From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 1 00:34:07 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:34:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, Appeal 12 http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) Dlr: East Vul: North-South The complete bidding and deal: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Paul Stephanie Lamford Rohan --- --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S Pass 4S X (3) Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 balanced (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit (3) Slow double - agreed 98764 A2 AJ653 A --- AT52 QT7 KJ643 KT2 874 KT76432 8 KQJ3 985 Q9 QJ95 Result at table: 4NT -4 by West, North-South +200 Casebook panellist Richard Hills comment: Julian Huxley (1887-1975): "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." Director's Cheshire cat adjustment: 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 N/S / -800 E/W 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W Appeals Committee's Cheshire cat adjustment: 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 N/S / -200 E/W 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W "Well! I've often seen a double without 4S," thought Alice; "but 4S without a double! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!" Yes, *if* West's 4NT was an infraction of Law 73C, *then* that hypothetical infraction occurred *after* East's double of 4S, *so* an undoubled 4S contract should *never* be part of the Director's nor the Appeals Committee's Law 12 rectification. EBU National Authority's comments: Should the appeal be heard? The Committee considered the four tests in the Orange Book Section 8B4 as to whether the Appeal to the National Authority could be heard. The Committee found that under clause b) there had been an error in the application of Law or Regulation. In such a case as this where a player provides partner with unauthorised information that player may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. (The 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge were in force for this case.) In this case the action that provided the unauthorised information was East's slow double. When making a ruling in a case such as this the TD and the Appeals Committee should have considered whether the 4NT bid is allowed after the slow double or not. It is not permitted under EBU regulations to allow 4NT to be bid a percentage of the time and not in others. To rule that it can be used a percentage of the time is to give what is known as a "Reveley Ruling". Consequently it was agreed to allow the appeal to be heard and the deposit was returned. The Committee's decision Having decided to hear the case, the Committee considered the matter afresh using all the information provided by the parties. Committee members were reminded that it was using the unauthorised information that was the infraction, not the creation of it. So the committee's attention was drawn to West's 4NT bid. Either the 4NT bid was permitted or it was not. No other ruling was possible. The Committee considered whether passing 4Sx constituted a logical alternative action and concluded that it was because of the percentage likelihood of 4Sx going down. Next the Committee considered how the play in 4Sx might go and concluded that declarer would always make 10 tricks, losing two spades and a heart. Consequently the board was rescored as 4Sx making 10 tricks by South although it is not intended to rescore the match result. 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 Wed Sep 1 00:52:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:52:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Gold standard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7393F83A-EFB8-4180-9612-2664695C5CA0@starpower.net> Message-ID: Gordon Bower (March 2005): I pass. I also consider pulling two, three, or four pass cards out of my bidding box at the same time. I am not remotely close to bidding. Opposite a garden variety weak two, I would also pass, but 3H to play wouldn't be insane. 2NT would be a beginner's error. * * * Gold Coast Congress, February?2005 Matchpoint Pairs; Section H consolation final Board 13; both vul; North dealer AKT65 Q7652 J6 6 Q7 ????????????????????? 43 A93 ???????????????????? JT4 KT2????????????????????? A98754 QJT83??????????????????? 54 J982 K8 Q3 AK972 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2H(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3S Pass 4S (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an unspecified second suit (but the unspecified second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). (2) Artificial strong enquiry. DA led, 4S made 10 tricks for +620 to North-South. The Facts:?Most Aussie events use written bidding. North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then she changed the 1 to a 2. As TD, what ruling do you make? As TD, what other rulings do you consider making? 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 Wed Sep 1 01:01:01 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:01:01 +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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 1 01:19:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:19:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7CC541.70704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The complete bidding went: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- 1C Pass 1H 2D X (1) Pass Pass Pass (1) Not alerted (and not explained), misinformation under EBU rules which require low-level penalty doubles to be alerted East held: KQ987 T875 T T64 Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : it's a matter of style. > >I have a partner who believes in bailing out in >such situations, arguing that you aren't doubled >yet in 2S. > >Other partners will kill you for doing that. > >So, both pass and 2S are LAs. Richard Hills: No, for the class of player who believes in bailing out a Pass cannot be a LA. And for the class of player who kills bailer-outers a bid of 2S cannot be an LA. Only for ambivalent players is a weighted adjusted score appropriate in non-ACBL jurisdictions. The actual EBU Appeals Committee was apparently completely stacked with players who kill bailer- outers, as they gave East-West zero redress for North-South's misinformation. (At the table a bailout by East to 2S would have been much more successful than death-or-glory in 2Dx. The best that North-South could then achieve would have been to play in 3C.) 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 Wed Sep 1 03:08:51 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 01:08:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <51070.26132.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South SOUTH? ???WEST? ? ? NORTH? ???EAST ---? ? ???---? ? ???1C? ? ? ? Pass 1H? ? ? ? 2D? ? ? ? X (1)? ???Pass Pass? ? ? Pass (1) Not alerted (and not explained), misinformation ? ? under EBU rules which require low-level penalty ? ? doubles to be alerted East held: KQ987 T875 T T64 [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : it's a matter of style. I have a partner who believes in bailing out in such situations, arguing that you aren't doubled yet in 2S. Other partners will kill you for doing that. So, both pass and 2S are LAs. [Richard 2] No, for the class of player who believes in bailing out a Pass cannot be a LA. And for the class of player who kills bailer-outers a bid of 2S cannot be an LA. Only for ambivalent players is a weighted adjusted score appropriate in non-ACBL jurisdictions. The actual EBU Appeals Committee was apparently completely stacked with players who kill bailer-outers, as they gave East-West zero redress for North-South's misinformation.? (At the table a bailout by East to 2S would have been much more successful than death-or-glory in 2Dx.? The best that North-South could then achieve would have been to play in 3C.) [Nigel] IMO XX = 10, 2S = 9, P = 8, 2H = 7 I think the director and committee should allow the bailout (100%). It is again ludicrous to suggest that East should "protect himself" (i.e. stymie partner) by asking the meaning of an unalerted call. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 1 03:34:28 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 01:34:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <318900.40622.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, Appeal 12 http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) Dlr: East Vul: North-South The complete bidding and deal: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Paul Stephanie Lamford Rohan --- --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S Pass 4S X (3) Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 balanced (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit (3) Slow double - agreed 98764 A2 AJ653 A --- AT52 QT7 KJ643 KT2 874 KT76432 8 KQJ3 985 Q9 QJ95 Result at table: 4NT -4 by West, North-South +200 Casebook panellist Richard Hills comment: Julian Huxley (1887-1975): "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." Director's Cheshire cat adjustment: 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 N/S / -800 E/W 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W Appeals Committee's Cheshire cat adjustment: 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 N/S / -200 E/W 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W "Well! I've often seen a double without 4S," thought Alice; "but 4S without a double! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!" Yes, *if* West's 4NT was an infraction of Law 73C, *then* that hypothetical infraction occurred *after* East's double of 4S, *so* an undoubled 4S contract should *never* be part of the Director's nor the Appeals Committee's Law 12 rectification. EBU National Authority's comments: Should the appeal be heard? The Committee considered the four tests in the Orange Book Section 8B4 as to whether the Appeal to the National Authority could be heard. The Committee found that under clause b) there had been an error in the application of Law or Regulation. [SNIP] Consequently the board was rescored as 4Sx making 10 tricks by South although it is not intended to rescore the match result. [Nigel] Directors love weighted scores because they get less hassle. Law-breakers are usually only mildly miffed, consoling themselves that at least this infraction resulted in a small profit (and infractions can earn them a substantial long-term profit, since not all will be reported and ruled against). It is tempting to criticise the director and committee. The real culprits, however, are rule-makers who devise over-complex and over-subjective laws and regulations, incomprehensible to most players and directors. From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 1 07:00:58 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:00:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30974661.1283317258095.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, Appeal 12 > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm > > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The complete bidding and deal: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Paul Stephanie > Lamford Rohan > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S > Pass 4S X (3) Pass > 4NT Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 12-14 balanced > (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit > (3) Slow double - agreed > > 98764 > A2 > AJ653 > A > --- AT52 > QT7 KJ643 > KT2 874 > KT76432 8 > KQJ3 > 985 > Q9 > QJ95 > > Result at table: 4NT -4 by West, North-South +200 > > Casebook panellist Richard Hills comment: > > Julian Huxley (1887-1975): > > "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler > but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." > > Director's Cheshire cat adjustment: > > 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 N/S / -800 E/W > 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W > > Appeals Committee's Cheshire cat adjustment: > > 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 N/S / -200 E/W > 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W > > "Well! I've often seen a double without 4S," thought > Alice; "but 4S without a double! It's the most curious > thing I ever saw in all my life!" > > Yes, *if* West's 4NT was an infraction of Law 73C, > *then* that hypothetical infraction occurred *after* > East's double of 4S, *so* an undoubled 4S contract > should *never* be part of the Director's nor the Appeals > Committee's Law 12 rectification. Disgusting. How is it even possible that 4S undoubled becomes part of the ruling??? Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 1 07:36:13 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:36:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Gold standard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <23342507.1283319373306.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Gordon Bower (March 2005): > > I pass. I also consider pulling two, three, or four pass > cards out of my bidding box at the same time. I am not > remotely close to bidding. > > Opposite a garden variety weak two, I would also pass, but 3H > to play wouldn't be insane. 2NT would be a beginner's error. > > * * * > > Gold Coast Congress, February?2005 > Matchpoint Pairs; > Section H consolation final > Board 13; both vul; North dealer > > AKT65 > Q7652 > J6 > 6 > Q7 ????????????????????? 43 > A93 ???????????????????? JT4 > KT2????????????????????? A98754 > QJT83??????????????????? 54 > J982 > K8 > Q3 > AK972 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2H(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3S Pass 4S > > (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an > unspecified second suit (but the unspecified > second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). > (2) Artificial strong enquiry. > > DA led, 4S made 10 tricks for +620 to North-South. > > The Facts:?Most Aussie events use written bidding. > North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept > her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then > she changed the 1 to a 2. > > As TD, what ruling do you make? S selected a 2NT bid suggested by the UI, a bid which he probably would not have made absent the UI. N/S get a PP of at least half a board for flagrant use of UI. Score adjusted for both sides to 2H making three, N/S +140. > As TD, what other rulings do you consider making? I am trying to come up with some creative solution to give N/S a worse score. Unfortunately, I can find no reasonable line of play that kills 4S. That would have been nice, adjust N/S's score to 4S down one as the worst result that was at all likely. Only I can't. I consider adjusting N/S's result to 3D E/W down one, N/S+100. Looks like too much of a stretch, unfortunately, but I consider it. What is W's 2NT in the balancing position? Maybe I could adjust to 2NT made by W (small S lead from AKTxx)? I am not familiar with the implications of Aussie written bidding Was N's change of bid from 1H to 2H legal? Maybe I can disallow that? Wouldn't you consider 3NT with S's hand after a 1H opener by N? ;-) Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 1 07:43:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:43:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <30974661.1283317258095.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn asked: >>Disgusting. >>How is it even possible that 4S undoubled becomes part >of the ruling??? Nigel Guthrie answered: [snip] >It is tempting to criticise the director and committee. >The real culprits, however, are rule-makers who devise >over-complex and over-subjective laws and regulations, >incomprehensible to most players and directors. Richard Hills: Yes, this case was decided under the incomprehensible 1997 Lawbook, with the relevant Law being the extremely incomprehensible 1997 Law 12C3: "Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." Richard Hills: So the Director and the Appeals Committee naturally thought that they had untrammelled power to assign any score or scores whatsoever, as long as what they defined as "equity" was achieved. But the 2007 Lawbook is much more comprehensible than the 1997 Lawbook. Not only has the old incomprehensible 1997 Law 12C3 been abolished, but a new comprehensible 2007 Law 12B1 (which defines the objective of score adjustment, and also defines the nature of damage) has been inserted. What's the problem? The problem is the oft-repeated Guthrie assertion, "The real culprits are rule-makers". Nigel Guthrie instead should have said, "The real heroes are the Drafting Committee for the 2007 Lawbook. Key members of the Drafting Committee sifted through a decade of dross on blml to discover a few golden nuggets. Almost every 1997 Law was improved in some way in the 2007 Lawbook." One simple example. Kojak's idea of differentiating between "penalty" and "rectification" has made the 2007 Lawbook much more comprehensible to grass-roots TDs than the 1997 Lawbook ever was. 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 Wed Sep 1 08:45:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:45:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Gold standard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <23342507.1283319373306.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: >>The Facts:?Most Aussie events use written bidding. >>North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept >>her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then >>she changed the 1 to a 2. Thomas Dehn: >I am not familiar with the implications of Aussie >written bidding. Was N's change of bid from 1H to 2H >legal? Maybe I can disallow that? Wouldn't you >consider 3NT with S's hand after a 1H opener by N? ;-) ABF Written Bidding Regulation, clause 2.6: A call is not made until the player has written the appropriate numeral, if necessary, with the appropriate symbol. Each call should be written in the next vacant box working from left to right of that player's segment of the bidding slip. The symbols are: C for clubs D for diamonds H for hearts S for spades NT for no trumps The numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 / for pass Either / or // for the concluding pass of the auction X for double XX for redouble Richard Hills: So yes, it is irrelevant that North did not remove her pen from the bidding pad. Once both the numeral 1 and the letter H were visible, 1H was the bid and the subsequent change to 2H was a Law 25B infraction. However, East-West did not summon the Director until the end of play. While the timing of this summoning was appropriate for the purposes of Law 16B, it seems to me that this end-of-play summoning was much too late for the purposes of Law 25B. Law 11A - Forfeiture of the Right to Rectification: "The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, _for example_, when the non- offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." Richard Hills: Off-topic note to Nigel Guthrie: An ambiguity in the 1997 version of Law 11A was remedied when the Drafting Committee inserted the words "for example" into the 2007 version of Law 11A. Many a mickle makes a muckle. :-) :-) 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 1 09:43:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:43:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9399851.1283271323607.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <9399851.1283271323607.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4C7E040B.7080900@ulb.ac.be> Le 31/08/2010 18:15, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) >> Dlr: East >> Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Paul Stephanie >> Lamford Rohan >> --- --- Pass Pass >> 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S >> Pass 4S X Pass >> ? >> >> (1) 12-14 balanced >> (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit >> >> You, West, hold: >> >> --- >> QT7 >> KT2 >> KT76432 >> >> What call do you make? > I order a drink for partner. That's surely the best answer yet given to this problem. However, L72D and L74A disallow shouting, be it for drinks. >> What other calls do you consider making? > pass, 5C, suicide Notice that the bigicide (murder of a pair) will surely happen whatever your choice.. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 1 09:56:22 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:56:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7E0726.90703@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/09/2010 0:34, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, Appeal 12 > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm > > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The complete bidding and deal: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Paul Stephanie > Lamford Rohan > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S > Pass 4S X (3) Pass > 4NT Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 12-14 balanced > (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit > (3) Slow double - agreed > > 98764 > A2 > AJ653 > A > --- AT52 > QT7 KJ643 > KT2 874 > KT76432 8 > KQJ3 > 985 > Q9 > QJ95 > > Result at table: 4NT -4 by West, North-South +200 > > Casebook panellist Richard Hills comment: > > Julian Huxley (1887-1975): > > "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler > but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." > > Director's Cheshire cat adjustment: > > 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 N/S / -800 E/W > 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W > > Appeals Committee's Cheshire cat adjustment: > > 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 N/S / -200 E/W > 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W > > "Well! I've often seen a double without 4S," thought > Alice; "but 4S without a double! It's the most curious > thing I ever saw in all my life!" AG : neither did I. Really, this isn't a complex case. Either you consider that it is obvious to pull, and in that case you must score the board as the table result. Or you consider that it isn't, and you score the board as 4S, making, with the possibility of a split score of 4SX+1 to EW (the worst result that was at all probable). I consider it fairly close, as passing was mentioned by some voters, but never chosen. But considering contracts that weren't reached at the table and that couldn't be reached if West had had to use the LA of passing is totally insane. Apart from suicide and bigicide, perhaps one might consider triumviraticide (murder of a three-person committee). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 1 10:03:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:03:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51070.26132.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <51070.26132.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C7E08DD.8060809@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/09/2010 3:08, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- 1C Pass > 1H 2D X (1) Pass > Pass Pass > (1) Not alerted (and not explained), misinformation > under EBU rules which require low-level penalty > doubles to be alerted AG : I beg your pardon, Sir. Must I alert 1C X XX 1S X as being penalty ? And if my Dbl of 1S is for takeout (because XX is artificial), am I allowed to non-alert it ? That seems strange (or worse), but I admit it's not relevant here. > East held: KQ987 T875 T T64 > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > AG : it's a matter of style. I have a partner who believes in bailing out in such situations, arguing that you aren't doubled yet in 2S. Other partners will kill you for doing that. So, both pass and 2S are LAs. > > [Richard 2] > No, for the class of player who believes in bailing out a Pass cannot be a LA. And for the class of player who kills bailer-outers a bid of 2S cannot be an LA. AG : you're right, but you'll find it difficult to ascertain East's membership. > Only for ambivalent players is a weighted adjusted score appropriate in non-ACBL jurisdictions. > The actual EBU Appeals Committee was apparently completely stacked with players who kill bailer-outers, as they gave East-West zero redress for > North-South's misinformation. (At the table a bailout by East to 2S would have been much more successful than death-or-glory in 2Dx. The best > that North-South could then achieve would have been to play in 3C.) > > [Nigel] > IMO XX = 10, 2S = 9, P = 8, 2H = 7 > I think the director and committee should allow the bailout (100%). It is again ludicrous to suggest that East should "protect himself" (i.e. stymie partner) by asking the meaning of an unalerted call. AG : agree, but ISTM you're allowing the bailout not because it's obvious, but because it was a possibility at the table, giving E the benefit of doubt ; but isn't that exactly the same as my statement that both pass and 2S are LAs ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 1 10:09:06 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:09:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Gold standard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <23342507.1283319373306.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <23342507.1283319373306.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C7E0A22.4010202@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/09/2010 7:36, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Gordon Bower (March 2005): >> >> I pass. I also consider pulling two, three, or four pass >> cards out of my bidding box at the same time. I am not >> remotely close to bidding. >> >> Opposite a garden variety weak two, I would also pass, but 3H >> to play wouldn't be insane. 2NT would be a beginner's error. >> >> * * * >> >> Gold Coast Congress, February 2005 >> Matchpoint Pairs; >> Section H consolation final >> Board 13; both vul; North dealer >> >> AKT65 >> Q7652 >> J6 >> 6 >> Q7 43 >> A93 JT4 >> KT2 A98754 >> QJT83 54 >> J982 >> K8 >> Q3 >> AK972 >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 2H(1) Pass 2NT(2) >> Pass 3S Pass 4S >> >> (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an >> unspecified second suit (but the unspecified >> second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). >> (2) Artificial strong enquiry. >> >> DA led, 4S made 10 tricks for +620 to North-South. >> >> The Facts: Most Aussie events use written bidding. >> North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept >> her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then >> she changed the 1 to a 2. >> >> As TD, what ruling do you make? > S selected a 2NT bid suggested by the UI, a bid which > he probably would not have made absent the UI. > N/S get a PP of at least half a board for flagrant use of UI. > > Score adjusted for both sides to 2H making three, N/S +140. > >> As TD, what other rulings do you consider making? > I am trying to come up with some creative solution to give > N/S a worse score. > > Unfortunately, I can find no reasonable line of play that kills > 4S. That would have been nice, adjust N/S's score to 4S down one as > the worst result that was at all likely. Only I can't. AG : sorry, but not only you can't, you also may not. In fact, you're considering a result that couldn't be obtained absent the infraction and wasn't obtained with it. You're falling into the same trap that's described in the other current thread. BTW, I find it strange that North's first option was 1H, rather than 1S. So, could it be that he made a /lapsus calami/, in which case there isn't any UI ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100901/55137d3a/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 1 10:13:33 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:13:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7E0B2D.2080004@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > T > Nigel Guthrie answered: > > [snip] > >> It is tempting to criticise the director and committee. >> The real culprits, however, are rule-makers who devise >> over-complex and over-subjective laws and regulations, >> incomprehensible to most players and directors. > Richard Hills: > > Yes, this case was decided under the incomprehensible > 1997 Lawbook, with the relevant Law being the extremely > incomprehensible 1997 Law 12C3: > > "Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an > appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score > in order to do equity." > > Richard Hills: > > So the Director and the Appeals Committee naturally > thought that they had untrammelled power to assign any > score or scores whatsoever, as long as what they defined > as "equity" was achieved. > > But the 2007 Lawbook is much more comprehensible than > the 1997 Lawbook. Not only has the old incomprehensible > 1997 Law 12C3 been abolished, but a new comprehensible > 2007 Law 12B1 (which defines the objective of score > adjustment, and also defines the nature of damage) has > been inserted. > > What's the problem? > > The problem is the oft-repeated Guthrie assertion, "The > real culprits are rule-makers". Nigel Guthrie instead > should have said, "The real heroes are the Drafting > Committee for the 2007 Lawbook. Key members of the > Drafting Committee sifted through a decade of dross on > blml to discover a few golden nuggets. Almost every > 1997 Law was improved in some way in the 2007 Lawbook." AG : agree with Richard here. The fact that you may not take into account a result that had 0% probability to happen (because it was too late for it to happen) is IOTTMCO, rather than laws-dependent ; however, what goes without saying goes best once said, and the 2007 FLB has helped us on that way. Best regards Alain From henk at ripe.net Wed Sep 1 10:18:56 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:18:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201009010818.o818IutG024642@dog.ripe.net> #!/bin/tcsh -fx cd /home/henk/stats ./monthly.pl > stats/`./yesterdate.pl`.txt ./monthly.pl | /usr/bin/mail -s "BLML Usage statistics" blml at rtflb.org From henk at ripe.net Wed Sep 1 10:21:11 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:21:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201009010821.o818LBKN024725@dog.ripe.net> From henk at ripe.net Wed Sep 1 10:21:21 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:21:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201009010821.o818LL6B024733@dog.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for August 2010 Posts From ----- ---- 48 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 40 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 38 ehaa (at) starpower.net 27 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 25 blml (at) arcor.de 23 svenpran (at) online.no 19 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 18 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 17 swillner (at) nhcc.net 17 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 14 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 9 hirsch9000 (at) gmail.com 9 bridge (at) vwalther.de 6 sater (at) xs4all.nl 6 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 5 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 5 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 4 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 4 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 4 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 4 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au 3 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 3 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 3 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 3 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 2 tedying (at) yahoo.com 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 2 B.Schelen (at) Claranet.NL 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 1 tsvecfob (at) iol.ie 1 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com 1 schoderb (at) msn.com 1 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 1 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 1 mustikka (at) charter.net 1 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 cibor (at) poczta.fm 1 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com From henk at ripe.net Wed Sep 1 10:24:56 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:24:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: <201009010821.o818LL6B024733@dog.ripe.net> References: <201009010821.o818LL6B024733@dog.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C7E0DD8.8070607@ripe.net> On 01/09/2010 10:21, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > BLML usage statistics for August 2010 Got it right the 3rd time, next month I'll get coffee before trying to do this. Henk > > Posts From > ----- ---- > 48 agot (at) ulb.ac.be > 40 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au > 38 ehaa (at) starpower.net > 27 rfrick (at) rfrick.info > 25 blml (at) arcor.de > 23 svenpran (at) online.no > 19 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk > 18 jfusselman (at) gmail.com > 17 swillner (at) nhcc.net > 17 Hermandw (at) skynet.be > 14 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de > 9 hirsch9000 (at) gmail.com > 9 bridge (at) vwalther.de > 6 sater (at) xs4all.nl > 6 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com > 5 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net > 5 axman22 (at) hotmail.com > 4 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr > 4 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk > 4 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu > 4 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au > 3 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at > 3 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com > 3 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com > 3 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au > 2 tedying (at) yahoo.com > 2 henk (at) ripe.net > 2 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com > 2 B.Schelen (at) Claranet.NL > 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de > 1 wjburrows (at) gmail.com > 1 tsvecfob (at) iol.ie > 1 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com > 1 schoderb (at) msn.com > 1 richard.willey (at) gmail.com > 1 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk > 1 mustikka (at) charter.net > 1 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com > 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr > 1 cibor (at) poczta.fm > 1 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Sep 1 10:41:11 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:41:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> Allow me to support Thomas. In my experience (more than many years) there have been numerous cases of bids not having been seen - especially with screens and bidding boxes. (And I am surprised, as is Thomas, that Eric is not familiar with either.) Sure, it is unusual for a bid not to be seen and there is generally no logical explanation for that. But that is true for a first or second or succeeding bid. To return to the original case (if I remember correctly), if I am called to the table and told that a player did not see the original opening bid I am puzzled, but believe him. Can't imagine why he didn't see it but accept that he didn't. If he doesn't see succeeding bids I am just as puzzled but would accept it as fact if he so maintains. In short, I should be very sceptical about claims to have seen a bid the second time around without being somehow reminded of it by actions of the partner. Sure he might have seen it (most probably would have) when the bidding came around to it the second time but I have know way of knowing if he did or if something else (such as partner's alert or explanation or facial expression or hesitation) called his attention to what had happened. The bidding card on the table is AI, but I can not ever be sure he recognised it without UI. JE Am 31.08.2010 23:19, schrieb Thomas Dehn: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> Live cases? Really? Using bidding boxes? >>> Yes. >>> >>>> I cannot picture a scenario in which a player, having failed to >>>> notice his RHO's opening bid at his first turn, could apprehend RHO's >>>> subsequent calls without becoming aware of the overlooked opening >>>> bid. ISTM that the mechanics of placing the bid cards would make it >>>> impossible. How did it actually happen? >>> The most common scenario is screens. Tray not pushed completely >>> through. >>> The next common scenario is doubles and redoubles (of course those >>> are not opening bids). >> I've never used bid boxes and screens, so my earlier remark wasn't >> intended to subsume that context. I would have thought that the bid >> cards were placed on the tray in the usual manner, though, so I >> wouldn't expect it to matter. > Really, you never used bid boxes and screens??? > That surprises me. Or are you pulling my leg? > > Screens are great, I prefer playing with screens, > but they have unique problems. > > One problem with screens is that there can be quite a bit of > static friction on the tray while the screen door is closed. > If you push the tray too hard, you might hit > a beverage on the other side of the screen. That is embarrassing, > thus one tries to avoid that. > > If you don't push enough, though, some bidding cards might not > be visible on the other side of the screen. How likely that > is to happen depends on the design of the screen door, some > of which come with some thick cloth that is great at blocking > the view to the other side, and at blocking sound, but increases friction substantially; > not just friction of the tray itself, but also friction on the bidding > cards on the tray. > > The player who operates the tray on the other side > is supposed to ensure that the tray has been pushed > through sufficiently, but that does not always happen. > The end result then might be one of those "two dummies" hands, and > you probably can remember that we had such threads on BLML. > > Look at this image: > http://www.fisu.net/medias/images/271109_bridge1.jpg > > Here, the tray apparently isn't pushed through completely because of all the other > stuff on player has on the table. That is another possible reason for overlooked > bids when using screens. > > > Thomas > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 1 13:52:22 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:52:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> References: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> Message-ID: <4C7E3E76.50705@skynet.be> Hello Jeff, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Allow me to support Thomas. In my experience (more than many years) > there have been numerous cases of bids not having been seen - especially > with screens and bidding boxes. (And I am surprised, as is Thomas, > that Eric is not familiar with either.) Sure, it is unusual for a bid > not to be seen and there is generally no logical explanation for that. > But that is true for a first or second or succeeding bid. To return to > the original case (if I remember correctly), if I am called to the table > and told that a player did not see the original opening bid I am > puzzled, but believe him. Can't imagine why he didn't see it but accept > that he didn't. If he doesn't see succeeding bids I am just as puzzled > but would accept it as fact if he so maintains. In short, I should be > very sceptical about claims to have seen a bid the second time around > without being somehow reminded of it by actions of the partner. Sure he > might have seen it (most probably would have) when the bidding came > around to it the second time but I have know way of knowing if he did or > if something else (such as partner's alert or explanation or facial > expression or hesitation) called his attention to what had happened. > The bidding card on the table is AI, but I can not ever be sure he > recognised it without UI. JE > I am quite convinced by Eric's argument that it is impossible to see a second bid without also seeing the one you have not seen in the previous round. Or, if not impossible, impossible to rule that this might happen. So in that sense, I will not ever rule that a player would not notice the bid the second time around. But there is another argument, not yet touched upon. Bidding boxes are just a reflection of a platonic ideal. Other reflections exist, and the laws should be equal among all. When spoken bidding is used, it is quite possible for a player not to hear a bid the first time AND not to need a repeat of the bidding the second time around. In fact, bidding cards are "memoiry aids", forbidden by L40C3a, but accepted because a player is entitled to have bids repeated. In this case however, the main reason why the player would want the bids repeated is the alert and explanation by partner. So my opinion is that, as long as bidding cards are just an aid, not an inherent part of the sport of bridge, this case must be treated as UI. I urge however, the WBF to change that view, and to make the bidding cards part of the normal procedure of bridge, which means that a player is always entitled to notice the bidding, even when there is UI available that tells him he made a mistake earlier. It would make sense. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 1 15:32:21 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:32:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C7E3E76.50705@skynet.be> References: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> <4C7E3E76.50705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001801cb49da$1b891d20$529b5760$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > But there is another argument, not yet touched upon. Bidding boxes are just a > reflection of a platonic ideal. Other reflections exist, and the laws should be equal > among all. When spoken bidding is used, it is quite possible for a player not to > hear a bid the first time AND not to need a repeat of the bidding the second time > around. In fact, bidding cards are "memoiry aids", forbidden by L40C3a, but > accepted because a player is entitled to have bids repeated. In this case however, > the main reason why the player would want the bids repeated is the alert and > explanation by partner. > > So my opinion is that, as long as bidding cards are just an aid, not an inherent > part of the sport of bridge, this case must be treated as UI. > I urge however, the WBF to change that view, and to make the bidding cards part > of the normal procedure of bridge, which means that a player is always entitled to > notice the bidding, even when there is UI available that tells him he made a > mistake earlier. It would make sense. Have you forgotten Law 18F? From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 1 17:30:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:30:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] out of order In-Reply-To: <4C7D455F.7000704@vwalther.de> References: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> <4C7D455F.7000704@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <562D212E-E8B0-43B7-A860-B1E0B80A23CE@starpower.net> On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Volker Walther wrote: > On 25.08.2010 03:32, Steve Willner wrote: > >> Consider the following: >> >> A. South, declarer and on lead, leads a card. West stops to think. >> Declarer calls for a (legal) card from dummy. East plays a card, >> West >> not having played yet. >> >> B. As above, but dummy has a singleton in the suit led and (while >> West >> is still thinking) puts it in played position without declarer saying >> anything. >> >> Is East's play legal in either case? If not, suppose the sight of >> East's card solves West's problem; would you consider adjusting >> the score? >> >> Law 57C may be relevant, but I am not at all sure it's the only >> one that is. > > What about Law 16? > > The fact that East is not subject to rectification (L57) does not tell > that the play itself is a legal play. The played card created UI that > West must not use. (L16). L57 does not tell us that West is not > subject > to rectification if he violates L16. I don't understand. If the "played card creaed UI that West must not use", what does it then mean that "West is not subject to rectification if he violates L16"? If South leads towards dummy, and while West is thinking about whether or not to play his ace declarer calls the jack from North and East plays the queen, wouldn't applying L16 mean that West was required to play his ace on his partner's queen? Isn't that exactly what L57C1 was written to preclude? If not, what is it for? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 1 17:38:41 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:38:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <3F04CB97-A070-447D-AF9F-0E47515D8598@starpower.net> On Aug 31, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> I've never used bid boxes and screens, so my earlier remark wasn't >> intended to subsume that context. I would have thought that the bid >> cards were placed on the tray in the usual manner, though, so I >> wouldn't expect it to matter. > > Really, you never used bid boxes and screens??? > That surprises me. Or are you pulling my leg? No, really. The ACBL, even today, still confines the use of screens to the late rounds of NABC+ knockouts and the finals of the other major NABC+ events, and my days of playing in NABC+ finals ended a few years before they started doing this. I did get a chance to play with screens once, when they were first being tried out, but on that occasion we used pencil-and-paper bidding; bid boxes were still something of rarity in North America then, although now they are pervasive. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 1 18:11:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 12:11:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> References: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:41 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Allow me to support Thomas. In my experience (more than many years) > there have been numerous cases of bids not having been seen - > especially > with screens and bidding boxes. (And I am surprised, as is Thomas, > that Eric is not familiar with either.) Just to set the record straight, I do play with bid boxes all the time. And I once did play with screens. But I have never used the two of them in combination. > Sure, it is unusual for a bid > not to be seen and there is generally no logical explanation for that. > But that is true for a first or second or succeeding bid. To > return to > the original case (if I remember correctly), if I am called to the > table > and told that a player did not see the original opening bid I am > puzzled, but believe him. Can't imagine why he didn't see it but > accept > that he didn't. If he doesn't see succeeding bids I am just as > puzzled > but would accept it as fact if he so maintains. Well, yes, if he didn't see any of his RHO's succeeding bids either, then there is no reason to think he has seen the first one. But you can miss seeing RHO's opening bid because you thought you were the dealer; to miss them all you'd have to have thought that bridge was a game for three players. > In short, I should be > very sceptical about claims to have seen a bid the second time around > without being somehow reminded of it by actions of the partner. > Sure he > might have seen it (most probably would have) when the bidding came > around to it the second time but I have know way of knowing if he > did or > if something else (such as partner's alert or explanation or facial > expression or hesitation) called his attention to what had happened. > The bidding card on the table is AI, but I can not ever be sure he > recognised it without UI. When the bidding came around to him the second time -- I'm talking about my familiar mode of play, with bid boxes but without screens -- his attention will have been called to RHO's opening bid by RHO's mechanical act of placing his second bid card (stack) on top of the first, offset so that the earlier bid remains clearly visible. Regardless of anything his partner may do, the necessary "wake-up call" will be issued by his RHO, and would thus be authorized. Assuming he remembers that it takes four to play bridge. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 1 18:35:53 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 18:35:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <3F04CB97-A070-447D-AF9F-0E47515D8598@starpower.net> References: <3F04CB97-A070-447D-AF9F-0E47515D8598@starpower.net> <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <24453351.1283358953695.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Eric Landau > On Aug 31, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> I've never used bid boxes and screens, so my earlier remark wasn't > >> intended to subsume that context. I would have thought that the bid > >> cards were placed on the tray in the usual manner, though, so I > >> wouldn't expect it to matter. > > > > Really, you never used bid boxes and screens??? > > That surprises me. Or are you pulling my leg? > > No, really. The ACBL, even today, still confines the use of screens > to the late rounds of NABC+ knockouts and the finals of the other > major NABC+ events, and my days of playing in NABC+ finals ended a > few years before they started doing this. I did get a chance to play > with screens once, when they were first being tried out, but on that > occasion we used pencil-and-paper bidding; bid boxes were still > something of rarity in North America then, although now they are > pervasive. My hometown club (a very strongly club with multiple national and international champions) played with bidding boxes throughout in the early 1980s already. Many tournaments were with bidding boxes back then, too. By the early 1990s, we sometimes set up small expert only tournaments with just four or five tables, and if we had screens available for those, we used them. ACBL-Land is different because of the large size of those NABCs. Easier to have a tournament with screens if you just need 10 or 20 of them. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 1 21:14:48 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:14:48 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <08D0E7954FD24DF0AF5BF0553A0A8DB8@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills: > Kojak's idea of differentiating > between "penalty" and "rectification" has made the 2007 > Lawbook much more comprehensible to grass-roots TDs > than the 1997 Lawbook ever was. I can't see that this change in itself made anything more comprehensible. It catered to the LOLs who would break into tears when told by an opponent they had to pay a penalty for revoking. Now the TD can say, "No dear, it's just a rectification, not a penalty, so don't fret." We have always considered the trick(s) removed from our side because of a revoke as a penalty. Since the revoke rectification often does not redress the damage done, the word "rectification" doesn't seem appropriate. Definitions: Penalty: A penalty is of two kinds: (1) disciplinary (see Law 91) and (2) procedural (see Law 90) Penalty card: A card subject to disposition under Law 50. So that is a third meaning of "penalty." I guess they couldn't think of another name. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5416 (20100901) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 1 21:33:49 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 19:33:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7E08DD.8060809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <685058.48990.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Regards and best wishes, Nigel Guthrie 41 Hamilton Road, Glasgow G32 9QD Home 0141 573 5424 Cell 0757 862 6916 --- On Wed, 1/9/10, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Subject: Re: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Cc: "Nigel Guthrie" > Date: Wednesday, 1 September, 2010, 9:03 > ? Le 1/09/2010 3:08, Nigel > Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Richard Hills] > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: North > > Vul: North-South > > SOUTH? ???WEST? ? ? > NORTH? ???EAST > > ---? ? ???---? ? > ???1C? ? ? ? Pass > > 1H? ? ? ? 2D? ? ? > ? X (1)? ???Pass > > Pass? ? ? Pass > > (1) Not alerted (and not explained), misinformation > >? ? ? under EBU rules which require > low-level penalty > >? ? ? doubles to be alerted > AG : I beg your pardon, Sir. Must I alert? 1C X XX 1S > X as being penalty ? > And if my Dbl of 1S is for takeout (because XX is > artificial), am I > allowed to non-alert it ? > That seems strange (or worse), but I admit it's not > relevant here. > > > East held: KQ987 T875 T T64 > > [Alain Gottcheiner] It's a matter of style. I have a partner who believes in bailing out in such situations, arguing that you aren't doubled yet in 2S. Other partners will kill you for doing that. So, both pass and 2S are LAs. [Nigel] IMO XX = 10, 2S = 9, P = 8, 2H = 7 I think the director and committee should allow the bailout (100%). It is again ludicrous to suggest that East should "protect himself" (i.e. stymie partner) by asking the meaning of an unalerted call. [Alain2] Agree, but ISTM you're allowing the bailout not because it's obvious, but because it was a possibility at the table, giving E the benefit of doubt; but isn't that exactly the same as my statement that both pass and 2S are LAs ? [Nige2] I agreed with Alain :) and still agree with Alain :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 2 01:09:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:09:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Gold standard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7E0A22.4010202@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [big snip] >BTW, I find it strange that North's first option was 1H, rather >than 1S. So, could it be that he made a lapsus calami, in which >case there isn't any UI ? Richard Hills: Perhaps incorrect. Sure it is possible that North's pause for thought was North realising that 1H was an error, and should not be changed to 1S, but rather should be changed to 2H. But North's intent is irrelevant. The change of bid by North is and remains UI to South, and it is what the change of bid happens to demonstrably suggest to South which is relevant. However, Alain may be suggesting that North's pause was not a pause for thought, in which case Law 25A (Unintended Call) is relevant, the superseded 1H bid is deemed to have never existed, and thus the superseded 1H bid is not UI. 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 Sep 2 01:52:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:52:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <08D0E7954FD24DF0AF5BF0553A0A8DB8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >Definitions: > >Penalty: A penalty is of two kinds: (1) disciplinary (see Law 91) >and (2) procedural (see Law 90) > >Penalty card: A card subject to disposition under Law 50. > >So that is a third meaning of "penalty." I guess they couldn't >think of another name. Richard Hills: Not a third meaning. Just as a "logical alternative" is not necessarily logical, so a "penalty card" is not a penalty. Grattan has described "penalty card" as a traditional "term of art". Perhaps if Duplicate Bridge had been invented de novo in 2007, rather than 1925, the term of art would instead have been "rectification card". 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 Sep 2 03:03:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:03:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two declarers (was Bid not seen) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:32:21 -0400, wrote: > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> I once asked on BLML what to do about the dummy saying a lead >> was out of turn. Assuming this is done quickly, Ton suggested >> that declarer would have noticed the lead out of turn anyway >> and hence that there is no need for rectification. > > Law 45F - Dummy Indicates Card: > > After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate > any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without > instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should > be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play > continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an > adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to > declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested. > > Beijing WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008: > > Law 45F ? Mr. Kooijman's proposal that the Director should not > adjust the score if the player would have played the indicated > card anyway was agreed. Dummy is liable to a procedural > penalty. > > Robert Frick: > >> That suggests to me that the director does not have to be >> 100% certain the player would have gotten to the same >> information as suggested by the UI. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, the two cases are not analogous. I didn't mean to make an analogy. I think this is a general class of problem -- what do you do when a player's partner gives information that would likely be or become AI? I will give a fourth example. Last week, the dummy said, with three cards left and the lead in dummy, "The dummy is good." Do I rectify (protect the opponents from possible damage)? Dummy had a trump and the KQ of clubs, so it seemed likely to me that declarer would know that the ace of clubs is out. So I let play continue. The method you suggest below doesn't work for this class of problem. A logical alternative is in terms of what peers playing the same methods would do. On the first example, if you tell these peers about the 1 Cl opening bid, then bidding two hearts won't be a logical alternative; if you don't tell them about the 1 Cl opening bid, then bidding 2 hearts is probably the only logical alternative. So you don't need a poll; you just need to decide whether or not to tell them about the 1 Cl opening. You can justify leaving that information out only if you think it is UI. Which is the issue under discussion. > In the > original thread a player has already perpetrated a Law 75A > misbid and is now getting a Law 40C3(a) aid from her partner. > > But in this new discussion about Law 45F the issue is not > usually whether declarer has failed to observe a card; rather > the question is one of logical alternatives. For example, if > dummy indicates a card which executes a double squeeze, is > declarer a squeeze aficionado for whom this card is the only > logical alternative? > > > 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 -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 2 03:41:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 11:41:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan, 16th September 2008: [snip] >>A line has to be drawn somewhere between full-disclosure and >>non-disclosure. I think that if that line is drawn anywhere >>short of full disclosure, we are opening up a huge grey >>area; an area in which it will be hard for most people to >>even see where the line is. Paul Lamford, 2008 EBU Appeals Casebook panellist: >I was West on this hand, and Stefanie Rohan East. She thought >the psyche was not sufficiently exposed so ethically elected >to double. [snip} Richard Hills: East, Stefanie Rohan, was and is demonstrably ethical, as her blml post quoted above shows. But it seems to me that a pass of 4S would be an equally ethical action as Stefanie's actual double of 4S. It seems to me that Paul and Stefanie have been confused by the EBU Red Psyche regulation into believing that "fielding" is intrinsically an infraction. Not so. Not so. Not so. Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark (1876): "What I tell you three times is true." Richard Hills: While the 1997 Lawbook was desperately unclear on this topic (and it was under the 1997 Lawbook's auspices that the EBU created its Red Psyche regulation), the new Law 40C1 clearly proves that it is the undisclosed nature of an undisclosed implicit pre-existing mutual partnership understanding which is the infraction. So any subsequent "fielding" of a Law 40C1 infraction is merely evidence that the infraction exists, but avoidance of a field does not in any way cancel the Law 40C1 infraction. Of course, I am speaking in general terms. I am definitely _not_ suggesting that Paul's 1NT opening infracted Law 40C1. 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 Sep 2 06:27:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:27:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7E0B2D.2080004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >The fact that you may not take into account a result that had 0% >probability to happen (because it was too late for it to happen) >is IOTTMCO, rather than laws-dependent ; however, what goes >without saying goes best once said, and the 2007 FLB has helped >us on that way. Richard Hills: A self-referential acronym is TLA, Three Letter Acronym. But IOTTMCO is _not_ a self-referential acronym, since its meaning is _not_ Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer. As a grumpy old non-tech dinosaur - who completed primary school not with the assistance of a pocket calculator, but rather with the assistance of a slide rule - I prefer to read blml posts which have only bridge acronyms, not new (or even slightly old) acronyms circulating in the general online community. In return I will restrain my persiflage, so that other blmlers will not continually have to check their dictionaries for the meaning of such words as "persiflage". Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "persiflage, n. Light irony, raillery." 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 p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Thu Sep 2 09:09:01 2010 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:09:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] out of order In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100902070907.B3515485C12A@relay2.webreus.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100902/d4eee0c4/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 2 09:19:45 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:19:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: References: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> Message-ID: <865928671.1283411985567.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > > In short, I should be > > very sceptical about claims to have seen a bid the second time around > > without being somehow reminded of it by actions of the partner. > > Sure he > > might have seen it (most probably would have) when the bidding came > > around to it the second time but I have know way of knowing if he > > did or > > if something else (such as partner's alert or explanation or facial > > expression or hesitation) called his attention to what had happened. > > The bidding card on the table is AI, but I can not ever be sure he > > recognised it without UI. > > When the bidding came around to him the second time -- I'm talking > about my familiar mode of play, with bid boxes but without screens -- > his attention will have been called to RHO's opening bid by RHO's > mechanical act of placing his second bid card (stack) on top of the > first, offset so that the earlier bid remains clearly visible. > Regardless of anything his partner may do, the necessary "wake-up > call" will be issued by his RHO, and would thus be authorized. > Assuming he remembers that it takes four to play bridge. I agree that the possibility of the player still overlooking RHO's opening bid after RHO has placed his next bidding card on top of the opening bid does not meet the "at all probable" threshold. Still, I have seen it happen. Multiple times. It is not nearly as impossible as you think it is. There is a difference in bidding box usage between the ACBL and other zones that might come into play. As I understand, in the ACBL, a bid is made when the bidding cards are on the table. Over here, a bid is made when RHO has lifted the bidding card out of the bidding box so that his partner might have been able to see it. It is not uncommon in teams matches that time runs out, and penalties loom. 15 minutes left with 5 boards to go. Then players might make their own bid before RHO's bid is on the table. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Sep 2 09:22:58 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:22:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7E0726.90703@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C7E0726.90703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2010/9/1 Alain Gottcheiner : > ?Le 1/09/2010 0:34, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, Appeal 12 >> http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm >> >> Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) >> Dlr: East >> Vul: North-South >> >> The complete bidding and deal: >> >> WEST ? ? ? ?NORTH ? ? ? EAST ? ? ? ?SOUTH >> Paul ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Stephanie >> Lamford ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Rohan >> --- ? ? ? ? --- ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ?Pass >> 1NT(1) ? ? ?2D (2) ? ? ?2H ? ? ? ? ?3S >> Pass ? ? ? ?4S ? ? ? ? ?X ?(3) ? ? ?Pass >> 4NT ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ? ?Pass >> >> (1) 12-14 balanced >> (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit >> (3) Slow double - agreed >> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?98764 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A2 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AJ653 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A >> --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AT52 >> QT7 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? KJ643 >> KT2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 874 >> KT76432 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 8 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KQJ3 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?985 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Q9 >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?QJ95 >> >> Result at table: 4NT -4 by West, North-South +200 >> >> Casebook panellist Richard Hills comment: >> >> Julian Huxley (1887-1975): >> >> "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler >> but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." >> >> Director's Cheshire cat adjustment: >> >> 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 N/S / -800 E/W >> 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W >> >> Appeals Committee's Cheshire cat adjustment: >> >> 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 N/S / -200 E/W >> 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W >> >> "Well! I've often seen a double without 4S," thought >> Alice; "but 4S without a double! It's the most curious >> thing I ever saw in all my life!" > AG : neither did ?I. > > Really, this isn't a complex case. > > Either you consider that it is obvious to pull, and in that case you > must score the board as the table result. > Or you consider that it isn't, and you score the board as 4S, making, > with the possibility of a split score of 4SX+1 to EW (the worst result > that was at all probable). > > I consider it fairly close, as passing was mentioned by some voters, but > never chosen. Which voters are you counting here? If it's those who replied to the post here on BLML, one (me) did in fact pass. > > But considering contracts that weren't reached at the table and that > couldn't be reached if West had had to use the LA of passing is totally > insane. > Apart from suicide and bigicide, perhaps one might consider > triumviraticide (murder of a three-person committee). > > Best regards > > ? ?Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 2 12:16:48 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:16:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C7E0726.90703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <11714997.1283422608660.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Harald Skj?ran > 2010/9/1 Alain Gottcheiner : > > ?Le 1/09/2010 0:34, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> > >> EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, Appeal 12 > >> http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm > >> > >> Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > >> Dlr: East > >> Vul: North-South > >> > >> The complete bidding and deal: > >> > >> WEST ? ? ? ?NORTH ? ? ? EAST ? ? ? ?SOUTH > >> Paul ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Stephanie > >> Lamford ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Rohan > >> --- ? ? ? ? --- ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ?Pass > >> 1NT(1) ? ? ?2D (2) ? ? ?2H ? ? ? ? ?3S > >> Pass ? ? ? ?4S ? ? ? ? ?X ?(3) ? ? ?Pass > >> 4NT ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ? ?Pass > >> > >> (1) 12-14 balanced > >> (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit > >> (3) Slow double - agreed > >> > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?98764 > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A2 > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AJ653 > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A > >> --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AT52 > >> QT7 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? KJ643 > >> KT2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 874 > >> KT76432 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 8 > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KQJ3 > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?985 > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Q9 > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?QJ95 > >> > >> Result at table: 4NT -4 by West, North-South +200 > >> > >> Casebook panellist Richard Hills comment: > >> > >> Julian Huxley (1887-1975): > >> > >> "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler > >> but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." > >> > >> Director's Cheshire cat adjustment: > >> > >> 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 N/S / -800 E/W > >> 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W > >> > >> Appeals Committee's Cheshire cat adjustment: > >> > >> 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 N/S / -200 E/W > >> 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W > >> > >> "Well! I've often seen a double without 4S," thought > >> Alice; "but 4S without a double! It's the most curious > >> thing I ever saw in all my life!" > > AG : neither did ?I. > > > > Really, this isn't a complex case. > > > > Either you consider that it is obvious to pull, and in that case you > > must score the board as the table result. > > Or you consider that it isn't, and you score the board as 4S, making, > > with the possibility of a split score of 4SX+1 to EW (the worst result > > that was at all probable). > > > > I consider it fairly close, as passing was mentioned by some voters, but > > never chosen. > > Which voters are you counting here? > If it's those who replied to the post here on BLML, one (me) did in fact > pass. I passed, too. As did several participants in that other poll that had been mentioned. Especially, I do consider pass an LA. I am not sure the score should be adjusted, though. o E/W got a bad score because they didn't double 4NT. I consider the failure to double 4NT bad bridge. One might consider it a serious error if E/W are experts. o I have some doubt whether the hesitation "demonstrably" helps decide between -790 and -800. Lamford didn't need the hesitation to know that 4S was very likely to make, especially not in their system, where apparently 2H denied a good four card spade suit. He also didn't need the hesitation to notice they were nonvul. Once again, a case where UI reinforces AI. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 2 12:44:52 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:44:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <001801cb49da$1b891d20$529b5760$@no> References: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> <4C7E3E76.50705@skynet.be> <001801cb49da$1b891d20$529b5760$@no> Message-ID: <4C7F8024.1040100@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> So my opinion is that, as long as bidding cards are just an aid, not an > inherent >> part of the sport of bridge, this case must be treated as UI. >> I urge however, the WBF to change that view, and to make the bidding cards > part >> of the normal procedure of bridge, which means that a player is always > entitled to >> notice the bidding, even when there is UI available that tells him he made > a >> mistake earlier. It would make sense. > > Have you forgotten Law 18F? > No, of course I haven't. It is precisely L18F which authorizes everyone (except some Australians) to use bidding boxes. So everyone should write regulations about them. Did anyone make a bidding card specifically AI or UI? Should we not expect the WBF to regulate something which the whole world (even including some Australians) uses? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 2 12:45:41 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:45:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: References: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> Message-ID: <4C7F8055.8070408@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Just to set the record straight, I do play with bid boxes all the > time. And I once did play with screens. But I have never used the > two of them in combination. > The how did you communicate the bidding to the other side? Orally? Herman. From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Sep 2 14:10:12 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:10:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> In law 45 it is stated that a card is played by declarer if it - (nearly) touches the table *or* - is *maintained* in a played position Ok. So what exactly do you take this to mean in the following circumstance(common): Declarer removes a card from his hand, and in the standard parabolic arc starts moving it to the table surface(first up a bit, and then going down). The card keeps moving, and everybody sees the face of it. At what point would you rule the card played? For the sake of argument, the top of the parabola is at 25cm above the table surface. Hans From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Thu Sep 2 14:24:00 2010 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:24:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> References: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> Message-ID: In my opinion: As long as the card is moving, it is not yet in a played position. If someone holds the card in a fixed position during a second or more at 25 cm above the table surface, it is played. Ciska Zuur ----- Original Message ----- From: Hans van Staveren To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer In law 45 it is stated that a card is played by declarer if it - (nearly) touches the table *or* - is *maintained* in a played position Ok. So what exactly do you take this to mean in the following circumstance(common): Declarer removes a card from his hand, and in the standard parabolic arc starts moving it to the table surface(first up a bit, and then going down). The card keeps moving, and everybody sees the face of it. At what point would you rule the card played? For the sake of argument, the top of the parabola is at 25cm above the table surface. Hans _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ======= E-mail gescand door Spyware Doctor - geen virussen of spyware aangetroffen. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, virus-/spywaredatabase: 6.15790) http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51 ======= ======= E-mail gescand door Spyware Doctor ? geen virussen of spyware aangetroffen. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, virus-/spywaredatabase: 6.15790) http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51 ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100902/5d80387a/attachment.html From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Thu Sep 2 14:35:17 2010 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 13:35:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> References: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> Message-ID: <4EA6F3FCA92D411E985102017AB3BAC2@mikePC> -------------------------------------------------- From: "Hans van Staveren" Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 1:10 PM To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer > In law 45 it is stated that a card is played by declarer if it > - (nearly) touches the table *or* > - is *maintained* in a played position > > Ok. So what exactly do you take this to mean in the following > circumstance(common): > > Declarer removes a card from his hand, and in the standard parabolic arc > starts moving it to the table surface(first up a bit, and then going > down). > The card keeps moving, and everybody sees the face of it. > > At what point would you rule the card played? For the sake of argument, > the top of the parabola is at 25cm above the table surface. > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > lol IMnot-so-HO when it stops moving Of course this is a judgment and the poor novice TD wants to be consistent with other directors. Hans describes the standard moving in a clear way - if at any point on the way down the cards ceases moving it is played Hans has not quoted all of the Law however. 45C2 gives two conditions a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played Personaly I'd rule that a card that "bounced" off the table (ie where the parabolic motion went down but immediately up) was not played. So for me the two key words are "held" and "maintained" which means still stopped not moving (Incidentally "such" is quite an unusual usage in English here - it seems redundant in this clause and could be omitted without changing what I think the Law means - others may disagree) (Robin Barker told me yesterday that it was a bad idea reading the Law Book unless you absolutely had to) Mike Amos From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu Sep 2 15:15:11 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:15:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> References: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> Message-ID: <8681CDF667834D56947E38999BB46E45@PCdeOlivier> i like to rule according to a 45?, halfway between standing-up and faced-up Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer > > In law 45 it is stated that a card is played by declarer if it > - (nearly) touches the table *or* > - is *maintained* in a played position > > Ok. So what exactly do you take this to mean in the following > circumstance(common): > > Declarer removes a card from his hand, and in the standard parabolic arc > starts moving it to the table surface(first up a bit, and then going > down). > The card keeps moving, and everybody sees the face of it. > > At what point would you rule the card played? For the sake of argument, > the top of the parabola is at 25cm above the table surface. > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > 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 5417 (20100902) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5418 (20100902) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 2 15:20:42 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:20:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C7F8055.8070408@skynet.be> References: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4C7E11A7.5050404@aol.com> <4C7F8055.8070408@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sep 2, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Just to set the record straight, I do play with bid boxes all the >> time. And I once did play with screens. But I have never used the >> two of them in combination. > > The how did you communicate the bidding to the other side? Orally? By writing calls with a pencil on a one-sheet form that got passed back and forth through the screen. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Sep 2 15:33:17 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:33:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Played_card_by_declarer?= In-Reply-To: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> References: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> Message-ID: <1Or9uo-23Hiam0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> In my earlier days ;-) my vote was for "it's played if it is within 10 cm to the table _and_ with a (slight) stop (held = stationary)" About last year some grey eminences told me that _this_ "held" is not considered to mean "stationary", so now my vote is for "within 10 cm to the table (which includes touching it)". Peter From: "Hans van Staveren" > In law 45 it is stated that a card is played by declarer if it > - (nearly) touches the table *or* > - is *maintained* in a played position > > Ok. So what exactly do you take this to mean in the following > circumstance(common): > Declarer removes a card from his hand, and in the standard parabolic > arc starts moving it to the table surface(first up a bit, and then > going down). > The card keeps moving, and everybody sees the face of it. > > At what point would you rule the card played? For the sake of > argument, the top of the parabola is at 25cm above the table surface. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 2 15:37:01 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:37:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> References: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> Message-ID: <84A24211-670B-4F39-BACC-05060C0371CC@starpower.net> On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:10 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > In law 45 it is stated that a card is played by declarer if it > - (nearly) touches the table *or* > - is *maintained* in a played position > > Ok. So what exactly do you take this to mean in the following > circumstance(common): > > Declarer removes a card from his hand, and in the standard > parabolic arc starts moving it to the table surface(first up a bit, > and then going down). > The card keeps moving, and everybody sees the face of it. > > At what point would you rule the card played? For the sake of > argument, the top of the parabola is at 25cm above the table surface. At whatever point seemed right at the time. L45C2 was written ambiguously, with "nearly" and "in such a position as to indicate", which are clearly subjective. I would assume this was deliberate, and intended to give TDs latitude in determining whether the card was in fact "played", recognizing that there may be factors relevant to that decision that are too subtle to be explicitly specified in TFLB. A played card is like pornography; it's much harder to define it than to recognize it when you see it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Sep 2 15:57:47 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:57:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <4EA6F3FCA92D411E985102017AB3BAC2@mikePC> References: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> <4EA6F3FCA92D411E985102017AB3BAC2@mikePC> Message-ID: <01b301cb4aa6$d3580a20$7a081e60$@nl> [HvS] At what point would you rule the card played? For the sake of argument, he top of the parabola is at 25cm above the table surface. [ Mike Amos] IMnot-so-HO when it stops moving [HvS] However, if declarer recognizes a mistake and pulls the card back, there is a moment where the derivative of motion against time is 0, the card is stationary. Is it played then? I like the comparison to pornography someone made. Now imagine you have to rule when you did not observe the motion. Hans From henk at ripe.net Thu Sep 2 16:07:38 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:07:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <01b301cb4aa6$d3580a20$7a081e60$@nl> References: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> <4EA6F3FCA92D411E985102017AB3BAC2@mikePC> <01b301cb4aa6$d3580a20$7a081e60$@nl> Message-ID: <4C7FAFAA.2090904@ripe.net> On 02/09/2010 15:57, Hans van Staveren wrote: > [HvS] > > At what point would you rule the card played? For the sake of argument, > he top of the parabola is at 25cm above the table surface. > > [ Mike Amos] > IMnot-so-HO when it stops moving > > [HvS] > > However, if declarer recognizes a mistake and pulls the card back, there is > a moment where the derivative of motion against time is 0, the card is > stationary. > Is it played then? I was thinking the opposite: if the card is played when it stops moving, then I can take a card and move it around in a circular movement, and it is never played. 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 2 16:44:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:44:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <4C7FAFAA.2090904@ripe.net> References: <01ac01cb4a97$cbfca380$63f5ea80$@nl> <4EA6F3FCA92D411E985102017AB3BAC2@mikePC> <01b301cb4aa6$d3580a20$7a081e60$@nl> <4C7FAFAA.2090904@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C7FB83A.5040404@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/09/2010 16:07, Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : > On 02/09/2010 15:57, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> [HvS] >> >> At what point would you rule the card played? For the sake of argument, >> he top of the parabola is at 25cm above the table surface. >> >> [ Mike Amos] >> IMnot-so-HO when it stops moving >> >> [HvS] >> >> However, if declarer recognizes a mistake and pulls the card back, there is >> a moment where the derivative of motion against time is 0, the card is >> stationary. >> Is it played then? > I was thinking the opposite: if the card is played when it stops > moving, then I can take a card and move it around in a circular > movement, and it is never played. Declarer's card is played when it is stopped (try calculating the derivative of a function of three variables by sheer sight ;-) AND face up AND in a position indicating that it has been played. i.e. not when lying on the floor / you're busy scratching some impurity from its surface / it landed in your cup of tea / trying to dry it after it has landed in your cup of tea / ... Well, I'd say I can recognize a played card when I see one. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 3 01:35:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:35:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01b301cb4aa6$d3580a20$7a081e60$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: > ... Now imagine you have to rule when you did not observe >the motion. Tom Lehrer, Be Prepared (final verse): If you're looking for adventure of a new and diff'rent kind, And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. Be prepared! Richard Hills: When John (MadDog) Probst directed, he was always prepared for Laws 45C1 (defender's played card) and 45C2 (declarer's played card) rulings. MadDog always carried a Joker in his pocket, the use of which permitted him to observe the player's re-enactment of the original motion of her original card. Plus revelation of a Joker could not possibly create unnecessary AI / UI; this might have occurred via a re- enactment with the actual disputed card. Another advantage of a re-enactment was that often the players found it easy to agree the facts, leaving MadDog with the simple task of interpreting the facts. The simple interpretation of Law 45C2(a) a la MadDog: "Declarer has played a card when declarer has stopped waving it around." As for MadDog's simple interpretation of Law 45C2(b)'s "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played", he noted that as declarer he once played a card by maintaining it face up on his forehead. 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 Sep 3 02:13:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:13:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20100902070907.B3515485C12A@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >>>To take a specific example: >>> >>> JT >>>Ax Qx >>> Kx >>> >>>Declarer leads low from hand and calls for one of >>>dummy's cards (or dummy plays one unbidden), West >>>not having played. East plays the Q. >>> >>>West will, of course, have no trouble playing low >>>but might have found some reason to rise ace if >>>East had not played. >>> >>>If East's play is legal, there's no question of an >>>adjusted score. If it's illegal, then an adjusted >>>score seems quite possible. Which is it? Grattan Endicott: [snip] >> I would say neither that it is an offence albeit >>with no rectification (and a very serious matter to >>knowingly and willingly commit any offence) nor that >>it is perfectly legal. I would say to enquirer that >>it is a violation of correct procedure (of Law 44B) >>but that in the given circumstances the laws ordain >>that the normal rectification for such violation >>shall not apply. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Peter Smulders: >So you say it is not an offence, but you still call >it a violation of correct procedure. But what is the >correct procedure after leader played both from his >hand and from dummy, without waiting for LHO to play? >Law 44B says nothing about this situation! It is >handled by Laws 57C1 and 60A, and both laws seem to >indicate it is acceptable for RHO to now play to the >trick. Richard Hills: Both Grattan and Peter use the ambiguous word "it". But for Grattan "it" refers to North's play out of turn remaining a violation of Law 44B correct procedure, despite being accepted by East. Peter is correct in arguing that "it", East's acceptance of North's play out of turn, is fully legal under Laws 57C1 and 60A (unless one accepts David Barton's ludicrous argument that Law 60A is inapplicable because East does not have a RHO). 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 Fri Sep 3 03:55:16 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:55:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:35:05 -0400, wrote: > Hans van Staveren: > >> ... Now imagine you have to rule when you did not observe >> the motion. > > Tom Lehrer, Be Prepared (final verse): > > If you're looking for adventure of a new and diff'rent kind, > And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, > Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. > Be prepared! > > Richard Hills: > > When John (MadDog) Probst directed, he was always prepared > for Laws 45C1 (defender's played card) and 45C2 (declarer's > played card) rulings. MadDog always carried a Joker in his > pocket, the use of which permitted him to observe the > player's re-enactment of the original motion of her original > card. Plus revelation of a Joker could not possibly create > unnecessary AI / UI; this might have occurred via a re- > enactment with the actual disputed card. Yesterday a player pulled the king of clubs out of her hand and used it to show how declarer had placed in her card in a way that the whole table could see. > > Another advantage of a re-enactment was that often the > players found it easy to agree the facts, This almost never happens for me. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 3 04:39:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 12:39:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <11714997.1283422608660.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: [reasons for not adjusting the score snipped] >Once again, a case where UI reinforces AI. Richard Hills: I disagree. The actual East-West put forward similar arguments to those of Thomas. Appeals Comment by East-West: >>We do not agree that pass is a LA ? partner has bid a non- >>forcing and terminal 2H over 2D. Richard Hills: But that does not mean that partner is denying significant defensive values. Partner could be just short of game invite values with a spade stack. Appeals Comment by East-West: >>I have the authorised information that I have psyched and >>I am at favourable vulnerability. Richard Hills: West also has the authorised information that his spade void increases the likelihood that East will hold a spade stack. But the unauthorised information from East's slow double demonstrably suggests that a spade stack is no longer possible. Appeals Comment by East-West: >>Even with 2 trump tricks for partner there is unlikely to >>be any defence to 4Sx. Richard Hills: Balderdash. Even at favourable vulnerability a phantom sacrifice or over-expensive sacrifice can turn a top into a bottom. When the opponents hold the majority of the high cards, and you know that your side has no great fit, it is easier to win four tricks defending 4Sx in defence than win eight tricks declaring 5Hx in offence. Appeals Comment by East-West: >>Further, the opponent?s pass of 4NT is wild and gambling >>and shows the desire to achieve a double-shot. Frances Hinden, casebook panellist: " ... Passing out 4NT is bad bridge, not wild or gambling." 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 Fri Sep 3 07:11:15 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:11:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <29375486.1283490675129.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Thomas Dehn: > > [reasons for not adjusting the score snipped] > > >Once again, a case where UI reinforces AI. > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree. The actual East-West put forward similar > arguments to those of Thomas. Not really. One of my pet peeves is that TFLB does not say "if there was a hesitation, you get a bad score". Rather, L16 says "the player may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". In this particular hand, it is not sufficient to find that 4S was an LA. You also have to find that not passing 4S was suggested by the UI, where "could demonstrably have been suggested" is muddy on which standard should be applied there. But from the history of L16 we know that the standard is higher than "he got it right, so it must have been suggested". My main criterion is that with the UI the choice the player actually selected must have had in some evident way a higher chance of success than the LA he did not take, when compared to the AI the player already had, and of which he was already aware. Such a higher change of success could be, for example, an expectation of more MPs, or a higher chance for top, or a reduced risk of getting a bottom, an increased hope of saving a few MPs, or merely selecting the alternative partner considered, but did not actually take. I, personally, cannot even read this particular hesitation. Did partner hesitate because she has four spades, thus worked out that I psyched 1NT, and feared that I had a near yarborough? Then the hesitation suggests that 4SX might go down, as I don't have that near yarborough. Did partner hesitate because she has six hearts, and considered this a double or save situation? Then the hesitation suggests that I steer us towards 5H. Did partner hesitate because she has some scattered values with a flat distribution? Then 4XS will be -790 or -990, 5H doubled will be -800 or worse, and the hesitation doesn't help figuring out which disaster has the better change of saving a few MPs. Or, more precisely, it doesn't help *me* figure that out. In this particular hand, if you think that the UI suggests that bidding 4NT under some interpretation leads to a better score than passing 4SX, supported by some reasonable minimum level of evidence, then you should adjust, as all other conditions are met. But a mere "4NT scored -200 at the table because opponents were too stupid to double" is not sufficient. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Sep 3 08:00:33 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:00:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <01b301cb4aa6$d3580a20$7a081e60$@nl> Message-ID: <01e001cb4b2d$527d3560$f777a020$@nl> [RH] The simple interpretation of Law 45C2(a) a la MadDog: "Declarer has played a card when declarer has stopped waving it around." [HvS] Fair enough, but we all know declarers that start pulling out cards, moving them into the direction of the table, pulling them back, etc.. Trouble can follow when their LHO, seeing a card move in a way that would normally lead to it being played, plays in the trick. Now declarer pulls back his card, and now we suddenly have to rule lead out of turn?? Does not seem too fair to me. Hans From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Sep 3 08:06:34 2010 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:06:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Snip > Peter is correct in arguing that "it", East's > acceptance of North's play out of turn, is fully > legal under Laws 57C1 and 60A (unless one accepts > David Barton's ludicrous argument that Law 60A is > inapplicable because East does not have a RHO). > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills I object to this. That wording is YOURS not MINE. L60A A Play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has LED OR PLAYED out of turn or prematurely and before rectification has been assessed forfeits the right to rectification of that offence. (1) I argued that the play from dummy was made by declarer (LHO) not that RHO does not exist. (2) This law is applicable only if the second condition (before rectification of declarer's of declarer's out of turn play) is ALSO met. This is not the case here because the Director has been called before either defender has played. Please do not ridicule an argument that was never made and ascribe the ludicrous statement that East does not have a RHO to me (that was entirely you). ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 3 08:14:06 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:14:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <29375486.1283490675129.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: > ... >One of my pet peeves is that TFLB does not say "if >there was a hesitation, you get a bad score". > ... >But from the history of L16 we know that the >standard is higher than "he got it right, so it >must have been suggested". Richard Hills: Correct reasoning by Thomas. Thomas Dehn: >My main criterion is that with the UI the choice >the player actually selected must have had in some >evident way a higher chance of success than the LA >he did not take ... Paul Lamford: >> ... >>And bidding 4NT is not "more successful" than >>passing, a requirement for it to be removed. Both >>landing spots, 5C and 5H, can be taken for 800 >>fairly easily. Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass (1872): "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." Richard Hills: Incorrect reasoning by Thomas and Paul. Law 16B1(a) does _not_ use the phrase "demonstrably successful", but rather uses the phrase "could demonstrably have been suggested over another". It does not matter that the demonstrably suggested logical alternatives of 4NT or 5C are more than likely to lead to the same disastrous bottom as the non-suggested Pass of 4Sx. Thomas Dehn: >I, personally, cannot even read this particular >hesitation. >Did partner hesitate because ... >Did partner hesitate because ... >Did partner hesitate because ... Richard Hills: The actual reason for Stefanie's hesitant double is completely irrelevant. (Paul's casebook comment suggests that Stefanie, suspecting a psyche by Paul, was wondering whether a Pass of 4S would be an illegal "field".) What is relevant is what the hesitation demonstrably suggests to West. The demonstrable suggestion from a slooow high-level penalty double is, "I have qualms about my double." And, of course, the demonstrable suggestion from a high-level penalty double inflicted with celerity and panache is, "If you remove this penalty double, pard, you die." 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 Fri Sep 3 10:20:52 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:20:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1716612567.1283502052900.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Richard, may I politely ask you to try to understand what you reply to, rather than time and again mix up statements made by different people. It is tiresome to merely read all those mails where people correct your misattributions, and your misinterpretations. Or, if figuring out what other people actually meant is difficult, just state your own opinion. Don't claim that other people are correct or incorrect. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Thomas Dehn: > > > ... > >One of my pet peeves is that TFLB does not say "if > >there was a hesitation, you get a bad score". > > ... > >But from the history of L16 we know that the > >standard is higher than "he got it right, so it > >must have been suggested". > > Richard Hills: > > Correct reasoning by Thomas. > > Thomas Dehn: > > >My main criterion is that with the UI the choice > >the player actually selected must have had in some > >evident way a higher chance of success than the LA > >he did not take ... > > Paul Lamford: > > >> ... > >>And bidding 4NT is not "more successful" than > >>passing, a requirement for it to be removed. Both > >>landing spots, 5C and 5H, can be taken for 800 > >>fairly easily. > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect reasoning by Thomas and Paul. Law 16B1(a) > does _not_ use the phrase "demonstrably successful", > but rather uses the phrase "could demonstrably have > been suggested over another". It does not matter > that the demonstrably suggested logical alternatives > of 4NT or 5C are more than likely to lead to the > same disastrous bottom as the non-suggested Pass of > 4Sx. You appear to be confusing Paul's position with mine. Paul's position essentially is that because the landing spots lead to poor scores, too, the score should not be adjusted. My position is that if the UI does not indicate in any way that one or more alternatives are preferable over other alternatives, then those one or more alternatives are not "demonstrably suggested" over those other alternatives. Consider the following artificial scenario: Same bidding, we are at 4S X. This time, partner did not hesitate, but the next table plays the same board, and you can see or hear that a) 4S X will make exactly 10 tricks b) 5H and 5C will be down six. Now you have UI that 4S X will make, but yet the UI does not suggest running from 4S X. In fact it suggests that 4S X is best. > Thomas Dehn: > > >I, personally, cannot even read this particular > >hesitation. > >Did partner hesitate because ... > >Did partner hesitate because ... > >Did partner hesitate because ... > > Richard Hills: > > The actual reason for Stefanie's hesitant double is > completely irrelevant. (Paul's casebook comment > suggests that Stefanie, suspecting a psyche by Paul, > was wondering whether a Pass of 4S would be an > illegal "field".) > > What is relevant is what the hesitation demonstrably > suggests to West. The demonstrable suggestion from > a slooow high-level penalty double is, "I have qualms > about my double." Yes, but that does not automatically suggest running from the double. It suggests running from the double if you have a fit, where bidding one more to make usually was one of partner's alternatives, and you can be confident that the sacrifice is cheap. Here, almost surely partner was not thinking about sacrificing with 5H. Partner decided between pass and double. That suggests undoubling 4S to play 4S undoubled. Which you can't, too late for that. By itself, the fact that the hesitation implies that 4S undoubled is preferable over 4S X does not "demonstrably" suggest sacrificing, see my artificial example above. Here a test: what would you do if you were unethical, and willing to deliberately use the UI from this hesitation? Would it impact your reasoning, how you weigh alternatives? Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Sep 3 10:30:17 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:30:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01e001cb4b2d$527d3560$f777a020$@nl> References: <01b301cb4aa6$d3580a20$7a081e60$@nl> <01e001cb4b2d$527d3560$f777a020$@nl> Message-ID: i don't understand this point : "a card is played when it stopped moving" anyway, if it happens to be so simple, it could have benen writen in the Law, when you pick the wrong card, you then notice your mistake, then you have a skock, then it freeze you, then you play back your card, this is real life for me the point is not if you stop moving your card for a second or more or less but in what position was it the most advanced, i be silly, extremist : i pick a card, i am sitting 30cm away from the table, if i raise it vertically aver my cards, i stop moving, so it is played??? if i keep it vertically with a big round over dummy, table and so on without stopping it moving and put it back in my hand, so it isn't played??? Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [RH] > > The simple interpretation of Law 45C2(a) a la MadDog: > > "Declarer has played a card when declarer has stopped > waving it around." > > [HvS] > > Fair enough, but we all know declarers that start pulling out cards, > moving > them into the direction of the table, pulling them back, etc.. > > Trouble can follow when their LHO, seeing a card move in a way that would > normally lead to it being played, plays in the trick. Now declarer pulls > back his card, and now we suddenly have to rule lead out of turn?? Does > not > seem too fair to me. > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > 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 5419 (20100902) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5419 (20100902) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 3 10:49:38 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:49:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested Message-ID: <1245102216.1283503778737.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> I'd like to have a short non-representative poll on what people think meets the requirements for that muddy little "could demonstrably have been suggested". If you think that what the law actually says and what it preferably should say are different, please state so. In each case, there are two mutually exclusive alternatives, A and B, which if successful lead to a 100% top, and otherwise to a zero. 1.) Without the UI, A has an 80% chance of success, and B has a 20% chance of success. With the UI, A has an 81% chance of success, and B has a 19% chance of success. "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? 2.) Without the UI, you expect total disaster 80% of the time. A is successful 10% of the time, B is successful 10% of the time. With the UI, you expect total disaster 90% of the time. A is successful 5% of the time, B is successful 5% of the time. "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? 3.) Without the UI, you expect that every table has the same score. With the UI, you expect that A will give a top 40% of the time, and a zero 60% of the time. "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over other alternatives by the UI? 4.) Without the UI, A and B both look like 50% plays. The UI tells you that partner considered A, but rejected B outright. With the UI, A has an 60% chance of success, and B has a 40% chance of success. "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Fri Sep 3 10:49:56 2010 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:49:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] out of order Message-ID: <20100903085018.31143485C158@relay2.webreus.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100903/6b088da1/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 3 13:13:29 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 11:13:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested In-Reply-To: <1245102216.1283503778737.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <840056.40571.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Thomas] In each case, there are two mutually exclusive alternatives, A and B, which if successful lead to a 100% top, and otherwise to a zero. [NG] If this unlikely scenario obtained, would a representative sample of your peers be aware of these facts, at the time? Or is this information only known, afterwards? Are some of the examples below incompatible with these facts? [Thomas] 1.) Without the UI, A has an 80% chance of success, and B has a 20% chance of success. With the UI, A has an 81% chance of success, and B has a 19% chance of success. "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? [NG] IMO: No. One of two alternatives is not a *logical alternative*, if nobody (of very few) would choose it. [Thomas] 2.) Without the UI, you expect total disaster 80% of the time. A is successful 10% of the time, B is successful 10% of the time. With the UI, you expect total disaster 90% of the time. A is successful 5% of the time, B is successful 5% of the time. "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? [NG] No. The relative merits of the alternatives are unchanged. [Thomas] 3.) Without the UI, you expect that every table has the same score. With the UI, you expect that A will give a top 40% of the time, and a zero 60% of the time. "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over other alternatives by the UI? [NG] IMO. These probabilities seem to contradict Thomas' original conditions. Nevertheless, in isolation, Yes (for example, if your peer group is aware that you need a top to win). [Thomas] 4.) Without the UI, A and B both look like 50% plays. The UI tells you that partner considered A, but rejected B outright. With the UI, A has an 60% chance of success, and B has a 40% chance of success. "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? [NG] IMO. Yes. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 3 14:08:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:08:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C80E52E.4030902@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/09/2010 4:39, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Richard Hills: > > West also has the authorised information that his spade > void increases the likelihood that East will hold a spade > stack. But the unauthorised information from East's slow > double demonstrably suggests that a spade stack is no > longer possible. > AG : I think it's Trezel who wrote "it's a mistake to believe that, because you hold less of opponents' suit, partner holds more. Usually, the opponents have seen how long they are before bidding". I think that, with opponents freely bidding towards game vulnerable in a position where they don't need to prrempt you (the 4S bid was after you quitted auction); it is absolutely obvious that they're going to make. And that's AI. > Richard Hills: > > Balderdash. Even at favourable vulnerability a phantom > sacrifice or over-expensive sacrifice can turn a top into a > bottom. When the opponents hold the majority of the high > cards, and you know that your side has no great fit, it is > easier to win four tricks defending 4Sx in defence than win > eight tricks declaring 5Hx in offence. AG : okay, but what about 5C ? Do you expect to go 4 down most of the time ? Balderdash, as you said. From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 3 14:11:57 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:11:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested Message-ID: <26383119.1283515917378.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Thomas Dehn wrote: > 1.) Without the UI, A has an 80% chance of success, and B has a 20% chance > of success. > With the UI, A has an 81% chance of success, and B has a 19% chance of > success. > > "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? I think that under ordinary conditions, B should not be considered a logical alternative. It has a 20% chance of success, but it would not be considered. A is not "demonstrably" suggested over B because with and without the UI everybody selects A. I moreover think that under ordinary conditions, the difference between 20% and 80% on the one hand and 80% and 81% on the other hand is grossly disproportional, and thus I would consider any adjustment unfair. However, in case of a scenario where a pair or a team desperately needs a swing right now, I would have to consider whether a 20% chance is sufficient to try for a swing on this board; where the difference between 19% and 20% then would make this noticeable less attractive. > 2.) Without the UI, you expect total disaster 80% of the time. > A is successful 10% of the time, B is successful 10% of the time. > > With the UI, you expect total disaster 90% of the time. > A is successful 5% of the time, B is successful 5% of the time. > > "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? Nothing is suggested here. > 3.) Without the UI, you expect that every table has the same score. With the > UI, you expect that A will give a top 40% of the time, and a zero 60% of the > time. > > "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over other alternatives by the > UI? Here, while the expected average score is decreased, there exist various scenarios where selecting A anyways is suggested by this UI. >From the law's wording, I think this satisfies "could demonstrably have been suggested". However, this also satisfied that NOT taking A "could demonstrably have been suggested". I'm lost on this one. > 4.) Without the UI, A and B both look like 50% plays. > The UI tells you that partner considered A, but rejected B outright. > With the UI, A has an 60% chance of success, and B has a 40% chance of > success. > > "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? Unfortunately, I mistyped this. It should have been 5.) Without the UI, A and B both look like 50% plays. The UI tells you that partner considered A, but rejected B outright. With the UI, A has a 40% chance of success, and B has a 60% chance of success. Again, conflicting UI. It seems that everything you do "could demonstrably have been suggested". If you pick A, you do what you know partner considered. If you pick B, you do what the UI tells you has a better chance of success. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 3 14:18:44 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:18:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested In-Reply-To: <1245102216.1283503778737.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <1245102216.1283503778737.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C80E7A4.3040109@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/09/2010 10:49, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > In each case, there are two mutually exclusive alternatives, A and B, which if successful > lead to a 100% top, and otherwise to a zero. > > > 1.) Without the UI, A has an 80% chance of success, and B has a 20% chance of success. > With the UI, A has an 81% chance of success, and B has a 19% chance of success. > > "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? No, but you'll never be able to determine chances with such accuracy. Anyway, if A is 80% (and if all peers do agree with this), it should always be allowed. If A is 80% and everybody knows this, then 100% of the players would bid A, making B a non-LA. > > 2.) Without the UI, you expect total disaster 80% of the time. > A is successful 10% of the time, B is successful 10% of the time. > > With the UI, you expect total disaster 90% of the time. > A is successful 5% of the time, B is successful 5% of the time. > > "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? AG : surely not. > > 3.) Without the UI, you expect that every table has the same score. With the UI, > you expect that A will give a top 40% of the time, and a zero 60% of the time. > > "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over other alternatives by the UI? AG : that's different, because you could d want trying for a top. > > 4.) Without the UI, A and B both look like 50% plays. > The UI tells you that partner considered A, but rejected B outright. > With the UI, A has an 60% chance of success, and B has a 40% chance of success. > > "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? > AG : I don't understand the case. What did partner bid ? Something below both A and B ? But then how could you ascertain that he considered A rather than B ? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 3 15:46:35 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:46:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested In-Reply-To: <26383119.1283515917378.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <26383119.1283515917378.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> 1.) Without the UI, A has an 80% chance of success, and B has a >> 20% chance >> of success. >> With the UI, A has an 81% chance of success, and B has a 19% >> chance of >> success. >> >> "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? > > I think that under ordinary conditions, B should not > be considered a logical alternative. It has a 20% chance of success, > but it would not be considered. A is not "demonstrably" suggested over > B because with and without the UI everybody selects A. > > I moreover think that under ordinary conditions, > the difference between 20% and 80% on the one hand > and 80% and 81% on the other hand is grossly disproportional, > and thus I would consider any adjustment unfair. > > However, in case of a scenario where a pair or a team > desperately needs a swing right now, I would have to consider whether > a 20% chance is sufficient to try for a swing on this board; where the > difference between 19% and 20% then would make this noticeable less > attractive. > >> 2.) Without the UI, you expect total disaster 80% of the time. >> A is successful 10% of the time, B is successful 10% of the time. >> >> With the UI, you expect total disaster 90% of the time. >> A is successful 5% of the time, B is successful 5% of the time. >> >> "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? > > Nothing is suggested here. > >> 3.) Without the UI, you expect that every table has the same >> score. With the >> UI, you expect that A will give a top 40% of the time, and a zero >> 60% of the >> time. >> >> "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over other >> alternatives by the >> UI? > > Here, while the expected average score is decreased, there exist > various scenarios where selecting A anyways is suggested by this UI. > >> From the law's wording, I think this satisfies "could demonstrably >> have been suggested". > > However, this also satisfied that NOT taking A "could demonstrably > have been suggested". > > I'm lost on this one. > >> 4.) Without the UI, A and B both look like 50% plays. >> The UI tells you that partner considered A, but rejected B outright. >> With the UI, A has an 60% chance of success, and B has a 40% >> chance of >> success. >> >> "Could" A "demonstrably have been suggested" over B by the UI? > > Unfortunately, I mistyped this. It should have been > > 5.) Without the UI, A and B both look like 50% plays. > The UI tells you that partner considered A, but rejected B outright. > With the UI, A has a 40% chance of success, and B has a 60% chance > of success. > > Again, conflicting UI. It seems that everything you do "could > demonstrably > have been suggested". If you pick A, you do what you know partner > considered. If you pick B, you do what the UI tells you has a better > chance of success. This is an interesting exercise, and may be helpful in refining our theoretical approach to dealing with UI, but in no way corresponds to anything resembling reality. The notion that a player can use the UI from partner's tempo to reevaluate the chance of success of a particular call from 50% to 40%, much less from 80% to 81%, is beyond ludicrous -- such a player would have to be the greatest mathematical genius to have ever played the game. In real life, players evaluations are of the nature of, "I think A is probably more likely to produce a better score than B," and their reevaluations in the presence of UI are of the nature of, "Hmmm... maybe not." If it were possible to evaluate calls' chances of success to the nearest percent, or even the nearest 5% or 10%, we could have rules a lot more specific than what we've got. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 3 17:53:54 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 17:53:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested In-Reply-To: References: <26383119.1283515917378.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <51943351.1358921283529234578.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau > This is an interesting exercise, and may be helpful in refining our > theoretical approach to dealing with UI, but in no way corresponds to > anything resembling reality. Agree that this is very different to reality. I simply tried to create examples where only interpretation and application of TFLB matters, and bridge judgment and different interpretations of facts are avoided as much as possible. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 5 13:43:40 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 12:43:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested References: <26383119.1283515917378.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <51943351.1358921283529234578.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested Eric Landau This is an interesting exercise, and may be helpful in refining our theoretical approach to dealing with UI, but in no way corresponds to anything resembling reality. (Thomas) Agree that this is very different to reality. I simply tried to create examples where only interpretation and application of TFLB matters, and bridge judgment and different interpretations of facts are avoided as much as possible. --------------------------------------------------------- [Grattan, opinion] +=+ Bridge is a game of judgement and bridge judgement inevitably plays a major part in the administration of its laws and the rectification of irregularities. The assessment of matters of bridge judgement in applying the laws is not a subject matter for the Laws Committee or the Law Book. A matter for the Director in the first place, it falls ultimately within the remit of the appeals committee. The approach to the subject raised by Thomas may have something in common with the approach to 'partnership understanding' that was minuted by the WBF Laws Committee in August, 2000; this stated (in a comment on psychic tendencies): "The view is taken that a partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner of a psycher to take his awareness of psychic possibilities into account, whether he does so or not." As in the case of awareness of a partnership understanding, the level at which there is an awareness of something that is "demonstrably suggested" to a player is a bridge judgement for Director and appeals committee. +=+ ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 5 17:17:48 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 15:17:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <299212.97287.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [William Cowper] How various his employments , whom the world Calls idle; and who justly in return, Esteems that busy world an idler too."" [Grattan Endicott] As in the case of awareness of a partnership understanding, the level at which there is an awareness of something that is "demonstrably suggested" to a player is a bridge judgement for Director and appeals committee. {Nige1] IMO: subjective judgement cannot be eliminated but it can be reduced to foster more consistent rulings. For example, unauthorised infomation rules could be clarified by defining protocols, involving (a possibly hypothetical representative sample of) the players' *peers*. Something like: [1] The law book should define "Peers" objectively (e.g. other players in the same competition). (2) The peers should not know the other hands or the board-result. (3) The peers should be given the putative offender's hand. [4] A logical alternative should be defined as a call (or play), given practical consideration by a specified percentage (say 30%) of peers. (5) The peers should determine the relative merits of the logical alternatives (give them marks out of ten, perhaps). (6) The director should tell the peers the nature of the unauthorised information (UI). (7) The director should ask the peers which actions are suggested by the UI. (e.g. Estimate marks out of 10, assuming the UI was authorised)). (N.B. The peers must still be ignorant of actual results). (8) The director would classify those actions with a significant average mark improvement (say 2) as "suggested alternatives". (8) If the putative offender chose a suggested action, he would be penalized (PP or DP). (8) In addition, if there were consequent damage, a favourable result would be restored. (determined by some other practical procedure -- I think the director should be allowed to consider actual results at other tables as an aid to such a determination). (10) The director won't always have an actual group of peers but he can still perform the above "thought experiment" to arrive at a judgement. Something like that should be written into *the law book itself*. Then players as well as directors, would know what the law means. The current laws are impractical and imprecise. If practical experience of a new protocol indicates flaws or anomalies, then a web version of the law-book should be patched in real time, until the protocol is as optimal as possible.. The web version of the laws should be the master document (accessible from the director's mobile or PDAs). All this would involve *less* work for law-makers because it would reduce the need for endless interpretation and discussion in fora like this. Frustrating for BLMLers :( but the game would be fairer for players :) From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 5 17:39:07 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 15:39:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Poll: Could demonstrably have been suggested In-Reply-To: <299212.97287.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <950860.78990.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Further thoughts: The words "logical" and "demonstrable" need not occur in the suggested protocol (although the latter is implied). A. The action (call or play) chosen by the putative offender would be added to the list of actions that each peer would assess. (before and after being told the nature of the unauthorised information). B. Giving a *mark* to an action lends a spurious impression of accuracy. It would be better to ask the peers to *rank* the actions in order of merit. And for the director to consider the changes to average *rank*. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 6 00:43:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 08:43:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C80E52E.4030902@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Balderdash. Even at favourable vulnerability a phantom >>sacrifice or over-expensive sacrifice can turn a top into a >>bottom. When the opponents hold the majority of the high >>cards, and you know that your side has no great fit, it is >>easier to win four tricks defending 4Sx in defence than win >>eight tricks declaring 5Hx in offence. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : okay, but what about 5C ? Do you expect to go 4 down >most of the time ? Balderdash, as you said. Richard Hills: I disagree. As a rough-and-ready rule of thumb, the fewer tricks by which 5Cx fails, the more likely 4Sx will also fail. At teams a phantom sacrifice of -100 declaring 5Cx instead of +200 defending 4Sx costs only 7 imps. But this deal occurred at matchpoint pairs, where the plus score is king, so a phantom save will turn a top into a bottom. Alain Gottcheiner: [big snip] >it is absolutely obvious that they're going to make. >And that's AI. Frances Hinden, 2008 EBU Appeals Casebook panellist: "...Each pollee gave their answer in isolation and without knowing the full hand. Those asked were (in my opinion) all of a similar or higher standard than the West player, and excluded anyone who objects to psyches. Out of 15 people polled, 6 passed, 8 bid 5C and 1 abstained..." Richard Hills: Which is why Law 16B1(b) refers to "such players", not to "such player", since while one player may think it "absolutely obvious" that partner's high-level penalty double is a nullity, 6 fellow experts may like their chances defending 4Sx. 