a) 2NT is indeed good / bad ; he just bid it in case partner sgned off in 3D ; else he was bidding 3NT b) they don't play weak 1D overcalls unless holding a 6-carder (I believe this to be true) c) partner's 3C bid denies the weak 1-suited type East's statement : d) the North hand doesn't fit with good / bad, but does with a natural meaning, although it could be deemed an underbid e) 3C over a good/bad 2NT is the normal bid, consistent with a signoff, falsifying c) and making a) a weak argument f) hence, it is probable that the alert awakened South about his own system g) 3D (playing partner for a weakish 64) is surely a LA if you believed your 2NT bid to be natural The questions : 1. Whom do you believe ? 2. How do you rule ? 3. Is the fact that South usually bids one more for the road.(as was proven before in the match) relevant in any way ? Thanks you for your help. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 20 15:52:29 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:52:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] live case In-Reply-To: <4CBEEA15.2040304@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CBEEA15.2040304@ulb.ac.be> <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <280611705.2435511287582749190.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > How do you rule ? > > Teams, none vul > North is an expert under a bout of flu ; the other three players are > reasonably competent. > > > N E S W > > 1C 1D 1H > X 1S p 2S > 2NT p 3C p > 3NT p p p > > K109x x > AJ9x xxx > Qx AK10xx > Kxx QJ9x > > > 1C is 1RF, ambiguous (more or less Polish) > 1S shows a weak NT type or weak 4414 > 2NT was alerted. > (double wasn't ; in Belgium, doubles aren't alertable) > > East summons the director about the strange look of the NS bidding, > combined with the alert. > > South's statement : > > 2NT was of the good / bad type, whence the alert. > There is no doubt that this is indeed NS's agreement. > > North's statement : > > a) 2NT is indeed good / bad ; he just bid it in case partner sgned off > in 3D ; else he was bidding 3NT > b) they don't play weak 1D overcalls unless holding a 6-carder (I > believe this to be true) > c) partner's 3C bid denies the weak 1-suited type > > East's statement : > > d) the North hand doesn't fit with good / bad, but does with a natural > meaning, although it could be deemed an underbid > e) 3C over a good/bad 2NT is the normal bid, consistent with a signoff, > falsifying c) and making a) a weak argument > f) hence, it is probable that the alert awakened South about his own system > g) 3D (playing partner for a weakish 64) is surely a LA if you believed > your 2NT bid to be natural > > The questions : > > 1. Whom do you believe ? > 2. How do you rule ? > 3. Is the fact that South usually bids one more for the road.(as was > proven before in the match) relevant in any way ? I'm sorry, but I do not understand. In what way is N supposed to have any UI that "demonstrably suggests bidding 3NT"? If I believe E's argumentation that 2NT was intended as natural, S's alert woke up N, and N thus knows that 3C is interpreted as a signoff, then how is that supposed to "demonstrably suggest bidding 3NT"? A signoff??? Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 20 15:57:45 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:57:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E731CC9-F81E-46D3-8AD4-6A34118F909F@starpower.net> On Oct 20, 2010, at 4:31 AM, Grattan wrote: > In Philadelphia a colleague drafted this and > offered it as guidance: > ................................................................ > < ""If subsequent to the irregularity the non-offending > side has contributed to its own damage by a serious > error (unrelated to the infraction) or by reckless > action or by an action from which if unsuccessful it > hopes to recover through rectification of the infraction, > it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such > part of its damage as is occasioned by that error or > action. The offending side....etc." > > Is this not the intention? Is there any case that is > not reckless or wild, other than the 'double shot', > where 'gambling' is applicable? > > .................................................................. > Is it helpful? I have entered it in my folder of > law matters for the next review. Should it be > expanded? Permit me to suggest that the word "serious" is not sufficiently strong to convey the intent of the law, as demonstrated by the WBF's having found it necessarily to issue a minute on the subject. Something like "egregious", "senseless", "absurd" or "flagrant" would, I think, better convey the intent of the law as expressed in the minute. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 20 16:01:17 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:01:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). In-Reply-To: <806552.19928.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <806552.19928.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <182654.55650.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Richard may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but here is a typical case, discussed on BLML, from (feeble) memory: A pair defend a non-vulnerable doubled part-score. It becomes obvious during the play that, without misinformation about declarer's bid, they might have reached an easy vulnerable grand-slam worth 2210. Realising that they can recover at most a few hundred from the doubled part-score, defenders slop a couple of tricks. The director rules that the victims had suffered misinformation during the auction. But the director agrees with the law-breakers (and many BLMLers) that the victims' play-errors are egregious. So he denies redress to the victims! As far as I remember, the director did not even penalise the law-breakers!! (I think some BLMLers considered compensating the victims with a percentage of the small-slam but no director even considered the grand-slam). Most of this may be director-error (and BLML-error). Hence, clarifying the law could help a bit. But directors and players are *prone to error* when struggling with over-complex over-subjective rules. This rule adds no value whatsoever and should be scrapped. From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 20 16:06:20 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:06:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). In-Reply-To: <0E731CC9-F81E-46D3-8AD4-6A34118F909F@starpower.net> References: <0E731CC9-F81E-46D3-8AD4-6A34118F909F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CD3E771B055749-2304-AFD7@webmail-d009.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] Permit me to suggest that the word "serious" is not sufficiently strong to convey the intent of the law, as demonstrated by the WBF's having found it necessarily to issue a minute on the subject. Something like "egregious", "senseless", "absurd" or "flagrant" would, I think, better convey the intent of the law as expressed in the minute. [Paul Lamford] Indeed I like the word "egregious", and I am sure it will be accurately translated into other languages! :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 20 16:21:20 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:21:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] live case In-Reply-To: <280611705.2435511287582749190.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <4CBEEA15.2040304@ulb.ac.be> <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <280611705.2435511287582749190.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CBEFAE0.8050308@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/10/2010 15:52, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner >> How do you rule ? >> >> Teams, none vul >> North is an expert under a bout of flu ; the other three players are >> reasonably competent. >> >> >> N E S W >> >> 1C 1D 1H >> X 1S p 2S >> 2NT p 3C p >> 3NT p p p >> >> K109x x >> AJ9x xxx >> Qx AK10xx >> Kxx QJ9x >> >> >> 1C is 1RF, ambiguous (more or less Polish) >> 1S shows a weak NT type or weak 4414 >> 2NT was alerted. >> (double wasn't ; in Belgium, doubles aren't alertable) >> >> East summons the director about the strange look of the NS bidding, >> combined with the alert. >> >> South's statement : >> >> 2NT was of the good / bad type, whence the alert. >> There is no doubt that this is indeed NS's agreement. >> >> North's statement : >> >> a) 2NT is indeed good / bad ; he just bid it in case partner sgned off >> in 3D ; else he was bidding 3NT >> b) they don't play weak 1D overcalls unless holding a 6-carder (I >> believe this to be true) >> c) partner's 3C bid denies the weak 1-suited type >> >> East's statement : >> >> d) the North hand doesn't fit with good / bad, but does with a natural >> meaning, although it could be deemed an underbid >> e) 3C over a good/bad 2NT is the normal bid, consistent with a signoff, >> falsifying c) and making a) a weak argument >> f) hence, it is probable that the alert awakened South about his own system >> g) 3D (playing partner for a weakish 64) is surely a LA if you believed >> your 2NT bid to be natural >> >> The questions : >> >> 1. Whom do you believe ? >> 2. How do you rule ? >> 3. Is the fact that South usually bids one more for the road.(as was >> proven before in the match) relevant in any way ? > I'm sorry, but I do not understand. > > In what way is N supposed to have any UI that "demonstrably suggests > bidding 3NT"? If I believe E's argumentation that 2NT was intended as > natural, S's alert woke up N, and N thus knows that 3C is interpreted > as a signoff, then how is that supposed to > "demonstrably suggest bidding 3NT"? A signoff??? Well, the difference is that over 2NT natural, 3C is a signoff, while over 2NT good/bad, 3C is more or less requested, so the UI might be that partner isn't signing off afterall ... From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 20 16:45:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:45:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). In-Reply-To: <0E731CC9-F81E-46D3-8AD4-6A34118F909F@starpower.net> References: <0E731CC9-F81E-46D3-8AD4-6A34118F909F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <564008875.2451461287585932517.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau > Permit me to suggest that the word "serious" is not sufficiently > strong to convey the intent of the law, as demonstrated by the WBF's > having found it necessarily to issue a minute on the subject. > Something like "egregious", "senseless", "absurd" or "flagrant" > would, I think, better convey the intent of the law as expressed in > the minute. Something like "brain-dead error" would be clearer, but then you get into the territory where the NOS might feel offended by a ruling they made a "brain-dead error". Thomas From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 20 16:46:17 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:46:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] live case In-Reply-To: <4CBEEA15.2040304@ulb.ac.be> References: <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CBEEA15.2040304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <990732.91204.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] Teams, none vul North is an expert under a bout of flu ; the other three players are reasonably competent. N.............E.............S............W K109x.......................x AJ9x........................xxx Qx..........................AK10xx Kxx.........................QJ9x ..............1C............1D...........1H X.............1S............P............2S 2NT...........P.............3C...........P 3NT...........P.............P............P 1C is 1RF, ambiguous (more or less Polish) 1S shows a weak NT type or weak 4414 2NT was alerted. (double wasn't; in Belgium, doubles aren't alertable) East summons the director about the strange look of the NS bidding, combined with the alert. South's statement: 2NT was of the good / bad type, whence the alert. There is no doubt that this is indeed NS's agreement. North's statement : a) 2NT is indeed good/bad ; he just bid it in case partner signed off in 3D ; else he was bidding 3NT b) they don't play weak 1D overcalls unless holding a 6-carder (I believe this to be true) c) partner's 3C bid denies the weak 1-suited type East's statement : d) the North hand doesn't fit with good/bad, but does with a natural meaning, although it could be deemed an underbid e) 3C over a good/bad 2NT is the normal bid, consistent with a signoff, falsifying c) and making a) a weak argument f) hence, it is probable that the alert awakened South about his own system g) 3D (playing partner for a weakish 64) is surely a LA if you believed your 2NT bid to be natural The questions : 1. Whom do you believe? 2. How do you rule? 3. Is the fact that South usually bids one more for the road.(as was proven before in the match) relevant in any way ? [Nigel] IMO 1. Why does Alain invest so much credence in North? I think the director should consider each player's statement on its *face-value* and do his best to ignore whether he trusts a particular player. (Richard Hills disagrees with this stance). Without other evidence, the director should discount mere claims about the unusual North-South understanding over a good-bad 2N (3C = sound values) How did the alert by "South" of his partner's 2N wake himself up to its meaning? Does Alain mean "North"? Diagrams where West is to the right of East confuse everybody, sometimes even the original poster. From tedying at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 17:46:35 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Carding question Message-ID: <480320.1861.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> A question that arose last week at the local game last week and I'm not sure of the answer, so I thought I would see what the BLMLers thought. A pair play the following carding agreements. Their general signals are UDCA. When partner A preempts and partner B leads the preempted suit, if A does not need to win the trick, A will play middle to encourage in the preempted suit, and high is a higher suit preference and low is a lower suit preference. The question, is does this need to be marked on their convention card? When a declarer asks what their carding agreements are, do they need to make a special note to disclose this? They thought that this was fairly standard and didn't mention it when declarer asked about their carding agreements. Declarer did say that it did not affect the hand at all, but was curious whether he should have been informed. Any feedback on this would be appreciated. -Ted Ying. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 20 19:53:54 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:53:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Carding question References: <480320.1861.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <393E0FE8E90A4944805237F824C49E3C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:46 PM Subject: [BLML] Carding question > > > A question that arose last week at the local game last week and I'm not > sure of > the answer, so I thought I would see what the BLMLers thought. > > A pair play the following carding agreements. Their general signals are > UDCA. > When partner A preempts and partner B leads the preempted suit, if A does > not > need to win the trick, A will play middle to encourage in the preempted > suit, > and high is a higher suit preference and low is a lower suit preference. > The > question, is does this need to be marked on their convention card? When a > declarer asks what their carding agreements are, do they need to make a > special note to disclose this? They thought that this was fairly standard > and > didn't mention it when declarer asked about their carding agreements. > Declarer > > did say that it did not affect the hand at all, but was curious whether > he > should > > have been informed. > > Any feedback on this would be appreciated. > > -Ted Ying. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 20 20:32:35 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:32:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] live case In-Reply-To: <4CBEFAE0.8050308@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CBEEA15.2040304@ulb.ac.be> <364651.9734.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><280611705.2435511287582749190.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <4CBEFAE0.8050308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CD3E9C4CB0FE2E-1B04-812C6@Webmail-m114.sysops.aol.com> [Alain] Well, the difference is that over 2NT natural, 3C is a signoff, while over 2NT good/bad, 3C is more or less requested, so the UI might be that partner isn't signing off afterall [Paul Lamford] I thought the person overcalled diamonds, so why would 3C be a signoff? It would help if tabbing was not used. Using Courier with fixed word spaces seems to work better for diagrams. From what I can gather, the person bid 3NT after a good/bad 2NT, intended primarily as natural, had been alerted. The hand given seems an obvious 3NT bid to me. With K109x AJ9x Qx Kxx, what possible advantage could there be playing in diamonds, when partner has shown clubs and diamonds? The point here is that 3NT is the only LA, by a country mile. I surveyed 100 kudus, and all 100 bid 3NT. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 20 20:41:49 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:41:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Carding question In-Reply-To: <480320.1861.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <480320.1861.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <633242.25367.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Ted Ying] A question that arose last week at the local game and I'm not sure of the answer, so I thought I would see what the BLMLers thought A pair play the following carding agreements. Their general signals are UDCA. When partner A preempts and partner B leads the preempted suit, if A does not need to win the trick, A will play middle to encourage in the preempted suit, and high is a higher suit preference and low is a lower suit preference. The question, is does this need to be marked on their convention card? When a declarer asks what their carding agreements are, do they need to make a special note to disclose this? They thought that this was fairly standard and didn't mention it when declarer asked about their carding agreements. Declarer did say that it did not affect the hand at all, but was curious whether he should. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ The question is one for regulation, so anything I write is subject to any statement in the regulations. This is not a 'simple to understand' arrangement. It should surely be declared on the system card and in some regimes would need to be listed as a 'special' agreement. If opponent asks a clear explanation, no less than you give here, is called for - either spoken or in writing if the regulations require it, not merely pointing to what is on the system card. [Nige1] I agree with Grattan. Defensive carding provides a prevaricator with opportunities: - "We sometimes false-card" may mean "We always 'false-card'" in certain well-defined contexts like when declarer is testing for a 3-3 split. - "We signal only what partner needs to know" and "It depends on the context" but find it hard to admit what applies in the current context. - Many tell the truth but not the *whole* truth (e.g .... They treat a range of cards as "neutral" or .... The rely on undisclosed secondary "McKenny" or "Odd-even"signals or .... "Peter in the same parity is the same as a normal signal in the opposite parity". But it isn't easy. Many of us play complex carding methods and find them hard to describe succinctly. As usual "The question is one for regulation" leads to even more anomalies and confusion. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 20 20:41:16 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:41:16 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). References: Message-ID: <778A8FBC5D724D10A2958DF682690173@MARVLAPTOP> > > from > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > In Philadelphia a colleague drafted this and > offered it as guidance: > ................................................................ > < ""If subsequent to the irregularity the non-offending > side has contributed to its own damage by a serious > error (unrelated to the infraction) or by reckless > action or by an action from which if unsuccessful it > hopes to recover through rectification of the infraction, > it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such > part of its damage as is occasioned by that error or > action. The offending side....etc." > > Is this not the intention? Is there any case that is > not reckless or wild, other than the 'double shot', > where 'gambling' is applicable? > > .................................................................. > Is it helpful? I have entered it in my folder of > law matters for the next review. Should it be > expanded? Since the very intelligent Adam Wildavsky and the rest of the ACBLLC (evidently) did not understand this law, it should be rewritten in plainer language. I suggest: If after the irregularity the non-offending side has hurt itself by a very serious (for the level of player involved) error, unrelated to the infraction, or by a wild or gambling act, the cost of that self-damage is taken from the compensation they would normally get. If the cost is greater, then no redress. The offending side's score adjustment does not include the effect of any such self-damage on the part of the non-offenders. I don't know why it's "irregularity" and "infraction" in the same sentence, but I left that in. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5549 (20101020) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5549 (20101020) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 20 20:47:28 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:47:28 -0800 Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). References: <0E731CC9-F81E-46D3-8AD4-6A34118F909F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4E0C62F3125540CE9E5C992178C977F4@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > Permit me to suggest that the word "serious" is not sufficiently > strong to convey the intent of the law, as demonstrated by the > WBF's > having found it necessarily to issue a minute on the subject. > Something like "egregious", "senseless", "absurd" or "flagrant" > would, I think, better convey the intent of the law as expressed > in > the minute. > Very good, Eric. I amend my suggestion accordingly, changing "very serious" to "senseless." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5549 (20101020) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 20 21:14:06 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:14:06 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Carding question References: <480320.1861.