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 Mon Sep 6 02:01:51 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:01:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Kerry Thornley (1938-1998): "If organized religion is the opium of the masses, then disorganized religion is the marijuana of the lunatic fringe." Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >[1] The law book should define "Peers" objectively (e.g. other >players in the same competition). Richard Hills: Mrs Guggenheim volunteers to fill a half table in an otherwise completely expert competition. She is then deemed to have made a Law 12C1(b) "serious error" in failing to execute a very easy double squeeze, since all the other declarers at the other tables executed that very easy (for an expert) double squeeze. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >(8) If the putative offender chose a suggested action, he >would be penalized (PP or DP). [snip] >but the game would be fairer for players :) Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "fair, adj. just, equitable" Richard Hills: What Nigel Guthrie is proposing is uniformity, not justice nor equity. It is not just nor equitable to award a PP to a beginner who is unaware of her Law 73C obligation. 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 Mon Sep 6 02:30:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:30:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1716612567.1283502052900.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: [big snip] >Consider the following artificial scenario: > >Same bidding, we are at 4S X. This time, partner did not >hesitate, but the next table plays the same board, and >you can see or hear that > >a) 4S X will make exactly 10 tricks >b) 5H and 5C will be down six. > >Now you have UI that 4S X will make, but yet the UI does >not suggest running from 4S X. In fact it suggests that >4S X is best. Richard Hills: No, in fact it suggests that you immediately call the Director. Law 16C1 - Extraneous Information from Other Sources: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information." Thomas Dehn: [big snip] >Here a test: what would you do if you were >unethical, and willing to deliberately use the >UI from this hesitation? Would it impact your >reasoning, how you weigh alternatives? Richard Hills: Turn the question around. If pard broke tempo with a faster-than-the-speed-of-light penalty double, what call would an unethical player choose then? In that opposite case Pass would be the demonstrably suggested call. In my opinion, the EBU National Authority got it right. The slowness of the at-the-table double demonstrably suggested a non-Pass (4NT, 5C, 5H), so the only question was whether a Pass of 4Sx was a logical alternative. 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 Mon Sep 6 03:27:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:27:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>(unless one accepts David Barton's ludicrous argument that >>Law 60A is inapplicable because East does not have a RHO). David Barton: >I object to this. That wording is YOURS not MINE. > >L60A A Play by a member of the non-offending side after his >RHO has LED OR PLAYED out of turn or prematurely and before >rectification has been assessed forfeits the right to >rectification of that offence. > >(1) I argued that the play from dummy was made by declarer >(LHO) not that RHO does not exist. [snip] >Please do not ridicule an argument that was never made and >ascribe the ludicrous statement that East does not have a RHO >to me (that was entirely you). Richard Hills: A difference which makes no difference is no difference. In my opinion these three arguments are substantively equivalent: (a) North is East's LHO, or (b) North is East's RHO but holds 13 LHO cards, or (c) North is East's RHO, holds 13 RHO cards, but as each card is played it transmogrifies into a LHO card. My apologies for ascribing (a) to David when his true opinion is in fact (c) - unless I have again misinterpreted David, in which case I again apologise for misinterpreting him. I note that the Chief Director of Australia is of the opinion that cards played from dummy are cards played by dummy (albeit under declarer's orders). He used a stronger, indeed rather un- parliamentary, word than "ludicrous" to describe the other idea. 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 Mon Sep 6 05:49:00 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 13:49:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) Dlr: South Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1H 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) Pass ? (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) You, North, hold: Q82 AJT 2 AJ9843 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Sep 6 07:31:33 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 01:31:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills writes: > > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) > Pass ? > > (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) > > You, North, hold: > > Q82 > AJT > 2 > AJ9843 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I choose to double and also consider 5H. I do not consider passing because I believe they have taken a sacrifice and I expect to beat it (either 4Sx or 5Dx). I eventually rejected 5H because the bidding suggests that it will not make. A spade will be led through my Qxx, so I may lose SA, S ruff, and DA, or partner may have several diamonds and I will be unable to ruff them, or there could be trump control problems if partner has to ruff spades. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 6 07:49:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 15:49:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Winston Churchill, opinion: "Mr Gladstone read Homer for fun, which I thought served him right." Grattan Endicott, opinion: [snip] >The approach to the subject raised by Thomas may have something >in common with the approach to 'partnership understanding' that >was minuted by the WBF Laws Committee in August, 2000; this stated >(in a comment on psychic tendencies): "The view is taken that a >partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence >is sufficient for the partner of a psycher to take his awareness of >psychic possibilities into account, whether he does so or not." > As in the case of awareness of a partnership understanding, the >level at which there is an awareness of something that is >"demonstrably suggested" to a player is a bridge judgement for >Director and appeals committee. +=+ Richard Hills, opinion: If I am interpreting Grattan's opinion correctly, he is drawing an analogy between an implicit partnership understanding and an implicit partnership demonstrable suggestion. So, for example, 1NT - (Pass) - 2NT, where responder's natural invite is hesitant, has the generic interpretation of "not any demonstrable suggestion". Responder's hesitant thoughts could have been either about passing 1NT, or about punting 3NT. However ..... If opener and responder are a regular partnership, and opener knows full well that responder is wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, then the implicit partnership demonstrable suggestion points towards a minimum-values opener bidding on to 3NT. 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 08:40:47 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 08:40:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/9/6 : > > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? 1H > 3D ? ? ? ?4C ? ? ? ?4S ? ? ? ?Pass(1) > Pass ? ? ?? > > (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) > > You, North, hold: > > Q82 > AJT > 2 > AJ9843 > > What call do you make? This is a tough problem. Partner's pass is forcing, a stronger action than double. It's a very close decision between double and bidding. I choose to bid 5H. > What other calls do you consider making? Double and 4NT (suggesting to play either 5C og 5H). > > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Sep 6 08:54:38 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 07:54:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91CBB50E-DD11-42FC-9FD9-E6BA874B3528@btinternet.com> On 6 Sep 2010, at 07:40, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2010/9/6 : >> >> Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) >> Dlr: South >> Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- 1H >> 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) >> Pass ? >> >> (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) >> >> You, North, hold: >> >> Q82 >> AJT >> 2 >> AJ9843 >> >> What call do you make? > > This is a tough problem. > Partner's pass is forcing, a stronger action than double. You seem not to have read the conditions of the original problem, Harald. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Sep 6 09:13:06 2010 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 08:13:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E8EF7CC947444E1AD57D8BA7D8E3BB5@Lounge> -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 2:27 AM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > >>>(unless one accepts David Barton's ludicrous argument that >>>Law 60A is inapplicable because East does not have a RHO). > > David Barton: > >>I object to this. That wording is YOURS not MINE. >> >>L60A A Play by a member of the non-offending side after his >>RHO has LED OR PLAYED out of turn or prematurely and before >>rectification has been assessed forfeits the right to >>rectification of that offence. >> >>(1) I argued that the play from dummy was made by declarer >>(LHO) not that RHO does not exist. > > [snip] > >>Please do not ridicule an argument that was never made and >>ascribe the ludicrous statement that East does not have a RHO >>to me (that was entirely you). > > Richard Hills: > > A difference which makes no difference is no difference. In > my opinion these three arguments are substantively equivalent: > > (a) North is East's LHO, or > > (b) North is East's RHO but holds 13 LHO cards, or > > (c) North is East's RHO, holds 13 RHO cards, but as each card > is played it transmogrifies into a LHO card. > > My apologies for ascribing (a) to David when his true opinion is > in fact (c) - unless I have again misinterpreted David, in which > case I again apologise for misinterpreting him. > > I note that the Chief Director of Australia is of the opinion > that cards played from dummy are cards played by dummy (albeit > under declarer's orders). He used a stronger, indeed rather un- > parliamentary, word than "ludicrous" to describe the other idea. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills L53B If the defender to the right of the hand from which ***DECLARER'S*** lead out of turn was made ...... Thus it is clear that a card played FROM dummy is played BY declarer unless Richard (and Chief Director of Australia) is arguing that East would not have the right to accept an out of turn lead from dummy because it was not a lead BY declarer rather a lead by Dummy. For the purpose of this discussion East's RHO can be considered as being locked in a small cubicle 100 metres away from the playing area enjoying a comfort break and not playing or leading any cards. The three arguments (a) (b) (c) may well be substantively equivalent but **I** did not make any of them. A card played from dummy is a card played BY declarer. Declarer is East's LHO. End. This concept does NOT require (a) N to become East's LHO, or (b) N to hold LHO's cards or (c) Any card played **FROM** the N hand to transmogrify or any other argument that I did not actually make. I also note that you continue to snip the condition ** before rectification has been assessed** that must also be met before L60A is applicable. I remind you that the in the case under consideration the Director has been called before any defender cards have been played to the trick so rectification (what rectification by the way?) WILL have been assessed. ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Sep 6 12:47:15 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:47:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C84C6B3.1060509@vwalther.de> On 06.09.2010 05:49, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) > Pass ? > > (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) > > You, North, hold: > > Q82 > AJT > 2 > AJ9843 > > What call do you make? double > What other calls do you consider making? > 5H From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 6 12:56:52 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:56:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C84C8F4.7050403@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/09/2010 0:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > >>> Balderdash. Even at favourable vulnerability a phantom >>> sacrifice or over-expensive sacrifice can turn a top into a >>> bottom. When the opponents hold the majority of the high >>> cards, and you know that your side has no great fit, it is >>> easier to win four tricks defending 4Sx in defence than win >>> eight tricks declaring 5Hx in offence. > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : okay, but what about 5C ? Do you expect to go 4 down >> most of the time ? Balderdash, as you said. > Richard Hills: > > I disagree. As a rough-and-ready rule of thumb, the fewer > tricks by which 5Cx fails, the more likely 4Sx will also > fail. At teams a phantom sacrifice of -100 declaring 5Cx > instead of +200 defending 4Sx costs only 7 imps. But this > deal occurred at matchpoint pairs, where the plus score is > king, so a phantom save will turn a top into a bottom. AG : applying The Law doesn't work well when each side has a double fit, or a fit and a long suit. This is the case here. Remember the bidding : LHO has a S-D 2-suiter, most probably freakish, because he went to game with points about 20-20. I agree that if LHO had shown a 1-suited hand the case would have been different, but here it seems like there are many, many total tricks. Notice that opener probably meant his 4NT as "two places to play", trying to convey the message of a strange opening with a long suit and heart fit, and partner didn't understand it, but that's another story. Problem is, even if partner has an obvious penalty double (taking into account that the vulnerable opponents aren't joking), 4S will make most of the time, with 5C and/or 5H cheap. If partner holds, say, KQJ-KTxxxx-xx-xx, that's an obvious double, isn't it ? With 5H-2 the most probable result. Of course partner *could* hold 5 spades, but I think I'm allowed to believe vulneralbe opponents whoi tell me it isn't the case. Just a case of UI being equal to AI. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 6 12:57:56 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:57:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C84C934.4010209@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/09/2010 2:01, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Kerry Thornley (1938-1998): > > "If organized religion is the opium of the masses, then > disorganized religion is the marijuana of the lunatic fringe." > > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > >> [1] The law book should define "Peers" objectively (e.g. other >> players in the same competition). > Richard Hills: > > Mrs Guggenheim volunteers to fill a half table in an otherwise > completely expert competition. She is then deemed to have > made a Law 12C1(b) "serious error" in failing to execute a very > easy double squeeze, since all the other declarers at the other > tables executed that very easy (for an expert) double squeeze. AG : this is indeed how it is ruled in Belgium. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 6 13:01:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:01:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C84CA1A.5060900@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/09/2010 8:40, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2010/9/6: >> Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) >> Dlr: South >> Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- 1H >> 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) >> Pass ? >> >> (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) >> >> You, North, hold: >> >> Q82 >> AJT >> 2 >> AJ9843 >> >> What call do you make? > This is a tough problem. > Partner's pass is forcing, a stronger action than double. > It's a very close decision between double and bidding. > I choose to bid 5H. AG : strange that you tell us the pass is forcing, when the conditions of the problem explicitly say the contrary. Perhaps that's what is meant by "not being among North's peers". But even with pass nonfocring, I have too much to pass, and consider double as more likely to succeed that any other bid. If I bid something, that's 4NT, choose your suit. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 13:05:49 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 13:05:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <91CBB50E-DD11-42FC-9FD9-E6BA874B3528@btinternet.com> References: <91CBB50E-DD11-42FC-9FD9-E6BA874B3528@btinternet.com> Message-ID: 2010/9/6 Gordon Rainsford : > > On 6 Sep 2010, at 07:40, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >> 2010/9/6 ?: >>> >>> Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) >>> Dlr: South >>> Vul: North-South >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH >>> --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? 1H >>> 3D ? ? ? ?4C ? ? ? ?4S ? ? ? ?Pass(1) >>> Pass ? ? ?? >>> >>> (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) >>> >>> You, North, hold: >>> >>> Q82 >>> AJT >>> 2 >>> AJ9843 >>> >>> What call do you make? >> >> This is a tough problem. >> Partner's pass is forcing, a stronger action than double. > > You seem not to have read the conditions of the original problem, > Harald. Right, Gordon. I somehow overlooked that 4C was NF. In that case, partners pass is his weakeas available call. I have too much to pass anyway. (And I seriously doupt that pass is a LA if partner hesitated.) Now I double, to show extra strength. Alternative bids are still 5H and 4NT. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Mon Sep 6 16:41:48 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:41:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11876297.1283784108892.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) > Pass ? > > (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) > > You, North, hold: > > Q82 > AJT > 2 > AJ9843 > > What call do you make? Double. > What other calls do you consider making? 5H. If 4NT here shows hearts and clubs, then I consider that as well. I do not consider pass, and initially I would think that pass is not an LA. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 6 18:28:03 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:28:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20A95B83-AC14-4206-86A4-40FFA1D0549F@starpower.net> On Sep 5, 2010, at 11:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) > Pass ? > > (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) > > You, North, hold: > > Q82 > AJT > 2 > AJ9843 > > What call do you make? 4NT. > What other calls do you consider making? 5H, X. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 6 18:37:27 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:37:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7861755B-0A32-4B70-B894-C036F5DA2521@starpower.net> On Sep 6, 2010, at 1:49 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > If I am interpreting Grattan's opinion correctly, he is drawing an > analogy between an implicit partnership understanding and an > implicit partnership demonstrable suggestion. > > So, for example, 1NT - (Pass) - 2NT, where responder's natural > invite is hesitant, has the generic interpretation of "not any > demonstrable suggestion". Responder's hesitant thoughts could have > been either about passing 1NT, or about punting 3NT. > > However ..... > > If opener and responder are a regular partnership, and opener knows > full well that responder is wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, then the implicit > partnership demonstrable suggestion points towards a minimum-values > opener bidding on to 3NT. But if opener and responder are a regular partnership, and opener knows full well that responder is wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, then the implicit partnership demonstrable suggestion from the 2NT bid in and of itself points towards a minimum-values opener bidding on to 3NT, whether or not responder has hesitated. Indeed, if opener knows full well that responder is wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, wouldn't a fast 2NT bid with alacrity suggest a particularly robust invitation, and therefore be more obviously suggestive of opener's continuing to game than a hesitant one? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 7 00:58:25 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:58:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875): "But the Emperor has nothing on at all!" cried a little child. Alain Gottcheiner: >...If I bid something, that's 4NT, choose your suit. Richard Hills: Alain is not necessarily North's peer, since many North-South partnerships have the agreement that 4NT is Keycard Blackwood in hearts (I have many times noticed Alain-style partnerships cuebid their way to 6H, only to find both the ace and king of trumps offside). * * * EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, appeal 18 Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) Dlr: South Vul: North-South Q82 AJT 2 AJ9843 93 KJT74 6 932 QJ98643 K75 KT2 76 A65 KQ8754 AT Q5 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1H 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) Pass 4NT(2) 5D 5S Pass 6C Pass Pass 6D Pass(3) Pass 7C Pass Pass 7D Pass(3) Pass X Pass Pass(3) Pass (1) Break in tempo. North-South claim Pass is forcing in this situation. (2) Keycard Blackwood in clubs. (3) Break in tempo. Result at table: 7Dx -5 by West, North-South +1100 Richard Hills, casebook panellist: This Director's syllogism: When partner makes a forcing pass he effectively says "I know we should take some action but I don't know what" and if partner hesitates and passes he effectively says "I know we should take some action but I don't know what". Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." My alternative syllogism: (1) For many people, an agreement to play high-level forcing passes is accident prone, with frequent forgetting and/or misinterpretation. (2) I used to play high-level forcing passes (an agreement now removed from my system). But, when I perpetrated an in-tempo forcing pass, my "pard" would often routinely pass also, for a red- faced score of +250 for us, instead of our cold vulnerable slam. (3) A sloooow forcing pass is demonstrably an "aid to memory". (4) *If* a sloooow forcing pass has jogged a snoozy partner's memory, *then* partner violating system is a Law 16B non-suggested logical alternative. (5) Ergo, *if* South?s extra-values forcing pass had been made in tempo, *then* North might have forgotten the partnership's agreement to apply extra-values forcing passes in this sort of auction, *instead* believing that South was employing a minimum- values non-forcing pass, *thus* causing North to sign off in 5H. 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 Tue Sep 7 01:39:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:39:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >(5) Ergo, *if* South?s extra-values forcing pass had been made >in tempo, *then* North might have forgotten the partnership's >agreement to apply extra-values forcing passes in this sort of >auction, *instead* believing that South was employing a minimum- >values non-forcing pass, *thus* causing North to sign off in 5H. Konrad Ciborowski, 16th October 2007: [snip] How do I know that? Put any pair who has never played with screens behind them and you'll see what happens. The lack of this confirmation from partner that we are still on the same wavelength can be at times devastating. I have seen numerous examples of this. The amount of non-verbal information transmitted in bridge is big, especially at the lower levels. When they introduced screens in the Polish Third Division the effect was unbelievable - suddenly bids asking for kings started becoming final contracts. And in 99% of cases these were pairs everybody considers clean. [snip] 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 7 02:16:30 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:16:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills writes: > My alternative syllogism: > (1) For many people, an agreement to play high-level forcing > passes is accident prone, with frequent forgetting and/or > misinterpretation. > (2) I used to play high-level forcing passes (an agreement now > removed from my system). But, when I perpetrated an in-tempo > forcing pass, my "pard" would often routinely pass also, for a red- > faced score of +250 for us, instead of our cold vulnerable slam. > (3) A sloooow forcing pass is demonstrably an "aid to memory". > (4) *If* a sloooow forcing pass has jogged a snoozy partner's > memory, *then* partner violating system is a Law 16B non-suggested > logical alternative. > (5) Ergo, *if* South?s extra-values forcing pass had been made in > tempo, *then* North might have forgotten the partnership's > agreement to apply extra-values forcing passes in this sort of > auction, *instead* believing that South was employing a minimum- > values non-forcing pass, *thus* causing North to sign off in 5H. I don't accept this argument, because it assumes that North forgetting his agreement (or assuming South has forgotten) is a logical alternative, absent any information that he had forgotten it. By definition, it is not logical to forget your agreements (although it is certainly normal), and unless partner has a history of forgetting agreements or you have information to the contrary, it is not logical to make a bid which assumes that partner forgot. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 7 04:25:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:25:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Grabiner: >I don't accept this argument, because it assumes that North >forgetting his agreement (or assuming South has forgotten) is >a logical alternative, absent any information that he had >forgotten it. By definition, it is not logical to forget your >agreements (although it is certainly normal) Richard Hills: By Law 16B1(b) definition a logical alternative is not necessarily logical. If among the class of players in question a particular partnership understanding (forcing pass, Ghestem, Gerber, etc) is very very frequently misunderstood, then an illogical violation of methods is a logical alternative. David Grabiner: >and unless partner has a history of forgetting agreements Richard Hills: Not quite the point. Some agreements are easier to forget than others. 100% of Nothing thread, first iteration, 27th January 2005: >>...Cohen-Berkowitz have an agreement that the partner of the >>opening leader will double 7NT with the ace of spades, but >>pass otherwise. Holding the wrong ace, David Berkowitz >>passed in tempo. And, because Cohen had not been awakened >>by UI from a hesitation, Cohen forgot their agreement, found >>the wrong lead, so lost a grand slam swing. Richard Hills: North's class of player may have a history of perfect recall of Stayman, a history of imperfect miscall of Ghestem, and a history of perfect recall of forcing passes because South always perpetrates a memory-stimulating pause before passing with force. David Grabiner: >or you have information to the contrary, it is not logical >to make a bid which assumes that partner forgot. Richard Hills: Doubtful strategy. If you are known to be in a very murky auction, then assuming pard is 100% au fait with your methods is a recipe for disaster. Many years ago I should have simply punted 7S (the grand slam would have made). Instead I tried a super-scientific advance cuebid of 5H, and played there in my 0-3 fit. :-) :-) 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 Tue Sep 7 13:30:33 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:30:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <493485.29303.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) Dlr: South Vul: North-South 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) Pass ? (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) You, North, hold: Q82 AJT 2 AJ9843 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] IMO X=10 5N=9 4N=8 5H=7 5C=6 IMO, Here, whatever our forcing-pass agreements, Pass is not a logical alternative. Nevertheless, I agree with Richard, that, in many contexts, players use hesitations to wake partner up. (eg when partner has failed to alert their call). From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 7 14:01:31 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:01:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6057369.1283860891357.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, appeal 18 > > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > Q82 > AJT > 2 > AJ9843 > 93 KJT74 > 6 932 > QJ98643 K75 > KT2 76 > A65 > KQ8754 > AT > Q5 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) > Pass 4NT(2) 5D 5S > Pass 6C Pass Pass > 6D Pass(3) Pass 7C > Pass Pass 7D Pass(3) > Pass X Pass Pass(3) > Pass > > (1) Break in tempo. North-South claim Pass is forcing in this > situation. > (2) Keycard Blackwood in clubs. > (3) Break in tempo. > > Result at table: 7Dx -5 by West, North-South +1100 > > Richard Hills, casebook panellist: > > This Director's syllogism: > > When partner makes a forcing pass he effectively says > "I know we should take some action but I don't know > what" and if partner hesitates and passes he > effectively says "I know we should take some action > but I don't know what". > > Law 40C3(a): > > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a > player is not entitled during the auction and play > periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or > technique." > > My alternative syllogism: > (1) For many people, an agreement to play high-level forcing > passes is accident prone, with frequent forgetting and/or > misinterpretation. > (2) I used to play high-level forcing passes (an agreement now > removed from my system). But, when I perpetrated an in-tempo > forcing pass, my "pard" would often routinely pass also, for a red- > faced score of +250 for us, instead of our cold vulnerable slam. > (3) A sloooow forcing pass is demonstrably an "aid to memory". > (4) *If* a sloooow forcing pass has jogged a snoozy partner's > memory, *then* partner violating system is a Law 16B non-suggested > logical alternative. > (5) Ergo, *if* South?s extra-values forcing pass had been made in > tempo, *then* North might have forgotten the partnership's > agreement to apply extra-values forcing passes in this sort of > auction, *instead* believing that South was employing a minimum- > values non-forcing pass, *thus* causing North to sign off in 5H. Assume that the actual agreement is that pass is forcing. I then think that bidding 5H is an LA, and thus you don't have to revert to your doubtful argument that forgetting the agreement is an LA. All you have to do is show that the BIT "could demonstrably have suggested" bidding 4NT over bidding 5H. As for the assumption that N might have forgotten their agreement, that looks like a stretch in this particular auction, but I think it might be applied in some other, less straightforward auction. Even then, I am not sure whether TFLB allows such a ruling. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 7 15:17:15 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:17:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493485.29303.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <493485.29303.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C863B5B.3020109@ulb.ac.be> > [Richard Hills] > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) > Pass ? > (1) Not forcing (old-fashioned Acol system) > You, North, hold: Q82 AJT 2 AJ9843 > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > [Nigel] > IMO X=10 5N=9 4N=8 5H=7 5C=6 > IMO, Here, whatever our forcing-pass agreements, Pass is not a logical alternative. Nevertheless, I agree with Richard, that, in many contexts, players use hesitations to wake partner up. (eg when partner has failed to alert their call). > > As usual, we don't have to consider first those who hesitate TO wake partner up, but rather those whose hesitations happen to awaken partner. Now I don't think that, except in some special circumstances, an hesitation will be the sign of a forcing pass. And if you are unsure whether the pass is forcing, and if partner hesistates for some other reason, and if you bid, then you'll be struck y UI rules ; so that you'll be punished more often than not, and I'm not as worried as Richard. Also notice that this rocketing bidding creates a quasi-skip bid situation, where no hesitation would be more revealing than some. And one last point : one mentioned Acol, true ? Then why should partner hold long hearts, rather than say 3442 ? So, the 5H bid is clearly wrong. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 7 15:23:50 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:23:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6057369.1283860891357.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <6057369.1283860891357.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C863CE6.8050708@ulb.ac.be> > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, appeal 18 >> >> Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) >> Dlr: South >> Vul: North-South >> >> Q82 >> AJT >> 2 >> AJ9843 >> 93 KJT74 >> 6 932 >> QJ98643 K75 >> KT2 76 >> A65 >> KQ8754 >> AT >> Q5 >> >> The bidding went: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- 1H >> 3D 4C 4S Pass(1) >> Pass 4NT(2) 5D 5S >> Pass 6C Pass Pass >> 6D Pass(3) Pass 7C >> Pass Pass 7D Pass(3) >> Pass X Pass Pass(3) >> Pass >> >> (1) Break in tempo. North-South claim Pass is forcing in this >> situation. >> (2) Keycard Blackwood in clubs. >> (3) Break in tempo. >> >> Result at table: 7Dx -5 by West, North-South +1100 >> >> Richard Hills, casebook panellist: >> >> This Director's syllogism: >> >> When partner makes a forcing pass he effectively says >> "I know we should take some action but I don't know >> what" and if partner hesitates and passes he >> effectively says "I know we should take some action >> but I don't know what". >> >> Law 40C3(a): >> >> "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a >> player is not entitled during the auction and play >> periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or >> technique." >> >> My alternative syllogism: >> (1) For many people, an agreement to play high-level forcing >> passes is accident prone, with frequent forgetting and/or >> misinterpretation. >> (2) I used to play high-level forcing passes (an agreement now >> removed from my system). But, when I perpetrated an in-tempo >> forcing pass, my "pard" would often routinely pass also, for a red- >> faced score of +250 for us, instead of our cold vulnerable slam. >> (3) A sloooow forcing pass is demonstrably an "aid to memory". >> (4) *If* a sloooow forcing pass has jogged a snoozy partner's >> memory, *then* partner violating system is a Law 16B non-suggested >> logical alternative. >> (5) Ergo, *if* South?s extra-values forcing pass had been made in >> tempo, *then* North might have forgotten the partnership's >> agreement to apply extra-values forcing passes in this sort of >> auction, *instead* believing that South was employing a minimum- >> values non-forcing pass, *thus* causing North to sign off in 5H. > Assume that the actual agreement is that pass is forcing. > I then think that bidding 5H is an LA, AG : and I don't. You aren't even sure that partner holds a 5-card suit. > and thus you > don't have to revert to your doubtful argument that > forgetting the agreement is an LA. All you have > to do is show that the BIT "could demonstrably > have suggested" bidding 4NT over bidding 5H. > > As for the assumption that N might have forgotten > their agreement, that looks like a stretch in this particular > auction, but I think it might be applied in some other, > less straightforward auction. Even then, I am not sure > whether TFLB allows such a ruling. > > > AG : this isn't very different from cases where partner has to alert some bid, remembering you how the bidding will go on. Difficult to avoid, and impossible to prove that you had been forgetting. I wouldn't be able to give any consideration to the claim that your alerting 1C-1D (Walsh) suddenly awakened partner to the fact that over your 1NT, 2C wouldn't be to play. "what has been stated without any proof may be gainsaid without any proof" (Euclides) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 8 00:33:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:33:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6057369.1283860891357.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: [snip] >As for the assumption that N might have forgotten their >agreement, that looks like a stretch in this particular >auction, but I think it might be applied in some other, >less straightforward auction. Even then, I am not sure >whether TFLB allows such a ruling. Richard Hills: The Law 16B1(b) definition of logical alternative refers to "the methods of the partnership". However, Law 40C1 states that notional explicit methods can change into actual implicit methods because of "repeated deviations". Such repeated deviations are not necessarily intentional psyches, but could also be unintentional forgetfulness. Groucho Marx: "I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception." 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 Wed Sep 8 00:57:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:57:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C863CE6.8050708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : this isn't very different from cases where partner has to alert >some bid, remembering you how the bidding will go on. Difficult to >avoid, and impossible to prove that you had been forgetting. I >wouldn't be able to give any consideration to the claim that your >alerting 1C-1D (Walsh) suddenly awakened partner to the fact that >over your 1NT, 2C wouldn't be to play. >"what has been stated without any proof may be gainsaid without any >proof" (Euclides) Richard Hills: I am not sure what Alain is trying to say here. If he is saying that sometimes one's Law 40C3(a) "aids to his memory" infractions can be completely unnoticed by one's opponents and the Director, then I agree. If, however, Alain is arguing that it permissible for one to sometimes intentionally infract Law 40C3(a), whenever the infraction is completely unnoticeable, then I disagree. In this situation an ethical player is at competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis an unethical player, since the ethical player obeys the unenforceable Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." 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 Wed Sep 8 02:54:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 10:54:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sven Pran, 18th February 2005 (1997 Lawbook in effect): [snip] >You had better look at Law 8B End of Round: > >"In general a round ends when the Director gives the signal >for the start of the following round; but if any table has >not completed play by that time, the round continues for >that table until there has been a progression of players." > >A board in play shall never be terminated prematurely by the >Director. Old 1997 Law 82B2: "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: require or postpone the play of a board." New 2007 Law 82B2: "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: require, postpone, **or cancel** the play of a board." Richard Hills: Law 90B2 "unduly slow play" is an error in procedure. So if at one table there are two veeery slooow pairs who are delaying the progression of other players, then the 2007 Lawbook now permits their board in play to be terminated prematurely by the Director (with an award of Ave- to both of the veeery slooow pairs for the terminated board). 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 avivnyc at gmail.com Wed Sep 8 05:30:17 2010 From: avivnyc at gmail.com (Dave Seagull) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:30:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claims Message-ID: <4C870349.3080304@gmail.com> Hello BLML, I usually just enjoy lurking but we recently had 2 interesting situations regarding claims and I would like to find out what people here have to say about. Case 1: declarer is in a diamond contract with the lead in dummy and all trumps are drawn and spades never have been played Dummy: S - xxxx H - AJ Declarer: S - xx D - xxxx Declarer's claim: I will pitch 1 spade loser on the HA and concede 1 spade. The director was called because originally the heart suit was: Kx opposite AJTx and the 2 tricks previous to the claim were HK followed by a heart to the Ten and now if play had continued the Q would drop from LHO who started with Qxx and declarer can discard his last losing spade on the established HJ. Declarer was a flight B player who clearly made a careless claim but should not playing the HJ after the Q drops be considered careless or irrational? how would you rule? Would you rule any differently if the claimer was flight C? flight A? Would you rule any differently if the first 2 heart tricks were at an earlier stage of the play? Case 2: declarer is in a heart contract after pulling trumps and eliminating spades and diamonds with clubs never been played Dummy: H - xx C - AQJ Declarer: H - xxx C - xx Declarer led a low club, LHO followed low and before declarer called for a card from dummy, RHO placed the CK on the table without saying anything. The director was called and RHO who started with Kx of clubs said they were trying to claim by showing declarer that the finesse was off and that declarer's earlier plays gave away his complete count so it was clear to RHO that declarer must lose a club. Declarer was a flight A player who probably could have taken the finesse (or claimed) at trick 4 since the elimination was completely unnecessary and at that point he already knew that the final result depends solely on the club finesse. RHO was a flight B player who clearly made a careless and impatient play (or claim). How do you rule? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100908/ef3328db/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 8 05:47:13 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 23:47:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claims In-Reply-To: <4C870349.3080304@gmail.com> References: <4C870349.3080304@gmail.com> Message-ID: <417FFB6BED1345C7B987014999662A15@erdos> Dave Seagull writes: >Case 1: declarer is in a diamond contract with the lead in dummy and all trumps >are drawn and spades never have been played >Dummy: S - xxxx H - AJ >Declarer: S - xx D - xxxx >Declarer's claim: I will pitch 1 spade loser on the HA and concede 1 spade. >The director was called because originally the heart suit was: Kx opposite AJTx >and the 2 tricks previous to the claim were HK followed by >a heart to the Ten and now if play had continued the Q would drop from LHO who >started with Qxx and declarer can discard his last losing >spade on the established HJ. >Declarer was a flight B player who clearly made a careless claim but should not >playing the HJ after the Q drops be considered careless or >irrational? If the HQ drops, not cashing the good HJ is irrational, and on declarer's stated line, the HA must be played to the next trick. Unless I believe declarer forgot about the HK, I give him all the tricks. > Would you rule any differently if the first 2 heart tricks were at an earlier > stage of the play? Here, I might question whether declarer forgot about the HK. >Case 2: declarer is in a heart contract after pulling trumps and eliminating >spades and diamonds with clubs never been played >Dummy: H - xx C - AQJ >Declarer: H - xxx C - xx >Declarer led a low club, LHO followed low and before declarer called for a card >from dummy, RHO placed the CK on the table without >saying anything. >The director was called and RHO who started with Kx of clubs said they were >trying to claim by showing declarer that the finesse was off >and that declarer's earlier plays gave away his complete count so it was clear >to RHO that declarer must lose a club. >Declarer was a flight A player who probably could have taken the finesse (or >claimed) at trick 4 since the elimination was completely >unnecessary and at that point he already knew that the final result depends >solely on the club finesse. >RHO was a flight B player who clearly made a careless and impatient play (or >claim). I would rule that RHO claimed, because this was his intention at the time, even though he showed only the CK and not the Kx. Given the point in the hand, it's clear to all four players that declarer is going to take a finesse (or possibly try to drop the king, which also loses one trick); a ruffing finesses is not possible. I have seen this situation several times, although it is usually more clear. Declarer leads towards a KJ in dummy, and while he is thinking about which card to play, RHO shows him the AQ, claiming both tricks. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 8 06:16:58 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 14:16:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C870349.3080304@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dave Seagull: >Case 1: declarer is in a diamond contract with the lead in >dummy and all trumps are drawn and spades never have been >played >Dummy: S - xxxx H - AJ >Declarer: S - xx D - xxxx >Declarer's claim: I will pitch 1 spade loser on the HA and >concede 1 spade. >The director was called because originally the heart suit was: >Kx opposite AJTx and the 2 tricks previous to the claim were >HK followed by a heart to the Ten and now if play had >continued the Q would drop from LHO who started with Qxx and >declarer can discard his last losing spade on the established >HJ. >Declarer was a flight B player who clearly made a careless >claim but should not playing the HJ after the Q drops be >considered careless or irrational? >how would you rule? >Would you rule any differently if the claimer was flight C? >flight A? >Would you rule any differently if the first 2 heart tricks >were at an earlier stage of the play? Richard Hills: If I had been LHO, the Director would not have been called. I would have told declarer, "You get two spade discards, not merely one, because my queen of hearts drops." On the other hand, if I had been the Director, I would rule under Law 71(2) that it is not normal to ignore the jack of hearts after the queen of hearts drops. Even if declarer is ambivalent about the status of the jack of hearts, being unsure whether she previously held the king of hearts, it is not normal to avoid the cost-nothing play of loser-on-loser / loser-on-winner of tossing the last spade on the jack of hearts and hope to get lucky. Dave Seagull; >Case 2: declarer is in a heart contract after pulling trumps >and eliminating spades and diamonds with clubs never been >played >Dummy: H - xx C - AQJ >Declarer: H - xxx C - xx >Declarer led a low club, LHO followed low and before >declarer called for a card from dummy, RHO placed the CK on >the table without saying anything. >The director was called and RHO who started with Kx of clubs >said they were trying to claim by showing declarer that the >finesse was off and that declarer's earlier plays gave away >his complete count so it was clear to RHO that declarer must >lose a club. >Declarer was a flight A player who probably could have taken >the finesse (or claimed) at trick 4 since the elimination >was completely unnecessary and at that point he already knew >that the final result depends solely on the club finesse. >RHO was a flight B player who clearly made a careless and >impatient play (or claim). >How do you rule? Richard Hills: On the available facts, it seems that declarer may have been executing a Soporific Coup, intentionally "prolonging play unnecessarily" contrary to Law 74B4 in the hope that an opponent might make an error. Sure enough, an opponent did make an error. But not a terminal error. The Law 68 footnote does not mandate a "statement" by RHO when claiming an uncompleted trick, the footnote provides the Director with two criteria, a "statement or action". So as Director I would rule that RHO's action was indeed an attempt at a time-saving claim (with the time-saving foiled by the Secretary Bird declarer). So as Director, my final ruling would be to allow RHO's claim of the king of clubs, and to fine declarer a procedural penalty for the infraction of Law 74B4. 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 Wed Sep 8 07:19:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:19:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert, March 2005: >>>The Laws define the beginning and end of the auction >>>period, and the beginning of the play period. They do >>>not define the end of the play period. Richard Hills, March 2005: >>Does not Law 65D imply that the play period ends after >>agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won? Sven Pran, March 2005: >True, but Laws 8B and 8C may also give a hint. Grattan Endicott, March 2005: +=+ Do you not think, perhaps, that in principle the play period ends at different times for different matters of law? Relevant laws set their own time limits within which the Director may act? The Cheshire Cat "vanished quite slowly beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin which remained some time after the rest of it had gone". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 8 10:36:45 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 10:36:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01cb4f30$f8e91340$eabb39c0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran, 18th February 2005 (1997 Lawbook in effect): > > [snip] > > >You had better look at Law 8B End of Round: > > > >"In general a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > >start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play > >by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a > >progression of players." > > > >A board in play shall never be terminated prematurely by the Director. > > Old 1997 Law 82B2: > > "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: > require or postpone the play of a board." > > New 2007 Law 82B2: > > "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: > require, postpone, **or cancel** the play of a board." > > Richard Hills: > > Law 90B2 "unduly slow play" is an error in procedure. So if at one table there are > two veeery slooow pairs who are delaying the progression of other players, then > the 2007 Lawbook now permits their board in play to be terminated prematurely by > the Director (with an award of Ave- to both of the veeery slooow pairs for the > terminated board). Law 90A: 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. This law lists "unduly delays or obstructs the game" along with, not as an example of "violates correct procedure". Unduly slow play is an offence, yes, but it is not in itself a violation of correct procedure. Law 8B1; In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. This law is absolute on the point that a board once started must be completed (unless a more specific law allows it, or other circumstances forces it to become cancelled). The rectification for a slow play is limited to procedure penalties; premature termination of a board is not an alternative. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Sep 8 12:41:34 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:41:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <036401cb4f42$689a9c70$39cfd550$@nl> [RH] Old 1997 Law 82B2: "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: require or postpone the play of a board." New 2007 Law 82B2: "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: require, postpone, **or cancel** the play of a board." Richard Hills: Law 90B2 "unduly slow play" is an error in procedure. So if at one table there are two veeery slooow pairs who are delaying the progression of other players, then the 2007 Lawbook now permits their board in play to be terminated prematurely by the Director (with an award of Ave- to both of the veeery slooow pairs for the terminated board). [HvS] I am not going into the debate whether a director can, or cannot cancel play according to the law, although I would not hesitate, and actually did not hesitate to do so in the past. However, I object to the Ave- for both sides. I clearly remember cancelling a boards after the auction in the Tel Aviv bridge tournament many years ago. After a loooooong auction a pair reached the contract of 7NT. I immediately stopped play and sent players to their next tables. The boards was scored as 7NT making 13 tricks of course, since the law did not allow me to give them their overtrick(s). Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 8 14:19:30 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:19:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C877F52.50700@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/09/2010 0:57, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : this isn't very different from cases where partner has to alert >> some bid, remembering you how the bidding will go on. Difficult to >> avoid, and impossible to prove that you had been forgetting. I >> wouldn't be able to give any consideration to the claim that your >> alerting 1C-1D (Walsh) suddenly awakened partner to the fact that >> over your 1NT, 2C wouldn't be to play. >> "what has been stated without any proof may be gainsaid without any >> proof" (Euclides) > Richard Hills: > > I am not sure what Alain is trying to say here. If he is saying that > sometimes one's Law 40C3(a) "aids to his memory" infractions can be > completely unnoticed by one's opponents and the Director, then I > agree. AG : OK then. > If, however, Alain is arguing that it permissible for one to > sometimes intentionally infract Law 40C3(a), whenever the infraction > is completely unnoticeable, then I disagree. In this situation an > ethical player is at competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis an unethical > player, since the ethical player obeys the unenforceable Law 72B1: Right. And is it fair ? Now, if some law perforce creates unfairness, it should be changed. Not that I know exactly how, but I can't understand that so many of you are satisfied with, or merely admit, the present situation. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 8 14:27:30 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:27:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <036401cb4f42$689a9c70$39cfd550$@nl> References: <036401cb4f42$689a9c70$39cfd550$@nl> Message-ID: <4C878132.8010207@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/09/2010 12:41, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > [RH] > > Old 1997 Law 82B2: > > "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: > require or postpone the play of a board." > > New 2007 Law 82B2: > > "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: > require, postpone, **or cancel** the play of a board." > > Richard Hills: > > Law 90B2 "unduly slow play" is an error in procedure. So if > at one table there are two veeery slooow pairs who are > delaying the progression of other players, then the 2007 > Lawbook now permits their board in play to be terminated > prematurely by the Director (with an award of Ave- to both > of the veeery slooow pairs for the terminated board). > > [HvS] > > I am not going into the debate whether a director can, or cannot cancel play > according to the law, although I would not hesitate, and actually did not > hesitate to do so in the past. > > However, I object to the Ave- for both sides. > > I clearly remember cancelling a boards after the auction in the Tel Aviv > bridge tournament many years ago. After a loooooong auction a pair reached > the contract of 7NT. I immediately stopped play and sent players to their > next tables. The boards was scored as 7NT making 13 tricks of course, since > the law did not allow me to give them their overtrick(s). AG : so the TD claimed. Perhaps you should have said to them that they would be penalized unless they immediately claimed and agreed ? But OK with the ruling. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 8 15:15:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:15:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claims In-Reply-To: <4C870349.3080304@gmail.com> References: <4C870349.3080304@gmail.com> Message-ID: <21996954-1C3F-47A5-984C-93925E94CB45@starpower.net> On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Dave Seagull wrote: > Hello BLML, > I usually just enjoy lurking but we recently had 2 interesting > situations regarding claims and I would like to find out what > people here have to say about. > > Case 1: declarer is in a diamond contract with the lead in dummy > and all trumps are drawn and spades never have been played > Dummy: S - xxxx H - AJ > Declarer: S - xx D - xxxx > Declarer's claim: I will pitch 1 spade loser on the HA and concede > 1 spade. > The director was called because originally the heart suit was: Kx > opposite AJTx and the 2 tricks previous to the claim were HK > followed by a heart to the Ten and now if play had continued the Q > would drop from LHO who started with Qxx and declarer can discard > his last losing spade on the established HJ. > Declarer was a flight B player who clearly made a careless claim > but should not playing the HJ after the Q drops be considered > careless or irrational? > how would you rule? > Would you rule any differently if the claimer was flight C? flight A? > Would you rule any differently if the first 2 heart tricks were at > an earlier stage of the play? Declarer gets all the tricks. There is no line of play consistent with his statement on which the HQ would not have dropped, and it would be "abnormal" for him not to notice it. This would be less clear-cut if the HK had originally been held by an opponent, which would require the TD to "find" that declarer knew it was gone (as he normally would). > Case 2: declarer is in a heart contract after pulling trumps and > eliminating spades and diamonds with clubs never been played > Dummy: H - xx C - AQJ > Declarer: H - xxx C - xx > Declarer led a low club, LHO followed low and before declarer > called for a card from dummy, RHO placed the CK on the table > without saying anything. > The director was called and RHO who started with Kx of clubs said > they were trying to claim by showing declarer that the finesse was > off and that declarer's earlier plays gave away his complete count > so it was clear to RHO that declarer must lose a club. > Declarer was a flight A player who probably could have taken the > finesse (or claimed) at trick 4 since the elimination was > completely unnecessary and at that point he already knew that the > final result depends solely on the club finesse. > RHO was a flight B player who clearly made a careless and impatient > play (or claim). > How do you rule? The CK scores. RHO showed the CK deliberately in an obvious attempt to claim a trick with it. Technically he should have done so by showing his entire hand, but we don't deny an adjustment based on a purely mechanical infraction that has no effect on the outcome of the deal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 8 16:03:44 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 14:03:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Claims In-Reply-To: <4C870349.3080304@gmail.com> References: <4C870349.3080304@gmail.com> Message-ID: <431347.94344.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Dave Seagull] Case 1: declarer is in a diamond contract with the lead in dummy and all trumps are drawn and spades never have been played Dummy: S - xxxx H - AJ Declarer: S - xx D - xxxx Declarer's claim: I will pitch 1 spade loser on the HA and concede 1 spade. The director was called because originally the heart suit was: Kx opposite AJTx and the 2 tricks previous to the claim were HK followed by a heart to the Ten and now if play had continued the Q would drop from LHO who started with Qxx and declarer can discard his last losing spade on the established HJ. Declarer was a flight B player who clearly made a careless claim but should not playing the HJ after the Q drops be considered careless or irrational? how would you rule? Would you rule any differently if the claimer was flight C? flight A? Would you rule any differently if the first 2 heart tricks were at an earlier stage of the play? Case 2: declarer is in a heart contract after pulling trumps and eliminating spades and diamonds with clubs never been played Dummy: H - xx C - AQJ Declarer: H - xxx C - xx Declarer led a low club, LHO followed low and before declarer called for a card from dummy, RHO placed the CK on the table without saying anything. The director was called and RHO who started with Kx of clubs said they were trying to claim by showing declarer that the finesse was off and that declarer's earlier plays gave away his complete count so it was clear to RHO that declarer must lose a club. Declarer was a flight A player who probably could have taken the finesse (or claimed) at trick 4 since the elimination was completely unnecessary and at that point he already knew that the final result depends solely on the club finesse. RHO was a flight B player who clearly made a careless and impatient play (or claim). How do you rule? [Nigel] I'm just a player but I think the director should rule for the claimer in both cases: In the first case, declarer said he'd discard a spade on the hearts. In my view, the law should assume that you cash winners *top down* unless specified otherwise. In the second case, barring mechanical error, the defender's intention to claim seems manifest. From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 8 17:21:07 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:21:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20573488.1283959267411.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Thomas Dehn: > > [snip] > > >As for the assumption that N might have forgotten their > >agreement, that looks like a stretch in this particular > >auction, but I think it might be applied in some other, > >less straightforward auction. Even then, I am not sure > >whether TFLB allows such a ruling. > > Richard Hills: > > The Law 16B1(b) definition of logical alternative refers > to "the methods of the partnership". However, Law 40C1 > states that notional explicit methods can change into > actual implicit methods because of "repeated deviations". > > Such repeated deviations are not necessarily intentional > psyches, but could also be unintentional forgetfulness. Yes, but to rule like that, at minimum the TD or AC would need information indicating that a player might have forgotten system, with some appropriate probability Surely you cannot rule like that out of the blue. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From avivnyc at gmail.com Wed Sep 8 17:25:33 2010 From: avivnyc at gmail.com (Dave Seagull) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:25:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C87AAED.2040507@gmail.com> On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Dave Seagull: > >> Case 1: ...if play had >> continued the Q would drop from LHO who started with Qxx and >> declarer can discard his last losing spade on the established >> HJ. > Richard Hills: > > If I had been LHO, the Director would not have been called. > I would have told declarer, "You get two spade discards, not > merely one, because my queen of hearts drops." It was actually the Expert LHO who called the director (instead of putting his cards back in the board without saying anything) because he didn't feel he deserved to win a trick with his SA knowing his HQ will fall under declarer's Ace He just wasn't sure what the laws say and would have accepted the trick if the director had told him that according to the laws declarer has forfeited that trick and since he could have lost it by following his suggested line of play (conceding a spade after cashing the HA) than that trick is indeed lost. The director actually commended the Expert LHO for his ethics and awarded declarer all of the remaining tricks, ruling that it would be irrational for that class of player not to notice the fall of the HQ and not cashing the HJ pitching his last losing spade. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 8 20:50:10 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 18:50:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <126023.20405.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Dave Seagull] It was actually the Expert LHO who called the director (instead of putting his cards back in the board without saying anything) because he didn't feel he deserved to win a trick with his SA knowing his HQ will fall under declarer's Ace He just wasn't sure what the laws say and would have accepted the trick if the director had told him that according to the laws declarer has forfeited that trick and since he could have lost it by following his suggested line of play (conceding a spade after cashing the HA) than that trick is indeed lost. The director actually commended the Expert LHO for his ethics and awarded declarer all of the remaining tricks, ruling that it would be irrational for that class of player not to notice the fall of the HQ and not cashing the HJ pitching his last losing spade. [Nigel] On reflection, I'm not so sure that the director ruled correctly. Declarer's specified line didn't involve cashing the fourth heart. If declarer didn't envisage any possibility that dummy's heart knave could become a winner, why should the wiser director credit him with that deduction? The decision might be harder if declarer hadn't earlier cashed the king of hearts. All players are prone to carelessness, so the director should rule the same way, no matter what the claimer's calibre. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 8 21:05:42 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:05:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <126023.20405.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <126023.20405.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:50:10 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Dave Seagull] > It was actually the Expert LHO who called the director (instead of > > putting his cards back in the board without saying anything) because he > didn't feel he deserved to win a trick with his SA knowing his HQ will > fall under declarer's Ace > He just wasn't sure what the laws say and would have accepted the trick > if the director had told him that according to the laws declarer has > forfeited that trick and since he could have lost it by following his > suggested line of play (conceding a spade after cashing the HA) than > that trick is indeed lost. > The director actually commended the Expert LHO for his ethics and > awarded declarer all of the remaining tricks, ruling that it would be > irrational for that class of player not to notice the fall of the HQ and > not cashing the HJ pitching his last losing spade. > > [Nigel] > On reflection, I'm not so sure that the director ruled correctly. > Declarer's > specified line didn't involve cashing the fourth heart. If declarer > didn't > envisage any possibility that dummy's heart knave could become a winner, > why > should the wiser director credit him with that deduction? The decision > might be > harder if declarer hadn't earlier cashed the king of hearts. All players > are > prone to carelessness, so the director should rule the same way, no > matter what > the claimer's calibre. I would be tempted to rule the same way. It is not my job as director to notice the drop of the queen of hearts, remember that the king has been played, and they choose the optimal line of play. This is boderline for me and in practice I will wish I didn't have to make a decision. As always, the problem with TFLB is that there is no statement about actually following the stated line of play. It should say that the stated line of play is followed until.......... And then the ruling here (and other places where BLMLers disagree) depends on how you fill in the blank. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 9 00:41:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:41:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C877F52.50700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>If, however, Alain is arguing that it permissible for one to >>sometimes intentionally infract Law 40C3(a), whenever the >>infraction is completely unnoticeable, then I disagree. In >>this situation an ethical player is at competitive disadvantage >>vis-a-vis an unethical player, since the ethical player obeys >>the unenforceable Law 72B1: Alain Gottcheiner: >Right. And is it fair ? >Now, if some law perforce creates unfairness, it should be >changed. Not that I know exactly how, but I can't understand >that so many of you are satisfied with, or merely admit, the >present situation. George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes: "I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Here it is in modern English: "Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account." Richard Hills: Despite the Lawbook being written in modern English, in the long term a tournament bridge race is usually to the swift. Firstly, an ethical player will not partner an unethical player or have an unethical player as a team-mate, so an un- ethical player finds it much more difficult to organise suitable partners and team-mates. (In a 1970s Bridge World editorial, Edgar Kaplan noted that pair A would grumble about the ethics of pair B, but at a later championship pair A would have selected pair B as team-mates, since pair B's bad ethics were effective in bringing in good scores. Of course, pair A could now no longer deem themselves ethical.) Secondly, a player who unnoticeably and intentionally infracts Law 40C3(a) belongs to the class of player who goes to the well too often, perpetrates an intentional infraction of another, more noticeable Law, and is then banned for a decade by their Regulating Authority. 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 Sep 9 01:13:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:13:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: Technically the first problem was not just a claim, it was a claim and a concession. And since it was only the concession of the one trick which was in dispute, the appropriate Law for the Director to examine was Law 71, Concession Cancelled. Robert Frick: [snip] >As always, the problem with TFLB is that there is no statement >about actually following the stated line of play. It should say >that the stated line of play is followed until.......... And then >the ruling here (and other places where BLMLers disagree) depends >on how you fill in the blank. Law saying stated line of play is followed until....., Law 71(2): "A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession: if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Best wishes Richard Hills 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 Sep 9 01:30:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:30:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01cb4f30$f8e91340$eabb39c0$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran, 8th September 2010: [snip] >Law 8B1; >In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for >the start of the following round; but if any table has not >completed play by that time, the round continues for that table >until there has been a progression of players. > >This law is absolute on the point that a board once started must >be completed (unless a more specific law allows it, or other >circumstances forces it to become cancelled). The rectification >for a slow play is limited to procedure penalties; premature >termination of a board is not an alternative. Gordon Bower, 18th February 2005: I don't think that is right. L8B says a round continues until the players move if they have not completed play; it doesn't say whether the players can be ordered to move despite not completing play. In fact, L5B says players move in accordance with director's instructions, period. "Each player is responsible for moving when and as directed." It doesn't say "unless he's in the middle of the hand." L81C4 says I must insure the orderly progress of the game. I am, of course, bound by L81B2 to obey the laws and supplementary regulations. But unless DWS or someone else can produce a law that says "the director may not interrupt a board in progress", it is my L5/81- authorized right to tell them to get up and move whenever I think that they should. As a matter of both training and common sense, I don't generally exercise that power. But *if*, under some exotic circumstance, I wanted to, I could. And after they have been moved, I am now free to apply L12A2, or even L6D3 if this happened the first time the board was played. 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 Sep 9 01:54:15 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <838670.83531.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Technically the first problem was not just a claim, it was a claim and a concession. And since it was only the concession of the one trick which was in dispute, the appropriate Law for the Director to examine was Law 71, Concession Cancelled. [Nigel] Richard's reading often throws new light on the laws: if you don't claim *all* the remaining tricks, must the director treat your *claim* as a *concession* as well? I worry about ordinary concessions too. For example, suppose, at notrump, in a two card ending, declarer -- a world champion, for the sake of argument -- holds a couple of deuces. Unfortunately, he does not realise that one of them is a winner and concedes the rest of the tricks. Must declarer award him the trick that a player of his calibre could not lose by "normal" play (unless he had lost the place)? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 9 02:00:14 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <838670.83531.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <838670.83531.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62048.86858.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Nigel] Richard's reading often throws new light on the laws: if you don't claim *all* the remaining tricks, must the director treat your *claim* as a *concession* as well? I worry about ordinary concessions too. For example, suppose, at notrump, in a two card ending, declarer -- a world champion, for the sake of argument -- holds a couple of deuces. Unfortunately, he does not realise that one of them is a winner and concedes the rest of the tricks. Must declarer award him the trick that a player of his calibre could not lose by "normal" play (unless he had lost the place)? [Nige2] I meant "Must the *director* award him the trick..." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 9 02:14:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:14:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01cb4f30$f8e91340$eabb39c0$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Law 90A: >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. > >This law lists "unduly delays or obstructs the game" along with, >not as an example of "violates correct procedure". Unduly slow >play is an offence, yes, but it is not in itself a violation of >correct procedure. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Sven is using tenuous reasoning. The wording of the prologue to Law 90A is more-or-less unchanged since the 1997 Lawbook, with the only difference being the replacement of "penalty provisions of" with "rectifications in". But it is no longer necessary to indirectly guess what "correct procedure" is. The vague inference in Law 90A is now superseded by the 2007 Lawbook's new Definition of: "Irregularity ? a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." Ergo, any infraction of any part of Law 90 (not merely an infraction of Law 90B7) is a deviation from correct procedure. 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 Sep 9 02:46:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:46:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <62048.86858.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Richard's reading often throws new light on the laws: if you >don't claim *all* the remaining tricks, must the director treat >your *claim* as a *concession* as well? Law 68B1: "...a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any..." Nigel Guthrie: >I worry about ordinary concessions too. For example, suppose, >at notrump, in a two card ending, declarer -- a world champion, >for the sake of argument -- holds a couple of deuces. >Unfortunately, he does not realise that one of them is a winner >and concedes the rest of the tricks. Must the Director award >him the trick that a player of his calibre could not lose by >"normal" play (unless he had lost the place)? Richard Hills: Definitely not. In Dave Seagull's first case, declarer would gain important new information (the queen of hearts dropping) before declarer's concession took effect, thus nullifying the concession. In Nigel Guthrie's hypothetical case, the fact that declarer has conceded demonstrably proves that declarer is temporarily of less than world champion calibre. So declarer should be deemed by the Director to have randomly led the losing deuce. Law 70A: "...any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer..." 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 Sep 9 03:05:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:05:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20573488.1283959267411.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The Law 16B1(b) definition of logical alternative refers >>to "the methods of the partnership". However, Law 40C1 >>states that notional explicit methods can change into >>actual implicit methods because of "repeated deviations". >> >>Such repeated deviations are not necessarily intentional >>psyches, but could also be unintentional forgetfulness. Thomas Dehn: >Yes, but to rule like that, at minimum the TD or AC would >need information indicating that a player might have >forgotten system, with some appropriate probability. > >Surely you cannot rule like that out of the blue. Richard Hills: In the EBU they rule like that out of the red, via their Red Misbid regulation. If North forgets a convention (the most notorious forgotten convention is Ghestem), and South then selects an illogical alternative which only makes sense if South thinks that North might have forgotten, then the EBU deems that South has illegally fielded North's misbid. And it does not matter if this is the first time that North's forgetfulness has come to the Director's attention. 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 Sep 9 05:29:20 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 13:29:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower, 18th February 2005: [snip] >In fact, L5B says players move in accordance with director's >instructions, period. "Each player is responsible for moving >when and as directed." It doesn't say "unless he's in the >middle of the hand." [snip] Richard Hills, 9th September 2010: A Canberra Bridge Club Law 5B regulation for its major events (Tuesday and Thursday evenings) is that each round or match is strictly timed. When the electronic timer beeps, the Director announces: "No new boards, but finish the board that you are currently playing." Sometimes a slooow table will finish its penultimate board after the announcement, then the table will illegally start bidding on its ultimate board. The Director can, and often does, cancel that ultimate board mid-auction. 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 Sep 9 06:56:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:56:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) 4S(3) Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) (1) 21-22 balanced (2) Intended as an opening bid of a Weak Two in hearts - TD summoned - TD determines that West does not accept the insufficient bid, so Law 27A1 does not apply - TD determines that a sufficient bid of 3H would be a transfer to spades, so Law 27B1(a) does not apply - TD determines that although a sufficient bid of 3D would be a transfer to hearts, the transfer has a less precise meaning than a Weak Two in hearts, so Law 27B1(b) does not apply - thus the TD rules under Law 27B2 that North must pass throughout the rest of the auction and that South can correct her insufficient bid to any legal call that she wants to make. The TD also carefully explains the possibility of a Law 26 lead rectification. (3) Confused by the mention of a transfer to spades, South unintentionally corrects to 4S, instead of 4H. (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. (5) In tempo pass in accordance with Law 28A - RHO Required to Pass. (6) South now wishes to invoke Law 25A - Unintended Call - which South cannot do if North has already passed. Does East's Law 28A pass mean that North has already passed? How do you rule? 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 svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 9 07:14:28 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:14:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001e01cb4f30$f8e91340$eabb39c0$@no> Message-ID: <000b01cb4fdd$e0aafca0$a200f5e0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran, 8th September 2010: > > [snip] > > >Law 8B1; > >In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > >start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play > >by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a > >progression of players. > > > >This law is absolute on the point that a board once started must be > >completed (unless a more specific law allows it, or other circumstances > >forces it to become cancelled). The rectification for a slow play is > >limited to procedure penalties; premature termination of a board is not > >an alternative. > > Gordon Bower, 18th February 2005: > > I don't think that is right. > > L8B says a round continues until the players move if they have not completed > play; it doesn't say whether the players can be ordered to move despite not > completing play. > > In fact, L5B says players move in accordance with director's instructions, period. > "Each player is responsible for moving when and as directed." It doesn't say > "unless he's in the middle of the hand." > > L81C4 says I must insure the orderly progress of the game. > > I am, of course, bound by L81B2 to obey the laws and supplementary regulations. > > But unless DWS or someone else can produce a law that says "the director may > not interrupt a board in progress", it is my L5/81- authorized right to tell them to > get up and move whenever I think that they should. > > As a matter of both training and common sense, I don't generally exercise that > power. But *if*, under some exotic circumstance, I wanted to, I could. And after > they have been moved, I am now free to apply L12A2, or even L6D3 if this > happened the first time the board was played. Law 8B1 positively states that the round continues (i.e. does not end) until there has been a progression of players. It does not give the Director power to interrupt a board in progress when the round is called. Unless you can find a law that explicitly gives the Director power to interrupt a board in progress at a table I shall assert that he may not. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 9 07:19:04 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:19:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000c01cb4fde$8586f760$9094e620$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > A Canberra Bridge Club Law 5B regulation for its major events (Tuesday and > Thursday evenings) is that each round or match is strictly timed. When the > electronic timer beeps, the Director announces: > > "No new boards, but finish the board that you are currently playing." > > Sometimes a slooow table will finish its penultimate board after the announcement, > then the table will illegally start bidding on its ultimate board. The Director can, > and often does, cancel that ultimate board mid-auction. Sure, what is the problem with this? There is a major difference between a board that was started before and a board that was started after the call of the round. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 9 07:26:59 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:26:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000d01cb4fdf$a05027a0$e0f076e0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) > 4S(3) > Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) > > > (1) 21-22 balanced > > (2) Intended as an opening bid of a Weak Two in hearts - TD > summoned - TD determines that West does not accept the > insufficient bid, so Law 27A1 does not apply - TD > determines that a sufficient bid of 3H would be a > transfer to spades, so Law 27B1(a) does not apply - TD > determines that although a sufficient bid of 3D would be > a transfer to hearts, the transfer has a less precise > meaning than a Weak Two in hearts, so Law 27B1(b) does > not apply - thus the TD rules under Law 27B2 that North > must pass throughout the rest of the auction and that > South can correct her insufficient bid to any legal call > that she wants to make. > > The TD also carefully explains the possibility of a Law > 26 lead rectification. > > (3) Confused by the mention of a transfer to spades, South > unintentionally corrects to 4S, instead of 4H. > > (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. > > (5) In tempo pass in accordance with Law 28A - RHO Required > to Pass. > > (6) South now wishes to invoke Law 25A - Unintended Call - > which South cannot do if North has already passed. > > Does East's Law 28A pass mean that North has already passed? Sure > How do you rule? The contract is 4S - what is the problem? (If South is a confused novice in bridge I would consider allowing a change to 4H) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 9 07:43:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:43:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: >It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >logical operations. > >For example: > >(Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >(Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >(Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >eternal happiness. Grattan Endicott, 12th April 2005: +=+ You mean this is not true? I'll take the immediate fulfilment above the idyllic dream, please! ~ G ~ +=+ 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 Sep 9 08:45:08 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 16:45:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Not in Kansas anymore [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Lord Bowen (1835-1894): The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella: But chiefly on the just, because The unjust steals the just's umbrella. East-West were playing a canape relay system. North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. You, West, hold: A5 Q9862 AK43 Q6 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Dorothy Richard 1D(1) 3C(2) X (3) 4C 4H 5C 5H Pass ? (4) (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major (2) Preempt (3) Negative (4) Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, you, West, hold maximum values for your opening bid of 1D. What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Sep 9 08:48:06 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:48:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Is_Law_25A_insufficient=3F_=5BSEC=3DUNOFFI?= =?iso-8859-15?q?CIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1OtavX-1fF2Su0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) > 4S(3) > Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) > > > (1) 21-22 balanced > > (2) Intended as an opening bid of a Weak Two in hearts - TD > summoned - TD determines that West does not accept the > insufficient bid, so Law 27A1 does not apply - TD > determines that a sufficient bid of 3H would be a > transfer to spades, so Law 27B1(a) does not apply - TD > determines that although a sufficient bid of 3D would be > a transfer to hearts, the transfer has a less precise > meaning than a Weak Two in hearts, so Law 27B1(b) does > not apply - thus the TD rules under Law 27B2 that North > must pass throughout the rest of the auction and that > South can correct her insufficient bid to any legal call > that she wants to make. > > The TD also carefully explains the possibility of a Law > 26 lead rectification. > > (3) Confused by the mention of a transfer to spades, South > unintentionally corrects to 4S, instead of 4H. > > (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. > > (5) In tempo pass in accordance with Law 28A - RHO Required > to Pass. > > (6) South now wishes to invoke Law 25A - Unintended Call - > which South cannot do if North has already passed. > > Does East's Law 28A pass mean that North has already passed? > > How do you rule? I'd apply Law 25A. A player who is required to pass has not done so unless he has passed (or acted in ways that are eqivalent to a pass). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 9 09:10:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 17:10:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01cb4fdd$e0aafca0$a200f5e0$@no> Message-ID: Slogan on a bridge T-shirt: "Bridge Is Not a Matter of Life and Death---It's Much More Serious Than That" Sven Pran: [snip] >Unless you can find a law that explicitly gives the Director >power to interrupt a board in progress at a table I shall >assert that he may not. Richard Hills: Not a valid argument. I could contrariwise argue: "Unless you can find a Law that explicitly prohibits the Director from interrupting a board in progress I shall assert that he may." Many years ago in an Aussie Interstate Teams match a single board took 45 minutes to bid and play. Fortunately it was a 24-board match with a generous time limit, so slow play fines were avoided when the other 23 boards were played quickly. But in a pairs event with one-board rounds (commonplace in New Zealand) the Director would have to cancel such a slow board well before the 45 minutes were tallied. 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 svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 9 09:19:17 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:19:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cb4fdd$e0aafca0$a200f5e0$@no> Message-ID: <001901cb4fef$519cf510$f4d6df30$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >Unless you can find a law that explicitly gives the Director power to > >interrupt a board in progress at a table I shall assert that he may > >not. > > Richard Hills: > > Not a valid argument. I could contrariwise argue: > > "Unless you can find a Law that explicitly prohibits the Director from interrupting a > board in progress I shall assert that he may." Of course you can when you choose to invalidate Law 8B1. But what allows you to do that? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 9 10:05:28 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:05:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not in Kansas anymore [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C889548.3050102@t-online.de> Am 09.09.2010 08:45, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > Lord Bowen (1835-1894): > > The rain it raineth on the just > And also on the unjust fella: > But chiefly on the just, because > The unjust steals the just's umbrella. > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > You, West, hold: > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D(1) 3C(2) X (3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H Pass > ? (4) > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, > you, West, hold maximum values for your > opening bid of 1D. > > What call do you make? Insufficient data. What was this 5H thing? Was a forcing pass or reversed forcing pass available? If so, does 5H guarantee a C control? Or does it deny one? What is going on, anyway? Is N non-vul vs. vul, by any chance, and trading in on the vulnerability to take away 4S and/or 4NT from the opps (whatever they might mean in the system)? > What other calls do you consider making? My options are pass and 6H. Since partner didn't bid 6 over 5C himself it is pretty unlikely that I would do so now, given that 5H bid. Only specific agreements about it could possibly let me bid slam. I think it is pretty likely that we have two top losers in C. > > > 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Sep 9 10:24:40 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:24:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1OtavX-1fF2Su0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OtavX-1fF2Su0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <3A3D8529-0998-42D6-9DD4-EE5ECA00D714@btinternet.com> On 9 Sep 2010, at 07:48, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: Nil >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) >> 4S(3) >> Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) >> >> >> (1) 21-22 balanced >> >> (2) Intended as an opening bid of a Weak Two in hearts - TD >> summoned - TD determines that West does not accept the >> insufficient bid, so Law 27A1 does not apply - TD >> determines that a sufficient bid of 3H would be a >> transfer to spades, so Law 27B1(a) does not apply - TD >> determines that although a sufficient bid of 3D would be >> a transfer to hearts, the transfer has a less precise >> meaning than a Weak Two in hearts, so Law 27B1(b) does >> not apply - thus the TD rules under Law 27B2 that North >> must pass throughout the rest of the auction and that >> South can correct her insufficient bid to any legal call >> that she wants to make. >> >> The TD also carefully explains the possibility of a Law >> 26 lead rectification. >> >> (3) Confused by the mention of a transfer to spades, South >> unintentionally corrects to 4S, instead of 4H. >> >> (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. >> >> (5) In tempo pass in accordance with Law 28A - RHO Required >> to Pass. >> >> (6) South now wishes to invoke Law 25A - Unintended Call - >> which South cannot do if North has already passed. >> >> Does East's Law 28A pass mean that North has already passed? >> >> How do you rule? > > I'd apply Law 25A. > A player who is required to pass has not done > so unless he has passed (or acted in ways that > are eqivalent to a pass). I agree that this situation is within the scope of L25A, but we still need to consider whether a 4S bid caused by confusion is unintended within the meaning of the law. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 9 11:28:19 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:28:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C88A8B3.2010801@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 0:41, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > >>> If, however, Alain is arguing that it permissible for one to >>> sometimes intentionally infract Law 40C3(a), whenever the >>> infraction is completely unnoticeable, then I disagree. In >>> this situation an ethical player is at competitive disadvantage >>> vis-a-vis an unethical player, since the ethical player obeys >>> the unenforceable Law 72B1: > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> Right. And is it fair ? >> Now, if some law perforce creates unfairness, it should be >> changed. Not that I know exactly how, but I can't understand >> that so many of you are satisfied with, or merely admit, the >> present situation. > Richard Hills: > Secondly, a player who unnoticeably and intentionally infracts > Law 40C3(a) belongs to the class of player who goes to the well > too often, perpetrates an intentional infraction of another, > more noticeable Law, and is then banned for a decade by their > Regulating Authority. > > > AG : I beg to differ. The use of UI is often semi-conscious or self-delusory ("of course I would have remembered it myself"), so that it is perpetrated by players that show no strong unethical tendency, only they don't understand UI rules or their own mental processes or both. Whence the protection you mention doesn't work in my own experience. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 9 11:41:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:41:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C88ABBA.8070706@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 3:05, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > In the EBU they rule like that out of the red, via their > Red Misbid regulation. > > If North forgets a convention (the most notorious forgotten > convention is Ghestem), and South then selects an illogical > alternative which only makes sense if South thinks that > North might have forgotten, then the EBU deems that South > has illegally fielded North's misbid. And it does not > matter if this is the first time that North's forgetfulness > has come to the Director's attention. > > AG : I don't like this at all. 1C 2C 2D ? 2C = 54+ majors your hand : Ax-Jxxxxx-Jxxx-x. At the table I bid 2H, to try slowing the bidding down. Now, if parter for any reason had made a (for him) natural 2C bid, I would be chastised for having fielded his misbid ??? From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 9 11:46:29 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:46:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: > >> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >> logical operations. >> >> For example: >> >> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >> eternal happiness. > AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's the extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. For example, Esperanto would have translated the first "nothing" by "nenia ajho" (no thing of any sort), the second by "nenio".(the true "nothing") From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 9 11:54:42 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:54:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3A3D8529-0998-42D6-9DD4-EE5ECA00D714@btinternet.com> References: <1OtavX-1fF2Su0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <3A3D8529-0998-42D6-9DD4-EE5ECA00D714@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002001cb5005$06f1ce80$14d56b80$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > >> How do you rule? > > > > I'd apply Law 25A. > > A player who is required to pass has not done so unless he has passed > > (or acted in ways that are eqivalent to a pass). > > I agree that this situation is within the scope of L25A, but we still need to consider > whether a 4S bid caused by confusion is unintended within the meaning of the law. Be aware that once East has called under Law 28A (not awaiting a forced pass from North) then North is no longer in turn to call; it is now South's turn to call. And if South should now be allowed to change his last (previous) call then both (first) West and (second) East must also be allowed to change their last calls. This is contrary to every main principle in the laws; the auction can never (for any reason) be rolled back more than one call for each side. How would you have ruled if South (as confused as before) convincingly stated that he really intended to pass? Would you allow that? And what effect do you believe that would have had on the continued auction? Come on, read the laws, understand and make the players understand the (applicable) laws and apply these laws. That is the Director's duty. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 12:53:34 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:53:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not in Kansas anymore [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/9/9 : > > Lord Bowen (1835-1894): > > The rain it raineth on the just > ?And also on the unjust fella: > But chiefly on the just, because > ?The unjust steals the just's umbrella. > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > You, West, hold: > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > ? ? ? ? ?Dorothy ? ? ? ? ? ? Richard > 1D(1) ? ? 3C(2) ? ? X (3) ? ? 4C > 4H ? ? ? ?5C ? ? ? ?5H ? ? ? ?Pass > ? (4) > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, > ? ?you, West, hold maximum values for your > ? ?opening bid of 1D. > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? There are only two possible calls now; pass and 6H. We're in a forcing position over 5C. With normal FP agreements, pass is obvious. With reverse agreements, bidding 6H is pretty clear. With one regular partner, 5H promises a club control, thus 6H is possible. For slam I need partner to have 2nd round control in spades, good trumps and 3rd round control in diamonds. Or first round control in clubs and max one loser elsewhere. It's a close decision, but I'd raise to slam, unless I've got clear UI restrictions. > > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 9 14:07:59 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:07:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01cb4fdd$e0aafca0$a200f5e0$@no> References: <001e01cb4f30$f8e91340$eabb39c0$@no> <000b01cb4fdd$e0aafca0$a200f5e0$@no> Message-ID: <425771.31873.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Sven Pran] Unless you can find a law that explicitly gives the Director power to interrupt a board in progress at a table I shall assert that he may not. [Nigel] Richard's interpretation of the law (that the director may terminate a board) accords with common sense and common practice. The rules should be corrected, immediately, to make this explicit. A thought experiment: At board one, on day one of a world championship, a player drops dead half-way through playing the hand. Would that really entail the director postponing resumption of play until the next revision of the laws in 2018? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 9 14:16:57 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:16:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C88A8B3.2010801@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C88A8B3.2010801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <223068.70718.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I beg to differ. The use of UI is often semi-conscious or self-delusory ("of course I would have remembered it myself"), so that it is perpetrated by players that show no strong unethical tendency, only they don't understand UI rules or their own mental processes or both. Whence the protection you mention doesn't work in my own experience. [Nigel] IMO, Alain has a more realistic appreciation of human foibles than Richard. For example, it beggars belief that ordinary players are expected to understand the laws, when decades of repetitive argument on BLML and other fora, demonstrate that neither law-makers nor top directors can. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu Sep 9 14:18:59 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:18:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3A3D8529-0998-42D6-9DD4-EE5ECA00D714@btinternet.com> References: <1OtavX-1fF2Su0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <3A3D8529-0998-42D6-9DD4-EE5ECA00D714@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <01D29C9D6CDE4873B0D041AD2B3EF7AE@PCdeOlivier> > On 9 Sep 2010, at 07:48, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >>> Imps >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: Nil >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) >>> 4S(3) >>> Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) >>> >>> >>> (1) 21-22 balanced >>> >>> (2) Intended as an opening bid of a Weak Two in hearts - TD >>> summoned - TD determines that West does not accept the >>> insufficient bid, so Law 27A1 does not apply - TD >>> determines that a sufficient bid of 3H would be a >>> transfer to spades, so Law 27B1(a) does not apply - TD >>> determines that although a sufficient bid of 3D would be >>> a transfer to hearts, the transfer has a less precise >>> meaning than a Weak Two in hearts, so Law 27B1(b) does >>> not apply - thus the TD rules under Law 27B2 that North >>> must pass throughout the rest of the auction and that >>> South can correct her insufficient bid to any legal call >>> that she wants to make. >>> >>> The TD also carefully explains the possibility of a Law >>> 26 lead rectification. >>> >>> (3) Confused by the mention of a transfer to spades, South >>> unintentionally corrects to 4S, instead of 4H. >>> >>> (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. >>> >>> (5) In tempo pass in accordance with Law 28A - RHO Required >>> to Pass. >>> >>> (6) South now wishes to invoke Law 25A - Unintended Call - >>> which South cannot do if North has already passed. >>> >>> Does East's Law 28A pass mean that North has already passed? >>> >>> How do you rule? >> >> I'd apply Law 25A. >> A player who is required to pass has not done >> so unless he has passed (or acted in ways that >> are eqivalent to a pass). > > I agree that this situation is within the scope of L25A, but we still > need to consider whether a 4S bid caused by confusion is unintended > within the meaning of the law. IMHO, the answer is in L21A Olivix > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 5435 (20100908) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5436 (20100909) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From jfchevalier at ffbridge.net Thu Sep 9 14:52:51 2010 From: jfchevalier at ffbridge.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Chevalier?=) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:52:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002001cb5005$06f1ce80$14d56b80$@no> References: <1OtavX-1fF2Su0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <3A3D8529-0998-42D6-9DD4-EE5ECA00D714@btinternet.com> <002001cb5005$06f1ce80$14d56b80$@no> Message-ID: <4C88D8A3.6090400@ffbridge.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100909/90917088/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 9 15:09:41 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:09:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: > > > >> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid > >> logical operations. > >> > >> For example: > >> > >> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. > >> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. > >> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than > >> eternal happiness. > > > AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's the > extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" is a transitive operation. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 15:11:00 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:11:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C88D8A3.6090400@ffbridge.net> References: <1OtavX-1fF2Su0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <3A3D8529-0998-42D6-9DD4-EE5ECA00D714@btinternet.com> <002001cb5005$06f1ce80$14d56b80$@no> <4C88D8A3.6090400@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: 2010/9/9 Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier : > > > Le 09/09/2010 11:54, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > > And if South should now be allowed to change his last (previous) call then > both (first) West and (second) East must also be allowed to change their > last calls. This is contrary to every main principle in the laws; the > auction can never (for any reason) be rolled back more than one call for > each side. > > IMHO it is wrong, see Law 17E2. (the 1st of the 3 passes is OOT) No. After south corrected to 4S, west and north passed in turn. Then south discovered his mistake. > > Jean-Fran?ois > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 9 15:17:38 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:17:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Not in Kansas anymore [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15476398.1284038258280.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > You, West, hold: > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D(1) 3C(2) X (3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H Pass > ? (4) > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, > you, West, hold maximum values for your > opening bid of 1D. With a total dog I would not have bid 4H. Partner's negative double is not GF. > What call do you make? Pass > What other calls do you consider making? Pass. Pass. Pass. I have a poor H suit, no C control, and the wasted CQ. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 9 15:25:01 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:25:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C88E02D.8090205@meteo.fr> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: >>> >>>> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >>>> logical operations. >>>> >>>> For example: >>>> >>>> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >>>> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>>> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >>>> eternal happiness. >> AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's the >> extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. > > One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" > is a transitive operation. it would be difficult as it is not a transitive relation. jpr > > > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 9 15:27:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:27:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 15:09, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: >>> >>>> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >>>> logical operations. >>>> >>>> For example: >>>> >>>> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >>>> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>>> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >>>> eternal happiness. >> AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's the >> extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. > One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" > is a transitive operation. > > > It is usually considered that preferences are transitive. For example, all of votation theory and 90% of economics and marketing fall down if one uses a non-transitive preference relation (NB : relation, not operation) It is an axiom, rather than a theorem, so no proof, sorry. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 9 15:27:39 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:27:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C88D8A3.6090400@ffbridge.net> References: <1OtavX-1fF2Su0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <3A3D8529-0998-42D6-9DD4-EE5ECA00D714@btinternet.com> <002001cb5005$06f1ce80$14d56b80$@no> <4C88D8A3.6090400@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: <000d01cb5022$c6ac4580$5404d080$@no> That is not an auction that is rolled back; it is an illegal call that is cancelled together with all subsequent calls. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier Sent: 9. september 2010 14:53 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Le 09/09/2010 11:54, Sven Pran a ?crit : And if South should now be allowed to change his last (previous) call then both (first) West and (second) East must also be allowed to change their last calls. This is contrary to every main principle in the laws; the auction can never (for any reason) be rolled back more than one call for each side. IMHO it is wrong, see Law 17E2. (the 1st of the 3 passes is OOT) Jean-Fran?ois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100909/dbb17765/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 9 15:29:44 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:29:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not in Kansas anymore [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <15476398.1284038258280.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <15476398.1284038258280.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C88E148.1010609@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 15:17, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> You, West, hold: >> >> A5 >> Q9862 >> AK43 >> Q6 >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Dorothy Richard >> 1D(1) 3C(2) X (3) 4C >> 4H 5C 5H Pass >> ? (4) >> >> (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major >> (2) Preempt >> (3) Negative >> (4) Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, >> you, West, hold maximum values for your >> opening bid of 1D. > With a total dog I would not have bid 4H. > Partner's negative double is not GF. > >> What call do you make? > Pass > >> What other calls do you consider making? > Pass. Pass. Pass. I have a poor H suit, > no C control, and the wasted CQ. > > AG : I would also consider bidding 4H, but alas the Rules don't allow me to do so. Didn't we see this case before ? From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Sep 9 15:54:12 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:54:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C88E704.7090304@comcast.net> On 9/9/10 9:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/09/2010 15:09, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>> Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: >>>> >>>>> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >>>>> logical operations. >>>>> >>>>> For example: >>>>> >>>>> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >>>>> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>>>> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >>>>> eternal happiness. >>> AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's the >>> extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. >> One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" >> is a transitive operation. >> >> >> > It is usually considered that preferences are transitive. > For example, all of votation theory and 90% of economics and marketing > fall down if one uses a non-transitive preference relation (NB : > relation, not operation) > > It is an axiom, rather than a theorem, so no proof, sorry. Wrong. See, for example, "Mathematical Games," by Martin Garner, Scientific American, Oct 1974. As a simple example, he demonstrates an asymetrical dice game with 4 dice (either there of in a related article) where we play for a dollar a point and I let you choose your die first. Whichever die you choose, I can choose a better one. --Bob Park From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 9 16:48:04 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:48:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C88E704.7090304@comcast.net> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be> <4C88E704.7090304@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 15:54, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 9/9/10 9:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 9/09/2010 15:09, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>>> Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: >>>>> >>>>>> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >>>>>> logical operations. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example: >>>>>> >>>>>> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >>>>>> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>>>>> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >>>>>> eternal happiness. >>>> AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's the >>>> extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. >>> One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" >>> is a transitive operation. >>> >>> >>> >> It is usually considered that preferences are transitive. >> For example, all of votation theory and 90% of economics and marketing >> fall down if one uses a non-transitive preference relation (NB : >> relation, not operation) >> >> It is an axiom, rather than a theorem, so no proof, sorry. > Wrong. See, for example, "Mathematical Games," by Martin Garner, > Scientific American, Oct 1974. > > As a simple example, he demonstrates an asymetrical dice game with 4 > dice (either there of in a related article) where we play for a dollar a > point and I let you choose your die first. Whichever die you choose, I > can choose a better one. > > AG : BTA this isn't a preference relation. A preference relates to what a human being likes (as in the above problem), not to winning games. Seems to me that both attempted counterexamples just show that some people don't understand that, when an object doesn't meet a definition, it is normal that it doesn't share the attributes of those which do. Would you consider butter as a counterexample of "stone is hard" because it isn't hard ? From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 16:52:02 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:52:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C88F492.3000803@gmail.com> On 9/9/2010 1:43 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: > >> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >> logical operations. >> >> For example: >> >> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >> eternal happiness. > Ah, but this syllogism is not kosher. Hirsch From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 9 17:35:26 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:35:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmai l@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.7090304 @comcast.net> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 9/09/2010 15:54, Robert Park a ?crit : >> On 9/9/10 9:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> Le 9/09/2010 15:09, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>>>> Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >>>>>>> logical operations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >>>>>>> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>>>>>> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >>>>>>> eternal happiness. >>>>> AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's the >>>>> extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. >>>> One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" >>>> is a transitive operation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> It is usually considered that preferences are transitive. >>> For example, all of votation theory and 90% of economics and marketing >>> fall down if one uses a non-transitive preference relation (NB : >>> relation, not operation) >>> >>> It is an axiom, rather than a theorem, so no proof, sorry. >> Wrong. See, for example, "Mathematical Games," by Martin Garner, >> Scientific American, Oct 1974. >> >> As a simple example, he demonstrates an asymetrical dice game with 4 >> dice (either there of in a related article) where we play for a dollar a >> point and I let you choose your die first. Whichever die you choose, I >> can choose a better one. >> >> > AG : BTA this isn't a preference relation. A preference relates to what > a human being likes (as in the above problem), not to winning games. > > Seems to me that both attempted counterexamples just show that some > people don't understand that, when an object doesn't meet a definition, > it is normal that it doesn't share the attributes of those which do. > Would you consider butter as a counterexample of "stone is hard" because > it isn't hard ? agreed but, in the first place you were the one to restrict the question to stones, i mean to preferences. all relations of the form "is better than" are not connected to somebody's feelings. someones are related to winning games. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 9 17:53:04 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:53:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmai l@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.7090304 @comcast.net> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 17:35, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >> Le 9/09/2010 15:54, Robert Park a ?crit : >>> On 9/9/10 9:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> Le 9/09/2010 15:09, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>>> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>>>>> Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >>>>>>>> logical operations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >>>>>>>> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>>>>>>> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >>>>>>>> eternal happiness. >>>>>> AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's the >>>>>> extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. >>>>> One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" >>>>> is a transitive operation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It is usually considered that preferences are transitive. >>>> For example, all of votation theory and 90% of economics and marketing >>>> fall down if one uses a non-transitive preference relation (NB : >>>> relation, not operation) >>>> >>>> It is an axiom, rather than a theorem, so no proof, sorry. >>> Wrong. See, for example, "Mathematical Games," by Martin Garner, >>> Scientific American, Oct 1974. >>> >>> As a simple example, he demonstrates an asymetrical dice game with 4 >>> dice (either there of in a related article) where we play for a dollar a >>> point and I let you choose your die first. Whichever die you choose, I >>> can choose a better one. >>> >>> >> AG : BTA this isn't a preference relation. A preference relates to what >> a human being likes (as in the above problem), not to winning games. >> >> Seems to me that both attempted counterexamples just show that some >> people don't understand that, when an object doesn't meet a definition, >> it is normal that it doesn't share the attributes of those which do. >> Would you consider butter as a counterexample of "stone is hard" because >> it isn't hard ? > agreed but, in the first place you were the one to restrict the question > to stones, i mean to preferences. all relations of the form "is better > than" are not connected to somebody's feelings. > AG : indeed. Let's put it another way. All relations of the type "better than" are of the transitive type. That's intrinsic in the word "better". Most relations of the "competition" type (those which represent results of a round-robin without draws) are (at least theoretically) non-transitive. And that's why I claimed that the two counterexamples were non-stone, i.e. "competition" rather than "better" In fact, the non-transitive set of dice invented by the late Martin Gardner serve to illustrate that there is a difference between those two types.. In mathematics, "better" does not mean "being able to beat". There is an interesting theorem, that I see with my students : a "competition" relation is transitive if and only if there are no two competitors who have won the same number of matches. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 9 19:42:06 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 19:42:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmai l@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.7090304 @comcast.net> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <7550698.1284054126786.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/09/2010 17:35, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > >> Le 9/09/2010 15:54, Robert Park a ?crit : > >>> On 9/9/10 9:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>> Le 9/09/2010 15:09, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>>>> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >>>>>>> Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid > >>>>>>>> logical operations. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> For example: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. > >>>>>>>> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. > >>>>>>>> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than > >>>>>>>> eternal happiness. > >>>>>> AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's > the > >>>>>> extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. > >>>>> One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" > >>>>> is a transitive operation. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> It is usually considered that preferences are transitive. > >>>> For example, all of votation theory and 90% of economics and marketing > >>>> fall down if one uses a non-transitive preference relation (NB : > >>>> relation, not operation) > >>>> > >>>> It is an axiom, rather than a theorem, so no proof, sorry. > >>> Wrong. See, for example, "Mathematical Games," by Martin Garner, > >>> Scientific American, Oct 1974. > >>> > >>> As a simple example, he demonstrates an asymetrical dice game with 4 > >>> dice (either there of in a related article) where we play for a dollar > a > >>> point and I let you choose your die first. Whichever die you choose, I > >>> can choose a better one. > >>> > >>> > >> AG : BTA this isn't a preference relation. A preference relates to what > >> a human being likes (as in the above problem), not to winning games. > >> > >> Seems to me that both attempted counterexamples just show that some > >> people don't understand that, when an object doesn't meet a definition, > >> it is normal that it doesn't share the attributes of those which do. > >> Would you consider butter as a counterexample of "stone is hard" because > >> it isn't hard ? > > agreed but, in the first place you were the one to restrict the question > > to stones, i mean to preferences. all relations of the form "is better > > than" are not connected to somebody's feelings. > > > AG : indeed. Let's put it another way. > All relations of the type "better than" are of the transitive type. Consider objects that have three different scores assigned to them. Object A has scores: green 10, blue 20, red 30 Object B has scores: green 20, blue 30, red 10 Object C has scores: green 30, blue 10, red 20. An object is "better" than another object if it beats that object in two out of three categories. Doesn't that look like a reasonable definition of "better"? B is "better" than A because it wins in the green and blue categories. C is "better" than B because it wins in the green and red categories. A is "better" than C because it wins in the blue and red categories. *Ooops* Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 9 19:49:36 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:49:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngma i l@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.70903 04 @comcast.net> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 9/09/2010 17:35, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >>> Le 9/09/2010 15:54, Robert Park a ?crit : >>>> On 9/9/10 9:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>> Le 9/09/2010 15:09, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>>>> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>>>>>> Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >>>>>>>>> logical operations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For example: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >>>>>>>>> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>>>>>>>> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >>>>>>>>> eternal happiness. >>>>>>> AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; >>>>>>> it's the >>>>>>> extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. >>>>>> One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" >>>>>> is a transitive operation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It is usually considered that preferences are transitive. >>>>> For example, all of votation theory and 90% of economics and marketing >>>>> fall down if one uses a non-transitive preference relation (NB : >>>>> relation, not operation) >>>>> >>>>> It is an axiom, rather than a theorem, so no proof, sorry. >>>> Wrong. See, for example, "Mathematical Games," by Martin Garner, >>>> Scientific American, Oct 1974. >>>> >>>> As a simple example, he demonstrates an asymetrical dice game with 4 >>>> dice (either there of in a related article) where we play for a >>>> dollar a >>>> point and I let you choose your die first. Whichever die you choose, I >>>> can choose a better one. >>>> >>>> >>> AG : BTA this isn't a preference relation. A preference relates to what >>> a human being likes (as in the above problem), not to winning games. >>> >>> Seems to me that both attempted counterexamples just show that some >>> people don't understand that, when an object doesn't meet a definition, >>> it is normal that it doesn't share the attributes of those which do. >>> Would you consider butter as a counterexample of "stone is hard" because >>> it isn't hard ? >> agreed but, in the first place you were the one to restrict the question >> to stones, i mean to preferences. all relations of the form "is better >> than" are not connected to somebody's feelings. >> > AG : indeed. Let's put it another way. > All relations of the type "better than" are of the transitive type. > That's intrinsic in the word "better". i don't think it's obvious > Most relations of the "competition" type (those which represent results > of a round-robin without draws) are (at least theoretically) > non-transitive. > And that's why I claimed that the two counterexamples were non-stone, > i.e. "competition" rather than "better" > > In fact, the non-transitive set of dice invented by the late Martin > Gardner serve to illustrate that there is a difference between those two > types.. > In mathematics, "better" does not mean "being able to beat". > > There is an interesting theorem, that I see with my students : a > "competition" relation is transitive if and only if there are no two > competitors who have won the same number of matches. i am not certain to understand what you mean. is it that you try a posteriori to infer from the semi-random results of a round-robin whether there is a relation of total order between contestants? in what category do you range this competition (table-tennis team competition used a few years ago): a team is constituted of 3 players. in a match between 2 teams, each player in a team meets the 3 players of the opposite team. suppose there is a reliable ranking of 9 players (a player always wins against a lower-ranking opponent). team A consists of players 1, 5 and 9 team B: 2,6,7 team C: 3,4,8 A is better than B (it beats it 5-4) B is better than C C is better than A we have the same phenomenon in bridge with suit combinations as jeroen warmerdam showed: for instance with A1098 R432, there are 4 lines of play A,B,C,D such as A is better than B (at BAM scoring), B than C, C than D and D than A. 