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46D30F4D035A4F2D89C2BF53406AA0BE@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Ted Ying" > > A question that arose last week at the local game last week and > I'm not sure of > the answer, so I thought I would see what the BLMLers thought. > > A pair play the following carding agreements. Their general > signals are UDCA. > When partner A preempts and partner B leads the preempted suit, if > A does not > need to win the trick, A will play middle to encourage in the > preempted suit, > and high is a higher suit preference and low is a lower suit > preference. The > question, is does this need to be marked on their convention card? > When a > declarer asks what their carding agreements are, do they need to > make a > special note to disclose this? They thought that this was fairly > standard and > didn't mention it when declarer asked about their carding > agreements. Seems like commons sense. I would play this way with any partner without prior discusssion. Following (or winning, for that matter) with an unnecessarily high card, or with the lowest, from a very long suit, must be suit preference, with mildly high or low showing attitude and middle implying nothing. It's the way bridge is played. The only exception I can think of is the play of the queen from KQ, 2+ cards in dummy, demanding nothing but a shift. Since that would deny the king, that too is just common sense. Another is the king from KQ, demanding a continuation. I suppose those are special partnership agreements, but not disclosing them ahead of time seems harmless, especially since declarer can ask if interested. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5549 (20101020) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mikopera at nyc.rr.com Wed Oct 20 22:19:24 2010 From: mikopera at nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:19:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Carding question In-Reply-To: <46D30F4D035A4F2D89C2BF53406AA0BE@MARVLAPTOP> References: <480320.1861.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <46D30F4D035A4F2D89C2BF53406AA0BE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4CBF4ECC.1010800@nyc.rr.com> Hmmmmm. When we started playing in college, everyone in our crowd played Lavinthal discards, for us that was "the way bridge is played". Gave us quite an advantage when we innocently played that way as we made our first foray into the duplicate bridge community. On 10/20/2010 3:14 PM, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Ted Ying" >> >> A question that arose last week at the local game last week and >> I'm not sure of >> the answer, so I thought I would see what the BLMLers thought. >> >> A pair play the following carding agreements. Their general >> signals are UDCA. >> When partner A preempts and partner B leads the preempted suit, if >> A does not >> need to win the trick, A will play middle to encourage in the >> preempted suit, >> and high is a higher suit preference and low is a lower suit >> preference. The >> question, is does this need to be marked on their convention card? >> When a >> declarer asks what their carding agreements are, do they need to >> make a >> special note to disclose this? They thought that this was fairly >> standard and >> didn't mention it when declarer asked about their carding >> agreements. > > Seems like commons sense. I would play this way with any partner > without prior discusssion. Following (or winning, for that matter) > with an unnecessarily high card, or with the lowest, from a very > long suit, must be suit preference, with mildly high or low showing > attitude and middle implying nothing. It's the way bridge is played. > > The only exception I can think of is the play of the queen from KQ, > 2+ cards in dummy, demanding nothing but a shift. Since that would > deny the king, that too is just common sense. Another is the king > from KQ, demanding a continuation. I suppose those are special > partnership agreements, but not disclosing them ahead of time seems > harmless, especially since declarer can ask if interested. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > > > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5549 (20101020) __________ > > 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 > -- Mike Kopera We cannot solve problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 20 22:38:21 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:38:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Carding question In-Reply-To: <480320.1861.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <480320.1861.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Ted Ying wrote: > A question that arose last week at the local game last week and I'm > not sure of > the answer, so I thought I would see what the BLMLers thought. > > A pair play the following carding agreements. Their general > signals are UDCA. > When partner A preempts and partner B leads the preempted suit, if > A does not > need to win the trick, A will play middle to encourage in the > preempted suit, > and high is a higher suit preference and low is a lower suit > preference. The > question, is does this need to be marked on their convention card? > When a > declarer asks what their carding agreements are, do they need to > make a > special note to disclose this? They thought that this was fairly > standard and > didn't mention it when declarer asked about their carding > agreements. Declarer > > did say that it did not affect the hand at all, but was curious > whether he > should > > have been informed. Sure, if (as I read Ted's post) their CC just says UDCA, as this time it's not. I'm not sure just how one crams "suit preference by preempter at trick 1" into the proper area of an ACBL CC, but it certainly must be disclosed. In a game unbeset by Secretary Birds it should suffice for the opening leader in this position to tell the opponents verbally (after his partner has followed to the trick, of course) that his partner's card is suit preference by agreement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 21 00:10:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:10:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WoGA - Law 12C1(b). [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <564008875.2451461287585932517.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder, 2nd September 2005: >Maybe we could include "ludicrous" (or some such word) as the >ultimate in the continuum of normal for the class of player Ed Reppert, 3rd September 2005: "They're going to escape! Increase to.... LUDICROUS speed!!" - Rick Moranis, as Dark Helmet, in "Spaceballs" :-) 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 Oct 21 00:49:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:49:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Carding question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >In a game unbeset by Secretary Birds it should suffice for the >opening leader in this position to tell the opponents verbally >(after his partner has followed to the trick, of course) that >his partner's card is suit preference by agreement. Richard Hills: I would not describe Edgar Kaplan as a Secretary Bird. He believed that a defender's unprompted description of partner's actual card caused more problems than it solved. In the specific case under debate any such problems might be minimal, but the precedent set would allow the camel's nose to enter the tent - a vast increase in double-dummy defences due to unnecessary creation-of-UI followed by necessary use-of-UI. So therefore Edgar was a supporter of Grattan's argument that such special defensive carding "should surely be declared on the system card", permitting the declarer to review defensive methods without one defender reminding the other of what they were. 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 Oct 21 07:56:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:56:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: While I did not attend the World Championship at Philadelphia (I have only just started playing bridge in sponsored teams), I did receive a interesting second-hand account of an appeal. In a matchpoint pairs event at Philadelphia, a defender had a choice between two lines versus a contract of 2NT. One line led to -150, the other to only -120. Thanks to a Law 16B1(a) "unmistakable hesitation" from the other defender, the successful -120 line was not only demonstrably suggested but was also chosen at the table. Eleven peers of the putative infractor were polled; six (56%) also chose the -120 line, while five (44%) would have gone for -150 at the table. Hence the Directors changed the score from declaring side +120 / defending side -120 to declaring side +150 / defending side -150. The Appeals Committee, however, may have had a cheesy soft reason to partially over-rule the Directors by awarding 50% of 120 and 50% of 150 to each side. Perhaps the rationale of the Appeals Committee was that since 55% of peers were only -120 then it was absurd to award 100% of -150 to the putative offending side. But had the Appeals Committee itself absurdly misconstrued rectification of damage? Relevant phrases from Law 12B1: " take away ***any*** advantage gained by an offending side " " result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction ***not occurred*** " Is "the" expectation from the beginning of the deal? Or Is "the" expectation from _after_ the non-infraction of the unmistakable hesitation, but from _before_ the infraction of choosing a demonstrably suggested logical alternative? 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 Thu Oct 21 12:38:47 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:38:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > While I did not attend the World Championship at Philadelphia > (I have only just started playing bridge in sponsored teams), > I did receive a interesting second-hand account of an appeal. > > In a matchpoint pairs event at Philadelphia, a defender had a > choice between two lines versus a contract of 2NT. One line > led to -150, the other to only -120. > > Thanks to a Law 16B1(a) "unmistakable hesitation" from the > other defender, the successful -120 line was not only > demonstrably suggested but was also chosen at the table. > > Eleven peers of the putative infractor were polled; six (56%) > also chose the -120 line, while five (44%) would have gone > for -150 at the table. Hence the Directors changed the score > from declaring side +120 / defending side -120 to declaring > side +150 / defending side -150. > > The Appeals Committee, however, may have had a cheesy soft > reason to partially over-rule the Directors by awarding 50% of > 120 and 50% of 150 to each side. Perhaps the rationale of the > Appeals Committee was that since 55% of peers were only -120 > then it was absurd to award 100% of -150 to the putative > offending side. > > But had the Appeals Committee itself absurdly misconstrued > rectification of damage? Relevant phrases from Law 12B1: > > " take away ***any*** advantage gained by an offending side " > " result less favourable than would have been the expectation > had the infraction ***not occurred*** " > > Is "the" expectation from the beginning of the deal? > > Or > > Is "the" expectation from _after_ the non-infraction of the > unmistakable hesitation, but from _before_ the infraction of > choosing a demonstrably suggested logical alternative? > > 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 21 14:08:16 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:08:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I thought this subject might eventually come up, although I expected it later, after the appeals have been published on the web site. Minute 8 of 12 October 2010 is worded to allow that the law does not preclude this kind of weighted score adjustment in an exceptional case. What the 2007 Laws do not say is that as a matter of law there can be no inclusion in a weighted score of a percentage of results obtained via the call made at the table. A member of the committee had stressed the absurdity of not including such a proportion if, say, seven out of ten players polled went with the action by the player at the table rather than choosing a logical alternative. I am aware that the TAC looked at exceptional features in Philadelphia appeal no.20 and found reason to award 50% of 2NT= (8 tricks as made at the table), and 50% of 2NT+1 in place of 100% of 2NT+1 awarded by the Director. The point should be made, of course, that 'damage' in Law 12B1 comprises the difference between the synthesis of the probable outcomes with no infraction and the favourable score gained through the infraction. Score adjustment is to redress damage and a 12C1(c) adjustment is for the purpose of improving equity in an assigned score adjustment. The TAC in Philadelphia noted that *55% of the eleven players polled opted for the play the player with UI made at the table and the remainder did not. The player himself produced an impressive analysis to show that he had clear information from the fall of the cards to justify his play, but there was no evidence he had said to the Director something like "his play of the club 4 (the second time the suit was played) tells me partner has the 9", and the player had time overnight to develop his thoughts before coming to the appeals room. [* The report states that "the committee took note of the cogency of West's explanation and also the polling of players amongst which five of eleven had not followed the line of play taken at the table, and the TD's decision".] [Nigel] John Probst postulates a hypothetical character "The Probst Cheat" (TPC) to help directors and law-makers with this kind of decision. In the case under discussion, suppose that TPC is in receipt of unauthorised information from his partner that action A will get a better result than action B. TPC will always choose A, because... - With any luck, opponents won't notice. - If opponents do notice but are doing badly, they may not call the director. - If opponents do call the director, the director may not agree that there was UI. - The director may award a more favourable weighted score (including action C, say, that TPC did not even consider). - If the director has completely lost his marbles, he may even include a percentage of the illegal action A (as in this case). - In the unlikely worst possible case scenario, an unusually sadistic director may even impose 1000% of action B (the action that an ethical player would take, automatically, in the first place). - Hence, under our wonderful "Equity laws", a law-breaker will normally get away with it but even if unlucky enough to be ruled against, he will never suffer a worse result than an ethical player would have imposed on himself in the same circumstances. - Once again, our laws ensure a long-term profit for TPC. The laws deliberately encourage and reward players who emulate TPC's behaviour. Why do law-makers and directors find John Probst's argument so hard to understand? Bridge is assumed to be played by ladies and gentlemen but it is rumoured that even members of the House of Lords fiddle tax returns, exceeded speed-limit, and break marriage-vows, when certain reward dwarfs unlikely penalty. Capital punishment may be unfashionable but we should consider bringing back the birch :) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 21 15:04:59 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:04:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E0FB9B6C4CF4B9A8984F9844F189140@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ I thought this subject might eventually come up, > although I expected it later, after the appeals have > been published on the web site. > Minute 8 of 12 October 2010 is worded to allow > that the law does not preclude this kind of weighted > score adjustment in an exceptional case. > What the 2007 Laws do not say is that as a matter > of law there can be no inclusion in a weighted score of > a percentage of results obtained via the call made at > the table. A member of the committee had stressed > the absurdity of not including such a proportion if, say, > seven out of ten players polled went with the action by > the player at the table rather than choosing a logical > alternative. > I am aware that the TAC looked at exceptional > features in Philadelphia appeal no.20 and found reason > to award 50% of 2NT= (8 tricks as made at the table), > and 50% of 2NT+1 in place of 100% of 2NT+1 awarded by > the Director. The point should be made, of course, that > 'damage' in Law 12B1 comprises the difference between > the synthesis of the probable outcomes with no infraction > and the favourable score gained through the infraction. > Score adjustment is to redress damage and a 12C1(c) > adjustment is for the purpose of improving equity in an > assigned score adjustment. > The TAC in Philadelphia noted that *55% of the eleven > players polled opted for the play the player with UI made > at the table and the remainder did not. The player himself > produced an impressive analysis to show that he had clear > information from the fall of the cards to justify his play, > but there was no evidence he had said to the Director > something like "his play of the club 4 (the second time > the suit was played) tells me partner has the 9", and the > player had time overnight to develop his thoughts before > coming to the appeals room. > [* The report states that "the committee took note of the > cogency of West's explanation and also the polling of players > amongst which five of eleven had not followed the line of play > taken at the table, and the TD's decision".] > > [Nigel] > > John Probst postulates a hypothetical character "The Probst Cheat" (TPC) > to help > directors and law-makers with this kind of decision. > > > In the case under discussion, suppose that TPC is in receipt of > unauthorised > information from his partner that action A will get a better result than > action > B. TPC will always choose A, because... > > - With any luck, opponents won't notice. > > - If opponents do notice but are doing badly, they may not call the > director. > > - If opponents do call the director, the director may not agree that there > was > UI. > > > - The director may award a more favourable weighted score (including > action C, > say, that TPC did not even consider). > > > - If the director has completely lost his marbles, he may even include a > percentage of the illegal action A (as in this case). > > - In the unlikely worst possible case scenario, an unusually sadistic > director > may even impose 1000% of action B (the action that an ethical player would > take, > automatically, in the first place). > > - Hence, under our wonderful "Equity laws", a law-breaker will normally > get away > with it but even if unlucky enough to be ruled against, he will never > suffer a > worse result than an ethical player would have imposed on himself in the > same > circumstances. > > - Once again, our laws ensure a long-term profit for TPC. The laws > deliberately > encourage and reward players who emulate TPC's behaviour. > > Why do law-makers and directors find John Probst's argument so hard to > understand? > > Bridge is assumed to be played by ladies and gentlemen but it is rumoured > that > even members of the House of Lords fiddle tax returns, exceeded > speed-limit, and > break marriage-vows, when certain reward dwarfs unlikely penalty. > > Capital punishment may be unfashionable but we should consider bringing > back the > birch :) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 21 15:35:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:35:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese In-Reply-To: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3BEE2D6F-BBE7-4022-AF66-43403FAD3BE6@starpower.net> On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > - Hence, under our wonderful "Equity laws", a law-breaker will > normally get away > with it but even if unlucky enough to be ruled against, he will > never suffer a > worse result than an ethical player would have imposed on himself > in the same > circumstances. Even if this were true, the law-breaker would often get a worse result than the ethical player, in circumstances where there would be no need for a director or a ruling. Not every action that may have been suggested by UI is necessarily successful. And it is not true, because an adverse ruling may well be based on a presumed line of play that is less successful than an alternative line that might have been taken at the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 21 16:07:04 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:07:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese References: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <3BEE2D6F-BBE7-4022-AF66-43403FAD3BE6@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese > On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> - Hence, under our wonderful "Equity laws", a law-breaker will >> normally get away >> with it but even if unlucky enough to be ruled against, he will >> never suffer a >> worse result than an ethical player would have imposed on himself >> in the same >> circumstances. > > Even if this were true, the law-breaker would often get a worse > result than the ethical player, in circumstances where there would be > no need for a director or a ruling. Not every action that may have > been suggested by UI is necessarily successful. > > And it is not true, because an adverse ruling may well be based on a > presumed line of play that is less successful than an alternative > line that might have been taken at the table. > > > Eric Landau <<< +=+ I quote: (David Stevenson) I think it is probably true that Reveley rulings are permitted by the actual wording of the Law. Nevertheless, I think it very reasonable that in practice they should not be since they will encourage players to ignore the dictates of the UI Laws. Feel free to quote me. +=+ (Grattan) I have no wish to encourage sin. I have always believed the answer is a Reveley adjustment for the NOS, not giving them an unwarranted advantage across the field, and to deduct by way of a procedural penalty from the OS the equivalent of any advantage gained. So in the Philadelphia case the OS might get -150, the NOS 50% of +150 and 50% of +120 or the MP equivalents of these. ~ G ~ +=+ NB. Exceptionally in the Philadelphia case, however, the sky was clouded by the poll of peers and the cogency of the appellant's argument, albeit tardily introduced. For these reasons the TAC's decision was and is equitable. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 21 16:24:47 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:24:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E0FB9B6C4CF4B9A8984F9844F189140@Mildred> References: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4E0FB9B6C4CF4B9A8984F9844F189140@Mildred> Message-ID: <616758.73131.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> {grattan Endicott] +=+ Nigel makes the case for a procedural penalty. +=+ [Nigel] I hope not. Only the most hypocritical director would impose a procedural penalty on a player in America who fastidiously complied with the ACBL ACBL Directors' Handbook: "Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle." My intention was to make the case for simpler, clearer, more deterrent, less fragmented, basic rules. I contend that the typical "Probst Cheat" is not really a cheat at all: he is an ordinary player, trying hard to win by following the precedents of director's rulings and emulating the behaviour of other players, understandably confused by current rules. Under current law, a TPC will always be more successful than a player less able to rationalise his doubtful actions. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 21 16:40:12 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:40:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese In-Reply-To: References: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <3BEE2D6F-BBE7-4022-AF66-43403FAD3BE6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <584490.92091.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> +=+ (Grattan) I have no wish to encourage sin. I have always believed the answer is a Reveley adjustment for the NOS, not giving them an unwarranted advantage across the field, and to deduct by way of a procedural penalty from the OS the equivalent of any advantage gained. So in the Philadelphia case the OS might get -150, the NOS 50% of +150 and 50% of +120 or the MP equivalents of these. {Nigel] Most directors would have to undergo a head-transplant before they would routinely consider procedural penalties. Players, too, would have to undergo drastic re-education because currently they strongly resent procedural penalties, regarding them as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Far better to introduce a slight deterrent element into the ordinary basic rules, so that a player will usually lose by committing an infraction and cannot expect a long-term gain. This new deterrent element must not be derisory because it must take into account the likelihood that the infraction is detected, reported, and ruled against. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 21 17:48:37 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:48:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese In-Reply-To: References: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <3BEE2D6F-BBE7-4022-AF66-43403FAD3BE6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <407228.49581.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> +=+ (Grattan) I have no wish to encourage sin. I have always believed the answer is a Reveley adjustment for the NOS, not giving them an unwarranted advantage across the field, and to deduct by way of a procedural penalty from the OS the equivalent of any advantage gained. So in the Philadelphia case the OS might get -150, the NOS 50% of +150 and 50% of +120 or the MP equivalents of these. ~ G ~ +=+ NB. Exceptionally in the Philadelphia case, however, the sky was clouded by the poll of peers and the cogency of the appellant's argument, albeit tardily introduced. For these reasons the TAC's decision was and is equitable [Nigel] I agree that the actual ruling conforms with WBFLC "Equity" principles: it penalises any naive masochist, in receipt of the same UI as the appellant, who chose the less successful non-suggested alternative. Grattan's idea of using PPs to make up for deficiencies in the basic laws is superficially attractive but has drawbacks: 1. Directors don't like imposing PPS. Players resent them. 2. The incentive to report infractions is the hope of a favourable adjustment. Derisory redress thwarts victims, leaving them with little incentive to report such infractions in future. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 21 18:43:57 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:43:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <997C758201854B499F1538396E59A964@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills: > > The Appeals Committee, however, may have had a cheesy soft > reason to partially over-rule the Directors by awarding 50% of > 120 and 50% of 150 to each side. Perhaps the rationale of the > Appeals Committee was that since 55% of peers were only -120 > then it was absurd to award 100% of -150 to the putative > offending side. > > But had the Appeals Committee itself absurdly misconstrued > rectification of damage? Relevant phrases from Law 12B1: > > " take away ***any*** advantage gained by an offending side " > " result less favourable than would have been the expectation > had the infraction ***not occurred*** " > > Is "the" expectation from the beginning of the deal? > > Or > > Is "the" expectation from _after_ the non-infraction of the > unmistakable hesitation, but from _before_ the infraction of > choosing a demonstrably suggested logical alternative? > The latter, of course. Anythiing preceding that, e.g.,a 50-50 decision, is not pertinent. Did they really have to say "the expectation just prior to the infraction"? I guess they should have. That's where you would have been "had the infraction not occurred." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5549 (20101020) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 21 19:53:45 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:53:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <997C758201854B499F1538396E59A964@MARVLAPTOP> References: <997C758201854B499F1538396E59A964@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <475722.84453.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Is "the" expectation from the beginning of the deal? Or Is "the" expectation from _after_ the non-infraction of the unmistakable hesitation, but from _before_ the infraction of choosing a demonstrably suggested logical alternative? [Marvin French] The latter, of course. Anythiing preceding that, e.g.,a 50-50 decision, is not pertinent. Did they really have to say "the expectation just prior to the infraction"? I guess they should have. That's where you would have been "had the infraction not occurred." [Nigel] Marvin and Richard are right in common-sense: it should be the expectation - after receipt of unauthorised information but - before its alleged use. From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 20:24:17 2010 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:24:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese In-Reply-To: References: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <3BEE2D6F-BBE7-4022-AF66-43403FAD3BE6@starpower.net> Message-ID: > > > +=+ I quote: > (David Stevenson) > I think it is probably true that Reveley rulings > are permitted by the actual wording of the Law. > Nevertheless, I think it very reasonable that in > practice they should not be since they will > encourage players to ignore the dictates of the > UI Laws. > > Feel free to quote me. > > +=+ (Grattan) > I have no wish to encourage sin. I have always > believed the answer is a Reveley adjustment > for the NOS, not giving them an unwarranted > advantage across the field, and to deduct by > way of a procedural penalty from the OS the > equivalent of any advantage gained. So in the > Philadelphia case the OS might get -150, the > NOS 50% of +150 and 50% of +120 or the MP > equivalents of these. > ~ G ~ +=+ > NB. Exceptionally in the Philadelphia case, > however, the sky was clouded by the poll of > peers and the cogency of the appellant's > argument, albeit tardily introduced. For these > reasons the TAC's decision was and is equitable. > > I find the poll's helping the OS confusing. Isn't the recipient of UI obligated to chose an LA not suggested by the UI? What does this poll do except prove that there was such a non-suggested LA? Isn't allowing the poll to help the OS the equivalent of allowing the practitioners of Hesitation Blackwood to get away with "I was always going to bid it." Thanks Collins > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101021/f2a7cf40/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 21 23:12:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:12:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] > ~ G ~ +=+ >NB. Exceptionally in the Philadelphia case, >however, the sky was clouded by the poll of peers >and the cogency of the appellant's argument, albeit >tardily introduced. For these reasons the TAC's >decision was and is equitable. Richard Hills: I still argue "was and is illegal". If: (a) the appellant argued that her partnership's methods made her successful line of defence the only logical alternative, so (b) the poll of so-called peers was actually a poll of non-peers (Law 16B1(b) "...using the methods of the partnership..."), and (c) the Appeals Committee accepted "the cogency of the appellant's argument", then (d) the appellant should have received 100% of her actual table score of -120, not (e) a ruling of 50% of -120 and 50% of -150. In these circumstances the Appeals Committee was not legally splitting the score under Law 12, but was rather illegally splitting the facts under Law 85. 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 Oct 21 23:38:04 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:38:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, personal opinion: >...I have always believed the answer is a Reveley adjustment >for the NOS, not giving them an unwarranted advantage across >the field... Richard Hills, personal opinion: I have always believed that if a potential Law 73C OS eschews becoming an actual Law 73C OS, any advantage thereby accruing to the other side is definitely not an unwarranted advantage. 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 Fri Oct 22 01:27:29 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:27:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese References: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><3BEE2D6F-BBE7-4022-AF66-43403FAD3BE6@starpower.net> <584490.92091.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese > +=+ (Grattan) > I have no wish to encourage sin. I have always > believed the answer is a Reveley adjustment > for the NOS, not giving them an unwarranted > advantage across the field, and to deduct by > way of a procedural penalty from the OS the > equivalent of any advantage gained. So in the > Philadelphia case the OS might get -150, the > NOS 50% of +150 and 50% of +120 or the MP > equivalents of these. > > {Nigel] > > Most directors would have to undergo a head-transplant before they would > routinely consider procedural penalties. Players, too, would have to > undergo > drastic re-education because currently they strongly resent procedural > penalties, regarding them as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. > > Far better to introduce a slight deterrent element into the ordinary basic > rules, so that a player will usually lose by committing an infraction and > cannot > expect a long-term gain. > > > This new deterrent element must not be derisory because it must take into > account the likelihood that the infraction is detected, reported, and > ruled > against. < +=+ You don't think that had there been no extraordinary factors the Director could easily have awarded EW - 150 and NS + 50% of +150 and +50 % of +120 ? This incorporates the procedural penalty into the EW adjustment. ~ G ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Oct 22 01:47:22 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:47:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <613F7D5A9A724C2AB71969134AF4C8EA@erdos> This ruling is unfair as a matter of equity; the non-offending side wound up with a worse score than they would have had against law-abiding opponents. The hesitation was not the infraction; after the hesitation, the Laws require the defender to make the less favorable lead, and that was the infraction. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > While I did not attend the World Championship at Philadelphia > (I have only just started playing bridge in sponsored teams), > I did receive a interesting second-hand account of an appeal. > > In a matchpoint pairs event at Philadelphia, a defender had a > choice between two lines versus a contract of 2NT. One line > led to -150, the other to only -120. > > Thanks to a Law 16B1(a) "unmistakable hesitation" from the > other defender, the successful -120 line was not only > demonstrably suggested but was also chosen at the table. > > Eleven peers of the putative infractor were polled; six (56%) > also chose the -120 line, while five (44%) would have gone > for -150 at the table. Hence the Directors changed the score > from declaring side +120 / defending side -120 to declaring > side +150 / defending side -150. > > The Appeals Committee, however, may have had a cheesy soft > reason to partially over-rule the Directors by awarding 50% of > 120 and 50% of 150 to each side. Perhaps the rationale of the > Appeals Committee was that since 55% of peers were only -120 > then it was absurd to award 100% of -150 to the putative > offending side. > > But had the Appeals Committee itself absurdly misconstrued > rectification of damage? Relevant phrases from Law 12B1: > > " take away ***any*** advantage gained by an offending side " > " result less favourable than would have been the expectation > had the infraction ***not occurred*** " > > Is "the" expectation from the beginning of the deal? > > Or > > Is "the" expectation from _after_ the non-infraction of the > unmistakable hesitation, but from _before_ the infraction of > choosing a demonstrably suggested logical alternative? > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 22 02:25:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:25:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] King Island cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <997C758201854B499F1538396E59A964@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: >From Wikipedia: "King Island off the north-western coast of Tasmania has a reputation for boutique cheeses and dairy products." Richard Hills: [snip] >>Relevant phrases from Law 12B1: >> >>" take away ***any*** advantage gained by an offending side " >>" result less favourable than would have been the expectation >>had the infraction ***not occurred*** " >> >>Is "the" expectation from the beginning of the deal? >> >>Or >> >>Is "the" expectation from _after_ the non-infraction of the >>unmistakable hesitation, but from _before_ the infraction of >>choosing a demonstrably suggested logical alternative? Marvin French: >The latter, of course. Anything preceding that, e.g.,a 50-50 >decision, is not pertinent. Did they really have to say "the >expectation just prior to the infraction"? I guess they should >have. That's where you would have been "had the infraction not >occurred." Richard Hills: Alas, while Marv's suggested rewrite is a solution to "the" expectation, it is not a solution to "the" infraction. In a different case, dummy infracted Law 41D by displaying only twelve cards. Declarer in a small slam had a choice of three different lines: (1) a 50% Line A which would have worked, or (2) a 50% Line B which would not have worked, or (3) a 100% Line C of ruffing a loser in dummy, so naturally declarer chose Line C, but dummy actually held a doubleton in that suit instead of a singleton, thus (4) a 0% Line C of attempting to ruff a loser in dummy. Dummy escaped from having her attempted revoke being noticed just prior to her infraction, so dummy duly had a Law 64B3 established revoke, for which there is no rectification. But the defenders were still entitled to an equity adjustment under Law 64C. Should that equity adjustment be 50% of the slam succeeding (Line A) and 50% of the slam failing (Line B)? What was "the" infraction? 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 Fri Oct 22 10:16:03 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:16:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <613F7D5A9A724C2AB71969134AF4C8EA@erdos> References: <613F7D5A9A724C2AB71969134AF4C8EA@erdos> Message-ID: <740578.73630.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [David Grabiner] This ruling is unfair as a matter of equity; the non-offending side wound up with a worse score than they would have had against law-abiding opponents. The hesitation was not the infraction; after the hesitation, the Laws require the defender to make the less favorable lead, and that was the infraction. [Nigel] Grattan suggests: - victim get weighted score between +150 and +120. - law-breaker gets -150 (explained as the NOS score plus a "PP"). David Grabiner points out another drawback of the Grattan fudge: it leaves the NOS with a worse score than they'd get had their opponent been ethical. opponents. Grattan's suggestion penalises the victim for playing against a law-breaker -- even when the infraction is discovered, reported, and ruled against! From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 22 12:29:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:29:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Global error, perhaps. Message-ID: <77B2D23B47D44E1EB7D8507FD3BA8FC5@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <992011.29989.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><3BEE2D6F-BBE7-4022-AF66-43403FAD3BE6@starpower.net><584490.92091.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1BB55847A1024734B9B6F9993BFBB9DB@mikePC> -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 12:27 AM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "" I thought of it by day and dreamed of it > by night."" > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:40 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese > > >> +=+ (Grattan) >> I have no wish to encourage sin. I have always >> believed the answer is a Reveley adjustment >> for the NOS, not giving them an unwarranted >> advantage across the field, and to deduct by >> way of a procedural penalty from the OS the >> equivalent of any advantage gained. So in the >> Philadelphia case the OS might get -150, the >> NOS 50% of +150 and 50% of +120 or the MP >> equivalents of these. >> >> {Nigel] >> >> Most directors would have to undergo a head-transplant before they would >> routinely consider procedural penalties. Players, too, would have to >> undergo >> drastic re-education because currently they strongly resent procedural >> penalties, regarding them as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. >> >> Far better to introduce a slight deterrent element into the ordinary >> basic >> rules, so that a player will usually lose by committing an infraction and >> cannot >> expect a long-term gain. >> >> >> This new deterrent element must not be derisory because it must take into >> account the likelihood that the infraction is detected, reported, and >> ruled >> against. > < > +=+ You don't think that had there been no extraordinary factors the > Director could easily have awarded EW - 150 and NS + 50% of +150 > and +50 % of +120 ? > This incorporates the procedural penalty into the EW adjustment. ~ G ~ > +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I must have dozed off. When was Law 73 C deleted from the Law Book? Mike From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 23 02:55:04 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:55:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] regulating agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CBBFC7F.7050201@meteo.fr> References: <4CBBFC7F.7050201@meteo.fr> <002201cb6dec$d4f64590$7ee2d0b0$@com> <795261194.1287253214244. JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><1278204543.1287260995648.JavaMa il.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <734841350.1287334442235.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <118950407.1287795304881.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Jean-Pierre Rocafort > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Lucas Mendoza wrote: > >> Hi all: Sorry for my bad English and for the inconvenience. > >> > >> Yes, to hesitate a lot but why? Is not easy to read the hesitation. I think > >> there are so many situations (patterns?) in defensive play. > > > > It is relatively easy to read a hesitation on the first discard. > > i have the opposite opinion. i think slow discards are not easy to > interpret and resultant UI is overestimated. there may be 3 reasons to > hesitate: > a) which signal the player wants to transmit if any. > b) which card is the most appropriate to transmit the signal or to be > neutral, once the player knows what he wants to transmit. > c) is it affordable to get rid of the selected card without damage. Those are not reasons to hesitate. A player most of the time should have this worked out on previous tricks, for example, after dummy came down, or after playing the last card in a certain suit. > especially with rich discard methods, such as what you call odd-even, > where various cards in various suits may transmit the same signal, > hesitations are not easy to decipher. I think you might have missed my actual point. Player X discards the D3 after a loooong hesitation. His partner Y can now be confident that X does not unilaterally want a D continuation no matter what. This is trivial to decipher. The fact that some other hesitations might be more difficult to decipher is irrelevant. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 25 00:06:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:06:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Philadelphia cheese [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1BB55847A1024734B9B6F9993BFBB9DB@mikePC> Message-ID: Enfant terrible of the day, 28th April 2006: "In a world that had a narrow view of what was 'good bridge' they found it hard to come to terms with a revolution." Grattan Endicott, 22nd October 2010, narrow view of "good bridge": >>+=+ You don't think that had there been no extraordinary factors >>the Director could easily have awarded EW - 150 and NS + 50% of >>+150 and +50 % of +120 ? >>This incorporates the procedural penalty into the EW adjustment. >> ~ G ~ +=+ The revolutionary Mike Amos, 22nd October 2010: >I must have dozed off. When was Law 73 C deleted from the Law >Book? Mike Grattan Endicott, enfant terrible of the day, 9th September 2005: +=+ I think the Director would have done better to read from the Law Book. ..... Grattan Endicott, enfant terrible of the day, 21st February 2005: +=+ I am of an old-fashioned opinion that the *first* priority is to do as the laws require. ..... 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 Oct 25 01:17:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:17:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), excerpt from the Pirates of Penzance: Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform, And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform: In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, I am the very model of a modern Major-General. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C ? You, South, hold: T986 JT94 AKQ 43 What call do you make? Law 40B6(a): " ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience ... " Is your call based upon special partnership agreement or special partnership experience, hence disclosable? Law 40B6(a): " ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Or is your call based upon an inference drawn from your knowledge of Babylonic cuneiform, which is major-generally known to bridge players, hence non-disclosable? 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 08:35:50 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:35:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/10/25 : > > W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), excerpt from the Pirates of Penzance: > > Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform, > And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform: > In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, > I am the very model of a modern Major-General. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?1C ? ? ? ?? > > You, South, hold: > > T986 > JT94 > AKQ > 43 > > What call do you make? This is a normal pass to me. I might, rarely, consider a lead directing 1D overcall, but you'll very seldom see me make the overcall. So seldom, in fact, that no partner would disclose it. I'm not even sure I've ever made such an overcall. > > Law 40B6(a): > > " ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to > him through partnership agreement or partnership experience ... " > > Is your call based upon special partnership agreement or special > partnership experience, hence disclosable? > > Law 40B6(a): > > " ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge > and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." > > Or is your call based upon an inference drawn from your knowledge > of Babylonic cuneiform, which is major-generally known to bridge > players, hence non-disclosable? > > 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 25 09:10:23 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:10:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45982.18808.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs North/None T986 JT94 AKQ 43 --- Pass 1C ? [Nigel] IMO _P = 10, _X = 8, 1D = 4. From blml at arcor.de Mon Oct 25 09:51:54 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:51:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14801447.1287993114929.