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 9 21:17:53 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 19:17:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngma i l@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.70903 04 @comcast.net> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <569342.2610.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Thomas Dehn] Consider objects that have three different scores assigned to them. Object A has scores: green 10, blue 20, red 30 Object B has scores: green 20, blue 30, red 10 Object C has scores: green 30, blue 10, red 20. An object is "better" than another object if it beats that object in two out of three categories. Doesn't that look like a reasonable definition of "better"? B is "better" than A because it wins in the green and blue categories. C is "better" than B because it wins in the green and red categories. A is "better" than C because it wins in the blue and red categories. [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] A team is constituted of 3 players. in a match between 2 teams, each player in a team meets the 3 players of the opposite team. suppose there is a reliable ranking of 9 players (a player always wins against a lower-ranking opponent). team A consists of players 1, 5 and 9 team B: 2,6,7 team C: 3,4,8 A is better than B (it beats it 5-4) B is better than C C is better than A We have the same phenomenon in bridge with suit combinations as Jeroen Warmerdam showed: for instance with A1098 R432, there are 4 lines of play A,B,C,D such as A is better than B (at BAM scoring), B than C, C than D and D than A. {nigel] Please give a reference to the last example. Thomas Dehn's and Jean-Pierre's examples are more interesting than "rock-paper-scissors". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 10 01:03:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:03:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Terminator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <425771.31873.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dorothy Parker book review: "This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force." Nigel Guthrie: >Richard's interpretation of the law (that the director may >terminate a board) accords with common sense and common >practice. The rules should be corrected, immediately, to >make this explicit. > >A thought experiment: At board one, on day one of a world >championship, a player drops dead half-way through playing >the hand. Would that really entail the director postponing >resumption of play until the next revision of the laws in >2018? Richard Hills: For a Director who believes in the utter supremacy of Law 8B1 there is no alternative but to replace the deceased player with a Law 4 substitute. A sensible Director, however, would not merely cancel the board but would also cancel the entire session, granting the bereft team time to grieve. Such a sensible Director would realise that Law 8B1 is over-ridden by the Director's Law 81C1 power "to ensure the orderly progress of the game." The Drafting Committee's intent in creating Laws 8B (End of Round) and 8C (End of Last Round and End of Session) was not to hog-tie the Director in her use of her Law 82B2 power to cancel a board. Rather, the Drafting Committee's intent was to create a _definition_ of "end of round" for use in some other Laws. For example, Law 64B5: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the **round has ended**." 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 Sep 10 01:34:20 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:34:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Not in Kansas anymore [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C88E148.1010609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >...Didn't we see this case before ? 4th July 2005 blml posting Dlr: West Vul: East-West J97 --- T876 AKJT43 A5 KQ42 Q9862 AJT7 AK43 Q52 Q6 52 T863 K543 J9 987 Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I would also consider bidding 4H, but alas the Rules >don't allow me to do so... East-West were playing a canape relay system. North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Dorothy Richard 1D(1) 3C(2) X (3) 4C 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass 6H(5) Pass Pass Pass (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major (2) Preempt (3) Negative (4) Break in tempo (5) Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, you, West, hold maximum values for your opening bid of 1D. 2005 Question 1: From West's point of view, is passing 5H a logical alternative? 2010 blml Answer 1: Definitely. 2005 Question 2: From West's point of view, does East's break in tempo demonstrably suggest that 6H will be a more successful call than Pass? 2010 blml Answer 2: ??? 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 Sep 10 02:41:17 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:41:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Canberra Seniors Butler pairs, March 2005 (i.e. not a hypothetical problem) Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) 4S(3) Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) (1) 21-22 balanced (2) Intended as an opening bid of a Weak Two in hearts - TD summoned - TD determines that West does not accept the insufficient bid, so Law 27A1 does not apply - TD determines that a sufficient bid of 3H would be a transfer to spades, so Law 27B1(a) does not apply - TD determines that although a sufficient bid of 3D would be a transfer to hearts, the transfer has a less precise meaning than a Weak Two in hearts, so Law 27B1(b) does not apply - thus the TD rules under Law 27B2 that North must pass throughout the rest of the auction and that South can correct her insufficient bid to any legal call that she wants to make. The TD also carefully explains the possibility of a Law 26 lead rectification. (3) Confused by the mention of a transfer to spades, South unintentionally corrects to 4S, instead of 4H. (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. (5) In tempo pass in accordance with Law 28A - RHO Required to Pass. (6) South now wishes to invoke Law 25A - Unintended Call - which South cannot do if North has already passed. Does East's Law 28A pass mean that North has already passed? How do you rule? Peter Eidt, 9th September 2010: I'd apply Law 25A... Peter Eidt, 8th March 2005: ...This is a typical 25B case, when you realize a silly mistake... Herman De Wael, 11th March 2005: ...L25A states that partner must not have called. He hasn't, in reality. RHO bid is "out of turn" and by L28A it is "considered in turn". But there is no law that states that a player who is obliged to pass has in fact passed when his LHO calls. A LHO who waits for the player to pass, even when he must, is not doing anything wrong. After all, the player may forget he should pass, and bid something. That bid is not considered to be a "second bid in the same round", but rather a "bid by a player who was obliged to pass"; L37 applies, as does L35 when the next player calls without asking for the non-pass to be withdrawn. So, IMO, partner has not passed and the deadline for applying L25A has not yet gone by. Of course, if the partner does nothing, he will be deemed to have passed at some point in the proceedings. But not necessarily right away. And we should not accept that opponents take the offender by speed. 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 Sep 10 03:05:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:05:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01D29C9D6CDE4873B0D041AD2B3EF7AE@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: Olivier Beauvillain: >IMHO, the answer is in L21A >Olivix Law 21 - Call Based on Misinformation 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: As the title of Law 21 demonstrably suggests, the scope of Law 21A is a player misunderstanding her opponent's concise and clearly enunciated explanation. A player confused by a Director mentioning 3H being a transfer to spades, so unintentionally bidding 4S rather than 4H, is clearly within the scope of Law 25A (or the scope of Law 25B, if the Director rules a pause for thought when the player attempts to change 4S to 4H). 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 hirsch9000 at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 03:41:57 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:41:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not in Kansas anymore [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C898CE5.8040209@gmail.com> On 9/9/2010 7:34 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> ...Didn't we see this case before ? > 4th July 2005 blml posting > > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > J97 > --- > T876 > AKJT43 > A5 KQ42 > Q9862 AJT7 > AK43 Q52 > Q6 52 > T863 > K543 > J9 > 987 > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : I would also consider bidding 4H, but alas the Rules >> don't allow me to do so... > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D(1) 3C(2) X (3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass > 6H(5) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > (5) Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, you, West, > hold maximum values for your opening bid of 1D. > > 2005 Question 1: From West's point of view, is passing 5H > a logical alternative? > > 2010 blml Answer 1: Definitely. > > 2005 Question 2: From West's point of view, does East's > break in tempo demonstrably suggest that 6H will be a more > successful call than Pass? > > 2010 blml Answer 2: ??? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > The hesitation suggests that Alain's 4H call will be more successful than either 6H or pass, but those pesky Laws seem to prevent that call. This is dependent on aspects of system that were not given (is forcing pass in play here?), but IMO the demonstrably suggested call is pass. If pass was non-forcing, partner was likely considering a double, which suggests defending. The difficult ruling would occur if W had in fact passed. The auction suggests a club loser, a possible trump loser, and a probable pointed suit loser. I'd have a hard time ruling that 6H was a logical alternative were it not for the example presented. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 10 04:04:04 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:04:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1NT(1) Pass 3NT Pass(2) Pass Pass (1) 15-18 hcp, balanced (2) Break in tempo You, South, hold: T42 T87 93 J8543 What is your opening lead? Which of the other three suits are logical alternatives? Which, if any, logical alternative(s) are demonstrably suggested by North's hesitation? 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 Sep 10 05:56:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:56:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>(Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >>(Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>(Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal >>happiness. Hirsch Davis, 10th September 2010: >Ah, but this syllogism is not kosher. > >Hirsch William Schoder, 24th August 2005, on a non-kosher premise: [big snip] reminded of an pertinent incident. Many years ago WBF CTD Harold Franklin, Asst. CTD Maury Braunstein, a much junior Kojak, and an even more junior TD were examining a result on a hand. Harold said he would always make it, Maury said he would always beat it, they were throwing "...If you then I..." at each other, Kojak couldn't make up his mind, and the junior TD kept trying to say something. Harold imperiously told him to be quiet, to learn from watching how top level TDs arrived at consensus, and returned to his analysis. After some long minutes the young guy couldn't stand it any longer and blurted out "WHAT WAS THE INFRACTION?" A profound silence followed and Harold said only two words "SCORE STANDS". Never too old or too senior to learn, eh what? Kojak 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 Sep 10 06:52:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:52:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: "May the floss be with you!" Law 40B2(d): "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly game-forcing calls. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass Pass ? (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or game force. (2) Artificial relay. You, North, hold: AQJ4 J QJ954 KJ2 What call do you make? What other calls do consider making? 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 08:00:54 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:00:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/9/10 : > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? 1NT(1) ? ?Pass > 3NT ? ? ? Pass(2) ? Pass ? ? ?Pass > > (1) 15-18 hcp, balanced > (2) Break in tempo > > You, South, hold: > > T42 > T87 > 93 > J8543 > > What is your opening lead? Any major, probably hearts, since they're better than my spades. > > Which of the other three suits are logical alternatives? All of them. With a former regular partner I'd lead a diamond. With him, a diamond was our normal lead vs 3NT. A break in tempo from him suggest another lead - thus I'd stick to diamonds. > > Which, if any, logical alternative(s) are demonstrably > suggested by North's hesitation? That depends upon what a double by partner would mean. If a double asks for a specific suit, that suit is suggested. If a double asks for your shorter major, both majors are suggested. Etc. > > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 08:06:19 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:06:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/9/10 : > > "May the floss be with you!" > > Law 40B2(d): > > "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic > artificial calls." > > The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which > prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly > game-forcing calls. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ?--- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? Pass > 2D(1) ? ?Pass ? ? ?2H(2) ? ? Pass > Pass ? ? ? > > (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or > ? ?game force. > > (2) Artificial relay. > > > You, North, hold: > > AQJ4 > J > QJ954 > KJ2 > > What call do you make? I make a TO double. > What other calls do consider making? None. > > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 08:09:35 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:09:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C89CB9F.8040309@gmail.com> On 9/10/2010 12:52 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > "May the floss be with you!" > > Law 40B2(d): > > "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic > artificial calls." > > The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which > prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly > game-forcing calls. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass > Pass ? > > (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or > game force. > > (2) Artificial relay. > > > You, North, hold: > > AQJ4 > J > QJ954 > KJ2 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do consider making? > > Q1: Double Q2: Director please. I'm not sure that I've got these in the right order. Hirsch From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 08:21:37 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:21:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C89CB9F.8040309@gmail.com> References: <4C89CB9F.8040309@gmail.com> Message-ID: 2010/9/10 Hirsch Davis : > ?On 9/10/2010 12:52 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> "May the floss be with you!" >> >> Law 40B2(d): >> >> "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic >> artificial calls." >> >> The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which >> prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly >> game-forcing calls. >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: South >> Vul: Both >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST ? ? NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH >> --- ? ? ?--- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? Pass >> 2D(1) ? ?Pass ? ? ?2H(2) ? ? Pass >> Pass ? ? ? >> >> (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or >> ? ? ?game force. >> >> (2) Artificial relay. >> >> >> You, North, hold: >> >> AQJ4 >> J >> QJ954 >> KJ2 >> >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do consider making? >> >> > > Q1: Double > Q2: Director please. I'd never call for director before the board is finished and I've seen openers hand. > > I'm not sure that I've got these in the right order. > > Hirsch > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 08:42:56 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:42:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C89CB9F.8040309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C89D370.4000000@gmail.com> On 9/10/2010 2:21 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2010/9/10 Hirsch Davis: >> On 9/10/2010 12:52 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> "May the floss be with you!" >>> >>> Law 40B2(d): >>> >>> "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic >>> artificial calls." >>> >>> The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which >>> prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly >>> game-forcing calls. >>> >>> Matchpoint pairs >>> Dlr: South >>> Vul: Both >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- --- Pass >>> 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass >>> Pass ? >>> >>> (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or >>> game force. >>> >>> (2) Artificial relay. >>> >>> >>> You, North, hold: >>> >>> AQJ4 >>> J >>> QJ954 >>> KJ2 >>> >>> What call do you make? >>> What other calls do consider making >>> >>> >> Q1: Double >> Q2: Director please. > I'd never call for director before the board is finished and I've seen > openers hand. > I've just become aware of a probable infraction. Further, there is almost no way that I'm going to be able to call in tempo on this auction, as I'm going to have to work out the implications of a big psych that shouldn't have happened. This auction may be about to go south due to a probable illegal call, and it may well be best to get the TD to the table early to clarify the regulations and provide instructions to the players BEFORE things have gone too far awry. If the opener does in fact have his original call and the pass was inadvertent, it also gives the TD a chance to correct this prior to me entering the auction if such a correction appears appropriate. IME it's usually best to get the TD involved at the time the infraction comes to light, rather than waiting until after play. Hirsch From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Sep 10 09:45:12 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:45:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9FC6D1CB-72CF-4BDF-B96A-861A08013DE8@btinternet.com> On 10 Sep 2010, at 02:05, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > A player confused by a Director mentioning 3H being a > transfer to spades, so unintentionally bidding 4S rather > than 4H, is clearly within the scope of Law 25A (or the > scope of Law 25B, if the Director rules a pause for > thought when the player attempts to change 4S to 4H). Which bidding card was the player trying to select at the moment of making the call? Gordon Rainsford From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 10 10:02:14 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:02:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1827717741.1284105734723.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass > Pass ? > > (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or > game force. > > (2) Artificial relay. > > > You, North, hold: > > AQJ4 > J > QJ954 > KJ2 > > What call do you make? Double, takeout. > What other calls do consider making? 3D, 2S, pass, "director, please" Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 10 10:22:28 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:22:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7550698.1284054126786.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngmai l@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.7090304 @comcast.net> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> <7550698.1284054126786.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C89EAC4.2060306@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 19:42, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 9/09/2010 17:35, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : >>> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >>>> Le 9/09/2010 15:54, Robert Park a ?crit : >>>>> On 9/9/10 9:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>>> Le 9/09/2010 15:09, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>>>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 9/09/2010 7:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>>>>>>> Richard Hills, 11th April 2005: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid >>>>>>>>>> logical operations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For example: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. >>>>>>>>>> (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>>>>>>>>> (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than >>>>>>>>>> eternal happiness. >>>>>>>> AG : it's not logic that we should consider the culprit here ; it's >> the >>>>>>>> extreme ambiguity of words, especially English words. >>>>>>> One would also have to prove mathematically that "is better than" >>>>>>> is a transitive operation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> It is usually considered that preferences are transitive. >>>>>> For example, all of votation theory and 90% of economics and marketing >>>>>> fall down if one uses a non-transitive preference relation (NB : >>>>>> relation, not operation) >>>>>> >>>>>> It is an axiom, rather than a theorem, so no proof, sorry. >>>>> Wrong. See, for example, "Mathematical Games," by Martin Garner, >>>>> Scientific American, Oct 1974. >>>>> >>>>> As a simple example, he demonstrates an asymetrical dice game with 4 >>>>> dice (either there of in a related article) where we play for a dollar >> a >>>>> point and I let you choose your die first. Whichever die you choose, I >>>>> can choose a better one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> AG : BTA this isn't a preference relation. A preference relates to what >>>> a human being likes (as in the above problem), not to winning games. >>>> >>>> Seems to me that both attempted counterexamples just show that some >>>> people don't understand that, when an object doesn't meet a definition, >>>> it is normal that it doesn't share the attributes of those which do. >>>> Would you consider butter as a counterexample of "stone is hard" because >>>> it isn't hard ? >>> agreed but, in the first place you were the one to restrict the question >>> to stones, i mean to preferences. all relations of the form "is better >>> than" are not connected to somebody's feelings. >>> >> AG : indeed. Let's put it another way. >> All relations of the type "better than" are of the transitive type. > Consider objects that have three different scores assigned > to them. > > Object A has scores: green 10, blue 20, red 30 > Object B has scores: green 20, blue 30, red 10 > Object C has scores: green 30, blue 10, red 20. > > An object is "better" than another object if it beats > that object in two out of three categories. Doesn't that look > like a reasonable definition of "better"? > > AG : you could define it as such. Nobody can compel you. But it won't satisfy the definition of such a relation, in classical mathematics, i.e. a (possibly partial) ordering relation. I know the problem very well ; it is intended as an illustration of the so-called "Condorcet's paradox", which in fine tells us that we should be wary about what "better" in fact means. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Sep 10 10:23:19 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:23:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <569342.2610.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <302 10750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngma il@webmail17.arcor-online.net><4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.70903 04 @comcast.net><4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr><4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> <569342.2610.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C89EAF7.2020100@meteo.fr> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > We have the same phenomenon in bridge with suit combinations as Jeroen > Warmerdam showed: for instance with A1098 K432, there are 4 lines of > play A,B,C,D such as A is better than B (at BAM scoring), B than C, C > than D and D than A. > > {nigel] > Please give a reference to the last example. Thomas Dehn's and Jean-Pierre's > examples are more interesting than "rock-paper-scissors". you might read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suit_combination or (sorry, in french) http://www.clairebridge.com/textes/maniements_couleurs.pdf or bridge world october 2007 issue jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 10 10:29:21 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:29:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2008927502.1284107361280.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1NT(1) Pass > 3NT Pass(2) Pass Pass > > (1) 15-18 hcp, balanced > (2) Break in tempo > > You, South, hold: > > T42 > T87 > 93 > J8543 > > What is your opening lead? a heart > Which of the other three suits are logical alternatives? S, H, and D definitely are LAs, try to find partner's long suit to beat 3NT. Even C can be considered an LA - passive lead, maybe 3NT goes down on its own if we just don't give anything away. > Which, if any, logical alternative(s) are demonstrably > suggested by North's hesitation? Depends on whether a double by N would have been lead directing, say, "lead a spade" or "don't lead a spade". Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 10 10:38:07 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:38:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngma i l@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.70903 04 @comcast.net> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4C89EE6F.2070306@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 19:49, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > >> Most relations of the "competition" type (those which represent results >> of a round-robin without draws) are (at least theoretically) >> non-transitive. >> And that's why I claimed that the two counterexamples were non-stone, >> i.e. "competition" rather than "better" >> >> In fact, the non-transitive set of dice invented by the late Martin >> Gardner serve to illustrate that there is a difference between those two >> types.. >> In mathematics, "better" does not mean "being able to beat". >> >> There is an interesting theorem, that I see with my students : a >> "competition" relation is transitive if and only if there are no two >> competitors who have won the same number of matches. > i am not certain to understand what you mean. is it that you try a > posteriori to infer from the semi-random results of a round-robin > whether there is a relation of total order between contestants? > > in what category do you range this competition (table-tennis team > competition used a few years ago): > a team is constituted of 3 players. in a match between 2 teams, each > player in a team meets the 3 players of the opposite team. > suppose there is a reliable ranking of 9 players (a player always wins > against a lower-ranking opponent). > team A consists of players 1, 5 and 9 > team B: 2,6,7 > team C: 3,4,8 > > A is better than B (it beats it 5-4) > B is better than C > C is better than A > > we have the same phenomenon in bridge with suit combinations as jeroen > warmerdam showed: for instance with A1098 R432, there are 4 lines of > play A,B,C,D such as A is better than B (at BAM scoring), B than C, C > than D and D than A. > > I would like to add something about the "nothing is better than Love" trick. Yesterday evening, I was in very international company, so i conducted a poll. It appeared that only English (and perhaps Japanese) does have an ambiguity problem with this sentence. Other languages all express the two "nothings" differently. "nothing is better than Love" will use one of the following phraseological tricks, when compared with "my sandwich is better than nothing", which always yses the pure "nothing" word : : a) an added negation (French), in effect saying "no single thing is better" b) an added indefinite (Esperanto), in effect saying "not-any thing is better" c) negating the verb rather than the pronoun (German perhaps), in effect saying "there isn't a better thing" d) using a different verb (Finnish), in effect saying "anything not-is better" e) using an adjective form (Babylonian), in effect saying "anything is never-better" It is obvious that the trick stems from inadequate English syntax, rather than from the properties of the relation. The empty set and nonexistence are two different notions, which are unfortunately expressed in the same way in English. BTA only English says in the same way "seven foot doctors" and "seven foot basket players" Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 10 10:40:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:40:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <569342.2610.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngma i l@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.70903 04 @comcast.net> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> <569342.2610.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C89EF09.6090007@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/09/2010 21:17, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > We have the same phenomenon in bridge with suit combinations as Jeroen > Warmerdam showed: for instance with A1098 R432, there are 4 lines of > play A,B,C,D such as A is better than B (at BAM scoring), B than C, C > than D and D than A. > > {nigel] > Please give a reference to the last example. Thomas Dehn's and Jean-Pierre's > examples are more interesting than "rock-paper-scissors". > _ AG : up to now, all attempted counterexamples (including rock-paper-scissors) illustrrate "betters" rather than "is better". From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 10 10:49:19 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:49:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C89EE6F.2070306@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C89EE6F.2070306@ulb.ac.be> <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <30210750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngma i l@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.70903 04 @comcast.net> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <1822939833.1284108559838.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/09/2010 19:49, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > > > >> Most relations of the "competition" type (those which represent results > >> of a round-robin without draws) are (at least theoretically) > >> non-transitive. > >> And that's why I claimed that the two counterexamples were non-stone, > >> i.e. "competition" rather than "better" > >> > >> In fact, the non-transitive set of dice invented by the late Martin > >> Gardner serve to illustrate that there is a difference between those two > >> types.. > >> In mathematics, "better" does not mean "being able to beat". > >> > >> There is an interesting theorem, that I see with my students : a > >> "competition" relation is transitive if and only if there are no two > >> competitors who have won the same number of matches. > > i am not certain to understand what you mean. is it that you try a > > posteriori to infer from the semi-random results of a round-robin > > whether there is a relation of total order between contestants? > > > > in what category do you range this competition (table-tennis team > > competition used a few years ago): > > a team is constituted of 3 players. in a match between 2 teams, each > > player in a team meets the 3 players of the opposite team. > > suppose there is a reliable ranking of 9 players (a player always wins > > against a lower-ranking opponent). > > team A consists of players 1, 5 and 9 > > team B: 2,6,7 > > team C: 3,4,8 > > > > A is better than B (it beats it 5-4) > > B is better than C > > C is better than A > > > > we have the same phenomenon in bridge with suit combinations as jeroen > > warmerdam showed: for instance with A1098 R432, there are 4 lines of > > play A,B,C,D such as A is better than B (at BAM scoring), B than C, C > > than D and D than A. > > > > > I would like to add something about the "nothing is better than Love" > trick. > > Yesterday evening, I was in very international company, so i conducted a > poll. It appeared that only English (and perhaps Japanese) does have an > ambiguity problem with this sentence. The ambiguity is exactly the same in German. A few other similar ambiguity also are identical in English and in German, such as "They want only our best, but they won't get it". Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 10 10:59:52 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:59:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Not in Kansas anymore [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C898CE5.8040209@gmail.com> References: <4C898CE5.8040209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1540661031.1284109192896.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Hirsch Davis > On 9/9/2010 7:34 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > >> ...Didn't we see this case before ? > > 4th July 2005 blml posting > > > > Dlr: West > > Vul: East-West > > J97 > > --- > > T876 > > AKJT43 > > A5 KQ42 > > Q9862 AJT7 > > AK43 Q52 > > Q6 52 > > T863 > > K543 > > J9 > > 987 > > > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > >> AG : I would also consider bidding 4H, but alas the Rules > >> don't allow me to do so... > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Dorothy Richard > > 1D(1) 3C(2) X (3) 4C > > 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass > > 6H(5) Pass Pass Pass > > > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > > (2) Preempt > > (3) Negative > > (4) Break in tempo > > (5) Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, you, West, > > hold maximum values for your opening bid of 1D. > > > > 2005 Question 1: From West's point of view, is passing 5H > > a logical alternative? > > > > 2010 blml Answer 1: Definitely. > > > > 2005 Question 2: From West's point of view, does East's > > break in tempo demonstrably suggest that 6H will be a more > > successful call than Pass? > > > > 2010 blml Answer 2: ??? > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard Hills > > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > > Phone: 6223 8453 > > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > > > The hesitation suggests that Alain's 4H call will be more successful > than either 6H or pass, but those pesky Laws seem to prevent that call. > > This is dependent on aspects of system that were not given (is forcing > pass in play here?), but IMO the demonstrably suggested call is pass. > If pass was non-forcing, partner was likely considering a double, which > suggests defending. The difficult ruling would occur if W had in fact > passed. The auction suggests a club loser, a possible trump loser, and a > probable pointed suit loser. I'd have a hard time ruling that 6H was a > logical alternative were it not for the example presented. Agree that one might come to the conclusion that pass could have been demonstrably suggested. With the example hand, bidding, and vulnerability, you have no C control, and probably two club losers. Thus I think that 6H is not a logical alternative, even though some players might consider or actually bid 6H on the misguided theory that partner must have a C singleton or C void, just because opponents ventured into 5C. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Sep 10 11:17:53 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:17:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C89F7C1.7030709@t-online.de> We have seen this one before, as Richard well knows... Am 10.09.2010 04:04, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1NT(1) Pass > 3NT Pass(2) Pass Pass > > (1) 15-18 hcp, balanced > (2) Break in tempo > > You, South, hold: > > T42 > T87 > 93 > J8543 > > What is your opening lead? Since double would ask for a spade lead in my partnerships I lead a heart. Clubs are most probably hopeless, and 93 is too rich for me. Same as I would have led a couple of years ago, probably. I am too lazy to find out whether I voiced an opinion then. > > Which of the other three suits are logical alternatives? Diamonds, if any. > > Which, if any, logical alternative(s) are demonstrably > suggested by North's hesitation? Spades, but if he doesn't double I don't lead one. Best regards Matthias > > > 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Sep 10 11:26:58 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:26:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C89F9E2.10305@t-online.de> Now doesn't it look familiar, somehow? A British newspaper might include the place in a crossword puzzle. Maybe "like the sun, enabled (6,2)"? Solutions to be sent in a brown envelope to the Sanatorium for the very, very nervous, Los Angeles. Am 10.09.2010 06:52, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > "May the floss be with you!" > > Law 40B2(d): > > "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic > artificial calls." > > The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which > prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly > game-forcing calls. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass > Pass ? > > (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or > game force. > > (2) Artificial relay. > > > You, North, hold: > > AQJ4 > J > QJ954 > KJ2 > > What call do you make? Double > What other calls do consider making? A call for one of the guys who sell spectacles (sorry, just can't remember what they are called in this seaside resort in southern England), so the West player can see who he is playing with. Multi was yesterday.... Best regards Matthias > > > 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 11:23:57 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:23:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1822939833.1284108559838.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be> <4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr> <4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> <4C89EE6F.2070306@ulb.ac.be> <1822939833.1284108559838.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: 2010/9/10 Thomas Dehn : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> ? Le 9/09/2010 19:49, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : >> > >> >> Most relations of the "competition" type (those which represent results >> >> of a round-robin without draws) are (at least theoretically) >> >> non-transitive. >> >> And that's why I claimed that the two counterexamples were non-stone, >> >> i.e. "competition" rather than "better" >> >> >> >> In fact, the non-transitive set of dice invented by the late Martin >> >> Gardner serve to illustrate that there is a difference between those two >> >> types.. >> >> In mathematics, "better" does not mean "being able to beat". >> >> >> >> There is an interesting theorem, that I see with my students : a >> >> "competition" relation is transitive if and only if there are no two >> >> competitors who have won the same number of matches. >> > i am not certain to understand what you mean. is it that you try a >> > posteriori to infer from the semi-random results of a round-robin >> > whether there is a relation of total order between contestants? >> > >> > in what category do you range this competition (table-tennis team >> > competition used a few years ago): >> > a team is constituted of 3 players. in a match between 2 teams, each >> > player in a team meets the 3 players of the opposite team. >> > suppose there is a reliable ranking of 9 players (a player always wins >> > against a lower-ranking opponent). >> > team A consists of players 1, 5 and 9 >> > team B: 2,6,7 >> > team C: 3,4,8 >> > >> > A is better than B (it beats it 5-4) >> > B is better than C >> > C is better than A >> > >> > we have the same phenomenon in bridge with suit combinations as jeroen >> > warmerdam showed: for instance with A1098 R432, there are 4 lines of >> > play A,B,C,D such as A is better than B (at BAM scoring), B than C, C >> > than D and D than A. >> > >> > >> I would like to add something about the "nothing is better than Love" >> trick. >> >> Yesterday evening, I was in very international company, so i conducted a >> poll. It appeared that only English (and perhaps Japanese) does have an >> ambiguity problem with this sentence. > > The ambiguity is exactly the same in German. And in Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. > A few other similar ambiguity also are identical in English > and in German, such as "They want only our best, but they won't get it". > > > Thomas > > Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Sep 10 12:53:47 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:53:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <876802.1274.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South You, South, hold: T42 T87 93 J8543 --- --- 1NT(1) Pass 3NT Pass(2) Pass Pass (1) 15-18 hcp, balanced (2) Break in tempo [Nige1] IMO: Heart = 10, Spade = 9, Club = 8, Diamond = 1 The break in tempo suggests a diamond From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Sep 10 12:55:53 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:55:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C8A0EB9.1080705@vwalther.de> On 10.09.2010 06:52, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > "May the floss be with you!" > > Law 40B2(d): > > "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic > artificial calls." > > The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which > prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly > game-forcing calls. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass > Pass ? > > (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or > game force. > > (2) Artificial relay. > > > You, North, hold: > > AQJ4 > J > QJ954 > KJ2 > > What call do you make? Pass. I Don not need to tell that all the points are under the gun. > What other calls do consider making? 3D, 2NT (Two Suits) I can not double, 'cause this would show hearts. Greetings, Volker > > > 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 10 13:00:20 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C89EAF7.2020100@meteo.fr> References: <4C88ACF5.2070105@ulb.ac.be> <302 10750.1284037781027.JavaMail.ngma il@webmail17.arcor-online.net><4C88E0A9.4020806@ulb.ac.be><4C88E704.70903 04 @comcast.net><4C88F3A4.1010501@ulb.ac.be> <4C88FEBE.4030407@meteo.fr><4C8902E0.6080809@ulb.ac.be> <4C891E30.3070805@meteo.fr> <569342.2610.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C89EAF7.2020100@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <276720.68601.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] We have the same phenomenon in bridge with suit combinations as Jeroen Warmerdam showed: for instance with A1098 K432, there are 4 lines of play A,B,C,D such as A is better than B (at BAM scoring), B than C, C than D and D than A. you might read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suit_combination or (sorry, in french) http://www.clairebridge.com/textes/maniements_couleurs.pdf or bridge world october 2007 issue {Nige1] Thank you! Fascinating stuff! From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 10 13:17:18 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:17:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <876802.1274.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <876802.1274.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C8A13BE.9050405@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/09/2010 12:53, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South You, South, hold: T42 T87 93 J8543 > > --- --- 1NT(1) Pass > 3NT Pass(2) Pass Pass > (1) 15-18 hcp, balanced > (2) Break in tempo > > [Nige1] > IMO: Heart = 10, Spade = 9, Club = 8, Diamond = 1 > The break in tempo suggests a diamond > > If partner is sensible to ethic arguments, the break of tempo suggests a non-spade. If he wanted a spade (which is the usual meaning of a double), he would have doubled to avoid being penalized by his own tempo. Notice that the probability that partner holds solid spades, hearts or diamonds is about the same given the non-Stayman, whence I don't think a diamond is suggested. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 10 13:23:40 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:23:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C8A0EB9.1080705@vwalther.de> References: <4C8A0EB9.1080705@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4C8A153C.2050603@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/09/2010 12:55, Volker Walther a ?crit : > On 10.09.2010 06:52, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> "May the floss be with you!" >> >> Law 40B2(d): >> >> "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic >> artificial calls." >> >> The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which >> prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly >> game-forcing calls. >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: South >> Vul: Both >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- Pass >> 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass >> Pass ? >> >> (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or >> game force. >> >> (2) Artificial relay. >> >> >> You, North, hold: >> >> AQJ4 >> J >> QJ954 >> KJ2 >> >> What call do you make? > Pass. I Don not need to tell that all the points are under the gun. > >> What other calls do consider making? > 3D, 2NT (Two Suits) > > I can not double, 'cause this would show hearts. > > Greetings, Volker AG : notice that passing the relay answer to a strong opening doesn't necessarily mean you psyched ; see 1NT-2C-pass in Romex. I would bid 2S (a teke-out of hearts), or double if that was take-out, because only two possible scenarioes exist : a) 2D was a psyche, and the deal will be cancelled and an artificial score given ; b) West thought he was playing Multi. Not remembering one's system is no infraction after all, and he didn't use any UI, so I have to protect myself against that case. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 10 13:32:31 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:32:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960892.59044.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] "May the floss be with you!" Law 40B2(d): "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly game-forcing calls. Matchpoints Dlr: South/Both, You, North, hold: AQJ4 J QJ954 KJ2 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass Pass ? (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or game force. (2) Artificial relay. [Nigel] IMO Pass = 10, Director = 1. IMO, You must assume that opponents are not breaking the law. Presumably 2D was alerted, so RHO had ample opportunity to correct a mechanical error. He may not legally psych 2D. Hence you must assume another *Bridge* explanation for the auction: RHO's Pass may be a slip of the hand or a slip of the mind. Or perhaps he has taken an obscure view. For example his suit is hearts and he has a low opinion of East's declarer play skills. Calling the director may generate unauthorised information, restricting actions available to partner. Wouldn't the director just tell you to play on, anyway? Whatever the reason for the previous auction, any call by you, other than pass, smacks of the heinous crime of a wild and gambling "double-shot". Of course such laws have no place in a sensible rule-book. But until 2018, it behooves us to comply. From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 10 13:40:52 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:40:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C8A13BE.9050405@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C8A13BE.9050405@ulb.ac.be> <876802.1274.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1599796074.1284118852108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 10/09/2010 12:53, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Richard Hills] > > Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South You, South, hold: T42 T87 93 J8543 > > > > --- --- 1NT(1) Pass > > 3NT Pass(2) Pass Pass > > (1) 15-18 hcp, balanced > > (2) Break in tempo > > > > [Nige1] > > IMO: Heart = 10, Spade = 9, Club = 8, Diamond = 1 > > The break in tempo suggests a diamond > > > > > If partner is sensible to ethic arguments, the break of tempo suggests a > non-spade. If he wanted a spade (which is the usual meaning of a > double), he would have doubled to avoid being penalized by his own tempo. Ah, one of my pet peeves again. So you are saying that both a spade lead "could demonstrably have been suggested" AND a non-spade lead "could demonstrably have been suggested"? Moreover, as partner probably knows that you know about his tendency, wouldn't he then not double if he wanted a spade, or completely ethically double 50% of the time, and not double the other 50% of the time? Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 10 15:23:23 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:23:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 9, 2010, at 10:04 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1NT(1) Pass > 3NT Pass(2) Pass Pass > > (1) 15-18 hcp, balanced > (2) Break in tempo > > You, South, hold: > > T42 > T87 > 93 > J8543 > > What is your opening lead? C4. > Which of the other three suits are logical alternatives? Spades and hearts. > Which, if any, logical alternative(s) are demonstrably > suggested by North's hesitation? Any non-club. (Assuming that a double by North would have been natural, not a conventional call for a particular lead.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 10 15:44:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:44:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <250A3D91-4F5B-4122-A507-A2F60C869A8E@starpower.net> On Sep 10, 2010, at 12:52 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > "May the floss be with you!" > > Law 40B2(d): > > "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic > artificial calls." > > The Regulating Authority has created a regulation which > prohibits the psyching of artificial game-forcing or nearly > game-forcing calls. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass > Pass ? > > (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or > game force. > > (2) Artificial relay. > > You, North, hold: > > AQJ4 > J > QJ954 > KJ2 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do consider making? There's no way to answer this on paper. In real life, your "table feel" should be up to telling you which of your opponents is likely to have gone off the reservation. I am allowed to presume that West has not deliberately violated the extant regulation, so I needn't concern myself with the possibility of a deliberate psych. Richard does not say where this took place, but if I decide, as seems likely, that West simply forgot his methods (and is remaining properly consistent with his initial error, regardless of any alert/ explanation action), I next need to decide what I think he would have been likely to think he was playing (weak 2D? multi? three-suited?). In theory, I'm supposed to make my decision and play on, prepared to call the TD if and when an irregularity is revealed and appears to have possibly worked to the opponents' advantage. In ACBL-land, however, as a practical matter, if I expect to be fully protected to the extent that the law provides, I had better call the TD now. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 10 18:13:49 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:13:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing References: <250A3D91-4F5B-4122-A507-A2F60C869A8E@starpower.net> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau" Richard Hills: > >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- Pass >> 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass >> Pass ? >> >> (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or >> game force. >> >> (2) Artificial relay. >> >> You, North, hold: >> >> AQJ4 >> J >> QJ954 >> KJ2 >> >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do consider making? > > There's no way to answer this on paper. In real life, your "table > feel" should be up to telling you which of your opponents is > likely > to have gone off the reservation. I am allowed to presume that > West > has not deliberately violated the extant regulation, so I needn't > concern myself with the possibility of a deliberate psych. > Richard > does not say where this took place, but if I decide, as seems > likely, > that West simply forgot his methods (and is remaining properly > consistent with his initial error, regardless of any alert/ > explanation action), I next need to decide what I think he would > have > been likely to think he was playing (weak 2D? multi? > three-suited?). > > In theory, I'm supposed to make my decision and play on, prepared > to > call the TD if and when an irregularity is revealed and appears to > have possibly worked to the opponents' advantage. In ACBL-land, > however, as a practical matter, if I expect to be fully protected > to > the extent that the law provides, I had better call the TD now. > Yes, ACBL TDs expect to be called even when there is only a suspicion of an irregularity, no hard evidence, as for example when UI is created. They have no justification for this in the Laws, but that does not bother them. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5438 (20100909) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 11 02:33:23 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:33:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? Message-ID: From today: 1D P 1H P 2NT P 3C(1) P 3NT(2) P P P (1) New minor forcing (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. Declarer in fact had a four-card spade suit. The opps claim damage in the play (probably true). I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, hence there was no misexplanation and hence no protection. The defenders vigorously protested. The general question is what agreements players have, according to the law book, when they just agree on a convention. Lately I have become comfortable with this ruling: If a player misbid according to a common convention they agreed to play, then it is a misbid under the laws. I am making the same ruling above whether the player forgot this one time to bid 3S or never knew that part of the convention. I think Richard has a different interpretation, but I don't remember it perfectly. Bob From blml at arcor.de Sat Sep 11 08:04:26 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:04:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? Message-ID: <3032376.1284185066314.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > From today: > > 1D P 1H P > 2NT P 3C(1) P > 3NT(2) P P P > > (1) New minor forcing > (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. > > Declarer in fact had a four-card spade suit. The opps claim damage in the > play (probably true). > > I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, hence > there was no misexplanation and hence no protection. The defenders > vigorously protested. > > The general question is what agreements players have, according to the law > > book, when they just agree on a convention. Lately I have become > comfortable with this ruling: If a player misbid according to a common > convention they agreed to play, then it is a misbid under the laws. > > I am making the same ruling above whether the player forgot this one time > to bid 3S or never knew that part of the convention. I disagree with this approach. You seem to assume that there was no MI simply because of the way some other players use that convention. L21B1(b) "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence of the contrary." Probably this sequence or a similar sequence has come up before when this partnership played together, and once in a while the player decided to bypass a four card major suit for whatever reason. Like, say, one round of bidding earlier when he bid 2NT instead of 1S. Barring evidence to the contrary, I am ruling MI according to L21B1(b). Correct information probably would have included that a four card spade suit might be bypassed, with some unspecified low probability. You would then still have to verify that there actually was damage; they play might easily have gone the same with the additional information that a four card spade suit might be bypassed. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 11 11:34:59 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:34:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? Message-ID: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no> With this question I mainly hope for an authoritative comment from someone associated with WBFLC; I see little point in raising a discussion on how we understand law 55A: Quote: 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. My question is simply: Who is "next in turn"? Is it the player that is next in turn following the incorrect lead or is it the player that would be next in turn after a correct lead? Notice that this is not a question of accepting the incorrect lead; it is a question of which defender decides if they choose differently about whether to accept or reject the incorrect lead. Regards Sven From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 11 13:13:18 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:13:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <730707.29025.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Robert Frick] 1D P 1H P 2NT P 3C(1) P 3NT(2) P P P (1) New minor forcing (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. Declarer in fact had a four-card spade suit. The opps claim damage in the play (probably true). I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, hence there was no misexplanation and hence no protection. The defenders vigorously protested. The general question is what agreements players have, according to the law book, when they just agree on a convention. Lately I have become comfortable with this ruling: If a player misbid according to a common convention they agreed to play, then it is a misbid under the laws. I am making the same ruling above whether the player forgot this one time to bid 3S or never knew that part of the convention. I think Richard has a different interpretation, but I don't remember it perfectly. [Nigel] The director should make some decisions about the 3N call. For instance - What is their systemic agreement ("NMF" seems about right). - Did they agree some heretical variant treatment (unsure). - Did they both make some attempt to memorise their entire agreement (probably not). - Has the explainer got it wrong (I don't think so). - Has the caller forgotten it (I think there was a misbid). - Does the caller often "forget" or "take a view" (if so the partnership may have developed a concealed partnership understanding). I agree with Robert Frick that the law-book should address some of these issues and provide a protocol and a smidgeon of guidance, So that directors can consistently answer some of the more common basic questions. For example: A. If a partnership agreed to play "Precision" (complete version) according to Reese's book, is that now their systemic agreement? Even if one of them doesn't read all of it? (For legal purposes, I think the system, according to the book, is their systemic agreement, if they tell their opponents it is, even if neither partner knows it). B. Is the system-card that you give to your opponents binding -- or may the partnership agree departures from it, without amending the card? (I think the card should be binding for law purposes -- including blatant omissions). I think Richard Hills and I disagree about the answers to these questions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100911/de42e973/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Sep 11 13:32:25 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:32:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? In-Reply-To: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no> References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no> Message-ID: 2010/9/11 Sven Pran : > With this question I mainly hope for an authoritative comment from someone > associated with WBFLC; I see little point in raising a discussion on how we > understand law 55A: > > Quote: > 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. > > My question is simply: Who is "next in turn"? > > Is it the player that is next in turn following the incorrect lead or is it > the player that would be next in turn after a correct lead? This law applies whoever was actually on lead, also if declarer leads out of turn when it's a defenders lead. It's pretty clear, IMO, that the "player next in turn" is the player in rotation after the lead out of turn. > > Notice that this is not a question of accepting the incorrect lead; it is a > question of which defender decides if they choose differently about whether > to accept or reject the incorrect lead. > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Sep 11 15:58:38 2010 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:58:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? In-Reply-To: References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no> Message-ID: <000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Harald Skj?ran Verzonden: zaterdag 11 september 2010 13:32 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? 2010/9/11 Sven Pran : > With this question I mainly hope for an authoritative comment from someone > associated with WBFLC; I see little point in raising a discussion on how we > understand law 55A: > > Quote: > 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. > > My question is simply: Who is "next in turn"? > > Is it the player that is next in turn following the incorrect lead or is it > the player that would be next in turn after a correct lead? This law applies whoever was actually on lead, also if declarer leads out of turn when it's a defenders lead. It's pretty clear, IMO, that the "player next in turn" is the player in rotation after the lead out of turn. Harald ton: This certainly is the interpretation meant by the laws committee (lho of the offending hand). From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 11 16:05:15 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 16:05:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? In-Reply-To: References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no> Message-ID: <000701cb51ba$5c750190$155f04b0$@no> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran > 2010/9/11 Sven Pran : > > With this question I mainly hope for an authoritative comment from > > someone associated with WBFLC; I see little point in raising a > > discussion on how we understand law 55A: > > > > Quote: > > 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. > > > > My question is simply: Who is "next in turn"? > > > > Is it the player that is next in turn following the incorrect lead or > > is it the player that would be next in turn after a correct lead? > > This law applies whoever was actually on lead, also if declarer leads out of turn > when it's a defenders lead. > > It's pretty clear, IMO, that the "player next in turn" is the player in rotation after the > lead out of turn. We have indeed translated Law 55A to Norwegian with this express understanding, but it is not that simple: Compare Laws 53A and 55A: L53A uses the clause "the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead" while L55A only states "player next in turn". Is this difference significant? The player (defender) next in rotation to the irregular lead can irrevocably force an acceptance of this lead by simply playing a card to that trick (Law 53A referred to from the first part of Law 55A). He can still do so after attention has been called to the irregularity and the Director has been called to the table, and there is nothing his partner can do to prevent it. The last part of Law 55A that have caused my question only applies if that defender does not execute his right to accept the incorrect lead by just playing to the trick, and the two defenders express different opinions on whether or not to accept the incorrect lead. In practice this seems boiling down to how shall the Director rule if the defender "next in rotation to the irregular lead" wants the lead retracted and his partner wants the lead accepted. Notice that until the lead out of turn is accepted the defender "next in rotation to the irregular lead" is NOT the player next in turn to play! I no longer feel that I know, but the way the question has developed on RGB I believe we need a clarification, preferably from WBFLC. (I have already checked the available WBFLC minutes for possible answers; none found.) Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 11 17:34:42 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:34:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? In-Reply-To: <000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no> <000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <000801cb51c6$db16a560$9143f020$@no> On Behalf Of ton ............... > It's pretty clear, IMO, that the "player next in turn" is the player in rotation after the > lead out of turn. > > Harald > > ton: > This certainly is the interpretation meant by the laws committee (lho of the > offending hand). Thanks, Nice to know that my initial understanding was correct. I have already referred this also on RGB Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 11 17:43:00 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:43:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <3032376.1284185066314.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <3032376.1284185066314.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:04:26 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> From today: >> >> 1D P 1H P >> 2NT P 3C(1) P >> 3NT(2) P P P >> >> (1) New minor forcing >> (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. >> >> Declarer in fact had a four-card spade suit. The opps claim damage in >> the >> play (probably true). >> >> I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, hence >> there was no misexplanation and hence no protection. The defenders >> vigorously protested. >> >> The general question is what agreements players have, according to the >> law >> >> book, when they just agree on a convention. Lately I have become >> comfortable with this ruling: If a player misbid according to a common >> convention they agreed to play, then it is a misbid under the laws. >> >> I am making the same ruling above whether the player forgot this one >> time >> to bid 3S or never knew that part of the convention. > > I disagree with this approach. You seem to assume that there was > no MI simply because of the way some other players use > that convention. Without anything to the contrary, the agreement for new minor forcing (over 2NT) includes showing a 4-card major. They agreed to play new minor forcing. > > L21B1(b) "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather > than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence of the contrary." The evidence seems adquate to me. Of course, it hinges on the question of what players are agreeing on when they agree to play a convention. > > Probably this sequence or a similar sequence has come up before > when this partnership played together, and once in a while > the player decided to bypass a four card major suit for whatever reason. > Like, say, one round of bidding earlier when he bid 2NT instead of 1S. Is this relevant now? Suppose I sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even though I have a 4-card major. This does not change the fact that 2D denies a 4-card major. Right? > > Barring evidence to the contrary, I am ruling MI according to L21B1(b). > Correct information probably would have included that a four card spade > suit might be bypassed, > with some unspecified low probability. Basically, I am not required to explain to the opponents the likelihood that partner has forgotten a convention, pulled the wrong card out of his bdding box, or decided to make a tactical bid. Right? From blml at arcor.de Sat Sep 11 18:31:17 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:31:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? Message-ID: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:04:26 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> From today: > >> > >> 1D P 1H P > >> 2NT P 3C(1) P > >> 3NT(2) P P P > >> > >> (1) New minor forcing > >> (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. > >> > >> Declarer in fact had a four-card spade suit. The opps claim damage in > >> the > >> play (probably true). > >> > >> I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, hence > >> there was no misexplanation and hence no protection. The defenders > >> vigorously protested. > >> > >> The general question is what agreements players have, according to the > >> law > >> > >> book, when they just agree on a convention. Lately I have become > >> comfortable with this ruling: If a player misbid according to a common > >> convention they agreed to play, then it is a misbid under the laws. > >> > >> I am making the same ruling above whether the player forgot this one > >> time > >> to bid 3S or never knew that part of the convention. > > > > I disagree with this approach. You seem to assume that there was > > no MI simply because of the way some other players use > > that convention. > > Without anything to the contrary, the agreement for new minor forcing > (over 2NT) includes showing a 4-card major. They agreed to play new minor > forcing. There are many ways to play NMF. This is just one of them. And even if you play that 3S here shows four spades, that does not imply that 3NT denies four spades. I know *nobody* (well, maybe except you) who would not once in a while bypass a four card major in an NMF auction. I know quite a few players who will very often bypass a four card spade suit in such an auction - if I had wanted to show the spades, I could have done so cheaply with a 1S bid much earlier. > > L21B1(b) "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather > > than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence of the contrary." > > The evidence seems adquate to me. Of course, it hinges on the question of > what players are agreeing on when they agree to play a convention. What evidence? Did they provide written system notes that 3NT guarantees that opener does not have four spades? That would be sufficient. Or do you just have his partner's self serving statement? That would be insufficient. > > Probably this sequence or a similar sequence has come up before > > when this partnership played together, and once in a while > > the player decided to bypass a four card major suit for whatever reason. > > Like, say, one round of bidding earlier when he bid 2NT instead of 1S. > > Is this relevant now? Suppose I sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even > though I have a 4-card major. This does not change the fact that 2D denies > a 4-card major. Right? No, not right. If you sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even though you have a four card major, then 2D no longer denies a four card major. You are now playing a different method. > > Barring evidence to the contrary, I am ruling MI according to L21B1(b). > > Correct information probably would have included that a four card spade > > suit might be bypassed, > > with some unspecified low probability. > > Basically, I am not required to explain to the opponents the likelihood > that partner has forgotten a convention, pulled the wrong card out of his > bdding box, or decided to make a tactical bid. Right? ==== snap ==== L40 - Partnership Understandings A. Players' Systemic Agreements 1. (a) Partnership understandings as to the methods adoped by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players. ==== snap ==== Once you are aware of partner's tendencies to make unusual bids, opponents are entitled to that information. There is a German player known as "the conductor". His bidding is horrible. When playing with the conductor, I used to pre-alert opponents "My partner will quite frequently make outrageous bids, bids you would never have imagined anybody would even consider." Opponents who thought I was exaggerating usually changed their mind after a few boards ;-). Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 11 18:40:38 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:40:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? In-Reply-To: <000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no> <000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "ton" Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 08:58 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Harald > Skj?ran > Verzonden: zaterdag 11 september 2010 13:32 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? > > 2010/9/11 Sven Pran : >> With this question I mainly hope for an authoritative comment from >> someone >> associated with WBFLC; I see little point in raising a discussion on how >> we >> understand law 55A: >> >> Quote: >> 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. >> >> My question is simply: Who is "next in turn"? >> >> Is it the player that is next in turn following the incorrect lead or is >> it >> the player that would be next in turn after a correct lead? > > This law applies whoever was actually on lead, also if declarer leads > out of turn when it's a defenders lead. > > It's pretty clear, IMO, that the "player next in turn" is the player > in rotation after the lead out of turn. > > Harald > > ton: > This certainly is the interpretation meant by the laws committee (lho of > the offending hand). This is in direct violation of law. To demonstrate the muddy waters start with the turn belonging to E. the player next in turn is S. now consider that N POOT. by definition, the player next in turn is S. Why? The player next* in turn is the LHO of the player whose turn it is. And by law: Turn ? the correct time at which a player is due to call or play. It being** E's turn. *= not particularly clear in law and may be a dubious assertion **= not because E is in clockwise rotation to N, but because it was correctly E's turn prior to the POOT and thus it still is E's turn as E has not yet taken his turn regards roger pewick From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 11 18:59:33 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:59:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining the possibility of tactical bids. In-Reply-To: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:31:17 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> Is this relevant now? Suppose I sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even >> though I have a 4-card major. This does not change the fact that 2D >> denies >> a 4-card major. Right? > > No, not right. If you sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even though > you have a four card major, then 2D no longer denies a four card major. > You are now playing a different method. > I don't think I am taking this out of context -- we are discussing one's legal obligations in explaining partner's bids. Suppose first that I suspect partner might bid 2D with xxxx KQ10 KJx AQ10 How do I describe his 2D bid? We are playing conventional Blackwood, which is described as 2D denying a 4-card major. My regular partner is more likely than most to deny a 4-card major with a flat hand, so this not just a hypothetical question. But I can think of several people who I would expect to bid 2D with that hand even though I have never seen them do it. Or, I know that partner occasionally misbids. Hmm, I think I actually did that once, simply forgot to show my 4-card major. Now how must the 2D response be described to opponents? From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Sep 11 19:31:12 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:31:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C8BBCE0.3070604@nhcc.net> On 9/10/2010 8:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: ... > (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. ... > I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, The way to proceed in these rulings is to ask what a correct explanation would have been and what would have happened if the opponents had gotten it instead of whatever they were given. In the original case, it seems a correct explanation would have been "We agreed on NMF but have no agreement about opener's rebids." If this is the correct explanation, you rule MI and move on the the question of whether it caused damage. Of course if the bidders can convince you that they really do have a clear agreement to show spades and have no experience of violations, then there's no MI. In the Stayman case, if there's partnership experience that 2D doesn't really deny a 4cM, that has to be disclosed. What the Director should never do is assume that a typical agreement is the one actually held by a specific pair. And players should never state that they have a particular agreement when it's in fact the matter is undiscussed. From blml at arcor.de Sat Sep 11 19:33:04 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 19:33:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Explaining the possibility of tactical bids. In-Reply-To: References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <16686757.1284226384950.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:31:17 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > >> > >> Is this relevant now? Suppose I sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even > >> though I have a 4-card major. This does not change the fact that 2D > >> denies a 4-card major. Right? > > > > No, not right. If you sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even though > > you have a four card major, then 2D no longer denies a four card major. > > You are now playing a different method. > > > > I don't think I am taking this out of context -- we are discussing one's > legal obligations in explaining partner's bids. > > Suppose first that I suspect partner might bid 2D with > > xxxx > KQ10 > KJx > AQ10 > > How do I describe his 2D bid? We are playing conventional Blackwood, which > is described as 2D denying a 4-card major. > > My regular partner is more likely than most to deny a 4-card major with a > flat hand, so this not just a hypothetical question. But I can think of > several people who I would expect to bid 2D with that hand even though I > have never seen them do it. This is a good example. You are aware that partner has a tendency to bid 2D rather than 2S with such hands. Maybe not always, but with sufficient frequency that you are aware of the possibility. Opponents are entitled to that information, as it results from your experience of playing with him, rather than from your general bridge skills, or your actual hand. I would word it like this: "Normally no four card major. However, partner might sometimes(*) bid 2D despite holding a four card major, for example(**) with a 4333 distribution and no interest in playing four of the major" (*) While I used "sometimes" here, I would actually try to use a wording that gives opponents a correct understanding how likely partner would hide the four card major. (**) With the typical 8 minutes per hand, you simply do not have the time to list all specific conditions under which partner might deviate. In the initial explanation, it is sufficient to alert opponents to the possibility that partner has a four card major, and to provide some information on how frequently that can happen. If they need more details, they can ask. The reverse problem also exists. You correctly inform opponents about the possibility, partner actually does not have a hidden four card major, and opponents lose a trick when they play for the possibility that he has a four card major. "Director, I thought he had a four card major". So you should overstate the possibility that partner has deviated. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 11 19:44:38 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:44:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:31:17 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:04:26 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> From today: >> >> >> >> 1D P 1H P >> >> 2NT P 3C(1) P >> >> 3NT(2) P P P >> >> >> >> (1) New minor forcing >> >> (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. >> >> >> >> Declarer in fact had a four-card spade suit. The opps claim damage in >> >> the >> >> play (probably true). >> >> >> >> I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, >> hence >> >> there was no misexplanation and hence no protection. The defenders >> >> vigorously protested. >> >> >> >> The general question is what agreements players have, according to >> the >> >> law >> >> >> >> book, when they just agree on a convention. Lately I have become >> >> comfortable with this ruling: If a player misbid according to a >> common >> >> convention they agreed to play, then it is a misbid under the laws. >> >> >> >> I am making the same ruling above whether the player forgot this one >> >> time >> >> to bid 3S or never knew that part of the convention. >> > >> > I disagree with this approach. You seem to assume that there was >> > no MI simply because of the way some other players use >> > that convention. >> >> Without anything to the contrary, the agreement for new minor forcing >> (over 2NT) includes showing a 4-card major. They agreed to play new >> minor >> forcing. > > There are many ways to play NMF. This is just one of them. And even if > you play that 3S here shows four spades, that does not imply that 3NT > denies > four spades. I know *nobody* (well, maybe except you) who would not > once in a while bypass a four card major in an NMF auction. I know quite > a few players who will very often bypass a four card spade suit in such > an > auction - if I had wanted to show the spades, I could have done so > cheaply with a 1S bid much earlier. > > >> > L21B1(b) "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather >> > than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence of the contrary." >> >> The evidence seems adquate to me. Of course, it hinges on the question >> of >> what players are agreeing on when they agree to play a convention. > > What evidence? Did they provide written system notes that 3NT guarantees > that opener does not have four spades? That would be sufficient. > Or do you just have his partner's self serving statement? That would be > insufficient. There is no dispute, at the table for for sake of example, that they agreed to play this sequence as new minor forcing. I asked them if they had had any discussions past this simple agreement. It was not even easy for them to understand the question. But they did not. Everyone here agrees that in this sequence, new minor forcing asks the 2NT bidder to bid a 4-card spade suit. In other words, that is a part of the new minor forcing convention which they agreed. (I agree to rule misexplanation for controversial parts of a convention.) Your idea -- that they have to explain that the 3NT bidder might have 4 spades and bypassed them for tactical reasons -- I am pretty sure is unconventional. The more interesting question is if North (the 2nT bidder) is muddled in his understanding of new minor forcing. He agreed to play it, so it is a little odd to say they don't have that agreement. But it is also a little odd if he can agree to play a part of a convention that he doesn't understand. This is not merely my "evidence". It is a common situation. Last week I automatically ruled mistaken bidding for a player who thought 1C 1D 2D was Michaels. > > >> > Probably this sequence or a similar sequence has come up before >> > when this partnership played together, and once in a while >> > the player decided to bypass a four card major suit for whatever >> reason. >> > Like, say, one round of bidding earlier when he bid 2NT instead of 1S. >> >> Is this relevant now? Suppose I sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even >> though I have a 4-card major. This does not change the fact that 2D >> denies >> a 4-card major. Right? > > No, not right. If you sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even though > you have a four card major, then 2D no longer denies a four card major. > You are now playing a different method. > > >> > Barring evidence to the contrary, I am ruling MI according to >> L21B1(b). >> > Correct information probably would have included that a four card >> spade >> > suit might be bypassed, >> > with some unspecified low probability. >> >> Basically, I am not required to explain to the opponents the likelihood >> that partner has forgotten a convention, pulled the wrong card out of >> his >> bdding box, or decided to make a tactical bid. Right? > > ==== snap ==== > L40 - Partnership Understandings > > A. Players' Systemic Agreements > > 1. (a) Partnership understandings as to the methods adoped by > a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or > implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players. > ==== snap ==== > > Once you are aware of partner's tendencies to make unusual bids, > opponents are entitled to that information. > > There is a German player known as "the conductor". His bidding is > horrible. When playing with the conductor, I used to pre-alert opponents > "My partner will quite frequently make outrageous bids, bids you would > never > have imagined anybody would even consider." Opponents who thought > I was exaggerating usually changed their mind after a few boards ;-). > > > > Thomas > > Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in > Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, > Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue > IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale > Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: > http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From blml at arcor.de Sat Sep 11 19:57:33 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 19:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <5757112.1284227853362.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:31:17 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:04:26 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> > L21B1(b) "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather > >> > than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence of the contrary." > >> > >> The evidence seems adquate to me. Of course, it hinges on the question > >> of what players are agreeing on when they agree to play a convention. > > > > What evidence? Did they provide written system notes that 3NT guarantees > > that opener does not have four spades? That would be sufficient. > > Or do you just have his partner's self serving statement? That would be > > insufficient. > > There is no dispute, at the table for for sake of example, that they > agreed to play this sequence as new minor forcing. > > I asked them if they had had any discussions past this simple agreement. > It was not even easy for them to understand the question. But they did not. > > Everyone here agrees that in this sequence, new minor forcing asks the 2NT > bidder to bid a 4-card spade suit. In other words, that is a part of the > new minor forcing convention which they agreed. (I agree to rule > misexplanation for controversial parts of a convention.) > > Your idea -- that they have to explain that the 3NT bidder might have 4 > spades and bypassed them for tactical reasons -- I am pretty sure is > unconventional. It is the Law. L40A1(a) which I quoted earlier. Of course that kicks in only once a player has some sort of knowledge that his partner will make such tactical bids (or deviations from system, or whatever you call it). Anyways, I think Steve worded it better than I did, thus I'd like to refer you to Steve's answer to your original question. I completely agree with Steve. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 11 19:58:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:58:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C8BBCE0.3070604@nhcc.net> References: <4C8BBCE0.3070604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:31:12 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 9/10/2010 8:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > ... >> (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. > ... >> I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, > > The way to proceed in these rulings is to ask what a correct explanation > would have been and what would have happened if the opponents had gotten > it instead of whatever they were given. > > In the original case, it seems a correct explanation would have been "We > agreed on NMF but have no agreement about opener's rebids." If this is > the correct explanation, you rule MI and move on the the question of > whether it caused damage. Of course if the bidders can convince you > that they really do have a clear agreement to show spades and have no > experience of violations, then there's no MI. 1S P 3S P 4NT(1) P 5H(2) (1) described as Roman Key Card Blackwood (2) The pair is playing together for the first time and has not discussed anything more than "1430, RKC". They are supposed to say "We have no agreement about resposes"? You know that isn't right. But what really is the difference? A convention is not always just the meaning of one bid that starts the sequence, it is often a package of bids. Note that an opp might not know new minor forcing and ask what 3NT means. The explanation should be no agreement? > > In the Stayman case, if there's partnership experience that 2D doesn't > really deny a 4cM, that has to be disclosed. But isn't this just basic bridge knowledge? I start out knowing that my partner would do it, what difference does it make if he does it once? > > What the Director should never do is assume that a typical agreement is > the one actually held by a specific pair. And players should never > state that they have a particular agreement when it's in fact the matter > is undiscussed. Hmm, I think you are avoiding the basic question. When the complete verbal discussion is "RKC 1430" "okay", what is the agreement? It is a given in ACBL-land that they need to explain more than just a conventional name. When is proper description of the convention insufficient? Is proper description enough if one of the players does not know the convention or has forgotten it? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 11 20:28:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:28:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining the possibility of tactical bids. In-Reply-To: <16686757.1284226384950.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <16686757.1284226384950.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:33:04 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:31:17 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this relevant now? Suppose I sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even >> >> though I have a 4-card major. This does not change the fact that 2D >> >> denies a 4-card major. Right? >> > >> > No, not right. If you sometimes respond 2D to Stayman even though >> > you have a four card major, then 2D no longer denies a four card >> major. >> > You are now playing a different method. >> > >> >> I don't think I am taking this out of context -- we are discussing one's >> legal obligations in explaining partner's bids. >> >> Suppose first that I suspect partner might bid 2D with >> >> xxxx >> KQ10 >> KJx >> AQ10 >> >> How do I describe his 2D bid? We are playing conventional Blackwood, >> which >> is described as 2D denying a 4-card major. >> >> My regular partner is more likely than most to deny a 4-card major with >> a >> flat hand, so this not just a hypothetical question. But I can think of >> several people who I would expect to bid 2D with that hand even though I >> have never seen them do it. > > This is a good example. > > You are aware that partner has a tendency to bid 2D rather than 2S > with such hands. Maybe not always, but with sufficient frequency > that you are aware of the possibility. Opponents are entitled to that > information, as it > results from your experience of playing with him, rather > than from your general bridge skills, or your actual hand. > > I would word it like this: "Normally no four card major. However, > partner might sometimes(*) bid 2D despite holding a four > card major, for example(**) with a 4333 distribution and > no interest in playing four of the major" > > (*) While I used "sometimes" here, I would actually try to use a wording > that gives opponents a correct understanding how likely partner > would hide the four card major. > > (**) With the typical 8 minutes per hand, you simply do not have the time > to list all specific conditions under which partner might deviate. > In the initial explanation, it is sufficient to alert opponents to the > possibility > that partner has a four card major, and to provide some information > on how frequently that can happen. If they need more details, > they can ask. > > > The reverse problem also exists. You correctly inform opponents > about the possibility, partner actually does not have a hidden four card > major, > and opponents lose a trick when they play for the possibility > that he has a four card major. "Director, I thought he had a four card > major". > So you should overstate the possibility that partner has deviated. Or... 1S X 3C(1) (1) Should be explained as: Weak with clubs except partner might have forgotten that 3 weeks ago I asked if we could play Bergen raises over a takeout double and he said no. If he forgot that, then he might have decided that this is a very good sequence to play Bergen raises and that I will somehow figure that out. We normally play Bergen raises without the double and he would not forgot that. In my partnership agreement, he almost always bids Bergen with at least four card support but I think he might do it with 3-card support and a void. There is no chance that 3C is a strong jump shift and he forgot. Well, maybe some chance, ever so often he pulls out bids that I completely do not expect based on past history with different partners. He tends to stay within the expected range for weak jump shifts. He does pay attention to vulnerability so [insert comment about effects of vulnerability]. It is very unlikely, but not impossible, that he meant to bid 3C and then had some mental error. This isn't very practical. The opponents were damaged by my actual mistaken explanation (weak jump shift in clubs). But I don't think they would have got anywhere claiming that I should have told them the probability of my partner making a mistake. To be clear, I believe the laws do not require me to state that my partner might be making a tactical bid (or a mistake). It would be really nice if the opps could hear how often he does those, but it isn't practical. I do not have to explain the effects of vulnerability on bidding, even though the opps might not know it and anyone would want to know how likely my partner is to pay attention to vulnerability. The reality is, I should be able to ask the opps how often their defensive signals are accurate and how often they stretch away from the proper form for a takeout double. I suspect not even that is practical. From blml at arcor.de Sat Sep 11 22:14:05 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:14:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? Message-ID: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:31:12 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > > > On 9/10/2010 8:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > ... > >> (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. > > ... > >> I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, > > > > The way to proceed in these rulings is to ask what a correct explanation > > would have been and what would have happened if the opponents had gotten > > it instead of whatever they were given. > > > > In the original case, it seems a correct explanation would have been "We > > agreed on NMF but have no agreement about opener's rebids." If this is > > the correct explanation, you rule MI and move on the the question of > > whether it caused damage. Of course if the bidders can convince you > > that they really do have a clear agreement to show spades and have no > > experience of violations, then there's no MI. > > 1S P 3S P > 4NT(1) P 5H(2) > > (1) described as Roman Key Card Blackwood > > (2) The pair is playing together for the first time and has not discussed > anything more than "1430, RKC". They are supposed to say "We have no > agreement about resposes"? > > You know that isn't right. (1) "1430, RKC" is the correct explanation. No problem so far. (2) Seems a bit far fatched to assume that opponents don't know RKCB, don't you think? Technically, you probably have an implicit partnership understanding that 5H shows two or five. That would have to be disclosed. [...] > But what really is the difference? A convention > is not always just the meaning of one bid that starts the sequence, it is > often a package of bids. > > Note that an opp might not know new minor forcing and ask what 3NT means. > The explanation should be no agreement? You have to disclose your agreements, which include implicit partnership understandings. You do not have to disclose your general bridge knowledge. You not have to teach bridge to your opponents. Opponents first have to get the explanation of 3C. The explanation of 3C should be something like "artificial, game forcing, says nothing about clubs, asks opener to describe his hand". The explanation of 3NT then should NOT be "denies a four card spade suit". You do not have such an agreement at that point, neither explicit nor implicit. It should be something like "We have not discussed follow ups on 3C. They should be natural. 3H would have shown three card heart support. 3NT suggests playing 3NT." > > In the Stayman case, if there's partnership experience that 2D doesn't > > really deny a 4cM, that has to be disclosed. > > But isn't this just basic bridge knowledge? I start out knowing that my > partner would do it, what difference does it make if he does it once? You start out knowing that some players do that. At that point, your partnership's explanation should be "2C is normal Stayman. We do not have any additional agreements". Once you have played a couple of rounds with a player, you will have a better understanding of his tendencies than what you know from your general bridge knowledge. And that information must be disclosed, you are not allowed to keep it as a partnership secret to gain some illegitimate advantage over your opponents who do not know your partner's preferences. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 12 00:18:16 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:18:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no> <000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <0D227B2ECC07465E8057F3B5F289A83C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? > > 2010/9/11 Sven Pran : >> With this question I mainly hope for an authoritative comment from >> someone >> associated with WBFLC; I see little point in raising a discussion on how >> we >> understand law 55A: >> >> Quote: >> 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. >> >> My question is simply: Who is "next in turn"? >> >> Is it the player that is next in turn following the incorrect lead or is >> it >> the player that would be next in turn after a correct lead? > > This law applies whoever was actually on lead, also if declarer leads > out of turn when it's a defenders lead. > > It's pretty clear, IMO, that the "player next in turn" is the player > in rotation after the lead out of turn. > > Harald > > ton: > This certainly is the interpretation meant by the laws committee > (lho of the offending hand). > +=+ The point is that the moment at which the question arises is after the lead OOT and before a decision is made as to its acceptance or rejection. The fixed point is the lead and it is the LHO of the hand from which the lead has been made who is "next in turn". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 12 01:09:32 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 00:09:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no><000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <95F83CC3F88E4179AD74C6F0D921AC77@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? > 2010/9/11 Sven Pran : With this question I mainly hope for an authoritative comment from someone associated with WBFLC; I see little point in raising a discussion on how we understand law 55A: >>> Quote: 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. > My question is simply: Who is "next in turn"? > Is it the player that is next in turn following the incorrect lead or is it the player that would be next in turn after a correct lead? > This law applies whoever was actually on lead, also if declarer leads out of turn when it's a defenders lead. > (Harald) It's pretty clear, IMO, that the "player next in turn" is the player in rotation after the lead out of turn. > Harald > ton: This certainly is the interpretation meant by the laws committee (lho of the offending hand). > (Roger Pewick) This is in direct violation of law. > To demonstrate the muddy waters start with the turn belonging to E. the player next in turn is S. now consider that N POOT. by definition, the player next in turn is S. Why? The player next* in turn is the LHO of the player whose turn it is. And by law: Turn ??? the correct time at which a player is due to call or play. It being** E's turn. > *= not particularly clear in law and may be a dubious assertion **= not because E is in clockwise rotation to N, but because it was correctly E's turn prior to the POOT and thus it still is E's turn as E has not yet taken his turn > [Grattan] +=+ I understand Roger's argument and it has some weight. The question relates to words unsaid in the law and whether it should be read "next in turn before the lead was made" or "next in turn after the lead from the wrong hand". Roger argues the first of these interpretations while ton and I express a contrary intention of the Drafting Committee. My understanding is that Law 53A has the effect of moving the turn to the player to the left of the lead made and it remains there unless and until the lead out of turn is rejected. However, it does now appear that there is uncertainty in places and as the Committee's minute provides (see item 7 of 24 Aug 1998), I will ask the WBFLC for its support of the position that ton and I have stated. +=+ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 12 01:39:55 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:39:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? Message-ID: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [ACBL Club Director's handbook -- quoted on RGB)] Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle." [Nigel Many players (on RGB and elsewhere) heed this advice. But is this another example of rule-makers positively encouraging infractions? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 12 02:31:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:31:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 16:14:05 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:31:12 -0400, Steve Willner >> wrote: >> >> > On 9/10/2010 8:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> > ... >> >> (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. >> > ... >> >> I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, >> > >> > The way to proceed in these rulings is to ask what a correct >> explanation >> > would have been and what would have happened if the opponents had >> gotten >> > it instead of whatever they were given. >> > >> > In the original case, it seems a correct explanation would have been >> "We >> > agreed on NMF but have no agreement about opener's rebids." If this >> is >> > the correct explanation, you rule MI and move on the the question of >> > whether it caused damage. Of course if the bidders can convince you >> > that they really do have a clear agreement to show spades and have no >> > experience of violations, then there's no MI. >> >> 1S P 3S P >> 4NT(1) P 5H(2) >> >> (1) described as Roman Key Card Blackwood >> >> (2) The pair is playing together for the first time and has not >> discussed >> anything more than "1430, RKC". They are supposed to say "We have no >> agreement about resposes"? >> >> You know that isn't right. > > (1) "1430, RKC" is the correct explanation. No problem so far. > > (2) Seems a bit far fatched to assume that opponents don't know RKCB, > don't you think? No. Anyway, you would just be arguing with the example. But I do have inexperienced players playing with experienced players. > > Technically, you probably have an implicit partnership understanding > that 5H shows two or five. That would have to be disclosed. I do not know how a pair could be playing together for the first time and have an implicit partnership understanding. So you are saying that they do not have an explicit agreement that 5 Hearts shows 2 aces and denies the queen of trumps? I don't think anyone is going to follow you on that. > > > [...] >> But what really is the difference? A convention >> is not always just the meaning of one bid that starts the sequence, it >> is >> often a package of bids. >> >> Note that an opp might not know new minor forcing and ask what 3NT >> means. >> The explanation should be no agreement? > > You have to disclose your agreements, Of course. Let me ask a simple question. Again. If two players agree on 1430 RKC, what is their agreement for purposes of F20 which include implicit > partnership understandings. You do not have to > disclose your general bridge knowledge. You not > have to teach bridge to your opponents. That is what I have been saying about all of your claims that I have to disclose tactical bids. Or the possibility of misbids, if you are claiming that. > > Opponents first have to get the explanation of 3C. > The explanation of 3C should be something like "artificial, game forcing, > says nothing about clubs, asks opener to describe his hand". That is actually not the meaning here. But I don't think this explanation is the issue. But here on Long Island, 3C shows either a 5-card heart suit or a 4-card spade suit and interest in a major suit fit. Most people think of the responses as part of the convention. But you are saying that their agreement is more than just "new minor forcing". That's useful. > > The explanation of 3NT then should NOT be "denies a four card spade > suit". > You do not have such an agreement at that point, neither > explicit nor implicit. Actually, this is mostly wrong. The meaning of a bid depends also on what was not said. Here, 3NT suggests that the player does not have 4 spades. The opponents surely deserve to know this. Right? > It should be something like "We have not discussed follow ups > on 3C. Actually, they agreed on new minor forcing, which then implies a host of follow up bids. Players really do think of them as part of the convention -- no one would teach the first bid of new minor forcing and then tell their students to just bid naturally after that. > They should be natural. 3H would have shown three card heart support. > 3NT suggests playing 3NT." > > >> > In the Stayman case, if there's partnership experience that 2D doesn't >> > really deny a 4cM, that has to be disclosed. >> >> But isn't this just basic bridge knowledge? I start out knowing that my >> partner would do it, what difference does it make if he does it once? > > You start out knowing that some players do that. > At that point, your partnership's explanation should be > "2C is normal Stayman. We do not have any additional > agreements". > > Once you have played a couple of rounds with a player, > you will have a better understanding of his tendencies than > what you know from your general bridge knowledge. > And that information must be disclosed, Except of course that it is impractical and as far as I know no one does it. you are > not allowed to keep it as a partnership secret to > gain some illegitimate advantage over your opponents > who do not know your partner's preferences. That's rather harsh for standard practice. Right? In the original problem, how was this player supposed to know that his partner might have a 4-card spade suit? From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 08:23:34 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 01:23:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? In-Reply-To: <95F83CC3F88E4179AD74C6F0D921AC77@Mildred> References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no><000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <95F83CC3F88E4179AD74C6F0D921AC77@Mildred> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 18:09 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "" I thought of it by day and dreamed of it > by night."" > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Pewick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:40 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? > > >> > 2010/9/11 Sven Pran : > With this question I mainly hope for an authoritative > comment from someone associated with WBFLC; I see > little point in raising a discussion on how we > understand law 55A: >>>> > Quote: > 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. >> > My question is simply: Who is "next in turn"? >> > Is it the player that is next in turn following the > incorrect lead or is it the player that would be next in > turn after a correct lead? >> > This law applies whoever was actually on lead, also if > declarer leads out of turn when it's a defenders lead. >> > (Harald) > It's pretty clear, IMO, that the "player next in turn" is > the player in rotation after the lead out of turn. >> Harald >> > ton: > This certainly is the interpretation meant by the laws > committee (lho of the offending hand). >> > (Roger Pewick) > This is in direct violation of law. >> > To demonstrate the muddy waters start with the turn > belonging to E. the player next in turn is S. now > consider that N POOT. by definition, the player next > in turn is S. > > Why? The player next* in turn is the LHO of the player > whose turn it is. And by law: Turn ??? the correct time > at which a player is due to call or play. It being** E's turn. >> > > *= not particularly clear in law and may be a > dubious assertion > **= not because E is in clockwise rotation > to N, but because it was correctly E's turn prior > to the POOT and thus it still is E's turn as E has > not yet taken his turn >> > [Grattan] > +=+ I understand Roger's argument and it has some > weight. The question relates to words unsaid in the > law and whether it should be read "next in turn > before the lead was made" or "next in turn after the > lead from the wrong hand". Roger argues the first > of these interpretations while ton and I express a > contrary intention of the Drafting Committee. > My understanding is that Law 53A has the effect > of moving the turn to the player to the left of the > lead made and it remains there unless and until > the lead out of turn is rejected. However, it does > now appear that there is uncertainty in places and > as the Committee's minute provides (see item 7 of > 24 Aug 1998), I will ask the WBFLC for its support > of the position that ton and I have stated. +=+ Actually, I was pointing out that the basis for my statements were those things that the law DID say, not that which was unsaid. The concern delves into the those things fundamental. For instance, with the exception of the OL the law specifies precious little as to when the correct time for other players to play cards, and when it does it concerns [if any] only those situations where an infraction has occurred. What indeed is noticeable is that there is no specification as to whose turn it is let alone when that turn begins. Surely, someone is going to point to the definition of rotation- but it takes only the briefest reflection to discover that for rotation to have any meaning for the non infraction course of turns the word must be incorporated into the procedure for normal turns- and it is not there. Hence my footnote suggesting that LHO being next in turn could be dubious. Now, for those that do not have a problem with this state of affairs have you considered the effect of once a player?s turn begins it does not end? In such case, once the turn starts the player keeps on playing cards?.hmmmm. But that is the way it is. The law gives no specification as to when the correct time to play is??and more to the point: The law does not provide for a way to know when a player?s turn ends. Well, heaven forbid that anybody would feel compelled to change some words in law that address the state of affairs. I assure you that you are not contemplating merely two or three sentences worth of work if it is to be done right. This ?not so little tidbit? affects tens of thousands of issues and it is not so easy to know which can be ignored profitably. regards roger pewick ps as for this business of who is next in turn after a POOT has it been considered that if a play was OOT then by definition it did not occur at the correct time?- the correct time being a necessary pre-condition for a turn to have occurred. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 12 12:57:38 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:57:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no><000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><95F83CC3F88E4179AD74C6F0D921AC77@Mildred> Message-ID: <08352171BE6A44F0875CFAC2E147DB20@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:39 AM Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? > [ACBL Club Director's handbook -- quoted on RGB)] > Players are generally well advised to take the action > they would have taken had there been no huddle." > > [Nigel > Many players (on RGB and elsewhere) heed this > advice. But is this another example of rule-makers > positively encouraging infractions? > +=+ I pretend to little knowledge or understanding of conditions in the ACBL - the rest of the world has problems enough. However I do presume this is not to be taken as advice to ignore the words "the partner may not choose" in Law 16B1 (unless of course these words are absent from the ACBL version of the laws). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Sun Sep 12 16:19:45 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:19:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? In-Reply-To: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This kind of snide message traffic sticks in my craw. When in the position of pretending to "...little knowledge or understanding..." I suggest educating oneself by going to: ACBL.COM, Resources for Members, search: Handbook for Club Director's, view: page 47. This will put into context the sentence RGB and Mr. Guthrie quoted, and provide the facts vital to a reply. As answered, the message implies lack of interest in what an Regulating Authority provides TDs in it's interpretation of the WBF laws. It further quotes WBF Laws, dangerously incomplete and out of context, and Guthrie's (and RGB) concern about "local heresies" remains unanswered. It misses the opportunity to elucidate and perhaps educate the "rest of the world" via BLML. To me, it's just venting another cheap shot. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Local heresies? > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "" I thought of it by day and dreamed of it by night."" > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:39 AM > Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? > > > > [ACBL Club Director's handbook -- quoted on RGB)] > > Players are generally well advised to take the action > > they would have taken had there been no huddle." > > > > [Nigel > > Many players (on RGB and elsewhere) heed this > > advice. But is this another example of rule-makers > > positively encouraging infractions? > > > +=+ I pretend to little knowledge or understanding of > conditions in the ACBL - the rest of the world has > problems enough. However I do presume this is not > to be taken as advice to ignore the words "the partner > may not choose" in Law 16B1 (unless of course these > words are absent from the ACBL version of the laws). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Sep 12 23:32:59 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 16:32:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <4C8BBCE0.3070604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4C8D470B.9010605@nhcc.net> On 9/11/2010 12:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > When the complete verbal > discussion is "RKC 1430" "okay", what is the agreement? If the opponents are about as knowledgeable as the bidders (or more so), then "Our complete discussion was 'RKC 1430... OK'," should suffice. For RKC, I'd be comfortable giving that answer to any player at the club except a complete beginner. If the opponents are much less experienced (or from Mars), the explanation should include the standard way of playing RKC 1430 but without any implication that there's a actual agreement on details. "Most people play that..., but we didn't explicitly agree," might be good phrasing to use. Usually none of this will matter, but when it does, the question is whether opponents were misled by an explanation or were fooled by an unexpected choice of call. So start out by deciding what a correct explanation would have been, given all the circumstances. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Sep 12 23:39:22 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 16:39:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claims In-Reply-To: <417FFB6BED1345C7B987014999662A15@erdos> References: <4C870349.3080304@gmail.com> <417FFB6BED1345C7B987014999662A15@erdos> Message-ID: <4C8D488A.10304@nhcc.net> On 9/7/2010 10:47 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Declarer leads towards a KJ in dummy, and while he is thinking about which card > to play, RHO shows him the AQ, claiming both tricks. As of, I think, 1997, this is not a claim. A claim has to refer to tricks other than the current one. Here, RHO is in effect saying "your play to this trick won't matter," nothing about future tricks. Of course LHO will have UI (moot if RHO cashes the other honor next), and there will be a penalty card(s) if LHO could see the cards RHO is showing (unless other circumstances make the action a claim after all), but in general, play will continue despite RHO's action, whereas it would cease if there were a claim. This was a distinct change from the prior Laws, though I may be wrong about the date it took effect. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 13 02:43:10 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:43:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C89F7C1.7030709@t-online.de> Message-ID: >Which of the other three suits are logical alternatives? Harald Skjaeran (10th September 2010): All of them.... Harald Skjaeran (17th August 2005): If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested a non-club lead (surely it suggested a major suit lead), you have to examine the deal more closely to determine if a club lead is a LA. Given the auction and the South hand, a club lead is NOT a LA to me. I would never lead a club here - always a major suit, normally my shortest. Richard Hills (18th August 2005): Given the auction and the South hand, I would always lead a club here. The winning cases for a club lead are when North holds an entry outside clubs (quite likely) and the clubs are divided as follows: (1) KQx(x) xx(x) Ax J8543 (2) AKx(x) Qx xx(x) J8543 (3) KTxx Qx Ax J8543 (4) xx Qxx AKx J8543 Why is case (4) a winning case? Well, the auction and the South hand are consistent with all four players holding balanced distribution. It is possible that, on a passive lead and passive defence, declarer might score only eight tricks on normal play. Suppose that the only way that declarer can score nine tricks is by winning three tricks from this combined major suit holding: Dummy Declarer KJ9 Axx Then South leading away from their Txx in that major gives declarer their ninth trick. Since North's hesitation demonstrably suggests that case (4) will not be a winning case, in my opinion the club lead is the only legal logical alternative. * * * Australian Interstate Teams 2005 Appeal #2 Women's Teams New South Wales vs Australian Capital Territory Round Robin 2, Match 4 Bd 18 Dlr: East Vul: North-South AQJ86 J32 AT 762 973 K5 AQ4 K965 J8764 KQ52 AT KQ9 T42 T87 93 J8543 WEST (ACT) NORTH (NSW) EAST (ACT) SOUTH (NSW) Stephens Bashar Pettigrew Liepins --- --- 1NT Pass 3NT Pass* Pass Pass * disputed hesitation Director (Sean Mullamphy): I was called by East after the play in 3NT. South had led a spade and the contract was defeated. East alleged that North had passed out of tempo over 3NT. This was disputed. We ruled that it was likely that North had not called in tempo and that South's short suit lead may have been suggested by the break in tempo. Score adjusted to +460 EW. Committee (Richard Grenside, Neville Francis, Phil Gue, Bill Jacobs, Charlie Snashall): Under Law 12C3, the Committee varies the assigned adjusted score in order to restore equity. Adjusted to 3.5 IMPs to NS (NSW). Editor (Nick Hughes): In the other room, 3NT made 12 tricks. 3.5 IMPs to NSW reflects the Committee's belief that South basically had a 1 in 4 chance of finding the spade lead anyway. 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 Mon Sep 13 03:48:34 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 18:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504183.6113.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> On reflection I agree with Richard et al (and the director). The (long suit) club lead is the *only* permitted logical alternative. All other logical alternatives (leads in short suits) are rendered much more attractive by partner's tank. I think a group of the player's peers would agree. IMO, the director's ruling was correct. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 13 04:26:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:26:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <504183.6113.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >...IMO, the director's ruling was correct. Richard Hills: I agree. And, in my opinion, the Appeals Committee's ruling was not only incorrect, but also unLawful, yet another misuse of the 1997 Law 12C3. If the actual spade opening lead was Lawful, then the actual table result of 3NT -50 should have stood unaltered. If, however, the actual spade opening lead was unLawful, then the Director's adjusted score of 3NT +460 should have stood unaltered. The Appeals Committee lacked the power to cancel 75% of an unLawful opening spade lead, but still to in part keep 25% of an unLawful opening spade lead. Fortunately such unLawful Appeals Committee rulings should not recur, thanks to the new 2007 Law 12B1: ...result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred Thus in this case if the actual spade opening lead was unLawful, and if that spade lead had not occurred, then the East-West expectation was +460 in 3NT. 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 Sep 13 07:25:02 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:25:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26334664.1284355502988.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Australian Interstate Teams 2005 > Appeal #2 > Women's Teams > New South Wales vs Australian Capital Territory > Round Robin 2, Match 4 > Bd 18 > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > AQJ86 > J32 > AT > 762 > 973 K5 > AQ4 K965 > J8764 KQ52 > AT KQ9 > T42 > T87 > 93 > J8543 > > WEST (ACT) NORTH (NSW) EAST (ACT) SOUTH (NSW) > Stephens Bashar Pettigrew Liepins > --- --- 1NT Pass > 3NT Pass* Pass Pass > > * disputed hesitation > > Director (Sean Mullamphy): > > I was called by East after the play in 3NT. South had led a > spade and the contract was defeated. East alleged that > North had passed out of tempo over 3NT. This was disputed. > We ruled that it was likely that North had not called in > tempo and that South's short suit lead may have been > suggested by the break in tempo. Score adjusted to +460 EW. > > Committee (Richard Grenside, Neville Francis, Phil Gue, Bill > Jacobs, Charlie Snashall): > > Under Law 12C3, the Committee varies the assigned adjusted > score in order to restore equity. Adjusted to 3.5 IMPs to > NS (NSW). > > Editor (Nick Hughes): > > In the other room, 3NT made 12 tricks. 