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C ? > > You, South, hold: > > T986 > JT94 > AKQ > 43 > > What call do you make? Assuming 1C is natural, I pass. I consider double and 1D. > Law 40B6(a): > > " ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to > him through partnership agreement or partnership experience ... " > > Is your call based upon special partnership agreement or special > partnership experience, hence disclosable? I don't think so. I think that if one doubles with such a hand, that might be considered unusually aggressive. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 25 11:11:25 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:11:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <14801447.1287993114929.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <14801447.1287993114929.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4CC549BD.5070105@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/10/2010 9:51, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: None >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- Pass 1C ? >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> T986 >> JT94 >> AKQ >> 43 >> >> What call do you make? > Assuming 1C is natural, I pass. > I consider double and 1D. > AG : I could double. It's aggressive, but all conditions are met, and I don't fear a 2NT response (we play 11-14 NT). It plays reasonably well facing the usual hands for a 2M response. >> Law 40B6(a): >> >> " ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to >> him through partnership agreement or partnership experience ... " >> >> Is your call based upon special partnership agreement or special >> partnership experience, hence disclosable? > I don't think so. > > I think that if one doubles with such a hand, that might > be considered unusually aggressive. > AG : if you're prone to aggressive doubles when the pattern is right, that should be written on your CC ; there is a place for "T/O double style". If the problem is about the 1D overcall, i.e. an overcall can be lead-directional without length, there is a place for that too. It meets the requirements for a natural bid, but it's probably pre-alertable (front page of the CC). However, a 1D overcall would be bad tactics, as you expect to be on lead most of the time against some number of NT or clubs (unless you double, of course). Whether partner's opening lead in a major would be catastrophic after 1C-pass-1NT is far from obvious. Do you want partner to lead a diamond from Jxx-Qxx-xx-AJxxx ? Now if I held xxx-xxx-AKQ-xxxx ... Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 25 17:10:20 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:10:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <45982.18808.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <90B708F4F7DB4B92B5F96A860D036A70@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard Hills] > Matchpoint pairs North/None T986 JT94 AKQ 43 > --- Pass 1C ? > > [Nigel] > IMO _P = 10, _X = 8, 1D = 4. > +=+ I think it was Reese who recommended 1D on this. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 25 21:43:06 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:43:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <14801447.1287993114929.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2C69E4E6E2894225ADCC1AC54C79B164@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I think that if one doubles with such a hand, that might > be considered unusually aggressive. > +=+ Reese suggested it might encourage a major suit lead away from an honour. Also that 1D might steer opponents away from a NT contract. ~ G ~ +=+ From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 21:52:14 2010 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:52:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:17 PM, wrote: > > W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), excerpt from the Pirates of Penzance: > > Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform, > And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform: > In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, > I am the very model of a modern Major-General. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C ? > > You, South, hold: > > T986 > JT94 > AKQ > 43 > > What call do you make? > > Law 40B6(a): > > " ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to > him through partnership agreement or partnership experience ... " > > Is your call based upon special partnership agreement or special > partnership experience, hence disclosable? > > Law 40B6(a): > > " ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge > and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." > > Or is your call based upon an inference drawn from your knowledge > of Babylonic cuneiform, which is major-generally known to bridge > players, hence non-disclosable? > > If I overcalled 1D and partner failed to raise me with 4D, I think one might reasonably question if there were a CPU. If I doubled, and partner bid some number of a major or of diamonds I think it is unlikely that anyone would feel something untoward had happened. Collins > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101025/539bbda1/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 25 22:01:27 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:01:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <9B4F0194BD804CD091C1911D9AA85DD8@Mildred> Grattan Endicott wrote: W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), excerpt from the Pirates of Penzance: Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform, And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform: In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, I am the very model of a modern Major-General. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C ? You, South, hold: T986 JT94 AKQ 43 What call do you make? Law 40B6(a): " ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience ... " Is your call based upon special partnership agreement or special partnership experience, hence disclosable? Law 40B6(a): " ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Or is your call based upon an inference drawn from your knowledge of Babylonic cuneiform, which is major-generally known to bridge players, hence non-disclosable? If I overcalled 1D and partner failed to raise me with 4D, I think one might reasonably question if there were a CPU. If I doubled, and partner bid some number of a major or of diamonds I think it is unlikely that anyone would feel something untoward had happened. Collins +=+ I would say there is no evidence in this thread of a partnership understanding. I would think we are discussing bridge judgement, what to do on the rare occasion we find ourselves in this position. ~ G ~ +=+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101025/45b4be2d/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Oct 25 22:49:14 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:49:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC5ED4A.50005@comcast.net> On 10/25/10 3:52 PM, Collins Williams wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:17 PM, > wrote: > > > W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), excerpt from the Pirates of Penzance: > > Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform, > And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform: > In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, > I am the very model of a modern Major-General. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C ? > > You, South, hold: > > T986 > JT94 > AKQ > 43 > > What call do you make? > > Law 40B6(a): > > " ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to > him through partnership agreement or partnership experience ... " > Hmmm....Well, my partner failed to open with a mini-1NT (we play those), and he failed to open with a Bailey 2-bid (we play those too), so I know he has 9 HCP at most if balanced, 7-8 HCP at most if holding a 5-card major (unless void somewhere of holding a singleton in oM). Is the law you quote saying I should disclose anything more than what our systems card shows re 1NT openings and Bailey 2-bids? (If this is ACBL-land, it seems there is at least one...perhaps non-official...view published by the ACBL that says negative inferences are not alertable.) While I would double with this hand in 2nd seat at favorable vulnerability (per Kaplan's guidelines), the negative inferences from partner's pass...together with my desire not to encourage a major-suit lead...suggest that I pass. I can't (in our methods) bid a Reese 1D, as that would promise significantly greater strength. --bp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101025/2269f5f4/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 26 00:58:58 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:58:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CC5ED4A.50005@comcast.net> Message-ID: Sven Pran, January 2007, general knowledge: >>I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length >>of 5 cards for a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. Australian Bridge Bidding Forum, February 1989, problem 7 Matchpoint pairs, dealer North, neither side vulnerable WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C ? You, South, hold: T986 JT94 AKQ 43 What call do you make? Call Award Panel 1D 100 12 Pass 90 18 Dble 60 9 Moderator Keith McNeil, common sense: "Here you are, facing a passing partner, not vulnerable, with ten lousy points and almost half the panel lose their courage, common sense, composure and cave in. And at pairs, where overtricks cost the earth! Here South has the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: indicate the best lead for the defence and deflect opponents from the likely 3NT contract." Eddie Kantar: "Pass. Only tournament winners overcall 1D." Al Roth: "1D. I'm getting into the Australian style. This bid will win in the long run." Jeff Rubens: "1D. Likely to stop 3NT and might stop fewer no-trumps and get the best lead." Neville Moses: "1D. 'Well, I sort of made it up,' said Pooh. 'It comes to me some times.' (A.A. Milne)" Richard Hills: I submitted this problem to Bidding Forum after reading about it in a collection of Jeremy Flint's bridge columns. In the event 3NT making was a common score. But at the table where the 1D overcall occurred, because East and West each had three small diamonds, they played 4H in their 4-3 fit, down one after losing three diamond tricks and a trump trick. (By the way, the late Keith McNeil's book featuring the best of Bidding Forum, "Match Your Bidding Against The Masters", is an entertaining and informative read.) Now while I very rarely overcall a three card suit, it is commonplace in my style to overcall a four card suit whenever I deem it appropriate. If my opponents were Jeremy Flint and Terence Reese, I believe that my partner need not alert (or pre- alert) my overcalls. But if one of my opponents was the common- sensical Sven Pran, is it his fault that the Babylonic cuneiform nature of overcalls is discordant with Sven's common sense (non- disclosure by my pard permitted), or is my exploitation of the Babylonic cuneiform nature of overcalls a _special_ partnership understanding (full disclosure by my pard required)? Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I would say there is no evidence in this thread of a >partnership understanding. I would think we are discussing >bridge judgement, what to do on the rare occasion we find >ourselves in this position. ~ G ~ +=+ 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 Tue Oct 26 09:19:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:19:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC68109.9050502@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/10/2010 0:58, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Australian Bridge Bidding Forum, February 1989, problem 7 > Matchpoint pairs, dealer North, neither side vulnerable > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C ? > > You, South, hold: > > T986 > JT94 > AKQ > 43 > > What call do you make? > > Call Award Panel > 1D 100 12 > Pass 90 18 > Dble 60 9 > > Moderator Keith McNeil, common sense: > > "Here you are, facing a passing partner, not vulnerable, with > ten lousy points and almost half the panel lose their courage, > common sense, composure and cave in. And at pairs, where > overtricks cost the earth! Here South has the opportunity to > kill two birds with one stone: indicate the best lead for the > defence and deflect opponents from the likely 3NT contract." Why they should often be playing 3NT escapes me. Their average total strength is about 22 HCP, unless they play weak notrumps. BTW, why it should be their hand when we hold both majors escaps me even more. > > Now while I very rarely overcall a three card suit, it is > commonplace in my style to overcall a four card suit whenever I > deem it appropriate. If my opponents were Jeremy Flint and > Terence Reese, I believe that my partner need not alert (or pre- > alert) my overcalls. But if one of my opponents was the common- > sensical Sven Pran, is it his fault that the Babylonic cuneiform > nature of overcalls is discordant with Sven's common sense (non- > disclosure by my pard permitted), or is my exploitation of the > Babylonic cuneiform nature of overcalls a _special_ partnership > understanding (full disclosure by my pard required)? AG : that's the typical "twice is a habit" situation. Those who consider it a normal Australian overcall imply that their overcalls are pre-alertable. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 26 23:45:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:45:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CC68109.9050502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Moderator Keith McNeil, common sense: "Here you are, facing a passing partner, not vulnerable, with ten lousy points and almost half the panel lose their courage, common sense, composure and cave in. And at pairs, where overtricks cost the earth! Here South has the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: indicate the best lead for the defence and deflect opponents from the likely 3NT contract." Alain Gottcheiner, uncommon sense: >Why they should often be playing 3NT escapes me. Their >average total strength is about 22 HCP, unless they play weak >notrumps. Jeff Rubens: "1D. Likely to stop 3NT and might stop fewer no-trumps and get the best lead." Richard Hills: Yes, if the par matchpoint result is defending 1NT -120, and the 1D overcall results in defending 3C -110, then a top is still gained. But I agree with Alain that Keith McNeil should not have written "the likely 3NT contract" (probable) but instead have written "a likely 3NT contract" (significantly possible). Alain Gottcheiner, uncommon sense: >BTW, why it should be their hand when we hold both majors >escapes me even more. Richard Hills: What part of "facing a passing partner ... with ten lousy [balanced] points" escapes Alain? After East's opening bid it is extremely likely (very probable) that East-West "own" the deal in a partscore or in a game or even in a club slam. Law 40B2(a), final two sentences: "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods. It may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." Richard Hills: When reading these two sentences together, in my opinion they prove that only methods need to be disclosed, with judgement not a method. Hence a player who correctly judges to bid a 1D overcall on a three card suit when exceptionally that normally ridiculous overcall has two ways to win (saving a matchpoint- vital overtrick with a safe opening lead from pard, and discouraging the opponents from a likely correct contract of 1NT or 3NT) is not required to have her style pre-Alerted by her partner. 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 Oct 27 02:56:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:56:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Safety Play in the Fourth Dimension [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 59 - Inability to Lead or Play as Required "A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a rectification, whether because he holds no card of the required suit, or because he has only cards of a suit he is prohibited from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit." The late Geoff Oystragh wrote an amusing short article for Australian Bridge called "A Safety Play in the Fourth Dimension". The scenario is that you have reached 7D, which you expect to be cold unless there is a first round ruff. Unfortunately the auction has been highly competitive, so a first round ruff is quite likely. RHO perpetrates an opening lead out of turn of a club. If you accept the OLOOT, LHO may ruff. If you request LHO to lead a non-club, LHO may lead a suit that RHO may ruff. And if you request LHO to lead a club, Law 59 may apply, LHO leads another suit, and RHO may ruff. The safety play in the fourth dimension is to elect that the club led out of turn remains a major penalty card, and to let LHO lead any suit. If LHO leads a suit that RHO could ruff, RHO has to play the club major penalty card instead of ruffing. :-) 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 Oct 27 05:40:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:40:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- 1C (1) Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) Pass 5C (8) Pass ? (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced (3) 17+ hcp, relay (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 (5) Controls? (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king (8) No spade king You, East, hold: AKT82 --- KT7 AQJT5 Do you believe partner's bidding? If not, what contract do you guess? 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 Wed Oct 27 07:59:53 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:59:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC7BFD9.3030500@ripe.net> On 27/10/2010 05:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1C (1) > Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) > Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) > Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) > Pass 5C (8) Pass ? > > (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any > (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced > (3) 17+ hcp, relay > (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 > (5) Controls? > (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum > (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king > (8) No spade king > > You, East, hold: > > AKT82 > --- > KT7 > AQJT5 > > Do you believe partner's bidding? > If not, what contract do you guess? Well, assuming that a singleton heart king is not counted as a control, then the auction is consistent with: QJxx A AQxx xxxx which suggests 6S as the final contract. If the singleton HK is included in the controls, partner can also have xxxx K AQxx Kxxx in which case I'll ask myself why I didn't bid 5C instead of 4NT. It is a bit strange that NS didn't bid with 12 hearts, but it is possible, 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 Wed Oct 27 09:26:55 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:26:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? Message-ID: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been misduplicated. The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the boards, but to scrap them altogether. They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the incomplete match, during a match on the third day which features the same opponents. They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word "one" in there - and on the french translation which includes the words "one and only one". Does blml believe that when more than one board has been fouled, the TD has the right to allow a redeal, even when the result on the other boards is already known? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From henk at ripe.net Wed Oct 27 09:52:19 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:52:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? In-Reply-To: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CC7DA33.5040902@ripe.net> On 27/10/2010 09:26, Herman De Wael wrote: > During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been > misduplicated. > The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the > boards, but to scrap them altogether. > They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the > incomplete match, during a match on the third day which features the > same opponents. > They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word "one" > in there - and on the french translation which includes the words "one > and only one". The Dutch text also says 1 (the number). IIRC, this is to avoid that players can start to gamble. I remember a US major final where one board had to be replayed and the players knew that team A had to make up 23 imp's on that board. Both pairs opened 7 in their best suit. This has nothing to do with bridge. > Does blml believe that when more than one board has been fouled, the TD > has the right to allow a redeal, even when the result on the other > boards is already known? Yes. Suppose all 12 boards in the match had been misduplicated (this happened here once, when one table got the boards for set 1 and the other for set 2). Clearly nobody would consider applying 86D on the two sets of results and guess a result of the match, but rather do a replay. One board cannot be replayed. But for some number in between, replaying seems far more reasonable than guessing a result, or assigning +3 imp's to both sides. 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 Wed Oct 27 09:52:54 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:52:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? In-Reply-To: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2010/10/27 Herman De Wael : > During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been > misduplicated. > The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the > boards, but to scrap them altogether. > They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the > incomplete match, during a match on the third day which features the > same opponents. > They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word "one" > in there - and on the french translation which includes the words "one > and only one". > Does blml believe that when more than one board has been fouled, the TD > has the right to allow a redeal, even when the result on the other > boards is already known? I'm really not sure about this. If the wording in L86C had been "The director shall not exercise his law 6 authority to order a board redealt when the final result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant.", it would be clear that redealing three boards would be illegal. Using the word "one" instead of "a" makes it less clear. I looks like the law makers intended to make redealing one board illegal, but two or more boards legal. > > -- > 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Oct 27 10:47:13 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:47:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Is_this_legal=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1PB1f8-1sti3E0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been > misduplicated. > The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the > boards, but to scrap them altogether. > They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the > incomplete match, during a match on the third day which features the > same opponents. > They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word > "one" in there - and on the french translation which includes the > words "one and only one". > Does blml believe that when more than one board has been fouled, the > TD has the right to allow a redeal, even when the result on the other > boards is already known? I agree with the TD and IIRC there was a similar ruling in a recent WBF or EC championship. From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 27 11:05:19 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:05:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? In-Reply-To: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901cb75b6$150703b0$3f150b10$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been > misduplicated. > The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the boards, > but to scrap them altogether. > They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the incomplete match, > during a match on the third day which features the same opponents. > They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word "one" > in there - and on the french translation which includes the words "one and only > one". > Does blml believe that when more than one board has been fouled, the TD has > the right to allow a redeal, even when the result on the other boards is already > known? Law 86C is essentially unchanged from all the way back to the 1987 laws; and in the (still valuable) "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen (issued by EBL 1992) we can read: This functional Law deals with score adjustment in team play. Its parts concern: ........ (iii) prohibition of substituting a single board under Law 6D3 when one or more contestants could know the result of the match with that board omitted. Note: this prohibition covers only the case of a single board so substituted; it does not extend to cases of two or more boards to be redealt and replayed, which the Director _in his_ discretion may allow (Law 86C). (It is open to sponsoring organizations to clarify for their Directors their wishes when there are two or more such boards.) I believe you can safely consider that the TD has such rights unless your RA has explicitly instructed differently. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 27 11:38:40 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:38:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? In-Reply-To: <000901cb75b6$150703b0$3f150b10$@no> References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> <000901cb75b6$150703b0$3f150b10$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 04:05 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this legal? > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been >> misduplicated. >> The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the > boards, >> but to scrap them altogether. >> They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the >> incomplete > match, >> during a match on the third day which features the same opponents. >> They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word "one" >> in there - and on the french translation which includes the words "one >> and > only >> one". >> Does blml believe that when more than one board has been fouled, the TD > has >> the right to allow a redeal, even when the result on the other boards is > already >> known? > > Law 86C is essentially unchanged from all the way back to the 1987 laws; > and > in the (still valuable) "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract > Bridge > 1987" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen (issued by EBL 1992) we > can > read: > > This functional Law deals with score adjustment in team play. Its parts > concern: > ........ > (iii) prohibition of substituting a single board under Law 6D3 when one or > more contestants could know the result of the match with that board > omitted. > Note: this prohibition covers only the case of a single board so > substituted; it does not extend to cases of two or more boards to be > redealt > and replayed, which the Director _in his_ discretion may allow (Law 86C). > (It is open to sponsoring organizations to clarify for their Directors > their > wishes when there are two or more such boards.) > > I believe you can safely consider that the TD has such rights unless your > RA > has explicitly instructed differently. > > Regards Sven The last I was aware, two or more of Something includes one of Something.. regards roger pewick From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 27 13:39:13 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:39:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? In-Reply-To: References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> <000901cb75b6$150703b0$3f150b10$@no> Message-ID: <4CC80F61.1070501@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: >> Note: this prohibition covers only the case of a single board so >> substituted; it does not extend to cases of two or more boards to be >> redealt >> and replayed, which the Director _in his_ discretion may allow (Law 86C). >> (It is open to sponsoring organizations to clarify for their Directors >> their >> wishes when there are two or more such boards.) >> >> I believe you can safely consider that the TD has such rights unless your >> RA >> has explicitly instructed differently. >> >> Regards Sven > > The last I was aware, two or more of Something includes one of Something.. > > regards > roger pewick > You have to admit one thing: the lawmakers explicitely wrote _one_ board, when they could also have written _a_ board. Which is why the french translation (where "un" means both "a" and "one") is not so bad. Similarly, the Dutch translation has "??n" (with accents to indicate it is one), rather than "een" which would translate to "a". (The dutch words for a and one are both een, usually with different pronunciation, indicated by the accents when really needed) It seems to be clear therefore that replaying three boards is allowed. I have learnt something new, this week. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 27 14:10:28 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:10:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC816B4.70709@t-online.de> Am 27.10.2010 05:40, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1C (1) > Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) > Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) > Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) > Pass 5C (8) Pass ? > > (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any > (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced > (3) 17+ hcp, relay > (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 > (5) Controls? > (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum > (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king > (8) No spade king > > You, East, hold: > > AKT82 > --- > KT7 > AQJT5 > > Do you believe partner's bidding? In principle yes, but I also believe in my opponent's bidding, which means he does not have a singleton heart. Some wheel has come off, and 4NT did not tell me which one (tried this ploy a coupe of times myself when playing a relay system centuries ago... My partner did not make many mistakes, though, so it didn't happen often). > If not, what contract do you guess? I am going to play in my better suit, so I may survive if I hit his doubleton. Since he has ?,AK,?,K or ?,A,A,- with a queen or two slam should have play, so 6C it is. They are not going to find their spade ruff, anyway.... Richard, could you please leave Brighton alone and take your cases from books I don't know by heart? :-) Best regards Matthias From henk at ripe.net Wed Oct 27 14:12:57 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:12:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CC816B4.70709@t-online.de> References: <4CC816B4.70709@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4CC81749.2070704@ripe.net> > In principle yes, but I also believe in my opponent's bidding, which > means he does not have a singleton heart. Well: xx KJxxxx xxx Kx QJxx AKT82 A -- AQxx KT7 xxxx AQJTx xx Qxxxxx Jxx xx Looks possible to me. Red against white, I can see that north and south both pass at their first turn (any bid over a swedish club should be sufficient) and then it is too late to interfere. 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 27 14:25:13 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:25:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? In-Reply-To: <4CC80F61.1070501@skynet.be> References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> <000901cb75b6$150703b0$3f150b10$@no> <4CC80F61.1070501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001cb75d2$02097fb0$061c7f10$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > You have to admit one thing: the lawmakers explicitely wrote _one_ board, when > they could also have written _a_ board. I was fully aware of this too, but I didn't bother to emphasize since the commentary so clearly states how to understand Law 86C. (In English the difference between "one board" and "a board" is absolutely significant.) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 27 14:40:12 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:40:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC81DAC.401@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/10/2010 5:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1C (1) > Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) > Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) > Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) > Pass 5C (8) Pass ? > > (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any > (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced > (3) 17+ hcp, relay > (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 > (5) Controls? > (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum > (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king > (8) No spade king > > You, East, hold: > > AKT82 > --- > KT7 > AQJT5 > > Do you believe partner's bidding? > If not, what contract do you guess? AG : if partner had shown the SK, I wouldn't have believed him; Here, why not ? South might be a clever guy who wants to know how high we go before naming his 8-card Heart suit. Partner's possible hands : QJxx-A-AQxx-xxxx xxxx-K-AQJx-Kxxx (if deemed a maximum) If I guessed which was partner's 3-suited hand, 1444 or 4441, because he already erred once, I would be ashamed, so, yes, I'll believe him. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 27 14:43:53 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:43:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? In-Reply-To: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CC81E89.3070308@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/10/2010 9:26, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been > misduplicated. > The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the > boards, but to scrap them altogether. > They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the > incomplete match, during a match on the third day which features the > same opponents. > They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word "one" > in there - and on the french translation which includes the words "one > and only one". This seems easy. If one needs to be precise (e.g. in a law text), English "one" has to be translated as "un et un seul", while "a" should be translated as "un", meaning that more than one are possible. So, the French version corroborates the English ... one From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 27 15:38:51 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:38:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1416763471.146651288186731005.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1C (1) > Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) > Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) > Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) > Pass 5C (8) Pass ? > > (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any > (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced > (3) 17+ hcp, relay > (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 > (5) Controls? > (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum > (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king > (8) No spade king > > You, East, hold: > > AKT82 > --- > KT7 > AQJT5 > > Do you believe partner's bidding? No. > If not, what contract do you guess? Impossible to answer. Presumably I have UI which I have to avoid using? Thomas From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 27 19:03:19 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:03:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? In-Reply-To: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <534058091.1288198999397.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been > misduplicated. > The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the > boards, but to scrap them altogether. > They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the > incomplete match, during a match on the third day which features the > same opponents. > They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word "one" > in there - and on the french translation which includes the words "one > and only one". > Does blml believe that when more than one board has been fouled, the TD > has the right to allow a redeal, even when the result on the other > boards is already known? I believe that such a ruling is legal, but I also deem it potentially unfair, und thus it should be avoided if possible. Lets say you score +1920 for 1HXX+3 in board 1, in board 2 they go down 8 in 7NTX for +2300 your way, and in board 3 you make 6S off a cashing AK for +1430. You are plus 40 IMPs pretty much regardless of what happens in the other room. Why should that be completely wiped out? Thomas From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 27 21:07:13 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:07:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> <000901cb75b6$150703b0$3f150b10$@no> Message-ID: <78E4961A389D43ABB4E72CD77C1D9C4A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this legal? > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been >> misduplicated. >> The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the > boards, >> but to scrap them altogether. >> They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the >> incomplete > match, >> during a match on the third day which features the same opponents. >> They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word "one" >> in there - and on the french translation which includes the words "one >> and > only >> one". >> Does blml believe that when more than one board has been fouled, the TD > has >> the right to allow a redeal, even when the result on the other boards is > already >> known? > > Law 86C is essentially unchanged from all the way back to the 1987 laws; > and > in the (still valuable) "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract > Bridge > 1987" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen (issued by EBL 1992) we > can > read: > > This functional Law deals with score adjustment in team play. Its parts > concern: > ........ > (iii) prohibition of substituting a single board under Law 6D3 when one or > more contestants could know the result of the match with that board > omitted. > Note: this prohibition covers only the case of a single board so > substituted; it does not extend to cases of two or more boards to be > redealt > and replayed, which the Director _in his_ discretion may allow (Law 86C). > (It is open to sponsoring organizations to clarify for their Directors > their > wishes when there are two or more such boards.) > > I believe you can safely consider that the TD has such rights unless your > RA > has explicitly instructed differently. > +=+ "Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety....." ['Antony & Cleopatra']. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 27 21:07:55 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:07:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> <000901cb75b6$150703b0$3f150b10$@no> Message-ID: <70DB976D89734A74B58020180FE0C574@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this legal? > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> During the first day of the Belgian Top division three boards had been >> misduplicated. >> The organizing committee has decided not to employ L86D to score the > boards, >> but to scrap them altogether. >> They also decided to replay three boards, to be included in the >> incomplete > match, >> during a match on the third day which features the same opponents. >> They base their decision on L86C, and more importantly on hte word "one" >> in there - and on the french translation which includes the words "one >> and > only >> one". >> Does blml believe that when more than one board has been fouled, the TD > has >> the right to allow a redeal, even when the result on the other boards is > already >> known? > > Law 86C is essentially unchanged from all the way back to the 1987 laws; > and > in the (still valuable) "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract > Bridge > 1987" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen (issued by EBL 1992) we > can > read: > > This functional Law deals with score adjustment in team play. Its parts > concern: > ........ > (iii) prohibition of substituting a single board under Law 6D3 when one or > more contestants could know the result of the match with that board > omitted. > Note: this prohibition covers only the case of a single board so > substituted; it does not extend to cases of two or more boards to be > redealt > and replayed, which the Director _in his_ discretion may allow (Law 86C). > (It is open to sponsoring organizations to clarify for their Directors > their > wishes when there are two or more such boards.) > > I believe you can safely consider that the TD has such rights unless your > RA > has explicitly instructed differently. > +=+ "Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety....." ['Antony & Cleopatra']. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 27 21:23:38 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:23:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> <534058091.1288198999397.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this legal? > I believe that such a ruling is legal, but I also > deem it potentially unfair, und thus it should > be avoided if possible. Lets say you score > +1920 for 1HXX+3 in board 1, in board 2 they go down 8 > in 7NTX for +2300 your way, and in board 3 > you make 6S off a cashing AK for +1430. > You are plus 40 IMPs pretty much regardless > of what happens in the other room. > Why should that be completely wiped out? > +=+ "There was a discussion about treatment of a fouled board in a teams match. Opinions varied. It was agreed that such treatment was a subject for regulation.and that the committee would not offer advice to regulating authorities on the matter. However, unless regulations state otherwise a Director may apply Law 86D as he thinks fit." [WBFLC minute, 12th October 2010] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 27 22:47:38 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:47:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? In-Reply-To: References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be> <534058091.1288198999397.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <392529.86886.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> +=+ "There was a discussion about treatment of a fouled board in a teams match. Opinions varied. It was agreed that such treatment was a subject for regulation.and that the committee would not offer advice to regulating authorities on the matter. However, unless regulations state otherwise a Director may apply Law 86D as he thinks fit." [WBFLC minute, 12th October 2010] [Nigel] 'nuff said :( From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 28 00:27:52 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:27:52 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Serious error effect Message-ID: <8679F4F534224FD58B08E642A964F2E3@MARVLAPTOP> WBFLC minutes 12 October 2010: 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 [a] 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). ###### Here we have another WBFLC cop-out. An ACBL Director will not exclude the revoke in its score adjustment for the OS, as required by L12C1(b). The WBFLC knows that, but is apparently afraid of offending the ACBL by saying so explicitly. cop-out ( ) n. Slang A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely. Adam Wildavsky of the ACBLLC was in attendance at the meeting, hoping to get clarification of L12C1(b). This is hardly clarification. Also dodged is the principle of L12C1(b) that if the cost of a serious error is less than the normal compensation (not so in the case cited), then compensation is reduced, but not eliminated, by that amount. The ACBL does not understand that, and is due an explanation. L12C1(b): "..does not receive relief *in such part of the damage* as was self-inflicted." [emphasis mine]. That means partial relief sometimes. While it is not the job of the WBFLC to police all NBOs to see if they are complying with the Laws, it *is* its job to explain any law that an NBO does not understand. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5568 (20101027) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 27 23:33:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:33:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CC816B4.70709@t-online.de> Message-ID: >>>Do you believe partner's bidding? Matthias Berghaus, 27th October 2010: >>In principle yes, but I also believe in my opponent's bidding, >>which means he does not have a singleton heart. Some wheel has >>come off, and 4NT did not tell me which one (tried this ploy a >>couple of times myself when playing a relay system centuries >>ago... My partner did not make many mistakes, though, so it >>didn't happen often). >>>If not, what contract do you guess? Matthias Berghaus, 27th October 2010: >>I am going to play in my better suit, so I may survive if I >>hit his doubleton. Since he has ?,AK,?,K or ?,A,A,- with a >>queen or two slam should have play, so 6C it is. They are not >>going to find their spade ruff, anyway.... >> >>Richard, could you please leave Brighton alone and take your >>cases from books I don't know by heart? :-) >EBU casebook 2001 appeal number 18, "The Swedes bid it better!" > >Tournament Director: >David Stevenson > >Appeals Committee: >John Young (Chairman) Rob Cliffe Tony Ratcliff > >Swiss Teams >Brd: 18 9 >Dlr: East KT542 >Vul: North-South 98542 > 97 >QJ4 AKT82 >A873 --- >AQ3 KT7 >843 AQJT5 > 7653 > QJ96 > J6 > K62 > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- --- --- 1C (1) >Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) >Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) >Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) >Pass 5C (8) Pass 6C >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any >(2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced >(3) 17+ hcp, relay >(4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 >(5) Controls? >(6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum >(7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king > >(but the word "initially" was omitted in the at-the-table >explanation) > >(8) No spade king > >Result at table: >6C making by East, NS -920, lead Sx > >Matthias Berghaus (casebook panellist): > >"Very mysterious case. East had doubts about 3H (who wouldn't?). >I think what has happened is that East tried to get West to bid >something he could 'read', something which would give him a clue >what this bid was really meant to show. In a relay system (which >this seems to be) you can try to guess WHICH wheel has come off. >I know. Believe me. Hence 4NT, asking for a card partner is >known not to hold. At least this would explain the comment about >'Helpful 6C or D' from partner. I think East was flying blind >and bid a contract which could survive minimal trump support >from partner. So I believe there was no infraction, but this is >guesswork." Matthias Berghaus, 17th February 2007: I still agree with my own comments (isn`t that nice :-) ). I refrained from answering Richard's post earlier, having recognized the hand. This deal illustrates the danger in any "Rule of Coincidence": Mere coincidence could lead to automatic rulings, but you have to get to the bottom of the case anyway to determine whether there was (in this case) misinformation and resulting damage. Since I used to play a relay system for a couple of years I have some experience in trying to find out which wheel is missing. Sometimes you have a suspicion (as here), sometimes you see partner showing something you look at in your own hand (and no extra shape to "invent" the queen of trumps, for example), so you try to find out what went wrong. Sometimes you can read the situation by trying out different questions you might have asked. Does partner think X was KCB instead of another shape relay? What other question might partner have answered? Sometimes it all falls into place then, sometimes you try another relay to get a "readable" response. The third step after a yes/no question gives a hint... This often puts you in a difficult position regarding explanations, since you want to disclose every aspect of the bidding without giving the show away by explaining things the opps are not entitled to be told. Of course the Swedish East could have said something like "I suspect my partner forgot the system", but this might be MI (if opps kept quiet with 12 hearts), or it may give them more information than they are entitled to, or it may give them the wrong impression of your hand, which at least borders on MI, since you just volunteered information which led them onto the wrong track.... So telling them what the system is is the way to go, letting them fend for themselves and letting the TD sort it out if need be. I wonder what Herman has to say about this. I am fairly confident that he recognized the deal too, having been a commentator in this casebook. This case has some aspects touching the dWs. >Herman De Wael (casebook panellist): > >"Two separate cases. I don't think the 3H misbid is in need of a >ruling. > >As to the asking about a card that one has oneself, I don't >believe this to be a single case. I feel that pairs that employ >this tactic should inform opponents of the possibility. Of >course, that is difficult in an actual case, but at least a >general mention on the convention card should draw the >attention to 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 28 04:53:23 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:53:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael (casebook commentator): >Two separate cases. I don't think the 3H misbid is in need of a >ruling. > >As to the asking about a card that one has oneself, I don't believe >this to be a single case. I feel that pairs that employ this tactic >should inform opponents of the possibility. Of course, that is >difficult in an actual case, but at least a general mention on the >convention card should draw the attention to it. Richard Hills: Yes, the 3H misbid did not cause damage, since South found the only opening lead which could defeat the contract and the misbidding dummy became visible after the opening lead. But suppose this hypothetical scenario existed: a misbid by West is a 20% chance when the opponents are silent with an assumed eleven or twelve card fit, but is a mere 2% chance when the opponents are silent with an assumed fit of ten cards or fewer. With such exotic hypothetical partnership experience, what must East disclose? (If I was East I would pre-alert the possibility of an error before the round started, but I would join Matthias in "telling the system" during the auction, since "the opps are not entitled to be told" that the questioner in a relay auction can see a heart void in their own hand.) As for Herman's second point, I am not sure that stating "Spiral Scan: asks for spade king" instead of stating "Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king" was implicit misinformation. Suppose one is playing an old-fashioned system with old-fashioned Blackwood. 4NT is correctly described as "an ask for aces" even if the Blackwood bidder already holds all four aces, thus is about to investigate a grand slam with a subsequent 5NT ask for kings. Of course, in the primitive stone-age Symmetric Relay system that I use (system notes emailed on request) there is no capacity to vary the relay to ask for specific cards, so I describe all of my pard's relays with the uniform explanation in deadpan tones, "Relay, asking me to describe my hand further." When playing against inexperienced opponents who have never met a relay system before, my repeated deadpan words sometimes cause them to break out into fits of giggles, creating a sociable atmosphere 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 Thu Oct 28 06:32:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:32:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lawfully using UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: EBU Orange Book, clause 3 D 7 "It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert and explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play." 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 Oct 28 07:41:06 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:41:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Lawfully using UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:32:48 -0400, wrote: > > EBU Orange Book, clause 3 D 7 > > "It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been > made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert > and explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, > but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help > in the bidding and play." I think I polled blml once and they said the same for information from a spectator. Is this WBFLC minute relevant? ....The words ?nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made? (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings. It seems to give high priority to correct explanations. Bob From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 28 10:19:36 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:19:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is this legal? References: <4CC7D43F.9050203@skynet.be><534058091.1288198999397.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <392529.86886.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this legal? > +=+ "There was a discussion about treatment of a > fouled board in a teams match. Opinions varied. > It was agreed that such treatment was a subject > for regulation.and that the committee would not > offer advice to regulating authorities on the matter. > However, unless regulations state otherwise a > Director may apply Law 86D as he thinks fit." > [WBFLC minute, 12th October 2010] > > [Nigel] > 'nuff said :( > +=+ Well, I could say that Law 86C has not gone away and regulations must not conflict with that. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 28 10:48:36 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:48:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:33 PM >> >>As to the asking about a card that one has oneself, I don't >>believe this to be a single case. I feel that pairs that employ >>this tactic should inform opponents of the possibility. Of >>course, that is difficult in an actual case, but at least a >>general mention on the convention card should draw the >>attention to it." > +=+ I am not sure who said this. It goes against the Law 40B6(a) statement that the explanation required is about "information conveyed". East has not conveyed the information to West that he holds the card he asks about. So? ~ Grattan ~ From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 28 11:04:04 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:04:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > >>As to the asking about a card that one has oneself, I don't believe > >>this to be a single case. I feel that pairs that employ this tactic > >>should inform opponents of the possibility. Of course, that is > >>difficult in an actual case, but at least a general mention on the > >>convention card should draw the attention to it." > > > +=+ I am not sure who said this. It goes against the > Law 40B6(a) statement that the explanation required is about "information > conveyed". East has not conveyed the information to West that he holds the card > he asks about. So? > ~ Grattan ~ I strongly believe that (specifically) asking about a card one has oneself is a violation of Law 73D2: A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of _remark_ ..... (There may be other relevant laws with the same effect, I just remembered this one) Sven From henk at ripe.net Thu Oct 28 11:10:32 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:10:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> References: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> Message-ID: <4CC93E08.2010100@ripe.net> On 28/10/2010 11:04, Sven Pran wrote: > A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of _remark_ ..... I don't think a bid (4NT) is a remark. If it were, Zia would be in trouble for all the lead directing doubles he made when, in fact, he did not have a reason for this suit to be led ;-) 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 gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 28 11:15:53 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:15:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> References: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> Message-ID: <8CD4497DAD56E0B-EE8-8275@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> [Sven] I strongly believe that (specifically) asking about a card one has oneself is a violation of Law 73D2: A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of _remark_ ..... (There may be other relevant laws with the same effect, I just remembered this one) [Paul Lamford] Indeed, it is clear that you just remembered this one, as the one immediately afterwards states: "[73]E. Deception A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call " You would be right if he stated verbally "Do you have the king of spades partner?", just before dummy went down, but "asking about" is bridge terminology for "making an asking bid about". Must we dot every i and cross every t in reports of hands. From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 28 11:57:24 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:57:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CC93E08.2010100@ripe.net> References: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> <4CC93E08.2010100@ripe.net> Message-ID: <000e01cb7686$85c1ffd0$9145ff70$@no> On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > On 28/10/2010 11:04, Sven Pran wrote: > > > A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of _remark_ ..... > > I don't think a bid (4NT) is a remark. If it were, Zia would be in trouble for all the > lead directing doubles he made when, in fact, he did not have a reason for this > suit to be led ;-) A bid is not a remark, but for instance a question like: "Does 5Sp show the trump queen?" certainly is. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 28 12:01:53 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:01:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> <8CD4497DAD56E0B-EE8-8275@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [Paul Lamford] Indeed, it is clear that you just remembered this one, as the one immediately afterwards states: > "[73]E. Deception A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call " > +=+ However, here he is not attempting to deceive an opponent, it is partner that he is deceiving. I would suggest it is "generally known to bridge players" [Law 40B6(a)] that on occasion players will purposefully describe their hands falsely to partner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 28 12:31:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:31:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC950EE.5060209@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/10/2010 23:33, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>> Do you believe partner's bidding? > Matthias Berghaus, 27th October 2010: > >>> In principle yes, but I also believe in my opponent's bidding, >>> which means he does not have a singleton heart. Some wheel has >>> come off, and 4NT did not tell me which one (tried this ploy a >>> couple of times myself when playing a relay system centuries >>> ago... My partner did not make many mistakes, though, so it >>> didn't happen often). >>>> If not, what contract do you guess? > Matthias Berghaus, 27th October 2010: > >>> I am going to play in my better suit, so I may survive if I >>> hit his doubleton. Since he has ?,AK,?,K or ?,A,A,- with a >>> queen or two slam should have play, so 6C it is. They are not >>> going to find their spade ruff, anyway.... >>> >>> Richard, could you please leave Brighton alone and take your >>> cases from books I don't know by heart? :-) >> EBU casebook 2001 appeal number 18, "The Swedes bid it better!" >> >> Tournament Director: >> David Stevenson >> >> Appeals Committee: >> John Young (Chairman) Rob Cliffe Tony Ratcliff >> >> Swiss Teams >> Brd: 18 9 >> Dlr: East KT542 >> Vul: North-South 98542 >> 97 >> QJ4 AKT82 >> A873 --- >> AQ3 KT7 >> 843 AQJT5 >> 7653 >> QJ96 >> J6 >> K62 >> >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> --- --- --- 1C (1) >> Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) >> Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) >> Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) >> Pass 5C (8) Pass 6C >> Pass Pass Pass >> >> (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any >> (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced >> (3) 17+ hcp, relay >> (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 >> (5) Controls? >> (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum >> (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king >> >> (but the word "initially" was omitted in the at-the-table >> explanation) >> >> (8) No spade king >> >> Result at table: >> 6C making by East, NS -920, lead Sx >> >> Matthias Berghaus (casebook panellist): >> >> "Very mysterious case. East had doubts about 3H (who wouldn't?). >> I think what has happened is that East tried to get West to bid >> something he could 'read', something which would give him a clue >> what this bid was really meant to show. In a relay system (which >> this seems to be) you can try to guess WHICH wheel has come off. >> I know. Believe me. Hence 4NT, asking for a card partner is >> known not to hold. At least this would explain the comment about >> 'Helpful 6C or D' from partner. I think East was flying blind >> and bid a contract which could survive minimal trump support > >from partner. So I believe there was no infraction, but this is >> guesswork." > Matthias Berghaus, 17th February 2007: > > I still agree with my own comments (isn`t that nice :-) ). I > refrained from answering Richard's post earlier, having > recognized the hand. > > This deal illustrates the danger in any "Rule of Coincidence": > Mere coincidence could lead to automatic rulings, but you have to > get to the bottom of the case anyway to determine whether there > was (in this case) misinformation and resulting damage. > > Since I used to play a relay system for a couple of years I have > some experience in trying to find out which wheel is missing. > Sometimes you have a suspicion (as here), sometimes you see > partner showing something you look at in your own hand (and no > extra shape to "invent" the queen of trumps, for example), so you > try to find out what went wrong. Sometimes you can read the > situation by trying out different questions you might have asked. > Does partner think X was KCB instead of another shape relay? AG : up to here, I agree, but only if you use only logic about the system. If you rely on past experience of what partner did forget, then a new partenership understanding is forming. > What > other question might partner have answered? Sometimes it all > falls into place then, sometimes you try another relay to get a > "readable" response. The third step after a yes/no question gives > a hint... AG : in my style, it would be a hint that partner answers "yes" and shows some other feaure, not that he went wrong. I must remember to try NOT overcalling over an artifiical positive answer ; if I happen to play against that EW pair and one player thought it obvious that partner didn't know the system, it might destroy them - much more than has to be gained through a mere 3H preempt. (well, why am I using a modal auxiliary ? I did exactly that on occasions) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 28 12:36:13 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:36:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> References: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> Message-ID: <4CC9521D.7080908@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/10/2010 11:04, Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Grattan >>>> As to the asking about a card that one has oneself, I don't believe >>>> this to be a single case. I feel that pairs that employ this tactic >>>> should inform opponents of the possibility. Of course, that is >>>> difficult in an actual case, but at least a general mention on the >>>> convention card should draw the attention to it." >> +=+ I am not sure who said this. It goes against the >> Law 40B6(a) statement that the explanation required is about "information >> conveyed". East has not conveyed the information to West that he holds the > card >> he asks about. So? >> ~ Grattan ~ > I strongly believe that (specifically) asking about a card one has oneself > is a violation of Law 73D2: > > A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of _remark_ ..... AG : never heard of a psyche ? Asking for some specific card to let them believe you don't hold it and therefore concealing your holding is " a gross misstatement of your hand", but a legel bid doesn't fit in the list in L73B. And BTW when playing relay scans, not beginning the relays is a signoff, thus you have to begin with the void enquiry - compare with bidding 4NT then 5NT when holding all aces. From henk at ripe.net Thu Oct 28 13:07:16 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:07:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CC950EE.5060209@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CC950EE.5060209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4CC95964.7090406@ripe.net> >>> QJ4 AKT82 >>> A873 --- >>> AQ3 KT7 >>> 843 AQJT5 >>> Result at table: >>> 6C making by East, NS -920, lead Sx Was the play recorded? It looks as if, on a spade lead, declarer should win and play CA, CQ, winning with every 3-2 spade split or 4-1 when north holds the CK or south has CKxx(x)? Declarer cannot handle K9762 of trumps anywhere anyway. (And if declarer played correctly, then where is the problem?). 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 svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 28 18:47:39 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:47:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CC9521D.7080908@ulb.ac.be> References: <000501cb767f$120c20e0$362462a0$@no> <4CC9521D.7080908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01cb76bf$d618ed20$824ac760$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] > Sent: 28. oktober 2010 12:36 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: Sven Pran > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Le 28/10/2010 11:04, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > On Behalf Of Grattan > >>>> As to the asking about a card that one has oneself, I don't believe > >>>> this to be a single case. I feel that pairs that employ this tactic > >>>> should inform opponents of the possibility. Of course, that is > >>>> difficult in an actual case, but at least a general mention on the > >>>> convention card should draw the attention to it." > >> +=+ I am not sure who said this. It goes against the > >> Law 40B6(a) statement that the explanation required is about > >> "information conveyed". East has not conveyed the information to West > >> that he holds the > > card > >> he asks about. So? > >> ~ Grattan ~ > > I strongly believe that (specifically) asking about a card one has > > oneself is a violation of Law 73D2: > > > > A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of _remark_ ..... > AG : never heard of a psyche ? Sure I have, and "psyche" is an alias for a "psychic call" (see the definition in the laws) Asking for some specific card to let them believe > you don't hold it and therefore concealing your holding is " a gross misstatement > of your hand", but a legel bid doesn't fit in the list in L73B. Such a question (or remark) is not a call, and therefore it is not a psyche as defined in the laws. > > And BTW when playing relay scans, not beginning the relays is a signoff, thus you > have to begin with the void enquiry - compare with bidding 4NT then 5NT when > holding all aces. WTP? From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 28 19:39:45 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:39:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <819220181.1288287585156.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > > On 28/10/2010 11:04, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of _remark_ > ..... > > > > I don't think a bid (4NT) is a remark. If it were, Zia would be in trouble for all the > > lead directing doubles he made when, in fact, he did not have a reason for this > > suit to be led ;-) > > A bid is not a remark, but for instance a question like: "Does 5Sp show the > trump queen?" certainly is. It is not that simple. A player cannot ask "Does 5Sp show the trump queen?" when not holding the queen, and not ask the same question when holding the queen. That would create UI. No, to avoid giving UI, you have to ask the same questions regardless of your hand. Anything else IMHO would be a violation of procedure, L74, and would also violate L73D1. It is not legal to ask questions to *deliberately* mislead opponents (see, e.g. L73D2). Generally, questions should be worded in a neutral way. "What does 5S show?" "two key cards" "Does it show anything else, other than two key cards?" "Yes" But that is not always possible; especially not if obnoxious opponents provide only very incomplete answers to questions. Sometimes you have to ask very specific questions to get opponents to provide the information to which you are entitled. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 28 20:18:13 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:18:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <819220181.1288287585156.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <819220181.1288287585156.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000f01cb76cc$7c3846e0$74a8d4a0$@no> On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn ................ > Generally, questions should be worded in a neutral way. > "What does 5S show?" "two key cards" "Does it show anything else, other than two > key cards?" "Yes" > > But that is not always possible; especially not if obnoxious opponents provide only > very incomplete answers to questions. Sometimes you have to ask very specific > questions to get opponents to provide the information to which you are entitled. It is both simple and possible (And I agree completely with you that leading questions should always be avoided): "What does 5S show", or even better "Please explain your auction" shall be sufficient. Particularly at the end of long, complicated auctions I frequently ask the question: "What are we entitled to know from your auction?" Now it is opponents' responsibility to make sure that I am told every piece of information conveyed during the auction that might eventually turn up important for my line of defense. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 20:34:13 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Serious error effect In-Reply-To: <8679F4F534224FD58B08E642A964F2E3@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8679F4F534224FD58B08E642A964F2E3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: I think the problem isn't that the ACBL doesn't understand this law, rather that it refuses to understand it. 2010/10/28, Marvin French : > WBFLC minutes 12 October 2010: > > 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 > [a] 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). > > ###### > > Here we have another WBFLC cop-out. An ACBL Director will not > exclude the revoke in its score adjustment for the OS, as required > by L12C1(b). The WBFLC knows that, but is apparently afraid of > offending the ACBL by saying so explicitly. > > cop-out ( ) n. Slang A failure to fulfill a commitment or > responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely. > > Adam Wildavsky of the ACBLLC was in attendance at the meeting, > hoping to get clarification of L12C1(b). This is hardly > clarification. > > Also dodged is the principle of L12C1(b) that if the cost of a > serious error is less than the normal compensation (not so in the > case cited), then compensation is reduced, but not eliminated, by > that amount. The ACBL does not understand that, and is due an > explanation. > > L12C1(b): "..does not receive relief *in such part of the damage* as > was self-inflicted." [emphasis mine]. That means partial relief > sometimes. > > While it is not the job of the WBFLC to police all NBOs to see if > they are complying with the Laws, it *is* its job to explain any law > that an NBO does not understand. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 5568 (20101027) __________ > > 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 blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 28 20:39:43 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:39:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <286789482.1288291183696.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn > ................ > > Generally, questions should be worded in a neutral way. > > "What does 5S show?" "two key cards" "Does it show anything else, other than two > > key cards?" "Yes" > > > > But that is not always possible; especially not if obnoxious opponents provide only > > very incomplete answers to questions. Sometimes you have to ask very specific > > questions to get opponents to provide the information to which you are entitled. > > It is both simple and possible (And I agree completely with you that > leading questions should always be avoided): > > "What does 5S show", or even better "Please explain your auction" shall be > sufficient. > > Particularly at the end of long, complicated auctions I frequently ask the > question: "What are we entitled to know from your auction?" > > Now it is opponents' responsibility to make sure that I am told every piece > of information conveyed during the auction that might eventually turn up > important for my line of defense. We have seen plenty of dubious rulings where some questions were asked, obviously incomplete or false information was provided, and either TD or AC then decided that the player who received obviously incomplete or false information then "failed to protect himself". Or those absurd rulings based on not understanding what a serious error is. We have also seen plenty of not-that-easy to decide cases where a player received false information, and then claimed that with correct information he would have chosen differently, where TD or AC then might or might not believe such a claim. Furthermore, even if a ruling goes in the player's favor, it distracts and costs lots of energy, and thus MPs and IMPs elsewhere. I prefer spending breaks between and after rounds resting, rather than with ACs. I don't think a player must put up with those risks. If the information provided is insufficient, obviously incomplete, false, or anything like that, the player is perfectly entitled to squeeze out every little bit of information with additional questions. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 28 22:07:08 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:07:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <286789482.1288291183696.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <286789482.1288291183696.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <001001cb76db$b3690230$1a3b0690$@no> On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn ........... > > It is both simple and possible (And I agree completely with you that > > leading questions should always be avoided): > > > > "What does 5S show", or even better "Please explain your auction" > > shall be sufficient. > > > > Particularly at the end of long, complicated auctions I frequently ask > > the > > question: "What are we entitled to know from your auction?" > > > > Now it is opponents' responsibility to make sure that I am told every > > piece of information conveyed during the auction that might eventually > > turn up important for my line of defense. > > We have seen plenty of dubious rulings where some questions were asked, > obviously incomplete or false information was provided, and either TD or AC then > decided that the player who received obviously incomplete or false information > then "failed to protect himself". Or those absurd rulings based on not > understanding what a serious error is. > > We have also seen plenty of not-that-easy to decide cases where a player > received false information, and then claimed that with correct information he would > have chosen differently, where TD or AC then might or might not believe such a > claim. > > Furthermore, even if a ruling goes in the player's favor, it distracts and costs lots > of energy, and thus MPs and IMPs elsewhere. > I prefer spending breaks between and after rounds resting, rather than with ACs. > > I don't think a player must put up with those risks. > If the information provided is insufficient, obviously incomplete, false, or anything > like that, the player is perfectly entitled to squeeze out every little bit of information > with additional questions. With incompetent directors a player is subject to all kinds of risks. He should never be ruled against on "failure to protect himself" if there can be any doubt on this question. If the Director understands law 40B6 a player should never have to ask additional questions except when he does not understand the explanation received. From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 28 23:00:35 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:00:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <449099839.1288299635142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn > ........... > > > It is both simple and possible (And I agree completely with you that > > > leading questions should always be avoided): > > > > > > "What does 5S show", or even better "Please explain your auction" > > > shall be sufficient. > > > > > > Particularly at the end of long, complicated auctions I frequently ask > > > the > > > question: "What are we entitled to know from your auction?" > > > > > > Now it is opponents' responsibility to make sure that I am told every > > > piece of information conveyed during the auction that might eventually > > > turn up important for my line of defense. > > > > We have seen plenty of dubious rulings where some questions were asked, > > obviously incomplete or false information was provided, and either TD or AC then > > decided that the player who received obviously incomplete or false information > > then "failed to protect himself". Or those absurd rulings based on not > > understanding what a serious error is. > > > > We have also seen plenty of not-that-easy to decide cases where a player > > received false information, and then claimed that with correct information he would > > have chosen differently, where TD or AC then might or might not believe such a > > claim. > > > > Furthermore, even if a ruling goes in the player's favor, it distracts and costs lots > > of energy, and thus MPs and IMPs elsewhere. > > I prefer spending breaks between and after rounds resting, rather than with ACs. > > > > I don't think a player must put up with those risks. > > If the information provided is insufficient, obviously incomplete, false, or anything > > like that, the player is perfectly entitled to squeeze out every little bit of information > > with additional questions. > > With incompetent directors a player is subject to all kinds of risks. > > He should never be ruled against on "failure to protect himself" if there > can be any doubt on this question. I agree, but I also expect that it won't be long until another such ruling comes up for discussion :-( > If the Director understands law 40B6 a player should never have to ask > additional questions except when he does not understand the explanation > received. Maybe I should add a non-complex example. I open 1NT. LHO overcalls 2S, showing 5+ spades 4+ diamonds. This is explained as 5+ spades 4+ diamonds. When explaining, opponents using this method virtually never volunteer whether with exactly six spades and exactly four diamonds they will typically choose 2S or 2D (the latter showing a one-suited hand in one major). Yet, knowing whether overcaller likely holds exactly five spades, or might easily hold six spades, is vital both in the bidding, and later in case we end up defending a spade contract. In my book, we simply always ask what they bid with exactly six spades and four diamonds. In the approach you outlined above, we do not ask extra questions, but rely on the TD to sort this out later. I prefer my approach. Easy, and one less headache for the TD. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 29 00:39:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:39:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <449099839.1288299635142.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >Maybe I should add a non-complex example. > >I open 1NT. LHO overcalls 2S, showing 5+ spades 4+ diamonds. >This is explained as 5+ spades 4+ diamonds. When explaining, >opponents using this method virtually never volunteer whether >with exactly six spades and exactly four diamonds they will >typically choose 2S or 2D (the latter showing a one-suited >hand in one major). Yet, knowing whether overcaller likely >holds exactly five spades, or might easily hold six spades, >is vital both in the bidding, and later in case we end up >defending a spade contract. > >In my book, we simply always ask what they bid with exactly >six spades and four diamonds. Law 20F1, penultimate sentence: "The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play." Richard Hills: This implies that supplementary questions are legal if asked at the appropriate time. Thomas Dehn: >In the approach you outlined above, we do not ask extra >questions, but rely on the TD to sort this out later. > >I prefer my approach. Easy, and one less headache for the TD. Richard Hills: So in the original stem case, a Doubting Thomas would ask -> Opening leader: "Could you explain your entire auction?" Declarer: "Yada yada. 4NT = Spiral scan: asks for spade king. 5C = No spade king. 6C = Signoff." Opening leader: "Does 4NT ask only for the spade king, or is it possibly the first step in a series of asks, analogous to 4NT Blackwood asking for aces possibly being the first step towards 5NT asking for kings?" Declarer: "Sorry. 4NT = Spiral scan: initially asks for spade king, but possible subsequent spiral scan asks spiral into other suits, from longest to shortest, with ties broken by suit ranks." Richard Hills: In the original stem case, one defender did not ask a Doubting Thomas supplementary question. But this is one of the unfair advantages of a complex relay system; defenders often do not know which question to ask. So the Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) partnership is very proactive in volunteering positive and negative inferences before the opening lead against our relayed contracts. Law 73E - Deception "A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience)." Richard Hills: Paul Lamford quoted only the first (non-bracketed) part of Law 73E to conclude that the table North-South were not entitled to compensation (i.e. South assumed at her own risk that the 4NT ask implied North, rather than East, held the spade king and hence North could not ruff the second round of spades). But the Law 73E bracketed word "concealed" is the key issue. Table Director, David Stevenson, ruling on Law 73E "concealed": "Misinformation of 4NT: No. No reason to describe as prelude to further ask (compare Blackwood)." Richard Hills: On this I disagree. The two-step 4NT then 5NT Blackwood is logically different to a one-step Culbertson Asking Bid, so as TD I would rule MI, and as TD I would adjust the score to some percentage of 6C failing (perhaps 100%, since continuing with a spade when in with the king of trumps can never lose, and might gain). 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 Fri Oct 29 01:31:31 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:31:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not following her own mistaken explanation Message-ID: North held KJxxx xx xxx Kxx The auction was 1C P P 2H P ? North described the 2H bid as weak. That would be typical for here. North then bid 2S. Over South's 3H rebid, North bid 4H. 4H makes because South has 21 HCP. East wonder if they deserve protection. The club manager thought yes. I can rule mistaken explanation, but I don't think EW were damaged by that. South has UI. I can possibly look at the 3H bid, but I suspect I won't get too far. The really suspicious action was taken by North. However, in theory, North does not have any UI. NS are two old ladies that seem nice. Should I be taking action against North? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 29 06:26:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:26:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Not following her own mistaken explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >North held > >KJxxx >xx >xxx >Kxx > >The auction was > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C Pass Pass 2H >Pass 2S Pass 3H >Pass 4H Pass Pass >Pass > >North described the 2H bid as weak. That would be typical for here. >North then bid 2S. Over South's 3H rebid, North bid 4H. 4H makes >because South has 21 HCP. [snip] >South has UI. I can possibly look at the 3H bid, but I suspect I >won't get too far. The really suspicious action was taken by >North. However, in theory, North does not have any UI. NS are two >old ladies that seem nice. Should I be taking action against North? Richard Hills: This is why Law 85A1 concludes with "the weight of the evidence he is able to collect". Instead of immediately taking punitive action against North due to abstract theorising, why not first collect weightier evidence by asking North for an explanation? Samuel Butler (1835-1902), English novelist: "An apology for the Devil: It must be remembered that we have heard only one side of the case. God has written all the books." Richard Hills: It is possible that the Little Old Lady North meant to describe the fourth seat jump overcall of 2H as "strong", but unintentionally enunciated the word "weak", not noticing her error until the end of the deal when the brouhaha erupted. In this case the LOL North is technically guilty of MI, but it is possible that East-West were not in any way damaged by the MI. If so, no damage means no adjusted score (although a cruel TD could apply a Law 90 PP to the LOLs). It is possible that the LOL North has been indoctrinated with the Eleventh Commandment, "When partner bids, you must respond when holding six or more high card points". And it is possible that the LOL South has been indoctrinated with the Chameleon System, "If I hold these particular cards, they must be described by the call I select", so the LOL South consequently changes her belief about the meaning of a 2H jump overcall depending upon the cards she holds at the time. If this second scenario is true, North and South are merely guilty of unintentional bad bidding, which is not unLawful. Grattan Endicott, May 2004: +=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says "It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". David Stevenson, May 2004: Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my partners and team-mates. 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 Oct 29 07:33:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:33:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence - off-topic relay methods [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CC9521D.7080908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >And BTW when playing relay scans, not beginning the relays is a >signoff, thus you have to begin with the void enquiry - compare >with bidding 4NT then 5NT when holding all aces. Richard Hills: Alain's "you have to" is a huge overbid, since different relay systems have different methods of signing off in the desired contract. In many Aussie relay systems, if the relayer bids 3NT then that is non-forcing. Responder is only permitted to bid over 3NT if responder has undisclosed strength and/or undisclosed shape. In some Aussie relay systems a bid of 4D by the relayer is the End Signal. Responder is required to bid 4H and then pass a subsequent bid by the relayer (if any). Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) has the inefficient but effective (very easy to remember) method that any break in the relay is natural but non-forcing. A redouble by the relayer is a break in the relay, since after a double a pass is the relay. So I have happy memories of declaring 2Sxx with a singleton queen of trumps after LHO perpetrated a lead- directing double of my artificial 2S. LHO held six trumps, but so did pard. +1240, a useful score at imps. 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 Oct 29 07:49:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:49:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ECats - WBF CoP & WBFLC minutes 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/ 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 Oct 29 08:10:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:10:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CC95964.7090406@ripe.net> Message-ID: >(And if declarer played correctly, then where is the problem?). > >Henk Declarer played incorrectly, presumably spending too many brain cells on the complex relay auction instead. One of the very elite Aussie internationals, Arjuna De Livera, saves huge amount of brain cells in defence, since almost all of his defensive signals (following suit or discards) are old- fashioned natural present count. Arjuna's signals have the secondary advantage of being easy to perform in tempo, thus leaving his partner unconstrained in choice amongst logical alternatives. 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 Oct 29 12:47:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:47:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not following her own mistaken explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CCAA629.5030301@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/10/2010 1:31, Robert Frick a ?crit : > North held > > KJxxx > xx > xxx > Kxx > > The auction was > > 1C P P 2H > P ? > > North described the 2H bid as weak. That would be typical for here. North > then bid 2S. Over South's 3H rebid, North bid 4H. 4H makes because South > has 21 HCP. > > East wonder if they deserve protection. The club manager thought yes. > > I can rule mistaken explanation, but I don't think EW were damaged by > that. South has UI. I can possibly look at the 3H bid, but I suspect I > won't get too far. The really suspicious action was taken by North. > However, in theory, North does not have any UI. NS are two old ladies that > seem nice. Should I be taking action against North? AG : should one take any action against a player who gave MI that didn't affect oppnents' actions ? I think a warning should be enough in this case. Should one take any action aginst a player who bid in an insane way ? No, unless you're willing to triple your amount of work. And it is obvious that, by bidding only 3H, South didn't make any use of UI. In fact, her 3H bid is so strange that I suspect they are foreigners and don't know what "weak" means. The whole bidding is consistent with "strong". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 29 12:51:24 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:51:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rule of Coincidence - off-topic relay methods [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CCAA72C.8060708@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/10/2010 7:33, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >> And BTW when playing relay scans, not beginning the relays is a >> signoff, thus you have to begin with the void enquiry - compare >> with bidding 4NT then 5NT when holding all aces. > Richard Hills: > > Alain's "you have to" is a huge overbid, since different relay > systems have different methods of signing off in the desired > contract. > > In many Aussie relay systems, if the relayer bids 3NT then that > is non-forcing. Responder is only permitted to bid over 3NT if > responder has undisclosed strength and/or undisclosed shape. > > In some Aussie relay systems a bid of 4D by the relayer is the > End Signal. Responder is required to bid 4H and then pass a > subsequent bid by the relayer (if any). > > Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) has the > inefficient but effective (very easy to remember) method that > any break in the relay is natural but non-forcing. A redouble > by the relayer is a break in the relay, since after a double a > pass is the relay. So I have happy memories of declaring 2Sxx > with a singleton queen of trumps after LHO perpetrated a lead- > directing double of my artificial 2S. LHO held six trumps, but > so did pard. +1240, a useful score at imps. AG : yes, it happened to me too. Partner only held 5 spades, but they were behind the double (1C p 2S = any 3-suited 11-13) It seems that in Symmetric Relay, using the SK enquiry is necessary if you want to know about other kings.This shows how absurd it is to declare it unlawful. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 30 16:11:09 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 10:11:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not following her own mistaken explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:26:57 -0400, wrote: > > > Robert Frick: > >> North held >> >> KJxxx >> xx >> xxx >> Kxx >> >> The auction was >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1C Pass Pass 2H >> Pass 2S Pass 3H >> Pass 4H Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> North described the 2H bid as weak. That would be typical for here. >> North then bid 2S. Over South's 3H rebid, North bid 4H. 4H makes >> because South has 21 HCP. > > [snip] > >> South has UI. I can possibly look at the 3H bid, but I suspect I >> won't get too far. The really suspicious action was taken by >> North. However, in theory, North does not have any UI. NS are two >> old ladies that seem nice. Should I be taking action against North? > > Richard Hills: > > This is why Law 85A1 concludes with "the weight of the evidence he > is able to collect". Instead of immediately taking punitive action > against North due to abstract theorising, why not first collect > weightier evidence by asking North for an explanation? > > Samuel Butler (1835-1902), English novelist: > > "An apology for the Devil: It must be remembered that we have heard > only one side of the case. God has written all the books." > > Richard Hills: > > It is possible that the Little Old Lady North meant to describe the > fourth seat jump overcall of 2H as "strong", but unintentionally > enunciated the word "weak", not noticing her error until the end of > the deal when the brouhaha erupted. In this case the LOL North is > technically guilty of MI, but it is possible that East-West were not > in any way damaged by the MI. If so, no damage means no adjusted > score (although a cruel TD could apply a Law 90 PP to the LOLs). > > It is possible that the LOL North has been indoctrinated with the > Eleventh Commandment, "When partner bids, you must respond when > holding six or more high card points". And it is possible that the > LOL South has been indoctrinated with the Chameleon System, "If I > hold these particular cards, they must be described by the call I > select", so the LOL South consequently changes her belief about the > meaning of a 2H jump overcall depending upon the cards she holds at > the time. If this second scenario is true, North and South are > merely guilty of unintentional bad bidding, which is not unLawful. > > Grattan Endicott, May 2004: > > +=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I recall, a > regulation in any competition that actually says "It is forbidden > to play inferior bridge". > > David Stevenson, May 2004: > > Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my partners > and team-mates. > Hi Richard. In this particular case, EW approached me afterwards, and it would not have been easy to interrogate North. So I had to think if I would get any useful information from that. Both of your scenarios lead to no adjustment, which is how I ruled. The only way an interrogation could change that ruling, as far as I could see, would be if North admitted that she South's emotional reaction to her wrong explanation and that made her think South was actually strong. Then I guess I could punish her for being honest and naive. But, following this logic, just to go interrogate her implies that I thought maybe she was cheating. Which it is a kind of natural thing to think on this auction, but definitely not an impression I want to create if she wasn't. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 30 16:52:42 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 10:52:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: LHO is on lead. RHO has a penalty card. You, as declarer, decide to let LHO lead whatever he wants (and the card to remain a penalty card). Before LHO leads, the opponents correct an unestablished revoke. If they had not revoked, you would have made a different decision about LHO's lead. Do you get any protection? I think there is a simple, fair, and relatively lawful answer to this. When an unestablished revoke is corrected, the *action* is rolled back to the point of the corrected revoke and the NOS are allowed to change any *actions* they have taken after that point. I can't see how this is not fair. We allow the NOS to change any plays they have made. Why not other legal actions? If we allow them to change some legal actions and not others, the law is VERY complicated, impossible to interpret just reading the laws, and ambiguous in the unstated positions (like the above). As for lawful, it seems relatively easy to document that the laws do not carefully differentiate "calls and plays" and "legal actions". The obvious example is that the laws say I can ask for an explanation of the opponent's bid only when it is my turn to call or play. However, I almost certainly should have access to that information whenever it is my turn to act, and I doubt any director would rule differently. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 30 17:04:48 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:04:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ECats - WBF CoP & WBFLC minutes 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:49:03 -0400, wrote: > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/ > > Thanks for posting this. I have suggested that the agenda for the WBFLC be posted in advance to allow for public commentary. This would allow more informed votes by committee members and the correction of errors the public might noticed. Most importantly, it would also set up a method for allowing public commentary on the next revision of the laws. Of course, it is possible that public commentary is not worthwhile. I doubt this is true. (For example, would the revision of L20F1 have been made in it's present form if everyone realized it applied to insufficient bids?) AND, the WBFLC will never know if public commentary is useful until they try it. They will never know the best way to elicit and use public commentary until they try to use it and fix problems. Just so you know -- my main goal in criticizing (finding every possible error I can) is to change how things are done. From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 30 18:39:17 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:39:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000401cb7851$00296cb0$007c4610$@no> Please let us get this clear: After declarer has decided that LHO may lead any card, but before that lead is made by LHO: Either A: LHO, or B: RHO says "Oh, I revoked in the last trick" (or words to that effect). What happens now is that the revoke must be corrected and the revoke card becomes another major penalty card. Then, unless the revoke card was the last card played to the trick the next card played to the trick (A: by dummy or B: by declarer as the case may be) may be withdrawn and replaced by a different (legal) card to the trick, and if that replacement is made then (and only then) may a card (if any) subsequently played to that trick by the other defender also be retracted and replaced. In case A LHO now has a penalty card on his own that he must lead if he still has the lead to the next trick. In case B RHO now has two penalty cards and declarer's choice for the play by LHO when LHO shall play a card must be made again under different circumstances. Declarer's original choice is obviously now void. Is there any problem still remaining in your case? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: 30. oktober 2010 16:53 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 > > LHO is on lead. RHO has a penalty card. You, as declarer, decide to let LHO lead > whatever he wants (and the card to remain a penalty card). Before LHO leads, the > opponents correct an unestablished revoke. > > If they had not revoked, you would have made a different decision about LHO's > lead. Do you get any protection? > > I think there is a simple, fair, and relatively lawful answer to this. > When an unestablished revoke is corrected, the *action* is rolled back to the point > of the corrected revoke and the NOS are allowed to change any > *actions* they have taken after that point. > > I can't see how this is not fair. We allow the NOS to change any plays they have > made. Why not other legal actions? > > If we allow them to change some legal actions and not others, the law is VERY > complicated, impossible to interpret just reading the laws, and ambiguous in the > unstated positions (like the above). > > As for lawful, it seems relatively easy to document that the laws do not carefully > differentiate "calls and plays" and "legal actions". The obvious example is that the > laws say I can ask for an explanation of the opponent's bid only when it is my turn > to call or play. However, I almost certainly should have access to that information > whenever it is my turn to act, and I doubt any director would rule differently. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 30 20:12:12 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 10:12:12 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <8A844410EE664989BE8D544F4D00D7F3@MARVLAPTOP> Richard, you wrote last February: "The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction **only**." Adam Wildavsky asked: >What is "the normal consequence of its infraction"? Richard Hills answers: It is usual for the infraction of Hesitation Blackwood to benefit the offending side, permitting them to score +1430, when a non- suggested logical alternative would instead score +680. In those usual Hesitation Blackwood cases "the normal consequence of its infraction" means that the offending side's score is adjusted back to +680. But occasionally the infraction of Hesitation Blackwood causes the offending side to shoot themselves in the foot. If the partner of the hesitator had avoided any infraction by passing, her virtue would have been rewarded with +650. But "the normal consequence of the Hesitation Blackwood infraction" in this occasional circumstance is the poetic justice of -100, with the Hesitation Blackwood punished by the cards, not by adjustment. ########### So much for the WBFLC comments in various committee minutes that say that the "had the irregularity not occurred" language inserted by the ACBLLC for the OS is unimportant. There is a lot of difference between -100 (punishing the OS) and +650 (letting them off scot-free). Marv From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 30 20:24:37 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 10:24:37 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <8A844410EE664989BE8D544F4D00D7F3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <7D70BA8DE1D64834BD8A41E78FC88B2F@MARVLAPTOP> Meant to be private to Richard Hills, obviously. No harm done, however. - Marv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard, you wrote last February: > > "The offending side should be awarded the score that it would > have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction **only**." > > Adam Wildavsky asked: > >>What is "the normal consequence of its infraction"? > > Richard Hills answers: > > It is usual for the infraction of Hesitation Blackwood to benefit > the offending side, permitting them to score +1430, when a non- > suggested logical alternative would instead score +680. > > In those usual Hesitation Blackwood cases "the normal consequence > of its infraction" means that the offending side's score is > adjusted back to +680. > > But occasionally the infraction of Hesitation Blackwood causes > the offending side to shoot themselves in the foot. If the > partner of the hesitator had avoided any infraction by passing, > her virtue would have been rewarded with +650. But "the normal > consequence of the Hesitation Blackwood infraction" in this > occasional circumstance is the poetic justice of -100, with the > Hesitation Blackwood punished by the cards, not by adjustment. > > ########### > > So much for the WBFLC comments in various committee minutes that > say > that the "had the irregularity not occurred" language inserted by > the ACBLLC for the OS is unimportant. There is a lot of > difference > between -100 (punishing the OS) and +650 (letting them off > scot-free). > I finished off this supposedly private e-mail by adding: However, L12C1(b) dominates L12C1(e)(ii), so -100 even in ACBL-land. Adam says the latter law dominates. There is a principle that says he is wrong, can you express it for me? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 30 19:52:00 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:52:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 In-Reply-To: <000401cb7851$00296cb0$007c4610$@no> References: <000401cb7851$00296cb0$007c4610$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:39:17 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Declarer's original choice is obviously now void. > > Is there any problem still remaining in your case? yes, just one. You are saying the if the opponents correct their unestablished revoke, my (declarer's) original choice (for what to do about the lead when RHO has a penalty card) is void. We agree that should be the ruling. So we can imagine two different laws, one saying that just subsequent plays are voided, and another saying subsequent legal actions are voided. You seem to be using the second law, right? Bob > > Regards Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of >> Robert Frick >> Sent: 30. oktober 2010 16:53 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 >> >> LHO is on lead. RHO has a penalty card. You, as declarer, decide to let > LHO lead >> whatever he wants (and the card to remain a penalty card). Before LHO > leads, the >> opponents correct an unestablished revoke. >> >> If they had not revoked, you would have made a different decision about > LHO's >> lead. Do you get any protection? >> >> I think there is a simple, fair, and relatively lawful answer to this. >> When an unestablished revoke is corrected, the *action* is rolled back >> to > the point >> of the corrected revoke and the NOS are allowed to change any >> *actions* they have taken after that point. >> >> I can't see how this is not fair. We allow the NOS to change any plays > they have >> made. Why not other legal actions? >> >> If we allow them to change some legal actions and not others, the law is > VERY >> complicated, impossible to interpret just reading the laws, and >> ambiguous > in the >> unstated positions (like the above). >> >> As for lawful, it seems relatively easy to document that the laws do not > carefully >> differentiate "calls and plays" and "legal actions". The obvious example > is that the >> laws say I can ask for an explanation of the opponent's bid only when it > is my turn >> to call or play. However, I almost certainly should have access to that > information >> whenever it is my turn to act, and I doubt any director would rule > differently. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 30 21:44:14 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:44:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 In-Reply-To: References: <000401cb7851$00296cb0$007c4610$@no> Message-ID: <000d01cb786a$d550f430$7ff2dc90$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Declarer's original choice is obviously now void. > > > > Is there any problem still remaining in your case? > > yes, just one. > > You are saying the if the opponents correct their unestablished revoke, my > (declarer's) original choice (for what to do about the lead when RHO has a penalty > card) is void. > > We agree that should be the ruling. > > So we can imagine two different laws, one saying that just subsequent plays are > voided, and another saying subsequent legal actions are voided. > > You seem to be using the second law, right? > > Bob First of all there is no "if" about a player correcting an unestablished revoke, which is compulsory. >From the above I assume that we now have the situation where RHO has two penalty cards and LHO still has the lead. The lead has not yet been made (that would in case have established the second revoke) and the situation has significantly changed from what it was when declarer made his first choice. In fact the relevant law is not even any longer Law 50D2; it has suddenly become Law 51B. Can there be any reason why we shall not let declarer issue a new restriction in view of this new situation? (And this has no relation at all to the question of withdrawing and replacing cards subsequently played after an unestablished revoke. The laws do not designate such play as "void".) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 30 23:36:36 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:36:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 In-Reply-To: <000d01cb786a$d550f430$7ff2dc90$@no> References: <000401cb7851$00296cb0$007c4610$@no> <000d01cb786a$d550f430$7ff2dc90$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:44:14 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Can there be any reason why we shall not let declarer issue a new > restriction in view of this new situation? Sounds good to me. Suppose declarer claims, the opps then correct an unestablished revoke. Can there be any reason why we shall not let declarer change or withdraw the claim on the basis of this new situation? It's a nice solution to this problem: AKJ Kx AKQJ1098 A xxxxx Ax xx Qxxx Declarer is in 6NT. The opening lead is a heart. Declarer cashes the Ace of spades, RHO showing out. Declarer claims, stating the 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. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Oct 31 00:03:11 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 00:03:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Commentary_on_Minute_10?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1PCJW3-28Yfk80@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:44:14 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > > > > Can there be any reason why we shall not let declarer issue a new > > restriction in view of this new situation? > > Sounds good to me. > > Suppose declarer claims, the opps then correct an unestablished > revoke. > Can there be any reason why we shall not let declarer change or > withdraw the claim on the basis of this new situation? > > It's a nice solution to this problem: > > AKJ > Kx > AKQJ1098 > A > > xxxxx > Ax > xx > Qxxx > > Declarer is in 6NT. The opening lead is a heart. Declarer cashes the > Ace of spades, RHO showing out. Declarer claims, stating the 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. 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.? From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 31 00:06:02 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 00:06:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Commentary on Minute 10 In-Reply-To: References: <000401cb7851$00296cb0$007c4610$@no> <000d01cb786a$d550f430$7ff2dc90$@no> Message-ID: <000e01cb787e$a4c3f830$ee4be890$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Can there be any reason why we shall not let declarer issue a new > > restriction in view of this new situation? > > Sounds good to me. > > Suppose declarer claims, the opps then correct an unestablished revoke. > Can there be any reason why we shall not let declarer change or withdraw the > claim on the basis of this new situation? > > It's a nice solution to this problem: > > AKJ > Kx > AKQJ1098 > A > > xxxxx > Ax > xx > Qxxx > > Declarer is in 6NT. The opening lead is a heart. Declarer cashes the Ace of > spades, RHO showing out. Declarer claims, stating the 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. Sure, declarer cannot be bound by his claim in this situation. I would allow him to cash the AC and all his diamonds, then enter his hand with the AH and finally play a spade to the King unless the QC is good. With the QS and KC in the same hand he shall have all thirteen tricks on a simple squeeze, twelve tricks are cold. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 31 12:16:54 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:16:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <8A844410EE664989BE8D544F4D00D7F3@MARVLAPTOP> <7D70BA8DE1D64834BD8A41E78FC88B2F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <03D7FF0AF3D54292B1A14038F22A1D7E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott In my opinion his intention that "had the irregularity not occurred" should only apply to the NOS was manifest; these words would otherwise have been placed so that they applied to both NOS and OS - and there is, of course, that significant word 'or' that perhaps I/we would have done better to retain from the 1987 and 1997 books when reformatting. The Kaplan concept has become blurred. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ................................................................. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Meant to be private to Richard Hills, obviously. No harm > done, however. - Marv > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:12 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> Richard, you wrote last February: >> >> "The offending side should be awarded the score that it would >> have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction **only**." >> >> Adam Wildavsky asked: >> >>>What is "the normal consequence of its infraction"? >> >> Richard Hills answers: >> >> It is usual for the infraction of Hesitation Blackwood to benefit >> the offending side, permitting them to score +1430, when a non- >> suggested logical alternative would instead score +680. >> >> In those usual Hesitation Blackwood cases "the normal consequence >> of its infraction" means that the offending side's score is >> adjusted back to +680. >> >> But occasionally the infraction of Hesitation Blackwood causes >> the offending side to shoot themselves in the foot. If the >> partner of the hesitator had avoided any infraction by passing, >> her virtue would have been rewarded with +650. But "the normal >> consequence of the Hesitation Blackwood infraction" in this >> occasional circumstance is the poetic justice of -100, with the >> Hesitation Blackwood punished by the cards, not by adjustment. >> >> ########### >> >> So much for the WBFLC comments in various committee minutes that >> say >> that the "had the irregularity not occurred" language inserted by >> the ACBLLC for the OS is unimportant. There is a lot of >> difference >> between -100 (punishing the OS) and +650 (letting them off >> scot-free). >> > I finished off this supposedly private e-mail by adding: > > However, L12C1(b) dominates L12C1(e)(ii), so -100 even in ACBL-land. > Adam says the latter law dominates. There is a principle that says > he is wrong, can you express it for me? > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101031/56810a94/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 31 23:01:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 09:01:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ECats - WBF CoP & WBFLC minutes 2010 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >I have suggested that the agenda for the WBFLC be posted in >advance to allow for public commentary. This would allow more >informed votes by committee members and the correction of errors >the public might noticed. Richard Hills: By its very nature an agenda cannot have errors. (All agendas include the item "Other Business".) Plus public comments on blml often cause specific WBF LC agenda items. Minutes may have errors, and the WBF LC minutes are indeed posted for public edification and commentary. What's the problem? Robert Frick: >Most importantly, it would also set up a method for allowing >public commentary on the next revision of the laws. > >Of course, it is possible that public commentary is not >worthwhile. I doubt this is true. Richard Hills: I have no doubt that Bob's comments make him the Cicero of blml. But the mantle of Demosthenes is shared by Grattan Endicott, Ton Kooijman and William Schoder. Adlai Stevenson (introducing John F. Kennedy in 1960): "Do you remember that in classical time when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, 'How well he spoke,' but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, they said, 'Let us march.'" Robert Frick: [snip] >Just so you know -- my main goal in criticizing (finding every >possible error I can) is to change how things are done. Richard Hills: Now that is a Cloud-Cuckoo-Land comment. Cicero's orations on alleged errors have been mostly erroneous. Best wishes Aristophanes -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------