3.5 IMPs to NSW > reflects the Committee's belief that South basically had a 1 > in 4 chance of finding the spade lead anyway. The director got it right, of course. It is quite likely that the lead was influenced by the UI - a H lead looks slightly more attractive than a S lead even if you ignore the AI that partner didn't double for a S lead (assuming double demands a S lead; unfortunately the above writeup does not state what lead double of 3NT would requested) Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 13 07:49:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:49:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The dental blessing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <960892.59044.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO Pass = 10, Director = 1. >IMO, You must assume that opponents are not breaking the law. Richard Hills: Yes, after the takeout double highly recommended by most of the blmlers responding to the problem, the rest of the auction could be embarrassing, for example: (a) WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 2D Pass 2H Pass Pass X Pass Pass(1) Pass (1) Surely pard's double is for penalties East-West +670 or (b) WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 2D Pass 2H Pass Pass X Pass Pass 3NT(1) Pass Pass Pass (1) 23-24 hcp balanced East-West +600 after North is repeatedly endplayed. Nigel Guthrie: >Presumably 2D was alerted, so West had ample opportunity to >correct a mechanical error..... Richard Hills: Alas, no correction, since West was expecting an alert of 2D for a different reason. Matthias Berghaus: >>What other calls do you consider making? >A call for [an optometrist], so the West player can see who >he is playing with. Multi was yesterday..... EBU Laws and Ethics Committee comments ten years ago: The L&E considered the case of a player who had opened an ostensibly strong artificial 2D when holding a weak 2 in Hs, having forgotten that he was not playing the Multi in the partnership in question. The L&E decided that the next full revision of the Orange Book should include a review of the present regulation whereby it is not permitted to psyche a game-forcing or near game-forcing artificial opening. Such a review should also consider the question of misbids. Today's Orange Book regulation: 6 A 6 The regulation in the last Orange Book that a player may not psyche a game-forcing or near game-forcing artificial opening bid no longer applies. Richard Hills: So if North again faced the identical problem in an EBU tournament today, North would have the security of knowing that a psyche or misbid by West was equally legal, thus North could confidently back into the auction rather than wimp out. 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 Mon Sep 13 08:10:15 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:10:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C8D470B.9010605@nhcc.net> References: <4C8BBCE0.3070604@nhcc.net> <4C8D470B.9010605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 9/11/2010 12:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> When the complete verbal >> discussion is "RKC 1430" "okay", what is the agreement? > > If the opponents are about as knowledgeable as the bidders (or more so), > then "Our complete discussion was 'RKC 1430... OK'," should suffice. > For RKC, I'd be comfortable giving that answer to any player at the club > except a complete beginner. If the opponents ask the meaning of a 5H call, I would consider "RKC" to be an inadequate explanation and would rectify if they were damaged. Anyway, there are players at our club who play conventions that some of the other players do not know. And the ACBL frowns on the explanation you are suggesting. > > If the opponents are much less experienced (or from Mars), the > explanation should include the standard way of playing RKC 1430 but > without any implication that there's a actual agreement on details. > "Most people play that..., but we didn't explicitly agree," might be > good phrasing to use. You are saying that when my partner and I agree to play RKC, we are not agreeing that 5H means two controls and denies the queen of trumps. Okay, that is a clear answer to me question. However. If we do not have an agreement that 5H shows two controls and denies the queen of trumps, then I am not sure when we will ever be able to give evidence for misbid. I have the queen of trumps, simply make the wrong bid -- but all it says on our card is RKC. This will give me enormous power to almost always rule misexplanation. I actually like that. I think most of my rulings of "misbid" are based on the person violating the traditional meaning of an agreed convention. > > Usually none of this will matter, but when it does, the question is > whether opponents were misled by an explanation or were fooled by an > unexpected choice of call. So start out by deciding what a correct > explanation would have been, given all the circumstances. Right. And that requires deciding what is agreed upon when players agree to play a convention. You are saying above "denies a 4-card spade suit" is a wrong answer and you would rectify for the damage. If he said "chooses not to show a 4-card major" you would still rectify, I believe. But if he said, for any bid made past 2NT, "We have not explicitly discussed the meaning of that bid, but most people play that...." then you would not rectify. So essentially about 50% of explanations should begin with "We have not explicitly discussed the meaning of that bid, but most people play that..... Except for the poor people who have discussed the meanings of subsequent bids, I am guessing they are not allowed to say this. If I am getting this wrong, feel free to correct me. I am mainly interested in the question of what the agreement really is when players agree only on a convention. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 13 11:30:18 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:30:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining the possibility of tactical bids. In-Reply-To: References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C8DEF2A.1080202@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/09/2010 18:59, Robert Frick a ?crit : > Suppose first that I suspect partner might bid 2D with > > xxxx > KQ10 > KJx > AQ10 > > How do I describe his 2D bid? We are playing conventional Blackwood, which > is described as 2D denying a 4-card major. > > My regular partner is more likely than most to deny a 4-card major with a > flat hand, so this not just a hypothetical question. But I can think of > several people who I would expect to bid 2D with that hand even though I > have never seen them do it. My convnetion card, in the section "pre-alerts", has the following mention : "may downgrade a very weak suit by 1 card in most situations" That's the way to do it (or explicitly mention the situations if there are but a few) From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Mon Sep 13 13:03:19 2010 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:03:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? In-Reply-To: <95F83CC3F88E4179AD74C6F0D921AC77@Mildred> References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no><000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <95F83CC3F88E4179AD74C6F0D921AC77@Mildred> Message-ID: <1284375799.2344.1394707871@webmail.messagingengine.com> > as the Committee's minute provides (see item 7 of > 24 Aug 1998), I will ask the WBFLC for its support > of the position that ton and I have stated. +=+ The text of Law 55A in the ACBL publication of the Laws includes the text "to the hand from which the card was led out of turn" after "next in turn". I had no idea this text was not what WBF had approved until this thread sent me to ecatsbridge to check it out. David Babcock From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 13 13:24:55 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:24:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? In-Reply-To: <1284375799.2344.1394707871@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no><000f01cb51b9$7033be70$509b3b50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <95F83CC3F88E4179AD74C6F0D921AC77@Mildred> <1284375799.2344.1394707871@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <389732.31431.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [David Babcock] The text of Law 55A in the ACBL publication of the Laws includes the text "to the hand from which the card was led out of turn" after "next in turn". I had no idea this text was not what WBF had approved until this thread sent me to ecatsbridge to check it out. [Nigel] Spoilsport busybodies! :( Thankfully the WBFLC is not so pernickety, as many endless BLML debates would be nipped in the bud :) From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 13 15:34:08 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:34:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 55A - Who is "next in turn"? In-Reply-To: <000701cb51ba$5c750190$155f04b0$@no> References: <000601cb5194$9a7687a0$cf6396e0$@no> <000701cb51ba$5c750190$155f04b0$@no> Message-ID: On Sep 11, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran > >> 2010/9/11 Sven Pran : > >>> With this question I mainly hope for an authoritative comment from >>> someone associated with WBFLC; I see little point in raising a >>> discussion on how we understand law 55A: >>> >>> Quote: >>> 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. >>> >>> My question is simply: Who is "next in turn"? >>> >>> Is it the player that is next in turn following the incorrect >>> lead or >>> is it the player that would be next in turn after a correct lead? >> >> This law applies whoever was actually on lead, also if declarer >> leads out of turn >> when it's a defenders lead. >> >> It's pretty clear, IMO, that the "player next in turn" is the >> player in rotation after the >> lead out of turn. > > We have indeed translated Law 55A to Norwegian with this express > understanding, but it is not that simple: > > Compare Laws 53A and 55A: L53A uses the clause "the hand next in > rotation to the irregular lead" while L55A only states "player next > in turn". > > Is this difference significant? > > The player (defender) next in rotation to the irregular lead can > irrevocably force an acceptance of this lead by simply playing a > card to that trick (Law 53A referred to from the first part of Law > 55A). He can still do so after attention has been called to the > irregularity and the Director has been called to the table, and > there is nothing his partner can do to prevent it. > > The last part of Law 55A that have caused my question only applies > if that defender does not execute his right to accept the incorrect > lead by just playing to the trick, and the two defenders express > different opinions on whether or not to accept the incorrect lead. > > In practice this seems boiling down to how shall the Director rule > if the defender "next in rotation to the irregular lead" wants the > lead retracted and his partner wants the lead accepted. Notice that > until the lead out of turn is accepted the defender "next in > rotation to the irregular lead" is NOT the player next in turn to > play! > > I no longer feel that I know, but the way the question has > developed on RGB I believe we need a clarification, preferably from > WBFLC. (I have already checked the available WBFLC minutes for > possible answers; none found.) There is a more serious problem with L55. The "tie-breaker" language ("If the defenders choose differently...") in L55A we're discussing here is new in the 2008 FLB. Previously, such "ties" were apparently controlled by L55B1: "if *either* [emphasis mine] defender requires him to retract such lead, declarer restores the card...", and that language was not changed in 2008. It says that if the opponents disagree the lead reverts to the proper hand, regardless of where the differing opponents are sitting. So we now appear to have two contradictory rules for determining which hand leads in this situation. L55B1 should have been reworded when the new language was added, as by replacing "if either defender" with "if the defending side". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 13 15:59:47 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:59:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C8BBCE0.3070604@nhcc.net> References: <4C8BBCE0.3070604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6D1048B6-E246-4A3E-B31C-85AB39A4294F@starpower.net> On Sep 11, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 9/10/2010 8:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > ... >> (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. > ... >> I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, > > The way to proceed in these rulings is to ask what a correct > explanation > would have been and what would have happened if the opponents had > gotten > it instead of whatever they were given. > > In the original case, it seems a correct explanation would have > been "We > agreed on NMF but have no agreement about opener's rebids." If > this is > the correct explanation, you rule MI and move on the the question of > whether it caused damage. Of course if the bidders can convince you > that they really do have a clear agreement to show spades and have no > experience of violations, then there's no MI. > > In the Stayman case, if there's partnership experience that 2D doesn't > really deny a 4cM, that has to be disclosed. > > What the Director should never do is assume that a typical > agreement is > the one actually held by a specific pair. And players should never > state that they have a particular agreement when it's in fact the > matter > is undiscussed. "New MInor Forcing" has become, for many, the name of a convention, like "Stayman". If in discussion you say, "let's play new minor forcing [NB: we do not speak aloud in cased letters] in such-and-such auctions," and I say "OK", have I merely agreed to play that a new minor is forcing in those auctions, or have I agreed to play the entire New Minor Forcing Covention, with specific responses and rebids, as someone has defined it in writing? You can provide the fullest possible disclosure by repeating your exact partnership discussion verbatim to the opponents, but the ambiguity will remain. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 13 16:03:00 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:03:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining the possibility of tactical bids. In-Reply-To: References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <597AC287-F5C2-485A-AF85-DAD3E67BEE3D@starpower.net> On Sep 11, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > How do I describe his 2D bid? We are playing conventional > Blackwood, which > is described as 2D denying a 4-card major. Bob's going to have a hard time getting his opponents to buy this one. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 13 16:12:46 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:12:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <72007DB3-8E84-40B5-9981-76DB59EB95A7@starpower.net> On Sep 11, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1D P 1H P >>>>> 2NT P 3C(1) P >>>>> 3NT(2) P P P >>>>> >>>>> (1) New minor forcing > > There is no dispute, at the table for for sake of example, that they > agreed to play this sequence as new minor forcing. > > I asked them if they had had any discussions past this simple > agreement. > It was not even easy for them to understand the question. But they > did not. > > Everyone here agrees that in this sequence, new minor forcing asks > the 2NT > bidder to bid a 4-card spade suit. Not "everyone", since there are a fair number of pairs around here who play that opener's 2NT rebid over 1H has *already* denied a four- card spade suit. They would presumably use 3S on this auction for some other purpose. > In other words, that is a part of the > new minor forcing convention which they agreed. (I agree to rule > misexplanation for controversial parts of a convention.) Well, twice above you said that they agreed to play "new minor forcing", but now you say that they agreed to play "the new minor forcing convention". These are not the same, and you can hardly rule sensibly until you determine which is correct. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 13 16:35:08 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:35:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <4C8BBCE0.3070604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sep 11, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 1S P 3S P > 4NT(1) P 5H(2) > > (1) described as Roman Key Card Blackwood > > (2) The pair is playing together for the first time and has not > discussed > anything more than "1430, RKC". They are supposed to say "We have no > agreement about resposes"? > > You know that isn't right. But what really is the difference? A > convention > is not always just the meaning of one bid that starts the sequence, > it is > often a package of bids. "RKC" by itself may be ambiguous, but isn't "1430" a specific agreement on a set of responses? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 13 16:52:24 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:52:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <72007DB3-8E84-40B5-9981-76DB59EB95A7@starpower.net> References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <72007DB3-8E84-40B5-9981-76DB59EB95A7@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:12:46 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 11, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >>>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 1D P 1H P >>>>>> 2NT P 3C(1) P >>>>>> 3NT(2) P P P >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) New minor forcing >> >> There is no dispute, at the table for for sake of example, that they >> agreed to play this sequence as new minor forcing. >> >> I asked them if they had had any discussions past this simple >> agreement. >> It was not even easy for them to understand the question. But they >> did not. >> >> Everyone here agrees that in this sequence, new minor forcing asks >> the 2NT >> bidder to bid a 4-card spade suit. > > Not "everyone", since there are a fair number of pairs around here > who play that opener's 2NT rebid over 1H has *already* denied a four- > card spade suit. They would presumably use 3S on this auction for > some other purpose. I meant "here" as our bridge club. There is a considerable amount of people playing with different partners, so a "standard" gets developed. > >> In other words, that is a part of the >> new minor forcing convention which they agreed. (I agree to rule >> misexplanation for controversial parts of a convention.) > > Well, twice above you said that they agreed to play "new minor > forcing", but now you say that they agreed to play "the new minor > forcing convention". These are not the same, and you can hardly rule > sensibly until you determine which is correct. If the ruling depends on whether they said "new minor forcing" versus "the new minor forcing convention" we are all in trouble. I really doubt that any ordinary player sees a difference. So they will not remember. Also, I do not want to be ruling based on subtle nuances of language that people weren't even intentionally making. And I have the impression that isn't ACBL policy -- they would prefer I look at what people meant rather than exact language. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 13 17:40:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:40:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <72007DB3-8E84-40B5-9981-76DB59EB95A7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C8E45DA.7040102@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/09/2010 16:52, Robert Frick a ?crit : > . > If the ruling depends on whether they said "new minor forcing" versus "the > new minor forcing convention" we are all in trouble. AG : not necessarily. Why is it sooo strange to agree that in ordinary situation the lowest bid in a yet unbid minor suit serves as a general force and you try describing your hand ? I've played in many moderately fequent partnerships where we agreed "4SF" and didn't discuss the responses. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 13 19:26:23 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C8E45DA.7040102@ulb.ac.be> References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <72007DB3-8E84-40B5-9981-76DB59EB95A7@starpower.net> <4C8E45DA.7040102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <947173.27525.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Alain] I've played in many moderately fequent partnerships where we agreed "4SF" and didn't discuss the responses. [Nigel] In practice, 4SF, NMF, RKC, and so on are ambiguous. Usually, local players are familiar with local treatments, which is why rule-books tell you to describe meanings instead. In 2018, I hope the law book will be clarified to enjoin players players, when interrogated, to give the Sven Pran answer: i.e. explain what partner's calls have revealed about his hand" From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 13 19:54:06 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:54:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining the possibility of tactical bids. In-Reply-To: References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <16686757.1284226384950.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sep 11, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 1S X 3C(1) > > (1) Should be explained as: Weak with clubs except partner might have > forgotten that 3 weeks ago I asked if we could play Bergen raises > over a > takeout double and he said no. If he forgot that, then he might have > decided that this is a very good sequence to play Bergen raises and > that I > will somehow figure that out. We normally play Bergen raises > without the > double and he would not forgot that. In my partnership agreement, he > almost always bids Bergen with at least four card support but I > think he > might do it with 3-card support and a void. There is no chance that > 3C is > a strong jump shift and he forgot. Well, maybe some chance, ever so > often > he pulls out bids that I completely do not expect based on past > history > with different partners. He tends to stay within the expected range > for > weak jump shifts. He does pay attention to vulnerability so [insert > comment about effects of vulnerability]. It is very unlikely, but not > impossible, that he meant to bid 3C and then had some mental error. > > This isn't very practical. > > The opponents were damaged by my actual mistaken explanation (weak > jump > shift in clubs). But I don't think they would have got anywhere > claiming > that I should have told them the probability of my partner making a > mistake. > > To be clear, I believe the laws do not require me to state that my > partner > might be making a tactical bid (or a mistake). It would be really > nice if > the opps could hear how often he does those, but it isn't > practical. I do > not have to explain the effects of vulnerability on bidding, even > though > the opps might not know it and anyone would want to know how likely my > partner is to pay attention to vulnerability. > > The reality is, I should be able to ask the opps how often their > defensive > signals are accurate and how often they stretch away from the > proper form > for a takeout double. I suspect not even that is practical. Sure it is. You can't expect a precise answer, but an actively ethical opponent will try to be helpful and answer your question as best they can. What's impractical (and silly) is expecting to be provided with this sort of information over and above the explanation of the actual agreement unasked, notwithstanding that it may legally constitute an "implicit agreement". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 13 20:37:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:37:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sep 11, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I do not know how a pair could be playing together for the first > time and > have an implicit partnership understanding. It's easy. They might know that they had the same bridge teacher, or read the same book. Or they might even... > But here on Long Island, 3C shows either a 5-card heart suit > or a 4-card spade suit and interest in a major suit fit. Most > people think > of the responses as part of the convention. ...both be from Long Island. > But you are saying that their agreement is more than just "new minor > forcing". That's useful. Of course it is. How can an agreement to play "new minor forcing on this auction", absent any further (perhaps implicit) agreement as to what that means, necessarily mean anything more than "a bid in the new minor is forcing on this auction"? They may, admittedly, have agreed to play "New Minor Forcing" [convention] rather than "new minor forcing" [agreement not to pass it out], but conventional agreements should always be described rather than merely named. It really doesn't matter that Long Islanders have chosen to call their convention, with its fixed set of responses and rebids, "New Minor Forcing" rather than "The Long Island 3C Bid" or "Jones". > Actually, they agreed on new minor forcing, which then implies a > host of > follow up bids. Players really do think of them as part of the > convention > -- no one would teach the first bid of new minor forcing and then > tell > their students to just bid naturally after that. How does "new minor forcing over a 2NT rebid" imply a host of follow- up bids any more than does, say, "new major forcing after an opening weak 2-bid"? Everyone teaches only "the first bid" of "new major forcing after an opening weak 2-bid" and assumes their students will just bid naturally after that. It takes a serious case of conventions-on-the-brain not to get it that it is perfectly normal (and legal) to imagine that "new" (def: not bid previously) "...minor" (def: clubs or diamonds), "...forcing" (def: not to be passed) means exactly what its words do, no more and no less. Our local version of Long Island's NMF is 1M-P-2NT as a forcing raise. For some reason, if you say, "Let's play 2NT as our forcing raise over one of a major," around here and your first-time partner says "OK", pretty much everyone will assume that you have agreed that opener will rebid short suits, Jacoby-style, rather than rebidding naturally, even though neither short suits nor Mr. Jacoby were ever mentioned. This has never made sense to me. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Mon Sep 13 21:20:16 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? Message-ID: <27709618.1284405616152.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 16:14:05 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:31:12 -0400, Steve Willner > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On 9/10/2010 8:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> > ... > >> >> (2) Described as denying a 4-card spade suit. > >> > ... > >> >> I ruled that this was a correct description of new minor forcing, > >> > > >> > The way to proceed in these rulings is to ask what a correct > >> explanation > >> > would have been and what would have happened if the opponents had > >> gotten > >> > it instead of whatever they were given. > >> > > >> > In the original case, it seems a correct explanation would have been > >> "We > >> > agreed on NMF but have no agreement about opener's rebids." If this > >> is > >> > the correct explanation, you rule MI and move on the the question of > >> > whether it caused damage. Of course if the bidders can convince you > >> > that they really do have a clear agreement to show spades and have no > >> > experience of violations, then there's no MI. > >> > >> 1S P 3S P > >> 4NT(1) P 5H(2) > >> > >> (1) described as Roman Key Card Blackwood > >> > >> (2) The pair is playing together for the first time and has not > >> discussed > >> anything more than "1430, RKC". They are supposed to say "We have no > >> agreement about resposes"? > >> > >> You know that isn't right. > > > > (1) "1430, RKC" is the correct explanation. No problem so far. > > > > (2) Seems a bit far fatched to assume that opponents don't know RKCB, > > don't you think? > > No. Anyway, you would just be arguing with the example. But I do have > inexperienced players playing with experienced players. > > > > > Technically, you probably have an implicit partnership understanding > > that 5H shows two or five. That would have to be disclosed. > > I do not know how a pair could be playing together for the first time and > have an implicit partnership understanding. In your example, there is an implicit understanding that 5H shows two or five because there are no variations of "1430, RKC" where 5H does not show two or five. At least I don't know any such variations. There exist, though, variations on what other information is submitted. For example, 5S might be any of "two or five, plus the Q of trump" "two or five, no Q of trumps, but one extra trump (in case C, D, or S are are trumps)" "two or five, plus the Q of trump, but not the K in the highest ranking side suit" > So you are saying that they do not have an explicit agreement that 5 > Hearts shows 2 aces and denies the queen of trumps? I don't think anyone > is going to follow you on that. No, they do not have such an explicit agreement. The explicit agreement is "4130, RKC". > > You do not have to > > disclose your general bridge knowledge. You not > > have to teach bridge to your opponents. > > That is what I have been saying about all of your claims that I have to > disclose tactical bids. Or the possibility of misbids, if you are claiming > that. Your knowledge on partner's tactical bids is a partnership understanding. It is not part of your general bridge knowledge, you would not have that knowledge if you had never met that guy before. Let me give an example. Assume you are playing precision, against "Steve" and "Thomas" Vul: You You Steve CHO Thomas 1C(1) 1S(2) pass(3) 2S (1) precision, 16+ HCP (2) Canape, 0-20 HCP, 3+ spades, plus a five card or longer side suit (3) pass You hold KQJx,Ax,KQJx,KQx What now? Do you think it would have helped if Steve would have told you that Thomas once in a while takes advantage of the vulnerability, and makes the completely safe bid of 2S on a S singleton or void, or some other collection of used tram tickets? Maybe it would have helped even more if Steve and Thomas would have pre-alerted that "tactical bid", so that you could have prepared a defense?? Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Sep 13 23:07:45 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:07:45 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? References: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0BA194C81ABC415FAA36D4D0D651EC57@MARVLAPTOP> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" failing to quote the message from Nigel to which he is referring, which I shall do now: > [ACBL Club Director's handbook -- quoted on RGB)] Players are > generally well advised to take the action they would have taken > had there been no huddle." [Nigel] Many players (on RGB and elsewhere) heed this advice. But is this another example of rule-makers positively encouraging infractions? [Kojak] > This kind of snide message traffic sticks in my craw. When in the > position of pretending to "...little knowledge or > understanding..." I suggest educating oneself by going to: > > ACBL.COM, Resources for Members, search: Handbook for Club > Director's, view: page 47. Page 48. Nigel has the right title, almost, which is The ACBL Club Directors Handbook > > This will put into context the sentence RGB and Mr. Guthrie > quoted, and provide the facts vital to a reply. I don't see where the context matters, the statement is just plain wrong. Following that suggestion could lead to an adjusted score that is worse than the one that would have resulted by obeying Law 16B1(a), which players would be "well advised" to follow. It is discussed on page 30 of the Handbook. The Handbook gives a procedure for handling fouled boards when ACBLScore is not available. The two fields are matchpointed separately, with each field member given 1/2 matchpoint for every pair in the other field. This old-fashioned procedure was superseded in 1990 when the ACBL adopted the WBF's Fouled Board Formula, which is not difficult to apply manually. > > As answered, the message implies lack of interest in what an > Regulating Authority provides TDs in it's interpretation of the > WBF > laws. It further quotes WBF Laws, dangerously incomplete and out > of context, and Guthrie's (and RGB) concern about "local heresies" > remains unanswered. The ACBL provides TDs conflicting interpretations of the WBF Laws (which do not all apply in ACBL-land, by the way). There is the Handbook for Club Directors cited above and also Duplicate Decisions, a Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table. They do not agree in many instances, and both disagree with the 2008 Laws of Duplicate Bridge published by the ACBL. There seems to be various fiefs who independently produce these things. One can't help but ask, "Who's in Charge?" Other examples are the three documents instructing players on the filling out of a convention card. One is called "Conventional Wisdom," 24 parts, one part published each month in the ACBL Bulletin, which claims responsibility its contents. It is available from the web site in pdf format, but not combined into one pdf file (as they are on my website, under Bridge Laws and Regulations). Who wants to download and print 24 pdf files? The other two documents are also on the ACBL web site, if you can find them. The three are not in complete agreement. I suggested to Adam Wildavsky that all these documents should be run through the LC for approval before publication, and he might look into that. And then there are the "word of mouth" statements circulating among TDs regarding application of the Laws and regulations. "Non-offenders are expected to play bridge," "If attention is not drawn to UI at the time, it is likely that no redress for damage will be given," Negative inferences are not Alertable," "A serious error means no redress." All incorrect! As to the last, a prominent ACBL TD tells me that non-offenders do not pay for a revoke in an adjusted score, because "they should not have been in a position to make that mistake." A 40-year member of the NABC AC says +/- 170 when an OS score is reduced from +620, ten tricks made because the NOS revoked. The right adjustment is of course +140/-620, but no ACBL person believes that, just ask Adam. > > It misses the opportunity to elucidate and perhaps educate the > "rest of the world" via BLML. And who will do that? Besides, the rest of the ACBL world pays scant attention to BLML. The ACBL needs a "White Paper" like that of the EBU, endorsed by the LC and circulated to all TDs and ACs. > To me, it's just venting another cheap shot. These people need verbal missiles. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5448 (20100913) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 14 01:29:13 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:29:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] {BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Colonel William Stryker: "Sergeant, kill anyone who approaches... even if it's me." Richard Hills, July 2004: [snip of David Stevenson argument that pre-alerting is impractical because it would take forever and ever] >Rather, pre-alerting merely needs a good faith warning >of *key* and *probable* unusual agreements. The fact >that I unusually (for Australia) play a *rare* 4NT >opening bid as Acol Blackwood is something that I have >never pre-alerted. Ron Johnson, July 2004: Right, There's no particular point in pre-alerting something that: a) never rates to come up (I've never had a Blackwood opener -- though my partner did have a hand that would have been suitable. I'd already opened a strong NT in first seat though) b) Doesn't require defensive measures. By contrast I note that a few pairs in the recent US trials included important notes about style. When I played in New York with my father we used to pre- alert the fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s. (even though pre-alerts didn't exist when we first started to do this) We started to do this after a good player doubled on the auction. What sounded to her like a desperate struggle to game was in fact a slam try auction, and she wasn't over the big hand as she thought. Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left me with a bad taste. 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 swillner at nhcc.net Tue Sep 14 03:55:21 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:55:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <4C8BBCE0.3070604@nhcc.net> <4C8D470B.9010605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4C8ED609.5070109@nhcc.net> SW> If the opponents are about as knowledgeable as the bidders (or more so), SW> then "Our complete discussion was 'RKC 1430... OK'," should suffice. On 9/13/2010 2:10 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > If the opponents ask the meaning of a 5H call, I would consider "RKC" to > be an inadequate explanation and would rectify if they were damaged. Sorry... I shouldn't have written what I did without supplying context. In the clubs I play at, we have mostly very experienced players but once a year get a few pairs literally just out of the beginners' class. I play sometimes with familiar partners and sometimes in first- time partnerships. In a familiar partnership, there will be no doubt what 5H shows, and of course I'll explain accordingly. In a first-time partnership, we've probably not even had an oral discussion, just checked one or more boxes on the system card. In _that_ kind of partnership, when explaining to experienced players, I'll give the exact details of our explicit agreement and nothing more. They're as well-equipped to understand the 5H bid or other response as I am. If explaining to beginners, things are trickier. In practice, I'd probably give a simple explanation of what I expect partner's bid to mean, but if that turns out to be wrong and in retrospect I believe I've given MI, I'd call the Director and explain what happened. Fortunately both clubs have good Directors (far better than at tournaments in this area), and I'd expect an adjusted score if opponents were damaged by my having assumed an agreement when none existed. The point is that a fully-correct explanation is one that includes all relevant explicit, implicit, and tacit agreements _and nothing else_. > So essentially about 50% of explanations should begin with "We have not > explicitly discussed the meaning of that bid, but most people play > that..... In a first-time partnership, that's probably right, at least for the first half or so of the session. After that, it becomes progressively less common, though it will still occur once in awhile for anybody short of Meckwell (and I think maybe even for them once a year or so). From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Sep 14 04:19:21 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:19:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? In-Reply-To: <0BA194C81ABC415FAA36D4D0D651EC57@MARVLAPTOP> References: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0BA194C81ABC415FAA36D4D0D651EC57@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C8EDBA9.403@nhcc.net> On 9/13/2010 5:07 PM, Marvin French wrote: > The ACBL needs a "White Paper" like that of the EBU, endorsed by the > LC and circulated to all TDs and ACs. I think Marv means the "White Book:" http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/EBU%20White%20Book.pdf It seems to be the EBU version of the ACBL's _Duplicate Decisions_ but far more thorough and comprehensive and with official endorsement. Yes, having one for the ACBL would be great. What I'd like to see even more is an "Orange Book," which contains all the rules _players_ need to know: convention charts, alert procedure, bidding box regs, etc. Not only are all the necessary rules collected in one place, they are reasonably easy to understand. The ACBL seems to have rules scattered in several locations, and nobody knows which ones are still in effect and which have been superseded. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 14 06:35:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:35:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9FC6D1CB-72CF-4BDF-B96A-861A08013DE8@btinternet.com> Message-ID: >>A player confused by a Director mentioning 3H being a >>transfer to spades, so unintentionally bidding 4S rather >>than 4H, is clearly within the scope of Law 25A (or the >>scope of Law 25B, if the Director rules a pause for >>thought when the player attempts to change 4S to 4H). >Which bidding card was the player trying to select at the >moment of making the call? > >Gordon Rainsford Nun and None. Since this situation arose in Canberra in 2005, the player wrote a 4 and an S on the bidding pad. The Director was still at the table due to the prior insufficient bid, so the player cast an agonised glance (without pause for thought) at the Director, which was a non-verbal summoning of the Director for a Law 25A ruling. The Director duly allowed a correction from a 4 and an S to a 4 and an H. 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 Tue Sep 14 07:13:51 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:13:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: [snip] >There is a German player known as "the conductor". His bidding >is horrible. When playing with the conductor, I used to pre- >alert opponents "My partner will quite frequently make >outrageous bids, bids you would never have imagined anybody >would even consider." Opponents who thought I was exaggerating >usually changed their mind after a few boards ;-). Richard Hills: A Canberra player has given full disclosure of her Law 40B2(a) "style and judgement", as she has written on her system card: Random acts of insanity 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 Tue Sep 14 08:24:47 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:24:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Lensherr: "Mr Laurio, never trust a beautiful woman. Especially one who's interested in you." Robert Frick asserted: [snip] >I do not want to be ruling based on subtle nuances of language >that people weren't even intentionally making. And I have the >impression that isn't ACBL policy -- they would prefer I look at >what people meant rather than exact language. ACBL Alert Policy refuted: "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." Richard Hills: Even as basic a convention as Stayman has zillions of variants. Take this commonplace Stayman auction: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT Pass 2C Pass 2D Pass 2H ? (1) Some (including Ali-Hills) play 2H as a 100% drop dead bid, showing at least a yarborough with 4-5 or 4-6 in the majors. (2) Others use Stayman with a weakish 4-4 in the majors, so West is 100% required to correct to 2S holding 3-2 in the majors. (3) And yet others define this sequence as game invitational. Obviously East-West merely announcing "This is a Stayman auction" will be of little use to a South who is wondering if a balance would be too risky. 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Sep 14 09:38:53 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:38:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is Law 25A insufficient? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40A53D51-BF10-4CEF-845B-920DBD46A302@btinternet.com> On 14 Sep 2010, at 05:35, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> A player confused by a Director mentioning 3H being a >>> transfer to spades, so unintentionally bidding 4S rather >>> than 4H, is clearly within the scope of Law 25A (or the >>> scope of Law 25B, if the Director rules a pause for >>> thought when the player attempts to change 4S to 4H). > >> Which bidding card was the player trying to select at the >> moment of making the call? >> >> Gordon Rainsford > > Nun and None. Since this situation arose in Canberra in > 2005, the player wrote a 4 and an S on the bidding pad. > > The Director was still at the table due to the prior > insufficient bid, so the player cast an agonised glance > (without pause for thought) at the Director, which was a > non-verbal summoning of the Director for a Law 25A > ruling. The Director duly allowed a correction from a 4 > and an S to a 4 and an H. It sounds like you have a much looser interpretation of "inadvertent" (as it was then) than I've been trained to use. You seem to think the question is whether the change was in time. I think the question is whether the call was inadvertent. Gordon Rainsford From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 14 09:57:50 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:57:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <947173.27525.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <72007DB3-8E84-40B5-9981-76DB59EB95A7@starpower.net> <4C8E45DA.7040102@ulb.ac.be> <947173.27525.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C8F2AFE.9070608@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/09/2010 19:26, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain] > > I've played in many moderately fequent partnerships where we agreed > "4SF" and didn't discuss the responses. > > [Nigel] > In practice, 4SF, NMF, RKC, and so on are ambiguous. Usually, local players are > familiar with local treatments, which is why rule-books tell you to describe > meanings instead. AG : OK, so the meaning of the bid is "I am strong , please describe your hand". It doesn't mean that the ensuing description has been codified. Some partnerships will rely on common sense from then on, especially in cases where the 4th-suit bid is a game force. Now, does it mean that they don't play "4th suit force" ? I wouldn't quarrel this, but it's strange. Notice that any explanation can be misunderstood ; it took time for me to realize that one shouldn't explain partner's 1NT response as "forcing" in some parts of Belgium, because thisq word is understood as "strong relay" there. Also notice that some difference should be made between nominal groups and set phrases ; e.g. a Romex 1NT opening is a strong 1NT opening, but it is not a Strong Notrump ; and a Dutch two-bid is a weak two-bid, but it is not a Weak Two. And that, IMHO, is the problem with the beforementioned "new minor forcing". > > In 2018, I hope the law book will be clarified to enjoin players players, when > interrogated, to give the Sven Pran answer: > > > i.e. explain what partner's calls have revealed about his hand" AG : what about relay bids ? e.g. 1S - 2NT (GF raise) - 3D (non-minimum, any singleton) : partner will ask for the singleton (3H) 99% of the tme. What does it reveal about his hand ? Don't you think that in this case it would be easier to explain the meaning of the bid, i.e. "he asks for the short suit" ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 14 10:17:17 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:17:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/09/2010 20:37, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > It's easy. They might know that they had the same bridge teacher, or > read the same book. Or they might even... > ... have a common partner. > How does "new minor forcing over a 2NT rebid" imply a host of follow- up bids any more than does, say, "new major forcing after an opening weak 2-bid"? Everyone teaches only "the first bid" of "new major forcing after an opening weak 2-bid" and assumes their students will just bid naturally after that. AG : Well, it doesn't, if one accepts your premise that convention names aren't valid explanations. In that case, there will be no such thing as a set name, whence the phrase should be understood literally. BTA it will be hard to convince players that responses which are convention names shouldn't be intended as convention names. Our local version of Long Island's NMF is 1M-P-2NT as a forcing raise. For some reason, if you say, "Let's play 2NT as our forcing raise over one of a major," around here and your first-time partner says "OK", pretty much everyone will assume that you have agreed that opener will rebid short suits, Jacoby-style, rather than rebidding naturally, even though neither short suits nor Mr. Jacoby were ever mentioned. This has never made sense to me. AG : in Brussels, whose population is similar to Long Island's IIRC, I've inventoried more than a dozen different answer sets. Surely the TD would decide that they didn't agree on the responses (and therefore have an implicit agreement to bid more or less naturally). Anyway, the important thing is to be understood. If giving a convention name is the best way to be understood, then by all means do it, but if it doesn't work you're responsible for that. May I once again recall the exchange between YT and a former partner, after a complex T-Walsh sequence : - Did I understand the bidding ? - You did. (i. e. : -same as ours ? - Yep) The important thing isn't to use such-or-such form to explain your conventions, but to ensure that communication was effective. No matter how. Best regards Alaia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100914/cc518cff/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 14 10:22:17 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:22:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/09/2010 7:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Thomas Dehn: > > [snip] > >> There is a German player known as "the conductor". His bidding >> is horrible. When playing with the conductor, I used to pre- >> alert opponents "My partner will quite frequently make >> outrageous bids, bids you would never have imagined anybody >> would even consider." Opponents who thought I was exaggerating >> usually changed their mind after a few boards ;-). > Richard Hills: > > A Canberra player has given full disclosure of her Law 40B2(a) > "style and judgement", as she has written on her system card: > > Random acts of insanity > > > AG : I know a Belgian pair who wrote under the "psyches" heading : "only when angry" Notice that this is correct disclosure. From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 14 12:32:05 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:32:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1329392178.1284460325090.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 14/09/2010 7:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Thomas Dehn: > > > > [snip] > > > >> There is a German player known as "the conductor". His bidding > >> is horrible. When playing with the conductor, I used to pre- > >> alert opponents "My partner will quite frequently make > >> outrageous bids, bids you would never have imagined anybody > >> would even consider." Opponents who thought I was exaggerating > >> usually changed their mind after a few boards ;-). > > Richard Hills: > > > > A Canberra player has given full disclosure of her Law 40B2(a) > > "style and judgement", as she has written on her system card: > > > > Random acts of insanity > > > > > > > AG : I know a Belgian pair who wrote under the "psyches" heading : > "only when angry" > Notice that this is correct disclosure. Who was that Australian player who frequently made retribution bids to punish partner for any perceived misdoing? Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 14 15:22:36 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:22:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <16254424.1284222677134.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <72007DB3-8E84-40B5-9981-76DB59EB95A7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <659A73F6-DECA-47F7-ACC8-96FAFF0A6B21@starpower.net> On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:12:46 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Sep 11, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>>>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1D P 1H P >>>>>>> 2NT P 3C(1) P >>>>>>> 3NT(2) P P P >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (1) New minor forcing >>> >>> There is no dispute, at the table for for sake of example, that they >>> agreed to play this sequence as new minor forcing. >>> >>> I asked them if they had had any discussions past this simple >>> agreement. >>> It was not even easy for them to understand the question. But they >>> did not. >>> >>> Everyone here agrees that in this sequence, new minor forcing asks >>> the 2NT >>> bidder to bid a 4-card spade suit. >> >> Not "everyone", since there are a fair number of pairs around here >> who play that opener's 2NT rebid over 1H has *already* denied a four- >> card spade suit. They would presumably use 3S on this auction for >> some other purpose. > > I meant "here" as our bridge club. There is a considerable amount of > people playing with different partners, so a "standard" gets > developed. > >>> In other words, that is a part of the >>> new minor forcing convention which they agreed. (I agree to rule >>> misexplanation for controversial parts of a convention.) >> >> Well, twice above you said that they agreed to play "new minor >> forcing", but now you say that they agreed to play "the new minor >> forcing convention". These are not the same, and you can hardly rule >> sensibly until you determine which is correct. > > If the ruling depends on whether they said "new minor forcing" > versus "the > new minor forcing convention" we are all in trouble. I really doubt > that > any ordinary player sees a difference. So they will not remember. > Also, I > do not want to be ruling based on subtle nuances of language that > people > weren't even intentionally making. And I have the impression that > isn't > ACBL policy -- they would prefer I look at what people meant rather > than > exact language. Of course. It doesn't matter what was said; it matters what was meant, and what was "heard". Nobody actually says "the new minor forcing convention" unless they're trying to make the careful distinction that I am. If they did, we wouldn't have a problem. The problem is that the term "new minor forcing" is ambiguous precisely because we have chosen to define a convention (analogous to "Stayman") with a name that also means something bridge-specific (analogous to "new suit forcing") when interpreted literally. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Tue Sep 14 16:37:03 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:37:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? In-Reply-To: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0BA194C81ABC415FAA36D4D0D651EC57@MARVLAPTOP> References: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0BA194C81ABC415FAA36D4D0D651EC57@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: My concerns are that the two messages ask about a "heresy" by taking words out of context and the non-answer further takes WBF words out of context. When Mr. Guthrie states that context doesn't matter, he uses a spurious method of evaluating a situation. Mr. French's reference to page 30 of the handbook is great. Too bad that he doesn't see that the steps to arrive at a good ruling are sequential and assume a director was called presumably by the non-offenders about the use of unauthorized information.(Context again?) Had the supposed offender believed that he was barred by the huddle and thereby did what he thought was right, I doubt that the opponents would call the director to see that the result was changed to their detriment. Does anyhone think that the supposed offender is now going to call the TD? Mr. French's discussion of other matters need be addressed to that Regulating Authority. Repeated postings of the same stuff on BLML does little good to resolve anything."Cud chewing" is for cows. I guess "Verbal Missles" equals "Cheap Shots" by syntax. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Local heresies? > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > > failing to quote the message from Nigel to which he is referring, > which I shall do now: > > > [ACBL Club Director's handbook -- quoted on RGB)] Players are > > generally well advised to take the action they would have taken > > had there been no huddle." > > [Nigel] > Many players (on RGB and elsewhere) heed this advice. But is this > another > example of rule-makers positively encouraging infractions? > > [Kojak] > > > This kind of snide message traffic sticks in my craw. When in the > > position of pretending to "...little knowledge or > > understanding..." I suggest educating oneself by going to: > > > > ACBL.COM, Resources for Members, search: Handbook for Club > > Director's, view: page 47. > > Page 48. Nigel has the right title, almost, which is The ACBL Club > Directors Handbook > > > > This will put into context the sentence RGB and Mr. Guthrie > > quoted, and provide the facts vital to a reply. > > I don't see where the context matters, the statement is just plain > wrong. Following that suggestion could lead to an adjusted score > that is worse than the one that would have resulted by obeying Law > 16B1(a), which players would be "well advised" to follow. It is > discussed on page 30 of the Handbook. > > The Handbook gives a procedure for handling fouled boards when > ACBLScore is not available. The two fields are matchpointed > separately, with each field member given 1/2 matchpoint for every > pair in the other field. This old-fashioned procedure was superseded > in 1990 when the ACBL adopted the WBF's Fouled Board Formula, which > is not difficult to apply manually. > > > > As answered, the message implies lack of interest in what an > > Regulating Authority provides TDs in it's interpretation of the > > WBF > > laws. It further quotes WBF Laws, dangerously incomplete and out > > of context, and Guthrie's (and RGB) concern about "local heresies" > > remains unanswered. > > The ACBL provides TDs conflicting interpretations of the WBF Laws > (which do not all apply in ACBL-land, by the way). > > There is the Handbook for Club Directors cited above and also > Duplicate Decisions, a Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the > Table. They do not agree in many instances, and both disagree with > the 2008 Laws of Duplicate Bridge published by the ACBL. There seems > to be various fiefs who independently produce these things. One > can't help but ask, "Who's in Charge?" > > Other examples are the three documents instructing players on the > filling out of a convention card. One is called "Conventional > Wisdom," 24 parts, one part published each month in the ACBL > Bulletin, which claims responsibility its contents. It is available > from the web site in pdf format, but not combined into one pdf file > (as they are on my website, under Bridge Laws and Regulations). Who > wants to download and print 24 pdf files? The other two documents > are also on the ACBL web site, if you can find them. The three are > not in complete agreement. > > I suggested to Adam Wildavsky that all these documents should be > run through the LC for approval before publication, and he might > look into that. > > And then there are the "word of mouth" statements circulating among > TDs regarding application of the Laws and regulations. > "Non-offenders are expected to play bridge," "If attention is not > drawn to UI at the time, it is likely that no redress for damage > will be given," Negative inferences are not Alertable," "A serious > error means no redress." All incorrect! > > As to the last, a prominent ACBL TD tells me that non-offenders do > not pay for a revoke in an adjusted score, because "they should not > have been in a position to make that mistake." A 40-year member of > the NABC AC says +/- 170 when an OS score is reduced from +620, ten > tricks made because the NOS revoked. The right adjustment is of > course +140/-620, but no ACBL person believes that, just ask Adam. > > > > It misses the opportunity to elucidate and perhaps educate the > > "rest of the world" via BLML. > > And who will do that? Besides, the rest of the ACBL world pays scant > attention to BLML. > > The ACBL needs a "White Paper" like that of the EBU, endorsed by the > LC and circulated to all TDs and ACs. > > > To me, it's just venting another cheap shot. > > These people need verbal missiles. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 5448 (20100913) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 14 17:37:36 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:37:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? In-Reply-To: References: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0BA194C81ABC415FAA36D4D0D651EC57@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <872362.4531.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [WILLIAM SCHODER] When Mr. Guthrie states that context doesn't matter, he uses a spurious method of evaluating a situation. [Nigel] I didn't state that. I believe that *context does matter*. But here follow two Kojak quotes "out of context": [WILLIAM SCHODER] Mr. French's discussion of other matters need be addressed to that Regulating Authority. Repeated postings of the same stuff on BLML does little good to resolve anything."Cud chewing" is for cows. [WILLIAM SCHODER] It misses the opportunity to elucidate and perhaps educate the "rest of the world" via BLML. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 14 18:43:05 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:43:05 -0800 Subject: [BLML] AC BL Club Director's Handbook Message-ID: Here is another cheap shot at this document, self-inflicted actually: Huddles and Hesitations Note: The director should not permit the non-hesitating side two chances to obtain a good result. If the non-offending side waits...until conclusion of play, in effect they are judged to have waited to see whether their result was good or poor, planning to object only if it was poor. Their objection should be lodged before they know the result of play. The director is advised to encourage his players to call at the time a hesitation occurs (Law 16A1), so that he can get agreement and inform players of their legal obligations. In the ACBL players are not allowed to reserve the right to call the director later. Obviously the Handbook has not been revised to include the effects of the new Laws, which say (in L16B3) the Director "should be called when play ends." Despite the fact that the ACBLLC did not exercise the option to require that the Director be called immediately in its 2008 version of the Laws, an informal poll of the LC by Adam shows that its members typically agree with the policy expressed in thiis note! Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5451 (20100914) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 14 19:04:14 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:04:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] AC BL Club Director's Handbook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <392464.28099.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Marvin L French] Obviously the Handbook has not been revised to include the effects of the new Laws, which say (in L16B3) the Director "should be called when play ends." Despite the fact that the ACBLLC did not exercise the option to require that the Director be called immediately in its 2008 version of the Laws, an informal poll of the LC by Adam shows that its members typically agree with the policy expressed in thiis note! [Nigel] These kinds of anomaly are almost inevitable on the tower of Babel built to satisfy the responsibility delegation aims of the WBFLC. From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 14 19:25:29 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:25:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1329392178.1284460325090.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <1329392178.1284460325090.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <19247657.1284485129085.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Le 14/09/2010 7:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > Thomas Dehn: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > >> There is a German player known as "the conductor". His bidding > > >> is horrible. When playing with the conductor, I used to pre- > > >> alert opponents "My partner will quite frequently make > > >> outrageous bids, bids you would never have imagined anybody > > >> would even consider." Opponents who thought I was exaggerating > > >> usually changed their mind after a few boards ;-). > > > Richard Hills: > > > > > > A Canberra player has given full disclosure of her Law 40B2(a) > > > "style and judgement", as she has written on her system card: > > > > > > Random acts of insanity > > > > > > > > > > > AG : I know a Belgian pair who wrote under the "psyches" heading : > > "only when angry" > > Notice that this is correct disclosure. > > Who was that Australian player who frequently made retribution bids > to punish partner for any perceived misdoing? Ah, got it: Paul Bruckner, punishing Keith McNeil. Thomas Paul Bruckner Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 15 05:03:35 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:03:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this discussion. The question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a convention, such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two controls and denies the queen of trumps? The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of thinking about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' from the new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is to be deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players are simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That somehow an implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the queen) might be formed. This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors follow: When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts of the convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some hard questions when the players actually don't understand the convention the same way. Bob From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 15 06:05:05 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:05:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough known that we assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by name have agreed on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of trumps or 5S with three key cards, you rule misbid. However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers (marked on their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as denying four spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or misinformation? Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what the bid means, but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing to play four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that apply when invitational sequences go through Stayman. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? >I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this discussion. The > question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a convention, > such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two controls and > denies the queen of trumps? > > The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same > route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of thinking > about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' from the > new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is to be > deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players are > simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That somehow an > implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the queen) > might be formed. > > This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors follow: > When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts of the > convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an > automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. > > In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some hard > questions when the players actually don't understand the convention the > same way. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 15 12:50:26 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:50:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2010 6:05, David Grabiner a ?crit : > It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough known that we > assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by name have agreed > on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of trumps or 5S > with three key cards, you rule misbid. > > However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers (marked on > their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as denying four > spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or misinformation? > Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what the bid means, > but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing to play > four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that apply when > invitational sequences go through Stayman. > AG : there are at least two strange things about this statement : First, the meaning of 2NT, when using four-suit transfers, isn't uniform - it depends on whether the D transfet is 2NT or 3C (yes, both can be included in 4-suit transfers). Second, whether 2NT can include 4 spades in this bidding isn't univocally determined by the use of 4-suit transfers ; some play that 2S shows 4, others that it's a GF relay, and that's the determining element. So, perhaps David's three partners played a sensible method, but one that differs from David's sensiblke method. And the answer is the usual : look at their convention card, and decide against them in case of doubt. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 15 13:29:52 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:29:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this discussion. The > question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a convention, > such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two controls and > denies the queen of trumps? > > The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same > route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of thinking > about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' from the > new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is to be > deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players are > simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That somehow an > implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the queen) > might be formed. > > This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors follow: > > When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts of the > convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an > automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. > > In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some hard > questions when the players actually don't understand the convention the > same way. The main points are as follows: 1.) for pretty much any convention, there exist three or more ways it can be played. Plus a few more variations that are inefficient, but some pairs use those inefficient variations anyways. For example, I was totally surprised when you claimed that "NMF" promises either four spades or five hearts. I had never even heard of that variation. 2.) when providing information to opponents, provide the actual agreement, rather than the name of a convention. If your agreement is "3C promises four spades or five hearts", say that, don't say "new minor forcing". Providing just the name of a convention is destined to cause misunderstandings. It might also result in an MI ruling later. 3.) when opponents provide information to you, and they just give the name of a convention, ensure that your understanding of that convention matches their actual agreements. 4.) when making system agreements, don't just toss around some convention names, make sure that partner interprets them the same way as you to. If necessary, refine partnership agreements during the breaks you get when your table completed boards faster than other tables. Oh, and 5.) You have a de facto obligation to actually have agreements on frequent bidding scenarios. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 15 13:31:46 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:31:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:50:26 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 15/09/2010 6:05, David Grabiner a ?crit : >> It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough known >> that we >> assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by name have >> agreed >> on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of >> trumps or 5S >> with three key cards, you rule misbid. >> >> However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers >> (marked on >> their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as >> denying four >> spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or >> misinformation? >> Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what the >> bid means, >> but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing to play >> four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that apply >> when >> invitational sequences go through Stayman. >> > AG : there are at least two strange things about this statement : > > First, the meaning of 2NT, when using four-suit transfers, isn't uniform > - it depends on whether the D transfet is 2NT or 3C (yes, both can be > included in 4-suit transfers). (I think you misread the example.) > Second, whether 2NT can include 4 spades in this bidding isn't > univocally determined by the use of 4-suit transfers ; some play that 2S > shows 4, others that it's a GF relay, and that's the determining element. Actually, I would say that what people play is not the issue. Wherever you are, is there any one who says "4-suit transfers", hears yes, and assumes that 2S on this auction is a game force? Here, no one would. To give another example, when players agree on just "unusual no trump", it is understood to be the lowest two unbid suits. People do play "minors" over a minor suit opening or even minor plus an unnamed major. But it is understood that those have to be agreed upon. > > So, perhaps David's three partners played a sensible method, but one > that differs from David's sensiblke method. > > And the answer is the usual : look at their convention card, and decide > against them in case of doubt. But their convention card usually just has the name of the conventions they are playing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 15 14:00:03 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:00:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:29:52 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this discussion. >> The >> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a >> convention, >> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two controls >> and >> denies the queen of trumps? >> >> The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same >> route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of thinking >> about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' from >> the >> new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is to be >> deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players are >> simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That somehow >> an >> implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the queen) >> might be formed. >> >> This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors >> follow: >> >> When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts of the >> convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an >> automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. >> >> In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some hard >> questions when the players actually don't understand the convention the >> same way. > > The main points are as follows: > 1.) for pretty much any convention, there exist three or more ways it > can be played. > Plus a few more variations that are inefficient, but some pairs use > those inefficient > variations anyways. > For example, I was totally surprised when you claimed that "NMF" > promises either > four spades or five hearts. I had never even heard of that variation. > > 2.) when providing information to opponents, provide the actual > agreement, rather > than the name of a convention. Can I focus on your words "actual agreement"? When the full conversation is something like '1430 RKC', is there more than this to the "actual agreement"? > If your agreement is "3C promises four spades or five hearts", > say that, don't say "new minor forcing". Providing just the name of a > convention is destined > to cause misunderstandings. It might also result in an MI ruling later. > > 3.) when opponents provide information to you, and they just give the > name of > a convention, ensure that your understanding of that convention matches > their actual agreements. > > 4.) when making system agreements, don't just toss around some > convention names, > make sure that partner interprets them the same way as you to. If > necessary, refine partnership agreements > during the breaks you get when your table completed boards faster than > other tables. > > Oh, and > 5.) You have a de facto obligation to actually have agreements on > frequent bidding > scenarios. > > > Thomas > > > Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in > Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, > Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue > IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale > Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: > http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 15 14:15:31 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:15:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? References: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Local heresies? This kind of snide message traffic sticks in my craw. When in the position of pretending to "...little knowledge or understanding..." I suggest educating oneself by going to: > ACBL.COM, Resources for Members, search: Handbook for Club Director's, view: page 47. > This will put into context the sentence RGB and Mr. Guthrie quoted, and provide the facts vital to a reply. > As answered, the message implies lack of interest in what an Regulating Authority provides TDs in it's interpretation of the WBF laws. It further quotes WBF Laws, dangerously incomplete and out of context, and Guthrie's (and RGB) concern about "local heresies" remains unanswered. > It misses the opportunity to elucidate and perhaps educate the "rest of the world" via BLML. > To me, it's just venting another cheap shot. > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 7:13 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Local heresies? >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Nigel Guthrie" >> To: "BLML" >> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:39 AM >> Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? >> >> >> > [ACBL Club Director's handbook -- quoted on RGB)] >> > Players are generally well advised to take the action >> > they would have taken had there been no huddle." >> > >> > [Nigel >> > Many players (on RGB and elsewhere) heed this >> > advice. But is this another example of rule-makers >> > positively encouraging infractions? >> > >> +=+ I pretend to little knowledge or understanding of >> conditions in the ACBL - the rest of the world has >> problems enough. However I do presume this is not >> to be taken as advice to ignore the words "the partner >> may not choose" in Law 16B1 (unless of course these >> words are absent from the ACBL version of the laws). >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 15 15:22:34 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:22:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C90C89A.9030901@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2010 13:31, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:50:26 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 15/09/2010 6:05, David Grabiner a ?crit : >>> It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough known >>> that we >>> assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by name have >>> agreed >>> on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of >>> trumps or 5S >>> with three key cards, you rule misbid. >>> >>> However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers >>> (marked on >>> their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as >>> denying four >>> spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or >>> misinformation? >>> Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what the >>> bid means, >>> but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing to play >>> four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that apply >>> when >>> invitational sequences go through Stayman. >>> >> AG : there are at least two strange things about this statement : >> >> First, the meaning of 2NT, when using four-suit transfers, isn't uniform >> - it depends on whether the D transfet is 2NT or 3C (yes, both can be >> included in 4-suit transfers). > (I think you misread the example.) I think you misunderstood me. You interpret the 2NT rebid on the basis that 2NT directly was artificial, a transfer ; but it 2D, 2H, 2S and *3C* are used as transfers, you're playing 4-suit transfers too. So the link isn't established. >> Second, whether 2NT can include 4 spades in this bidding isn't >> univocally determined by the use of 4-suit transfers ; some play that 2S >> shows 4, others that it's a GF relay, and that's the determining element. > Actually, I would say that what people play is not the issue. Wherever you > are, is there any one who says "4-suit transfers", hears yes, and assumes > that 2S on this auction is a game force? Here, no one would. AG : I don't understand. Those two conventions are totally unlinked. Anyway, there are many who play that 2NT neither promises nor denies 4 spades. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 15 15:24:02 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:24:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this > discussion. The > question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a > convention, > such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two > controls and > denies the queen of trumps? Yes. There are a couple of minor variations on RKC, but the 5H response is essentially the same(*) in all of them. It is precisely the 5H and 5S responses that yield the designation "Roman"; if played differently, that is a variation of KCB that cannot be called "R". (*) The only variation I'm aware of is among players who use RKC in some auctions with two "agreed" suits, thus two "trump queens": some play that 5H denies holding either, some that it denies holding both. > The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same > route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of > thinking > about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' > from the > new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is to be > deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players are > simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That > somehow an > implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the > queen) > might be formed. "New minor forcing" would be a possible partnership agreement even if there were no "New Minor Forcing convention" associated with those words -- just like "new suit forcing" or "fourth suit forcing". A partnership could agree to play the new minor as a forcing bid without ever having heard of Bob's fixed scale of responses and rebids, or anyone else's. "Roman key-card Blackwood", OTOH, is a meaningless sequence of noises to anyone unfamiliar with it as a convention. They are not at all analogous. > This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors > follow: > When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts > of the > convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an > automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. Of course this is so. My point is that a partnership that agrees to play "new minor forcing", unlike one that agrees to play "Roman key- card Blackwood", may not have "agreed on a convention" at all, for the reasons stated above. > In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some > hard > questions when the players actually don't understand the convention > the > same way. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 15 15:36:01 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:36:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C90CBC1.1090107@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2010 15:24, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this >> discussion. The >> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a >> convention, >> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two >> controls and >> denies the queen of trumps? > Yes. There are a couple of minor variations on RKC, but the 5H > response is essentially the same(*) in all of them. It is precisely > the 5H and 5S responses that yield the designation "Roman"; if played > differently, that is a variation of KCB that cannot be called "R". AG : Except that in original Roman BW, it's the trump King that is shown by the 5S bid, so that Roman Key-Card is somewhat contradictory. Whence knowing what 30-41 Roman KCBW exactly means isn't as clear as you wish it to be. > "New minor forcing" would be a possible partnership agreement even if > there were no "New Minor Forcing convention" associated with those > words -- just like "new suit forcing" or "fourth suit forcing". A > partnership could agree to play the new minor as a forcing bid > without ever having heard of Bob's fixed scale of responses and > rebids, or anyone else's. "Roman key-card Blackwood", OTOH, is a > meaningless sequence of noises to anyone unfamiliar with it as a > convention. They are not at all analogous. AG : You bet ? > Of course this is so. My point is that a partnership that agrees to > play "new minor forcing", unlike one that agrees to play "Roman key- > card Blackwood", may not have "agreed on a convention" at all, for the > reasons stated above. AG : agreed From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 15 15:37:44 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:37:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5DF2FD54-00D6-4AED-86A9-8BABD3E52E56@starpower.net> On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:05 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough > known that we > assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by name > have agreed > on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of > trumps or 5S > with three key cards, you rule misbid. > > However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers > (marked on > their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as > denying four > spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or > misinformation? > Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what > the bid means, > but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing to > play > four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that > apply when > invitational sequences go through Stayman. I beg to differ. In my preferred variation of Stayman with four-suit transfers (not the prevalent variant in my area, but a reasonably popular one), that auction promises four spades. (Details on request.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 15 15:54:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:54:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <5DF2FD54-00D6-4AED-86A9-8BABD3E52E56@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <5DF2FD54-00D6-4AED-86A9-8BABD3E52E56@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C90D002.7080700@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2010 15:37, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:05 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > >> It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough >> known that we >> assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by name >> have agreed >> on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of >> trumps or 5S >> with three key cards, you rule misbid. >> >> However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers >> (marked on >> their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as >> denying four >> spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or >> misinformation? >> Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what >> the bid means, >> but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing to >> play >> four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that >> apply when >> invitational sequences go through Stayman. > I beg to differ. In my preferred variation of Stayman with four-suit > transfers (not the prevalent variant in my area, but a reasonably > popular one), that auction promises four spades. (Details on request.) > > AG : I mentioned before that 2Nt could be natural even when playing 4ST. There is also a variant, popular in Belgium, where 2S is a limit raise without a major or one of several strong types, 2NT and 3C are transfers (whence 4ST) and of course in this variant 2C followed by 2NT over 2H shows 4S. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 15 15:56:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:56:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:31 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:50:26 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 15/09/2010 6:05, David Grabiner a ?crit : >> >>> It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough >>> known >>> that we >>> assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by >>> name have >>> agreed >>> on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of >>> trumps or 5S >>> with three key cards, you rule misbid. >>> >>> However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers >>> (marked on >>> their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as >>> denying four >>> spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or >>> misinformation? >>> Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what the >>> bid means, >>> but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing >>> to play >>> four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that >>> apply >>> when >>> invitational sequences go through Stayman. >> >> AG : there are at least two strange things about this statement : >> >> First, the meaning of 2NT, when using four-suit transfers, isn't >> uniform >> - it depends on whether the D transfet is 2NT or 3C (yes, both can be >> included in 4-suit transfers). > > (I think you misread the example.) > >> Second, whether 2NT can include 4 spades in this bidding isn't >> univocally determined by the use of 4-suit transfers ; some play >> that 2S >> shows 4, others that it's a GF relay, and that's the determining >> element. > > Actually, I would say that what people play is not the issue. > Wherever you > are, is there any one who says "4-suit transfers", hears yes, and > assumes > that 2S on this auction is a game force? Here, no one would. No one here would either. But around here, anyone who said "four- suit transfers" would hear "which kind?" > To give another example, when players agree on just "unusual no > trump", it > is understood to be the lowest two unbid suits. People do play > "minors" > over a minor suit opening or even minor plus an unnamed major. But > it is > understood that those have to be agreed upon. In the ACBL, if you agree to play UNT, you must check either "2 lowest" or "minors" on your CC, so there is no room for ambiguity. There is no recognized version of UNT in which both suits are not specified. >> So, perhaps David's three partners played a sensible method, but one >> that differs from David's sensiblke method. >> >> And the answer is the usual : look at their convention card, and >> decide >> against them in case of doubt. > > But their convention card usually just has the name of the conventions > they are playing. If that's the problem, the answer (for ACBLers at least) is to enforce the rules. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Sep 15 16:02:09 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 15 Sep 2010 16:02:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?When_you_agree_to_play_a_convention=2C_what_is_y?= =?utf-8?q?our_agreement=3F?= Message-ID: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> "Eric Landau" pisze: > On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this > > discussion. The > > question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a > > convention, > > such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two > > controls and > > denies the queen of trumps? > > Yes. There are a couple of minor variations on RKC, but the 5H > response is essentially the same(*) in all of them. In Poland it is very common to play that with 2 KC you show side kings. For instance 5C = 1/4 5D = 0/3 5H = 2 no side kings 5S = 2 + side king 5NT = 2 + 2 side kings etc. I'm not sure if this is still "Roman". Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------------------------------------------------------- Szukasz lekarza w swoim regionie? Wejd? na medycyna.interia.pl! http://linkint.pl/f2802 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 15 16:17:10 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:17:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <4C90D566.3010105@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2010 16:02, Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > > "Eric Landau" pisze: >> On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this >>> discussion. The >>> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a >>> convention, >>> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two >>> controls and >>> denies the queen of trumps? >> Yes. There are a couple of minor variations on RKC, but the 5H >> response is essentially the same(*) in all of them. > In Poland it is very common to play that with 2 KC you show side kings. > For instance > > 5C = 1/4 > 5D = 0/3 > 5H = 2 no side kings > 5S = 2 + side king > 5NT = 2 + 2 side kings > > etc. > > I'm not sure if this is still "Roman". > AG : it isn't less Roman than RKCB. In both case the "Roman" part has been adapted. From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 15 17:34:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:34:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C90D002.7080700@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C90D002.7080700@ulb.ac.be> <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <5DF2FD54-00D6-4AED-86A9-8BABD3E52E56@starpower.net> Message-ID: <22192650.1284564872877.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Le 15/09/2010 15:37, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:05 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > > > >> It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough > >> known that we > >> assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by name > >> have agreed > >> on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of > >> trumps or 5S > >> with three key cards, you rule misbid. > >> > >> However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers > >> (marked on > >> their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as > >> denying four > >> spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or > >> misinformation? > >> Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what > >> the bid means, > >> but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing to > >> play > >> four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that > >> apply when > >> invitational sequences go through Stayman. > > I beg to differ. In my preferred variation of Stayman with four-suit > > transfers (not the prevalent variant in my area, but a reasonably > > popular one), that auction promises four spades. (Details on request.) > > > > > AG : I mentioned before that 2Nt could be natural even when playing 4ST. > There is also a variant, popular in Belgium, where 2S is a limit raise > without a major or one of several strong types, 2NT and 3C are transfers > (whence 4ST) and of course in this variant 2C followed by 2NT over 2H > shows 4S. There also is the "long journey" variation where 2D, 2H, and 2S are transfer bids, but to transfer into D, responder starts with 2H. I.e., 2H could be either spades or diamonds. Here, 2NT is natural. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 15 17:36:56 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:36:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <5039834.1284565016702.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Konrad Ciborowski > "Eric Landau" pisze: > > On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > > > > > I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this > > > > discussion. The > > > > question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a > > > > convention, > > > > such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two > > > > controls and > > > > denies the queen of trumps? > > > > > > Yes. There are a couple of minor variations on RKC, but the 5H > > > response is essentially the same(*) in all of them. > > In Poland it is very common to play that with 2 KC you show side kings. > For instance > > 5C = 1/4 > 5D = 0/3 > 5H = 2 no side kings > 5S = 2 + side king > 5NT = 2 + 2 side kings > > etc. > > I'm not sure if this is still "Roman". I have stated earlier in this thread that I played the following variation for a long time if trumps are S, D, or C: 5C = 1/4 5D = 0/3 5H = 2, no trump Q, no extra trump 5S = 2, no trump Q, one extra trump Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 15 17:43:48 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:43:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <22192650.1284564872877.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <4C90D002.7080700@ulb.ac.be> <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <5DF2FD54-00D6-4AED-86A9-8BABD3E52E56@starpower.net> <22192650.1284564872877.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C90E9B4.2010807@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2010 17:34, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner >> Le 15/09/2010 15:37, Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:05 AM, David Grabiner wrote: >>> >>>> It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough >>>> known that we >>>> assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by name >>>> have agreed >>>> on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of >>>> trumps or 5S >>>> with three key cards, you rule misbid. >>>> >>>> However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers >>>> (marked on >>>> their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as >>>> denying four >>>> spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or >>>> misinformation? >>>> Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what >>>> the bid means, >>>> but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing to >>>> play >>>> four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that >>>> apply when >>>> invitational sequences go through Stayman. >>> I beg to differ. In my preferred variation of Stayman with four-suit >>> transfers (not the prevalent variant in my area, but a reasonably >>> popular one), that auction promises four spades. (Details on request.) >>> >>> >> AG : I mentioned before that 2Nt could be natural even when playing 4ST. >> There is also a variant, popular in Belgium, where 2S is a limit raise >> without a major or one of several strong types, 2NT and 3C are transfers >> (whence 4ST) and of course in this variant 2C followed by 2NT over 2H >> shows 4S. > There also is the "long journey" variation where 2D, 2H, and 2S are transfer bids, > but to transfer into D, responder starts with 2H. I.e., 2H could be either spades > or diamonds. Here, 2NT is natural. > > AG : I nearly answered "that's no 4-suit transfer", but in fact it's a good example : playing transfers to 4 suits and playing the so-called 4-suit transfers seems to be different, see the NMF problem. From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 15 17:50:19 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:50:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:29:52 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this discussion. > >> The > >> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a > >> convention, > >> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two controls > >> and > >> denies the queen of trumps? > >> > >> The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same > >> route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of thinking > >> about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' from > >> the > >> new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is to be > >> deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players are > >> simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That somehow > >> an > >> implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the queen) > >> might be formed. > >> > >> This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors > >> follow: > >> > >> When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts of the > >> convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an > >> automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. > >> > >> In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some hard > >> questions when the players actually don't understand the convention the > >> same way. > > > > The main points are as follows: > > 1.) for pretty much any convention, there exist three or more ways it > > can be played. > > Plus a few more variations that are inefficient, but some pairs use > > those inefficient > > variations anyways. > > For example, I was totally surprised when you claimed that "NMF" > > promises either > > four spades or five hearts. I had never even heard of that variation. > > > > 2.) when providing information to opponents, provide the actual > > agreement, rather > > than the name of a convention. > > Can I focus on your words "actual agreement"? When the full conversation > is something like '1430 RKC', is there more than this to the "actual > agreement"? "actual agreements" was my wording, TFLB does not use those words. There are basically two possibilities here. a) you are on the same wavelength, and have the same understanding of what "1430 RKC" means. In that case, you have an actual agreement. No problem. b) you have different opinions what "1430 RKC" means. You think you have an agreement, but actually you have a misunderstanding. Then you have an MI or UI ruling coming your way if you don't notice the problem before you cause any damage to opponents. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 15 17:59:56 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:59:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? References: <4C90E9B4.2010807@ulb.ac.be> <4C90D002.7080700@ulb.ac.be> <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <5DF2FD54-00D6-4AED-86A9-8BABD3E52E56@starpower.net> <22192650.1284564872877.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <23170329.1284566396907.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Le 15/09/2010 17:34, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner > >> Le 15/09/2010 15:37, Eric Landau a ?crit : > >>> On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:05 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > >>> > >>>> It's a matter of familiarity and complexity. RKC is well enough > >>>> known that we > >>>> assume that players who have agreed to play the convention by name > >>>> have agreed > >>>> on what a 5H response means; if a player bids 5H with the queen of > >>>> trumps or 5S > >>>> with three key cards, you rule misbid. > >>>> > >>>> However, if a pair agrees to play Stayman and four-suit transfers > >>>> (marked on > >>>> their card), and then they bid 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, alerted by opener as > >>>> denying four > >>>> spades, and responder has four spades, do you rule misbid or > >>>> misinformation? > >>>> Everyone who knows how four-suit transfers work should know what > >>>> the bid means, > >>>> but I have had three different partners get this wrong, agreeing to > >>>> play > >>>> four-suit transfers but not working out all the inferences that > >>>> apply when > >>>> invitational sequences go through Stayman. > >>> I beg to differ. In my preferred variation of Stayman with four-suit > >>> transfers (not the prevalent variant in my area, but a reasonably > >>> popular one), that auction promises four spades. (Details on request.) > >>> > >>> > >> AG : I mentioned before that 2Nt could be natural even when playing 4ST. > >> There is also a variant, popular in Belgium, where 2S is a limit raise > >> without a major or one of several strong types, 2NT and 3C are transfers > >> (whence 4ST) and of course in this variant 2C followed by 2NT over 2H > >> shows 4S. > > There also is the "long journey" variation where 2D, 2H, and 2S are > transfer bids, > > but to transfer into D, responder starts with 2H. I.e., 2H could be either > spades > > or diamonds. Here, 2NT is natural. > > > > > AG : I nearly answered "that's no 4-suit transfer", but in fact it's a > good example : playing transfers to 4 suits and playing the so-called > 4-suit transfers seems to be different, see the NMF problem. Anybody who travels around a bit and has played in different countries, or sometimes even in different parts of the same country, will quickly notice that o the same convention name can have a totally different meaning. For example, "Crowhurst" could be a 2C checkback-type bid over opener's 12-16 1NT rebid, or a defense against a 1NT opener. o the same bidding method can have different names. The afore-mentioned "Crowhurst"-defense against 1NT is more widely known as "Cappelletti". Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 15 18:00:40 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:00:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:56:40 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > No one here would either. But around here, anyone who said "four- > suit transfers" would hear "which kind?" No one would ask that here. But they would ask which bid was the preacceptance over a transfer to a minor. Which is to say, you might not be able to walk into my club and know what people have agreed upon when they mutter the name of a convention. But I probably do. And I probably know when agreeing on the name of a convention is ambiguous. So it makes perfect sense that if all they have checked is 4-suit transfers, then '2NT explained as a transfer to diamonds when it wasn't' is ruled a correct explanation/misbid and '3C explained as preacceptance of diamonds when it isn't' is ruled a mistaken explanation. Hmm, a real life example would be this exact agreement and my partner not pre-accepting holding something like KQx of my minor suit. I think misbid, she did not understand the part of the convention she agreed to. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 15 18:07:42 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:07:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:56:40 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> And the answer is the usual : look at their convention card, and >>> decide >>> against them in case of doubt. >> >> But their convention card usually just has the name of the conventions >> they are playing. > > If that's the problem, the answer (for ACBLers at least) is to > enforce the rules. If I understand you correctly, the "problem" you refer to is that we can't decide how I should rule in the extremely common case of players just agreeing on a convention by name. To me, that's our problem, and we should not be blaming the players. Or expecting them to jump through hopes to avoid us having to make a ruling that should be easy to make. IMO. The ACBL convention card encourages listing conventions by name. When it goes farther, that is usually to disambiguate the ambiguities in a convention. The only place I know of where the convention car specically encourages people to give the meaning of each bid is for overcalls of an opening no trump. Despite a lot of publicity and instruction, almost no one does it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 15 18:23:12 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:23:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:50:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:29:52 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this >> discussion. >> >> The >> >> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a >> >> convention, >> >> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two >> controls >> >> and >> >> denies the queen of trumps? >> >> >> >> The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same >> >> route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of >> thinking >> >> about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' from >> >> the >> >> new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is to be >> >> deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players are >> >> simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That >> somehow >> >> an >> >> implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the >> queen) >> >> might be formed. >> >> >> >> This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors >> >> follow: >> >> >> >> When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts of >> the >> >> convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an >> >> automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. >> >> >> >> In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some >> hard >> >> questions when the players actually don't understand the convention >> the >> >> same way. >> > >> > The main points are as follows: >> > 1.) for pretty much any convention, there exist three or more ways it >> > can be played. >> > Plus a few more variations that are inefficient, but some pairs use >> > those inefficient >> > variations anyways. >> > For example, I was totally surprised when you claimed that "NMF" >> > promises either >> > four spades or five hearts. I had never even heard of that variation. >> > >> > 2.) when providing information to opponents, provide the actual >> > agreement, rather >> > than the name of a convention. >> >> Can I focus on your words "actual agreement"? When the full conversation >> is something like '1430 RKC', is there more than this to the "actual >> agreement"? > > "actual agreements" was my wording, TFLB does not use those words. > > > There are basically two possibilities here. > a) you are on the same wavelength, and have the same understanding > of what "1430 RKC" means. In that case, you have an actual agreement. > No problem. > > b) you have different opinions what "1430 RKC" means. You think > you have an agreement, but actually you have a misunderstanding. > Then you have an MI or UI ruling coming your way if you don't > notice the problem before you cause any damage to opponents. Can I ask how far you go on this? I had this ruling, with the auction something like 1C 1H P 2C 2C actually was meant as Michaels -- cue bidding to show the unbid major suit and an unnamed minor. It was not explained that way, of course. I ruled misbid, because no one else thinks Michaels is used in this situation and it is bizarre to use Michaels in this situation. You are saying that the two players have different opinions about when Michaels is used so it should have been an MI ruling. (I am taking your general statements and applying them to this situation.) From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 15 18:47:11 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:47:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <26658525.1284569231433.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:50:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:29:52 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> > >> > Robert Frick wrote: > >> >> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this > >> discussion. > >> >> The > >> >> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a > >> >> convention, > >> >> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two > >> controls > >> >> and > >> >> denies the queen of trumps? > >> >> > >> >> The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same > >> >> route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of > >> thinking > >> >> about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' from > >> >> the > >> >> new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is to be > >> >> deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players are > >> >> simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That > >> somehow > >> >> an > >> >> implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the > >> queen) > >> >> might be formed. > >> >> > >> >> This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors > >> >> follow: > >> >> > >> >> When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts of > > >> the > >> >> convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an > >> >> automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. > >> >> > >> >> In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some > >> hard > >> >> questions when the players actually don't understand the convention > >> the > >> >> same way. > >> > > >> > The main points are as follows: > >> > 1.) for pretty much any convention, there exist three or more ways it > >> > can be played. > >> > Plus a few more variations that are inefficient, but some pairs use > >> > those inefficient > >> > variations anyways. > >> > For example, I was totally surprised when you claimed that "NMF" > >> > promises either > >> > four spades or five hearts. I had never even heard of that variation. > >> > > >> > 2.) when providing information to opponents, provide the actual > >> > agreement, rather > >> > than the name of a convention. > >> > >> Can I focus on your words "actual agreement"? When the full conversation > >> is something like '1430 RKC', is there more than this to the "actual > >> agreement"? > > > > "actual agreements" was my wording, TFLB does not use those words. > > > > > > There are basically two possibilities here. > > a) you are on the same wavelength, and have the same understanding > > of what "1430 RKC" means. In that case, you have an actual agreement. > > No problem. > > > > b) you have different opinions what "1430 RKC" means. You think > > you have an agreement, but actually you have a misunderstanding. > > Then you have an MI or UI ruling coming your way if you don't > > notice the problem before you cause any damage to opponents. > > > Can I ask how far you go on this? I had this ruling, with the auction > something like > > 1C 1H P 2C > > 2C actually was meant as Michaels -- cue bidding to show the unbid major > suit and an unnamed minor. It was not explained that way, of course. > > I ruled misbid, because no one else thinks Michaels is used in this > situation and it is bizarre to use Michaels in this situation. You are > saying that the two players have different opinions about when Michaels is > used so it should have been an MI ruling. (I am taking your general > statements and applying them to this situation.) I deliberately wrote "MI or UI ruling". The main point is that when considering MI, you always have to consider UI as well. Regardless of whether their actuall agreement was Michaels or not, the player who bid 2C as Michaels has UI, and must not select LAs that "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the UI that partner did not understand 2C as Michaels. There still can be MI as well. For example, they might have had an agreement that 2C shows a good H raise, one player forgot and bid 2C as Michaels, whereas the other player explained it as diamonds with three card heart support. However, there frequently won't be damage from that type of MI. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 15 19:20:04 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:20:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <26658525.1284569231433.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <26658525.1284569231433.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:47:11 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:50:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:29:52 -0400, Thomas Dehn >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> >> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this >> >> discussion. >> >> >> The >> >> >> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a >> >> >> convention, >> >> >> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two >> >> controls >> >> >> and >> >> >> denies the queen of trumps? >> >> >> >> >> >> The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the >> same >> >> >> route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of >> >> thinking >> >> >> about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' >> from >> >> >> the >> >> >> new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is >> to be >> >> >> deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players >> are >> >> >> simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That >> >> somehow >> >> >> an >> >> >> implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the >> >> queen) >> >> >> might be formed. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors >> >> >> follow: >> >> >> >> >> >> When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts >> of >> >> >> the >> >> >> convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an >> >> >> automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. >> >> >> >> >> >> In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some >> >> hard >> >> >> questions when the players actually don't understand the >> convention >> >> the >> >> >> same way. >> >> > >> >> > The main points are as follows: >> >> > 1.) for pretty much any convention, there exist three or more ways >> it >> >> > can be played. >> >> > Plus a few more variations that are inefficient, but some pairs use >> >> > those inefficient >> >> > variations anyways. >> >> > For example, I was totally surprised when you claimed that "NMF" >> >> > promises either >> >> > four spades or five hearts. I had never even heard of that >> variation. >> >> > >> >> > 2.) when providing information to opponents, provide the actual >> >> > agreement, rather >> >> > than the name of a convention. >> >> >> >> Can I focus on your words "actual agreement"? When the full >> conversation >> >> is something like '1430 RKC', is there more than this to the "actual >> >> agreement"? >> > >> > "actual agreements" was my wording, TFLB does not use those words. >> > >> > >> > There are basically two possibilities here. >> > a) you are on the same wavelength, and have the same understanding >> > of what "1430 RKC" means. In that case, you have an actual agreement. >> > No problem. >> > >> > b) you have different opinions what "1430 RKC" means. You think >> > you have an agreement, but actually you have a misunderstanding. >> > Then you have an MI or UI ruling coming your way if you don't >> > notice the problem before you cause any damage to opponents. >> >> >> Can I ask how far you go on this? I had this ruling, with the auction >> something like >> >> 1C 1H P 2C >> >> 2C actually was meant as Michaels -- cue bidding to show the unbid major >> suit and an unnamed minor. It was not explained that way, of course. >> >> I ruled misbid, because no one else thinks Michaels is used in this >> situation and it is bizarre to use Michaels in this situation. You are >> saying that the two players have different opinions about when Michaels >> is >> used so it should have been an MI ruling. (I am taking your general >> statements and applying them to this situation.) > > I deliberately wrote "MI or UI ruling". > > The main point is that when considering MI, you always have > to consider UI as well. Regardless of whether their actuall agreement > was Michaels or not, the player who bid 2C as Michaels has UI, > and must not select LAs that "could demonstrably have been suggested" > by the UI that partner did not understand 2C as Michaels. > > There still can be MI as well. For example, they might have had > an agreement that 2C shows a good H raise, one player forgot > and bid 2C as Michaels, whereas the other player explained it > as diamonds with three card heart support. However, > there frequently won't be damage from that type of MI. Yes, I just wanted to be sure you called this a mistaken explanation. Unless this bid was explained as Michaels, the opponents get rectification if they were damaged by the explanation (say that it was a limit raise or better in hearts). From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 15 19:30:26 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:30:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <26658525.1284569231433.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <26658525.1284569231433.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:47:11 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> Can I ask how far you go on this? I had this ruling, with the auction >> something like >> >> 1C 1H P 2C >> >> 2C actually was meant as Michaels -- cue bidding to show the unbid major >> suit and an unnamed minor. It was not explained that way, of course. >> >> I ruled misbid, because no one else thinks Michaels is used in this >> situation and it is bizarre to use Michaels in this situation. You are >> saying that the two players have different opinions about when Michaels >> is >> used so it should have been an MI ruling. (I am taking your general >> statements and applying them to this situation.) > > I deliberately wrote "MI or UI ruling". > > The main point is that when considering MI, you always have > to consider UI as well. Regardless of whether their actuall agreement > was Michaels or not, the player who bid 2C as Michaels has UI, > and must not select LAs that "could demonstrably have been suggested" > by the UI that partner did not understand 2C as Michaels. > > There still can be MI as well. For example, they might have had > an agreement that 2C shows a good H raise, one player forgot > and bid 2C as Michaels, whereas the other player explained it > as diamonds with three card heart support. However, > there frequently won't be damage from that type of MI. Argh, I forgot to ask my other question. You get to this auction... 4NT P 5H(1) (1) explained as denying the queen of trumps when in fact the player has the queen of trumps. The opps are damaged. As I understand your position, which is quite reasonable, your ruling depends on the player's beliefs when he made the agreement RKC. If the player thought at the time that it denied the queen and then forgot somewhere along the way, you rule that 5H is a misbid. If the player did not know at the time that 5H denied the queen, then you rule for mistaken explanation. then you have to actually consider the evidence. RKC is of course on the card. Do you accept the evidence "I forgot"? Note that this is very easy for any player to say, with probably no chance of being caught. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 15 19:59:07 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:59:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be><3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net><2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:50:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:29:52 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>> > Robert Frick wrote: >>> >> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this >>> discussion. The question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a convention, such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two controls and denies the queen of trumps? >>> >> The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same route to this answer. ........................................................... +=+ [Grattan, opinion} I have not read through the emails on this topic, so I do not know who has said what. My independently expressed view is: 1. If partners agree to play 'x' but this means different things to partner B from what it means to partner A, they do not have a partnership understanding. 2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently from the way the latter understands and has used 'x', then A has given misinformation. 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. +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 15 20:22:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:22:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C90D566.3010105@ulb.ac.be> References: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> <4C90D566.3010105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 15, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 15/09/2010 16:02, Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : >> >> "Eric Landau" pisze: >> >>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this >>>> discussion. The >>>> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a >>>> convention, >>>> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two >>>> controls and >>>> denies the queen of trumps? >>> Yes. There are a couple of minor variations on RKC, but the 5H >>> response is essentially the same(*) in all of them. >> >> In Poland it is very common to play that with 2 KC you show side >> kings. >> For instance >> >> 5C = 1/4 >> 5D = 0/3 >> 5H = 2 no side kings >> 5S = 2 + side king >> 5NT = 2 + 2 side kings >> >> etc. >> >> I'm not sure if this is still "Roman". In my bridge lexicon it is not, and I'm confident that would be, at the least, an ACBL-wide response. > AG : it isn't less Roman than RKCB. In both case the "Roman" part has > been adapted. I'd say it is, at least in some sense. because the original RKCB was invented and polularized by real honest-to-God Romans, whereas the use of "Roman" for other variants has no more of a rationale than would calling them "Zigfritz" or "Hoobie". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 15 20:48:31 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:48:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5CAC8135-AC8C-4314-B3A5-0DCD24B4E306@starpower.net> On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:56:40 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >>>> And the answer is the usual : look at their convention card, and >>>> decide >>>> against them in case of doubt. >>> >>> But their convention card usually just has the name of the >>> conventions >>> they are playing. >> >> If that's the problem, the answer (for ACBLers at least) is to >> enforce the rules. > > If I understand you correctly, the "problem" you refer to is that > we can't > decide how I should rule in the extremely common case of players just > agreeing on a convention by name. That's a consequence of the more general problem, which is that in some cases when players just agree on a convention by name, neither their opponents nor the TD -- nor they themselves -- can be certain as to what they've agreed to. > To me, that's our problem, and we should not be blaming the > players. Or > expecting them to jump through hopes to avoid us having to make a > ruling > that should be easy to make. If it's "our" problem, then "our" solution would need to involve imposing "our" interpretation of what their agreement means, even if theirs is different and mutual. We would surely be a lot happier with the rulings we would make if they simply told us up front what they meant, thus avoiding the problem entirely. > IMO. > > The ACBL convention card encourages listing conventions by name. The ACBL itself, however, does exactly the opposite, notwithstanding that the lack of space in some sections of the CC does encourage players to take inappropriate "shortcuts". The only proper nouns that designate conventions in the official lexicon are those which are pre-printed on the CC. > When it > goes farther, that is usually to disambiguate the ambiguities in a > convention. The only place I know of where the convention car > specically > encourages people to give the meaning of each bid is for overcalls > of an > opening no trump. Despite a lot of publicity and instruction, > almost no > one does it. The blank spaces on the convention cards are there for you to write in your agreements, not the names you have given to your agreements. If you do the latter, you have no gripe if the result is an adverse ruling you could have avoided. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 15 20:54:30 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:54:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <5039834.1284565016702.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> <5039834.1284565016702.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4B96FC9A-DCB9-4180-9096-D410D9BD5536@starpower.net> On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > I have stated earlier in this thread that I played the following > variation for a long time > if trumps are S, D, or C: > > 5C = 1/4 > 5D = 0/3 > 5H = 2, no trump Q, no extra trump > 5S = 2, no trump Q, one extra trump JOOC, what do you respond with 2 aces when you do have the trump queen? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mikopera at nyc.rr.com Wed Sep 15 21:02:38 2010 From: mikopera at nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:02:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> <4C90D566.3010105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C91184E.104@nyc.rr.com> On 09/15/2010 2:22 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 15, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 15/09/2010 16:02, Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : >>> >>> "Eric Landau" pisze: >>> >>>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this >>>>> discussion. The >>>>> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a >>>>> convention, >>>>> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two >>>>> controls and >>>>> denies the queen of trumps? >>>> Yes. There are a couple of minor variations on RKC, but the 5H >>>> response is essentially the same(*) in all of them. >>> >>> In Poland it is very common to play that with 2 KC you show side >>> kings. >>> For instance >>> >>> 5C = 1/4 >>> 5D = 0/3 >>> 5H = 2 no side kings >>> 5S = 2 + side king >>> 5NT = 2 + 2 side kings >>> >>> etc. >>> >>> I'm not sure if this is still "Roman". > > In my bridge lexicon it is not, and I'm confident that would be, at > the least, an ACBL-wide response. > >> AG : it isn't less Roman than RKCB. In both case the "Roman" part has >> been adapted. > > I'd say it is, at least in some sense. because the original RKCB was > invented and polularized by real honest-to-God Romans, whereas the > use of "Roman" for other variants has no more of a rationale than > would calling them "Zigfritz" or "Hoobie". > > > 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 > My copy of The Roman Club System has responses to 4N as 0/3, 1/4, 2 same rank or same color, 2 with 1 each major/minor or 1 each red/black, talking aces, not keycards (yeah, seems to be overlap, eg both majors is also red/black, but what do you want from 1959 :). I believe this next morphed into 0/3, 1/4, 2, 2 w/extras (again, aces, not keycards). Not sure when keycards became an element, or who developed/popularized that aspect. -- Mike Kopera We cannot solve problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. From schoderb at msn.com Wed Sep 15 21:02:39 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:02:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? In-Reply-To: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <605706.83245.qm@web28511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Though we sometimes officially disagree on the laws, wine and roses, and ownership of Manchester United, I treasure my close personal relations with Grattan. I'm sorry that he feels that I called him "snide". It was not my intention, and I apologize. My intent was to characterize this kind of message traffic as such regardless of the authors, and I thought hard and long before using that word as Mr. Guthrie may not have done with "heresies". I am well aware of Grattan's permit and also of his extensive knowledge of the Laws and ancillary documents. I also know that Mr. Guthrie is clearly aware of more than the single sentence he removed and commented on. My comment on elucidating the rest of the world (BLML) was meant that if such a question is put, then I feel you either ignore it, or if you wish to comment then give the references and reasons for why it is better for a club level player to do what he thinks he would always have done without the UI than to misinterpret the laws as being barred because of partner's creation of UI. Called by the opponents according to Law 16B when they perceive UI to have occurred and/ or illegaly used, The TD will arrive at a ruling that is in accordance with the laws by the stepwise application of the procedure suggested in the Handbook. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Local heresies? > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "" I thought of it by day and dreamed of it > by night."" > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +=+ I am saddened that my old friend Kojak finds > my comment on this subject "snide". It was not > intended to be an answer to the question raised, > but merely a comment upon one aspect of it. > My duties are established only by corporately > given instructions from the Laws Committee and > the Executive, and in matters of procedure the > guidance of the Committee's chairman. At this > time they do not include keeping track of the > practices and digressions of over 140 NBOs. My > duties do include listing for the Committee at its > next meeting any "uncertainties" concerning the > laws of which I become aware. BLML is a major > source of evidence of such uncertainties. > Otherwise my concern is with bridge law as > established and interpreted by the WBF through > its competent organs under its Constitution and > By-Laws. > I am not sure in what matters it is suggested > one might "educate the rest of the world". I do > try to explain my understanding of those things > within my remit for any who choose to listen, or > who come to me for help, but I stop short of > conceiving this as education and of an arrogant > belief that mine is the only true gospel. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 3:19 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Local heresies? > > > This kind of snide message traffic sticks in my craw. > When in the position of pretending to "...little > knowledge or understanding..." I suggest educating > oneself by going to: > > > ACBL.COM, Resources for Members, search: Handbook > for Club Director's, view: page 47. > > > This will put into context the sentence RGB and > Mr. Guthrie quoted, and provide the facts vital to > a reply. > > > As answered, the message implies lack of interest in > what an Regulating Authority provides TDs in it's > interpretation of the WBF laws. It further quotes WBF > Laws, dangerously incomplete and out of context, > and Guthrie's (and RGB) concern about "local heresies" > remains unanswered. > > > It misses the opportunity to elucidate and perhaps > educate the "rest of the world" via BLML. > > > To me, it's just venting another cheap shot. > > > Kojak > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Grattan" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 7:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Local heresies? > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > >> To: "BLML" > >> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:39 AM > >> Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? > >> > >> > >> > [ACBL Club Director's handbook -- quoted on RGB)] > >> > Players are generally well advised to take the action > >> > they would have taken had there been no huddle." > >> > > >> > [Nigel > >> > Many players (on RGB and elsewhere) heed this > >> > advice. But is this another example of rule-makers > >> > positively encouraging infractions? > >> > > >> +=+ I pretend to little knowledge or understanding of > >> conditions in the ACBL - the rest of the world has > >> problems enough. However I do presume this is not > >> to be taken as advice to ignore the words "the partner > >> may not choose" in Law 16B1 (unless of course these > >> words are absent from the ACBL version of the laws). > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jrmayne at mindspring.com Wed Sep 15 21:56:11 2010 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:56:11 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? Message-ID: <23894117.1284580571793.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: WILLIAM SCHODER >Sent: Sep 15, 2010 12:02 PM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [BLML] Local heresies? > >Though we sometimes officially disagree on the laws, wine and roses, and >ownership of Manchester United, I treasure my close personal relations with >Grattan. I'm sorry that he feels that I called him "snide". It was not my >intention, and I apologize. > >My intent was to characterize this kind of message traffic as such >regardless of the authors, and I thought hard and long before using that >word as Mr. Guthrie may not have done with "heresies". I am well aware of >Grattan's permit and also of his extensive knowledge of the Laws and >ancillary documents. I also know that Mr. Guthrie is clearly aware of more >than the single sentence he removed and commented on. My comment on >elucidating the rest of the world (BLML) was meant that if such a question >is put, then I feel you either ignore it, or if you wish to comment then >give the references and reasons for why it is better for a club level player >to do what he thinks he would always have done without the UI than to >misinterpret the laws as being barred because of partner's creation of UI. That's a false dichotomy, and it encourages players to ignore the rules. How about instructing players to follow the rules? I think asking why there's a recommendation to players to flat-out ignore the law is a good question to ask. I think the actual choice is encouraging players not to follow the law, or to instruct players to avoid logical alternatives suggested by UI. The latter is hardly impossible to follow - and if it is impossible, the law should be changed. Instructions to ignore laws because they are too tough to follow do not seem like good instructions to me. I recognize that you believe this position to be snide cheap-shotting, but I disagree. --JRM From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 15 22:38:39 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:38:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4B96FC9A-DCB9-4180-9096-D410D9BD5536@starpower.net> References: <4B96FC9A-DCB9-4180-9096-D410D9BD5536@starpower.net> <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> <5039834.1284565016702.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <9026577.1284583119481.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau > On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > I have stated earlier in this thread that I played the following > > variation for a long time > > if trumps are S, D, or C: > > > > 5C = 1/4 > > 5D = 0/3 > > 5H = 2, no trump Q, no extra trump > > 5S = 2, no trump Q, one extra trump > > JOOC, what do you respond with 2 aces when you do have the trump queen? 5NT or higher. However, there exist variations for that, too. The easiest one is 5NT = 2, either trump Q or two or more extra trumps. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 15 22:47:19 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:47:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C91184E.104@nyc.rr.com> References: <4C91184E.104@nyc.rr.com> <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> <4C90D566.3010105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <19284674.1284583639475.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Michael Kopera wrote: > My copy of The Roman Club System has responses to 4N as 0/3, 1/4, 2 same > rank or same color, 2 with 1 each major/minor or 1 each red/black, also known as "2 mixed" > talking aces, not keycards (yeah, seems to be overlap, eg both majors is > also red/black, but what do you want from 1959 :). I believe this next > morphed into 0/3, 1/4, 2, 2 w/extras (again, aces, not keycards). I think so, too. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 15 22:50:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:50:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C91184E.104@nyc.rr.com> References: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> <4C90D566.3010105@ulb.ac.be> <4C91184E.104@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: <48F9F2EA-7FE8-426E-B338-ADD8BD9A3CCF@starpower.net> On Sep 15, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Michael Kopera wrote: > On 09/15/2010 2:22 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Sep 15, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> AG : it isn't less Roman than RKCB. In both case the "Roman" part >>> has >>> been adapted. >> >> I'd say it is, at least in some sense. because the original RKCB was >> invented and polularized by real honest-to-God Romans, whereas the >> use of "Roman" for other variants has no more of a rationale than >> would calling them "Zigfritz" or "Hoobie". > > My copy of The Roman Club System has responses to 4N as 0/3, 1/4, 2 > same > rank or same color, 2 with 1 each major/minor or 1 each red/black, > talking aces, not keycards (yeah, seems to be overlap, eg both > majors is > also red/black, but what do you want from 1959 :). I believe this next > morphed into 0/3, 1/4, 2, 2 w/extras (again, aces, not keycards). Yup. My reference (apparently newer than Mike's) indicates the latter as the "official" Roman Club method, which it calls "Roman Blackwood". It also describes the former, which it refers to as the "original version" of that convention. It makes no mention of "key- card", which I assume means it predates the use of key-card responses by the Blue Team. But I do seem to recall now that the original Blue Team RKCB was pretty much the same, with 5S showing 2 or 5 KCs "with extras", and that the change from "extras" to specifically the trump queen (thus eliminating the need for any judgment) was an adaptation designed for adoption by the masses. In today's "standard" RKCB, 5S promises "the trump queen or equivalent", where "equivalent" means sufficient trump length to insure a 10-card fit. These are such minor variations on the same theme, though, that a partnership would run no practical risk in leaving their choice unspecified. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 15 23:25:13 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:25:13 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Local heresies? References: <23894117.1284580571793.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <13E9A178B797482F8F0294665A0FB9BC@MARVLAPTOP> From: "John R. Mayne" > > > I think asking why there's a recommendation to players to flat-out > ignore the law is a good question to ask. I think the actual > choice is encouraging players not to follow the law, or to > instruct players to avoid logical alternatives suggested by UI. > The latter is hardly impossible to follow - and if it is > impossible, the law should be changed. > > Instructions to ignore laws because they are too tough to follow > do not seem like good instructions to me. > > I recognize that you believe this position to be snide > cheap-shotting, but I disagree. > Me too. I have often heard the advice, "Just do what you would have done anyway. If it doesn't work, they will just adjust the score, no harm done." Sounds good, but ignores the fact that the OS get little benefit of doubt in a score adjustment. If they had just passed three spades, they might have defended well enough to hold it to three. In an adjustment to 3S the assumed defense will likely be inferior, contract made with an overtrick. Also, opponents may spread the word around that the OS is unethical. Those who value reputation don't want that to happen. As to the difficulty in following the law, I recommend this simplification: Don't take an action that might look like you were influenced by partner, even if you weren't. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5453 (20100915) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mikopera at nyc.rr.com Thu Sep 16 00:22:14 2010 From: mikopera at nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:22:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <19284674.1284583639475.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <4C91184E.104@nyc.rr.com> <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> <4C90D566.3010105@ulb.ac.be> <19284674.1284583639475.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C914716.8070405@nyc.rr.com> On 09/15/2010 4:47 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Michael Kopera wrote: >> My copy of The Roman Club System has responses to 4N as 0/3, 1/4, 2 same >> rank or same color, 2 with 1 each major/minor or 1 each red/black, > > also known as "2 mixed" > Or using CRASH terminology, 2 same shape. I'm sure that was the intent, but the wording was "1 major suit and 1 minor suit Ace, or 1 red and 1 black Ace." Almost certainly a translation error. >> talking aces, not keycards (yeah, seems to be overlap, eg both majors is >> also red/black, but what do you want from 1959 :). I believe this next >> morphed into 0/3, 1/4, 2, 2 w/extras (again, aces, not keycards). > > I think so, too. > > > Thomas > > Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 > _______________________________________________ > 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 swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 16 03:50:56 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:50:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C91184E.104@nyc.rr.com> References: <20100915140209.5A3B41905853@fwb.poczta.interia.pl> <4C90D566.3010105@ulb.ac.be> <4C91184E.104@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: <4C917800.9020103@nhcc.net> On 9/15/2010 3:02 PM, Michael Kopera wrote: > My copy of The Roman Club System has responses to 4N as 0/3, 1/4, 2 same > rank or same color, 2 with 1 each major/minor or 1 each red/black, > talking aces, not keycards Separately from that, "Keycard Blackwood" counted the trump K as an ace with responses 5C=0/4, 5D=1/5, 5H=2, and 5S=3; nothing about the trump queen Somewhat later (maybe in the 1970's?), the keycard and Roman concepts got merged into what we see today. Getting back to the original question, the rules say to tell the opponents your complete agreement but not to tell them you have an agreement when you don't. That leaves the Director to sort out what the true agreement really is, and I don't think there's any general rule. Around here, I'd expect "RKCB" would be deemed to include the usual responses, but "NMF" probably wouldn't (because various responses are possible). The implications of "Four-suit Transfers" are completely unclear, as others have mentioned. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 16 12:08:03 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:08:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C91EC83.3030801@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2010 18:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:56:40 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >> No one here would either. But around here, anyone who said "four- >> suit transfers" would hear "which kind?" > No one would ask that here. But they would ask which bid was the > preacceptance over a transfer to a minor. > > Which is to say, you might not be able to walk into my club and know what > people have agreed upon when they mutter the name of a convention. But I > probably do. And I probably know when agreeing on the name of a convention > is ambiguous. > > So it makes perfect sense that if all they have checked is 4-suit > transfers, then '2NT explained as a transfer to diamonds when it wasn't' > is ruled a correct explanation/misbid and '3C explained as preacceptance > of diamonds when it isn't' is ruled a mistaken explanation. Hmm, a real > life example would be this exact agreement and my partner not > pre-accepting holding something like KQx of my minor suit. AG : in my country, pre-acceptance needs more than just two honors in partner's suit. You also need quick tricks. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 16 12:09:33 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:09:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C91ECDD.8020904@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2010 18:07, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:56:40 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >>>> And the answer is the usual : look at their convention card, and >>>> decide >>>> against them in case of doubt. >>> But their convention card usually just has the name of the conventions >>> they are playing. >> If that's the problem, the answer (for ACBLers at least) is to >> enforce the rules. > If I understand you correctly, the "problem" you refer to is that we can't > decide how I should rule in the extremely common case of players just > agreeing on a convention by name. > > To me, that's our problem, and we should not be blaming the players. Or > expecting them to jump through hopes to avoid us having to make a ruling > that should be easy to make. > > IMO. > > The ACBL convention card encourages listing conventions by name. When it > goes farther, that is usually to disambiguate the ambiguities in a > convention. AG : so you mean that the ACBL card is less helpful to those who look at it than most other national / international cards? No scoop :-( From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 16 12:11:55 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:11:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C91ED6B.9020403@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2010 18:23, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:50:19 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:29:52 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> I am going to try to summarize my rough impression of this >>> discussion. >>>>> The >>>>> question is what players have agreed upon when they agree on a >>>>> convention, >>>>> such as RKC. Have they agreed that the 5H response shows two >>> controls >>>>> and >>>>> denies the queen of trumps? >>>>> >>>>> The answer blml seems to be giving is no. No one is choosing the same >>>>> route to this answer. The answers I think show creative ways of >>> thinking >>>>> about bidding. That we need to differentiate 'new minor forcing' from >>>>> the >>>>> new minor forcing convention. That perhaps new minor forcing is to be >>>>> deconstructed down the level of individual words and the players are >>>>> simply agreeing that any bid a new minor suit is forcing. That >>> somehow >>>>> an >>>>> implicit agreement (say that 5H shows two controls and denies the >>> queen) >>>>> might be formed. >>>>> >>>>> This is in contrast to the path I assume all players and directors >>>>> follow: >>>>> >>>>> When players agree on a convention, they have agreed on the parts of >>> the >>>>> convention. If someone bid 5H with the queen of trump, that is an >>>>> automatic ruling of misbid if the card says RKC. >>>>> >>>>> In its defense, I think the blml path avoids having to answer some >>> hard >>>>> questions when the players actually don't understand the convention >>> the >>>>> same way. >>>> The main points are as follows: >>>> 1.) for pretty much any convention, there exist three or more ways it >>>> can be played. >>>> Plus a few more variations that are inefficient, but some pairs use >>>> those inefficient >>>> variations anyways. >>>> For example, I was totally surprised when you claimed that "NMF" >>>> promises either >>>> four spades or five hearts. I had never even heard of that variation. >>>> >>>> 2.) when providing information to opponents, provide the actual >>>> agreement, rather >>>> than the name of a convention. >>> Can I focus on your words "actual agreement"? When the full conversation >>> is something like '1430 RKC', is there more than this to the "actual >>> agreement"? >> "actual agreements" was my wording, TFLB does not use those words. >> >> >> There are basically two possibilities here. >> a) you are on the same wavelength, and have the same understanding >> of what "1430 RKC" means. In that case, you have an actual agreement. >> No problem. >> >> b) you have different opinions what "1430 RKC" means. You think >> you have an agreement, but actually you have a misunderstanding. >> Then you have an MI or UI ruling coming your way if you don't >> notice the problem before you cause any damage to opponents. > > Can I ask how far you go on this? I had this ruling, with the auction > something like > > 1C 1H P 2C > > 2C actually was meant as Michaels -- cue bidding to show the unbid major > suit and an unnamed minor. It was not explained that way, of course. > > I ruled misbid, because no one else thinks Michaels is used in this > situation and it is bizarre to use Michaels in this situation. AG : I must be in contradiction mode today. Using the cue-bid to ask partner to choose between the other two suits looks like a possible treatment. Of course it isn't called Michaels, but the spirit is the same. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 16 12:48:42 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:48:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C91EC83.3030801@ulb.ac.be> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> <4C91EC83.3030801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000501cb558c$bac13e00$3043ba00$@com> [AG] In my country, pre-acceptance needs more than just two honors in partner's suit. You also need quick tricks. [DALB] Really? Every single pair in Belgium plays this method? David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 16 13:38:36 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:38:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <000501cb558c$bac13e00$3043ba00$@com> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> <4C91EC83.3030801@ulb.ac.be> <000501cb558c$bac13e00$3043ba00$@com> Message-ID: <4C9201BC.6040703@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [AG] > > In my country, pre-acceptance needs more than just two honors in partner's > suit. You also need quick tricks. > > [DALB] > > Really? Every single pair in Belgium plays this method? > Yes we do. We don't know it, so we frequently misbid, but that is the system. :) > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3137 - Release Date: 09/15/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 16 15:07:53 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:07:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <000501cb558c$bac13e00$3043ba00$@com> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> <4C91EC83.3030801@ulb.ac.be> <000501cb558c$bac13e00$3043ba00$@com> Message-ID: <4C9216A9.9000708@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/09/2010 12:48, David Burn a ?crit : > [AG] > > In my country, pre-acceptance needs more than just two honors in partner's > suit. You also need quick tricks. > > [DALB] > > Really? Every single pair in Belgium plays this method? > hmm; I didn't mean it in its strict sense. I meant that it's logical to have a pre-acceptance tell you hope to make 3NT without giving lead back, at least on one lead, e.g. a minimum of AK + K on the side. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 16 16:34:51 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:34:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <4C91EC83.3030801@ulb.ac.be> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> <4C91EC83.3030801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2B84416A-C765-4642-B8B3-94678F8DBA31@starpower.net> On Sep 16, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 15/09/2010 18:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >> So it makes perfect sense that if all they have checked is 4-suit >> transfers, then '2NT explained as a transfer to diamonds when it >> wasn't' >> is ruled a correct explanation/misbid and '3C explained as >> preacceptance >> of diamonds when it isn't' is ruled a mistaken explanation. Hmm, a >> real >> life example would be this exact agreement and my partner not >> pre-accepting holding something like KQx of my minor suit. > > AG : in my country, pre-acceptance needs more than just two honors in > partner's suit. You also need quick tricks. This is an excellent example of the kind of thing Bob is troubled about. 1NT-2NT showing diamonds, with a 3C rebid by opener showing a "preacceptance" of a presumptive invitation, is the prevalent agreement around here. Sadly, however, at least four out of five pairs who play this method do so without any agreement as to what either an invitational or an accepting hand looks like. It's almost enough to elicit some sympathy for the "convention disruption" advocate(s). -------------------- Among the few partnerships that do have a specific agreement as to what they will hold, the most common is that an invitation (opposite a strong NT) delivers a six-card suit with two of the top three honors and little else (a stray Q at most), and an acceptance (or "preacceptance") delivers the third top honor. Perhaps Bob's hypothetical partner plays this agreement, and "psychically" chose to decline a presumptive invitation with KQx knowing that Bob couldn't hold one. Perhaps I'll try this one myself some day. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 16 19:31:08 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:31:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <5F695ECD3E8C45219F3A4747B7541324@MARVLAPTOP> > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > >>[1] The law book should define "Peers" objectively (e.g. other >>players in the same competition). > > Richard Hills: > > Mrs Guggenheim volunteers to fill a half table in an otherwise > completely expert competition. She is then deemed to have > made a Law 12C1(b) "serious error" in failing to execute a very > easy double squeeze, since all the other declarers at the other > tables executed that very easy (for an expert) double squeeze. > No, she failed to duck the opening lead, required for the squeeze. The generic player in this competition would not do that, so Mrs Guggenheim is revealed as not typical of those in the competition, therefore no serious error. All players in a competition should be treated as equals, with skills assumed to be the average of those in the event. The reason is that expertise is not known for all players. Applying "weak" to known weak players and "strong" to known strong players leaves the others (probably a large majority) in the unknown column. Putting them in the default "average" column may be either unfair to them or too liberal. While deciding the expertise of the generic player is quite difficult, it is much easier than determining the expertise of everyone in the event. However, when there is evidence from a deal in question that a player is obviously worse or better than the average, that becomes the sole basis for determination of serious error, or "class of player" where that term is applied. Only that deal, not others, or you would be fishing through all the boards he/she played, obviously impossible. Yes, it may be difficult to determine whether an error was serious (generic player) or just stupid (inferior player). The play of the rest of the cards may provide that evidence. If in doubt, no serious error. Another more pertinent situation is adjusting the score to a different denomination, no error involved. Should the declarer be assumed to find a double squeeze, or not? If the competition is high-level, the squeeze may be assumed. If low-level, probably not. But can the particular declarer's expertise be evaluated for this purpose? Only by looking at his defense in the illegal contract. If normal, treat him/her as a generic player and grant the squeeze. If terrible for that event, no squeeze. All a matter of TD/AC judgment, of course. A club TD may know every one of his players very well, and in that case "class of player" is peculiar to each individual. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5455 (20100916) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 17 01:22:37 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:22:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <19247657.1284485129085.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: "This facility is a school." "Sure it is." "What the hell is that?" "A jet." "What kind of jet?" "We don't know ? but it comes up out of the basketball court." Grattan Endicott: >+=+ [Grattan, opinion} >I have not read through the emails on this topic, so I do not >know who has said what. >My independently expressed view is: >1. If partners agree to play 'x' but this means different >things to partner B from what it means to partner A, they do >not have a partnership understanding. Richard Hills: If partners do not explicitly agree to play "x", they may still have an implicit partnership understanding. For example, when I agreed to play Canberra Acol with a completely new semi- expert partner, this meant that we had two pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understandings in this bidding sequence: Me New Pard 1C 1H 1NT(1) 2C (2) (1) Implicit understanding - does not deny four spades (2) Implicit understanding - checkback (new minor forcing unknown in Canberra) Grattan Endicott: >2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently from >the way the latter understands and has used 'x', then A has >given misinformation..... Richard Hills: Or perhaps B has misbid. An explanation by A which corresponds to B's intent could still be misinformation. If there is not any partnership understanding, then the only correct explanation is, "We do not have any pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding." Even if A and B do have a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding about "x", on rare occasions A and B simultaneously have the same temporary memory lapse, both believing "x" has meaning Q, when "x" actually has meaning R. In that case, A explaining "x" as meaning Q is still misinformation. 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 Sep 17 06:51:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:51:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 18th September 2010: [snip] >The name of a convention is not an explanation of it. +=+ Bruce McIntyre, 4th March 2005: True story from a tourney here in the 1980s, recorded in the Unit Newsletter for posterity. Auction goes 1H - P - 4D, alerted. The next player asks and the heart opener says "I can't remember the name of the convention--oh yes, I do now: we're playing SPINGLETONS!" The other opponent was quick to point out that 3S would be the proper spingleton response and on this hand in fact they were playing DINGLETONS. :) 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 Fri Sep 17 07:37:15 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 01:37:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:22:17 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 14/09/2010 7:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Thomas Dehn: >> >> [snip] >> >>> There is a German player known as "the conductor". His bidding >>> is horrible. When playing with the conductor, I used to pre- >>> alert opponents "My partner will quite frequently make >>> outrageous bids, bids you would never have imagined anybody >>> would even consider." Opponents who thought I was exaggerating >>> usually changed their mind after a few boards ;-). >> Richard Hills: >> >> A Canberra player has given full disclosure of her Law 40B2(a) >> "style and judgement", as she has written on her system card: >> >> Random acts of insanity >> >> >> > AG : I know a Belgian pair who wrote under the "psyches" heading : > "only when angry" > Notice that this is correct disclosure. When I played with my mother in a tournament, I prealerted our opponents that my mother was kind of old-fashioned and that our bids didn't always mean what they might think. Afterwards I found out she was unhappy about this. I now will not insult my partner. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 17 07:51:10 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 01:51:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:22:37 -0400, wrote: > "This facility is a school." > "Sure it is." > "What the hell is that?" > "A jet." > "What kind of jet?" > "We don't know ? but it comes up out of the basketball court." > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ [Grattan, opinion} >> I have not read through the emails on this topic, so I do not >> know who has said what. >> My independently expressed view is: >> 1. If partners agree to play 'x' but this means different >> things to partner B from what it means to partner A, they do >> not have a partnership understanding. > > Richard Hills: > > If partners do not explicitly agree to play "x", they may still > have an implicit partnership understanding. For example, when > I agreed to play Canberra Acol with a completely new semi- > expert partner, this meant that we had two pre-existing mutual > implicit partnership understandings in this bidding sequence: > > Me New Pard > 1C 1H > 1NT(1) 2C (2) > > (1) Implicit understanding - does not deny four spades > (2) Implicit understanding - checkback (new minor forcing > unknown in Canberra) You agree on Canberra Acol, and the above are part of that agreement. You both know that. So this is an explicit agreement according to Grattan. And most players. (Or argue the point that it is implicit, but that point certainly is not a given.) > > Grattan Endicott: > >> 2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently from >> the way the latter understands and has used 'x', then A has >> given misinformation..... > > Richard Hills: > > Or perhaps B has misbid. > > An explanation by A which corresponds to B's intent could > still be misinformation. If there is not any partnership > understanding, then the only correct explanation is, "We do > not have any pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit > partnership understanding." Once my partner and I agree to played Capelletti. LHO opened 1NT, partner bid 2D, and RHO asked what that meant. I did not know Capelletti. So you are saying the "only correct explanation" (your words) is that we have no agreement? I do not think that corresponds to how a director would rule. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 17 08:02:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:02:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Oedipus Rex [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C(1) 3H 3S Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 6S Pass Pass Pass (1) Strong club, 15+ hcp with any shape Opening lead: Four of hearts NORTH AQ87 AK9 KJ5 QT9 SOUTH J6532 T AQ A7432 How should an expert declarer plan the play? 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Sep 17 08:15:16 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:15:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/9/17 Robert Frick : > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:22:37 -0400, wrote: > >> "This facility is a school." >> "Sure it is." >> "What the hell is that?" >> "A jet." >> "What kind of jet?" >> "We don't know ? but it comes up out of the basketball court." >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>> +=+ [Grattan, opinion} >>> I have not read through the emails on this topic, so I do not >>> know who has said what. >>> My independently expressed view is: >>> 1. If partners agree to play 'x' but this means different >>> things to partner B from what it means to partner A, they do >>> not have a partnership understanding. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> If partners do not explicitly agree to play "x", they may still >> have an implicit partnership understanding. ?For example, when >> I agreed to play Canberra Acol with a completely new semi- >> expert partner, this meant that we had two pre-existing mutual >> implicit partnership understandings in this bidding sequence: >> >> Me ? ? ? ?New Pard >> 1C ? ? ? ?1H >> 1NT(1) ? ?2C (2) >> >> (1) Implicit understanding - does not deny four spades >> (2) Implicit understanding - checkback (new minor forcing >> ? ? unknown in Canberra) > > You agree on Canberra Acol, and the above are part of that agreement. You > both know that. So this is an explicit agreement according to Grattan. And > most players. (Or argue the point that it is implicit, but that point > certainly is not a given.) > > > >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>> 2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently from >>> the way the latter understands and has used 'x', then A has >>> given misinformation..... >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Or perhaps B has misbid. >> >> An explanation by A which corresponds to B's intent could >> still be misinformation. ?If there is not any partnership >> understanding, then the only correct explanation is, "We do >> not have any pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit >> partnership understanding." > > Once my partner and I agree to played Capelletti. LHO opened 1NT, partner > bid 2D, and RHO asked what that meant. > > I did not know Capelletti. The same happened to me a few years ago. I agreed to play Capelette with my partner. Unfortunately, I had only had that agreement a couple of times before - online. And it never came up then. This time it did, of course. I explained that our agreement was Capeletti. Unfortunately, the conventions was unknown to our opponents, who wanted to know what my partners overcall actually meant. I had to tell them I didn't know, since I wasn't sure. But I voluntered to leave the table and let partner explain it to them. > > So you are saying the "only correct explanation" (your words) is that we > have no agreement? I do not think that corresponds to how a director would > rule. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 17 10:11:19 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:11:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Oedipus Rex [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22485823.1284711079363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1C(1) 3H 3S > Pass 4H Pass 5C > Pass 6S Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Strong club, 15+ hcp with any shape > > Opening lead: Four of hearts > > NORTH > AQ87 > AK9 > KJ5 > QT9 > > > SOUTH > J6532 > T > AQ > A7432 > > How should an expert declarer plan the play? This is an aggressively bid slam which some other tables won't reach. Extra undertricks won't matter that much. My plan is to play trumps for no losers, eliminate diamonds first, then hearts, then run the CT to endplay W. I cross to dummy's DA (or win the HT in dummy), and lead the SJ. Lets say W covers. If E dropped the S9 or ST, I play the DJ to dummy's Q, and finesse in spades again. If E plays small, I play the SQ first. The D from the top, then H from the top. W will normally be endplayed at some point; I'll make six if I avoided a trump loser, and will normally go down one if I lose a trump (albeit there are some chances for a defense error in some layouts, or singleton CK with E). Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 17 11:02:56 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:02:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2125868.1284714176618.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:22:17 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > > Le 14/09/2010 7:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> Thomas Dehn: > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >>> There is a German player known as "the conductor". His bidding > >>> is horrible. When playing with the conductor, I used to pre- > >>> alert opponents "My partner will quite frequently make > >>> outrageous bids, bids you would never have imagined anybody > >>> would even consider." Opponents who thought I was exaggerating > >>> usually changed their mind after a few boards ;-). > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> A Canberra player has given full disclosure of her Law 40B2(a) > >> "style and judgement", as she has written on her system card: > >> > >> Random acts of insanity > >> > >> > >> > > AG : I know a Belgian pair who wrote under the "psyches" heading : > > "only when angry" > > Notice that this is correct disclosure. > > When I played with my mother in a tournament, I prealerted our opponents > that my mother was kind of old-fashioned and that our bids didn't always > mean what they might think. Afterwards I found out she was unhappy about > this. I now will not insult my partner. The facts that you played with your mother, and your mother feels insulted, easily does not relieve you of your obligations to correct inform your opponents. Usually in such cases you can avoid insulting your partner by informing opponents that you play "Goren" rather than "Standard American". Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 17 13:36:55 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:36:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:15:16 -0400, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2010/9/17 Robert Frick : >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:22:37 -0400, wrote: >> >>> "This facility is a school." >>> "Sure it is." >>> "What the hell is that?" >>> "A jet." >>> "What kind of jet?" >>> "We don't know ? but it comes up out of the basketball court." >>> >>> Grattan Endicott: >>> >>>> +=+ [Grattan, opinion} >>>> I have not read through the emails on this topic, so I do not >>>> know who has said what. >>>> My independently expressed view is: >>>> 1. If partners agree to play 'x' but this means different >>>> things to partner B from what it means to partner A, they do >>>> not have a partnership understanding. >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> If partners do not explicitly agree to play "x", they may still >>> have an implicit partnership understanding. For example, when >>> I agreed to play Canberra Acol with a completely new semi- >>> expert partner, this meant that we had two pre-existing mutual >>> implicit partnership understandings in this bidding sequence: >>> >>> Me New Pard >>> 1C 1H >>> 1NT(1) 2C (2) >>> >>> (1) Implicit understanding - does not deny four spades >>> (2) Implicit understanding - checkback (new minor forcing >>> unknown in Canberra) >> >> You agree on Canberra Acol, and the above are part of that agreement. >> You >> both know that. So this is an explicit agreement according to Grattan. >> And >> most players. (Or argue the point that it is implicit, but that point >> certainly is not a given.) >> >> >> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott: >>> >>>> 2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently from >>>> the way the latter understands and has used 'x', then A has >>>> given misinformation..... >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Or perhaps B has misbid. >>> >>> An explanation by A which corresponds to B's intent could >>> still be misinformation. If there is not any partnership >>> understanding, then the only correct explanation is, "We do >>> not have any pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit >>> partnership understanding." >> >> Once my partner and I agree to played Capelletti. LHO opened 1NT, >> partner >> bid 2D, and RHO asked what that meant. >> >> I did not know Capelletti. > > The same happened to me a few years ago. I agreed to play Capelette > with my partner. > Unfortunately, I had only had that agreement a couple of times before > - online. And it never came up then. > This time it did, of course. > I explained that our agreement was Capeletti. Unfortunately, the > conventions was unknown to our opponents, who wanted to know what my > partners overcall actually meant. I had to tell them I didn't know, > since I wasn't sure. But I voluntered to leave the table and let > partner explain it to them. That's what I did too. But according to Richard and Grattan, partner's correct explanation is the same as mine -- we have no agreement. (And he can figure that out, so he knows not to tell the opponents what he intended to show with his bid.) From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 17 14:08:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:08:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <2B84416A-C765-4642-B8B3-94678F8DBA31@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <4C90A4F2.1090400@ulb.ac.be> <145544D7-C5C2-43E2-ADD1-CD8328C6E81C@starpower.net> <4C91EC83.3030801@ulb.ac.be> <2B84416A-C765-4642-B8B3-94678F8DBA31@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C935A45.60104@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/09/2010 16:34, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 16, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 15/09/2010 18:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> So it makes perfect sense that if all they have checked is 4-suit >>> transfers, then '2NT explained as a transfer to diamonds when it >>> wasn't' >>> is ruled a correct explanation/misbid and '3C explained as >>> preacceptance >>> of diamonds when it isn't' is ruled a mistaken explanation. Hmm, a >>> real >>> life example would be this exact agreement and my partner not >>> pre-accepting holding something like KQx of my minor suit. >> AG : in my country, pre-acceptance needs more than just two honors in >> partner's suit. You also need quick tricks. > This is an excellent example of the kind of thing Bob is troubled > about. 1NT-2NT showing diamonds, with a 3C rebid by opener showing a > "preacceptance" of a presumptive invitation, is the prevalent > agreement around here. Sadly, however, at least four out of five > pairs who play this method do so without any agreement as to what > either an invitational or an accepting hand looks like. It's almost > enough to elicit some sympathy for the "convention disruption" > advocate(s). > AG : notice that if they play, and explain, that it just means "I do like my hand", you can't disallow them to do so. From gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 17 14:22:36 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:22:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> A discus thrower intends to take a banned steroid, but instead takes a permitted glucose supplement by mistake. One contributor to Bridge Laws Forum would think he should be punished because he tried to cheat. What relevance has this to bridge? Well, let us say that the organising committee carelessly leaves some hand records lying around, and I accidentally see them. I spot that on board one East has a singleton king of clubs. Lo and behold, when I play board one as South, I drop the king of clubs singleton offside. "That old wives' tale always works," I say, goading the opponent. He is suspicious however and reports the incident. The TD recalls seeing me in the equipment room, but when he investigates further, he finds that what I saw were left over copies from the previous day's seniors pairs. But not before I had owned up to seeing board 1 of what I thought were today's hands. Now, I do not have any UI, as the information I had was not about a board I was playing or was yet to play (Law 16C), so it appears I have not committed an infraction. The score should stand under the current Laws on board 1. Surely some Law can be used to punish me; perhaps there should be an addition to 12A allowing the director to award an adjusted score for any behaviour contrary to the spirit of the game, or that might bring the game into disrepute. A catchall clause. That could be a slippery path, however, and we will find two camps. Those that regard exploitation of loopholes as cynical and unacceptable, and those that think no disapprobation should apply to anyone who takes full advantage of the Laws and their defects. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 17 15:18:37 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:18:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <790CC1DD-C2BC-43A9-98E0-282C9D2BF374@starpower.net> On Sep 16, 2010, at 7:22 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Even if A and B do have a pre-existing mutual explicit or > implicit partnership understanding about "x", on rare > occasions A and B simultaneously have the same temporary > memory lapse, both believing "x" has meaning Q, when "x" > actually has meaning R. In that case, A explaining "x" as > meaning Q is still misinformation. One could argue that if A and B both believe that "x" means Q, and explain it as Q, even though this may be misinformation, it cannot, as a matter of logic, cause damage, so that as a practical matter their actual agreeent as to the meaning of "x" doesn't matter. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 17 15:37:30 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 06:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Oedipus Rex [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <22485823.1284711079363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <22485823.1284711079363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <897590.2432.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs West/East-West Pass 1C(1) 3H 3S Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 6S Pass Pass Pass (1) Strong club, 15+ hcp with any shape Opening lead: Four of hearts NORTH AQ87 AK9 KJ5 QT9 SOUTH J6532 T AQ A7432 How should an expert declarer plan the play? [Thomas Dehn] This is an aggressively bid slam which some other tables won't reach. Extra undertricks won't matter that much. My plan is to play trumps for no losers, eliminate diamonds first, then hearts, then run the CT to endplay W. I cross to dummy's DA (or win the HT in dummy), and lead the SJ. Lets say W covers. If E dropped the S9 or ST, I play the DJ to dummy's Q, and finesse in spades again. If E plays small, I play the SQ first. The D from the top, then H from the top. W will normally be endplayed at some point; I'll make six if I avoided a trump loser, and will normally go down one if I lose a trump (albeit there are some chances for a defense error in some layouts, or singleton CK with E). {Nige1] Thomas' line seems best. Should first ask what the bidding means? IMO, No, given current rules. Asking is fraught with danger, presenting you with additional difficult decisions: you may be on Morton's fork: :( If you smell a rat and don't play according to what you are told but you suss out the wrong discrepancy, will the director consider your actions to be a serious error or to be wild and gambling? :( If you do play according to what you are told (however bizarre) and the hand turns out differently, what is the likelihood that the director will award adequate redress? prospects are bleak on recent evidence from fora like this. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Fri Sep 17 16:55:33 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:55:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On 9/17/2010 8:22 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: A discus thrower intends to take a banned steroid, but instead takes a permitted glucose supplement by mistake. One contributor to Bridge Laws Forum would think he should be punished because he tried to cheat. What relevance has this to bridge? Well, let us say that the organising committee carelessly leaves some hand records lying around, and I accidentally see them. I spot that on board one East has a singleton king of clubs. Lo and behold, when I play board one as South, I drop the king of clubs singleton offside. "That old wives' tale always works," I say, goading the opponent. He is suspicious however and reports the incident. The TD recalls seeing me in the equipment room, but when he investigates further, he finds that what I saw were left over copies from the previous day's seniors pairs. But not before I had owned up to seeing board 1 of what I thought were today's hands. Now, I do not have any UI, as the information I had was not about a board I was playing or was yet to play (Law 16C), so it appears I have not committed an infraction. The score should stand under the current Laws on board 1. Surely some Law can be used to punish me; perhaps there should be an addition to 12A allowing the director to award an adjusted score for any behaviour contrary to the spirit of the game, or that might bring the game into disrepute. A catchall clause. That could be a slippery path, however, and we will find two camps. Those that regard exploitation of loopholes as cynical and unacceptable, and those that think no disapprobation should apply to anyone who takes full advantage of the Laws and their defects. There is no loophole in your example. L16 C. Extraneous Information from Other Sources 1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. You did not notify the Director upon receipt of the information. At the time that you made your play, you believed that you had information about the hand in question. L72 B. Infraction of Law 1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept. You intentionally committed an infraction in your example. The subsequent investigation may have revealed that in fact the information that you had was not what you thought. That does not mitigate the violation of L72B1 which is indeed about intent. At the time that you made your hypothetical play you believed that you were committing a violation L16C1 and that act is a violation of L72B1. That's enough to penalize, even if subsequent investigation reveals that the actual information was not what you thought it was. I would not adjust the score, since you had no UI about the actual hand. However, the L72 infraction is one of the most serious violations of correct procedure possible, since it is a deliberate attempt to cheat. My ruling would be to disqualify you from the game (L90, L91) and to refer you to a conduct and ethics committee for further sanctions. Hirsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100917/7e920816/attachment-0001.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 17 17:26:53 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:26:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4C9388BD.8010506@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > There is no loophole in your example. > > L16 > > You did not notify the Director upon receipt of the information. At the > time that you made your play, you believed that you had information > about the hand in question. > > L72 > B. Infraction of Law > 1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is > a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept. > > You intentionally committed an infraction in your example. The > subsequent investigation may have revealed that in fact the information > that you had was not what you thought. That does not mitigate the > violation of L72B1 which is indeed about intent. At the time that you > made your hypothetical play you believed that you were committing a > violation L16C1 and that act is a violation of L72B1. That's enough to > penalize, even if subsequent investigation reveals that the actual > information was not what you thought it was. > > I would not adjust the score, since you had no UI about the actual hand. > However, the L72 infraction is one of the most serious violations of > correct procedure possible, since it is a deliberate attempt to cheat. > My ruling would be to disqualify you from the game (L90, L91) and to > refer you to a conduct and ethics committee for further sanctions. > I concur with Hirsch, and I would rule the same if the king were not singleton behind and the player would say "I could swear I saw it singleton on that printout I saw." > Hirsch > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3139 - Release Date: 09/16/10 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 17 18:44:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:44:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FE338B1-B7CE-4682-A774-B6BD579F3730@starpower.net> On Sep 17, 2010, at 1:51 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:22:37 -0400, wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>> I have not read through the emails on this topic, so I do not >>> know who has said what. >>> My independently expressed view is: >>> 1. If partners agree to play 'x' but this means different >>> things to partner B from what it means to partner A, they do >>> not have a partnership understanding. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> If partners do not explicitly agree to play "x", they may still >> have an implicit partnership understanding. For example, when >> I agreed to play Canberra Acol with a completely new semi- >> expert partner, this meant that we had two pre-existing mutual >> implicit partnership understandings in this bidding sequence: >> >> Me New Pard >> 1C 1H >> 1NT(1) 2C (2) >> >> (1) Implicit understanding - does not deny four spades >> (2) Implicit understanding - checkback (new minor forcing >> unknown in Canberra) > > You agree on Canberra Acol, and the above are part of that > agreement. You > both know that. So this is an explicit agreement according to > Grattan. And > most players. (Or argue the point that it is implicit, but that point > certainly is not a given.) An explicit agreement is something you have explicitly agreed to. If the entirety of your discussion was, "Let's play Canberra Acol,", "OK," then that is the extent of your explicit agreement. Your mutual understanding of the implications of that agreement are implicit agreements by definition. >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>> 2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently from >>> the way the latter understands and has used 'x', then A has >>> given misinformation..... >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Or perhaps B has misbid. >> >> An explanation by A which corresponds to B's intent could >> still be misinformation. If there is not any partnership >> understanding, then the only correct explanation is, "We do >> not have any pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit >> partnership understanding." > > Once my partner and I agree to played Capelletti. LHO opened 1NT, > partner > bid 2D, and RHO asked what that meant. > > I did not know Capelletti. > > So you are saying the "only correct explanation" (your words) is > that we > have no agreement? What else? You are obliged to explain your agreements, not merely reveal what you have chosen to name them. If you do not (and never did) know what your methods are, you have no agreement as to what your methods are, notwithstanding your agreement as to what you would call them if you did. > I do not think that corresponds to how a director would > rule. If you (improperly) provide your opponents with nothing more than the name of a convention, thereby deceiving them into thinking that you have an agreement to play that convention (or one of its variants) as it is generally understood, when you do not, that is your fault, not theirs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 17 19:40:31 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:40:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be><8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD24A68F49A54F-1F88-1B98@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> There is no loophole in your example. L16 C. Extraneous Information from Other Sources 1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; orby seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. You did not notify the Director upon receipt of the information. At the time that you made your play, you believed that you had information about the hand in question. The Law does not say "believed he is playing, or believed he has yet to play" or "believed he had UI", so I do not think he committed an infraction. He clearly did not receive UI about a board he was yet to play. And there needs to be an infraction to punish him under 72B1. And I am playing Devil?s Advocate, of course. I am not in the slightest way trying to justify the person?s actions. I am not even sure that there is a Law under which you can punish him at all, although of course there should be. The Law is just wrongly worded ... yet again. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 17 20:00:33 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:00:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <8CD24A68F49A54F-1F88-1B98@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be><8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> <8CD24A68F49A54F-1F88-1B98@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <921135.77208.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The Law does not say "believed he is playing, or believed he has yet to play" or "believed he had UI", so I do not think he committed an infraction. He clearly did not receive UI about a board he was yet to play. And there needs to be an infraction to punish him under 72B1. And I am playing Devil?s Advocate, of course. I am not in the slightest way trying to justify the person?s actions. I am not even sure that there is a Law under which you can punish him at all, although of course there should be. The Law is just wrongly worded ... yet again. [Nigel] Some criticise Bridge Law for being inconsistent; but Paul is right: it is fairly consistent in one respect :) From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Fri Sep 17 22:10:37 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:10:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <8CD24A68F49A54F-1F88-1B98@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be><8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> <8CD24A68F49A54F-1F88-1B98@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4C93CB3D.3090100@gmail.com> On 9/17/2010 1:40 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > > There is no loophole in your example. > L16 > C. Extraneous Information from Other Sources > 1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a > board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong > hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at > another table; orby seeing a card belonging to another player at his > own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified > forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. > You did not notify the Director upon receipt of the information. At the > time that you made your play, you believed that you had information > about the hand in question. > > > The Law does not say "believed he is playing, or believed he has yet to > play" or "believed he had UI", so I do not think he committed an > infraction. He clearly did not receive UI about a board he was yet to > play. > > And there needs to be an infraction to punish him under 72B1. > > And I am playing Devil?s Advocate, of course. I am not in the slightest > way trying to justify the person?s actions. I am not even sure that > there is a Law under which you can punish him at all, although of > course there should be. The Law is just wrongly worded ... yet again. > _______________________________________________ The Preface to the Laws has changed over the years. The following is from the Laws of Contract Bridge, copyright 1927 by the Whist Club of New York. "...Laws are not drafted to prevent dishonorable practice; that they cannot accomplish. Ostracism is the only adequate remedy. The real object of the laws is to define correct procedure and to provide for the situations which occur when a player through carelessness gains an unintentional, but nevertheless an unfair advantage..." While this is not stated as explicitly in today's Laws, I believe it to remain true. If a player attempts to cheat, I'm not going to let it go by because he did not succeed. The player in your example deliberately attempted to violate several Laws. An accident may have prevented actual violation. So what? I'm still going to exercise the authority given to the TD under L91 to get the attempted cheater out of the game, and let the C&E committee deal with it from there. Fully in the spirit of the original Laws. Hirsch From gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 17 23:11:30 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:11:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <4C93CB3D.3090100@gmail.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be><8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> <8CD24A68F49A54F-1F88-1B98@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> <4C93CB3D.3090100@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CD24C408B686B6-1568-4A68@webmail-d015.sysops.aol.com> The Preface to the Laws has changed over the years. The following is from the Laws of Contract Bridge, copyright 1927 by the Whist Club of New York. "...Laws are not drafted to prevent dishonorable practice; that they cannot accomplish. Ostracism is the only adequate remedy. The real object of the laws is to define correct procedure and to provide for the situations which occur when a player through carelessness gains an unintentional, but nevertheless an unfair advantage..." While this is not stated as explicitly in today's Laws, I believe it to remain true. If a player attempts to cheat, I'm not going to let it go by because he did not succeed. The player in your example deliberately attempted to violate several Laws. An accident may have prevented actual violation. So what? I'm still going to exercise the authority given to the TD under L91 to get the attempted cheater out of the game, and let the C&E committee deal with it from there. Fully in the spirit of the original Laws. I agree that the correct method is to refer the attempt to cheat to the C&E committee, and let them decide whether the ?offence? committed interferes with maintaining order and discipline (a prerequisite for a disciplinary penalty under 91A) or comes under the heading ?for cause? which is a requirement in 91B. The latter expression, in employment law, includes acts such as theft, assault, or gross misconduct. And it is invariably a breach of one of the terms of employment actually spelt out. The player in my example, as far as I can see, did not breach any of Laws 1-90, and yet you are proposing to either suspend or disqualify him for what I agree is clearly dishonourable practice. I would be worried about a lawsuit in the US, and I think they had it right in 1927. Ostracism is the only adequate remedy, and excluding this person from membership of the club or from entering the tournament again is the right approach. Meanwhile, we should also correct the omission in the Laws by permitting the TD to assess any penalty for anything he regards as against the spirit of the game, or even ... dishonourable practice. Regardless of whether it breaks any Laws. From blml at arcor.de Sat Sep 18 11:33:03 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <26658525.1284569231433.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <31398774.1284802383852.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Argh, I forgot to ask my other question. You get to this auction... > > > 4NT P 5H(1) > > (1) explained as denying the queen of trumps when in fact the player has > the queen of trumps. The opps are damaged. And, of course you assume that opponents have been informed one way or another that 5H denies the queen. > As I understand your position, which is quite reasonable, your ruling > depends on the player's beliefs when he made the agreement RKC. It depends on what their partnership understandings are. > If the player thought at the time that it denied the queen and then forgot > somewhere along the way, you rule that 5H is a misbid. > If the player did not know at the time that 5H denied the queen, then you rule for mistaken > explanation. I think you are on the wrong track. It does not matter much what he thought at some point what their agreements were, other than as soft evidence to what their agreements actually are. When investigating whether there was MI, the TD has to find out what their actual agreements were. Evidence might come as convention cards, detailed written system notes, or statements the players make to the TD. And, of course, the fact that the information provided to opponents did not match the hand that made the bid also is evidence. The OS has to provide evidence that convinces the TD that the information provided to opponents was correct. If the OS cannot provide sufficient evidence to convince the TD, the TD will normally rule MI. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 18 11:51:32 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 05:51:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:59:07 -0400, Grattan wrote: > +=+ [Grattan, opinion} > I have not read through the emails on this topic, so > I do not know who has said what. > My independently expressed view is: > 1. If partners agree to play 'x' but this means different > things to partner B from what it means to partner A, > they do not have a partnership understanding. > 2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently > from the way the latter understands and has used 'x', > then A has given misinformation. > 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. +=+ #1 sounds logical. It fits a ruling I once made. The players had agreed on Capelletti, and a 2 diamond was explained as showing both majors, which was the correct Capelletti explanation. However the 2D bidder in fact had just diamonds. When I discovered that the 2D bidder did not know Capelletti, I ruled mistaken explanation. But I don't think directors follow #1. Two very common examples: Example #1. .... 4NT P 5H 5H is described as 2 controls and denying the queen of trumps. That's what it should be in RKC (at least here). The 5H bidder in fact has the queen of trumps. The opponents claim damage. To quote or paraphrase Thomas, I as director look at the card. If it says RKC, then I rule misbid and do not protect the opponents. End of story. #1 implies that I need to look into what the 5H bidder was thinking. If the 5H bidder never knew this part of the convention, then misexplanation. If the 5H once knew this part of the convention but forgot, then how do I rule? Does it depend on when he forgot? Example #2. .... 4NT P 5H This time, the 5H bidder knew RKC and was showing two controls and denying the queen of trumps. But 5H was explained to the opponents as just showing two controls, with no mention made about the queen of trumps. Explainer was muddled about the convention; for the sake of example, let us say he never knew that part of the convention. Was this a misexplanation? Let's suppose it is. Then I have to ask what the defenders would have done if they had received the correct explanation. According to your #1, the correct explanation is "two controls, no agreement about the queen of trumps". There of course also is no agreement about the jack of trumps. So we can shorten this to "two controls". So, according to #1, the explainer has given the correct explanation when he left out the information about the queen of trump. Or if the explanation had been 'two controls and shows the queen of trumps', then it is definitely mistaken explanation in anyone's interpretation. According to #1, the director has to discover what would have happened if the defenders had been given no information about the queen of trumps. I always have been deciding what would have happened if the opponents had been given the correct RKC explanation. From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Sep 18 15:23:15 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:23:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <8CD24C408B686B6-1568-4A68@webmail-d015.sysops.aol.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be><8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> <8CD24A68F49A54F-1F88-1B98@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> <4C93CB3D.3090100@gmail.com> <8CD24C408B686B6-1568-4A68@webmail-d015.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4C94BD43.3090508@comcast.net> On 9/17/10 5:11 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > Meanwhile, we should also correct the omission in > the Laws by permitting the TD to assess any penalty for anything he > regards as against the spirit of the game, or even ... dishonourable > practice. Regardless of whether it breaks any Laws. > _ Oh, goody!...and why stop there? Let's extend this principle to the heads of all of our states! I can just picture the marvelous societies this will lead to. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 18 15:49:05 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:49:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement? In-Reply-To: <31398774.1284802383852.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <26658525.1284569231433.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <31398774.1284802383852.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 05:33:03 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> Argh, I forgot to ask my other question. You get to this auction... >> >> >> 4NT P 5H(1) >> >> (1) explained as denying the queen of trumps when in fact the player has >> the queen of trumps. The opps are damaged. > > And, of course you assume that opponents have been informed > one way or another that 5H denies the queen. > >> As I understand your position, which is quite reasonable, your ruling >> depends on the player's beliefs when he made the agreement RKC. > > It depends on what their partnership understandings are. > >> If the player thought at the time that it denied the queen and then >> forgot >> somewhere along the way, you rule that 5H is a misbid. >> If the player did not know at the time that 5H denied the queen, then >> you rule for mistaken >> explanation. > > I think you are on the wrong track. It does not matter much what > he thought at some point what their agreements were, other > than as soft evidence to what their agreements actually are. > > When investigating whether there was MI, the TD has > to find out what their actual agreements were. Evidence > might come as convention cards, detailed written system notes, > or statements the players make to the TD. And, of course, > the fact that the information provided to opponents did > not match the hand that made the bid also is evidence. > > The OS has to provide evidence that convinces the TD > that the information provided to opponents was correct. > If the OS cannot provide sufficient evidence to convince the TD, > the TD will normally rule MI. This seems like a general tutorial. Am I missing something? So how would you rule for this particular situation? The card says RKC. The players agreed on RKC and did not discuss it further. (After all, what is there to discuss?) The player responded 5H with the queen of trump. His awareness at the time was that this just showed 2 controls and said nothing about the queen of trumps. (In other words, it was not a mispull.) His partner explained 5H as denying the queen of hearts, which of course is standard RKC. The opponents claim damage from a misleading explanation. You decide that they would likely have defended better had they been told that 5H was just two controls and nothing was said about the queen of trumps. Bob From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Sep 19 02:54:34 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:54:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4C955F4A.2060407@nhcc.net> On 9/17/2010 8:22 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > A discus thrower intends to take a banned steroid, but instead takes a > permitted glucose supplement by mistake. Criminal law has various crimes such as conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, and murder, which in some jurisdictions comes in various degrees and perhaps with "special circumstances." I don't know how the doping control regulations are written, but I'd expect them to have provisions for an attempt to cheat. If not, there may be nothing to be done except to warn the competitor and test more often. > Well, let us say that the organising committee carelessly leaves some > hand records lying around, and I accidentally see them. ... > Now, I do not have any UI, as the information I had was not about a > board I was playing or was yet to play (Law 16C), As others have said, there's probably no score adjustment. However, you may very well be liable under the conduct regulations of your governing body. I'd expect regulations to cover this situation but haven't looked at any actual documents to see whether they do or not. The real point, though, is that not everything is covered in TFLB, but most RAs have additional regulations, especially for conduct offenses. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 19 03:56:20 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <4C955F4A.2060407@nhcc.net> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> <4C955F4A.2060407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <257426.9629.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Steve Wilner] As others have said, there's probably no score adjustment. However, you may very well be liable under the conduct regulations of your governing body. I'd expect regulations to cover this situation but haven't looked at any actual documents to see whether they do or not. The real point, though, is that not everything is covered in TFLB, but most RAs have additional regulations, especially for conduct offenses. [Nigel] Yes. Why should the WBFLC waste scarce resources, framing global law when they can delegate responsibility, thus encouraging a variety of interesting regulations form local regulators brave enough to take up the challenge :) From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 06:41:56 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 00:41:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <257426.9629.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> <4C955F4A.2060407@nhcc.net> <257426.9629.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C959494.5080507@gmail.com> On 9/18/2010 9:56 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Steve Wilner] > > As others have said, there's probably no score adjustment. However, you > may very well be liable under the conduct regulations of your governing > body. I'd expect regulations to cover this situation but haven't looked > at any actual documents to see whether they do or not. The real point, > though, is that not everything is covered in TFLB, but most RAs have > additional regulations, especially for conduct offenses. > > [Nigel] > Yes. Why should the WBFLC waste scarce resources, framing global law when they > can delegate responsibility, thus encouraging a variety of interesting > regulations form local regulators brave enough to take up the challenge :) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml The Laws could be clearer. We all know that. If there is an actual infraction or irregularity, the Laws tell us what to do. However, the Laws also are written with the presumption that players will adhere to the Laws. When a player goes outside of the scope of the Laws, there is no real alternative but to get that player out of the game. Note that I'm talking about a player who has knowledge of the Laws, knows what do to in a given situation as defined by Laws, and elects to deviate from that procedure in order to improve his score. If you do need a Law for your scenario, there are several that apply. We're now talking about your scenario where a player believes that he has UI and attempts to use it to his advantage, but later discovers that the UI was not relevant to the hand in question. If a player has UI, and this player believes that he does, the Laws to prescribe procedures that must be followed. Failure to follow procedure in L16C1 is a violation in an of itself. There is no requirement in Law that the UI be true or accurate. If the player has UI relevant to a board to be played, he must notify the TD. During the period where the player believes that he has actual UI, correct procedure is to notify the TD. See 72A, 72B1, and also 74A3. Once the player has failed to follow correct procedure, it no longer matters that his belief that he has UI is incorrect (except that grounds for adjustment may be missing). The intentional deviation from correct procedure becomes in infraction of its own, and one that is far more severe than a L16 violation. Even if it should turn out, as it did in your example, that in fact L16 did not apply, there was still a violation of correct procedure during the period from the time the player received the "UI" and the time that the TD was actually called. An attempt to cheat does not have to succeed to be actionable. The requirement to follow correct procedure is enforceable under the present Laws. Hirsch From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 19 12:44:32 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:44:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <4C959494.5080507@gmail.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> <4C955F4A.2060407@nhcc.net> <257426.9629.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C959494.5080507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3288.16883.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Hirsch Davis] Even if it should turn out, as it did in your example, that in fact L16 did not apply, there was still a violation of correct procedure during the period from the time the player received the "UI" and the time that the TD was actually called. {Nigel] Paul reasonably claims that "UI" (in quotes) isn't UI so the player isn't under a legal obligation to report it. I agree that Bridge Law should be changed/clarified so that attempting to break a Bridge Rule is illegal, even if you don't succeed. Perhaps the reason for this omission is that it obviously needs a deterrent penalty, mere "redress" being ineffectual, as usual. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 19 15:27:04 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:27:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <3288.16883.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> <4C955F4A.2060407@nhcc.net> <257426.9629.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C959494.5080507@gmail.com> <3288.16883.qm@web28502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:44:32 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > [Hirsch Davis] > Even if it should turn out, as it did in your example, that in fact L16 > did not > apply, there was still a violation of correct procedure during the > period from > the time the player received the "UI" and the time that the TD was > actually > called. > > {Nigel] > Paul reasonably claims that "UI" (in quotes) isn't UI so the player > isn't under > a legal obligation to report it. I agree that Bridge Law should be > changed/clarified so that attempting to break a Bridge Rule is illegal, > even if > you don't succeed. Perhaps the reason for this omission is that it > obviously > needs a deterrent penalty, mere "redress" being ineffectual, as usual. Maybe there are two questions. One is rectification. If the laws don't provide rectification in this case, I don't think that is a serious issue. In the long run (or in terms of expected values) I am happy if my opponents take low percentage plays based on wrong information. The other is punishment/discipline, presumably by some committee. The laws in general don't prescribe discipline. Right? From gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 20 00:10:06 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:10:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat In-Reply-To: <4C959494.5080507@gmail.com> References: <4C8F30B9.2000807@ulb.ac.be> <8CD247A257E7D5C-AC4-1610D@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com> <4C955F4A.2060407@nhcc.net><257426.9629.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C959494.5080507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CD265E8D35C9C0-1A00-2477D@Webmail-m114.sysops.aol.com> There is no requirement in Law that the UI be true or accurate. There is a requirement that it is about a board that he is playing or due to play. We know that there may be other regulations, of a club, or organisation, by which the player may be punished. And I have already agreed with the right way of handling it - referring it to the C&E. But if the chap committed no infraction of the Laws, then he cannot be punished under the Laws. You indicate that there are several Laws that he has broken. I maintain that he has not broken any. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 20 00:34:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:34:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <790CC1DD-C2BC-43A9-98E0-282C9D2BF374@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Lehnsherr: "Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?" Richard Hills: [snip] >>Even if A and B do have a pre-existing mutual explicit or >>implicit partnership understanding about "x", on rare occasions >>A and B simultaneously have the same temporary memory lapse, >>both believing "x" has meaning Q, when "x" actually has meaning >>R. In that case, A explaining "x" as meaning Q is still >>misinformation. Eric Landau: >One could argue that if A and B both believe that "x" means Q, >and explain it as Q, even though this may be misinformation, it >cannot, as a matter of logic, cause damage, so that as a >practical matter their actual agreement as to the meaning of >"x" doesn't matter. Richard Hills: There is a flaw in Eric's logic. In the 1989 Venice Cup a pair was playing a very complicated variant of Blackwood. South forgot her system, so she therefore gave the wrong response to her partner's enquiry. In response to her screenmate's question, the forgetful South incorrectly described her partnership agreement, but correctly described her own cards. This influenced her screenmate to select the wrong opening lead against the ensuing slam, while a correct explanation of partnership agreement (despite being an incorrect explanation of South's cards) would have made the killing lead more likely. Thus the Appeals Committee partially adjusted the score, granting 6 imps to the non-offending side. What's the problem? 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 Mon Sep 20 00:53:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:53:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD265E8D35C9C0-1A00-2477D@Webmail-m114.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >...You indicate that there are several Laws that he has >broken. I maintain that he has not broken any. Law 72A: "...complying with the lawful procedures and _ethical standards_ set out in these laws." Richard Hills: Infracting a Law is not complying with Lawful procedures. Intentionally attempting to infract a Law is not complying with the ethical standards set out in the Lawbook. What's the problem? 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 Mon Sep 20 02:02:13 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:02:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran: [snip] >>I explained that our agreement was Capeletti. Unfortunately, the >>conventions was unknown to our opponents, who wanted to know what >>my partner's overcall actually meant. I had to tell them I didn't >>know, since I wasn't sure. But I volunteered to leave the table >>and let partner explain it to them. Law 20F1, third sentence: "Except on the _instruction of the Director_ replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." Richard Hills: Unless Harald was the playing Director, or unless the 1997 Lawbook was in effect at the time (since the corresponding part of the 1997 Law 20F1 did not mention the Director), Harald incorrectly chose to voluntarily leave the table. Robert Frick: >That's what I did too. But according to Richard and Grattan, >partner's correct explanation is the same as mine -- we have no >agreement. [snip] Law 75C, second sentence: "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." Richard Hills: Partner A: Do you agree to play the Cappelletti convention? Partner B: Yes. Partner B: (Thinks to self) I believe that Cappelletti is a synonym for remontant. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: remontant, n. An alpinist who returns to the scene of the climb. Richard Hills: If someone never understood the meaning of Cappelletti nor the meaning of remontant, then that someone cannot have a pre-existing mutual explicit partnership understanding about the meaning of Cappelletti (nor can that someone have a pre-existing singular understanding about the meaning of remontant). 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 Mon Sep 20 03:21:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:21:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Oedipus Rex [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Beneschan, July 2005: >>Off the top of my head, there doesn't appear to be much difference >>between starting with a low trump from hand, and starting with the >>jack, planning to take a second finesse if it goes J-K-A-(10 or 9). >> >>The first method picks up K, K10, K9, K4; the second picks up K104, >>K94, K10, K9. The second method might be better, but only by a >>really tiny fraction. I haven't worked it all out, and I could >>easily be wrong. Richard Hills, July 2005: >"A priori" the first method is slightly better (by a margin of less >than 1%) than the second method. However, the "a posteriori" odds >are different if one assumes that East's vul-vs-not 3H preempt >promises a seven-card suit. The "a posteriori" odds give the second >method a clearcut edge over the first method. David Grabiner, July 2005 It's not quite that easy. The second method does have an edge, but you have to work out the odds more carefully because of a complication below. Richard Hills, July 2005 >The complete deal: > > AQ87 > AK8 > KJ5 > QT9 >K4 T9 >4 QJ976532 >T987632 4 >J86 K5 > J6532 > T > AQ > A7432 > >The superior "a posteriori" line would have failed, but declarer >(the second-best player at the club) took the inferior "a priori" >line to successfully draw trumps. > >The declarer then took the expert line of now guaranteeing their >contract by eliminating the red suits before running the queen of >clubs from dummy. David Grabiner, July 2005: And this club endplay would not necessarily have been possible had declarer run the SJ, even if he could pick up the trumps. At trick two, declarer leads a diamond to the ace. He runs the SJ, West plays the SK, and East plays the S9. Now, if declarer reenters his hand with a diamond, and East falsecarded from 94 of spades, the diamond may get ruffed. If declarer reenters his hand with a club, and East actually has the stiff S9, then there is no endplay if East has KJx of clubs, as the ace is gone. If East has Kx or Jx, there is still an endplay after declarer guesses the clubs wrong. Thus, if declarer runs the SJ and returns to hand with a club for the second finesse, he goes down if East has (T or 9) QJxxxxxx x KJx (and also (T4 or 94) QJxxxxxx xxx -, but that's unlikely with no Lightner double). If declarer finesses the SQ and picks up the trump suit, he always makes. Now, which is more likely? I have to count it out. Given that East has eight hearts, how many choices of the other five cards allow declarer to make? There are a total of 6188 cases (17 choose 5), of which 792 (13 choose 5) are unlikely because they give East a club void and a likely Lightner double. (It doesn't matter whether we throw out the diamond voids or not, since East will ruff the second trick if he is void in diamonds.) Finesse the SQ: T94 of spades, one diamond, one club: 40 cases. T94 of spades, two diamonds, no club: 28 unlikely cases. xx of spades, one diamond, two clubs: 240 cases. xx of spades, two diamonds, one club: 420 cases. xx of spades, three diamonds, no club: 168 unlikely cases. Total: 700 likely, 168 unlikely cases. Run the SJ, reenter hand with a club: T4/94 of spades, one diamond, two clubs: 160 cases. T4/94 of spades, two diamonds, one club: 280 cases. T/9 of spades, three diamonds, one club: 560 cases. T/9 of spades, two diamonds, two clubs: 560 cases. T/9 of spades, one diamond, three clubs not KJx: 112 cases. Total: 1672 cases. So running the SJ is still twice as likely to work as finessing the SQ, despite the possible lost club endplay. Richard Hills, July 2005: >Given the expertise of declarer, would their line of play be >sufficient evidence to support an accusation by an opponent that >declarer infracted the anti-peeking Law 74C5? > >How would you rule? > >Of course, in real life, I was declarer, and turned white when I >saw East's nine of spades on the first round of trumps, realising >too late my "a posteriori" anti-percentage blunder. > >:-) 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 Mon Sep 20 04:15:54 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:15:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:02:13 -0400, wrote: > Harald Skj?ran: > > [snip] > >>> I explained that our agreement was Capeletti. Unfortunately, the >>> conventions was unknown to our opponents, who wanted to know what >>> my partner's overcall actually meant. I had to tell them I didn't >>> know, since I wasn't sure. But I volunteered to leave the table >>> and let partner explain it to them. > > Law 20F1, third sentence: > > "Except on the _instruction of the Director_ replies should be > given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." > > Richard Hills: > > Unless Harald was the playing Director, or unless the 1997 Lawbook > was in effect at the time (since the corresponding part of the 1997 > Law 20F1 did not mention the Director), Harald incorrectly chose to > voluntarily leave the table. > > Robert Frick: > >> That's what I did too. But according to Richard and Grattan, >> partner's correct explanation is the same as mine -- we have no >> agreement. > > [snip] > > Law 75C, second sentence: > > "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an > accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no > claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." Yes, but this begs the question. > > Richard Hills: > > Partner A: Do you agree to play the Cappelletti convention? > Partner B: Yes. > Partner B: (Thinks to self) I believe that Cappelletti is a > synonym for remontant. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > remontant, n. An alpinist who returns to the scene of the climb. > > Richard Hills: > > If someone never understood the meaning of Cappelletti nor the > meaning of remontant, then that someone cannot have a pre-existing > mutual explicit partnership understanding about the meaning of > Cappelletti (nor can that someone have a pre-existing singular > understanding about the meaning of remontant). Yes, but maybe you are missing the point. My partner agreed to Capelletti. He knew what it meant. He bid his hand correctly. Now *he* is allowed to tell the opponents we have no agreement? You seem to be stating an opinion as if it was fact. The question is if I have agreed on the meaning of the 2D overcall when I agreed to Cappelletti. I thought I did. My partner thought I did. Almost everyone would rule that way. You certainly are welcome to a different opinion. Suppose someone agrees to follow the Geneva Convention. What have they agreed to if they don't know what it is? Hmm, people cannot agree to follow the rules of bridge unless they know what those rules are? I am trying to make the point that at least sometimes people are agreeing to more than they understand. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 20 04:45:52 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 02:45:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <736698.33820.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Dictionary] Cappelletti = small circular or square cases of dough with savoury fillings From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 20 05:53:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:53:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >Yes, but maybe you are missing the point. Richard Hills: No, it seems to me that Bob is missing the point. From his postings on this and parallel threads it seems to me that Bob visualises the Cappelletti convention as a Platonic ideal, existing ab ovo without any requirement for a pre- existing mutual partnership understanding. Robert Frick: >My partner agreed to Capelletti. He knew what it meant. He >bid his hand correctly. Richard Hills: No, technically Bob's partner bid his hand randomly, choosing a meaningless call, since Bob did not have a pre- existing understanding about what Cappelletti meant. Robert Frick: >Now *he* is allowed to tell the opponents we have no >agreement? Richard Hills: Bob's partner is _required_ to tell the opponents that there is not any pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. A unilateral understanding by one partner is not a mutual understanding of both partners. Robert Frick: >You seem to be stating an opinion as if it was fact. Richard Hills: It is a fact that the legal explanation for a pre- existing (but temporarily forgotten) mutual partnership understanding differs from the legal explanation for a never-existing (so impossible to forget) mutual partnership non-understanding. Robert Frick: [snip] >Suppose someone agrees to follow the Geneva Convention. >What have they agreed to if they don't know what it is? Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 22nd February 2006: "It cannot in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be classified as slavery in the extreme acceptance of the word without some risk of terminological inexactitude." Richard Hills: If I said, "I agree to follow the Geneva Conventions," when I had no idea what they were, then that would be a terminological inexactitude, _not_ an agreement. Of course I might still accidentally obey a Geneva Convention by avoiding genocide, but an accident is not an agreement. Robert Frick: >Hmm, people cannot agree to follow the rules of bridge >unless they know what those rules are? Richard Hills: Almost every bridge player agrees to play Duplicate Bridge with a favourite partner, but does _not_ agree to abide by each clause of all 93 Laws of the 2007 Lawbook, since almost every bridge player has not memorised every word in the Laws. That is why all Duplicate Bridge tournaments have a Director, with players having a much weaker agreement to call "Director!" when an error needs to be fixed. Robert Frick: >I am trying to make the point that at least sometimes >people are agreeing to more than they understand. Richard Hills: False logic. If _both_ partners do not have a mutual understanding, then "I agree" is merely empty words, a terminological inexactitude. 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 Mon Sep 20 07:42:23 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:42:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C955F4A.2060407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Jonathan Swift (1667-1745): "The stoical scheme of supplying our wants, by lopping off our desires, is like cutting off our feat when we want shoes." Steve Willner: [big snip] >The real point, though, is that not everything is covered in >TFLB, but most RAs have additional regulations, especially for >conduct offenses. Richard Hills: I beg to differ. In my opinion Regulating Authorities cannot arbitrarily create new conduct offences. In my opinion RA regulations must be based upon Laws in the 2007 Lawbook. So, for example, if an RA wished to create a regulation pursuant to Law 91B: "The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for ***cause***, subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer." the RA would be constrained by the word "cause", thus being prevented from creating a conduct regulation which permitted contestants to be frivolously disqualified. Of course, an intentional attempt to cheat lacks frivolity, so would indeed be a "cause" for disqualification. 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 Mon Sep 20 07:49:40 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 01:49:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:53:14 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> Yes, but maybe you are missing the point. > > Richard Hills: > > No, it seems to me that Bob is missing the point. From his > postings on this and parallel threads it seems to me that > Bob visualises the Cappelletti convention as a Platonic > ideal, existing ab ovo without any requirement for a pre- > existing mutual partnership understanding. > > Robert Frick: > >> My partner agreed to Capelletti. He knew what it meant. He >> bid his hand correctly. > > Richard Hills: > > No, technically Bob's partner bid his hand randomly, > choosing a meaningless call, since Bob did not have a pre- > existing understanding about what Cappelletti meant. > > Robert Frick: > >> Now *he* is allowed to tell the opponents we have no >> agreement? > > Richard Hills: > > Bob's partner is _required_ to tell the opponents that > there is not any pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding. A unilateral understanding by one > partner is not a mutual understanding of both partners. > > Robert Frick: > >> You seem to be stating an opinion as if it was fact. > > Richard Hills: > > It is a fact that the legal explanation for a pre- > existing (but temporarily forgotten) mutual partnership > understanding differs from the legal explanation for a > never-existing (so impossible to forget) mutual > partnership non-understanding. > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> Suppose someone agrees to follow the Geneva Convention. >> What have they agreed to if they don't know what it is? > > Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 22nd February 2006: > > "It cannot in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be > classified as slavery in the extreme acceptance of the > word without some risk of terminological inexactitude." > > Richard Hills: > > If I said, "I agree to follow the Geneva Conventions," > when I had no idea what they were, then that would be a > terminological inexactitude, _not_ an agreement. > > Of course I might still accidentally obey a Geneva > Convention by avoiding genocide, but an accident is not > an agreement. > > Robert Frick: > >> Hmm, people cannot agree to follow the rules of bridge >> unless they know what those rules are? > > Richard Hills: > > Almost every bridge player agrees to play Duplicate > Bridge with a favourite partner, but does _not_ agree to > abide by each clause of all 93 Laws of the 2007 Lawbook, > since almost every bridge player has not memorised > every word in the Laws. That is why all Duplicate > Bridge tournaments have a Director, with players having > a much weaker agreement to call "Director!" when an > error needs to be fixed. > > Robert Frick: > >> I am trying to make the point that at least sometimes >> people are agreeing to more than they understand. > > Richard Hills: > > False logic. If _both_ partners do not have a mutual > understanding, then "I agree" is merely empty words, a > terminological inexactitude. You seem to be saying the same thing as Grattan, (except much more regally). So you have the same two "problems". One is that you greatly complicate the task of ruling misbid. 1NT 2S(1) (1) described as showing spades and a minor. Capelletti is clearly marked on the card, but the player has just spades. Using your ideas (formerly called opinions), I have to learn whether or not the player understood the Capelletti convention when he made the agreement. You also complicate the task of rectification 1NT 2S(1) described as showing spades but the player has spades and a minor and Capelletti is clearly marked on their card. To assess damage, I would need to know what the players would have done differently had they been told "no agreement". You also have a small problem that you focus on the time of agreement. So if I agree on Capelletti with my partner but don't know what it is, then I have no agreement. What if in the future I learn Capelletti. Do I still have no agreement? Meanwhile, suppose my partner wants to play Capelletti, I agree, he explains it to me, and I understand it for a second but not well enough that I have any chance of remembering it. So the ruling will depend on the player's exact mental state at the time he made the agreement. Unless when I sit down to play and read our card from last time that counts as renewing our agreement. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 20 08:12:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:12:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5F695ECD3E8C45219F3A4747B7541324@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Admiral John Arbuthnot Fisher (1841-1920): Never contradict. Never explain. Never apologise. Marvin French: >...Applying "weak" to known weak players and "strong" to known >strong players leaves the others (probably a large majority) in >the unknown column... Richard Hills: Not necessarily. Last Sunday eighteen teams contested a Swiss Teams at the Canberra Bridge Club, with all seventy-two players very well known to the Director. Six matches of eight boards each, using the WBF 25-0 victory point scale. One team's first five results were: 25, 23, 25, 25, 20 Not surprisingly that team was 31 vps ahead of second place entering the final round, mathematically certain to win. But they lost their final match 13-17, permitting their opponents to receive a third place consolation prize. Did the winners illegally (under an Aussie regulation) play misere in the final round? No. As it happened, third place was taken by the top seed, the core of a team which had recently decisively won the Aussie Interstate Seniors Teams. But Jeff Rubens has suggested that, to avoid any invidious rumours, Tournament Organizers of important Swiss Teams events should create Conditions of Contest that give a bye to a team which is mathematically certain to win with a round yet to be played. 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 Mon Sep 20 08:58:38 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:58:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Club Director's Handbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "...The director is advised to encourage his players to call at the time a hesitation occurs..." Marvin French: >Obviously the Handbook has not been revised to include the effects >of the new Laws, which say (in L16B3) the Director "should be >called when play ends." Despite the fact that the ACBLLC did not >exercise the option to require that the Director be called >immediately in its 2008 version of the Laws, an informal poll of >the LC by Adam shows that its members typically agree with the >policy expressed in this note! Richard Hills: I wonder how many ACBL LC members have regularly and recently directed sessions? Any Director could tell you that if the above Handbook policy was fully implemented by ACBL players (who fortunately are too sensible to do so), the number of Directors required to run a session would double or triple. If West hesitates and East obeys Law 73C, calling the Director immediately wastes time, and calling the Director at the end of play is unnecessary. Even if East infracts Law 73C, there is a significant chance that East will shoot herself in the foot, leaving the non-offending side undamaged, and again a Director call is an unnecessary waste of time. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 20 09:34:35 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:34:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Admiral John Arbuthnot Fisher (1841-1920): > > Never contradict. > Never explain. > Never apologise. > > Marvin French: > >>...Applying "weak" to known weak players and "strong" to known >>strong players leaves the others (probably a large majority) in >>the unknown column... > > Richard Hills: > > Not necessarily. Last Sunday eighteen teams contested a Swiss > Teams at the Canberra Bridge Club, with all seventy-two players > very well known to the Director. > > Six matches of eight boards each, using the WBF 25-0 victory > point scale. One team's first five results were: > > 25, 23, 25, 25, 20 > > Not surprisingly that team was 31 vps ahead of second place > entering the final round, mathematically certain to win. > > But they lost their final match 13-17, permitting their > opponents to receive a third place consolation prize. Did the > winners illegally (under an Aussie regulation) play misere in > the final round? > > No. > > As it happened, third place was taken by the top seed, the > core of a team which had recently decisively won the Aussie > Interstate Seniors Teams. > > But Jeff Rubens has suggested that, to avoid any invidious > rumours, Tournament Organizers of important Swiss Teams events > should create Conditions of Contest that give a bye to a > team which is mathematically certain to win with a round yet > to be played. > > > 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 20 09:50:59 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:50:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be><3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net><2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> Message-ID: <783914842F594B9BA7FA98B3E86E0624@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 10:51 AM Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:59:07 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > > > >> +=+ [Grattan, opinion} >> I have not read through the emails on this topic, so >> I do not know who has said what. >> My independently expressed view is: >> 1. If partners agree to play 'x' but this means different >> things to partner B from what it means to partner A, >> they do not have a partnership understanding. >> 2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently >> from the way the latter understands and has used 'x', >> then A has given misinformation. >> 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. +=+ > > 5H is described as 2 controls and denying the queen of trumps. That's what it should be in RKC (at least here). The 5H bidder in fact has the queen of trumps. The opponents claim damage. To quote or paraphrase Thomas, I as director look at the card. If it says RKC, then I rule misbid and do not protect the opponents. End of story. > +=+ System Card regulations may specify, of course, how certain conventions are to be understood if entered on the card simply as a name. ~ G ~ +=+ From gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 20 11:57:27 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:57:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> Infracting a Law is not complying with Lawful procedures. Intentionally attempting to infract a Law is not complying with the ethical standards set out in the Lawbook. Which Law did he infract and how? Which ethical standard *set out in the Lawbook* did he not comply with? We all know attempting to cheat should be punished, and I am only playing Devil's advocate. If attempting to cheat is "cause" one would expect there to be a Law proscribing it. From gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 20 12:02:56 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:02:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CD26C221C8F022-1930-2C98A@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> Capelletti is clearly marked on the card In which case they have no agreement, although one might guess they were playing Cappelletti, named after Mike Cappelletti. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 20 12:27:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:27:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <783914842F594B9BA7FA98B3E86E0624@Mildred> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <783914842F594B9BA7FA98B3E86E0624@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > "" I thought of it by day and dreamed of it by night."" > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 10:51 AM > Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) > > >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:59:07 -0400, Grattan >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> +=+ [Grattan, opinion} >>> I have not read through the emails on this topic, so >>> I do not know who has said what. >>> My independently expressed view is: >>> 1. If partners agree to play 'x' but this means different >>> things to partner B from what it means to partner A, >>> they do not have a partnership understanding. >>> 2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently >>> from the way the latter understands and has used 'x', >>> then A has given misinformation. I am not sure what you mean by #2. 2NT P 4C P 4D... In this actual example from Saturday, 4D was described as showing all or none of the aces -- a response to Gerber However, the player bidding 4D did not understand 4D as meaning anything about aces. He was just trying to keep the bidding open. Does that mean the aces explanation is misinformation? You seem to be saying yes. (The 4D bidder did not recognize 4C as Gerber until the auction was over. Everyone here would pretty much agree that 4C is Gerber on this auction, the player merely had a blind moment; that is the player's self-report.) Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 20 13:27:05 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:27:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:53:14 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> Yes, but maybe you are missing the point. > > Richard Hills: > > No, it seems to me that Bob is missing the point. From his > postings on this and parallel threads it seems to me that > Bob visualises the Cappelletti convention as a Platonic > ideal, existing ab ovo without any requirement for a pre- > existing mutual partnership understanding. True! I think that the Cappelletti convention exists before my partner and I agree to play it. Maybe that is the source of our disagreement? > > Robert Frick: > >> My partner agreed to Capelletti. He knew what it meant. He >> bid his hand correctly. > > Richard Hills: > > No, technically Bob's partner bid his hand randomly, > choosing a meaningless call, since Bob did not have a pre- > existing understanding about what Cappelletti meant. I really am not interested in "technically" or "hypothetically". I have to rule on guises of this issue very frequently. In reality, no one would describe my partner as bidding randomly if he agrees on Capelletti and then follows Capalletti. > > Robert Frick: > >> Now *he* is allowed to tell the opponents we have no >> agreement? > > Richard Hills: > > Bob's partner is _required_ to tell the opponents that > there is not any pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding. A unilateral understanding by one > partner is not a mutual understanding of both partners. And you think everyone agrees with this position? That he does not have to tell the opponents the meaning of his 2D bid according to the Capelletti convention which is on his card? > > Robert Frick: > >> You seem to be stating an opinion as if it was fact. > Let me set out another problem with your interpretation. I once agreed to learn Precision from the book my partner uses. Our partnership agreement was to follow the book. You are saying that I cannot agree to follow parts of the book that I do not remember when I make the agreement? That seems odd. And I assume that if Meckstroth and Rodwell sit down to play and agree to play their system notes, that agreement has precedence over their previous agreements. So any issues of misinformation will hinge on whether or not they remember that part of their system notes when they make that agreement? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 20 13:33:03 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:33:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD26C221C8F022-1930-2C98A@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD26C221C8F022-1930-2C98A@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:02:56 -0400, wrote: > > Capelletti is clearly marked on the card > > > In which case they have no agreement, although one might guess they > were playing Cappelletti, named after Mike Cappelletti. They assume that at their own risk, of course. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 20 14:25:04 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <398465.19762.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Robert Frick] My partner agreed to Capelletti. He knew what it meant. He bid his hand correctly. [Richard Hills] No, technically Bob's partner bid his hand randomly, choosing a meaningless call, since Bob did not have a pre- existing understanding about what Cappelletti meant. Bob's partner is _required_ to tell the opponents that there is not any pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. A unilateral understanding by one partner is not a mutual understanding of both partners. {Nigel] IMO: If two people agree to abide by the Geneva Convention or to play Cappelletti or whatever then that is their agreement, even if neither acquaint themselves with what they've agreed. Try this "thought experiment": Would an ordinary court relieve me of my obligations under an agreement because I couldn't be bothered to read it? Hence, for example, opponents should be able to trust your system-card. If you make a mistake, it is your mistake and opponents shouldn't suffer for it. If you notice that an understandings differs from what is on the card, just alter the card. Simple :) From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Sep 20 14:28:41 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:28:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Plea for descriptive thread titles Message-ID: Any chance that we could try to maintain some degree of linkage between 1. The title of threads 2. The contents there of I have neither the time nor the inclination to read each and every BLML thread that arrives in my inbox. In theory, it would be nice if I could scan the title of a thread and draw a useful inference regarding the contents. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100920/03e8d085/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 20 15:45:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:45:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> Message-ID: <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> On Sep 18, 2010, at 5:51 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > 4NT P 5H > > This time, the 5H bidder knew RKC and was showing two controls and > denying > the queen of trumps. But 5H was explained to the opponents as just > showing > two controls, with no mention made about the queen of trumps. > Explainer > was muddled about the convention; for the sake of example, let us > say he > never knew that part of the convention. > > Was this a misexplanation? Let's suppose it is. Then I have to ask > what > the defenders would have done if they had received the correct > explanation. According to your #1, the correct explanation is "two > controls, no agreement about the queen of trumps". There of course > also is > no agreement about the jack of trumps. So we can shorten this to "two > controls". > > So, according to #1, the explainer has given the correct > explanation when > he left out the information about the queen of trump. > > Or if the explanation had been 'two controls and shows the queen of > trumps', then it is definitely mistaken explanation in anyone's > interpretation. According to #1, the director has to discover what > would > have happened if the defenders had been given no information about the > queen of trumps. I always have been deciding what would have > happened if > the opponents had been given the correct RKC explanation. Does it matter? The key determination is whether the player without the trump queen might have defended more successfully had he been aware of the possibility that his partner might hold it. Since the benefit of the doubt in such determinations goes to the NOS, we will presume him to have "guessed" (successfully) to play his partner for it, as he well might have done. The adjudicated result will be the same as it would have been had we presumed that he "knew" where the trump queen was. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 20 16:07:07 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:07:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 19, 2010, at 6:34 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> Even if A and B do have a pre-existing mutual explicit or >>> implicit partnership understanding about "x", on rare occasions >>> A and B simultaneously have the same temporary memory lapse, >>> both believing "x" has meaning Q, when "x" actually has meaning >>> R. In that case, A explaining "x" as meaning Q is still >>> misinformation. > > Eric Landau: > >> One could argue that if A and B both believe that "x" means Q, >> and explain it as Q, even though this may be misinformation, it >> cannot, as a matter of logic, cause damage, so that as a >> practical matter their actual agreement as to the meaning of >> "x" doesn't matter. > > Richard Hills: > > There is a flaw in Eric's logic. > > In the 1989 Venice Cup a pair was playing a very complicated > variant of Blackwood. South forgot her system, so she therefore > gave the wrong response to her partner's enquiry. > > In response to her screenmate's question, the forgetful South > incorrectly described her partnership agreement, but correctly > described her own cards. This influenced her screenmate to > select the wrong opening lead against the ensuing slam, while a > correct explanation of partnership agreement (despite being an > incorrect explanation of South's cards) would have made the > killing lead more likely. > > Thus the Appeals Committee partially adjusted the score, > granting 6 imps to the non-offending side. > > What's the problem? The problem at the time was the large number of knowledgeable players conversant with the incident, likely a majority, who were convinced that the committee had totally lost its mind. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 20 16:38:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:38:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58F66883-36A6-4C32-BEBD-E54181AB2DA1@starpower.net> On Sep 20, 2010, at 1:49 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:53:14 -0400, wrote: > >> Robert Frick: >> >>> Yes, but maybe you are missing the point. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> No, it seems to me that Bob is missing the point. From his >> postings on this and parallel threads it seems to me that >> Bob visualises the Cappelletti convention as a Platonic >> ideal, existing ab ovo without any requirement for a pre- >> existing mutual partnership understanding. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>> My partner agreed to Capelletti. He knew what it meant. He >>> bid his hand correctly. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> No, technically Bob's partner bid his hand randomly, >> choosing a meaningless call, since Bob did not have a pre- >> existing understanding about what Cappelletti meant. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>> Now *he* is allowed to tell the opponents we have no >>> agreement? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Bob's partner is _required_ to tell the opponents that >> there is not any pre-existing mutual partnership >> understanding. A unilateral understanding by one >> partner is not a mutual understanding of both partners. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>> You seem to be stating an opinion as if it was fact. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> It is a fact that the legal explanation for a pre- >> existing (but temporarily forgotten) mutual partnership >> understanding differs from the legal explanation for a >> never-existing (so impossible to forget) mutual >> partnership non-understanding. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >> [snip] >> >>> Suppose someone agrees to follow the Geneva Convention. >>> What have they agreed to if they don't know what it is? >> >> Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 22nd February 2006: >> >> "It cannot in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be >> classified as slavery in the extreme acceptance of the >> word without some risk of terminological inexactitude." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> If I said, "I agree to follow the Geneva Conventions," >> when I had no idea what they were, then that would be a >> terminological inexactitude, _not_ an agreement. >> >> Of course I might still accidentally obey a Geneva >> Convention by avoiding genocide, but an accident is not >> an agreement. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>> Hmm, people cannot agree to follow the rules of bridge >>> unless they know what those rules are? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Almost every bridge player agrees to play Duplicate >> Bridge with a favourite partner, but does _not_ agree to >> abide by each clause of all 93 Laws of the 2007 Lawbook, >> since almost every bridge player has not memorised >> every word in the Laws. That is why all Duplicate >> Bridge tournaments have a Director, with players having >> a much weaker agreement to call "Director!" when an >> error needs to be fixed. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>> I am trying to make the point that at least sometimes >>> people are agreeing to more than they understand. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> False logic. If _both_ partners do not have a mutual >> understanding, then "I agree" is merely empty words, a >> terminological inexactitude. > > You seem to be saying the same thing as Grattan, (except much more > regally). > > So you have the same two "problems". One is that you greatly > complicate > the task of ruling misbid. > > 1NT 2S(1) > > (1) described as showing spades and a minor. Capelletti is clearly > marked > on the card, but the player has just spades. Using your ideas > (formerly > called opinions), I have to learn whether or not the player > understood the > Capelletti convention when he made the agreement. > > You also complicate the task of rectification > > 1NT 2S(1) > > described as showing spades but the player has spades and a minor and > Capelletti is clearly marked on their card. To assess damage, I > would need > to know what the players would have done differently had they been > told > "no agreement". > > You also have a small problem that you focus on the time of > agreement. So > if I agree on Capelletti with my partner but don't know what it is, > then I > have no agreement. What if in the future I learn Capelletti. Do I > still > have no agreement? Meanwhile, suppose my partner wants to play > Capelletti, > I agree, he explains it to me, and I understand it for a second but > not > well enough that I have any chance of remembering it. > > So the ruling will depend on the player's exact mental state at the > time > he made the agreement. Unless when I sit down to play and read our > card > from last time that counts as renewing our agreement. We're talking about two kinds of agreements that are not ony different but logically independent: (1) as to the methods you will use, and (2) as to the name by which you will call those methods. It is misinformation to pretend you have agreement #1 when in fact you have made only agreement #2. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 20 17:02:10 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:02:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] X plane In-Reply-To: <58F66883-36A6-4C32-BEBD-E54181AB2DA1@starpower.net> References: <58F66883-36A6-4C32-BEBD-E54181AB2DA1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C977772.7020001@skynet.be> Has this thread (and the other one) not gone bit off the rails? L75C: the Director is to presume mistaken information ... Let's examine a bit further: In all four cases below, North has made a bid which, when seeing his hand, might make the opponents (and the TD) that he was under the impression he was playing Capeletti Case one: South does not alert and tells afterwards he has forgotten they were playing Capeletti Case two: South does not alert and tells afterwards that he has never played Capeletti and has not agreed to it in this pair Case three: South does not alert and tells afterwards he remembered they were playing Capeletti, but forgot to alert Case four: South does not alert and tells afterwards that he remembered they agreed to play Capeletti, but he does not view the bid partner made as part of that convention. Suppose there is no System Card - do you not agree that the TD's ruling will be misinformation in all four cases? Why then are we discussing whether North and South have an agreement to play Capeletti? We rule as if they have! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From info at honorsbridgeclub.org Mon Sep 20 20:06:50 2010 From: info at honorsbridgeclub.org (Honors Bridge Club) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:06:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim Message-ID: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> Would appreciate help with this ruling Dummy: x - Ax - none - Ax Declarer: Ax - Qx - none - x Declarer on lead in a NT contract claimed stating: "the rest is mine - The spades are good after the last outstanding spade is coming down under my ace, the Ace of clubs is good and the hearts are good" Unfortunately LHO had: x - Kx - none - Kx Do you award the defenders just the last trick or do they also get to score the established CK? RHO had: none - xx - none - QJT Thank you, Honors Bridge Club 133 East 58th Street - 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 230-1230 www.honorsbridgeclub.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100920/d71512c8/attachment.html From henk at rtflb.org Mon Sep 20 21:33:04 2010 From: henk at rtflb.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:33:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim In-Reply-To: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> On 20/09/2010 20:06, Honors Bridge Club wrote: > Would appreciate help with this ruling x Ax -- Ax x -- Kx xx -- -- Kx QJT Ax Qx -- x > Declarer on lead in a NT contract claimed stating: "the rest is mine - The > spades are good after the last outstanding spade is coming down under my > ace, the Ace of clubs is good and the hearts are good" I'd give 1 trick to EW. Declarer does not say which card he discards on the second spade but anything but a club does not make sense (how can he otherwise cash the hearts that he claims to be good?). If he cashes his tricks in the order he says, that results in 1 trick to EW. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Sep 20 21:58:11 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:58:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> Message-ID: Unless my wine-addled mind is just that, an "automatic" trick to EW > On 20/09/2010 20:06, Honors Bridge Club wrote: >> Would appreciate help with this ruling > > x > Ax > -- > Ax > x -- > Kx xx > -- -- > Kx QJT > Ax > Qx > -- > x > >> Declarer on lead in a NT contract claimed stating: "the rest is mine - >> The >> spades are good after the last outstanding spade is coming down under my >> ace, the Ace of clubs is good and the hearts are good" > > I'd give 1 trick to EW. Declarer does not say which card he discards > on the second spade but anything but a club does not make sense (how can > he otherwise cash the hearts that he claims to be good?). If he > cashes his tricks in the order he says, that results in 1 trick to > EW. > > Henk > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org > BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 21 00:04:28 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:04:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim In-Reply-To: <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> Message-ID: "Henk Uijterwaal" writes: > On 20/09/2010 20:06, Honors Bridge Club wrote: >> Would appreciate help with this ruling > > x > Ax > -- > Ax > x -- > Kx xx > -- -- > Kx QJT > Ax > Qx > -- > x > >> Declarer on lead in a NT contract claimed stating: "the rest is mine - The >> spades are good after the last outstanding spade is coming down under my >> ace, the Ace of clubs is good and the hearts are good" > > I'd give 1 trick to EW. Declarer does not say which card he discards > on the second spade but anything but a club does not make sense (how can > he otherwise cash the hearts that he claims to be good?). If he > cashes his tricks in the order he says, that results in 1 trick to > EW. Does his claim imply that he would play the tricks in that order? Normally, I wouldn't assume that in a claim, as there are many claims which are invalid if the tricks are taken in the order stated (for entry reasons) but are clearly correct. On this hand, there are no entry problems, so the order appears to be irrelevant. It would be just as reasonable for declarer to cash the CA, then the two hearts, and then the two spades, in which case he loses two tricks (or three if it is likely that West would unblock the CK; this depends on what West knows about the rest of the hand). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 21 00:54:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:54:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A Plea for descriptive thread titles [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Willey: >Any chance that we could try to maintain some degree of linkage >between > >1.? The title of threads >2.? The contents there of > >I have neither the time nor the inclination to read each and >every BLML thread that arrives in my inbox. >In theory, it would be nice if I could scan the title of a >thread and draw a useful inference regarding the contents. Richard Hills: I agree that my thread title "X plane" is a descriptive pun, while my thread title "Oedipus Rex" was chosen for an obscure and yet to be revealed reason. "Reveley of the Sith" is semi- descriptive, as it refers to a Reveley Ruling, but not every blmler knows what that is. My own bugbear is overly lengthy thread titles, for example the descriptive but not succinct thread title, "When you agree to play a convention, what is your agreement?" 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Sep 21 01:04:33 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:04:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim In-Reply-To: <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> Message-ID: On 20 Sep 2010, at 20:33, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > On 20/09/2010 20:06, Honors Bridge Club wrote: >> Would appreciate help with this ruling > > x > Ax > -- > Ax > x -- > Kx xx > -- -- > Kx QJT > Ax > Qx > -- > x > >> Declarer on lead in a NT contract claimed stating: "the rest is >> mine - The >> spades are good after the last outstanding spade is coming down >> under my >> ace, the Ace of clubs is good and the hearts are good" > > I'd give 1 trick to EW. Declarer does not say which card he discards > on the second spade but anything but a club does not make sense > (how can > he otherwise cash the hearts that he claims to be good?). If he > cashes his tricks in the order he says, that results in 1 trick to > EW. When did he say in which order he was cashing his tricks? From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Sep 21 01:18:39 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:18:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Plea for descriptive thread titles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39F6C3D1-466A-4D99-A2F5-833DBD74996E@btinternet.com> On 20 Sep 2010, at 13:28, richard willey wrote: > Any chance that we could try to maintain some degree of linkage > between > > 1. The title of threads > 2. The contents there of > > I have neither the time nor the inclination to read each and every > BLML thread that arrives in my inbox. > In theory, it would be nice if I could scan the title of a thread > and draw a useful inference regarding the contents. Seconded. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 21 01:20:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:20:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <398465.19762.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO: If two people agree to abide by the Geneva Convention or to play >Cappelletti or whatever then that is their agreement, even if neither >acquaint themselves with what they've agreed. > >Try this "thought experiment": Would an ordinary court relieve me of >my obligations under an agreement because I couldn't be bothered to >read it? [snip] Richard Hills: In the 1997 Law 75 the phrase "partnership agreement" was used. For the 2007 Lawbook, the old 1997 Law 75 became the new 2007 Law 40 (with the old 1997 Law 75 footnote becoming the new 2007 Law 75). As part of the transmogrification of the 1997 Law 75 into the 2007 Law 40, the easily misinterpreted phrase "partnership agreement" was replaced with the clearer phrase "partnership understanding". Ergo, if either or both partners have not acquainted themselves with the Cappelletti Convention, the partnership ipso facto does not have any mutual _understanding_ of the Cappelletti Convention. 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 Tue Sep 21 01:36:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:36:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C977772.7020001@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >...Suppose there is no System Card - do you not agree that the >TD's ruling will be misinformation in all four cases? Richard Hills: No. Herman De Wael: >Why then are we discussing whether North and South >have an agreement to play Cappelletti? We rule as if >they have! Richard Hills: No. A world-class Director will note that Law 85A1 concludes: "...in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." but does NOT conclude: "...in accordance with the weight of the written evidence he observes on the System Card." Only if Law 85's scales of justice are equally weighted does Herman De Wael's favourite Law 21B1(b) take effect. What's the problem? 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 Tue Sep 21 02:13:01 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:13:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Monty Python's Life of Brian: BRIAN: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly! GIRL: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity. BRIAN: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah! FOLLOWERS: He is! He is the Messiah! BRIAN: Now, f**k off! [silence] ARTHUR: How shall we f**k off, O Lord? Richard Hills: >>>No, it seems to me that Bob is missing the point. From his >>>postings on this and parallel threads it seems to me that >>>Bob visualises the Cappelletti convention as a Platonic >>>ideal, existing ab ovo without any requirement for a pre- >>>existing mutual partnership understanding. Robert Frick: >>True! I think that the Cappelletti convention exists before >>my partner and I agree to play it. Maybe that is the source >>of our disagreement? Richard Hills: How shall I f**k off, O Bob? :-) :-) It is true that Cappelletti appears in the majestic tome of conventions compiled by Amalya Kearse. But this is not in any way relevant to Law 40. For the purposes of Law 40A1(a): "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." the Cappelletti convention is evanescently non-existent for Bob's partnership unless and until Bob and his partner have a meeting of minds. Eric Landau: >We're talking about two kinds of agreements that are not only >different but logically independent: (1) as to the methods >you will use, and (2) as to the name by which you will call >those methods. It is misinformation to pretend you have >agreement #1 when in fact you have made only agreement #2. >WTP? Richard Hills: Indeed. For example, there are (at least) two ways to define 2D in "the" Cappelletti convention. Original Cappelletti -> 2D = both majors Modified Cappelletti -> 2D = any single-suiter So if Frick-partner "agreed" to play Cappelletti without any further discussion, with one partner assuming Original and the other partner assuming Modified, then the partnership lacks a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding irregardless of both partners thinking that they did. 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 Tue Sep 21 03:13:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:13:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +=+ And, given a bye, what score do their opponents get? Suppose they need better than the specified award to obtain a prize, are the regulations to deny them their opportunity? ~ G ~ +=+ I think that the Rubens idea was that the would-be opponents of the team certain to win would not also get a bye. Rather, the last-round Swiss draw would be redrawn with the certain-to-win team excluded and all other teams having real opponents (perhaps, for three teams, via a triangular match). My understanding is that for some EBU Swiss Teams a team is permitted, if the Director is given prior notice, to withdraw from the last round if they have a long way to travel home.* Again the EBU Director redraws the last-round Swiss draw, rather than give a still active team a boring forfeit. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets * No such regulation applies in any Aussie Swiss Teams, since it is routine for our players to travel hundreds of kilometres to get a decent weekend of bridge. :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Tue Sep 21 03:56:59 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:56:59 +0800 Subject: [BLML] To the fairest (was Poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > Richard Hills > > * No such regulation applies in any Aussie > Swiss Teams, since it is routine for our > players to travel hundreds of kilometres to > get a decent weekend of bridge. :-) > > The South Coast Bridge Club welcomes overseas visitors to the 2011 Esperance Congress held in Esperance, Western Australia, only 630Km by road from Perth :-) bill > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Tue Sep 21 04:05:59 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:05:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Mae West, Every Day's A Holiday (1937 film): "It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don't break any." Paul Lamford: [snip] >If attempting to cheat is "cause" one would expect there to be >a Law proscribing it. Richard Hills: Or a Definition defining "for cause"? The phrase "for cause" appears twice in the Lawbook. In addition to Law 91B, it also appears in Law 81C5: "...to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." But since the Definitions do not yet define "for cause", the Director, Tournament Organizer and Law and Ethics Committee must instead rely upon a dictionary. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "cause, n. justification (esp. show cause)" 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 hirsch9000 at gmail.com Tue Sep 21 04:48:13 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:48:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4C981CED.6010401@gmail.com> On 9/20/2010 5:57 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > > Infracting a Law is not complying with Lawful procedures. > > Intentionally attempting to infract a Law is not complying > with the ethical standards set out in the Lawbook. > > > Which Law did he infract and how? > > Which ethical standard *set out in the Lawbook* did he not comply with? When a player discovers that he possesses UI prior to the play of a hand, what are his legal and ethical obligations under the Laws? When does he perform these tasks? I'm not talking about the hypothetical case anymore, but rather a real situation with real UI. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 21 05:04:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:04:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Oedipus Rex [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, July 2005: >Given the expertise of declarer, would their line of play be >sufficient evidence to support an accusation by an opponent that >declarer infracted the anti-peeking Law 74C5? > >How would you rule? > >Of course, in real life, I was declarer, and turned white when I >saw East's nine of spades on the first round of trumps, realising >too late my "a posteriori" anti-percentage blunder. > >:-) Richard Hills, September 2010: If: (a) dummy was my mother, and (b) my mother had terminal remontant disease, and (c) my mother wanted to become a Life Master before her life was remastered, and (d) making the slam would ensure her the last few masterpoints required for her title of Life Master, then (e) would I be ethical in infracting the anti-peeking Law 74C5? Edgar Kaplan's answer was Yes and No. In an old Bridge World editorial Edgar discussed the case of a player who cheated in a Calcutta tournament in order to win a significant amount of money. Edgar's argument was it was real-world ethical for that player to pay his mortgage bills, to ensure that his family was not evicted from their home into the cold, cold snow. My answer is No and No. In Edgar's actual case, the Calcutta cheat was committing the real-world crime of stealing. And in my hypothetical case, a title of Life Master gained by cheating is merely empty words, a terminological inexactitude. Instead I would give my hypothetical mother a hypothetical bunch of remontant roses. 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 Tue Sep 21 05:44:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:44:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3D Pass ? (1) 12-14 (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted You, South, hold: A52 K74 KT8 QT75 What logical alternative do you choose? What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? 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 Tue Sep 21 06:04:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:04:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <504183.6113.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, May 2002, Arie's Column Imps Dlr: South Vul: North-South K3 J987 8654 QT6 QJT854 A9762 AKQ3 642 T9 A3 J 873 --- T5 KQJ72 AK9542 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D(1) 1S Dble 4S 5C Pass 5D Pass(2) Pass 5S Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Could contain longer clubs (2) Agreed break in tempo N/S -650. New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen: [snip] >The Director reasoned that this was a >"no brainer". West could not bid 5S >over 5C and therefore Pass or Double >were surely logical alternatives to 5S >after the break in tempo from partner >(Law 16A2). The score was adjusted to 5D >minus one, as per Law 12C2. > >Interestingly, this appeal tied the >Committee in knots. There were five on >the committee and as many honestly held >points of view. The first was adamant >the Director's reasons were sound and >the score should stand. The second felt >Pass or Double were not logical >alternatives because 75% of the field >would always bid 5S in that auction. >The third argued that it was the >correction to 5D by North that had >provided West with sufficient authorized >information to suggest it was now right >to bid 5S rather than one round earlier >over the original 5C. The fourth >reasoned that the hesitation from East >did not demonstrably suggest 5S over >Pass or Double (in fact it could equally >well have been very wrong to bid). The >last one thought there were merits in >all the arguments and held out for a >split score! > >Even the advice from the CTD that this >was a straightforward case of making a >judgment call as to whether or not >approximately 75% the field would bid >5S without the break in tempo did not >help. If it was, E/W get their score >back, if not the Director's ruling >should stay. The committee could not >come to a consensus on any avenue they >went down. After a very long debate and >after everyone else had gone home, they >emerged with a 3-2 decision that the >board should be scored twice. Once with >the Director's adjustment and the once >with the table result before taking the >average of the two! [snip] 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 Tue Sep 21 06:27:26 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:27:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:13:01 -0400, wrote: > Monty Python's Life of Brian: > > BRIAN: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am > not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly! > GIRL: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity. > BRIAN: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? > All right! I am the Messiah! > FOLLOWERS: He is! He is the Messiah! > BRIAN: Now, f**k off! > [silence] > ARTHUR: How shall we f**k off, O Lord? > > Richard Hills: > >>>> No, it seems to me that Bob is missing the point. From his >>>> postings on this and parallel threads it seems to me that >>>> Bob visualises the Cappelletti convention as a Platonic >>>> ideal, existing ab ovo without any requirement for a pre- >>>> existing mutual partnership understanding. > > Robert Frick: > >>> True! I think that the Cappelletti convention exists before >>> my partner and I agree to play it. Maybe that is the source >>> of our disagreement? > > Richard Hills: > > How shall I f**k off, O Bob? :-) :-) > > It is true that Cappelletti appears in the majestic tome of > conventions compiled by Amalya Kearse. But this is not in any > way relevant to Law 40. For the purposes of Law 40A1(a): > > "Partnership understandings as to the methods > adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly > in discussion or implicitly through mutual > experience or awareness of the players." > > the Cappelletti convention is evanescently non-existent for > Bob's partnership unless and until Bob and his partner have a > meeting of minds. If this position was taken seriously... then if two players do not have a meeting of the minds, they do not have an agreement. This occurs, for example, when a player temporarily forgets a convention. This would of course eliminate many if not most of the current director judgments of "misbid". Or, to put this another way "North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off. North explains, however, in answer to West?s inquiry, that South?s bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits." There is no meeting of minds here. Right? From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Tue Sep 21 06:30:16 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:30:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C9834D8.60703@gmail.com> On 9/20/2010 11:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What logical alternative do you choose? > What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > 1) 3N, which I should have bid directly over 1N. 2) There is only one logical alternative that I can see. The most probable explanation that I can see for 3D (in the absence of the alert) is that partner has a long suit and is willing to play 3N if I'm at the top of my call and have some diamond help. I've got both. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 21 07:27:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:27:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>...the Cappelletti convention is evanescently non-existent for >>Bob's partnership unless and until Bob and his partner have a >>meeting of minds... Robert Frick: >If this position was taken seriously... Debate in which protocol is seriously followed (Life of Brian): JUDITH: They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify him! REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion! COMMANDO #1: Yeah. JUDITH: What?! COMMANDO #2: Immediate. COMMANDO #1: Right. LORETTA: New motion? REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action-- FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken. REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act on a resolution till you've voted on it. Robert Frick: >then if two players do not have a meeting of the minds, they do >not have an agreement. This occurs, for example, when a player >temporarily forgets a convention... Richard Hills: A careless misinterpretation of my position. The key word is "until", which sets a point in time. "Until" both partners have a meeting of minds, they do not have a mutual partnership understanding. After that "until" moment they do have a mutual partnership understanding, even if one or both partners _occasionally_ forget that mutual partnership understanding. Only if one or both partners _frequently_ deviate from their old mutual partnership understanding is a new implicit partnership understanding then created. See Law 40C1. Law 75 prologue, second paragraph: "North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off. North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits." Robert Frick: >There is no meeting of minds here. Right? Richard Hills: Wrong. In the two scenarios stipulated in Laws 75B and 75C North-South had indeed come to a meeting of minds about the meaning of a 2D response to 1NT. In Law 75B the stipulated meeting of minds was that 2D was a natural signoff; and in Law 75C the stipulated meeting of minds was that 2D was a strong and artificial ask for major suits. What's the problem? 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 Tue Sep 21 07:42:14 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:42:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim In-Reply-To: References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <4C9845B6.8080603@ripe.net> On 21/09/2010 01:04, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > When did he say in which order he was cashing his tricks? He didn't, so I have to assume something. Declarer specified his tricks in the order spades, clubs and hearts, not one of he 5 other combinations. I don't have any other information, so in the 30 seconds or so that I have to make a ruling, this is my decision. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 21 08:22:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:22:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What 5C do you bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S Pass 1NT(1) 2H 4D Pass ? (1) Semi-forcing You, South, hold: JT 876 KJ62 A843 What 5C do you bid? What 5C do you consider bidding? 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 21 08:37:54 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:37:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim In-Reply-To: <4C9845B6.8080603@ripe.net> References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> <4C9845B6.8080603@ripe.net> Message-ID: 2010/9/21 Henk Uijterwaal : > On 21/09/2010 01:04, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> When did he say in which order he was cashing his tricks? > > He didn't, so I have to assume something. ?Declarer specified his tricks > in the order spades, clubs and hearts, not one of he 5 other combinations. > I don't have any other information, so in the 30 seconds or so that I have > to make a ruling, this is my decision. > > Henk To me this is a straightforward two tricks to the defence. Declarer didn't state any order of cashing his tricks, only which tricks he had. Any order of play is thus logical, and caching the club ace first followed by the hearts is what I rule him to do. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From henk at ripe.net Tue Sep 21 08:41:02 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:41:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim In-Reply-To: References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> <4C9845B6.8080603@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C98537E.5070502@ripe.net> On 21/09/2010 08:37, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2010/9/21 Henk Uijterwaal : >> On 21/09/2010 01:04, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> When did he say in which order he was cashing his tricks? >> >> He didn't, so I have to assume something. Declarer specified his tricks >> in the order spades, clubs and hearts, not one of he 5 other combinations. >> I don't have any other information, so in the 30 seconds or so that I have >> to make a ruling, this is my decision. >> >> Henk > > To me this is a straightforward two tricks to the defence. > Declarer didn't state any order of cashing his tricks, only which tricks he had. > Any order of play is thus logical, and caching the club ace first > followed by the hearts is what I rule him to do. Then why not 3 tricks, west unblocking the CK on the CA? 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 21 08:46:57 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:46:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C9834D8.60703@gmail.com> References: <4C9834D8.60703@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C9854E1.6060405@t-online.de> Am 21.09.2010 06:30, schrieb Hirsch Davis: > On 9/20/2010 11:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) >> Pass 3D Pass ? >> >> (1) 12-14 >> (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> A52 >> K74 >> KT8 >> QT75 >> >> What logical alternative do you choose? >> What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? >> > > 1) 3N, which I should have bid directly over 1N. True. But we are trying to find out what a player would do who only invited. > 2) There is only one logical alternative that I can see. The most > probable explanation that I can see for 3D (in the absence of the alert) > is that partner has a long suit and is willing to play 3N if I'm at the > top of my call and have some diamond help. I've got both. Your partner wouldn't open xx, QJx, AQJxxx, Jx 1NT, ever? Not that 3NT would make if he had opened xx, QJx, AQJxxx, KJ. This question is not exactly new. Phantom-Lebensohl and other accidents have been under discussion in mailing lists and ACs all over the world for years. What is lacking is a consistent way to handle these cases. No that I could offer one.... Best regards Matthias P.S. to answer the OPs questions: 1) pass 2) 3NT, there being no other LA I can see. > > Hirsch > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 21 08:49:35 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:49:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim In-Reply-To: <4C9845B6.8080603@ripe.net> References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> <4C9845B6.8080603@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C98557F.6040304@t-online.de> Am 21.09.2010 07:42, schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: > On 21/09/2010 01:04, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> When did he say in which order he was cashing his tricks? > > He didn't, so I have to assume something. Declarer specified his tricks > in the order spades, clubs and hearts, not one of he 5 other combinations. > I don't have any other information, so in the 30 seconds or so that I have > to make a ruling, this is my decision. Who forces you to take only 30 seconds? Why not write the position down and think about it as long as you need? Best regards Matthias > > Henk > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 21 09:21:08 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:21:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C985CE4.7040905@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/09/2010 5:44, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What logical alternative do you choose? > What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? AG : I don't think there is any problem here. Partner's bidding is so strange that we're allowed to understand what happened. True, he might hold a long diamond suit and a flawed notrump (the likes of Qx-xx-AQxxxx-KJx), but why would he now advertise the fact ? Even if I was in some way compelled to believe in the longdiamond suit, since I would like to play in 3NT even facing that hand, I suppose bidding 3NT now, without reacting in any manner to partner's actions, can't be considered incorrect. Passing isn't an option with such a good fit and stoppers everywhere. Yes, there are cases where both the crook and the honest player would do the same bid. WTP ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 21 09:39:23 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:39:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C9854E1.6060405@t-online.de> References: <4C9834D8.60703@gmail.com> <4C9854E1.6060405@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C98612B.1000000@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/09/2010 8:46, Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Am 21.09.2010 06:30, schrieb Hirsch Davis: >> On 9/20/2010 11:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Imps >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: East-West >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) >>> Pass 3D Pass ? >>> >>> (1) 12-14 >>> (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted >>> >>> You, South, hold: >>> >>> A52 >>> K74 >>> KT8 >>> QT75 >>> >>> What logical alternative do you choose? >>> What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? >>> >> 1) 3N, which I should have bid directly over 1N. > True. But we are trying to find out what a player would do who only invited. > >> 2) There is only one logical alternative that I can see. The most >> probable explanation that I can see for 3D (in the absence of the alert) >> is that partner has a long suit and is willing to play 3N if I'm at the >> top of my call and have some diamond help. I've got both. > Your partner wouldn't open xx, QJx, AQJxxx, Jx 1NT, ever? AG : the question isn't whether he would, but whether he would be anxious, in that case, to correct the contract. Mine wouldn't. And the second question is whether, at IMPs and with such a good fit for diamonds, you'd forget about trying for a game bonus, even if you were among those who downgrade 4333 hands to the extent of not bidding 3NT at once. True, partner could hold xx-QJx-AQxxxx-Kx, but he might also hold Kx-QJx-AQxxxx-xx. Now, if you tell me that the former is more probable ... Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 21 09:43:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:43:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim In-Reply-To: <4C98557F.6040304@t-online.de> References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> <4C9845B6.8080603@ripe.net> <4C98557F.6040304@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C986209.80201@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/09/2010 8:49, Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Am 21.09.2010 07:42, schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: >> On 21/09/2010 01:04, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> When did he say in which order he was cashing his tricks? >> He didn't, so I have to assume something. Declarer specified his tricks >> in the order spades, clubs and hearts, not one of he 5 other combinations. >> I don't have any other information, so in the 30 seconds or so that I have >> to make a ruling, this is my decision. > Who forces you to take only 30 seconds? Why not write the position down > and think about it as long as you need? AG : the question is : did declarer specify his tricks ? I don't think so. He merely stated that all of his cards were good, but for the small spade, which would become good once the Ace was cashed (that part, appaently, is true). He claimed, so to speak, his tricks in a collective way. Now, if he had stated : "I'm playing the Spade Ace, which allows me to cash the small one, then the Club Ace ...", that would have been an ordering. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Sep 21 10:26:39 2010 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:26:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28AE9CEF57FB4646802A6EBA3632D5E1@mikePC> -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 4:44 AM To: Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What logical alternative do you choose? > What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets Like others I think this question has a simple answer But unfortunately I draw a different conclusion from others. My 2NT bid offered partner a choice between 2NT and 3NT. He chose 3D. What call could I possibly make other than Pass? I don't know what partner is up to - but I've shown my hand so what else should I do but accept partner's decision - perhaps he holds xxx x QJ10xxxx xx - not up to me to call again Of course I know that isn't what he has and know that he has suffered some delusion that my hand is other than it is - information I only possess because of UI. Why is Law 73C so hard to understand? I choose Pass - there is no Logical Alternative - certainly no lawful one Mike Amos From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 21 10:33:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:33:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <28AE9CEF57FB4646802A6EBA3632D5E1@mikePC> References: <28AE9CEF57FB4646802A6EBA3632D5E1@mikePC> Message-ID: <4C986DE5.2000209@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/09/2010 10:26, Mike Amos a ?crit : > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 4:44 AM > To: > Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) >> Pass 3D Pass ? >> >> (1) 12-14 >> (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> A52 >> K74 >> KT8 >> QT75 >> >> What logical alternative do you choose? >> What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 >> Phone: 6223 8453 >> DIAC Social Club movie tickets > Like others I think this question has a simple answer > But unfortunately I draw a different conclusion from others. > > My 2NT bid offered partner a choice between 2NT and 3NT. He chose 3D. What > call could I possibly make other than Pass? > > I don't know what partner is up to - but I've shown my hand so what else > should I do but accept partner's decision - perhaps he holds xxx x QJ10xxxx > xx - not up to me to call again AG : and perhaps he is silly enough to tell it to the opponents, who will then score 650 in lieu of 350. What's the essence of a psyche if you blow the gaff on the next round ? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 21 10:34:01 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:34:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misclaim In-Reply-To: <4C98537E.5070502@ripe.net> References: <007201cb58ee$99cbeb90$cd63c2b0$@honorsbridgeclub.org> <4C97B6F0.4070100@rtflb.org> <4C9845B6.8080603@ripe.net> <4C98537E.5070502@ripe.net> Message-ID: 2010/9/21 Henk Uijterwaal : > On 21/09/2010 08:37, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> 2010/9/21 Henk Uijterwaal : >>> On 21/09/2010 01:04, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>> >>>> When did he say in which order he was cashing his tricks? >>> >>> He didn't, so I have to assume something. ?Declarer specified his tricks >>> in the order spades, clubs and hearts, not one of he 5 other combinations. >>> I don't have any other information, so in the 30 seconds or so that I have >>> to make a ruling, this is my decision. >>> >>> Henk >> >> To me this is a straightforward two tricks to the defence. >> Declarer didn't state any order of cashing his tricks, only which tricks he had. >> Any order of play is thus logical, and caching the club ace first >> followed by the hearts is what I rule him to do. > > Then why not 3 tricks, west unblocking the CK on the CA? Because I overlooked that. I'd indeed rule three tricks for the defence. > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 21 10:39:31 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:39:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <28AE9CEF57FB4646802A6EBA3632D5E1@mikePC> References: <28AE9CEF57FB4646802A6EBA3632D5E1@mikePC> Message-ID: <000001cb5968$830eb0c0$892c1240$@no> On Behalf Of Mike Amos > > Imps > > Dlr: North > > Vul: East-West > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) > > Pass 3D Pass ? > > > > (1) 12-14 > > (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > A52 > > K74 > > KT8 > > QT75 > > > > What logical alternative do you choose? > > What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard Hills > > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > > Phone: 6223 8453 > > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > Like others I think this question has a simple answer But unfortunately I draw a > different conclusion from others. > > My 2NT bid offered partner a choice between 2NT and 3NT. He chose 3D. What > call could I possibly make other than Pass? > > I don't know what partner is up to - but I've shown my hand so what else should I > do but accept partner's decision - perhaps he holds xxx x QJ10xxxx xx - not up to > me to call again > > Of course I know that isn't what he has and know that he has suffered some > delusion that my hand is other than it is - information I only possess because of UI. > Why is Law 73C so hard to understand? > > I choose Pass - there is no Logical Alternative - certainly no lawful one If he opened 1NT on such a hand it would certainly have been a psyche. Wouldn't PASS from you now be to "field" that psyche? (Assuming of course no UI from alert) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 21 11:20:49 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:20:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cb5968$830eb0c0$892c1240$@no> References: <28AE9CEF57FB4646802A6EBA3632D5E1@mikePC> <000001cb5968$830eb0c0$892c1240$@no> Message-ID: <4C9878F1.9050107@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/09/2010 10:39, Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Mike Amos >>> Imps >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: East-West >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) >>> Pass 3D Pass ? >>> >>> (1) 12-14 >>> (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted >>> >>> You, South, hold: >>> >>> A52 >>> K74 >>> KT8 >>> QT75 >>> >>> What logical alternative do you choose? >>> What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? >>> >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 >>> Phone: 6223 8453 >>> DIAC Social Club movie tickets >> Like others I think this question has a simple answer But unfortunately I > draw a >> different conclusion from others. >> >> My 2NT bid offered partner a choice between 2NT and 3NT. He chose 3D. > What >> call could I possibly make other than Pass? >> >> I don't know what partner is up to - but I've shown my hand so what else > should I >> do but accept partner's decision - perhaps he holds xxx x QJ10xxxx xx - > not up to >> me to call again >> >> Of course I know that isn't what he has and know that he has suffered some >> delusion that my hand is other than it is - information I only possess > because of UI. >> Why is Law 73C so hard to understand? >> >> I choose Pass - there is no Logical Alternative - certainly no lawful one > If he opened 1NT on such a hand it would certainly have been a psyche. > Wouldn't PASS from you now be to "field" that psyche? (Assuming of course no > UI from alert) > AG : given that many of us think the 3D bid shows about a minimal 1NT opening, surely. And that's a good reason to consider that 3NT is legitimate, because either pass or 3NT has to be. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 13:16:23 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:16:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491040.63623.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, May 2002, Arie's Column # Imps South/North-South K3 J987 8654 QT6 QJT854 A9762 AKQ3 642 T9 A3 J 873 --- T5 KQJ72 AK9542 --- --- --- 1D(1) 1S Dble 4S 5C Pass 5D Pass(2) Pass 5S Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Could contain longer clubs (2) Agreed break in tempo N/S -650. New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen: The Director reasoned that this was a "no brainer". West could not bid 5S over 5C and therefore Pass or Double were surely logical alternatives to 5S after the break in tempo from partner (Law 16A2). The score was adjusted to 5D minus one, as per Law 12C2. Interestingly, this appeal tied the Committee in knots. There were five on the committee and as many honestly held points of view. The first was adamant the Director's reasons were sound and the score should stand. The second felt Pass or Double were not logical alternatives because 75% of the field would always bid 5S in that auction. The third argued that it was the correction to 5D by North that had provided West with sufficient authorized information to suggest it was now right to bid 5S rather than one round earlier over the original 5C. The fourth reasoned that the hesitation from East did not demonstrably suggest 5S over Pass or Double (in fact it could equally well have been very wrong to bid). The last one thought there were merits in all the arguments and held out for a split score! Even the advice from the CTD that this was a straightforward case of making a judgment call as to whether or not approximately 75% the field would bid 5S without the break in tempo did not help. If it was, E/W get their score back, if not the Director's ruling should stay. The committee could not come to a consensus on any avenue they went down. After a very long debate and after everyone else had gone home, they emerged with a 3-2 decision that the board should be scored twice. Once with the Director's adjustment and the once with the table result before taking the average of the two! [NIgel] IMO the Director's ruling is right. When consulting the player's peers, the sample should be confined to those players who agree with West's pass of RHO's 5C. If anything, LHO's preference to 5D is evidence that opponent's hands don't fit well. Partner reinforces this impression with his double. I don't think 75% of players *who pass 5C* would now bid 5S. But the slowness of the double indicates doubt, suggesting 5S, a more successful alternative. The dilemma the committee should debate is whether to keep the deposit. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 13:40:28 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:40:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] What 5C do you bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <264353.65254.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs North/North-South JT 876 KJ62 A843 --- 1S Pass 1NT(1) 2H 4D Pass ? (1) Semi-forcing What 5C do you consider bidding? [Nigel] 4H=10 5C=9 5D=8 4S=7 Why did partner bid 4D rather than 3D? If 3D would be forcing is 4D an auto-splinter? What would partner expect you to do with long clubs? e.g. x xx xx AQJxxxxx At matchpoints, is 4S likely to score as well as or better than 5D? e.g. AKQxx Qx AQxxxx x If you're unsure of the answers, then a possible safety play is to fudge 4H and reassess your options if partner bids 4S From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 13:56:29 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:56:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <689168.54723.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> {richard Hills] Imps North/East-West. You, South, hold: A52 K74 KT8 QT75 --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3D Pass ? (1) 12-14 (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted What logical alternative do you choose? What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? [Nigel] A director (or failing that a committee) is quite likely to allow 3N but a masochistic player would still choose the law-abiding 3D. You make a limit 2N bid, giving partner the choice between 2N and 3N. He makes the final decision even if it is a peculiar 3D. Without the UI, this could be a weak correction to what partner deems a safer contract. Again, the peer-sample must be restricted to those players who, over partner's one notrump opener, would invite with 2N rather than commit with 3N. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 14:05:01 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 05:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <491040.63623.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <491040.63623.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <480278.74380.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [NIgel] IMO the Director's ruling is right. When consulting the player's peers, the sample should be confined to those players who agree with West's pass of RHO's 5C. If anything, LHO's preference to 5D is evidence that opponent's hands don't fit well. Partner reinforces this impression with his double. I don't think 75% of players *who pass 5C* would now bid 5S. But the slowness of the double indicates doubt, suggesting 5S, a more successful alternative. The dilemma the committee should debate is whether to keep the deposit. [Nige2] I still agree with the director. But my argument above is rubbish, based on the mistaken assumption that partner doubled. From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 21 14:21:14 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:21:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] What 5C do you bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <31357019.1285071674998.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S Pass 1NT(1) > 2H 4D Pass ? > > (1) Semi-forcing > > You, South, hold: > > JT > 876 > KJ62 > A843 > > What 5C do you bid? 4S, probably. > What 5C do you consider bidding? 5C cue bid for diamonds, to become the final contract when partner thinks it shows clubs. Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 21 14:43:59 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:43:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16251726.1285073039396.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What logical alternative do you choose? > What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? Impossible to answer with the existing information. What is the systemic meaning of opener's 3D over a 2NT invitation? What would have been the meaning of 3D if 2NT would have been transfer? Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 21 15:56:38 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:56:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 20, 2010, at 11:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Balanced invitation - incorrectly alerted > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What logical alternative do you choose? 3NT. > What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? None. 3D is (I assume) an "impossible" bid with no defined meaning in my methods. If (as I further assume) pard has alerted 2NT as a transfer to diamonds, he has given me no information (U or otherwise) about his hand that might suggest any call over any other at this point. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 21 16:23:06 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:23:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0EB10B66-DDBE-4B2F-BECC-F82FFF5172C5@starpower.net> On Sep 21, 2010, at 12:04 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, > May 2002, Arie's Column > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > K3 > J987 > 8654 > QT6 > QJT854 A9762 > AKQ3 642 > T9 A3 > J 873 > --- > T5 > KQJ72 > AK9542 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D(1) > 1S Dble 4S 5C > Pass 5D Pass(2) Pass > 5S Pass Pass Dble > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Could contain longer clubs > (2) Agreed break in tempo > > N/S -650. > > New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen: > > [snip] > >> The Director reasoned that this was a >> "no brainer". West could not bid 5S >> over 5C and therefore Pass or Double >> were surely logical alternatives to 5S >> after the break in tempo from partner >> (Law 16A2). The score was adjusted to 5D >> minus one, as per Law 12C2. >> >> Interestingly, this appeal tied the >> Committee in knots. There were five on >> the committee and as many honestly held >> points of view. The first was adamant >> the Director's reasons were sound and >> the score should stand. The second felt >> Pass or Double were not logical >> alternatives because 75% of the field >> would always bid 5S in that auction. >> The third argued that it was the >> correction to 5D by North that had >> provided West with sufficient authorized >> information to suggest it was now right >> to bid 5S rather than one round earlier >> over the original 5C. The fourth >> reasoned that the hesitation from East >> did not demonstrably suggest 5S over >> Pass or Double (in fact it could equally >> well have been very wrong to bid). The >> last one thought there were merits in >> all the arguments and held out for a >> split score! >> >> Even the advice from the CTD that this >> was a straightforward case of making a >> judgment call as to whether or not >> approximately 75% the field would bid >> 5S without the break in tempo did not >> help. If it was, E/W get their score >> back, if not the Director's ruling >> should stay. The committee could not >> come to a consensus on any avenue they >> went down. After a very long debate and >> after everyone else had gone home, they >> emerged with a 3-2 decision that the >> board should be scored twice. Once with >> the Director's adjustment and the once >> with the table result before taking the >> average of the two! The CTD seems to have ignored the floor director's reasoning. The correct judgment call was not whether 75% of the field would bid 5S now, but whether 75% of that subset of the field that would have passed over 5C would bid 5S now. I wasn't there, but from here I lean towards upholding the original ruling. I'll leave it to Richard to flagellate the committee for apparently deciding to treat 5S as "half an infraction". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 21 16:43:52 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:43:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <4C981CED.6010401@gmail.com> References: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> <4C981CED.6010401@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CD27B28B7E358C-A78-3B0B@webmail-m075.sysops.aol.com> When a player discovers that he possesses UI prior to the play of a hand, what are his legal and ethical obligations under the Laws? When does he perform these tasks? He informs the director under 16C1. Forthwith. The player in our example just thought he possessed UI prior to the play of a hand. He didn't. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 17:18:53 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:18:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD27B28B7E358C-A78-3B0B@webmail-m075.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> <4C981CED.6010401@gmail.com> <8CD27B28B7E358C-A78-3B0B@webmail-m075.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <48807.46681.qm@web28507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Paul] When a player discovers that he possesses UI prior to the play of a hand, what are his legal and ethical obligations under the Laws? When does he perform these tasks? He informs the director under 16C1. Forthwith. The player in our example just thought he possessed UI prior to the play of a hand. He didn't. [Nigel] Whether trying to break the law but failing needs urgent legal consideration. The WBFLC should rush through a decision by 2018 or 2028 at the latest. But in this instance the law-makers may argue that receiving information, authorised or not, is rarely an infraction. *Using* such information is the common infraction. For example: If partner just dozes off but appears to tank then you are under UI constraints from your subjective impression, although, you aren't in receipt of any relevant information, in an objective view. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Tue Sep 21 18:36:35 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:36:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD27B28B7E358C-A78-3B0B@webmail-m075.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com> <4C981CED.6010401@gmail.com> <8CD27B28B7E358C-A78-3B0B@webmail-m075.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:43 AM, wrote: > When a player discovers that he possesses UI prior to the play of a > hand, what are his legal and ethical obligations under the Laws? When > does he perform these tasks? > > He informs the director under 16C1. Forthwith. > > The player in our example just thought he possessed UI prior to the > play of a hand. > He didn't. > > > True. Now please explain how the legal and ethical obligations of a player who thinks that he has UI and actually has it differ from the legal and ethical obligations of a player who thinks that he has UI and doesn't actually have it. Bear in mind that the latter player does not know that his "UI" is actually irrelevant information. Hirsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100921/2a51e298/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 21 20:21:51 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:21:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Reveley of the Sith [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26544033.1285093311259.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, > May 2002, Arie's Column > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > K3 > J987 > 8654 > QT6 > QJT854 A9762 > AKQ3 642 > T9 A3 > J 873 > --- > T5 > KQJ72 > AK9542 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D(1) > 1S Dble 4S 5C > Pass 5D Pass(2) Pass > 5S Pass Pass Dble > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Could contain longer clubs > (2) Agreed break in tempo > > N/S -650. > > New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen: > > [snip] > > >The Director reasoned that this was a > >"no brainer". West could not bid 5S > >over 5C and therefore Pass or Double > >were surely logical alternatives to 5S > >after the break in tempo from partner > >(Law 16A2). The score was adjusted to 5D > >minus one, as per Law 12C2. > > > >Interestingly, this appeal tied the > >Committee in knots. There were five on > >the committee and as many honestly held > >points of view. The first was adamant > >the Director's reasons were sound and > >the score should stand. The second felt > >Pass or Double were not logical > >alternatives because 75% of the field > >would always bid 5S in that auction. > >The third argued that it was the > >correction to 5D by North that had > >provided West with sufficient authorized > >information to suggest it was now right > >to bid 5S rather than one round earlier > >over the original 5C. The fourth > >reasoned that the hesitation from East > >did not demonstrably suggest 5S over > >Pass or Double (in fact it could equally > >well have been very wrong to bid). The > >last one thought there were merits in > >all the arguments and held out for a > >split score! > > > >Even the advice from the CTD that this > >was a straightforward case of making a > >judgment call as to whether or not > >approximately 75% the field would bid > >5S without the break in tempo did not > >help. If it was, E/W get their score > >back, if not the Director's ruling > >should stay. The committee could not > >come to a consensus on any avenue they > >went down. After a very long debate and > >after everyone else had gone home, they > >emerged with a 3-2 decision that the > >board should be scored twice. Once with > >the Director's adjustment and the once > >with the table result before taking the > >average of the two! I initially don't think pass is a logical alternative. 5S rates to be down at most two, they are vulnerable, we are not. Classic double or save. So I'd like to question W why he passed 5C. Maybe, just maybe he thought pass is forcing?? To add to the committee's collection, one might consider adjusting to 5DX rather than 5D. Then, I think a bit more research is necessary before 10 tricks in diamonds become "likely". I certainly wouldn't lead the SQ, and after the HAK cash, S is pretty much marked with a S void. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 21 21:26:55 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:26:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:45:43 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 18, 2010, at 5:51 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> 4NT P 5H >> >> This time, the 5H bidder knew RKC and was showing two controls and >> denying >> the queen of trumps. But 5H was explained to the opponents as just >> showing >> two controls, with no mention made about the queen of trumps. >> Explainer >> was muddled about the convention; for the sake of example, let us >> say he >> never knew that part of the convention. >> >> Was this a misexplanation? Let's suppose it is. Then I have to ask >> what >> the defenders would have done if they had received the correct >> explanation. According to your #1, the correct explanation is "two >> controls, no agreement about the queen of trumps". There of course >> also is >> no agreement about the jack of trumps. So we can shorten this to "two >> controls". >> >> So, according to #1, the explainer has given the correct >> explanation when >> he left out the information about the queen of trump. >> >> Or if the explanation had been 'two controls and shows the queen of >> trumps', then it is definitely mistaken explanation in anyone's >> interpretation. According to #1, the director has to discover what >> would >> have happened if the defenders had been given no information about the >> queen of trumps. I always have been deciding what would have >> happened if >> the opponents had been given the correct RKC explanation. > > Does it matter? The key determination is whether the player without > the trump queen might have defended more successfully had he been > aware of the possibility that his partner might hold it. Since the > benefit of the doubt in such determinations goes to the NOS, we will > presume him to have "guessed" (successfully) to play his partner for > it, as he well might have done. The adjudicated result will be the > same as it would have been had we presumed that he "knew" where the > trump queen was. Richard is taking this view seriously, so your comment becomes relevant. We don't give the NOS the benefit of the doubt on each every individual aspect of the play, we give the benefit of the doubt overall. Was it likely that the players might have defended differently? It must matter what they are told, and being told "no agreement" might tip the balance to a particular play not being likely. In ACBL-land. It again almost certainly changes the probabilities for a weighted ruling. For example, we agree on Cappelletti, my partner knows what it means whilst I don't, and he bids 2D. The opps ask what it means, I take a guess and guess wrong. In Richard's explanation of the laws, the question will be if the opps would likely have done anything different had they been told no agreement. They still are likely to look for a spade fit, whereas they probably would not if they were told that 2D showed the majors. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 21 21:28:11 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:28:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:27:11 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> ...the Cappelletti convention is evanescently non-existent for >>> Bob's partnership unless and until Bob and his partner have a >>> meeting of minds... > > Robert Frick: > >> If this position was taken seriously... > > Debate in which protocol is seriously followed (Life of Brian): > > JUDITH: They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify > him! > REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion! > COMMANDO #1: Yeah. > JUDITH: What?! > COMMANDO #2: Immediate. > COMMANDO #1: Right. > LORETTA: New motion? > REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there > be, ah, immediate action-- > FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken. > REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You > can't act on a resolution till you've voted on it. > > Robert Frick: > >> then if two players do not have a meeting of the minds, they do >> not have an agreement. This occurs, for example, when a player >> temporarily forgets a convention... > > Richard Hills: > > A careless misinterpretation of my position. The key word is > "until", which sets a point in time. "Until" both partners > have a meeting of minds, they do not have a mutual partnership > understanding. After that "until" moment they do have a > mutual partnership understanding, even if one or both partners > _occasionally_ forget that mutual partnership understanding. To paraphrase, you are saying that the only possible interpretation of the laws is that merely saying "RKC" does not make an agreement/understanding that 5H shows two controls and denies the queen of trumps. The latter understanding/agreement occurs only if at some moment in time during or after making this verbal agreement they players both think that 5H has that meaning. And if this does not correspond to how directors currently rule, that is their problem. But you have no evidence of any contradiction. I assume that if at some point in time they both have an incorrect but identical understanding of 5H. That creates a new agreement, right? Or could you explain why this meeting of minds is not relevant? But if one player has one understanding of a bid and another player has a different understanding, the actual agreement/understanding is "no agreement". A subsequent agreement cancels this out; however, a subsequent loss of agreement/understanding does not reinstate it. And if we verbally agree to play "RKC as described in the book we both just read", the same thing applies -- if one of us doesn't remember the book correctly there is no agreement/understanding. The book is essentially irrelevant. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 21 22:35:37 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:35:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> Message-ID: <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> On Sep 21, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:45:43 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Sep 18, 2010, at 5:51 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> 4NT P 5H >>> >>> This time, the 5H bidder knew RKC and was showing two controls and >>> denying >>> the queen of trumps. But 5H was explained to the opponents as just >>> showing >>> two controls, with no mention made about the queen of trumps. >>> Explainer >>> was muddled about the convention; for the sake of example, let us >>> say he >>> never knew that part of the convention. >>> >>> Was this a misexplanation? Let's suppose it is. Then I have to ask >>> what >>> the defenders would have done if they had received the correct >>> explanation. According to your #1, the correct explanation is "two >>> controls, no agreement about the queen of trumps". There of course >>> also is >>> no agreement about the jack of trumps. So we can shorten this to >>> "two >>> controls". >>> >>> So, according to #1, the explainer has given the correct >>> explanation when >>> he left out the information about the queen of trump. >>> >>> Or if the explanation had been 'two controls and shows the queen of >>> trumps', then it is definitely mistaken explanation in anyone's >>> interpretation. According to #1, the director has to discover what >>> would >>> have happened if the defenders had been given no information >>> about the >>> queen of trumps. I always have been deciding what would have >>> happened if >>> the opponents had been given the correct RKC explanation. >> >> Does it matter? The key determination is whether the player without >> the trump queen might have defended more successfully had he been >> aware of the possibility that his partner might hold it. Since the >> benefit of the doubt in such determinations goes to the NOS, we will >> presume him to have "guessed" (successfully) to play his partner for >> it, as he well might have done. The adjudicated result will be the >> same as it would have been had we presumed that he "knew" where the >> trump queen was. > > Richard is taking this view seriously, so your comment becomes > relevant. > > We don't give the NOS the benefit of the doubt on each every > individual > aspect of the play, we give the benefit of the doubt overall. Was it > likely that the players might have defended differently? It must > matter > what they are told, and being told "no agreement" might tip the > balance to > a particular play not being likely. In ACBL-land. It again almost > certainly changes the probabilities for a weighted ruling. > > For example, we agree on Cappelletti, my partner knows what it means > whilst I don't, and he bids 2D. The opps ask what it means, I take > a guess > and guess wrong. In Richard's explanation of the laws, the question > will > be if the opps would likely have done anything different had they been > told no agreement. They still are likely to look for a spade fit, > whereas > they probably would not if they were told that 2D showed the majors. You are always responsible for disclosing your explicit agreements, whatever and however dubious they may be. Richard's "no agreement" is a presumption for adjudication. As we are discussing situations where the lack of a substantive agreement is not realized by at least one, usually both, members of the partnership, you are hardly expected to presume it for disclosure. As usual, the key is just to do your best to be helpful and forthcoming. You should not be taking any guesses here. If you can explain the situation clearly to us, you can explain it just as clearly to them. If you said you would play Cappelletti, but your partner knows it and you don't, what you should tell your opponents is, "We said we would play Cappelletti, but my partner knows it and I don't." WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 21 23:23:18 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:23:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:35:37 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 21, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:45:43 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 18, 2010, at 5:51 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> 4NT P 5H >>>> >>>> This time, the 5H bidder knew RKC and was showing two controls and >>>> denying >>>> the queen of trumps. But 5H was explained to the opponents as just >>>> showing >>>> two controls, with no mention made about the queen of trumps. >>>> Explainer >>>> was muddled about the convention; for the sake of example, let us >>>> say he >>>> never knew that part of the convention. >>>> >>>> Was this a misexplanation? Let's suppose it is. Then I have to ask >>>> what >>>> the defenders would have done if they had received the correct >>>> explanation. According to your #1, the correct explanation is "two >>>> controls, no agreement about the queen of trumps". There of course >>>> also is >>>> no agreement about the jack of trumps. So we can shorten this to >>>> "two >>>> controls". >>>> >>>> So, according to #1, the explainer has given the correct >>>> explanation when >>>> he left out the information about the queen of trump. >>>> >>>> Or if the explanation had been 'two controls and shows the queen of >>>> trumps', then it is definitely mistaken explanation in anyone's >>>> interpretation. According to #1, the director has to discover what >>>> would >>>> have happened if the defenders had been given no information >>>> about the >>>> queen of trumps. I always have been deciding what would have >>>> happened if >>>> the opponents had been given the correct RKC explanation. >>> >>> Does it matter? The key determination is whether the player without >>> the trump queen might have defended more successfully had he been >>> aware of the possibility that his partner might hold it. Since the >>> benefit of the doubt in such determinations goes to the NOS, we will >>> presume him to have "guessed" (successfully) to play his partner for >>> it, as he well might have done. The adjudicated result will be the >>> same as it would have been had we presumed that he "knew" where the >>> trump queen was. >> >> Richard is taking this view seriously, so your comment becomes >> relevant. >> >> We don't give the NOS the benefit of the doubt on each every >> individual >> aspect of the play, we give the benefit of the doubt overall. Was it >> likely that the players might have defended differently? It must >> matter >> what they are told, and being told "no agreement" might tip the >> balance to >> a particular play not being likely. In ACBL-land. It again almost >> certainly changes the probabilities for a weighted ruling. >> >> For example, we agree on Cappelletti, my partner knows what it means >> whilst I don't, and he bids 2D. The opps ask what it means, I take >> a guess >> and guess wrong. In Richard's explanation of the laws, the question >> will >> be if the opps would likely have done anything different had they been >> told no agreement. They still are likely to look for a spade fit, >> whereas >> they probably would not if they were told that 2D showed the majors. > > You are always responsible for disclosing your explicit agreements, I think I am responsible for disclosing all of my agreements. > whatever and however dubious they may be. Richard's "no agreement" > is a presumption for adjudication. ??? > As we are discussing situations > where the lack of a substantive agreement is not realized by at least > one, usually both, members of the partnership, you are hardly > expected to presume it for disclosure. yes, it is more likely to come up in rectification. But not impossible in play. If my partner explains my bid wrong, I might decide we have no agreement. > > As usual, the key is just to do your best to be helpful and > forthcoming. You should not be taking any guesses here. If you can > explain the situation clearly to us, you can explain it just as > clearly to them. If you said you would play Cappelletti, but your > partner knows it and you don't, what you should tell your opponents > is, "We said we would play Cappelletti, but my partner knows it and I > don't." WTP? Is it a problem that the opponents will wish they knew Cappelletti? (Will the director be understanding when my partner refuses to explain Cappelletti?) Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 22 00:52:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:52:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >...And if this does not correspond to how directors currently >rule, that is their problem. Richard Hills: Weasel words, implying that most Directors rule as Director Frick does. Director De Wael, for one, employs Law 21B1(b) to rule oppositely to Director Frick (in my opinion Herman De Wael over-uses Law 21B1(b), but that is because Herman incorrectly believes that verbal evidence is not evidence - possibly caused by the translation of the English word "evidence" into a not completely synonymous Flemish word in the Flemish edition of the Lawbook). Robert Frick: >But you have no evidence of any contradiction... Richard Hills: A competent Director can easily discover if a partnership lacks a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit understanding by simply questioning the players. While many players may shade the truth, "I only hesitated a little bit," few players perpetrate downright lies. And even if a downright liar successfully gives intentional misinformation one time, eventually that liar's pattern of misbehaviour will see her dragged before a Disciplinary Committee and asked to explain her apparent repeated infractions of Law 73B2: "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws." Robert Frick: >...The book is essentially irrelevant. Richard Hills: Correct. If two partners "agree" to play the Symmetric Relay system by the book, in accordance with the Ali-Hills system notes, they do not have a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding if one partner never got around to reading the system notes (emailed on request). Monty Python's Life of Brian: HARRY THE HAGGLER: Four? For this gourd? Four?! Look at it. It's worth ten if it's worth a shekel. BRIAN: But you just gave it to me for nothing. HARRY THE HAGGLER: Yes, but it's worth ten! BRIAN: All right. All right. HARRY THE HAGGLER: No, no, no, no. It's not worth ten. You're supposed to argue, "Ten for that? You must be mad!" Richard Hills: Given that all issues have been thoroughly canvassed, I will cease haggling on this thread. 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 Wed Sep 22 01:10:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:10:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: >Now please explain how the legal and ethical obligations of a >player who thinks that he has UI and actually has it differ from >the legal and ethical obligations of a player who thinks that he >has UI and doesn't actually have it. Bear in mind that the >latter player does not know that his "UI" is actually irrelevant >information. United States v. Thomas (1962) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thomas The court held that when a defendant is attempting to commit a criminal act that is impossible to commit, unknown to the defendant, the fact the act is impossible to commit is not a defense. The defendants believed that the young woman was alive and had not consented to have sex. Because the men believed they were raping a drunken, unconscious woman, they were guilty of _attempted_ rape even though the woman was actually dead at the time sexual intercourse took place. 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 Wed Sep 22 01:44:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:44:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Eric [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >.....If you said you would play Cappelletti, but your partner >knows it and you don't, what you should tell your opponents is, >"We said we would play Cappelletti, but my partner knows it and >I don't." WTP? Richard Hills: Change "should tell" to "may tell", since Eric is giving the other side more information than is mandated by Law. All the information that the other side are entitled to is, "We do not have a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding." Law 75C, second sentence: "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." Richard Hills: If Eric's partner has bid 2H over 1NT, and all three of Eric's opponents know that the Cappelletti meaning for 2H is hearts and an unspecified minor, then Eric is giving the opponents bonus information about the intent of Eric's partner. This extraneous bonus information may arguably be a so-called "dumping" infraction. Law 72A, second sentence: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." 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 Wed Sep 22 02:00:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:00:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cb5968$830eb0c0$892c1240$@no> Message-ID: Mike Amos: >>.....I don't know what partner is up to - but I've shown my hand >>so what else should I do but accept partner's decision - perhaps >>he holds xxx x QJ10xxxx xx - not up to me to call again..... Sven Pran: >If he opened 1NT on such a hand it would certainly have been a >psyche. > >Wouldn't PASS from you now be to "field" that psyche? (Assuming >of course no UI from alert) Richard Hills: A "field" is never-ever unLawful. A psyche (unless prohibited by a Law 40B2(d) regulation) is never-ever unLawful. Rather, an undisclosed partnership understanding is unLawful. And a "field" is a piece of (possibly insufficient) evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists. What's the problem? 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 Wed Sep 22 02:28:23 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:28:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What 5C do you bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <31357019.1285071674998.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: The Bridge World, February 1993, Master Solvers' Club: >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: North >>Vul: North-South >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1S Pass 1NT(1) >>2H 4D Pass ? >> >>(1) Semi-forcing >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>JT >>876 >>KJ62 >>A843 >> >>What 5C do you bid? Thomas Dehn, September 2010:: >4S, probably. >>What 5C do you consider bidding? Thomas Dehn, September 2010: >5C cue bid for diamonds, to become the final contract when >partner thinks it shows clubs. Ron Johnson, September 2005: Michael Rosenberg (who bid 5C) argued that *if* you intended to bid 6D over partner's 5D then it might be best to bid 6D rather than 5C "[...] in case he huddles, bids five diamonds and bars you." (10 panellists selected 6D rather than 5C and all mentioned the fear that partner would pass the 5C call. And the others wanted to make an unambiguous move and so cued their 4th round control of hearts -- in a slam auction!) Nigel Guthrie, September 2010: >4H=10 5C=9 5D=8 4S=7 Ron Johnson, September 2005: (For what it's worth, 14 of 27 panellists passed 5C holding "a 5-2-5-1 with pleasant prospects" [Don't have the exact hand. Problem A, June 1981] "For all those who say five clubs can't be to play, monitor their heartbeat while partner is thinking." Bobby Wolff -- a 6D bidder) The theme of the set of problems in February 1993 is how readily the wheels come off in these kinds of situations. Several players were on both panels and ended up in a 4-1 opposite themself. Or a 3-3 on B. Or a 2-1(!) in C. As Jeff Rubens says, "If you can't trust *yourself* in these uncommon auctions, then whom?" 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 Wed Sep 22 03:05:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:05:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Australian National Championships ANC Swiss (Butler) Pairs Wednesday 3rd August 2005 Round Two Board 25 Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West 9843 A86 64 AKJ3 KT76 QJ QJT3 952 952 AQJ73 62 984 A52 K74 KT8 QT75 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3D Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to diamonds. (No MI was given, as this was the actual North-South partnership understanding, due to a prior meeting of minds, which South had temporarily and infrequently forgotten.) After suboptimal defence, 3NT made. What logical alternative, if any, is unLawful? Eric Landau, September 2010: >None. 3D is (I assume) an "impossible" bid with no defined >meaning in my methods. If (as I further assume) pard has >alerted 2NT as a transfer to diamonds, he has given me no >information (U or otherwise) about his hand that might >suggest any call over any other at this point. After the table director consulted with the other directors, Eric Landau's reasoning was used to justify a ruling of no change to the table score. East-West appealed. The prime mover in the East-West partnership, brilliant young Aussie champion Kieran Dyke, was the only player to attend the appeal. The table director also attended the appeal, but the Appeals Committee saw no need to request the attendance of other players, since the facts were not in dispute. Tim West-Meads, September 2005: >Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I >have fitting cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do >not. Something like Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is >suitable so I bid 3N. > >Had I held 2 small diamonds I'd be obliged to pass. The Appeals Committee adopted Tim West-Meads' reasoning, believing that a diamond holding of KT8 made a raise to 3NT the only logical alternative, so voted 5-0 to uphold the director's ruling. The AC then voted 3-2 that the appeal was without merit, giving Kieran Dyke the finger by fining his partnership one victory point. An unusual feature of the appeal was that the chair of the AC also wanted to fine North-South for their "offence" of convention disruption. Fortunately another member of the AC was a grognard who could quote the WBF Code of Practice's deprecation of such punishment of convention disruption. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 22 04:52:42 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:52:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <221573.75120.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau, September 2010] None. 3D is (I assume) an "impossible" bid with no defined meaning in my methods. If (as I further assume) pard has alerted 2NT as a transfer to diamonds, he has given me no information (U or otherwise) about his hand that might suggest any call over any other at this point. [Richard Hills] After the table director consulted with the other directors, Eric Landau's reasoning was used to justify a ruling of no change to the table score. [Tim West-Meads, September 2005] Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I have fitting cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do not. Something like Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. Had I held 2 small diamonds I'd be obliged to pass. [Ricahrd Hills] East-West appealed. The prime mover in the East-West partnership, brilliant young Aussie champion Kieran Dyke, was the only player to attend the appeal. The table director also attended the appeal, but the Appeals Committee saw no need to request the attendance of other players, since the facts were not in dispute. An unusual feature of the appeal was that the chair of the AC also wanted to fine North-South for their "offence" of convention disruption. Fortunately another member of the AC was a grognard who could quote the WBF Code of Practice's deprecation of such punishment of convention disruption. The Appeals Committee adopted Tim West-Meads' reasoning, believing that a diamond holding of KT8 made a raise to 3NT the only logical alternative, so voted 5-0 to uphold the director's ruling. The AC then voted 3-2 that the appeal was without merit, giving Kieran Dyke the finger by fining his partnership one victory point. [Nigel] I disagree with the Director, Committee, Tim West-Meads, and Eric Landau: Opposite a 1N opener, South thought his good twelve count worth only a raise to 2N. (although 3N seems automatic). This limit bid should hand over control to partner who makes the final decision: Pass or 3N. Instead he alerts and bids 3D. The alert reminds South what 2N should mean and the UI strongly suggests 3N (rather than playing in a possible 3-2 fit). Absent UI, it may be a sign-off correction -- a quacky 11-12HCP with five or six diamonds. South's hand may still be worth 3N, just as it was in the first place, but the director and committee must be faithful to the player's *original valuation* of the hand. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 22 05:34:44 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:34:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <783914842F594B9BA7FA98B3E86E0624@Mildred> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <783914842F594B9BA7FA98B3E86E0624@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan wrote: >>> 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. +=+ I do not think I would rule this way. For example, I see that two players have RKC on their convention card and conclude that the 5H bidder does not have the queen of trumps, being damaged when he does. I then find that these players share the "awareness" that 5H shows the queen and 5S denies the queen. I would call the director and expect to be protected. If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the opponents' convention card. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 22 05:39:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:39:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <221573.75120.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, September 2010: [snip] The alert reminds South what 2N should mean and the UI strongly suggests 3N (rather than playing in a possible 3-2 fit). Absent UI, it may be a sign-off correction -- a quacky 11-12HCP with five or six diamonds. [snip] Steve Willner, August 2005: [snip] >>This is a good place to bring up a radical suggestion from Jeff >>Rubens. I've been meaning to inquire about it for awhile now. >>In a BW editorial, he suggests that all _correct_ alerts and >>answers to questions should be considered AI. [snip] >>(Of course an _incorrect_ explanation is still UI; no dispute >>about that.) >> >>So is Jeff onto something, or was my original impression >>correct? I recommend not answering too quickly. As I say, I >>know what everyone's first thought will be... a little mind >>reading of my own, I guess. :-) Richard Hills, August 2005: >Not a radical suggestion by Jeff Rubens; rather a Back to the >Future suggestion. If one read Edgar Kaplan's "How Would You >Rule?" feature in The Bridge World circa 1970-1971, Edgar >interpreted the just-introduced Alert rules then the way that >Jeff wants the tried-and-true Alert rules interpreted now. > >Of course, Edgar Kaplan was soon forced to modify his initial >interpretation that correct alerts were AI. An unintended >consequence of Edgar's initial naive interpretation was that >circa 1970-1971 Alerts were used to _create_ an agreement at >the table when a pair had not arranged any prior agreement. > >A classic case was an undiscussed 4C bid in an auction when >the 4C bid could be either Gerber or natural. > >If the partner of the 4C bidder Alerted 4C, then bid 4H, the >4C bidder now knew that the partnership had an agreement that >4H was artificial, showing one ace. > >If the partner of the 4C bidder did not Alert 4C, then bid 4H, >the 4C bidder now knew that the partnership had an agreement >that 4H showed a natural suit. > >:-) 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 Wed Sep 22 06:16:35 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 06:16:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <221573.75120.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <221573.75120.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <12556824.1285128995176.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nigel] > Absent UI, it may be a sign-off > correction -- a quacky 11-12HCP with five or six diamonds. South's hand may > still be worth 3N, just as it was in the first place, but the director and > committee must be faithful to the player's *original valuation* of the hand. I had much more delivish thoughts. What if 3D actually shows "I accept the invitation, but I have five hearts"? Then your LAs are 4D transfer to 4H, and 4H. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 22 06:37:38 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 06:37:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <783914842F594B9BA7FA98B3E86E0624@Mildred> Message-ID: <4694421.1285130258229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > > >>> 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. +=+ > > I do not think I would rule this way. > > For example, I see that two players have RKC on their convention card and > conclude that the 5H bidder does not have the queen of trumps, being > damaged when he does. I then find that these players share the "awareness" > that 5H shows the queen and 5S denies the queen. I would call the director > and expect to be protected. > > If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the opponents' > convention card. The RKC (also RKCB) convention has evolved over time, and there exist multiple variations. If they play that, say, 5H shows two out of five keycards without slam interest and 5S shows two with slam interest, that convention is called Roman Keycard, or also Roman Keycard Blackwood. It is up to the regulation authorities to have regulations that instruct players to provide correct, complete, non-confusing information on their convention card. If an entry such as "RKC" is legal usage of the convention card in ACBL-land, then I think in my example you are not due any redress if damaged - their convention card was filled in correctly. I recommend that you always have the complete auction reviewed before the opening lead is made, at minimum when any bids were artificial. Once in a while, you'll find that while you thought you understood their auction, you actually didn't. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Sep 22 10:23:51 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:23:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Non-transfer accepted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2A900EF5-6751-4349-80A4-87A42F3D7E0F@btinternet.com> On 21 Sep 2010, at 14:56, Eric Landau wrote: > 3D is (I assume) an "impossible" bid with no defined meaning > in my methods. If (as I further assume) pard has alerted 2NT as a > transfer to diamonds, he has given me no information (U or otherwise) > about his hand that might suggest any call over any other at this > point. Most certainly he has: he has told you that his 3D bid is based on your presumed diamonds rather than his own. This suggests that passing 3D would not be a success. Gordon Rainsford From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 22 10:54:41 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:54:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD284AEE112713-15D8-9724@Webmail-m125.sysops.aol.com> The court held that when a defendant is attempting to commit a criminal act that is impossible to commit, unknown to the defendant, the fact the act is impossible to commit is not a defense. The defendants believed that the young woman was alive and had not consented to have sex. Because the men believed they were raping a drunken, unconscious woman, they were guilty of _attempted_ rape even though the woman was actually dead at the time sexual intercourse took place. Conveniently I am able to reply to two points as one. In the above case, the crime of attempted rape will be defined, and will probably incorporate necrophilia or other abhorrent practices, although I confess not to have researched the Law on the subject. In the case of Cheek Pete, who spotted the king of clubs singleton on a board he was not scheduled to play, I cannot see any Law he has infringed. This brings me to your suggestion that he can be disqualified for cause. This law-abiding citizen has not breached any of Laws 1-90, yet you are proposing to disqualify him "for cause" under Law 91. Because you think, as I do, that attempting to cheat should be an infraction. The difference between us is that when it is not, I campaign to change the Laws, Jacoby style and you use a Law intended to punish a serious infraction to punish a non-infraction which rightly gets your back up. From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 22 10:58:11 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:58:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: References: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com><4C981CED.6010401@gmail.com><8CD27B28B7E358C-A78-3B0B@webmail-m075.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD284B6B0E4E55-15D8-9783@Webmail-m125.sysops.aol.com> Now please explain how the legal and ethical obligations of a player who thinks that he has UI and actually has it differ from the legal and ethical obligations of a player who thinks that he has UI and doesn't actually have it. The latter has none *under the Laws*. The Laws does not say "thinks he is playing or thinks he is yet to play". I agree he has a moral obligation under the spirit of the Laws. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Wed Sep 22 14:44:19 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:44:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD284B6B0E4E55-15D8-9783@Webmail-m125.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com><4C981CED.6010401@gmail.com><8CD27B28B7E358C-A78-3B0B@webmail-m075.sysops.aol.com> <8CD284B6B0E4E55-15D8-9783@Webmail-m125.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4C99FA23.9000003@gmail.com> On 9/22/2010 4:58 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > > Now please explain how the legal and ethical obligations of a player > who thinks that he has UI and actually has it differ from the legal and > ethical obligations of a player who thinks that he has UI and doesn't > actually have it. > > > The latter has none *under the Laws*. The Laws does not say "thinks he > is playing or thinks he is yet to play". I agree he has a moral > obligation under the spirit of the Laws. > The moral obligation is called "ethics". And the Laws require adhering to ethical as well as legal standards underlying them (72A), which imposes the legal obligation. That is where your logic falls apart. The Laws specify a set of procedures to be followed in a particular situation. A player perceives himself to be in that situation. Therefore, those procedures must be followed (74A3). Two players faced with identical situations have identical ethical and legal responsibilities, even if subsequent investigation may determine that the cases are in fact different. In the cases above, if those responsibilities are fulfilled, the TD will be summoned. The TD then performs the investigation, and determines that the L16 is not applicable in one of the cases. At that point, the legal and ethical responsibilities diverge. If the TD is summoned "forthwith", in the former case he will apply L16C2. In the latter case, he will so inform the players and play can continue unrestricted. However, the TD cannot perform his obligations until the players perform theirs. The Laws do not state "thinks he is playing" because they don't need to. It's a set of Bridge Laws, not a psychology text. Consider the ideal case, where 100% of player knew the Laws and followed them to the best of their abilities. There would still be situations where UI went unreported, simply because the player was not aware that he had UI. You cannot report what you don't believe you have. However, in both of the cases above, 100% of players would report having UI. A player's actions are determined by his subjective understanding, or "beliefs" (combining elements of perception, knowledge, and motivations) about a situation, not the actual situation. Determining the actual situation is the task of the TD who cannot determine the facts of a particular situation (to the best of his "beliefs") until he is summoned. Let's take it a bit further, and suppose that your player who saw the hand records also saw that they were dated the previous evening. The obligation to report UI still exists. It's possible that the DIC mixed up the hand records, and hands that were supposed to be played the previous evening are now being played today, since today's hands were accidentally played the previous evening (this is not a hypothetical situation; I've seen it happen). Phrasing the above in a different manner: An ethical and legal obligation to perform an action at a given time is not absolved if the information needed to determine that the action is not necessary is not available to the player at the time the action is required. An ethical player must attempt to follow the Laws as best he can with the information available to him. In the absence of information that information is not "UI" *at the time the information is received*, the player has the ethical, and therefore legal, obligation to report it forthwith. A player who fails to do so intentionally has suffered an ethical, and therefore legal, lapse. Should he attempt to turn this to his advantage, he is attempting to cheat and the sanctions previously discussed apply. Richard Hills' example illustrates that this thread has gone well beyond the traditional "beating a dead horse" that often applies to this kind of thread. Hirsch From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Wed Sep 22 14:49:04 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:49:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD284AEE112713-15D8-9724@Webmail-m125.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD284AEE112713-15D8-9724@Webmail-m125.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4C99FB40.9010606@gmail.com> On 9/22/2010 4:54 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > > The court held that when a defendant is attempting to commit a > criminal act that is impossible to commit, unknown to the > defendant, the fact the act is impossible to commit is not a > defense. The defendants believed that the young woman was alive > and had not consented to have sex. Because the men believed they > were raping a drunken, unconscious woman, they were guilty of > _attempted_ rape even though the woman was actually dead at the > time sexual intercourse took place. > > > Conveniently I am able to reply to two points as one. In the above > case, the crime of attempted rape will be defined, and will probably > incorporate necrophilia or other abhorrent practices, although I > confess not to have researched the Law on the subject. In the case of > Cheek Pete, who spotted the king of clubs singleton on a board he was > not scheduled to play, I cannot see any Law he has infringed. This > brings me to your suggestion that he can be disqualified for cause. > This law-abiding citizen has not breached any of Laws 1-90, yet you are > proposing to disqualify him "for cause" under Law 91. Because you > think, as I do, that attempting to cheat should be an infraction. The > difference between us is that when it is not, I campaign to change the > Laws, Jacoby style and you use a Law intended to punish a serious > infraction to punish a non-infraction which rightly gets your back up. > > See my reply to your other post. Short version: L72A1 in particular indicates that your analysis of no Laws being breached is incorrect. Just because you can't see it don't mean it ain't so. Hirsch From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 22 15:04:04 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:04:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> Message-ID: <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> On Sep 21, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:35:37 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Sep 21, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Richard is taking this view seriously, so your comment becomes >>> relevant. >>> >>> We don't give the NOS the benefit of the doubt on each every >>> individual >>> aspect of the play, we give the benefit of the doubt overall. Was it >>> likely that the players might have defended differently? It must >>> matter >>> what they are told, and being told "no agreement" might tip the >>> balance to >>> a particular play not being likely. In ACBL-land. It again almost >>> certainly changes the probabilities for a weighted ruling. >>> >>> For example, we agree on Cappelletti, my partner knows what it means >>> whilst I don't, and he bids 2D. The opps ask what it means, I take >>> a guess >>> and guess wrong. In Richard's explanation of the laws, the question >>> will >>> be if the opps would likely have done anything different had they >>> been >>> told no agreement. They still are likely to look for a spade fit, >>> whereas >>> they probably would not if they were told that 2D showed the majors. >> >> You are always responsible for disclosing your explicit agreements, > > I think I am responsible for disclosing all of my agreements. In this context, the problem arises because you may not be aware of what your agreement is, and you can't disclose what you don't know. But you will always know (or will have known) what your explicit agreement is, by definition, and can always, at minimum, disclose that much. >> whatever and however dubious they may be. Richard's "no agreement" >> is a presumption for adjudication. > > ??? In particular here, you are not aware of the fact that you have no agreement. It is only during post-play adjudication that this finding is made, and comes into play. >> As we are discussing situations >> where the lack of a substantive agreement is not realized by at least >> one, usually both, members of the partnership, you are hardly >> expected to presume it for disclosure. > > yes, it is more likely to come up in rectification. But not > impossible in > play. If my partner explains my bid wrong, I might decide we have no > agreement. You are not permitted to allow your partner's explanation to affect your understanding of your call at the time you made it. If you made the call knowing that you had no agreement about it, there's no issue. Otherwise, you must disclose what you believe your agreement to be, not what you think your partner believes it to be, and let the TD/AC sort it out. >> As usual, the key is just to do your best to be helpful and >> forthcoming. You should not be taking any guesses here. If you can >> explain the situation clearly to us, you can explain it just as >> clearly to them. If you said you would play Cappelletti, but your >> partner knows it and you don't, what you should tell your opponents >> is, "We said we would play Cappelletti, but my partner knows it and I >> don't." WTP? > > Is it a problem that the opponents will wish they knew Cappelletti? > (Will > the director be understanding when my partner refuses to explain > Cappelletti?) The opponents are entitled to the same understanding of your partner's calls as your own. If they (think they) know Cappelletti, they can act accordingly at their own risk. You are not responsible for disclosing an agreement you don't have. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 22 16:19:32 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:19:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C9A1074.1010900@skynet.be> This is a sentence which I thought I would not read on blml: Eric Landau wrote: > > In this context, the problem arises because you may not be aware of > what your agreement is, this one: > and you can't disclose what you don't know. > But you will always know (or will have known) what your explicit > agreement is, by definition, and can always, at minimum, disclose > that much. > Your opponents are entitled to know this, even if you don't know it. So the sentenve "you can't disclose what you don't know" is totally immaterial. You are under an obligation to tell your opponents some some fact, and you don't. The reason why you don't can be any of the following: - you have forgotten; - you never knew it; - you thought it was general bridge knowledge; - you are trying to hide something you do know. Neither of these has any other ruling than the other one: your opponents did not get what they were entitled to, and if they are damaged, they will receive a rectification for that damage. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 22 16:27:38 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:27:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <4C99FA23.9000003@gmail.com> References: <8CD26C15DDBD133-1930-2C84F@webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com><4C981CED.6010401@gmail.com><8CD27B28B7E358C-A78-3B0B@webmail-m075.sysops.aol.com> <8CD284B6B0E4E55-15D8-9783@Webmail-m125.sysops.aol.com> <4C99FA23.9000003@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CD287971422245-A98-45B4@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> The moral obligation is called "ethics". And the Laws require adhering to ethical as well as legal standards underlying them (72A), which imposes the legal obligation. Rubbish. Law 72 only requires complying with the ethical standards *set out in these laws*. It is a game, and has a set of Laws, like Diplomacy (a board game). I trust that you would not argue that someone changing sides in Diplomacy breached some other set of ethical values. Having found nonsense in your first sentence I did not really read on until I came to ... Richard Hills' example illustrates that this thread has gone well beyond the traditional "beating a dead horse" that often applies to this kind of thread. Here I agree, and your hopeless and error-ridden attempts to justify the woeful failure of the Laws to deal with attempts to cheat make it pointless to continue the debate. On that we are agreed. So I shall not reply to this thread any more. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 22 17:52:31 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:52:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <925278.32637.qm@web28509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau] The opponents are entitled to the same understanding of your partner's calls as your own. If they (think they) know Cappelletti, they can act accordingly at their own risk. You are not responsible for disclosing an agreement you don't have. [Nigel] Ordinary players disadvantage themselves by failing to read discussions like these. My previous understanding was: - The reason that describing a convention *by name* is frowned upon is to avoid damage *to opponents*: Opponents may be unfamiliar with the convention; and have to waste time and generate unauthorised information if they attempt to find out. - I shared other wide-spread delusions: that your system-card should be as full and accurate a description as possible of your understandings. If opponents get a poor score because your card is inaccurate, then the director awards them redress. In the absence of damage, the director may still impose a procedural penalty for a missing or sloppy card, Now, following Grattan and Richard, there is a growing BLML consensus that the boot is on the other foot. if "Reverse attitude, Mckenny, Stayman, Splinter, Cappelletti, RKC" (or whatever) appear on your system-card that does mean you understand the convention or have agreed to play it. The same applies if you describe a treatment by name, when an opponent asks. Even worse: if your card describes a treatment in simple English, that still does not imply that it is your agreement. Opponents must always cross-examine you about every detail to protect themselves. As more players become aware of this, the game will become slower. IMO, if this interpretation of current disclosure law is correct, then the 2018 law should be changed to mandate: - Your disclosure (spoken/written) should be as complete and accurate as practicable. - You may describe a widely known system or convention *by name*, to save time, only if you know it and play it by the book (You must still provide details, on request) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 22 20:16:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:16:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <4C9A1074.1010900@skynet.be> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <4C9A1074.1010900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5FF11765-FDAE-416E-B659-B8DA50F3EA38@starpower.net> On Sep 22, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > This is a sentence which I thought I would not read on blml: > > Eric Landau wrote: > >> In this context, the problem arises because you may not be aware of >> what your agreement is, > > this one: > >> and you can't disclose what you don't know. >> But you will always know (or will have known) what your explicit >> agreement is, by definition, and can always, at minimum, disclose >> that much. > > Your opponents are entitled to know this, even if you don't know > it. So > the sentenve "you can't disclose what you don't know" is totally > immaterial. You are under an obligation to tell your opponents some > some > fact, and you don't. The reason why you don't can be any of the > following: > - you have forgotten; > - you never knew it; > - you thought it was general bridge knowledge; > - you are trying to hide something you do know. > Neither of these has any other ruling than the other one: your > opponents > did not get what they were entitled to, and if they are damaged, they > will receive a rectification for that damage. Nobody argues that your opponents are not "entitled to know this"; they are (in at least three of Herman's four cases; the second is under debate). I assert only that if you don't know it, you are incapable of disclosing it, and assertion for which the opponents' entitlement is "totally immaterial". That's why we're here: we are talking about situations that necessarily require adjudication, and what the appropriate presumptions are at that time. Herman has apparently misread my comments, which merely pointed out that it is never inappropriate to disclose the totality of your explicit agreement. That does not imply its converse, which would suggest that such disclosure is always by itself adequate, an argument which I very much doubt Herman will ever read on BLML. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 23 00:24:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:24:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: If: (a) North-South pair A summon the Director to their table, because (b) East-West pair B have unintentionally infracted, and (c) the correct ruling is North-South Ave+ and East-West Ave-, and (d) the Director knows that the correct ruling is Ave+ / Ave-, but (e) the Director instead rules Ave+ / Ave+, to (f) "keep everyone happy", so (g) East-West pair B gain first place in the East-West field, but (h) East-West pair C would have gained first place otherwise, then (i) East-West pair C are Very Unhappy losing first place, because (j) of an intentional Director's error. 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 Sep 23 01:17:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:17:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C99FA23.9000003@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: The moral obligation is called "ethics". [snip] Richard Hills' example illustrates that this thread has gone well beyond the traditional "beating a dead horse" that often applies to this kind of thread. Richard Hills, May 2004: >>Edgar Kaplan asserted that tournament bridge would cease to be >>a meaningful competition, unless contestants acted as best as >>they could to win. >> >>A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised Kaplan's >>position by postulating this hypothetical: >> >>"You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match choking on his >>food. If he dies, you win the match by default." >> >>In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted that while the >>Bridge Laws were silent on whether to let an opponent choke to >>death, he still deprecated such an action. David Stevenson, May 2004: >At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether killing a TD >should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a warning on the first >occasion. 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 Sep 23 02:07:10 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:07:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <783914842F594B9BA7FA98B3E86E0624@Mildred> Message-ID: Robert Frick: .....If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the opponents' convention card. Grattan Endicott: +=+ System Card regulations may specify, of course, how certain conventions are to be understood if entered on the card simply as a name. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: In Australia there are two equally popular variants of Stayman: (a) Simple Stayman (normal in many parts of the world), and (b) Extended Stayman (an Aussie peculiarity). So simply writing "Stayman" on an ABF System Card would be misleading. The ABF, however, has customised its prescribed System Card to fit local norms. Next to a pre-printed "2C Stayman" are two check-boxes for "Simple" or "Extended", plus a space to describe an "Other" approach. 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 Sep 23 02:39:03 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:39:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:04:04 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 21, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:35:37 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 21, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> Richard is taking this view seriously, so your comment becomes >>>> relevant. >>>> >>>> We don't give the NOS the benefit of the doubt on each every >>>> individual >>>> aspect of the play, we give the benefit of the doubt overall. Was it >>>> likely that the players might have defended differently? It must >>>> matter >>>> what they are told, and being told "no agreement" might tip the >>>> balance to >>>> a particular play not being likely. In ACBL-land. It again almost >>>> certainly changes the probabilities for a weighted ruling. >>>> >>>> For example, we agree on Cappelletti, my partner knows what it means >>>> whilst I don't, and he bids 2D. The opps ask what it means, I take >>>> a guess >>>> and guess wrong. In Richard's explanation of the laws, the question >>>> will >>>> be if the opps would likely have done anything different had they >>>> been >>>> told no agreement. They still are likely to look for a spade fit, >>>> whereas >>>> they probably would not if they were told that 2D showed the majors. >>> >>> You are always responsible for disclosing your explicit agreements, >> >> I think I am responsible for disclosing all of my agreements. > > In this context, the problem arises because you may not be aware of > what your agreement is, and you can't disclose what you don't know. > But you will always know (or will have known) what your explicit > agreement is, by definition, and can always, at minimum, disclose > that much. > >>> whatever and however dubious they may be. Richard's "no agreement" >>> is a presumption for adjudication. >> >> ??? > > In particular here, you are not aware of the fact that you have no > agreement. It is only during post-play adjudication that this > finding is made, and comes into play. > >>> As we are discussing situations >>> where the lack of a substantive agreement is not realized by at least >>> one, usually both, members of the partnership, you are hardly >>> expected to presume it for disclosure. >> >> yes, it is more likely to come up in rectification. But not >> impossible in >> play. If my partner explains my bid wrong, I might decide we have no >> agreement. > > You are not permitted to allow your partner's explanation to affect > your understanding of your call at the time you made it. If you made > the call knowing that you had no agreement about it, there's no > issue. Otherwise, you must disclose what you believe your agreement > to be, not what you think your partner believes it to be, and let the > TD/AC sort it out. Sorry, I didn't explain this well. We have agreed on some convention, I make a bid following the convention, and my partner misexplains it. Now I am declarer and must tell the opps that my partner's explanation was wrong and tell them the correct explanation. It is to my advantage if I can tell them "no agreement" rather than telling them what my bid means according to the convention we played. According to what Nigel has called the blml position, I can tell them "no agreement" if in fact my partner never knew the convention (or lacks whatever awareness is needed to form a mutual understanding). I am allowed to use his call to judge what what explanation to give. (That is standard blml cant.) > >>> As usual, the key is just to do your best to be helpful and >>> forthcoming. You should not be taking any guesses here. If you can >>> explain the situation clearly to us, you can explain it just as >>> clearly to them. If you said you would play Cappelletti, but your >>> partner knows it and you don't, what you should tell your opponents >>> is, "We said we would play Cappelletti, but my partner knows it and I >>> don't." WTP? >> >> Is it a problem that the opponents will wish they knew Cappelletti? >> (Will >> the director be understanding when my partner refuses to explain >> Cappelletti?) > > The opponents are entitled to the same understanding of your > partner's calls as your own. Actually, this is not true, in both directions. They are not always entitled to all of the information I have about my partner's call (when my partner gives me UI which helps me understand his hand and does not help the opponents). Relevant to this discussion, most people would say that they are sometimes entitled to more than I understand (even though I myself cannot provide this extra until after the hand). You might not be taking this position. As I understand it, you believe a mutual understanding of the meaning of a conventional call (when only the convention name has been agreed upon) occurs implicitly through mutual awareness at the time the call is made. If so, when I forget a convention we do not have mutual awareness. But no one would rule that way. I am building your position from what you have said, you might actually believe differently or want to change it. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 23 02:43:41 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:43:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:24:35 -0400, wrote: > > If: > > (a) North-South pair A summon the Director to their table, because > (b) East-West pair B have unintentionally infracted, and > (c) the correct ruling is North-South Ave+ and East-West Ave-, and > (d) the Director knows that the correct ruling is Ave+ / Ave-, but > (e) the Director instead rules Ave+ / Ave+, to > (f) "keep everyone happy", so > (g) East-West pair B gain first place in the East-West field, but > (h) East-West pair C would have gained first place otherwise, then > (i) East-West pair C are Very Unhappy losing first place, because > (j) of an intentional Director's error. First of all, pair C would need to hear about the ruling. That almost never happens. Then Pair C would have to understand the principle. That seems to be infrequent. And if Pair C hears about it and doesn't like it and understands that it is unfair, they can try to appeal it. (just joking) Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 23 03:34:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:34:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Montaigne (1533-1592), French moralist and essayist: "When I play with my cat, who knows whether she isn't amusing herself with me more than I am with her?" Robert Frick: >.....And if Pair C hears about it and doesn't like it and >understands that it is unfair, they can try to appeal it. >(just joking) Law 92A, first sentence: "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made ***at his table*** by the Director." Richard Hills: Since the intentionally illegal ruling by the Director occurred at a different table, East-West pair C do not have any avenue for score adjustment redress. (No joke.) On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often summoning the Director against my own interests.) 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 Sep 23 03:44:23 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:44:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:34:53 -0400, wrote: > Montaigne (1533-1592), French moralist and essayist: > > "When I play with my cat, who knows whether she isn't amusing > herself with me more than I am with her?" > > Robert Frick: > >> .....And if Pair C hears about it and doesn't like it and >> understands that it is unfair, they can try to appeal it. >> (just joking) > > Law 92A, first sentence: > > "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any > ruling made ***at his table*** by the Director." > > Richard Hills: > > Since the intentionally illegal ruling by the Director > occurred at a different table, East-West pair C do not have > any avenue for score adjustment redress. (No joke.) > > On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and > East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should > have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good > score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often > summoning the Director against my own interests.) and probably against the policy of trying to win that you mention all of the time. > > > 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 -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 23 04:17:35 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Arthur Hays Sulzberger (1891-1968), on journalism: "We tell the public which way the cat is jumping. The public will take care of the cat." Richard Hills: [snip] >>On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and >>East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should >>have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good >>score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often >>summoning the Director against my own interests.) Robert Frick: >and probably against the policy of trying to win that you >mention all of the time. Law 72A - Observance of Laws: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Richard Hills: Sure my "chief object is to obtain a higher score". But this is not my _only_ object. Also required are the criteria "strict accordance with the Laws" and "ethical standards". Neither are fulfilled if I knowingly accept an illegal Director's ruling which benefits my side. What's the problem? Is the problem a Director who fails to realise that just as bridge scores are always zero-sum, so happiness about those bridge scores is on average zero-sum??? 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 Thu Sep 23 04:39:51 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:39:51 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <9E797355E1314B5F91F240F8E0A9254D@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:34:53 -0400, wrote: > >> Law 92A, first sentence: >> snip >> "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any >> ruling made ***at his table*** by the Director." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Since the intentionally illegal ruling by the Director >> occurred at a different table, East-West pair C do not have >> any avenue for score adjustment redress. (No joke.) >> >> On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and >> East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should >> have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good >> score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often >> summoning the Director against my own interests.) > > and probably against the policy of trying to win that you mention all of > the time. > LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES A. Observance of Laws Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws. Bill Kemp It is self serving for a known director to insist upon the lawful procedures and ethical standards of the laws to be imposed upon him when he is a player. The benefits to be gained from the teaching effect on other players can be seen when you are directing and the players know that you will rule at their table as you would expect another director to rule at yours. I use this ruse as well :-) > >> >> >> 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 > > > -- > somepsychology.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 23 04:57:46 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:57:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:17:35 -0400, wrote: > Arthur Hays Sulzberger (1891-1968), on journalism: > > "We tell the public which way the cat is jumping. The > public will take care of the cat." > > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > >>> On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and >>> East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should >>> have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good >>> score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often >>> summoning the Director against my own interests.) > > Robert Frick: > >> and probably against the policy of trying to win that you >> mention all of the time. > > Law 72A - Observance of Laws: > > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict > accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a > higher score than other contestants whilst complying with > the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in > these laws." > > Richard Hills: > > Sure my "chief object is to obtain a higher score". But > this is not my _only_ object. Also required are the > criteria "strict accordance with the Laws" and "ethical > standards". Neither are fulfilled if I knowingly accept > an illegal Director's ruling which benefits my side. Well, you are saying that somewhere in the laws there is something against accepting an A+ you don't deserve. All I can find is that you accept the director's ruling gracefully. > > What's the problem? > > Is the problem a Director who fails to realise that just > as bridge scores are always zero-sum, so happiness about > those bridge scores is on average zero-sum??? You seem to be arguing that feel-good rulings don't work. If you are arguing that, it is a somewhat odd position to take. The reason they are used is because they do work. The reason we give feel-good rulings for director mistakes is that they work. Here, as I have already explained, the players who receive the feel-good ruling are happy and the other players are usually blissfully ignorant. Right, happiness also comes from overall position -- and that is zero-sum. So the feel-good ruling does not hurt or help that. Also, Pair C is blaming their lower finish on making mistakes, not the director. Why am I explaining why feel-good rulings work? Don't we all understand them? There is an art and philosophy to them that is an interesting topic of conversation. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 05:06:37 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:06:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chucking Feat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C9AC43D.6000207@gmail.com> On 9/22/2010 7:17 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > David Stevenson, May 2004: > >> At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether killing a TD >> should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a warning on the first >> occasion. We are clearly not given enough information to begin to discuss this. We would at least need to know the nature of the ruling that prompted killing the TD. Was the murder accomplished in such a way that it did not disrupt the orderly progress of the game? Hirsch From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 23 05:02:26 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:02:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9E797355E1314B5F91F240F8E0A9254D@acer> References: <9E797355E1314B5F91F240F8E0A9254D@acer> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:39:51 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:44 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:34:53 -0400, wrote: >> >>> Law 92A, first sentence: >>> > > snip > >>> "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any >>> ruling made ***at his table*** by the Director." >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Since the intentionally illegal ruling by the Director >>> occurred at a different table, East-West pair C do not have >>> any avenue for score adjustment redress. (No joke.) >>> >>> On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and >>> East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should >>> have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good >>> score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often >>> summoning the Director against my own interests.) >> >> and probably against the policy of trying to win that you mention all of >> the time. >> > > LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES > > A. Observance of Laws > > Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with > the > Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants > whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set > out in > these laws. > > Bill Kemp > > It is self serving for a known director to insist upon the lawful > procedures > and ethical standards of the laws to be imposed upon him when he is a > player. The benefits to be gained from the teaching effect on other > players > can be seen when you are directing and the players know that you will > rule > at their table as you would expect another director to rule at yours. > > I use this ruse as well :-) The point is, there are good reasons for doing things that impair one's ability to win. And there are bad reasons for doing that. The law does not distinguish them. > >> >>> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> somepsychology.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 23 05:28:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:28:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thomas Gray, Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat (1748): Not all that tempts your wand'ring eyes And heedless hearts, is lawful prize; Nor all, that glisters, gold. Robert Frick: >.....Also, Pair C is blaming their lower finish on making >mistakes, not the director. Richard Hills: Missing the point. Regardless of whether East-West pair C are aware that the Director intentionally and illegally caused their placing to drop from first place to second place, they are less happy in second place than in first place. So the "keep them happy" philosophy is inherently self-contradictory, with East-West pair B's happiness at the expense of East-West pair C's sadness. Robert Frick: >Why am I explaining why feel-good rulings work? Don't we >all understand them? There is an art and philosophy to >them that is an interesting topic of conversation. Richard My art and philosophy, but not an interesting topic of conversation, is that while the gravest possible offence for a player is infracting Law 73B2, the gravest possible offence for a Director is to voluntarily (club management may give illegal orders, giving the Director a choice between ruling legally, or feeding her family) choose an intentional and frequent violation of Law 81B2: "The Director applies, and is ***bound*** by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws." 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 Thu Sep 23 05:43:35 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:43:35 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> [snip] >> >>>> On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and >>>> East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should >>>> have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good >>>> score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often >>>> summoning the Director against my own interests.) >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>> and probably against the policy of trying to win that you >>> mention all of the time. >> >> Law 72A - Observance of Laws: >> >> "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict >> accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a >> higher score than other contestants whilst complying with >> the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in >> these laws." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Sure my "chief object is to obtain a higher score". But >> this is not my _only_ object. Also required are the >> criteria "strict accordance with the Laws" and "ethical >> standards". Neither are fulfilled if I knowingly accept >> an illegal Director's ruling which benefits my side. > > Well, you are saying that somewhere in the laws there is something against > accepting an A+ you don't deserve. All I can find is that you accept the > director's ruling gracefully. > >> >> What's the problem? >> >> Is the problem a Director who fails to realise that just >> as bridge scores are always zero-sum, so happiness about >> those bridge scores is on average zero-sum??? > > > You seem to be arguing that feel-good rulings don't work. If you are > arguing that, it is a somewhat odd position to take. The reason they are > used is because they do work. The reason we give feel-good rulings for > director mistakes is that they work. > > Here, as I have already explained, the players who receive the feel-good > ruling are happy and the other players are usually blissfully ignorant. > Right, happiness also comes from overall position -- and that is zero-sum. > So the feel-good ruling does not hurt or help that. Also, Pair C is > blaming their lower finish on making mistakes, not the director. > > Why am I explaining why feel-good rulings work? Don't we all understand > them? There is an art and philosophy to them that is an interesting topic > of conversation. Bill I suspect that the problem with feel good rulings is that they are addictive. Once your players get used to them they want more. They are however not a part of bridge in the form that you are using them. I do not find directing easy, partly because I decided some years ago that there were unpleasant things in directing but if I was going to do it then these things had to be done. If you are not attempting to or don't wish to run a bridge session according to the laws (2008 in your case), why not find something that you want to do properly rather than teach the players bad habits > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 23 06:13:58 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:13:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:43:35 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>> [snip] >>> >>>>> On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and >>>>> East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should >>>>> have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good >>>>> score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often >>>>> summoning the Director against my own interests.) >>> >>> Robert Frick: >>> >>>> and probably against the policy of trying to win that you >>>> mention all of the time. >>> >>> Law 72A - Observance of Laws: >>> >>> "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict >>> accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a >>> higher score than other contestants whilst complying with >>> the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in >>> these laws." >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Sure my "chief object is to obtain a higher score". But >>> this is not my _only_ object. Also required are the >>> criteria "strict accordance with the Laws" and "ethical >>> standards". Neither are fulfilled if I knowingly accept >>> an illegal Director's ruling which benefits my side. >> >> Well, you are saying that somewhere in the laws there is something >> against >> accepting an A+ you don't deserve. All I can find is that you accept the >> director's ruling gracefully. >> >>> >>> What's the problem? >>> >>> Is the problem a Director who fails to realise that just >>> as bridge scores are always zero-sum, so happiness about >>> those bridge scores is on average zero-sum??? >> >> >> You seem to be arguing that feel-good rulings don't work. If you are >> arguing that, it is a somewhat odd position to take. The reason they are >> used is because they do work. The reason we give feel-good rulings for >> director mistakes is that they work. >> >> Here, as I have already explained, the players who receive the feel-good >> ruling are happy and the other players are usually blissfully ignorant. >> Right, happiness also comes from overall position -- and that is >> zero-sum. >> So the feel-good ruling does not hurt or help that. Also, Pair C is >> blaming their lower finish on making mistakes, not the director. >> >> Why am I explaining why feel-good rulings work? Don't we all understand >> them? There is an art and philosophy to them that is an interesting >> topic >> of conversation. > > Bill > > I suspect that the problem with feel good rulings is that they are > addictive. Once your players get used to them they want more. They are > however not a part of bridge in the form that you are using them. I do > not > find directing easy, partly because I decided some years ago that there > were > unpleasant things in directing but if I was going to do it then these > things > had to be done. > If you are not attempting to or don't wish to run a bridge session > according > to the laws (2008 in your case), why not find something that you want to > do > properly rather than teach the players bad habits 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 and for reasons that escape me, even the Boston tea party is considered good. I read a book written in 1934 that called Mahatma Gandhi a rabble rouser. Abraham Lincoln once won a law case starting with the premise that the law was completely for the other side and then arguing that the right thing to do was in favor of his client. And we have all been frustrated to death by some beaurocrat who just followed rules. Actually, the blind adherence to rules is only level 4 or level 5 morality. The levels of morality go up to 7. But according to the person who did that theory, if you are stuck at level 4 morality, you can only recognize level 5. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Sep 23 06:59:49 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:59:49 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:43:35 -0400, Bill & Helen Kemp > wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:57 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>>> [snip] > > > 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 and for reasons that escape me, even the Boston tea party is > considered good. I read a book written in 1934 that called Mahatma Gandhi > a rabble rouser. Abraham Lincoln once won a law case starting with the > premise that the law was completely for the other side and then arguing > that the right thing to do was in favor of his client. > > And we have all been frustrated to death by some beaurocrat who just > followed rules. Actually, the blind adherence to rules is only level 4 or > level 5 morality. The levels of morality go up to 7. But according to the > person who did that theory, if you are stuck at level 4 morality, you can > only recognize level 5. LAW 81 - THE DIRECTOR A. Official Status The Director is the official representative of the Tournament Organizer. B. Restrictions and Responsibilities 1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer. 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. Bill If you choose to ignore or vary the laws and regulations, at what stage do you cease playing the game of duplicate bridge? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Sep 23 07:28:10 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:28:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (essentially) for your amusement Message-ID: <4C9AE56A.2080505@aol.com> Case 1: At a recent tournament I happened (as TD) to pause and regard the play at one table. (Teams of four, with screens) Declarer had won 5 of the first 6 tricks. He had placed the 5 cards of the won tricks correctly in front of himself, on the table. The played card of the lost trick had been placed (reason unknown) by him on the tray, nearer the screen. He had won the last trick and was contemplating how to proceed. While doing so he (apparently) noticed that the card he had played to the trick he lost was improperly (at least unusually) placed and he picked it up and returned it to the other played cards nearer the edge of the table. He however, did not release it from his hand. After considering how to proceed for a short time further he then faced (and played) the card from the trick he had lost (again). None of the other players noticed that the card had already been played. As TD, do you interfere? And before anyone refers to ?81C3 please consider the similar situation in which the director notices a revoke. Case 2: A trump contract (not NT). Declarer wins trick in hand, will draw last outstanding trump and then claim. He plays his high trump (places it in played position on the table). Dummy says, (incorrectly) "you are on the board". (First violation of correct procedure) Declarer returns the played high trump card to his hand (second violation) and plays from dummy (third violation). As he has no more trumps on the table he must return to his hand and plays a small card in another (not trump) suit to return to his hand. RHO ruffs it, setting the contract. Declarer now calls the TD and claims the high trump he played from his and was a played card and could not be legally retracted. Your decision? Ciao, JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Sep 23 07:51:31 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:51:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: (essentially) for your amusement Message-ID: <4C9AEAE3.1010902@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100923/de684291/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 23 07:52:18 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:52:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9E797355E1314B5F91F240F8E0A9254D@acer> Message-ID: Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1343 - 1400): Lat take a cat, and fostre hym wel with milk And tendre flessh, and make his couche of silk, And lat hym seen a mous go by the wal, Anon he weyveth milk and flessh and al, And every deyntee that is in that hous, Swich appetit hath he to ete a mous. Law 72A - General Principles - Observance of Laws "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Bill Kemp: It is self serving for a known director to insist upon the lawful procedures and ethical standards of the laws to be imposed upon him when he is a player. The benefits to be gained from the teaching effect on other players can be seen when you are directing and the players know that you will rule at their table as you would expect another director to rule at yours. I use this ruse as well :-) Richard Hills: In a recent event I carelessly claimed. The opponents agreed to the claim, putting their cards back into their slots. But now I noticed that my claim was faulty, so I summoned the Director. Therefore the Director awarded one more trick to the other side. Introduction, third sentence: "Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director." Richard Hills: I did not gracefully accept the Director's rectification, instead arguing that the Director had made an analytical error. The other side were entitled to three extra tricks, not merely one. :-) So the Director amended his ruling. 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 svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 23 09:16:46 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:16:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (essentially) for your amusement In-Reply-To: <4C9AE56A.2080505@aol.com> References: <4C9AE56A.2080505@aol.com> Message-ID: <000401cb5aef$48d17040$da7450c0$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Case 1: At a recent tournament I happened (as TD) to pause and regard the > play at one table. (Teams of four, with screens) Declarer had won 5 of the first 6 > tricks. He had placed the 5 cards of the won tricks correctly in front of himself, on > the table. The played card of the lost trick had been placed (reason unknown) by > him on the tray, nearer the screen. He had won the last trick and was > contemplating how to proceed. While doing so he (apparently) noticed that the > card he had played to the trick he lost was improperly (at least unusually) placed > and he picked it up and returned it to the other played cards nearer the edge of > the table. He however, did not release it from his hand. After considering how to > proceed for a short time further he then faced (and played) the card from the trick > he had lost (again). None of the other players noticed that the card had already > been played. > As TD, do you interfere? > And before anyone refers to ?81C3 please consider the similar situation in which > the director notices a revoke. No. It is not the Director's business to protect either side from damaging themselves with a self-inflected error. In this particular case the error may eventually result in a revoke rectification (Law 67B1). However, the fact that a revoke rectification may become the final result is immaterial for the question of director's interference! > > Case 2: A trump contract (not NT). Declarer wins trick in hand, will draw last > outstanding trump and then claim. He plays his high trump (places it in played > position on the table). Dummy says, (incorrectly) "you are on the board". (First > violation of correct procedure) Declarer returns the played high trump card to his > hand (second > violation) and plays from dummy (third violation). As he has no more trumps on > the table he must return to his hand and plays a small card in another (not trump) > suit to return to his hand. RHO ruffs it, setting the contract. Declarer now calls > the TD and claims the high trump he played from his hand was a played card and > could not be legally retracted. Your decision? Whether or not the card could legally be retracted declarer did in fact retract it. His opponents did not commit any irregularity. Table result stands. From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 23 13:49:13 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:49:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1491437477.292311285242553108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:24:35 -0400, wrote: > > > > > If: > > > > (a) North-South pair A summon the Director to their table, because > > (b) East-West pair B have unintentionally infracted, and > > (c) the correct ruling is North-South Ave+ and East-West Ave-, and > > (d) the Director knows that the correct ruling is Ave+ / Ave-, but > > (e) the Director instead rules Ave+ / Ave+, to > > (f) "keep everyone happy", so > > (g) East-West pair B gain first place in the East-West field, but > > (h) East-West pair C would have gained first place otherwise, then > > (i) East-West pair C are Very Unhappy losing first place, because > > (j) of an intentional Director's error. > > First of all, pair C would need to hear about the ruling. That almost > never happens. Well, maybe not at your club. But normally, all results on all boards are published within a few minutes after the end of the round. You can bet that if I end up being second, I will check the scores on every single board. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 23 14:09:51 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:09:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> Message-ID: A question for Richard on how directors rule. The example: 5H, in response to 4NT, is described to the opponents as showing 2 controls. The player making the bid, who understood RKC, meant to also deny the queen of trumps. Afterwards, the opponents argue that if they had been told that he did not have the queen of trumps, they would have defended differently. The convention cards for both say RKC. (It is well accepted at this club that agreeing on RCK means that 5H denies the queen of trumps. If this is not true at your bridge club, think of a different convention that people agree on.) For what I might call the "contractual" position, agreeing on RKC creates an agreement (for the purposes of the law) that 5H denies the queen of trumps. So the ruling is straightforward in favor of the opponents. For Richard's point of view, the issue is whether at any time the players have had a mutual awareness that 5H denies the queen of trumps. If they admit to that, then the ruling is as above. But suppose they deny it -- one player says he never correctly understood the convention. If we take him at his word, then (according to Richard) they have no agreement. Then the explanation the opponents were given was essentially correct and there is no rectification. Richard, do you (or directors in general if you think they follow your principle) accept them at their word? I don't see what further evidence you might collect. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 23 14:19:11 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:19:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <4694421.1285130258229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <783914842F594B9BA7FA98B3E86E0624@Mildred> <4694421.1285130258229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:37:38 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan >> wrote: >> >> >>> 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. +=+ >> >> I do not think I would rule this way. >> >> For example, I see that two players have RKC on their convention card >> and >> conclude that the 5H bidder does not have the queen of trumps, being >> damaged when he does. I then find that these players share the >> "awareness" >> that 5H shows the queen and 5S denies the queen. I would call the >> director >> and expect to be protected. >> >> If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the opponents' >> convention card. > > The RKC (also RKCB) convention has > evolved over time, and there exist multiple variations. > If they play that, say, 5H shows two out of five keycards > without slam interest and 5S shows two with slam interest, > that convention is called Roman Keycard, or also > Roman Keycard Blackwood. > > It is up to the regulation authorities to have regulations > that instruct players to provide correct, complete, non-confusing > information on their convention card. If an entry such > as "RKC" is legal usage of the convention card in ACBL-land, > then I think in my example you are not due any redress if > damaged - their convention card was filled in correctly. For example odd-even is just a checkbox on the ACBL convention card. In response to "what are your discards?", "Odd even" is a common, usually-accepted answer (for people who know it). Everyone plays that odd shows a liking for the suit. Are you saying that I can reverse the meaning and the opponents are not protected if they don't ask what odd means? Or does it have to be that someone else somewhere in time played odd-even backwards. Then the convention is ambiguous? > > I recommend that you always have the complete auction > reviewed before the opening lead is made, at minimum > when any bids were artificial. Once in > a while, you'll find that while you thought you understood > their auction, you actually didn't. I changed my example. I think there is a lot to be said for looking at the card to find out defensive carding. But I still don't like the thought that my opponents can essentially misdescribe their bidding agreements on their convention cards. Or I guess their explanations. Bob From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 23 14:22:33 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <858430229.303951285244553197.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:17:35 -0400, wrote: > > > Arthur Hays Sulzberger (1891-1968), on journalism: > > > > "We tell the public which way the cat is jumping. The > > public will take care of the cat." > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > [snip] > > > >>> On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and > >>> East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should > >>> have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good > >>> score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often > >>> summoning the Director against my own interests.) > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> and probably against the policy of trying to win that you > >> mention all of the time. > > > > Law 72A - Observance of Laws: > > > > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict > > accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a > > higher score than other contestants whilst complying with > > the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in > > these laws." > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Sure my "chief object is to obtain a higher score". But > > this is not my _only_ object. Also required are the > > criteria "strict accordance with the Laws" and "ethical > > standards". Neither are fulfilled if I knowingly accept > > an illegal Director's ruling which benefits my side. > > Well, you are saying that somewhere in the laws there is something against > > accepting an A+ you don't deserve. All I can find is that you accept the > director's ruling gracefully. > > > > > What's the problem? > > > > Is the problem a Director who fails to realise that just > > as bridge scores are always zero-sum, so happiness about > > those bridge scores is on average zero-sum??? > > > You seem to be arguing that feel-good rulings don't work. If you are > arguing that, it is a somewhat odd position to take. The reason they are > used is because they do work. The reason we give feel-good rulings for > director mistakes is that they work. > > Here, as I have already explained, the players who receive the feel-good > ruling are happy and the other players are usually blissfully ignorant. > Right, happiness also comes from overall position -- and that is zero-sum. > > So the feel-good ruling does not hurt or help that. Also, Pair C is > blaming their lower finish on making mistakes, not the director. > > Why am I explaining why feel-good rulings work? Don't we all understand > them? There is an art and philosophy to them that is an interesting topic > of conversation. I think it is time to word this in a more obvious way. Robert, what you are saying basically is that cheating is fine as long as you think it is fine. You then come up with lots of arguments how that cheating should be justified. "Oh, the people with whom I conspired were happy, thus the cheating was fine" "Oh, the people I cheated didn't notice, thus the cheating was fine". "Oh, I don't have to ?nform opponents about my partner's unusual approach to bidding because I call that a tactical bid". "Oh, the British king was unpopular 250 years ago, thus my cheating is fine". There exist games where such an approach is valid, even welcome. But bridge is not among those games. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 23 15:50:29 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:50:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> On Sep 22, 2010, at 8:39 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:04:04 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Sep 21, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:35:37 -0400, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You are always responsible for disclosing your explicit agreements, >>> >>> I think I am responsible for disclosing all of my agreements. >> >> In this context, the problem arises because you may not be aware of >> what your agreement is, and you can't disclose what you don't know. >> But you will always know (or will have known) what your explicit >> agreement is, by definition, and can always, at minimum, disclose >> that much. >> >>>> whatever and however dubious they may be. Richard's "no agreement" >>>> is a presumption for adjudication. >>> >>> ??? >> >> In particular here, you are not aware of the fact that you have no >> agreement. It is only during post-play adjudication that this >> finding is made, and comes into play. >> >>>> As we are discussing situations >>>> where the lack of a substantive agreement is not realized by at >>>> least >>>> one, usually both, members of the partnership, you are hardly >>>> expected to presume it for disclosure. >>> >>> yes, it is more likely to come up in rectification. But not >>> impossible in >>> play. If my partner explains my bid wrong, I might decide we have no >>> agreement. >> >> You are not permitted to allow your partner's explanation to affect >> your understanding of your call at the time you made it. If you made >> the call knowing that you had no agreement about it, there's no >> issue. Otherwise, you must disclose what you believe your agreement >> to be, not what you think your partner believes it to be, and let the >> TD/AC sort it out. > > Sorry, I didn't explain this well. We have agreed on some > convention, I > make a bid following the convention, and my partner misexplains it. > Now I > am declarer and must tell the opps that my partner's explanation > was wrong > and tell them the correct explanation. > > It is to my advantage if I can tell them "no agreement" rather than > telling them what my bid means according to the convention we played. If you know what your bid means according to the convention you play, you tell them what your bid means according to the convention you play. If you have no agreement, you tell them you have no agreement. Your "advantage" is irrelevant. WTP? > According to what Nigel has called the blml position, I can tell > them "no > agreement" if in fact my partner never knew the convention (or lacks > whatever awareness is needed to form a mutual understanding). You can't tell them "no agreement" unless you know you have no agreement. We needn't concern ourselves with the absurd situation in which you agree to use a convention by name only despite being fully aware that your partner doesn't know what he has agreed to. Nevertheless, were that the case, you could always take the option of just telling them the truth: "We agreed to play Fromisher, but partner has no idea what it is." > I am allowed to use his call to judge what what explanation to > give. (That > is standard blml cant.) You must disclose what you believe to be your agreement to be, regardless of how you come by that belief. >>>> As usual, the key is just to do your best to be helpful and >>>> forthcoming. You should not be taking any guesses here. If you >>>> can >>>> explain the situation clearly to us, you can explain it just as >>>> clearly to them. If you said you would play Cappelletti, but your >>>> partner knows it and you don't, what you should tell your opponents >>>> is, "We said we would play Cappelletti, but my partner knows it >>>> and I >>>> don't." WTP? >>> >>> Is it a problem that the opponents will wish they knew Cappelletti? >>> (Will >>> the director be understanding when my partner refuses to explain >>> Cappelletti?) >> >> The opponents are entitled to the same understanding of your >> partner's calls as your own. > > Actually, this is not true, in both directions. They are not always > entitled to all of the information I have about my partner's call > (when my > partner gives me UI which helps me understand his hand and does not > help > the opponents). > > Relevant to this discussion, most people would say that they are > sometimes > entitled to more than I understand (even though I myself cannot > provide > this extra until after the hand). You might not be taking this > position. > As I understand it, you believe a mutual understanding of the > meaning of a > conventional call (when only the convention name has been agreed upon) > occurs implicitly through mutual awareness at the time the call is > made. > If so, when I forget a convention we do not have mutual awareness. > But no > one would rule that way. I am building your position from what you > have > said, you might actually believe differently or want to change it. My position is not that complicated. When you make an agreement to play a convention, in whatever fashion, you either form a mutual understanding of the method you have agreed to (which you are then legally obligated to remember), or you don't. If you do, you have a partnership understanding. If you don't, you don't. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 23 16:07:17 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:07:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:24:35 -0400, wrote: > >> If: >> >> (a) North-South pair A summon the Director to their table, because >> (b) East-West pair B have unintentionally infracted, and >> (c) the correct ruling is North-South Ave+ and East-West Ave-, and >> (d) the Director knows that the correct ruling is Ave+ / Ave-, but >> (e) the Director instead rules Ave+ / Ave+, to >> (f) "keep everyone happy", so >> (g) East-West pair B gain first place in the East-West field, but >> (h) East-West pair C would have gained first place otherwise, then >> (i) East-West pair C are Very Unhappy losing first place, because >> (j) of an intentional Director's error. > > First of all, pair C would need to hear about the ruling. That almost > never happens. > > Then Pair C would have to understand the principle. That seems to be > infrequent. > > And if Pair C hears about it and doesn't like it and understands > that it > is unfair, they can try to appeal it. (just joking) I imagine that if Pair C 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. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 23 22:57:00 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:57:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <907040.37464.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> {Richard Hills] If: (a) North-South pair A summon the Director to their table, because (b) East-West pair B have unintentionally infracted, and (c) the correct ruling is North-South Ave+ and East-West Ave-, and (d) the Director knows that the correct ruling is Ave+ / Ave-, but (e) the Director instead rules Ave+ / Ave+, to (f) "keep everyone happy", so (g) East-West pair B gain first place in the East-West field, but (h) East-West pair C would have gained first place otherwise, then (i) East-West pair C are Very Unhappy losing first place, because (j) of an intentional Director's error. [Nigel] Even if they found out, pair C are powerless to claw back their rightful place. Players are already inured to weighted adjustments that give directors the power to decide tournaments. In practice, for example, If you lose a tournament because of a doubtful weighting decision, there is little point in appealing. Similarly "equity rulings" mollify and reward offenders but leave victims of infractions, resignedly licking their wounds. The problem for law-makers is that deterrent and *genuinely* equitable judgements would result in caterwauling law-breakers and cat-fights with directors. Players of Richard's moral fibre are uncommon. Rarely will an offending pair question an over-kind ruling. I've never read a report of an completed appeal by a pair with the intent of penalising themselves more harshly. Although, I agree that such an appeal should be allowed and that AWMW penalties should be waived. I'm afraid that most B pairs would go with the flow. They would be happy with the av+ ruling and regard it as fair and consistent. They would neither know nor care what effect it had on pair C. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 24 00:22:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:22:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <858430229.303951285244553197.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: If I am still sleeping when my cat Lionel believes that it is his breakfast time, he moseys over to my bedside table and knocks a book from the pile there onto my head. Thomas Dehn: >I think it is time to word this in a more obvious way. > >Robert, what you are saying basically is that cheating is fine as >long as you think it is fine. You then come up with lots of >arguments how that cheating should be justified. > >"Oh, the people with whom I conspired were happy, thus the >cheating was fine." >"Oh, the people I cheated didn't notice, thus the cheating was >fine". >"Oh, I don't have to ?nform opponents about my partner's >unusual approach to bidding because I call that a tactical bid". >"Oh, the British king was unpopular 250 years ago, thus my >cheating is fine". > >There exist games where such an approach is valid, even welcome. >But bridge is not among those games. Richard Hills: On this last point I differ. Different strategy games have different rules and ethics, so necessarily the definition of "cheating" varies between strategy games. In the classic strategy game Diplomacy, the fundamental ethic is the betrayal of gullible allies. So England and Turkey are not only permitted but indeed encouraged to have a concealed partnership understanding to jointly invade a gullible Russia. If, however, Robert Frick was the Director of that game of Diplomacy, his Level Five ethics would no doubt require him to cancel England's invasion order and Turkey's invasion order so as to "keep Russia happy". :-) :-) 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 Fri Sep 24 04:04:27 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:04:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:50:29 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > My position is not that complicated. When you make an agreement to > play a convention, in whatever fashion, you either form a mutual > understanding of the method you have agreed to (which you are then > legally obligated to remember), or you don't. If you do, you have a > partnership understanding. If you don't, you don't. WTP? One problem is the difficult of actually stating a feasible description of this. My partner and I agree to play what is in a book. We "either form a mutual understanding of the method ... or we don't." But then one or both of us reads the book some more. Do you really want to say that our agreement/understanding depends on what we understood when we made the agreement and doesn't change? Probably not. But allowing it to change over time doesn't work very well either. I make an agreement with my partner, then I forget an aspect of the convention. Does that change our agreement so that we now do not have an agreement about the convention? That seems very awkward. and > If you know what your bid means according to the convention you play, > you tell them what your bid means according to the convention you > play. If you have no agreement, you tell them you have no > agreement. Your "advantage" is irrelevant. WTP? So I know what my bid means according to the convention we agreed upon. But my partner doesn't, leading us to have no agreement by your criteria. Do I have to tell the opponents or not? Yes by your first sentence and no by your second sentence? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 24 06:44:34 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:44:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: A Short History of Texas, by Maurice Harrison-Gray (Bridge Magazine, December 1960) The epic pages of American history have been opened for us by Hollywood and the wide screen. Names like Gettysburg and the Little Big Horn have become as familiar as Waterloo and the Somme. Everyone is aware that in 1836, at a crumbling mission-fort known as The Alamo, 182 sons of Texas died with their boots on in the cause of independence. Let us spare a thought for those other heroes who have perished in the name of Texas. "Remember the Alamo" is no longer the rally cry; "Remember Texas" has taken its place. Strange entries began to appear on score sheets in our duplicate pairs contests. Why should one pair settle for four hearts, with a two-one trump fit, when all others playing their way had reached a laydown four spades? Some years ago the eventual winners of the Master Pairs had their fair share of unlucky boards. This was one of them: Dealer West: Nil vulnerable WEST EAST Q5 AK7632 KT964 2 K93 A75 KJ9 752 Game was cold as the cards lay in spades or no-trumps but the gallery at this table had cause to buzz like a beehive. The auction consisted of one no-trump by West and four _hearts_ by East. "Sorry my trumps are so poor," said West waggishly as he put down dummy, but he bit his lip hard when his partner showed out on the second round of trumps. The contract was not made. Well, well, thought the onlookers, even a world champion can have a lapsus linguae; but why should East act like the injured party, with West bowing his head in shame? And why the cryptic reference to Texas? I could have put them wise, having witnessed the following rubber bridge episode only a few days earlier: Dealer North: Both vulnerable NORTH K9 QJ96 AKT8 KT7 WEST EAST 72 653 K83 A7542 976532 --- QJ A6432 SOUTH AQJT84 T QJ4 985 The bidding was routine: one no-trump by North, four spades by South. But not so the play. Thanks to a Mr McKenney, the defenders had quite a party. Trick 1: queen of clubs covered by the king and ace; Trick 2: _two_ of clubs to the knave; Trick 3: _two_ of diamonds and ruff by East; Trick 4: _three_ of clubs and ruff by West; Trick 5: _nine_ of diamonds and ruff by East; Trick 6: _two_ of hearts to the king (South was already two down, so East could afford to show off); Trick 7: a third diamond ruff put the contract four down. A word about the personnel. South, a British international, was noted for his ready wit; North was an American visitor. "Your fault, partner," said South, recovering his poise, "You should open such hands with one spade. I raise you to four and you make it in comfort." "In Texas where I come from," drawled the stranger, "I could open that hand with one no-trump and still play it in four spades," he proceeded to explain. By this time, of course, everyone knows the big idea. In brief, let us say that South views a long string of hearts with little or nothing on the side after a strong 1NT by his partner and figures he is worth a shot at four hearts. But wouldn't it be nice if partner could play the hand with the lead coming up to a tenace? The transfer is neatly effected by means of the Texas convention. South simply bids four in the next lower- ranking suit, in this case four diamonds; North converts to four hearts, knowing that to be partner's real suit, and there you are. Flawless and foolproof! Thus, on the hand from the Master Pairs, East judged that four spades might play better from the other side of the table. In the rubber bridge episode, a bid of four hearts could be converted to a virtually unbeatable four spades. I say "virtually" because East had had time to find an ex post facto defence. "If it's my lead," he said, "I might well try a low heart." "Could be," North replied, "but it's not wise to make a lead like that if you ever come to Texas. Some of our boys still pack a gun." There is only one snag. The modern Texan faces a foe far more insidious than the Commanche, the Mexican and the Yankee carpetbagger. It is a new version of the civil war between North and South. This is what happens. North opens 1NT. South takes a deep breath and bids four hearts. As the proprieties bar him from adding, "Remember Texas," he is left to toil in four hearts by an absent-minded partner. Alternatively, South forgets the convention but North remembers. Even in the best circles we get episodes such as this: Dealer North: N-S vulnerable NORTH KT6 A2 K8654 AK3 WEST EAST A87 J5432 975 63 AQ92 T73 T95 J42 SOUTH Q9 KQJT84 J Q876 This hand came from the European Championship of 1958. The British North opened 1NT and South blandly bid four hearts. North was not the absent-minded one on this occasion; he transferred to four spades. South then woke up; the only way to clarify the situation, he decided, was to jump to six hearts. North grinned sardonically and passed. West does not appear to have noticed anything unusual in the proceedings; perhaps he was taken in by South's well- simulated air of insouciance. He led the ace of spades and South blanched when he saw that another ace was missing ... how was he going to talk his way out of this one? Strange to relate, the slam made. West felt that an attempt to cash his other ace, apart from insulting his opponents, would hand them the contract if South were void in diamonds; a passive spade continuation, he decided, was a much safer shot. The result was thus a unique triumph for the Anglo-Texas alliance. Would this slam have been bid (and made) if our pair had never heard of the convention? There was less justice on this one: Dealer South: N-S vulnerable NORTH K QJT873 AT972 T WEST EAST T94 87532 62 A54 J643 --- 7652 KQ843 SOUTH AQJ6 K9 KQ85 AJ9 In a recent pairs tournament North played this hand, at all tables but one, in six hearts or six diamonds; the contract was invariably made. There was one baffling entry on the score sheet: six hearts doubled, 200 to East- West. Was it a case of a revoke or pulling a wrong card? Then someone noticed that South had played the hand. The bidding, it transpired, had gone like this: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 2NT Pass 4D Pass 4H Pass 4NT(1) Pass 5H Pass 6H Dble(2) Pass Pass Pass (1) Blackwood (2) Lightner North was a player of imagination. He was going to be in six or seven as soon as he heard the opening bid, but it might pay to make South the declarer. The ace of spades might be missing, for instance: if South held the AQ of clubs, however, an opening club lead would present him with an overtrick and a possible top on the board. This was not a Texas success story. The contract was one down, West having concluded that the double called for a diamond lead. The hand that follows, from a teams' match, was another perverse affair: Dealer South: Both vulnerable NORTH QT2 A87642 A653 --- WEST EAST K63 98754 KJ95 3 T Q8 Q9764 KT532 SOUTH AJ QT KJ9742 AJ8 In Room 1, where South opened one diamond, he had no trouble in making a final contract of six diamonds. In Room 2, influenced by his tenaces, he bid one no-trump. "This is a hand for Texas if ever there was one," was the thought that struck his partner. All hope of reaching the only makeable slam vanished when North came forward with four diamonds. South duly converted, but a final contract of six hearts proved beyond his powers. Thus far I have dealt with the basic situation where a response of four diamonds or four hearts is converted to four hearts or four spades. As you will know, anything that comes from Texas has to be bigger and better. In due course, Mr Oswald Jacoby, of Dallas, produced a bigger and better convention, to be known as the Jacoby Transfer Bid. This is simply a logical extension. Why restrict yourself to using Texas at the four-level? For example, South opens 1NT and gets a response of two hearts which he converts to two spades; North will be able to pass with the equivalent of a weakness take-out into two spades with certain theoretical advantages. This refinement can be combined with the popular 1NT:2C convention; you can also throw in asking bid and other gadgets for good measure. Here is a pretty example from a European championship match between Austria and France: Dealer West: E-W vulnerable WEST EAST AT QJ9864 J76 A42 AKQ5 4 AQJ4 973 Austria made four spades with an overtrick. France did not fare so well after the following sequence: WEST EAST 2NT 3H 3S 4H Pass I have dropped a hint so you can imagine what happened. Suppose you are West. Haven taken the transfer, how would you react to East's bid of four hearts? He has clearly forgotten the convention and hearts are his real suit. I might add that, in my opinion, East deserved to be boiled in Texas oil. Anyone who makes an asking bid of _four hearts_ after such a start is trying his partner too far. A variation on this theme: Dealer West: E-W vulnerable WEST EAST AQT7 J8 KJ2 Q98753 AJ 3 Q965 JT82 West bid 1NT and North came in with two diamonds. East wished to compete but a problem arose: he was unable to make a natural bid of two hearts, for that would sound like a request for a transfer to two spades. There was a neat way out - he could say three diamonds and pass West's conversion to three hearts. And so the auction proceeded: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT 2D 3D 4D 4S Pass 5H Pass 6H Dble Pass Pass Pass The defence collected 1100 with the aid of a club ruff. One can hardly pin the blame on the Jacoby Transfer Bid, even supposing it was ever designed for such a situation; the trouble was that West took three diamonds to be a cue bid in the enemy suit. Even though most of our players stick to Texas at the four level, there is always the mnemonic factor and human frailty to contend with. A remedy was found by a group of players in Johannesburg. It came to the notice of two of our leading lights after a typical accident in a pairs tournament. West opened 1NT and passed his partner's bid of four hearts. North-South duly scored 300; elsewhere a contract of four spades gave 620 or 650 to East-West. "Texas is grand," said East, "but it's becoming rather expensive." One of the opponents chipped in: "We had the same problem until we switched to 'unforgettable Texas', you know, the South African version." This is the idea. A jump to four hearts is apt to sound like an everyday natural bid. A response of four clubs or four diamonds is far less familiar and the most scatter-brained partner will wake up to the fact that he is being asked to bid four hearts or four spades. A few days later, after deciding to adopt this variation, our two experts picked up the following in a Gold Cup match: Dealer West: Both vulnerable WEST EAST KT9 6 K943 QJT85 AK82 4 AT K98742 I believe in giving my readers some work to do, so you are asked to account for this sequence: WEST EAST 1NT 4C 4S 5C 5NT 6C 6NT Pass The first part is easy - East bid four clubs because he felt that four hearts, played by his partner, would be an ideal contract. But now another son of Texas appears on the scene, in the person of Mr John Gerber, of Houston. You are bound to have heard of his convention, which is used by many players. For example, West opens 2NT and East's hand is like: KQJ965 8 3 KQ952 East is solely concerned with the number of aces in his partner's hand. The bid that meets the case is a Gerber four clubs. This calls on West to declarer his ace content in the Blackwood manner: four diamonds denies an ace, four hearts shows one ace, and so on. On the next round, should East be concerned with kings, he follows up with five clubs. By now, if you review the actual sequence, light will dawn. Our experts had overlooked a clash of conventions when they switched to South African Texas. From West's angle, four clubs was Gerber; so he showed his two aces. His partner's agonised attempt to find a resting place sounded like a further ask for kings; so he showed his three kings. The final contract went three down. The rival team stopped at five hearts, just made. Those who follow the Texas flag have something in common with the heroes of the Alamo. In most cases, as you will note, they die with their bidding boots on. 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 Sep 24 07:37:28 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:37:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A Short History of Texas, by Maurice Harrison-Gray (Bridge Magazine, December 1960) [Short snip] >Dealer West: Both vulnerable > >WEST EAST >KT9 6 >K943 QJT85 >AK82 4 >AT K98742 > >I believe in giving my readers some work to do, so you are >asked to account for this sequence: > >WEST EAST >1NT 4C >4S 5C >5NT 6C >6NT Pass > >The first part is easy - East bid four clubs because he felt >that four hearts, played by his partner, would be an ideal >contract. But now another son of Texas appears on the scene, >in the person of Mr John Gerber, of Houston. You are bound to >have heard of his convention, which is used by many players. >For example, West opens 2NT and East's hand is like: > >KQJ965 >8 >3 >KQ952 > >East is solely concerned with the number of aces in his >partner's hand. The bid that meets the case is a Gerber four >clubs. This calls on West to declarer his ace content in the >Blackwood manner: four diamonds denies an ace, four hearts >shows one ace, and so on. On the next round, should East be >concerned with kings, he follows up with five clubs. > >By now, if you review the actual sequence, light will dawn. >Our experts had overlooked a clash of conventions when they >switched to South African Texas. From West's angle, four >clubs was Gerber; so he showed his two aces. His partner's >agonised attempt to find a resting place sounded like a >further ask for kings; so he showed his three kings. The >final contract went three down. The rival team stopped at >five hearts, just made. > >Those who follow the Texas flag have something in common with >the heroes of the Alamo. In most cases, as you will note, they >die with their bidding boots on. Richard Hills: So if this debacle had occurred under the 2007 Lawbook, as the Director I would rule: (1) East-West DO have a partnership understanding that a 4D response to 1NT is a South African Texas transfer to spades, (2) East-West DO NOT have a partnership understanding that a 4C response to 1NT is a South African Texas transfer to hearts, and (3) East-West DO NOT have a partnership understanding that a 4C response to 1NT is a Gerber ask for aces. If this deal was played behind screens, thus East explained 4C as South African Texas to her screenmate, and West explained 4C as Gerber to its screenmate, then as Director I would rule that _both_ of the explanations were misinformation, due to the key word "mutual" in Law 40A1(a). 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Sep 24 08:03:29 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:03:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <907040.37464.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <907040.37464.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C9C3F31.3050501@t-online.de> Am 23.09.2010 22:57, schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > [Nigel] > Even if they found out, pair C are powerless to claw back their rightful place. > Players are already inured to weighted adjustments that give directors the power > to decide tournaments. Good thing then that unweighted rulings never ever decided tournaments. > In practice, for example, If you lose a tournament > because of a doubtful weighting decision, in contrast to one of the old 12C2 rulings which, of course, were never doubtful. > there is little point in appealing. Right. ACs will shoot every appellant of a weighted ruling on sight. I have seen it done many times since 2008. In fact those appeals are illegal in most countries. For example Taka-Tuka-Land, Borogravia, Neveryonia, Narnia, Gondor and Helliconia, to name only a few. > Similarly "equity rulings" mollify and reward offenders but leave victims of > infractions, resignedly licking their wounds. Right again. The offending recipients of our weighted rulings last weekend felt really rewarded. So rewarded, in fact, that they appealed our ruling. The "victims" didn't, probably because they were too busy licking their wounds. Or they had left their bullet-proof vests at home. I didn't ask. > The problem for law-makers is that > deterrent and *genuinely* equitable judgements would result in caterwauling > law-breakers and cat-fights with directors. Good thing that you are here to tell us what genuinely equitable is and what not. Bah. > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 24 16:01:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:01:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:50:29 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> My position is not that complicated. When you make an agreement to >> play a convention, in whatever fashion, you either form a mutual >> understanding of the method you have agreed to (which you are then >> legally obligated to remember), or you don't. If you do, you have a >> partnership understanding. If you don't, you don't. WTP? > > One problem is the difficult of actually stating a feasible > description of > this. My partner and I agree to play what is in a book. We "either > form a > mutual understanding of the method ... or we don't." But then one > or both > of us reads the book some more. Do you really want to say that our > agreement/understanding depends on what we understood when we made the > agreement and doesn't change? Probably not. No, what I want to say is, whatever you do either changes what you understood when you made the agreement, in which case your disclosure obligations change, or it doesn't, in which case they don't. If you read up on your chosen convention and learn something that wasn't incorporated into your original agreement, you either communicate your new knowlege (explicitly or implicitly) to partner and your agreement changes, or you don't and it doesn't. > But allowing it to change over time doesn't work very well either. > I make > an agreement with my partner, then I forget an aspect of the > convention. > Does that change our agreement so that we now do not have an agreement > about the convention? That seems very awkward. No. You either establish an understanding or you don't. If you do, it remains established whether you forget it or not. This is clearly established jurisprudence, and nobody here has suggested otherwise. > and > >> If you know what your bid means according to the convention you play, >> you tell them what your bid means according to the convention you >> play. If you have no agreement, you tell them you have no >> agreement. Your "advantage" is irrelevant. WTP? > > So I know what my bid means according to the convention we agreed > upon. > But my partner doesn't, leading us to have no agreement by your > criteria. > Do I have to tell the opponents or not? Yes by your first sentence > and no > by your second sentence? I don't see the contradiction, provided you read "the convention you play" as referring to the actual method you agree to play, as opposed to the name by which you agree to call it. Otherwise, the knowledge that your partner doesn't know what the convention in question means makes any reference to "the convention [you] agreed upon" self- contradictory. Bob seems hung up on the problem of disclosure in the situation in which you make some sort of explicit agreement, but one or both members of the partnership leave the discussion fully aware of having allowed "holes" to remain unfilled in their agreement. I reject this concern as unrealistic. Our real-life concern is with partnerships who believe themselves to have established an understanding when in fact they did not. And that is a non-problem in general, as I've previously suggested, because if and when it comes to a determination in adjudication that the partnership in fact had no understanding, the "benefit of the doubt" gives the NOS the opportunity to "guess" the meaning of the problematic call, with the same result as if they had been informed correctly at the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 24 18:06:25 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:06:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:01:13 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:50:29 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> My position is not that complicated. When you make an agreement to >>> play a convention, in whatever fashion, you either form a mutual >>> understanding of the method you have agreed to (which you are then >>> legally obligated to remember), or you don't. If you do, you have a >>> partnership understanding. If you don't, you don't. WTP? >> >> One problem is the difficult of actually stating a feasible >> description of >> this. My partner and I agree to play what is in a book. We "either >> form a >> mutual understanding of the method ... or we don't." But then one >> or both >> of us reads the book some more. Do you really want to say that our >> agreement/understanding depends on what we understood when we made the >> agreement and doesn't change? Probably not. > > No, what I want to say is, whatever you do either changes what you > understood when you made the agreement, in which case your disclosure > obligations change, or it doesn't, in which case they don't. If you > read up on your chosen convention and learn something that wasn't > incorporated into your original agreement, you either communicate > your new knowlege (explicitly or implicitly) to partner and your > agreement changes, or you don't and it doesn't. At the extreme, my partner and I could agree to play a Precision book that neither of us has yet read. Then we might not have any agreements about what bids mean. That's reasonable. Then we both read the book but do not communicate our new knowledge. Then we still have no agreement? A more realistic example. I agree to play Capelletti with a partner. I have misunderstood the 2D bid. So, according to you, we have no agreement. I subsequently learn that I had misunderstood the 2D bid. According to you, unless I communicate that to partner, we still have no agreement. But now I know what the 2D bid means. I must remember to tell the opponents no agreement? I assume no one thinks that way or would rule that way. > >> But allowing it to change over time doesn't work very well either. >> I make >> an agreement with my partner, then I forget an aspect of the >> convention. >> Does that change our agreement so that we now do not have an agreement >> about the convention? That seems very awkward. > > No. You either establish an understanding or you don't. If you do, > it remains established whether you forget it or not. This is clearly > established jurisprudence, and nobody here has suggested otherwise. > >> and >> >>> If you know what your bid means according to the convention you play, >>> you tell them what your bid means according to the convention you >>> play. If you have no agreement, you tell them you have no >>> agreement. Your "advantage" is irrelevant. WTP? >> >> So I know what my bid means according to the convention we agreed >> upon. >> But my partner doesn't, leading us to have no agreement by your >> criteria. >> Do I have to tell the opponents or not? Yes by your first sentence >> and no >> by your second sentence? > > I don't see the contradiction, provided you read "the convention you > play" as referring to the actual method you agree to play, as opposed > to the name by which you agree to call it. Otherwise, the knowledge > that your partner doesn't know what the convention in question means > makes any reference to "the convention [you] agreed upon" self- > contradictory. I see. No contradiction. Again, my partner agrees to play Cappelletti, I make a perfect 2D bid according to Capelletti, and my damn partner tells the opps he has no idea what my bid means! I can now tell the opps we have no agreement on the meaning of my bid. According to what you are saying. > > Bob seems hung up on the problem of disclosure in the situation in > which you make some sort of explicit agreement, but one or both > members of the partnership leave the discussion fully aware of having > allowed "holes" to remain unfilled in their agreement. I reject this > concern as unrealistic. Our real-life concern is with partnerships > who believe themselves to have established an understanding when in > fact they did not. Actually, I am surprised that you see the two situations as leading to different rulings. Could you explain the difference? > > And that is a non-problem in general, as I've previously suggested, > because if and when it comes to a determination in adjudication that > the partnership in fact had no understanding, the "benefit of the > doubt" gives the NOS the opportunity to "guess" the meaning of the > problematic call, with the same result as if they had been informed > correctly at the table. I think you have stopped following the law book here. In one case, the question is how the defenders would have defended had they been told that 5H denies the queen of trumps. In the other case, the question is how the defenders would have defended in they had been told there is no agreement. Those almost always produce different probabilities (when they were damaged). Put another way, you need that the laws says the NOS get the benefit of doubt at every choice point in the play. That isn't right. Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 24 18:19:15 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:19:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C9CCF83.8020706@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/09/2010 18:06, Robert Frick a ?crit : > > At the extreme, my partner and I could agree to play a Precision book that > neither of us has yet read. Then we might not have any agreements about > what bids mean. That's reasonable. Then we both read the book but do not > communicate our new knowledge. Then we still have no agreement? > > A more realistic example. I agree to play Capelletti with a partner. I > have misunderstood the 2D bid. So, according to you, we have no agreement. > I subsequently learn that I had misunderstood the 2D bid. According to > you, unless I communicate that to partner, we still have no agreement. But > now I know what the 2D bid means. I must remember to tell the opponents no > agreement? > I assume no one thinks that way or would rule that way. AG : i would rule that agreeing only on a convention name mean you have no agreement. The "precision book" case is different, because everyone can check what lies in this book, whil convention names are not very precise. This has no more value as giving a convention name when answering a quetion. Would you agree to play "Multi" and say nothing else ? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 24 19:28:08 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:28:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:37:28 -0400, wrote: > A Short History of Texas, by Maurice Harrison-Gray > (Bridge Magazine, December 1960) > > [Short snip] > >> Dealer West: Both vulnerable >> >> WEST EAST >> KT9 6 >> K943 QJT85 >> AK82 4 >> AT K98742 >> >> I believe in giving my readers some work to do, so you are >> asked to account for this sequence: >> >> WEST EAST >> 1NT 4C >> 4S 5C >> 5NT 6C >> 6NT Pass >> >> The first part is easy - East bid four clubs because he felt >> that four hearts, played by his partner, would be an ideal >> contract. But now another son of Texas appears on the scene, >> in the person of Mr John Gerber, of Houston. You are bound to >> have heard of his convention, which is used by many players. >> For example, West opens 2NT and East's hand is like: >> >> KQJ965 >> 8 >> 3 >> KQ952 >> >> East is solely concerned with the number of aces in his >> partner's hand. The bid that meets the case is a Gerber four >> clubs. This calls on West to declarer his ace content in the >> Blackwood manner: four diamonds denies an ace, four hearts >> shows one ace, and so on. On the next round, should East be >> concerned with kings, he follows up with five clubs. >> >> By now, if you review the actual sequence, light will dawn. >> Our experts had overlooked a clash of conventions when they >> switched to South African Texas. From West's angle, four >> clubs was Gerber; so he showed his two aces. His partner's >> agonised attempt to find a resting place sounded like a >> further ask for kings; so he showed his three kings. The >> final contract went three down. The rival team stopped at >> five hearts, just made. >> >> Those who follow the Texas flag have something in common with >> the heroes of the Alamo. In most cases, as you will note, they >> die with their bidding boots on. > > Richard Hills: > > So if this debacle had occurred under the 2007 Lawbook, as the > Director I would rule: > > (1) East-West DO have a partnership understanding that a 4D > response to 1NT is a South African Texas transfer to spades, > > (2) East-West DO NOT have a partnership understanding that a 4C > response to 1NT is a South African Texas transfer to hearts, and > > (3) East-West DO NOT have a partnership understanding that a 4C > response to 1NT is a Gerber ask for aces. Or, EW have an agreement that 4C is Gerber and another agreement that 4C is South African Texas transfer and the opps deserve to know about both. But in reality, the second agreement (that 4C shows hearts) cancels out the first. > > If this deal was played behind screens, thus East explained 4C > as South African Texas to her screenmate, and West explained 4C > as Gerber to its screenmate, then as Director I would rule that > _both_ of the explanations were misinformation, due to the key > word "mutual" in Law 40A1(a). That applies only to implicit agreements. > > > 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 -- somepsychology.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 24 20:20:14 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <417978.64302.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] A Short History of Texas, by Maurice Harrison-Gray (Bridge Magazine, December 1960) [SNIP] Dealer North: N-S vulnerable KT6 A2 K8654 AK3 WEST EAST A87 J5432 975 63 AQ92 T73 T95 J42 SOUTH Q9 KQJT84 J Q876 This hand came from the European Championship of 1958. The British North opened 1NT and South blandly bid four hearts. North was not the absent-minded one on this occasion; he transferred to four spades. South then woke up; the only way to clarify the situation, he decided, was to jump to six hearts. North grinned sardonically and passed. West does not appear to have noticed anything unusual in the proceedings; perhaps he was taken in by South's well- simulated air of insouciance. He led the ace of spades and South blanched when he saw that another ace was missing ... how was he going to talk his way out of this one? Strange to relate, the slam made. West felt that an attempt to cash his other ace, apart from insulting his opponents, would hand them the contract if South were void in diamonds; a passive spade continuation, he decided, was a much safer shot. The result was thus a unique triumph for the Anglo-Texas alliance. Would this slam have been bid (and made) if our pair had never heard of the convention? [Nigel] IIRC, Gray also wrote brilliantly for "Country Life". Also, AFAIR, this episode starred Reese (South) and Schapiro (North) who had had agreed a small fine if either forgot Texas. After this debacle, Schapiro wanted to drop the convention, but Reese insisted that they increase the forfeit, instead. From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 24 20:28:06 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:28:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) Message-ID: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:37:38 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan > >> wrote: > >> > >> >>> 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. +=+ > >> > >> I do not think I would rule this way. > >> > >> For example, I see that two players have RKC on their convention card > >> and > >> conclude that the 5H bidder does not have the queen of trumps, being > >> damaged when he does. I then find that these players share the > >> "awareness" > >> that 5H shows the queen and 5S denies the queen. I would call the > >> director > >> and expect to be protected. > >> > >> If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the opponents' > >> convention card. > > > > The RKC (also RKCB) convention has > > evolved over time, and there exist multiple variations. > > If they play that, say, 5H shows two out of five keycards > > without slam interest and 5S shows two with slam interest, > > that convention is called Roman Keycard, or also > > Roman Keycard Blackwood. > > > > It is up to the regulation authorities to have regulations > > that instruct players to provide correct, complete, non-confusing > > information on their convention card. If an entry such > > as "RKC" is legal usage of the convention card in ACBL-land, > > then I think in my example you are not due any redress if > > damaged - their convention card was filled in correctly. > > For example odd-even is just a checkbox on the ACBL convention card. In > response to "what are your discards?", "Odd even" is a common, > usually-accepted answer (for people who know it). > > Everyone plays that odd shows a liking for the suit. It is not true that "everybody plays that odd shows a liking for the suit", as it is very unsound to play that. You want a D switch, all you can spare is one of your three small spades, which happen to be 357. You discard a spade, and partner switches to a spade. Or you want a D switch to your DAKT842, and all you can spare is one of those small diamonds. You discard the D8, and partner duly plays a spade. Next board, you have the DAK953. You discard the D3. Partner holds the D48, and can see the DT82 in dummy. Partner thus concludes that you do not have an even diamond to discard, and that you might have been forced to discard an odd diamond even though you actually want a C. Partner then switches to a C. After that has happened a few times, you'll quickly modify that method. Once you have put such modifications into place to avoid absurd disasters which no other method of showing suit preference creates, you no longer play "odd shows a liking for the suit". Then, there still are quite a few additional variations: Under which circumstances are the discards "odd-even", and when is some other method in effect? Say, you can see that partner needs the count in a certain suit. Do you then signal count? You led the S6. two tricks later, you discard the S2. Is that "odd-even", or are you clarifying the S length? IOW: a mere "odd/even discards" is very incomplete information. Just stop trying to find an example where "everybody" plays the same. It doesn't exist. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 24 20:32:38 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C9C3F31.3050501@t-online.de> References: <907040.37464.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C9C3F31.3050501@t-online.de> Message-ID: <37702.37172.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Matthias Berghaus] Good thing that you are here to tell us what genuinely equitable is and what not. Bah. [Nigel] IMO, constructive dissenting views, however eccentric and risible, can prompt healthy questioning of what have become articles of faith. :) :) :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 24 20:47:50 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:47:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:06 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:37:38 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> 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. +=+ >> >> >> >> I do not think I would rule this way. >> >> >> >> For example, I see that two players have RKC on their convention card >> >> and >> >> conclude that the 5H bidder does not have the queen of trumps, being >> >> damaged when he does. I then find that these players share the >> >> "awareness" >> >> that 5H shows the queen and 5S denies the queen. I would call the >> >> director >> >> and expect to be protected. >> >> >> >> If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the opponents' >> >> convention card. >> > >> > The RKC (also RKCB) convention has >> > evolved over time, and there exist multiple variations. >> > If they play that, say, 5H shows two out of five keycards >> > without slam interest and 5S shows two with slam interest, >> > that convention is called Roman Keycard, or also >> > Roman Keycard Blackwood. >> > >> > It is up to the regulation authorities to have regulations >> > that instruct players to provide correct, complete, non-confusing >> > information on their convention card. If an entry such >> > as "RKC" is legal usage of the convention card in ACBL-land, >> > then I think in my example you are not due any redress if >> > damaged - their convention card was filled in correctly. >> >> For example odd-even is just a checkbox on the ACBL convention card. In >> response to "what are your discards?", "Odd even" is a common, >> usually-accepted answer (for people who know it). >> >> Everyone plays that odd shows a liking for the suit. > > It is not true that "everybody plays that odd shows > a liking for the suit", as it is very unsound to play that. > > You want a D switch, all you can spare > is one of your three small spades, which > happen to be 357. You discard a spade, > and partner switches to a spade. > > Or you want a D switch to your DAKT842, and all you > can spare is one of those small diamonds. You discard > the D8, and partner duly plays a spade. > > Next board, you have the DAK953. You discard > the D3. Partner holds the D48, and can see the DT82 > in dummy. Partner thus concludes that you do > not have an even diamond to discard, and that > you might have been forced to discard an odd diamond > even though you actually want a C. Partner then > switches to a C. > > After that has happened a few times, you'll > quickly modify that method. Once you have > put such modifications into place to avoid > absurd disasters which no other method > of showing suit preference creates, you > no longer play "odd shows a liking for the suit". > > > Then, there still are quite a few additional variations: > Under which circumstances are the discards "odd-even", > and when is some other method in effect? Say, you > can see that partner needs the count in a certain suit. > Do you then signal count? You led the S6. two tricks > later, you discard the S2. Is that "odd-even", or are > you clarifying the S length? > > > IOW: a mere "odd/even discards" is very incomplete > information. > > Just stop trying to find an example where > "everybody" plays the same. It doesn't exist. I am wondering "so what?" How is this relevant? My partner and I have the verbal conversation of just "odd even discards". Our opponents ask what we play and I say odd-even discards. They ask what the discard of an odd card means. I don't have to tell them anything because "odd-even" is ambiguous? You are called to the table. A player is upset because "odd-even" is checked on the convention card. It turns out that the players are playing the even means they like the suit and odd means they don't. The player thinks the convention card is misleading and they were damaged by the misinformation. You tell them that this convention name is ambiguous and they should know that and they should have protected themselves and rule no rectification? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 24 21:25:14 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:25:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <2059950.1284236045376.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2FC16DF0-4F61-4728-B341-C959933B2645@starpower.net> On Sep 24, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:01:13 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:50:29 -0400, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My position is not that complicated. When you make an agreement to >>>> play a convention, in whatever fashion, you either form a mutual >>>> understanding of the method you have agreed to (which you are then >>>> legally obligated to remember), or you don't. If you do, you >>>> have a >>>> partnership understanding. If you don't, you don't. WTP? >>> >>> One problem is the difficult of actually stating a feasible >>> description of >>> this. My partner and I agree to play what is in a book. We "either >>> form a >>> mutual understanding of the method ... or we don't." But then one >>> or both >>> of us reads the book some more. Do you really want to say that our >>> agreement/understanding depends on what we understood when we >>> made the >>> agreement and doesn't change? Probably not. >> >> No, what I want to say is, whatever you do either changes what you >> understood when you made the agreement, in which case your disclosure >> obligations change, or it doesn't, in which case they don't. If you >> read up on your chosen convention and learn something that wasn't >> incorporated into your original agreement, you either communicate >> your new knowlege (explicitly or implicitly) to partner and your >> agreement changes, or you don't and it doesn't. > > At the extreme, my partner and I could agree to play a Precision > book that > neither of us has yet read. Then we might not have any agreements > about > what bids mean. That's reasonable. Then we both read the book but > do not > communicate our new knowledge. Then we still have no agreement? Right. You agree to play according a book which neither of you has read, and, to make the question even meaningful, each of you is aware that the other has not read the book and has no idea what's in it. At this point you have no agreement. Now you each read the book secretly and don't tell the other you have done so. This is a patently absurd scenario, but, yes, were it to take place, you would still have no agreement. > A more realistic example. I agree to play Capelletti with a partner. I > have misunderstood the 2D bid. So, according to you, we have no > agreement. > I subsequently learn that I had misunderstood the 2D bid. According to > you, unless I communicate that to partner, we still have no > agreement. But > now I know what the 2D bid means. I must remember to tell the > opponents no > agreement? This is an equally absurd scenario. Partner presumably knows Cappelletti. You don't, but you agree to play it anyhow. You misunderstand it, but partner chooses not to set you straight, so you continue to misunderstand it, until some later time when you somehow, not involving partner, "learn" to treat it according to your partner's understanding of it. Partner, meanwhile, knows only that you got it wrong last time and were allowed to continue thinking it meant whatever you thought it meant. Of course you still have no agreement (not that you would know it, so "I must remember to tell the opponents" is nonsense). Do you really think that your agreements (and disclosure obligations) can change based on anything at all of which partner is totally unaware? I assume no one thinks that way or would rule that way. > I assume no one thinks that way or would rule that way. > >>> But allowing it to change over time doesn't work very well either. >>> I make >>> an agreement with my partner, then I forget an aspect of the >>> convention. >>> Does that change our agreement so that we now do not have an >>> agreement >>> about the convention? That seems very awkward. >> >> No. You either establish an understanding or you don't. If you do, >> it remains established whether you forget it or not. This is clearly >> established jurisprudence, and nobody here has suggested otherwise. >> >>> and >>> >>>> If you know what your bid means according to the convention you >>>> play, >>>> you tell them what your bid means according to the convention you >>>> play. If you have no agreement, you tell them you have no >>>> agreement. Your "advantage" is irrelevant. WTP? >>> >>> So I know what my bid means according to the convention we agreed >>> upon. >>> But my partner doesn't, leading us to have no agreement by your >>> criteria. >>> Do I have to tell the opponents or not? Yes by your first sentence >>> and no >>> by your second sentence? >> >> I don't see the contradiction, provided you read "the convention you >> play" as referring to the actual method you agree to play, as opposed >> to the name by which you agree to call it. Otherwise, the knowledge >> that your partner doesn't know what the convention in question means >> makes any reference to "the convention [you] agreed upon" self- >> contradictory. > > I see. No contradiction. Again, my partner agrees to play > Cappelletti, I > make a perfect 2D bid according to Capelletti, and my damn partner > tells > the opps he has no idea what my bid means! I can now tell the opps > we have > no agreement on the meaning of my bid. According to what you are > saying. Of course you have no agreement on the meaning of 2D -- that's what your partner just told the opponents, and he was neither wrong nor lying. But -- and I repeat myself here -- you partner has explicitly agreed to "play Cappelletti", whatever that might mean, and the opponents are entitled to know that much. You tell them what you've agreed to ("play Cappelletti"); you don't tell them what you didn't agree to (the meaning of 2D). How hard is that to undertstand? >> Bob seems hung up on the problem of disclosure in the situation in >> which you make some sort of explicit agreement, but one or both >> members of the partnership leave the discussion fully aware of having >> allowed "holes" to remain unfilled in their agreement. I reject this >> concern as unrealistic. Our real-life concern is with partnerships >> who believe themselves to have established an understanding when in >> fact they did not. > > Actually, I am surprised that you see the two situations as leading to > different rulings. Could you explain the difference? The latter may happen, while the former is just nonsense. You don't simultanously agree on something and also agree that you don't know what that something is. >> And that is a non-problem in general, as I've previously suggested, >> because if and when it comes to a determination in adjudication that >> the partnership in fact had no understanding, the "benefit of the >> doubt" gives the NOS the opportunity to "guess" the meaning of the >> problematic call, with the same result as if they had been informed >> correctly at the table. > > I think you have stopped following the law book here. In one case, the > question is how the defenders would have defended had they been > told that > 5H denies the queen of trumps. In the other case, the question is > how the > defenders would have defended in they had been told there is no > agreement. > Those almost always produce different probabilities (when they were > damaged). > > Put another way, you need that the laws says the NOS get the > benefit of > doubt at every choice point in the play. That isn't right. Not at all. There is only one relevant "choice point" (or two), which is the point at which one defender (or both) formulated a defensive plan thinking his partner could not have the queen of trumps, and might have formulated a different one if he had known that his partner either did (having "been told that 5H denies..."), or could (having "been told there is no agreement") hold that card. "Benefit of the doubt" applies to one's planned approach to the deal, not just independently to each individual card played. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 24 21:40:07 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:40:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sep 24, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > My partner and I have the verbal conversation of just "odd even > discards". > Our opponents ask what we play and I say odd-even discards. They > ask what > the discard of an odd card means. I don't have to tell them anything > because "odd-even" is ambiguous? > > You are called to the table. A player is upset because "odd-even" is > checked on the convention card. It turns out that the players are > playing > the even means they like the suit and odd means they don't. The player > thinks the convention card is misleading and they were damaged by the > misinformation. You tell them that this convention name is > ambiguous and > they should know that and they should have protected themselves and > rule > no rectification? Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense! "This convention name" may be ambiguous, but your agreement is about your method, not about its name. Your partner and you had a conversation. Did you leave that conversation with the understanding that odd cards encourage, or did you leave that conversation with understanding that your agreement was ambiguous and you had no idea what your signals meant? All you need to do is tell your opponents the f--king truth! Why is that so tough? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 24 23:24:03 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:24:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <2FC16DF0-4F61-4728-B341-C959933B2645@starpower.net> References: <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> <2FC16DF0-4F61-4728-B341-C959933B2645@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:25:14 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 24, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:01:13 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:50:29 -0400, Eric Landau >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> My position is not that complicated. When you make an agreement to >>>>> play a convention, in whatever fashion, you either form a mutual >>>>> understanding of the method you have agreed to (which you are then >>>>> legally obligated to remember), or you don't. If you do, you >>>>> have a >>>>> partnership understanding. If you don't, you don't. WTP? >>>> >>>> One problem is the difficult of actually stating a feasible >>>> description of >>>> this. My partner and I agree to play what is in a book. We "either >>>> form a >>>> mutual understanding of the method ... or we don't." But then one >>>> or both >>>> of us reads the book some more. Do you really want to say that our >>>> agreement/understanding depends on what we understood when we >>>> made the >>>> agreement and doesn't change? Probably not. >>> >>> No, what I want to say is, whatever you do either changes what you >>> understood when you made the agreement, in which case your disclosure >>> obligations change, or it doesn't, in which case they don't. If you >>> read up on your chosen convention and learn something that wasn't >>> incorporated into your original agreement, you either communicate >>> your new knowlege (explicitly or implicitly) to partner and your >>> agreement changes, or you don't and it doesn't. >> >> At the extreme, my partner and I could agree to play a Precision >> book that >> neither of us has yet read. Then we might not have any agreements >> about >> what bids mean. That's reasonable. Then we both read the book but >> do not >> communicate our new knowledge. Then we still have no agreement? > > Right. You agree to play according a book which neither of you has > read, and, to make the question even meaningful, each of you is aware > that the other has not read the book and has no idea what's in it. > At this point you have no agreement. Now you each read the book > secretly and don't tell the other you have done so. This is a > patently absurd scenario, but, yes, were it to take place, you would > still have no agreement. > >> A more realistic example. I agree to play Capelletti with a partner. I >> have misunderstood the 2D bid. So, according to you, we have no >> agreement. >> I subsequently learn that I had misunderstood the 2D bid. According to >> you, unless I communicate that to partner, we still have no >> agreement. But >> now I know what the 2D bid means. I must remember to tell the >> opponents no >> agreement? > > This is an equally absurd scenario. Partner presumably knows > Cappelletti. You don't, but you agree to play it anyhow. You > misunderstand it, but partner chooses not to set you straight, so you > continue to misunderstand it, until some later time when you somehow, > not involving partner, "learn" to treat it according to your > partner's understanding of it. Partner, meanwhile, knows only that > you got it wrong last time and were allowed to continue thinking it > meant whatever you thought it meant. Of course you still have no > agreement (not that you would know it, so "I must remember to tell > the opponents" is nonsense). Do you really think that your > agreements (and disclosure obligations) can change based on anything > at all of which partner is totally unaware? I assume no one thinks > that way or would rule that way. Well, you have added something to the example. Suppose partner never has seen me misunderstand Cappelletti, because it never came up. We have no agreement on the 2D bid, because I was not understanding it correctly. I learn correctly, but according to you I still don't have an agreement. Now partner overcalls 2D, I have every reason to believe it means the majors, partner of course thinks I know that. But you are going to have me tell the opponents we don't have an agreement? > >> I assume no one thinks that way or would rule that way. >> >>>> But allowing it to change over time doesn't work very well either. >>>> I make >>>> an agreement with my partner, then I forget an aspect of the >>>> convention. >>>> Does that change our agreement so that we now do not have an >>>> agreement >>>> about the convention? That seems very awkward. >>> >>> No. You either establish an understanding or you don't. If you do, >>> it remains established whether you forget it or not. This is clearly >>> established jurisprudence, and nobody here has suggested otherwise. >>> >>>> and >>>> >>>>> If you know what your bid means according to the convention you >>>>> play, >>>>> you tell them what your bid means according to the convention you >>>>> play. If you have no agreement, you tell them you have no >>>>> agreement. Your "advantage" is irrelevant. WTP? >>>> >>>> So I know what my bid means according to the convention we agreed >>>> upon. >>>> But my partner doesn't, leading us to have no agreement by your >>>> criteria. >>>> Do I have to tell the opponents or not? Yes by your first sentence >>>> and no >>>> by your second sentence? >>> >>> I don't see the contradiction, provided you read "the convention you >>> play" as referring to the actual method you agree to play, as opposed >>> to the name by which you agree to call it. Otherwise, the knowledge >>> that your partner doesn't know what the convention in question means >>> makes any reference to "the convention [you] agreed upon" self- >>> contradictory. >> >> I see. No contradiction. Again, my partner agrees to play >> Cappelletti, I >> make a perfect 2D bid according to Capelletti, and my damn partner >> tells >> the opps he has no idea what my bid means! I can now tell the opps >> we have >> no agreement on the meaning of my bid. According to what you are >> saying. > > Of course you have no agreement on the meaning of 2D -- that's what > your partner just told the opponents, and he was neither wrong nor > lying. But -- and I repeat myself here -- you partner has explicitly > agreed to "play Cappelletti", whatever that might mean, and the > opponents are entitled to know that much. You tell them what you've > agreed to ("play Cappelletti"); you don't tell them what you didn't > agree to (the meaning of 2D). How hard is that to undertstand? Simple to understand, just hard to believe. > >>> Bob seems hung up on the problem of disclosure in the situation in >>> which you make some sort of explicit agreement, but one or both >>> members of the partnership leave the discussion fully aware of having >>> allowed "holes" to remain unfilled in their agreement. I reject this >>> concern as unrealistic. Our real-life concern is with partnerships >>> who believe themselves to have established an understanding when in >>> fact they did not. >> >> Actually, I am surprised that you see the two situations as leading to >> different rulings. Could you explain the difference? > > The latter may happen, while the former is just nonsense. You don't > simultanously agree on something and also agree that you don't know > what that something is. > >>> And that is a non-problem in general, as I've previously suggested, >>> because if and when it comes to a determination in adjudication that >>> the partnership in fact had no understanding, the "benefit of the >>> doubt" gives the NOS the opportunity to "guess" the meaning of the >>> problematic call, with the same result as if they had been informed >>> correctly at the table. >> >> I think you have stopped following the law book here. In one case, the >> question is how the defenders would have defended had they been >> told that >> 5H denies the queen of trumps. In the other case, the question is >> how the >> defenders would have defended in they had been told there is no >> agreement. >> Those almost always produce different probabilities (when they were >> damaged). >> >> Put another way, you need that the laws says the NOS get the >> benefit of >> doubt at every choice point in the play. That isn't right. > > Not at all. There is only one relevant "choice point" (or two), > which is the point at which one defender (or both) formulated a > defensive plan thinking his partner could not have the queen of > trumps, and might have formulated a different one if he had known > that his partner either did (having "been told that 5H denies..."), > or could (having "been told there is no agreement") hold that card. > "Benefit of the doubt" applies to one's planned approach to the deal, > not just independently to each individual card played. sigh. Okay, where in the laws does it say that the NOS get the benefit of the doubt in assigning an adjusted score? For example, "The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occured." There is nothing about giving the NOS the benefit of the doubt in determining the most favorable result that was likely. You notion that there is only once choice point is, hmmm. Every play is a choice point, and plans can change every time new information is acquired. Sometimes there is one critical choice point, of course. Sometimes there isn't. Or, put another way... It is given that the location of the queen is a critical issue. The probably of finding the correct defense has to gp up if the players are told the location of the queen rather than being forced to guess. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 24 23:28:15 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:28:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:40:07 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 24, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> My partner and I have the verbal conversation of just "odd even >> discards". >> Our opponents ask what we play and I say odd-even discards. They >> ask what >> the discard of an odd card means. I don't have to tell them anything >> because "odd-even" is ambiguous? >> >> You are called to the table. A player is upset because "odd-even" is >> checked on the convention card. It turns out that the players are >> playing >> the even means they like the suit and odd means they don't. The player >> thinks the convention card is misleading and they were damaged by the >> misinformation. You tell them that this convention name is >> ambiguous and >> they should know that and they should have protected themselves and >> rule >> no rectification? > > Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense! "This convention name" may be > ambiguous, but your agreement is about your method, not about its > name. Your partner and you had a conversation. Did you leave that > conversation with the understanding that odd cards encourage, or did > you leave that conversation with understanding that your agreement > was ambiguous and you had no idea what your signals meant? All you > need to do is tell your opponents the f--king truth! Why is that so > tough? Argue with Tom on this one, Eric. Not me. I clearly said that I think players should be able to trust what is on the convention card. Or when Grattan proposed this, you could have argued with him. From blml at arcor.de Sat Sep 25 09:34:23 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:34:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:06 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick > >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:37:38 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> > >> > Robert Frick wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan > >> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >>> 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. +=+ > >> >> > >> >> I do not think I would rule this way. > >> >> > >> >> For example, I see that two players have RKC on their convention card > >> >> and > >> >> conclude that the 5H bidder does not have the queen of trumps, being > >> >> damaged when he does. I then find that these players share the > >> >> "awareness" > >> >> that 5H shows the queen and 5S denies the queen. I would call the > >> >> director > >> >> and expect to be protected. > >> >> > >> >> If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the opponents' > >> >> convention card. > >> > > >> > The RKC (also RKCB) convention has > >> > evolved over time, and there exist multiple variations. > >> > If they play that, say, 5H shows two out of five keycards > >> > without slam interest and 5S shows two with slam interest, > >> > that convention is called Roman Keycard, or also > >> > Roman Keycard Blackwood. > >> > > >> > It is up to the regulation authorities to have regulations > >> > that instruct players to provide correct, complete, non-confusing > >> > information on their convention card. If an entry such > >> > as "RKC" is legal usage of the convention card in ACBL-land, > >> > then I think in my example you are not due any redress if > >> > damaged - their convention card was filled in correctly. > >> > >> For example odd-even is just a checkbox on the ACBL convention card. In > >> response to "what are your discards?", "Odd even" is a common, > >> usually-accepted answer (for people who know it). > >> > >> Everyone plays that odd shows a liking for the suit. > > > > It is not true that "everybody plays that odd shows > > a liking for the suit", as it is very unsound to play that. > > > > You want a D switch, all you can spare > > is one of your three small spades, which > > happen to be 357. You discard a spade, > > and partner switches to a spade. > > > > Or you want a D switch to your DAKT842, and all you > > can spare is one of those small diamonds. You discard > > the D8, and partner duly plays a spade. > > > > Next board, you have the DAK953. You discard > > the D3. Partner holds the D48, and can see the DT82 > > in dummy. Partner thus concludes that you do > > not have an even diamond to discard, and that > > you might have been forced to discard an odd diamond > > even though you actually want a C. Partner then > > switches to a C. > > > > After that has happened a few times, you'll > > quickly modify that method. Once you have > > put such modifications into place to avoid > > absurd disasters which no other method > > of showing suit preference creates, you > > no longer play "odd shows a liking for the suit". > > > > > > Then, there still are quite a few additional variations: > > Under which circumstances are the discards "odd-even", > > and when is some other method in effect? Say, you > > can see that partner needs the count in a certain suit. > > Do you then signal count? You led the S6. two tricks > > later, you discard the S2. Is that "odd-even", or are > > you clarifying the S length? > > > > > > IOW: a mere "odd/even discards" is very incomplete > > information. > > > > Just stop trying to find an example where > > "everybody" plays the same. It doesn't exist. > > I am wondering "so what?" How is this relevant? > > My partner and I have the verbal conversation of just "odd even discards". No, you don't. You play quite a few hands together. That gives you an understanding how your partner will approach situations where the small cards he can afford to discard are insufficient to signal what he wants to signal. That understanding must be disclosed to opponents. > Our opponents ask what we play and I say odd-even discards. They ask what > the discard of an odd card means. I don't have to tell them anything > because "odd-even" is ambiguous? You have to inform opponents correctly about your methods. The fact that your "odd-even" method is unsound does not relieve you of that obligation. Your partner discards the spade 3, on a hand where he actually does not like spades. Not as a deliberate false card, but simply because that was the card he could spare. Opponents ask about your methods. You tell them that you play "odd-even", or that the spade 3 shows that he likes spades. I will then happily rule that you misinformed opponents. You should have told them that if he could choose between an odd and an even spade to discard, then discarding the odd spade would indicate that he somewhat likes spades, and discarding the even spade would indicate that he somewhat dislikes spades (but only provided that this isn't one of those hands where he decides to false card). Oh, and if it happens that your partner hesitates for 30 seconds before discarding that spade 3, and you then somehow "figure out" that he didn't like spades after all, the first time I see you do that I will explain your obligations to you, and the second time I see you do that, I will kick you out of the tournament immediately. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 25 15:05:43 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:05:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 03:34:23 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:06 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick >> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:37:38 -0400, Thomas Dehn >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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. +=+ >> >> >> >> >> >> I do not think I would rule this way. >> >> >> >> >> >> For example, I see that two players have RKC on their convention >> card >> >> >> and >> >> >> conclude that the 5H bidder does not have the queen of trumps, >> being >> >> >> damaged when he does. I then find that these players share the >> >> >> "awareness" >> >> >> that 5H shows the queen and 5S denies the queen. I would call the >> >> >> director >> >> >> and expect to be protected. >> >> >> >> >> >> If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the opponents' >> >> >> convention card. >> >> > >> >> > The RKC (also RKCB) convention has >> >> > evolved over time, and there exist multiple variations. >> >> > If they play that, say, 5H shows two out of five keycards >> >> > without slam interest and 5S shows two with slam interest, >> >> > that convention is called Roman Keycard, or also >> >> > Roman Keycard Blackwood. >> >> > >> >> > It is up to the regulation authorities to have regulations >> >> > that instruct players to provide correct, complete, non-confusing >> >> > information on their convention card. If an entry such >> >> > as "RKC" is legal usage of the convention card in ACBL-land, >> >> > then I think in my example you are not due any redress if >> >> > damaged - their convention card was filled in correctly. >> >> >> >> For example odd-even is just a checkbox on the ACBL convention card. >> In >> >> response to "what are your discards?", "Odd even" is a common, >> >> usually-accepted answer (for people who know it). >> >> >> >> Everyone plays that odd shows a liking for the suit. >> > >> > It is not true that "everybody plays that odd shows >> > a liking for the suit", as it is very unsound to play that. >> > >> > You want a D switch, all you can spare >> > is one of your three small spades, which >> > happen to be 357. You discard a spade, >> > and partner switches to a spade. >> > >> > Or you want a D switch to your DAKT842, and all you >> > can spare is one of those small diamonds. You discard >> > the D8, and partner duly plays a spade. >> > >> > Next board, you have the DAK953. You discard >> > the D3. Partner holds the D48, and can see the DT82 >> > in dummy. Partner thus concludes that you do >> > not have an even diamond to discard, and that >> > you might have been forced to discard an odd diamond >> > even though you actually want a C. Partner then >> > switches to a C. >> > >> > After that has happened a few times, you'll >> > quickly modify that method. Once you have >> > put such modifications into place to avoid >> > absurd disasters which no other method >> > of showing suit preference creates, you >> > no longer play "odd shows a liking for the suit". >> > >> > >> > Then, there still are quite a few additional variations: >> > Under which circumstances are the discards "odd-even", >> > and when is some other method in effect? Say, you >> > can see that partner needs the count in a certain suit. >> > Do you then signal count? You led the S6. two tricks >> > later, you discard the S2. Is that "odd-even", or are >> > you clarifying the S length? >> > >> > >> > IOW: a mere "odd/even discards" is very incomplete >> > information. >> > >> > Just stop trying to find an example where >> > "everybody" plays the same. It doesn't exist. >> >> I am wondering "so what?" How is this relevant? >> >> My partner and I have the verbal conversation of just "odd even >> discards". > > No, you don't. You play quite a few hands together. I am not sure why you are saying this. The laws cannot handle the situation where people just make a verbal agreement? In fact, I frequently agree to play odd-even with people whom I have never played a hand with. Let me put this another way. The question is what agreement players are making when they agree by just a conventional name. So the question is what agreement we make when we say "odd-even". The question is not how implicit agreements form and you just make the discussion irrelevant when you add that. > That > gives you an understanding how your partner will > approach situations where the small cards he can afford > to discard are insufficient to signal what he wants to signal. > That understanding must be disclosed to opponents. Of course I should. No one does it. Show I throw out all of the members of my club? > >> Our opponents ask what we play and I say odd-even discards. They ask >> what >> the discard of an odd card means. I don't have to tell them anything >> because "odd-even" is ambiguous? > > You have to inform opponents correctly about your methods. > The fact that your "odd-even" method is unsound does > not relieve you of that obligation. Well, I have to inform the opponents of our understandings, not our methods. See L40A1 I have checked odd-even on our card and tell them odd-even when they ask. Is there a problem if my partner and I have reversed the meaning of odd and even? I am arguing that there is. > > Your partner discards the spade 3, on a hand where he > actually does not like spades. Not as a deliberate false card, > but simply because that was the card he could spare. > > Opponents ask about your methods. You tell them that > you play "odd-even", or that the spade 3 shows that he likes > spades. > > I will then happily rule that you misinformed opponents. I will happily appeal and expect to win. I do not have to explain basic bridge knowledge to the opponents. You will not find any committee members at my club that want to have to explain as you describe below. > You should have told them that if he could choose between > an odd and an even spade to discard, then discarding the > odd spade would indicate that he somewhat likes spades, > and discarding the even spade would indicate that he somewhat > dislikes spades (but only provided that this isn't one of those > hands where he decides to false card). That would annoy them. They want to know if I am playing odd-even. They expect me to tell them if I am doing a variation of odd-even that they don't expect. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 25 16:32:20 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 14:32:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <207771.85642.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Robert Frick] [SNIP] I have checked odd-even on our card and tell them odd-even when they ask. Is there a problem if my partner and I have reversed the meaning of odd and even? I am arguing that there is. {Nigel] I agree with Robert. I think opponents should be able to rely on standard meanings for brief (spoken/written) descriptions like "odd-even". I have agreed "even-odd" (i.e. even encourages) in some partnerships (but our card explains it and we pre-alert it). From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 25 17:05:46 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:05:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (problems) In-Reply-To: <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: technical ambiguity is not a problem. When my partner and I agree on "unusual 2NT", we both know there is a variation in which 2NT shows the minors over a minor suit opening. But we both know that is the "marked" variation -- if we want to play that variation, we have to say so. We both know that without discussion, unusual no trump is for the two lowest unbid suits. "holes" are a serious problem. For example, when playing negative doubles, the meaning of this sequence is ambiguous: 1C 1D X Experts play this as showing both majors, as the convention is described. Nonexperts usually play this as showing 1 4-card major. Whe players agree on negative doubles, what is the agreement for this bid? I don't think the laws help me. Currently, I would describe the double as undefined and offer to leave the table so my partner could tell the opponents what he meant. Hmmm, I guess that answers my question for me. What about, if players agree on a conventional name with ambiguities, the opps are entitled to know how each player has interpreted the ambiguity? Small problem, because it is so rare. A 2D overcall was described as showing both majors and the convention card said Cappelletti. But the player bidding 2D had diamonds and no awareness of the meaning of any of the Cappelletti bids. I ruled mistaken explanation. I think that is the fair ruling, but obviously it is not so consistent with the rest of the Contractual Perspective. suggestions? constructive criticisms? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 25 17:03:31 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:03:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The "Contractual Perspective" to agreements (also common sense) I In-Reply-To: <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: There is another point of view. I will call it the Contractual Perspective. Let me put it his way. At our club, the general understanding is that RKC means that 5H shows two controls and denies the queen of the agreed upon suit. If there was no agreement, people wouldn't say RKC and stop there. No doubt there are a few people who don't know this, but they would be considered ignorant or forgetful or confused. The contractual perspective then is that the agreement "RKC" includes within it agreements about the actual meaning of bids such as 5H. Put technically, when I say "RKC", I actually mean "RKC as generally understood by players in this club when they say just RKC". Of course, the extra words are redundant in actual conversation. This presumably corresponds to common sense -- people are making the agreements they think they are making. For example, when I agreed to play Cappelletti without knowing what it was, I thought I was agreeing on a specific meaning for the 2D overcall even though I didn't know what it was. It makes the easy rulings easy. 1. A player responds 5H with the queen of trumps. The card documents that they are playing RKC. End of story, no matter what the 5H bidder was thinking or doing, they opps got a correct explanation and there is no rectification. 2. 1C 1H P 2C The 2C bid was meant as Michaels. But no one here plays Michaels that way. Whatever she was thinking, this is a misbid. 3. The 5H response to 4NT is described as two controls and the player leaves out the information about denying the queen. The opponents claim damage. The card says RKC. So the ruling is mistaken explanation. AND, we determine what might have happened had they been told it denied the queen; we do not have to consider the possibility that the correct description of the partnership agreement was "no agreement". 4. I agree to play Cappelletti even though I don't know what it is. My partner overcalls a 1NT opening with 2D. I say I don't know what it means. When it comes time for my partner to say what the bid means, he tells them it shows both majors. (Both Richard and Eric have argued that his correct answer is "no agreement".) It makes some of the hard rulings possible. 1D P 1H P 2NT P 3C(1) P 3NT (1) new minor forcing 3C was correctly explained as new minor forcing. Both opponents knew this convention. They asked if the 3NT response denied 4S. They were told, after insisting upon an answer, that it did. They then misdefended when declarer had 4 spades. I don't have to decide whether the 3NT bidder forgot, never understood correctly, or was making a tactical bid. (He apparently claimed all three.) The opponents received a correct explanation of the convention and his bid and don't get rectification. Unfortunately, the impossible rulings still might be impossible..... From blml at arcor.de Sat Sep 25 20:43:14 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 20:43:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) Message-ID: <33288223.1285440194070.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 03:34:23 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick > >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:06 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> >> For example odd-even is just a checkbox on the ACBL convention card. In > >> >> response to "what are your discards?", "Odd even" is a common, > >> >> usually-accepted answer (for people who know it). > >> >> > >> >> Everyone plays that odd shows a liking for the suit. > >> > > >> > It is not true that "everybody plays that odd shows > >> > a liking for the suit", as it is very unsound to play that. > >> > > >> > You want a D switch, all you can spare > >> > is one of your three small spades, which > >> > happen to be 357. You discard a spade, > >> > and partner switches to a spade. > >> > > >> > Or you want a D switch to your DAKT842, and all you > >> > can spare is one of those small diamonds. You discard > >> > the D8, and partner duly plays a spade. > >> > > >> > Next board, you have the DAK953. You discard > >> > the D3. Partner holds the D48, and can see the DT82 > >> > in dummy. Partner thus concludes that you do > >> > not have an even diamond to discard, and that > >> > you might have been forced to discard an odd diamond > >> > even though you actually want a C. Partner then > >> > switches to a C. > >> > > >> > After that has happened a few times, you'll > >> > quickly modify that method. Once you have > >> > put such modifications into place to avoid > >> > absurd disasters which no other method > >> > of showing suit preference creates, you > >> > no longer play "odd shows a liking for the suit". > >> > > >> > > >> > Then, there still are quite a few additional variations: > >> > Under which circumstances are the discards "odd-even", > >> > and when is some other method in effect? Say, you > >> > can see that partner needs the count in a certain suit. > >> > Do you then signal count? You led the S6. two tricks > >> > later, you discard the S2. Is that "odd-even", or are > >> > you clarifying the S length? > >> > > >> > > >> > IOW: a mere "odd/even discards" is very incomplete > >> > information. > >> > > >> > Just stop trying to find an example where > >> > "everybody" plays the same. It doesn't exist. > >> > >> I am wondering "so what?" How is this relevant? > >> > >> My partner and I have the verbal conversation of just "odd even > >> discards". > > > > No, you don't. You play quite a few hands together. > > I am not sure why you are saying this. The laws cannot handle the > situation where people just make a verbal agreement? The situation is highly unrealistic. You usually don't have the TD at your table on the very first board you play with a total stranger. > In fact, I frequently agree to play odd-even with people whom I have never > played a hand with. "frequently"??? > Let me put this another way. The question is what agreement players are > making when they agree by just a conventional name. So the question is > what agreement we make when we say "odd-even". In this particular case, they agree that a discard of an odd card shows that they somewhat like a suit, and a discard of an even suit shows that they somewhat dislike a suit. They also agree on getting a few bad scores due to playing an unsound method. > > That > > gives you an understanding how your partner will > > approach situations where the small cards he can afford > > to discard are insufficient to signal what he wants to signal. > > That understanding must be disclosed to opponents. > > Of course I should. No one does it. Show I throw out all of the members of > my club? At your club, no one does it because you have been lenient on them for years. In a normal club, the TD reads the players the relevant paragraph from TFLB, and then announces his ruling. > >> Our opponents ask what we play and I say odd-even discards. They ask > >> what > >> the discard of an odd card means. I don't have to tell them anything > >> because "odd-even" is ambiguous? > > > > You have to inform opponents correctly about your methods. > > The fact that your "odd-even" method is unsound does > > not relieve you of that obligation. > > Well, I have to inform the opponents of our understandings, not our > methods. See L40A1 I have checked odd-even on our card and tell them > odd-even when they ask. Is there a problem if my partner and I have > reversed the meaning of odd and even? Yes, obviously that is a problem. > > Your partner discards the spade 3, on a hand where he > > actually does not like spades. Not as a deliberate false card, > > but simply because that was the card he could spare. > > > > Opponents ask about your methods. You tell them that > > you play "odd-even", or that the spade 3 shows that he likes > > spades. > > > > I will then happily rule that you misinformed opponents. > > I will happily appeal and expect to win. I do not have to explain basic > bridge knowledge to the opponents. No, this is not basic bridge knowledge. > You will not find any committee members at my club that want to have to > explain as you describe below. I am aware of that. After all, at your club, the director rewards breaking the law with average plus. Thomas Heute erleben, was morgen Trend wird - das kann man auf der IFA in Berlin. Oder auf arcor.de: Wir stellen Ihnen die wichtigsten News, Trends und Gadgets der IFA vor. Nat?rlich mit dabei: das brandneue IPTV-Angebot von Vodafone! Alles rund um die Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin finden Sie hier: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ifa2010 From bpark56 at comcast.net Sun Sep 26 00:36:42 2010 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:36:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <33288223.1285440194070.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <33288223.1285440194070.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C9E797A.4020201@comcast.net> On 9/25/10 2:43 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > In this particular case, they agree that a discard of > an odd card shows that they somewhat like a suit, and a discard > of an even suit shows that they somewhat dislike a suit. > They also agree on getting a few bad scores due > to playing an unsound method. > Unsound? Maybe, but I noticed when I started playing odd-even discards that my partners began playing much better defense! And neither of us are advanced enough to take advantage of hesitations. --bp From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 26 07:34:12 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 01:34:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <907040.37464.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <907040.37464.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:57:00 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > {Richard Hills] If: > > (a) North-South pair A summon the Director to their table, because > (b) East-West pair B have unintentionally infracted, and > (c) the correct ruling is North-South Ave+ and East-West Ave-, and > (d) the Director knows that the correct ruling is Ave+ / Ave-, but > (e) the Director instead rules Ave+ / Ave+, to > (f) "keep everyone happy", so > (g) East-West pair B gain first place in the East-West field, but > (h) East-West pair C would have gained first place otherwise, then > (i) East-West pair C are Very Unhappy losing first place, because > (j) of an intentional Director's error. > > [Nigel] > Even if they found out, pair C are powerless to claw back their rightful > place. > Players are already inured to weighted adjustments that give directors > the power > to decide tournaments. In practice, for example, If you lose a tournament > because of a doubtful weighting decision, there is little point in > appealing. > Similarly "equity rulings" mollify and reward offenders but leave > victims of > infractions, resignedly licking their wounds. The problem for law-makers > is that > deterrent and *genuinely* equitable judgements would result in > caterwauling > law-breakers and cat-fights with directors. > > Players of Richard's moral fibre are uncommon. Rarely will an offending > pair > question an over-kind ruling. I've never read a report of an completed > appeal by > a pair with the intent of penalising themselves more harshly. Although, > I agree > that such an appeal should be allowed and that AWMW penalties should be > waived. > > > I'm afraid that most B pairs would go with the flow. They would be happy > with > the av+ ruling and regard it as fair and consistent. They would neither > know nor > care what effect it had on pair C. There is a simple solution for 2018 -- put in the laws that the combined table score cannot be larger than 100%. That would make it very difficult to give feel good rulings. Of course, it would also eliminate feel-good rulings for director's error. And it would probably not be good for bridge. I think some people care about that, not that we could have an intelligent discussion of that here. BTW, I once had an extended argument with an ex-BLMLer who argued that when players could not play a scheduled board, they should both receive A+. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Sep 27 00:43:09 2010 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 23:43:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> North South Vul Dealer South Imps 8643 A7542 Q6 104 West North East South -- -- -- P 1C (1) 2D (2) ? (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) (2) Weak Jump Overcall What call do you make? What other call(s) do you consider making? ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Sep 27 00:58:09 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:58:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> References: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> Message-ID: 1. Pass 2. Double On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:43 PM, David wrote: > > > North South Vul > Dealer South > Imps > > 8643 > A7542 > Q6 > 104 > > > West North East South > -- -- -- P > 1C (1) 2D (2) ? > > (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) > (2) Weak Jump Overcall > > What call do you make? > What other call(s) do you consider making? > > > ********************************** > david.j.barton at lineone.net > ********************************** > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100926/9b37795c/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Sep 27 00:58:53 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 23:58:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? References: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> Message-ID: <0A209422FF454D5486005D2C59319CCF@woe9f427cae481> > North South Vul > Dealer South > Imps > > 8643 > A7542 > Q6 > 104 > > > West North East South > -- -- -- P > 1C (1) 2D (2) ? > > (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) > (2) Weak Jump Overcall > > What call do you make? Duuuuble > What other call(s) do you consider making? Pint and a bag of crisps From blml at arcor.de Mon Sep 27 10:46:01 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:46:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> References: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> Message-ID: <25989259.1285577161849.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> David wrote: > North South Vul > Dealer South > Imps > > 8643 > A7542 > Q6 > 104 > > > West North East South > -- -- -- P > 1C (1) 2D (2) ? > > (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) > (2) Weak Jump Overcall > > What call do you make? double, takeout. A bit thin, but we are nonvul. > What other call(s) do you consider making? pass. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 27 11:07:05 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> References: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> Message-ID: <720.92516.qm@web28512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [David] Imps North South/South 8643 A7542 Q6 104 -- -- -- P 1C (1) 2D (2) ? (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) (2) Weak Jump Overcall What call do you make? What other call(s) do you consider making? [Nige1] (1) Pass = 10 (2) Double = 8. (3) If 2D had been alerted as "Guessed 'em" or somesuch, pass still = 10. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 27 14:55:05 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:55:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> <2FC16DF0-4F61-4728-B341-C959933B2645@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50FBDCD4-B30F-4093-BF5A-ADE1851FA27B@starpower.net> On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:25:14 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Sep 24, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:01:13 -0400, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:50:29 -0400, Eric Landau >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My position is not that complicated. When you make an >>>>>> agreement to >>>>>> play a convention, in whatever fashion, you either form a mutual >>>>>> understanding of the method you have agreed to (which you are >>>>>> then >>>>>> legally obligated to remember), or you don't. If you do, you >>>>>> have a >>>>>> partnership understanding. If you don't, you don't. WTP? >>>>> >>>>> One problem is the difficult of actually stating a feasible >>>>> description of >>>>> this. My partner and I agree to play what is in a book. We "either >>>>> form a >>>>> mutual understanding of the method ... or we don't." But then one >>>>> or both >>>>> of us reads the book some more. Do you really want to say that our >>>>> agreement/understanding depends on what we understood when we >>>>> made the >>>>> agreement and doesn't change? Probably not. >>>> >>>> No, what I want to say is, whatever you do either changes what you >>>> understood when you made the agreement, in which case your >>>> disclosure >>>> obligations change, or it doesn't, in which case they don't. If >>>> you >>>> read up on your chosen convention and learn something that wasn't >>>> incorporated into your original agreement, you either communicate >>>> your new knowlege (explicitly or implicitly) to partner and your >>>> agreement changes, or you don't and it doesn't. >>> >>> At the extreme, my partner and I could agree to play a Precision >>> book that >>> neither of us has yet read. Then we might not have any agreements >>> about >>> what bids mean. That's reasonable. Then we both read the book but >>> do not >>> communicate our new knowledge. Then we still have no agreement? >> >> Right. You agree to play according a book which neither of you has >> read, and, to make the question even meaningful, each of you is aware >> that the other has not read the book and has no idea what's in it. >> At this point you have no agreement. Now you each read the book >> secretly and don't tell the other you have done so. This is a >> patently absurd scenario, but, yes, were it to take place, you would >> still have no agreement. >> >>> A more realistic example. I agree to play Capelletti with a >>> partner. I >>> have misunderstood the 2D bid. So, according to you, we have no >>> agreement. >>> I subsequently learn that I had misunderstood the 2D bid. >>> According to >>> you, unless I communicate that to partner, we still have no >>> agreement. But >>> now I know what the 2D bid means. I must remember to tell the >>> opponents no >>> agreement? >> >> This is an equally absurd scenario. Partner presumably knows >> Cappelletti. You don't, but you agree to play it anyhow. You >> misunderstand it, but partner chooses not to set you straight, so you >> continue to misunderstand it, until some later time when you somehow, >> not involving partner, "learn" to treat it according to your >> partner's understanding of it. Partner, meanwhile, knows only that >> you got it wrong last time and were allowed to continue thinking it >> meant whatever you thought it meant. Of course you still have no >> agreement (not that you would know it, so "I must remember to tell >> the opponents" is nonsense). Do you really think that your >> agreements (and disclosure obligations) can change based on anything >> at all of which partner is totally unaware? I assume no one thinks >> that way or would rule that way. > > Well, you have added something to the example. Suppose partner > never has > seen me misunderstand Cappelletti, because it never came up. We > have no > agreement on the 2D bid, because I was not understanding it > correctly. I > learn correctly, but according to you I still don't have an > agreement. Now > partner overcalls 2D, I have every reason to believe it means the > majors, > partner of course thinks I know that. But you are going to have me > tell > the opponents we don't have an agreement? Bob's scenarios just keep getting sillier, but I suppose he gets this one right. Partner offers Cappelletti, and you agree, misleading him into thinking that you know what it is. Then, without his knowledge, you go ahead and learn it after the fact, so that by the time it comes up at the table, you are in fact cognizant of what you previously, if disingenuously, agreed to. So you do have a common understanding, and you know it. WTP? >>> I assume no one thinks that way or would rule that way. >>> >>>>> But allowing it to change over time doesn't work very well either. >>>>> I make >>>>> an agreement with my partner, then I forget an aspect of the >>>>> convention. >>>>> Does that change our agreement so that we now do not have an >>>>> agreement >>>>> about the convention? That seems very awkward. >>>> >>>> No. You either establish an understanding or you don't. If you >>>> do, >>>> it remains established whether you forget it or not. This is >>>> clearly >>>> established jurisprudence, and nobody here has suggested otherwise. >>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>> If you know what your bid means according to the convention you >>>>>> play, >>>>>> you tell them what your bid means according to the convention you >>>>>> play. If you have no agreement, you tell them you have no >>>>>> agreement. Your "advantage" is irrelevant. WTP? >>>>> >>>>> So I know what my bid means according to the convention we agreed >>>>> upon. >>>>> But my partner doesn't, leading us to have no agreement by your >>>>> criteria. >>>>> Do I have to tell the opponents or not? Yes by your first sentence >>>>> and no >>>>> by your second sentence? >>>> >>>> I don't see the contradiction, provided you read "the convention >>>> you >>>> play" as referring to the actual method you agree to play, as >>>> opposed >>>> to the name by which you agree to call it. Otherwise, the >>>> knowledge >>>> that your partner doesn't know what the convention in question >>>> means >>>> makes any reference to "the convention [you] agreed upon" self- >>>> contradictory. >>> >>> I see. No contradiction. Again, my partner agrees to play >>> Cappelletti, I >>> make a perfect 2D bid according to Capelletti, and my damn partner >>> tells >>> the opps he has no idea what my bid means! I can now tell the opps >>> we have >>> no agreement on the meaning of my bid. According to what you are >>> saying. >> >> Of course you have no agreement on the meaning of 2D -- that's what >> your partner just told the opponents, and he was neither wrong nor >> lying. But -- and I repeat myself here -- you partner has explicitly >> agreed to "play Cappelletti", whatever that might mean, and the >> opponents are entitled to know that much. You tell them what you've >> agreed to ("play Cappelletti"); you don't tell them what you didn't >> agree to (the meaning of 2D). How hard is that to undertstand? > > Simple to understand, just hard to believe. > >>>> Bob seems hung up on the problem of disclosure in the situation in >>>> which you make some sort of explicit agreement, but one or both >>>> members of the partnership leave the discussion fully aware of >>>> having >>>> allowed "holes" to remain unfilled in their agreement. I reject >>>> this >>>> concern as unrealistic. Our real-life concern is with partnerships >>>> who believe themselves to have established an understanding when in >>>> fact they did not. >>> >>> Actually, I am surprised that you see the two situations as >>> leading to >>> different rulings. Could you explain the difference? >> >> The latter may happen, while the former is just nonsense. You don't >> simultanously agree on something and also agree that you don't know >> what that something is. >> >>>> And that is a non-problem in general, as I've previously suggested, >>>> because if and when it comes to a determination in adjudication >>>> that >>>> the partnership in fact had no understanding, the "benefit of the >>>> doubt" gives the NOS the opportunity to "guess" the meaning of the >>>> problematic call, with the same result as if they had been informed >>>> correctly at the table. >>> >>> I think you have stopped following the law book here. In one >>> case, the >>> question is how the defenders would have defended had they been >>> told that >>> 5H denies the queen of trumps. In the other case, the question is >>> how the >>> defenders would have defended in they had been told there is no >>> agreement. >>> Those almost always produce different probabilities (when they were >>> damaged). >>> >>> Put another way, you need that the laws says the NOS get the >>> benefit of >>> doubt at every choice point in the play. That isn't right. >> >> Not at all. There is only one relevant "choice point" (or two), >> which is the point at which one defender (or both) formulated a >> defensive plan thinking his partner could not have the queen of >> trumps, and might have formulated a different one if he had known >> that his partner either did (having "been told that 5H denies..."), >> or could (having "been told there is no agreement") hold that card. >> "Benefit of the doubt" applies to one's planned approach to the deal, >> not just independently to each individual card played. > > sigh. Okay, where in the laws does it say that the NOS get the > benefit of > the doubt in assigning an adjusted score? For example, "The score > assigned > in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most > favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occured." > There > is nothing about giving the NOS the benefit of the doubt in > determining > the most favorable result that was likely. > > You notion that there is only once choice point is, hmmm. Every > play is a > choice point, and plans can change every time new information is > acquired. > Sometimes there is one critical choice point, of course. Sometimes > there > isn't. > > Or, put another way... It is given that the location of the queen is a > critical issue. The probably of finding the correct defense has to > gp up > if the players are told the location of the queen rather than being > forced > to guess. Presumably there are lines which are superior if partner has the queen, there are lines that are superior if partner does not, and playing for its actual lie is among the possibilities that are "likely had the irregularity not occurred". Keep in mind that an adjustment need not reflect the most probable result for the NOS, nor the result from optimal analysis, but rather the most successful of the prospective "likely" lines ("the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" [L12C1(e)]). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 27 15:24:16 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:24:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sep 25, 2010, at 3:34 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:06 -0400, Thomas Dehn >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick >>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:37:38 -0400, Thomas Dehn >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. +=+ >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not think I would rule this way. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, I see that two players have RKC on their >>>>>> convention card >>>>>> and >>>>>> conclude that the 5H bidder does not have the queen of trumps, >>>>>> being >>>>>> damaged when he does. I then find that these players share the >>>>>> "awareness" >>>>>> that 5H shows the queen and 5S denies the queen. I would call the >>>>>> director >>>>>> and expect to be protected. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the >>>>>> opponents' >>>>>> convention card. >>>>> >>>>> The RKC (also RKCB) convention has >>>>> evolved over time, and there exist multiple variations. >>>>> If they play that, say, 5H shows two out of five keycards >>>>> without slam interest and 5S shows two with slam interest, >>>>> that convention is called Roman Keycard, or also >>>>> Roman Keycard Blackwood. >>>>> >>>>> It is up to the regulation authorities to have regulations >>>>> that instruct players to provide correct, complete, non-confusing >>>>> information on their convention card. If an entry such >>>>> as "RKC" is legal usage of the convention card in ACBL-land, >>>>> then I think in my example you are not due any redress if >>>>> damaged - their convention card was filled in correctly. >>>> >>>> For example odd-even is just a checkbox on the ACBL convention >>>> card. In >>>> response to "what are your discards?", "Odd even" is a common, >>>> usually-accepted answer (for people who know it). >>>> >>>> Everyone plays that odd shows a liking for the suit. >>> >>> It is not true that "everybody plays that odd shows >>> a liking for the suit", as it is very unsound to play that. >>> >>> You want a D switch, all you can spare >>> is one of your three small spades, which >>> happen to be 357. You discard a spade, >>> and partner switches to a spade. >>> >>> Or you want a D switch to your DAKT842, and all you >>> can spare is one of those small diamonds. You discard >>> the D8, and partner duly plays a spade. >>> >>> Next board, you have the DAK953. You discard >>> the D3. Partner holds the D48, and can see the DT82 >>> in dummy. Partner thus concludes that you do >>> not have an even diamond to discard, and that >>> you might have been forced to discard an odd diamond >>> even though you actually want a C. Partner then >>> switches to a C. >>> >>> After that has happened a few times, you'll >>> quickly modify that method. Once you have >>> put such modifications into place to avoid >>> absurd disasters which no other method >>> of showing suit preference creates, you >>> no longer play "odd shows a liking for the suit". >>> >>> >>> Then, there still are quite a few additional variations: >>> Under which circumstances are the discards "odd-even", >>> and when is some other method in effect? Say, you >>> can see that partner needs the count in a certain suit. >>> Do you then signal count? You led the S6. two tricks >>> later, you discard the S2. Is that "odd-even", or are >>> you clarifying the S length? >>> >>> >>> IOW: a mere "odd/even discards" is very incomplete >>> information. >>> >>> Just stop trying to find an example where >>> "everybody" plays the same. It doesn't exist. >> >> I am wondering "so what?" How is this relevant? >> >> My partner and I have the verbal conversation of just "odd even >> discards". > > No, you don't. You play quite a few hands together. That > gives you an understanding how your partner will > approach situations where the small cards he can afford > to discard are insufficient to signal what he wants to signal. > That understanding must be disclosed to opponents. > >> Our opponents ask what we play and I say odd-even discards. They >> ask what >> the discard of an odd card means. I don't have to tell them anything >> because "odd-even" is ambiguous? > > You have to inform opponents correctly about your methods. > The fact that your "odd-even" method is unsound does > not relieve you of that obligation. > > Your partner discards the spade 3, on a hand where he > actually does not like spades. Not as a deliberate false card, > but simply because that was the card he could spare. > > Opponents ask about your methods. You tell them that > you play "odd-even", or that the spade 3 shows that he likes > spades. > > I will then happily rule that you misinformed opponents. > You should have told them that if he could choose between > an odd and an even spade to discard, then discarding the > odd spade would indicate that he somewhat likes spades, > and discarding the even spade would indicate that he somewhat > dislikes spades (but only provided that this isn't one of those > hands where he decides to false card). I agree with Thomas except for one minor quibble. Even under the ACBL's "as forthcoming and helpful as possible" guideline, I see no need to disclose "(but only provided that this isn't one of those hands where he decides to false card)"; surely if anything qualifies as a "matter[] generally known to bridge players" it is this. OTOH, if partner were a known wild false-carder, so that the uncertainty of the meaning of his signals rose to the level of a special partnership understanding, that would require a rather stronger disclosure than merely stating the obvious. > Oh, and if it happens that your partner hesitates for > 30 seconds before discarding that spade 3, and you then > somehow "figure out" that he didn't like spades after > all, the first time I see you do that I will explain > your obligations to you, and the second > time I see you do that, I will kick you out of the tournament > immediately. Odd-even signals are one of a handful of agreements whose technical merits must be weighed against the likelihood of their creating honest but ethically sticky-looking positions before one chooses to adopt them. (Others include "pass-then-pull standard" rather than "strong" (which may require questionable pulls of uncertain doubles), and my own problematic favorite, Jacoby transfers without Texas transfers (which allow for bidding 4H or 4S over a NT opening with a free choice of declarer).) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 27 15:48:57 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:48:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 03:34:23 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Robert Frick >>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:06 -0400, Thomas Dehn >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Frick >>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:37:38 -0400, Thomas Dehn >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:50:59 -0400, Grattan >>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. +=+ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not think I would rule this way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For example, I see that two players have RKC on their convention >>> card >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> conclude that the 5H bidder does not have the queen of trumps, >>> being >>>>>>> damaged when he does. I then find that these players share the >>>>>>> "awareness" >>>>>>> that 5H shows the queen and 5S denies the queen. I would call >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> director >>>>>>> and expect to be protected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I am not protected, I would hesitate to refer to the >>>>>>> opponents' >>>>>>> convention card. >>>>>> >>>>>> The RKC (also RKCB) convention has >>>>>> evolved over time, and there exist multiple variations. >>>>>> If they play that, say, 5H shows two out of five keycards >>>>>> without slam interest and 5S shows two with slam interest, >>>>>> that convention is called Roman Keycard, or also >>>>>> Roman Keycard Blackwood. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is up to the regulation authorities to have regulations >>>>>> that instruct players to provide correct, complete, non-confusing >>>>>> information on their convention card. If an entry such >>>>>> as "RKC" is legal usage of the convention card in ACBL-land, >>>>>> then I think in my example you are not due any redress if >>>>>> damaged - their convention card was filled in correctly. >>>>> >>>>> For example odd-even is just a checkbox on the ACBL convention >>>>> card. >>> In >>>>> response to "what are your discards?", "Odd even" is a common, >>>>> usually-accepted answer (for people who know it). >>>>> >>>>> Everyone plays that odd shows a liking for the suit. >>>> >>>> It is not true that "everybody plays that odd shows >>>> a liking for the suit", as it is very unsound to play that. >>>> >>>> You want a D switch, all you can spare >>>> is one of your three small spades, which >>>> happen to be 357. You discard a spade, >>>> and partner switches to a spade. >>>> >>>> Or you want a D switch to your DAKT842, and all you >>>> can spare is one of those small diamonds. You discard >>>> the D8, and partner duly plays a spade. >>>> >>>> Next board, you have the DAK953. You discard >>>> the D3. Partner holds the D48, and can see the DT82 >>>> in dummy. Partner thus concludes that you do >>>> not have an even diamond to discard, and that >>>> you might have been forced to discard an odd diamond >>>> even though you actually want a C. Partner then >>>> switches to a C. >>>> >>>> After that has happened a few times, you'll >>>> quickly modify that method. Once you have >>>> put such modifications into place to avoid >>>> absurd disasters which no other method >>>> of showing suit preference creates, you >>>> no longer play "odd shows a liking for the suit". >>>> >>>> >>>> Then, there still are quite a few additional variations: >>>> Under which circumstances are the discards "odd-even", >>>> and when is some other method in effect? Say, you >>>> can see that partner needs the count in a certain suit. >>>> Do you then signal count? You led the S6. two tricks >>>> later, you discard the S2. Is that "odd-even", or are >>>> you clarifying the S length? >>>> >>>> >>>> IOW: a mere "odd/even discards" is very incomplete >>>> information. >>>> >>>> Just stop trying to find an example where >>>> "everybody" plays the same. It doesn't exist. >>> >>> I am wondering "so what?" How is this relevant? >>> >>> My partner and I have the verbal conversation of just "odd even >>> discards". >> >> No, you don't. You play quite a few hands together. > > I am not sure why you are saying this. The laws cannot handle the > situation where people just make a verbal agreement? > > In fact, I frequently agree to play odd-even with people whom I > have never > played a hand with. > > Let me put this another way. The question is what agreement players > are > making when they agree by just a conventional name. So the question is > what agreement we make when we say "odd-even". The question is not how > implicit agreements form and you just make the discussion > irrelevant when > you add that. > >> That >> gives you an understanding how your partner will >> approach situations where the small cards he can afford >> to discard are insufficient to signal what he wants to signal. >> That understanding must be disclosed to opponents. > > Of course I should. No one does it. Show I throw out all of the > members of > my club? > >> >>> Our opponents ask what we play and I say odd-even discards. They ask >>> what >>> the discard of an odd card means. I don't have to tell them >>> anything >>> because "odd-even" is ambiguous? >> >> You have to inform opponents correctly about your methods. >> The fact that your "odd-even" method is unsound does >> not relieve you of that obligation. > > Well, I have to inform the opponents of our understandings, not our > methods. See L40A1 I have checked odd-even on our card and tell them > odd-even when they ask. Is there a problem if my partner and I have > reversed the meaning of odd and even? > > I am arguing that there is. > >> Your partner discards the spade 3, on a hand where he >> actually does not like spades. Not as a deliberate false card, >> but simply because that was the card he could spare. >> >> Opponents ask about your methods. You tell them that >> you play "odd-even", or that the spade 3 shows that he likes >> spades. >> >> I will then happily rule that you misinformed opponents. > > I will happily appeal and expect to win. I do not have to explain > basic > bridge knowledge to the opponents. > > You will not find any committee members at my club that want to > have to > explain as you describe below. > >> You should have told them that if he could choose between >> an odd and an even spade to discard, then discarding the >> odd spade would indicate that he somewhat likes spades, >> and discarding the even spade would indicate that he somewhat >> dislikes spades (but only provided that this isn't one of those >> hands where he decides to false card). > > That would annoy them. They want to know if I am playing odd-even. > They > expect me to tell them if I am doing a variation of odd-even that they > don't expect. Bob continues to conflate partnership understandings with their names. Reread the above using "Frobisher signals" in place of "odd- even signals" and the situation becomes a lot more obvious. Your understanding is either "odd encourages, even discourages" or it is "odd discourages, even encourages", and you are responsible for disclosing your understanding. The fact that your mutual prior understanding allowed you to use the name "Frobisher" (or "odd-even") signals in your explicit discussion without ambiguity means perforce that you concluded with an understanding as to your actual method, but that doesn't permit you to assume that the name "Frobisher" (or "odd-even") means the same thing to your opponents that it does to the two of you. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 27 16:12:06 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:12:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (problems) In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > technical ambiguity is not a problem. When my partner and I agree on > "unusual 2NT", we both know there is a variation in which 2NT shows > the > minors over a minor suit opening. But we both know that is the > "marked" > variation -- if we want to play that variation, we have to say so. > We both > know that without discussion, unusual no trump is for the two > lowest unbid > suits. > > "holes" are a serious problem. For example, when playing negative > doubles, > the meaning of this sequence is ambiguous: > > 1C 1D X > > Experts play this as showing both majors, as the convention is > described. > Nonexperts usually play this as showing 1 4-card major. Whe players > agree > on negative doubles, what is the agreement for this bid? I don't > think the > laws help me. Currently, I would describe the double as undefined and > offer to leave the table so my partner could tell the opponents > what he > meant. > > Hmmm, I guess that answers my question for me. What about, if players > agree on a conventional name with ambiguities, the opps are > entitled to > know how each player has interpreted the ambiguity? > > Small problem, because it is so rare. A 2D overcall was described as > showing both majors and the convention card said Cappelletti. But the > player bidding 2D had diamonds and no awareness of the meaning of > any of > the Cappelletti bids. I ruled mistaken explanation. I think that is > the > fair ruling, but obviously it is not so consistent with the rest of > the > Contractual Perspective. I tried to make the point a while back that Richard's original "no agreement" argument was a presumption for adjudication, not for disclosure. Just because one's opponents are entitled to a particular disclosure of one's partnership understandings does not mean that either member of the partnership has the knowledge to provide the required disclosure. If you agree on a "conventional name with ambiguities", you either believe you have a mutual agreement as to how you will resolve those ambiguities, or you don't. If you do, you disclose that resolution; if you don't, you tell them you have no agreement. In either case, IOW, you tell them whatever you think the truth is. If you're wrong, you have misinformed. You certainly do not "reveal" theoretical ambiguities in your methods which you do not believe exist in your actual partnership understanding; that would be deliberate misinformation. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 27 16:40:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:40:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The "Contractual Perspective" to agreements (also common sense) I In-Reply-To: References: <194525723.749221285352886372.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > 4. I agree to play Cappelletti even though I don't know what it is. My > partner overcalls a 1NT opening with 2D. I say I don't know what it > means. > When it comes time for my partner to say what the bid means, he > tells them > it shows both majors. (Both Richard and Eric have argued that his > correct > answer is "no agreement".) This is where Bob misunderstands us, and goes off the rails. When it comes time for Bob's partner to say what 2D means, of course he tells them it shows both majors -- because that is what he thinks his partnership understanding is, and his "correct answer" is *always* whatever he believes to be the truth. What both Richard and I have argued is that *for purposes of adjudication*, the "correct explanation" in this situation (a finding to be made by the TD or AC after the fact) is "no agreement". That is what we've been calling a "presumption for adjudication", which is something entirely different from Bob's partner's "correct answer". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 27 16:59:57 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:59:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions) In-Reply-To: <50FBDCD4-B30F-4093-BF5A-ADE1851FA27B@starpower.net> References: <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> <2FC16DF0-4F61-4728-B341-C959933B2645@starpower.net> <50FBDCD4-B30F-4093-BF5A-ADE1851FA27B@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:55:05 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:25:14 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 24, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:01:13 -0400, Eric Landau >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:50:29 -0400, Eric Landau >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My position is not that complicated. When you make an >>>>>>> agreement to >>>>>>> play a convention, in whatever fashion, you either form a mutual >>>>>>> understanding of the method you have agreed to (which you are >>>>>>> then >>>>>>> legally obligated to remember), or you don't. If you do, you >>>>>>> have a >>>>>>> partnership understanding. If you don't, you don't. WTP? >>>>>> >>>>>> One problem is the difficult of actually stating a feasible >>>>>> description of >>>>>> this. My partner and I agree to play what is in a book. We "either >>>>>> form a >>>>>> mutual understanding of the method ... or we don't." But then one >>>>>> or both >>>>>> of us reads the book some more. Do you really want to say that our >>>>>> agreement/understanding depends on what we understood when we >>>>>> made the >>>>>> agreement and doesn't change? Probably not. >>>>> >>>>> No, what I want to say is, whatever you do either changes what you >>>>> understood when you made the agreement, in which case your >>>>> disclosure >>>>> obligations change, or it doesn't, in which case they don't. If >>>>> you >>>>> read up on your chosen convention and learn something that wasn't >>>>> incorporated into your original agreement, you either communicate >>>>> your new knowlege (explicitly or implicitly) to partner and your >>>>> agreement changes, or you don't and it doesn't. >>>> >>>> At the extreme, my partner and I could agree to play a Precision >>>> book that >>>> neither of us has yet read. Then we might not have any agreements >>>> about >>>> what bids mean. That's reasonable. Then we both read the book but >>>> do not >>>> communicate our new knowledge. Then we still have no agreement? >>> >>> Right. You agree to play according a book which neither of you has >>> read, and, to make the question even meaningful, each of you is aware >>> that the other has not read the book and has no idea what's in it. >>> At this point you have no agreement. Now you each read the book >>> secretly and don't tell the other you have done so. This is a >>> patently absurd scenario, but, yes, were it to take place, you would >>> still have no agreement. >>> >>>> A more realistic example. I agree to play Capelletti with a >>>> partner. I >>>> have misunderstood the 2D bid. So, according to you, we have no >>>> agreement. >>>> I subsequently learn that I had misunderstood the 2D bid. >>>> According to >>>> you, unless I communicate that to partner, we still have no >>>> agreement. But >>>> now I know what the 2D bid means. I must remember to tell the >>>> opponents no >>>> agreement? >>> >>> This is an equally absurd scenario. Partner presumably knows >>> Cappelletti. You don't, but you agree to play it anyhow. You >>> misunderstand it, but partner chooses not to set you straight, so you >>> continue to misunderstand it, until some later time when you somehow, >>> not involving partner, "learn" to treat it according to your >>> partner's understanding of it. Partner, meanwhile, knows only that >>> you got it wrong last time and were allowed to continue thinking it >>> meant whatever you thought it meant. Of course you still have no >>> agreement (not that you would know it, so "I must remember to tell >>> the opponents" is nonsense). Do you really think that your >>> agreements (and disclosure obligations) can change based on anything >>> at all of which partner is totally unaware? I assume no one thinks >>> that way or would rule that way. >> >> Well, you have added something to the example. Suppose partner >> never has >> seen me misunderstand Cappelletti, because it never came up. We >> have no >> agreement on the 2D bid, because I was not understanding it >> correctly. I >> learn correctly, but according to you I still don't have an >> agreement. Now >> partner overcalls 2D, I have every reason to believe it means the >> majors, >> partner of course thinks I know that. But you are going to have me >> tell >> the opponents we don't have an agreement? > > Bob's scenarios just keep getting sillier, but I suppose he gets this > one right. Partner offers Cappelletti, and you agree, misleading him > into thinking that you know what it is. Then, without his knowledge, > you go ahead and learn it after the fact, so that by the time it > comes up at the table, you are in fact cognizant of what you > previously, if disingenuously, agreed to. So you do have a common > understanding, and you know it. WTP? Are you asking for the general problem or your problem? The general problem is this. You are Richard have suggested that the partnership understanding forged by agreement only a convention name depends on mutual awareness. So that if the players do not share awareness of the meaning of a bid, their actual agreement for that bid is "no agreement". You can make things depend on the partnership awareness *at the time the agreement is made*. However, then you have the problem that someone could correct their understanding latter on and they players would both know the correct meaning but according to that formulation they would not have a need-to-disclose partnership agreement. Obviously, that's the wrong answer. Richard says we just have to accept that's what the laws says and change how we rule. But we know that isn't going to happen and Richard is trying as hard as you to get a formulation that corresponds to common sense and how directors rule. Well, you can make the partnership agreements depend on the level of awareness *at the time the bid is made*. Alas, this doesn't work. The big problem is if I forget a convention, then the "agreement" is gone. In reality, people treat forgetting as an error and rule that the correct explanation was NOT "no agreement". So Richard suggested that if the players have mutual awareness of a bid at any time, that is their lawful partnership agreement. It has priority or precedence over lack of awareness. There is no way you can pull that out of TFLB, but it seems to work pretty well. You suggested that the players lawful agreement/understand is established by mutual awareness at the time of making the agreement and updated when they actively make some update later on. There is no way you can pull that out of TFLB -- why implicit formation at one time and not another? But any "mutual awareness" formulation apparently will have that problem. But it also doesn't get to the right answer for the problem above. So you have formulated a explanation of how players come to form agreements and they happily contradicted yourself. That's a small problem -- it is a difficult and treacherous problem. It would be no surprise that anyone has to modify and improve on their answer. If I have misunderstood your explanation of how agreements form, please try to state it as fully and clearly as you can. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 27 17:17:28 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:17:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] determining likelihood In-Reply-To: <50FBDCD4-B30F-4093-BF5A-ADE1851FA27B@starpower.net> References: <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> <2FC16DF0-4F61-4728-B341-C959933B2645@starpower.net> <50FBDCD4-B30F-4093-BF5A-ADE1851FA27B@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:55:05 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>>>> because if and when it comes to a determination in adjudication >>>>> that >>>>> the partnership in fact had no understanding, the "benefit of the >>>>> doubt" gives the NOS the opportunity to "guess" the meaning of the >>>>> problematic call, with the same result as if they had been informed >>>>> correctly at the table. >>>> >>>> I think you have stopped following the law book here. In one >>>> case, the >>>> question is how the defenders would have defended had they been >>>> told that >>>> 5H denies the queen of trumps. In the other case, the question is >>>> how the >>>> defenders would have defended in they had been told there is no >>>> agreement. >>>> Those almost always produce different probabilities (when they were >>>> damaged). >>>> >>>> Put another way, you need that the laws says the NOS get the >>>> benefit of >>>> doubt at every choice point in the play. That isn't right. >>> >>> Not at all. There is only one relevant "choice point" (or two), >>> which is the point at which one defender (or both) formulated a >>> defensive plan thinking his partner could not have the queen of >>> trumps, and might have formulated a different one if he had known >>> that his partner either did (having "been told that 5H denies..."), >>> or could (having "been told there is no agreement") hold that card. >>> "Benefit of the doubt" applies to one's planned approach to the deal, >>> not just independently to each individual card played. >> >> sigh. Okay, where in the laws does it say that the NOS get the >> benefit of >> the doubt in assigning an adjusted score? For example, "The score >> assigned >> in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most >> favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occured." >> There >> is nothing about giving the NOS the benefit of the doubt in >> determining >> the most favorable result that was likely. >> >> You notion that there is only once choice point is, hmmm. Every >> play is a >> choice point, and plans can change every time new information is >> acquired. >> Sometimes there is one critical choice point, of course. Sometimes >> there >> isn't. >> >> Or, put another way... It is given that the location of the queen is a >> critical issue. The probably of finding the correct defense has to >> gp up >> if the players are told the location of the queen rather than being >> forced >> to guess. > Presumably there are lines which are superior if partner has the > queen, there are lines that are superior if partner does not, and > playing for its actual lie is among the possibilities that are > "likely had the irregularity not occurred". Keep in mind that an > adjustment need not reflect the most probable result for the NOS, nor > the result from optimal analysis, but rather the most successful of > the prospective "likely" lines ("the most favorable result that was > likely had the irregularity not occurred" [L12C1(e)]). The opps are told that a 5C bid shows no controls. They defend on that basis. The player in fact has one control. "no controls' is determined to be a mistaken explanation. Eric is claiming that the subsequently ruling does not depend on whether the correct explanation is "no agreement" or "one control". It is given that knowing the player has one control improves the probability of finding a better defense. I agree that hearing "no agreement" improves the chance of finding the right defense compared to hearing "no controls." But I maintain that they are more likely to find the correct defense if they are told one control than if they are told no agreement. Eric agrees that they would have been less likely to find the better defense if told "no agreement". He argues, however, that if players are told information about a feature of hand (such as no controls) that they be attributed with the correct information about that feature (even if there is no actually agreement on that) *before* assessing probabilities. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 27 17:28:53 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:28:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (problems) In-Reply-To: <3EC30449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@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> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:12:06 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> technical ambiguity is not a problem. When my partner and I agree on >> "unusual 2NT", we both know there is a variation in which 2NT shows >> the >> minors over a minor suit opening. But we both know that is the >> "marked" >> variation -- if we want to play that variation, we have to say so. >> We both >> know that without discussion, unusual no trump is for the two >> lowest unbid >> suits. >> >> "holes" are a serious problem. For example, when playing negative >> doubles, >> the meaning of this sequence is ambiguous: >> >> 1C 1D X >> >> Experts play this as showing both majors, as the convention is >> described. >> Nonexperts usually play this as showing 1 4-card major. Whe players >> agree >> on negative doubles, what is the agreement for this bid? I don't >> think the >> laws help me. Currently, I would describe the double as undefined and >> offer to leave the table so my partner could tell the opponents >> what he >> meant. >> >> Hmmm, I guess that answers my question for me. What about, if players >> agree on a conventional name with ambiguities, the opps are >> entitled to >> know how each player has interpreted the ambiguity? >> >> Small problem, because it is so rare. A 2D overcall was described as >> showing both majors and the convention card said Cappelletti. But the >> player bidding 2D had diamonds and no awareness of the meaning of >> any of >> the Cappelletti bids. I ruled mistaken explanation. I think that is >> the >> fair ruling, but obviously it is not so consistent with the rest of >> the >> Contractual Perspective. > > I tried to make the point a while back that Richard's original "no > agreement" argument was a presumption for adjudication, not for > disclosure. Just because one's opponents are entitled to a > particular disclosure of one's partnership understandings does not > mean that either member of the partnership has the knowledge to > provide the required disclosure. If you agree on a "conventional > name with ambiguities", you either believe you have a mutual > agreement as to how you will resolve those ambiguities, or you > don't. If you do, you disclose that resolution; if you don't, you > tell them you have no agreement. In either case, IOW, you tell them > whatever you think the truth is. But in this situation, the truth-according-to-Eric is "no agreement". And the player knows it. See below. > If you're wrong, you have > misinformed. You certainly do not "reveal" theoretical ambiguities > in your methods which you do not believe exist in your actual > partnership understanding; that would be deliberate misinformation. > WTP? The actual table situation from this occurred was a player agreeing on Cappelletti, making a correct Cappelletti 2D bid, then discovering that his partner had no idea what his bid meant because his partner did not know Capelletti. His partner was asked to leave the table while he disclosed the correct meaning. According to both you and Richard, the correct meaning is "no agreement". You would allow the player to be generous and tell them the Cappelletti meaning of his bid; Richard would not. In either case, you both say that he can say "no agreement" with no further explanation. Now you can argue that bridge should be played that way -- the players can refuse to explain the meaning of a Capelletti 2D and the director supports him. But you aren't doing that. Or you can argue that your position leads to absurd answers that no one would accept but it's okay because normally people aren't in a position to reveal the absurd answers. But I think that if your position leads to absurd answers, you should be thinking about correcting your position. Hmm, and thanking the person who showed them to you. But I will settle for 1 out of 2. From gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 27 17:31:03 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:31:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count Message-ID: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com> Dealer: West Vul: Both Scoring: IMP S A862 H A5 D KQJ2 C K62 S 75 S KQJ10 H KQ10943 H J2 D A74 D 9865 C 75 C A98 S 943 H 876 D 103 C QJ1043 West North East South 2H Dble Pass 2NT* Pass 3C All Pass * Lebensohl. Table Result 3C= N/S +110 The above auction seems completely normal, and East-West defended sensibly to save the overtrick. However, East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, called the director. On the previous board, South, a wealthy sponsor, had forgotten Lebensohl after a similar start to the auction after a weak Two Spades. North had gone four off in 3NT. While both North and South were counting their cards on this hand, North remarked about the previous board, "You should have bid 2NT, Lebensohl, partner, on your one count, and we would have avoided that." Nobody had bid, nor looked at their cards, while this remark was made. However, East argued that the remark was UI to South, as, although it was about a board North-South had already played, South did not have the "information" before he took his hand from the board (16A1d) and therefore could not use it. Without the remark, it was quite likely he would bid 3C rather than 2NT, and North-South would have gone two or three off in 3NT, probably doubled. How do you rule? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 27 17:41:25 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:41:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <858430229.303951285244553197.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <858430229.303951285244553197.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:22:33 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:17:35 -0400, wrote: >> >> > Arthur Hays Sulzberger (1891-1968), on journalism: >> > >> > "We tell the public which way the cat is jumping. The >> > public will take care of the cat." >> > >> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > [snip] >> > >> >>> On the other hand, if I was part of East-West pair B, and >> >>> East-West pair C informed me that legally my Ave+ should >> >>> have been an Ave-, then I would appeal against my own good >> >>> score. (Still no joke, consistent with my habit of often >> >>> summoning the Director against my own interests.) >> > >> > Robert Frick: >> > >> >> and probably against the policy of trying to win that you >> >> mention all of the time. >> > >> > Law 72A - Observance of Laws: >> > >> > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict >> > accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a >> > higher score than other contestants whilst complying with >> > the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in >> > these laws." >> > >> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > Sure my "chief object is to obtain a higher score". But >> > this is not my _only_ object. Also required are the >> > criteria "strict accordance with the Laws" and "ethical >> > standards". Neither are fulfilled if I knowingly accept >> > an illegal Director's ruling which benefits my side. >> >> Well, you are saying that somewhere in the laws there is something >> against >> >> accepting an A+ you don't deserve. All I can find is that you accept the >> director's ruling gracefully. >> >> > >> > What's the problem? >> > >> > Is the problem a Director who fails to realise that just >> > as bridge scores are always zero-sum, so happiness about >> > those bridge scores is on average zero-sum??? >> >> >> You seem to be arguing that feel-good rulings don't work. If you are >> arguing that, it is a somewhat odd position to take. The reason they are >> used is because they do work. The reason we give feel-good rulings for >> director mistakes is that they work. >> >> Here, as I have already explained, the players who receive the feel-good >> ruling are happy and the other players are usually blissfully ignorant. >> Right, happiness also comes from overall position -- and that is >> zero-sum. >> >> So the feel-good ruling does not hurt or help that. Also, Pair C is >> blaming their lower finish on making mistakes, not the director. >> >> Why am I explaining why feel-good rulings work? Don't we all understand >> them? There is an art and philosophy to them that is an interesting >> topic >> of conversation. > > I think it is time to word this in a more obvious way. > Robert, what you are saying basically is that cheating > is fine as long as you think it is fine. You then come up > with lots of arguments how that cheating should be justified. > "Oh, the people with whom I conspired were happy, > thus the cheating was fine" > "Oh, the people I cheated didn't notice, thus the cheating was fine". > "Oh, I don't have to ?nform opponents about my partner's > unusual approach to bidding because I call that a tactical bid". > "Oh, the British king was unpopular 250 years ago, thus my cheating is > fine". > > > There exist games where such an approach is valid, even welcome. > But bridge is not among those games. Sorry to have not made my position clear. I think there are more important things than following the bridge laws. To me, it is important that people be happy. Following the bridge laws is a good tool for that. And if someone doesn't like a ruling that I give, and I can explain why that feeling is right, then it is a problem if they are unhappy, but I think they are the ones who have to adjust. So it is a complicated position about happiness. Which we could discuss in a non-witch-hunt atmosphere. And a director would like to have everyone on his side. If you are directing in a room full of enemies, you will be crucified. So, for example, players should lead face down but I don't think it is wise to nag them about that. I have more important battles to fight. And I think it is important to keep my job. Frankly, the advice to follow the laws no matter what the consequences for one's occupation (did Richard really say that?) is irresponsible. So there are more important things than following the rules. This is a perfectly acceptable moral position almost anywhere. (And, following the rules is not always an acceptable defense -- people are supposed to do better than that.) Then there is the issue that the current rules are not always followable. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 27 18:08:16 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:08:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <952463.44149.qm@web28504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Paul] IMP West/Both S A862 H A5 D KQJ2 C K62 S 75 S KQJ10 H KQ10943 H J2 D A74 D 9865 C 75 C A98 S 943 H 876 D 103 C QJ1043 2H Dble Pass 2NT* Pass 3C All Pass * Lebensohl. Table Result 3C= N/S +110 The above auction seems completely normal, and East-West defended sensibly to save the overtrick. However, East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, called the director. On the previous board, South, a wealthy sponsor, had forgotten Lebensohl after a similar start to the auction after a weak Two Spades. North had gone four off in 3NT. While both North and South were counting their cards on this hand, North remarked about the previous board, "You should have bid 2NT, Lebensohl, partner, on your one count, and we would have avoided that." Nobody had bid, nor looked at their cards, while this remark was made. However, East argued that the remark was UI to South, as, although it was about a board North-South had already played, South did not have the "information" before he took his hand from the board (16A1d) and therefore could not use it. Without the remark, it was quite likely he would bid 3C rather than 2NT, and North-South would have gone two or three off in 3NT, probably doubled. How do you rule? [Nigel] Again, I think the director will ignore what law-book says and try to work out what it *means* i.e. "before the auction started and before you look at your hand" and that is how the director will rule until the law is clarified in 2018 or 2028. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 28 01:06:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:06:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> Message-ID: North South Vul Dealer South Imps 8643 A7542 Q6 T4 West North East South --- --- --- Pass 1C (1) 2D (2) ? (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) (2) Weak Jump Overcall What call do you make? What other call(s) do you consider making? Richard Hills: Pass and pass. If the scoring was matchpoints rather than imps, then the infrequent -300 or -500 would be counterbalanced by the more frequent +110. And if we played a 12-14 1NT instead of a 15-17 1NT, then West's 1C opening would guarantee shape and/or extra values, again making a negative double more attractive. 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 Tue Sep 28 02:23:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:23:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >...I clearly said that I think players should be able to trust >what is on the convention card... Richard Hills: The East-West system cards list both "Gerber" and "South African Texas". This clearly demonstrates that merely listing the name of a convention is not necessarily overwhelming evidence that the partnership understands the guts of the convention. Robert Frick: >Or, EW have an agreement that 4C is Gerber and another >agreement that 4C is South African Texas transfer and the opps >deserve to know about both. Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass: "I can't believe that!" said Alice. "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one _can't_ believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Richard Hills: It is logically impossible for East-West to have a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding that the uniform meaning of 4C is that it both asks for aces and it is also a transfer to 4H. So that is an explanation that the opponents are not entitled to receive. Robert Frick: >But in reality, the second agreement (that 4C shows hearts) >cancels out the first. Richard Hills: East-West could, however, have an implicit two-way understanding that 1NT - (Pass) - 4C is ambiguous, because both East and West frequently forget that Gerber was "cancelled". So then the correct disclosure by East-West would be that the sequence 1NT - (Pass) - 4C either is _explicitly_ a transfer to 4H or is _implicitly_ an ask for aces. A real-life example of untrustworthy system cards is a Melbourne partnership which uses a home-grown meld of Acol and Precision: 1C = 16+ hcp, any shape 1D = 11-15 hcp, 4+ diamonds 1H = 11-15 hcp, 4+ hearts 1S = 11-15 hcp, 4+ spades 1NT = 12-14 hcp, balanced 2C = 11-15 hcp, 5+ clubs This system card failed to disclose what the mutual partnership understanding was when opener held 3-3-3-4 distribution with exactly 15 hcp. Was their implicit understanding to: (a) add a hcp to pretend that they had a 1C opening? (b) add a diamond to pretend that they had a 1D opening? (c) subtract a hcp to pretend that had a 1NT opening? (d) choose the call required by the system card, Pass??? :-) For what it is worth, their pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding was to choose the overbid of 1C. But despite me drawing their erroneous system card to their attention, the next time I played against them they had still not updated their 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 28 03:55:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:55:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Joseph Krutch (1893-1970), American critic and naturalist: "Cats seem to go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for what you want." Law 40B6(a): ".....but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Robert Frick: >.....I do not have to explain basic bridge knowledge to the >opponents..... Richard Hills: Incorrect. Basic bridge knowledge is not synonymous with generally known bridge knowledge. The very fact that a question is being asked means that the knowledge is not generally known. When a declarer asks me, "What are your discards?" I reply: "First discard of an odd card is encouraging in that suit, first discard of an even card is discouraging in that suit and also is suit preference (low even card encourages lowest outstanding suit, high even card encourages highest outstanding suit). First discard of an ace, king, queen or jack does not have a preset meaning, but depends upon the context of the current deal. Subsequent discards are random, discarding cards that we do not like (i.e. we usually avoid discarding the setting trick)." 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 Tue Sep 28 04:11:12 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:11:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: >How do you rule? As Director, it is a clear cut case of ruling in favour of The Secretary Bird. The Professional was careless in not giving a timely reminder to The Sponsor, so their partnership has to pay the price in imps (and The Professional may also have to pay the price in a forgone cash bonus). What's the problem? Is the problem the actual Director's illegal "happy-keeping" ruling in favour of The Sponsor? 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 Tue Sep 28 05:57:18 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:57:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:23:02 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> ...I clearly said that I think players should be able to trust >> what is on the convention card... > > Richard Hills: > > The East-West system cards list both "Gerber" and "South African > Texas". This clearly demonstrates that merely listing the name > of a convention is not necessarily overwhelming evidence that > the partnership understands the guts of the convention. Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was that if the card says "odd-even" discards, then I can trust that odd means they like the suit and even means they don't. I don't trust them in the sense of knowing that they are right. I can trust that if they actually play that an even card signals that they like the suit, then I can call the director and get protection for any damage caused by that. > > Robert Frick: > >> Or, EW have an agreement that 4C is Gerber and another >> agreement that 4C is South African Texas transfer and the opps >> deserve to know about both. > > Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass: > > "I can't believe that!" said Alice. > "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw > a long breath, and shut your eyes." > Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one _can't_ > believe impossible things." > "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When > I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, > sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before > breakfast." begs the question. > > Richard Hills: > > It is logically impossible for East-West to have a pre-existing > mutual partnership understanding that the uniform meaning of 4C > is that it both asks for aces and it is also a transfer to 4H. Right, it wouldn't be mutual. One would have to look cross-eyed at this for a long time not to see that they have both agreements. > > So that is an explanation that the opponents are not entitled to > receive. > > Robert Frick: > >> But in reality, the second agreement (that 4C shows hearts) >> cancels out the first. > > Richard Hills: > > East-West could, however, have an implicit two-way understanding > that 1NT - (Pass) - 4C is ambiguous, because both East and West > frequently forget that Gerber was "cancelled". Very funny! They have a mutual understand that it is ambiguous, even though neither player thinks that. > > So then the correct disclosure by East-West would be that the > sequence 1NT - (Pass) - 4C either is _explicitly_ a transfer > to 4H or is _implicitly_ an ask for aces. > > A real-life example of untrustworthy system cards is a Melbourne > partnership which uses a home-grown meld of Acol and Precision: > > 1C = 16+ hcp, any shape > 1D = 11-15 hcp, 4+ diamonds > 1H = 11-15 hcp, 4+ hearts > 1S = 11-15 hcp, 4+ spades > 1NT = 12-14 hcp, balanced > 2C = 11-15 hcp, 5+ clubs > > This system card failed to disclose what the mutual partnership > understanding was when opener held 3-3-3-4 distribution with > exactly 15 hcp. Was their implicit understanding to: > > (a) add a hcp to pretend that they had a 1C opening? > (b) add a diamond to pretend that they had a 1D opening? > (c) subtract a hcp to pretend that had a 1NT opening? > (d) choose the call required by the system card, Pass??? :-) > > For what it is worth, their pre-existing mutual implicit > partnership understanding was to choose the overbid of 1C. > > But despite me drawing their erroneous system card to their > attention, the next time I played against them they had still > not updated their 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 28 06:47:25 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:47:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:55:32 -0400, wrote: > Joseph Krutch (1893-1970), American critic and naturalist: > > "Cats seem to go on the principle that it never does any harm to > ask for what you want." > > Law 40B6(a): > > ".....but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge > and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." > > Robert Frick: > >> .....I do not have to explain basic bridge knowledge to the >> opponents..... > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. Basic bridge knowledge is not synonymous with > generally known bridge knowledge. The very fact that a question > is being asked means that the knowledge is not generally known. > > When a declarer asks me, "What are your discards?" I reply: > > "First discard of an odd card is encouraging in that suit, first > discard of an even card is discouraging in that suit and also is > suit preference (low even card encourages lowest outstanding suit, > high even card encourages highest outstanding suit). First > discard of an ace, king, queen or jack does not have a preset > meaning, but depends upon the context of the current deal. > > Subsequent discards are random, discarding cards that we do not > like (i.e. we usually avoid discarding the setting trick)." If you are trying to disagree with me, you are not succeeding. Thomas said that we needed to say something to the effect that we might discard an odd card even though we don't like the suit if all we have in the suit are odd cards. You left that out of your description. Maybe you were thinking it was basic bridge knowledge? That's what I was thinking. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 28 06:54:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:54:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What happened at an ACBL table -> WEST EAST 1NT 4H(1) 4S(2) 5H(3) Pass (1) Quicker than normal tempo, demonstrably suggesting that East might have forgotten their Texas convention. (2) A slight underbid; West had maximum values, 4-card spade support, and slam-suitable honours. So Blackwood was a logical alternative, but then it would be impossible to confirm whether or not East had forgotten their Texas convention. (3) Slower than normal tempo, confirming that East had indeed forgotten their Texas convention. The majority of Bridge World MSC panellists (who were bidding "blindfolded", without any knowledge of the tempo variations) also passed 5H. A significant number of those did not consider any other call. The actual AC likewise supported the legality of a Pass of 5H - despite the additionally transmitted UI listed above - on the grounds that 5H was obviously showing a memory lapse, not the alternative systemic meaning of a slam try in spades. 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 Tue Sep 28 07:47:14 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:47:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>When a declarer asks me, "What are your discards?" I reply: >> >>"First discard of an odd card is encouraging in that suit, first >>discard of an even card is discouraging in that suit and also is >>suit preference (low even card encourages lowest outstanding suit, >>high even card encourages highest outstanding suit). First >>discard of an ace, king, queen or jack does not have a preset >>meaning, but depends upon the context of the current deal. >> >>Subsequent discards are random, discarding cards that we do not >>like (i.e. we usually avoid discarding the setting trick)." Robert Frick: >If you are trying to disagree with me, you are not succeeding. >Thomas said that we needed to say something to the effect that we >might discard an odd card even though we don't like the suit if all >we have in the suit are odd cards. You left that out of your >description. Maybe you were thinking it was basic bridge knowledge? >That's what I was thinking. Richard Hills: If my partnership did have an undisclosed implicit mutual pre- existing understanding that we could discard misleading odd cards, then Robert Frick could rightly imply that I was a hypocrite and Thomas Dehn could rightly apply a Disciplinary Penalty. Instead my partnership has a Law 44C disclosed understanding to plan ahead when following suit (e.g we might elect to follow suit with a seven instead of the normal deuce, to retain a vital low even card for later use), so that our Law 44D first discards are of the appropriate parity. And while some partnerships who use "Frobisher signals" treat a jack as an odd card, my partnership treats the jack and above as neutral cards, giving Ali-Hills even more scope to avoid ambiguity. Of course, some pairs using "Frobisher signals" do have an implicit mutual understanding that a low odd discard (e.g. the trey) is certainly encouraging, but a high odd discard (e.g. the nine) is ambiguous. Thus such a pair must disclose the doubtful meaning of their nines, just as Ali-Hills disclose that there is almost* no doubt about the explicit and implicit meaning of their nines. What's the cat-aclysmic cat-astrophe? Best wishes Richard Hills * By definition a "false card" is so infrequent that it is not a Law 40C1 pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding. So, for example, although Ali-Hills routinely play high-low with an even number when declarer is in a suit contract, Ali-Hills routinely play both high-low and low-high with an even number when declarer is in a notrump contract. These notrump "pseudo-false cards" are of course really partnership understandings, so they are really disclosed on our real system cards. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Sep 28 08:54:09 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:54:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: removal of spectators Message-ID: <4CA19111.5060004@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100928/64915518/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 28 09:17:25 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:17:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Removal of spectators [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CA19111.5060004@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: [snip] >In short: if a player says he wants one or more spectators removed >from his table and makes no further statement, has he the right to >have the player or players removed? > >Ciao, JE Law 76A1: "Spectators in the playing area* are subject to the control of the Director under the regulations for the tournament. * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a session in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation." Richard Hills: ACBL tournament regulations for National championships provide that a player has the right to eject exactly one spectator without giving a reason, with subsequent ejections of more spectators solely at the discretion of the Director. ABF tournament regulations for our National championships differ -> 20.1.2 Provided that a spectator observes the provisions of paragraph 20.1.1 (immediately above) and matters of general etiquette, a player has no right to object to the spectator's presence at the table. 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 28 09:36:29 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:36:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: removal of spectators In-Reply-To: <4CA19111.5060004@aol.com> References: <4CA19111.5060004@aol.com> Message-ID: <4CA19AFD.5040402@skynet.be> I don't think he has the right: bridge is a sport, and a spectator sport. of course if he gives a reason, I will kindly ask the kibitzer to go out of the room. Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: removal of spectators > Datum: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:52:55 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > This may have been discussed in blml before my time. > I have the feeling there was a WBF laws committee concerning this but I > can't find it. > > I am concerned with the question of a player, or more players, being > banished from the table at which they have been kibitzing. In a pairs > tournament - am not concerned with questions of closed or open room. I > can find nothing in the TBR (essentially ?76). Have I missed something? > > If a player demands/requests that one, or several, or all players be > banished from his table without cause or at least he names no cause: has > he the right to do so? Can he banish them himself or must he request > that a TD do so? This is not a case where the spectator(s) has/have > given cause by some action but the player simply does not want a > spectator,or some spectators, or all spectators at his table. I can > find nothing in the TBR to hinder him in enforcing this but am more than > sceptical. Aside from the fact that it is contra-productive for bridge > the reason might be racist, anti-Semitic or something similar. (I don't > want Germans kibitzing at my table, I don't want Jews at my table, I > don't want blacks at my table, etc.) But I am thinking of the case when > the player does not reveal why he wants one or more spectators > banished. My feeling is that it shouldn't be allowed but I find no > justification for my position in the laws. > > In short: if a player says he wants one or more spectators removed from > his table and makes no further statement, has he the right to have the > player or players removed? > > Ciao, JE > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3163 - Release Date: 09/27/10 19:56:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 28 11:00:23 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:00:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD2D02B87FA53A-1FA4-93CE@webmail-m009.sysops.aol.com> North South Vul Dealer South Imps 8643 A7542 Q6 T4 West North East South --- --- --- Pass 1C (1) 2D (2) ? (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) (2) Weak Jump Overcall What call do you make? What other call(s) do you consider making? Richard Hills: Pass and pass. If the scoring was matchpoints rather than imps, then the infrequent -300 or -500 would be counterbalanced by the more frequent +110. And if we played a 12-14 1NT instead of a 15-17 1NT, then West's 1C opening would guarantee shape and/or extra values, again making a negative double more attractive. Double; Pass Assuming North has six diamonds, his most likely shape is 2-2-6-3 (actually it is some non-integer for each of the other three suits, but that overcomplicates) Partner's most likely shapes are 3-3-2-5 (in which case he will be minimum) 3-2-2-6, 4-2-2-5, 4-3-1-5,3-3-1-6,2-2-3-6. In all cases it seems right to bid. The chances of -300 or -500 seem very small, and I can easily see a 6 IMP swing from bidding. I am intrigued as to what UI East could have garnered at this stage for us to need to find out his LAs. I shall watch this space. But if you do not think double is an LA, I think you are mistaken - you need to consider what a significant number of your peers will think, not what you think yourself, in establishing an LA. From gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 28 11:16:12 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:16:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <417978.64302.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <417978.64302.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CD2D04EC5A461A-1FA4-9575@webmail-m009.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] A Short History of Texas, by Maurice Harrison-Gray (Bridge Magazine, December 1960) [SNIP] Dealer North: N-S vulnerable KT6 A2 K8654 AK3 WEST EAST A87 J5432 975 63 AQ92 T73 T95 J42 SOUTH Q9 KQJT84 J Q876 This hand came from the European Championship of 1958. The British North opened 1NT and South blandly bid four hearts. North was not the absent-minded one on this occasion; he transferred to four spades. South then woke up; the only way to clarify the situation, he decided, was to jump to six hearts. North grinned sardonically and passed. West does not appear to have noticed anything unusual in the proceedings; perhaps he was taken in by South's well- simulated air of insouciance. He led the ace of spades and South blanched when he saw that another ace was missing ... how was he going to talk his way out of this one? Strange to relate, the slam made. West felt that an attempt to cash his other ace, apart from insulting his opponents, would hand them the contract if South were void in diamonds; a passive spade continuation, he decided, was a much safer shot. The result was thus a unique triumph for the Anglo-Texas alliance. Would this slam have been bid (and made) if our pair had never heard of the convention? [Paul Lamford] I don't know the alerting regulations for the 1958 European Championship, nor the rules on fielding misbids, but I would question North's failure to correct to Six Spades. Presumably there was no suggestion on this hand of any illegal communication of heart length, so North should have interpreted his partner's Six Hearts as a grand slam try in spades. With such good controls, and a maximum NT, I would accept on the North hand, and, nowadays in England, I would adjust as a director to 7S doubled which I think is only four off. I don't think the rules on fielded misbids were present at that time, however, and in the absence of any other UI, North might have been allowed to assume his partner forgot the system. I will leave others with old Law Books to comment. From gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 28 11:26:30 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:26:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD2D065E36E6DB-1FA4-96C9@webmail-m009.sysops.aol.com> As Director, it is a clear cut case of ruling in favour of The Secretary Bird. The Professional was careless in not giving a timely reminder to The Sponsor, so their partnership has to pay the price in imps (and The Professional may also have to pay the price in a forgone cash bonus). What's the problem? Is the problem the actual Director's illegal "happy-keeping" ruling in favour of The Sponsor? Indeed, SB was told to get a life, a regular contributor to here would just rule on the basis that the Laws should say something else, and a contributor to another forum suggests that Law 161(d) has "he took his hand from the board" replaced with "he or his partner inspected the faces of their cards" (with the same reference to Law 7B2). The contributor on here wanted a similar change. Meanwhile the error (if it is believed to be one) will remain for another 10 years. From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 28 12:06:30 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:06:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <417978.64302.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3870252.1285668390298.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > North South Vul > Dealer South > Imps > > 8643 > A7542 > Q6 > T4 > > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > 1C (1) 2D (2) ? > > (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) > (2) Weak Jump Overcall > > What call do you make? > What other call(s) do you consider making? > > Richard Hills: > > Pass and pass. > > If the scoring was matchpoints rather than imps, then > the infrequent -300 or -500 would be counterbalanced by > the more frequent +110. While preferring pass over double certainly is a possibility, I disagree with the fear of a -300 or -500. This being IMPs, opponents are very unlikely to double a nonvul 2H or 2S in this auction, as the odds are massively stacked against a double. Yes, you might go down two or three. No, they won't double. Thomas From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Sep 28 13:17:33 2010 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:17:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> References: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "David" Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 11:43 PM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? > > > North South Vul > Dealer South > Imps > > 8643 > A7542 > Q6 > 104 > > > West North East South > -- -- -- P > 1C (1) 2D (2) ? > > (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) > (2) Weak Jump Overcall > > What call do you make? > What other call(s) do you consider making? > The full hand was:- AKQ1072 103 943 J5 - 8643 K956 A7542 AK85 Q6 AKQ82 104 J95 QJ J1072 9763 The match was played behind screens and N informed E that 2D showed a constructive weak 2 in either major with a good 6 card suit. S informed W that 2D showed a weak jump overcall in D's. Table result was 2D making 4 tricks (no idea of the play). E-W appealed and the Director determined that the S explanation was correct (N's explanation would have been correct if S had not already passed). Director accepted that E would have doubled had he been informed that 2D was a WJO in D's and adjusted to 20% of 4H(+3) and 80% of 6H(+1). This was changed on appeal to 20% of 2D(-4) 20% 4H(+3) and 60% 6H(+1) As well as any comments on the ruling I was interested in what obligations N may have on sight of dummy to correct any (possible) misexplanations that may have been given. ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 28 15:13:53 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:13:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss Message-ID: <8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> North A32 KQJ QJ42 KJ5 South KQ54 632 AK A432 At my club last night, after a routine auction, West led the ten of hearts. East won and returned a heart. Declarer cashed his red winners, West discarding a heart, and East a club. Now he tested the spades, and East transpired to have four. He cashed the ace of clubs and played a club and the queen did not appear. After some thought, he tossed a coin, and when it came down heads, he rose with the king of clubs, successfully as East had been squeezed. East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, called the director, and argued that South was not allowed to use the result of the toss of the coin to guide his play (Law 16A3). Finessing was a logical alternative which was less successful. The atmosphere became quite charged with South calling East a pedant and East calling South a tosser. How would you rule? From gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 28 15:17:29 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:17:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: References: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> Message-ID: <8CD2D26A31F56A7-1094-E1DB@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> Director accepted that E would have doubled had he been informed that 2D was a WJO in D's and adjusted to 20% of 4H(+3) and 80% of 6H(+1). This was changed on appeal to 20% of 2D(-4) 20% 4H(+3) and 60% 6H(+1) Seems sensible. The TD should poll, say, 10 pairs of E/W ability, Bidding Challenge style, and perhaps adjust the results in favour of the non-offenders by 10%. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 15:20:09 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:20:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> References: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> Message-ID: <479195CB-776D-40C9-AE84-23429ACADAAE@starpower.net> On Sep 26, 2010, at 6:43 PM, David wrote: > North South Vul > Dealer South > Imps > > 8643 > A7542 > Q6 > 104 > > > West North East South > -- -- -- P > 1C (1) 2D (2) ? > > (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) > (2) Weak Jump Overcall > > What call do you make? Pass. > What other call(s) do you consider making? Double. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 15:45:00 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:45:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] determining likelihood In-Reply-To: References: <4C8F2F8D.2060204@ulb.ac.be> <3770320.1284550192312.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2406172.1284565819780.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <5D2CE414F5B04A40AE189EDE90FA4620@Mildred> <9C24BB1F-4255-4A7A-A982-E84E36BDE503@starpower.net> <9D8151EC-D7A4-4924-A355-7FA382F8DB12@starpower.net> <232BA60C-0498-481F-BBB2-B92928349E6A@starpower.net> <73C95495-B0D5-4B20-B5A0-141CD6148886@starpower.net> <1D891A39-D70A-42F3-99B5-5CC6375505FC@starpower.net> <2FC16DF0-4F61-4728-B341-C959933B2645@starpower.net> <50FBDCD4-B30F-4093-BF5A-ADE1851FA27B@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > The opps are told that a 5C bid shows no controls. They defend on that > basis. The player in fact has one control. "no controls' is > determined to > be a mistaken explanation. > > Eric is claiming that the subsequently ruling does not depend on > whether > the correct explanation is "no agreement" or "one control". > > It is given that knowing the player has one control improves the > probability of finding a better defense. I agree that hearing "no > agreement" improves the chance of finding the right defense > compared to > hearing "no controls." But I maintain that they are more likely to > find > the correct defense if they are told one control than if they are > told no > agreement. > > Eric agrees that they would have been less likely to find the better > defense if told "no agreement". He argues, however, that if players > are > told information about a feature of hand (such as no controls) that > they > be attributed with the correct information about that feature (even if > there is no actually agreement on that) *before* assessing > probabilities. Bob continues to miss the key point: what does "they are more likely to find the correrct defense" mean? If it means that they *would have been* more likely (at the table), that is probably true, but irrelevant. If it means that they *are to be presumed* more likely (at adjudication time) that misreads L12C1(e)(i), which calls for an adjustment to "the most favorable result that was likely", not "the most likely result that was favorable". The only probability that requires assessing is the self-evident proposition that correct information would have made the actual lie of the cards one of the "likely" possibilities. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 16:22:03 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:22:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (problems) 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> Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:12:06 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> technical ambiguity is not a problem. When my partner and I agree on >>> "unusual 2NT", we both know there is a variation in which 2NT shows >>> the >>> minors over a minor suit opening. But we both know that is the >>> "marked" >>> variation -- if we want to play that variation, we have to say so. >>> We both >>> know that without discussion, unusual no trump is for the two >>> lowest unbid >>> suits. >>> >>> "holes" are a serious problem. For example, when playing negative >>> doubles, >>> the meaning of this sequence is ambiguous: >>> >>> 1C 1D X >>> >>> Experts play this as showing both majors, as the convention is >>> described. >>> Nonexperts usually play this as showing 1 4-card major. Whe players >>> agree >>> on negative doubles, what is the agreement for this bid? I don't >>> think the >>> laws help me. Currently, I would describe the double as undefined >>> and >>> offer to leave the table so my partner could tell the opponents >>> what he >>> meant. >>> >>> Hmmm, I guess that answers my question for me. What about, if >>> players >>> agree on a conventional name with ambiguities, the opps are >>> entitled to >>> know how each player has interpreted the ambiguity? >>> >>> Small problem, because it is so rare. A 2D overcall was described as >>> showing both majors and the convention card said Cappelletti. But >>> the >>> player bidding 2D had diamonds and no awareness of the meaning of >>> any of >>> the Cappelletti bids. I ruled mistaken explanation. I think that is >>> the >>> fair ruling, but obviously it is not so consistent with the rest of >>> the >>> Contractual Perspective. >> >> I tried to make the point a while back that Richard's original "no >> agreement" argument was a presumption for adjudication, not for >> disclosure. Just because one's opponents are entitled to a >> particular disclosure of one's partnership understandings does not >> mean that either member of the partnership has the knowledge to >> provide the required disclosure. If you agree on a "conventional >> name with ambiguities", you either believe you have a mutual >> agreement as to how you will resolve those ambiguities, or you >> don't. If you do, you disclose that resolution; if you don't, you >> tell them you have no agreement. In either case, IOW, you tell them >> whatever you think the truth is. > > But in this situation, the truth-according-to-Eric is "no > agreement". And > the player knows it. See below. > >> If you're wrong, you have >> misinformed. You certainly do not "reveal" theoretical ambiguities >> in your methods which you do not believe exist in your actual >> partnership understanding; that would be deliberate misinformation. >> WTP? > > The actual table situation from this occurred was a player agreeing on > Cappelletti, making a correct Cappelletti 2D bid, then discovering > that > his partner had no idea what his bid meant because his partner did not > know Capelletti. His partner was asked to leave the table while he > disclosed the correct meaning. > > According to both you and Richard, the correct meaning is "no > agreement". > You would allow the player to be generous and tell them the > Cappelletti > meaning of his bid; Richard would not. In either case, you both say > that > he can say "no agreement" with no further explanation. Actually, I've repeatedly said exactly the opposite, that you must reveal your explicit agreements. "We agreed to play Cappelletti but I have no idea what it is" (the truth) is a proper explanation, and I'm a bit nonplussed that Bob keeps reading this as if I were advocating "we have no agreement" (a lie). It is only the *TD or AC* who "can say [i.e. presume at adjudication] 'no agreement' with no further explanation". For Bob's protagonist, that would be intentional MI. From the other side of the table, though, the corresponding proper explanation would be, "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but I happen to know that my partner has no idea what it is," which I reject as the ravings of a lunatic, and am therefore not concerned with the question of how to treat such a situation in adjudication. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 16:27:09 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:27:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net> On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:31 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > Dealer: West > Vul: Both > Scoring: IMP > > S A862 > H A5 > D KQJ2 > C K62 > S 75 S KQJ10 > H KQ10943 H J2 > D A74 D 9865 > C 75 C A98 > S 943 > H 876 > D 103 > C QJ1043 > > West North East South > 2H Dble Pass 2NT* > Pass 3C All Pass > > * Lebensohl. Table Result 3C= N/S +110 > > The above auction seems completely normal, and East-West defended > sensibly to save the overtrick. However, East, the club's > equivalent of > the Secretary Bird, called the director. On the previous board, South, > a wealthy sponsor, had forgotten Lebensohl after a similar start to > the > auction after a weak Two Spades. North had gone four off in 3NT. While > both North and South were counting their cards on this hand, North > remarked about the previous board, "You should have bid 2NT, > Lebensohl, > partner, on your one count, and we would have avoided that." Nobody > had > bid, nor looked at their cards, while this remark was made. > > However, East argued that the remark was UI to South, as, although it > was about a board North-South had already played, South did not have > the "information" before he took his hand from the board (16A1d) and > therefore could not use it. Without the remark, it was quite likely he > would bid 3C rather than 2NT, and North-South would have gone two or > three off in 3NT, probably doubled. > > How do you rule? I would rule that East must either withdraw his objection and apologize or find himself another bridge club. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 16:36:54 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat In-Reply-To: References: <858430229.303951285244553197.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <9EDD34CC-BB20-4993-AB7D-133D7E202EA6@starpower.net> On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:22:33 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> You seem to be arguing that feel-good rulings don't work. If you are >>> arguing that, it is a somewhat odd position to take. The reason >>> they are >>> used is because they do work. The reason we give feel-good >>> rulings for >>> director mistakes is that they work. >>> >>> Here, as I have already explained, the players who receive the >>> feel-good >>> ruling are happy and the other players are usually blissfully >>> ignorant. >>> Right, happiness also comes from overall position -- and that is >>> zero-sum. >>> >>> So the feel-good ruling does not hurt or help that. Also, Pair C is >>> blaming their lower finish on making mistakes, not the director. >>> >>> Why am I explaining why feel-good rulings work? Don't we all >>> understand >>> them? There is an art and philosophy to them that is an interesting >>> topic >>> of conversation. >> >> I think it is time to word this in a more obvious way. >> Robert, what you are saying basically is that cheating >> is fine as long as you think it is fine. You then come up >> with lots of arguments how that cheating should be justified. >> "Oh, the people with whom I conspired were happy, >> thus the cheating was fine" >> "Oh, the people I cheated didn't notice, thus the cheating was fine". >> "Oh, I don't have to ?nform opponents about my partner's >> unusual approach to bidding because I call that a tactical bid". >> "Oh, the British king was unpopular 250 years ago, thus my >> cheating is >> fine". >> >> There exist games where such an approach is valid, even welcome. >> But bridge is not among those games. > > Sorry to have not made my position clear. I think there are more > important > things than following the bridge laws. To me, it is important that > people > be happy. Following the bridge laws is a good tool for that. And if > someone doesn't like a ruling that I give, and I can explain why that > feeling is right, then it is a problem if they are unhappy, but I > think > they are the ones who have to adjust. So it is a complicated position > about happiness. Which we could discuss in a non-witch-hunt > atmosphere. > > And a director would like to have everyone on his side. If you are > directing in a room full of enemies, you will be crucified. So, for > example, players should lead face down but I don't think it is wise > to nag > them about that. I have more important battles to fight. > > And I think it is important to keep my job. Frankly, the advice to > follow > the laws no matter what the consequences for one's occupation (did > Richard > really say that?) is irresponsible. > > So there are more important things than following the rules. This is a > perfectly acceptable moral position almost anywhere. (And, > following the > rules is not always an acceptable defense -- people are supposed to do > better than that.) > > Then there is the issue that the current rules are not always > followable. A bridge club can't always manage to be at once a temple to the purity of the game and a successful profit-making enterprise, and compromises will sometimes be necessary. What's important is that the people making those compromises be fully aware of what they are compromising, and weigh the costs and benefits accordingly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 17:11:18 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:11:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <196DAE5B-F148-40A6-A7C1-027541E851D5@starpower.net> On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:23 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > A real-life example of untrustworthy system cards is a Melbourne > partnership which uses a home-grown meld of Acol and Precision: > > 1C = 16+ hcp, any shape > 1D = 11-15 hcp, 4+ diamonds > 1H = 11-15 hcp, 4+ hearts > 1S = 11-15 hcp, 4+ spades > 1NT = 12-14 hcp, balanced > 2C = 11-15 hcp, 5+ clubs > > This system card failed to disclose what the mutual partnership > understanding was when opener held 3-3-3-4 distribution with > exactly 15 hcp. Was their implicit understanding to: > > (a) add a hcp to pretend that they had a 1C opening? > (b) add a diamond to pretend that they had a 1D opening? > (c) subtract a hcp to pretend that had a 1NT opening? > (d) choose the call required by the system card, Pass??? :-) > > For what it is worth, their pre-existing mutual implicit > partnership understanding was to choose the overbid of 1C. > > But despite me drawing their erroneous system card to their > attention, the next time I played against them they had still > not updated their system cards. There is nothing wrong with leaving a deliberate "hole" in one's system. This particular pair, however, is clearly in violation, as their system card describes such a hole which, by virtue of their implicit understanding, doesn't actually exist. Their card should be changed to show 1NT as either 12-14 HCP balanced or 15 HCP exactly 3-3-3-4. But it would be perfectly legitimate for their understanding to be that when they hold 15 HCP exactly 3-3-3-4 they choose from among (a), (b) and (c) the call which comes closest to describing their hand. They might try to "footnote" this on their system card, if it could be done reasonably, but in ACBL-land, given the rules and CC form, I'd expect them to mark their CC as shown but alert any 1C, 1D or 1NT openings so as to reveal the additional possibility. IMO, that will be clearer to their opponents than reflecting the overlap on the CC and alerting them to the "negative possibility" inherent in the same calls. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 18:14:16 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:14:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <985BD360-CD6A-40AB-8E1D-BF344A843C12@starpower.net> On Sep 27, 2010, at 9:55 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 40B6(a): > > ".....but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge > and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." > > Robert Frick: > >> .....I do not have to explain basic bridge knowledge to the >> opponents..... > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. Basic bridge knowledge is not synonymous with > generally known bridge knowledge. The very fact that a question > is being asked means that the knowledge is not generally known. Furthermore, "generally known bridge knowledge" is not synonymous with "inferences drawn from" generally known bridge knowledge. L40B6 (a) protects you from being forced to reveal any logical conclusions you may have drawn by inference or deduction based on "matters generally known to bridge players". It does not permit you to refuse to answer a simple question of fact when you know the answer, even if that answer is available from page 1 of Goren's "Contract Bridge for Beginners". > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 28 18:26:54 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:26:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: <4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net> References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com> <4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com> I would rule that East must either withdraw his objection and apologize or find himself another bridge club. On what basis, and quoting which Law? Or perhaps at your bridge club, the TD has the right to terminate membership without referral to a committee? From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Sep 28 18:33:50 2010 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:33:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: References: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> Message-ID: <1F4D8601D3FD4FB1B178687F4CEEFE72@mikePC> In general, I don't like commenting on rulings that I've made as in the real world it involved individuals and I would not want to say anything that seemed disrespectful to players or those involved in Appeals. In this case an Appeal was made to a Referee - (The event was the English Premier League - effectively a trial for the England Open Team) who consulted other local players before making his final ruling. I was the TD at the table. The East West players are both extremely experienced with European and Olympiad caps and by English standards are relatively young. They are aggressive and effective bidders. In general the use of "polls" gives me some concerns, we all know that the wording of opinion poll questions can influence the results. In UI situations they can be very helpful in determining LAs but this was not a UI situation. The East player received Misinformation and as TD, I was called to the table immediately the hand finished. North South explained how the problem had arisen and all four players and I discussed the situation. I asked East what he would have done if he had been given the correct explanation "Weak J/overcall in Diamonds", he promptly replied that he would have doubled - and as a result of a further question said that this was for takeout. No one had much idea what would then happen, East West did suggest that two Passes might well follow and that North could pass as well (This was an argument I rejected in my ruling thinking it clear as North to retreat to 2S - North said he had not seen the Pass card on the tray - He might even have realised his mistake, but I just don't think 2Dx was ever going to happen) After 2S I thought that West would bid strongly and that the slam was more likely to be reached than not (There might be some concern about wasted values in Spades which meant IMHO that 6H would not always be reached.) My problem with earlier posts in this thread is that in UI and LA situations, what other people say they will do .is relevant in making a ruling, but this is much less so in MI positions. Oh for sure players say if "I had been given the correct information we would have bid this and that and reached the "automatic" Grand Slam!" and other unbelievable outcomes, but a player who gives you a simple statement at the table - "if I'd been told that , I would have done this" - especially if they haven't worked out all the outcomes, is generally to be believed. Statements can be self-serving but I don't think this is that kind of situation. The East player argued later that he was known for bidding aggressively and what other people will bid is just not always relevant. Mike Amos -------------------------------------------------- From: "David" Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:17 PM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] What Adjustment? > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "David" > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 11:43 PM > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? > >> >> >> North South Vul >> Dealer South >> Imps >> >> 8643 >> A7542 >> Q6 >> 104 >> >> >> West North East South >> -- -- -- P >> 1C (1) 2D (2) ? >> >> (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) >> (2) Weak Jump Overcall >> >> What call do you make? >> What other call(s) do you consider making? >> > > > The full hand was:- > > AKQ1072 > 103 > 943 > J5 > > - > 8643 > K956 > A7542 > AK85 > Q6 > AKQ82 > 104 > > > J95 > QJ > J1072 > 9763 > > The match was played behind screens and N informed E that 2D showed a > constructive weak 2 in either major with a good 6 card suit. > S informed W that 2D showed a weak jump overcall in D's. > > Table result was 2D making 4 tricks (no idea of the play). > E-W appealed and the Director determined that the S explanation was > correct > (N's explanation would have been correct if S had not already > passed). > > Director accepted that E would have doubled had he been informed that 2D > was > a WJO in D's and adjusted to 20% of 4H(+3) and 80% of 6H(+1). > This was changed on appeal to 20% of 2D(-4) 20% 4H(+3) and 60% 6H(+1) > > As well as any comments on the ruling I was interested in what obligations > N > may have on sight of dummy to correct any (possible) > misexplanations that may have been given. > > ********************************** > david.j.barton at lineone.net > ********************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 28 18:54:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:54:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: <479195CB-776D-40C9-AE84-23429ACADAAE@starpower.net> References: <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> <479195CB-776D-40C9-AE84-23429ACADAAE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CA21DCC.5030301@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/09/2010 15:20, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 26, 2010, at 6:43 PM, David wrote: > >> North South Vul >> Dealer South >> Imps >> >> 8643 >> A7542 >> Q6 >> 104 >> >> >> West North East South >> -- -- -- P >> 1C (1) 2D (2) ? >> >> (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) >> (2) Weak Jump Overcall >> >> What call do you make? > Pass. > >> What other call(s) do you consider making? > Double. > AG : IMHO the double is a bit too aggressive, except perhaps playing weak notrumps, as in the statement "the biggest advantages of playing weak notrumps are when you don't open one". But the wording of L12 ("among possible results") compels us to pretend responder would have doubled, without percentages. One should also ask opener why he didn't reopen - I couldn't read the hand but it should be really strong if there is a slam. Could it be an egregious error to pass ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 19:59:04 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:59:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: removal of spectators In-Reply-To: <4CA19111.5060004@aol.com> References: <4CA19111.5060004@aol.com> Message-ID: <991731DD-6AC7-45BB-8E73-78A0E4CDFA3B@starpower.net> On Sep 28, 2010, at 2:54 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > This may have been discussed in blml before my time. I have the > feeling there was a WBF laws committee concerning this but I can't > find it. I am concerned with the question of a player, or more > players, being banished from the table at which they have been > kibitzing. In a pairs tournament - am not concerned with questions > of closed or open room. I can find nothing in the TBR (essentially > ?76). Have I missed something? If a player demands/requests that > one, or several, or all players be banished from his table without > cause or at least he names no cause: has he the right to do so? Can > he banish them himself or must he request that a TD do so? This is > not a case where the spectator(s) has/have given cause by some > action but the player simply does not want a spectator,or some > spectators, or all spectators at his table. I can find nothing in > the TBR to hinder him in enforcing this but am more than sceptical. > Aside from the fact that it is contra-productive for bridge the > reason might be racist, anti-Semitic or something similar. (I don't > want Germans kibitzing at my table, I don't want Jews at my table, > I don't want blacks at my table, etc.) But I am thinking of the > case when the player does not reveal why he wants one or more > spectators banished. My feeling is that it shouldn't be allowed but > I find no justification for my position in the laws. In short: if a > player says he wants one or more spectators removed from his table > and makes no further statement, has he the right to have the player > or players removed? Jeff is correct that TFLB is silent on this matter, which means that the answer is to be found in local regulations or conditions of contests. The ACBL's long-held policy (which AFAIK is still current) permits a player to arbitrarily bar from his table any one individual spectator. Beyond that, a player may request that any spectator be barred for cause by the TD, who must then determine whether the proffered cause is sufficient justification for him to do so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 20:24:37 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:24:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7B97492C-0A70-4DDB-9030-65C141597211@starpower.net> On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:13 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > North > A32 > KQJ > QJ42 > KJ5 > > South > KQ54 > 632 > AK > A432 > > At my club last night, after a routine auction, West led the ten of > hearts. East won and returned a heart. Declarer cashed his red > winners, > West discarding a heart, and East a club. Now he tested the spades, > and > East transpired to have four. He cashed the ace of clubs and played a > club and the queen did not appear. After some thought, he tossed a > coin, and when it came down heads, he rose with the king of clubs, > successfully as East had been squeezed. > > East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, called the > director, > and argued that South was not allowed to use the result of the toss of > the coin to guide his play (Law 16A3). Finessing was a logical > alternative which was less successful. The atmosphere became quite > charged with South calling East a pedant and East calling South a > tosser. How would you rule? When I was in college (a very long time ago), my fellow students and I at the University of Rochester Bridge Club had a standard practice of taking any blind two-way finesses "towards the Genesee" (River) in honor of our Alma Mater. Was this cheating (more precisely, would this be cheating under current law)? We were patently "bas[ing] a play" on our knowledge of the location of the Genesee. Is the geography of western New York "extraneous information" as L16A3 uses the term? Or is it "information that [we] possessed before [we] took [our] hand[s] from the board[s]", thus able to be used legitimately per L16A1(d)? If it's the latter, how can basing the direction of a blind finesse on the location of the Genesee be logically distinguished from basing the same decision on the outcome of a coin toss? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 28 20:54:48 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:54:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: <8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com> <4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net> <8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Sep 28, 2010, at 12:26 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > > I would rule that East must either withdraw his objection and > apologize or find himself another bridge club. > > > On what basis, and quoting which Law? Or perhaps at your bridge club, > the TD has the right to terminate membership without referral to a > committee? The technical infraction committed by North was to have reminded his partner that they were playing Lebensohl *after* he physically removed his cards from the new board, but before he looked at his hand, rather than doing so, legally, *before* touching his cards. I rule on the basis that the assertion that this may have "damaged E- W", i.e. resulted in a worse score than they would have obtained had North followed the letter of the law, is patently frivolous, and thus to pursue it beyond the initial director call "unduly delays or obstructs the game", citing L90A. I suppose that on that basis I can only justify ruling that East must withdraw his objection or find another club, so demanding an apology in addition may be going beyond what I can fully justify from TFLB. Maybe. And Paul is quite right that at what I loosely refer to as "my" bridge club (i.e. where I occasionally play or direct) I would not be permitted to throw a customer out without referring the matter to a committee. My reply was to what I would do if "my" bridge club were literally mine. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Tue Sep 28 23:53:57 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:53:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CA263F5.1090309@gmail.com> On 9/27/2010 10:11 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> How do you rule? > As Director, it is a clear cut case of ruling in favour of The > Secretary Bird. The Professional was careless in not giving a > timely reminder to The Sponsor, so their partnership has to pay > the price in imps (and The Professional may also have to pay > the price in a forgone cash bonus). > > What's the problem? > Is the problem the actual Director's illegal "happy-keeping" > ruling in favour of The Sponsor? > > Your ruling is technically correct. However, what would be the adjustment? The only LA on this hand for a player who plays Lebensohl would be Lebensohl. While this player may have just forgotten his system on the past hand, a clear systemic error can hardly be called a *logical* alternative. Are you proposing that since the player bid incorrectly on the past hand that his only systemic call is no longer a LA? I would find: 1) N had violated L16 by making the reminder after the cards had been pulled from the board. 2) That the players had not yet seen the cards on the current hand, therefore; 3) The reminder was a simple system reminder regarding the past hand and that there was no way that N could have known that it would apply to the current hand. 4) The technical infraction of removing the cards face down from the board before the reminder was not sufficient to create damage on the present board. I would rule no damage due to the infraction, therefore no score adjustment. N would receive a caution to make any reminders before the cards have been removed from the boards. If this has been a persistent issue in the past, a procedural penalty might be in order. E would be cautioned about wasting everyone's time. WTP? Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 29 00:04:32 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:04:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Removal of spectators [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If the Tournament Organizer has omitted to create a regulation about the removal of spectators, then the Director may create such a regulation ex post facto, pursuant to the Director's powers under Law 81B1: "The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer." 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 Wed Sep 29 00:37:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:37:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD2D065E36E6DB-1FA4-96C9@webmail-m009.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Current Law 7B1: "Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position." Current Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." Paul Lamford: [snip] >a contributor to another forum suggests that Law 16A1(d) has "he >took his hand from the board" replaced with "he or his partner >inspected the faces of their cards" (with the same reference to >Law 7B2). The contributor on here wanted a similar change. >Meanwhile the error (if it is believed to be one) will remain >for another 10 years. Current Law 7B2: "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards." Mooted hypothetical new Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before she inspected the face of at least one of her cards (Law 7B2) and the Laws do not preclude her use of this information." Richard Hills: I believe that the current Law 16A1(d) is practical. I believe that the mooted hypothetical new Law 16A1(d) would be highly impractical. It very easy for the Director to determine the gross action of withdrawing cards from the board's slot. It is very difficult for the Director to determine, after cards have been withdrawn from the slot, whether or not a player has glimpsed one or more of her cards. Furthermore, the Drafting Committee are not idiots, so no doubt they were fully aware of the pros and cons of the cut-off time that they inserted into the current Law 16A1(d). 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 Wed Sep 29 00:54:43 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:54:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CA263F5.1090309@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: >...The only LA on this hand for a player who plays Lebensohl >would be Lebensohl... Richard Hills: Faulty premise. The only "logical" alternative for a player who 100% remembers Lebensohl is Lebensohl. But a "logical" alternative is not necessarily logical. And the sponsoring South 100% illogically forgot Lebensohl on the immediately previous deal. Hirsch Davis: >...3) The reminder was a simple system reminder regarding >the past hand and that there was no way that N could have >known that it would apply to the current hand... Richard Hills: What North could have known is irrelevant. Because North's simple system reminder was untimely, after the Law 17A auction period had begun, South demonstrably received a Law 40C3(a) "aid to his memory". Hirsch Davis: >WTP? > >Hirsch Richard Hills: WTP? Richard -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Sep 29 01:36:40 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:36:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford: [snip] >After some thought, he tossed a coin [snip] >South calling East a pedant and East calling South a tosser. >How would you rule? Richard Hills: Jeff Rubens once constructed a special situation (last board of a four-board tiebreak in a knockout match) in which the winning move for declarer was a mixed strategy, taking Line A 66.7% of the time, and Line B 33.3% of the time. So declarer asked the Director's permission to look at the second hand of his old-fashioned non-digital watch, in order to accurately apply the mixed strategy. How would you rule? Then there is the case of an expert who was so irritated at giving lengthy thought to two-way finesses, and then getting them wrong, that she decided to adopt a quicker strategy: (a) finesse LHO for the queen on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, (b) finesse RHO for the queen on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, and (c) play for the drop on Sundays. At the conclusion of a gruelling week of continuous bridge, that expert summoned the Director in the middle of declaring a hand and asked, "What is the day of the week?" How would you answer? 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 Wed Sep 29 01:49:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:49:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A Short History of Texas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD2D04EC5A461A-1FA4-9575@webmail-m009.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >...I would question North's failure to correct to Six Spades... Richard Hills: I do not find any evidence that North used UI to pass 6H. South chose a jump correction to 6H rather than a simple correction to 5H as an alarm bell to suggest that 4H was an error. Paul Lamford: >...I will leave others with old Law Books to comment. Richard Hills: If this situation had occurred under the current 2007 Lawbook, however, I would rule that North-South gave decisive MI to West. West should have been informed that 4H was a two-way call, either by explicit partnership understanding a transfer to 4S, or by implicit partnership understanding a signoff in 4H. So once West was aware that a wheel had fallen off, West would easily cash aces at tricks one and two to defeat 6H. 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 Sep 29 02:34:55 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:34:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:37:03 -0400, wrote: > Current Law 7B1: > > "Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his > compass position." > > Current Law 16A1(d): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information that the player possessed before he took his > hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use > of this information." > > Paul Lamford: > > [snip] > >> a contributor to another forum suggests that Law 16A1(d) has "he >> took his hand from the board" replaced with "he or his partner >> inspected the faces of their cards" (with the same reference to >> Law 7B2). The contributor on here wanted a similar change. >> Meanwhile the error (if it is believed to be one) will remain >> for another 10 years. > > Current Law 7B2: > > "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly > thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect > the faces of his cards." > > Mooted hypothetical new Law 16A1(d): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information that the player possessed before she inspected > the face of at least one of her cards (Law 7B2) and the Laws do > not preclude her use of this information." > > Richard Hills: > > I believe that the current Law 16A1(d) is practical. I believe > that the mooted hypothetical new Law 16A1(d) would be highly > impractical. > > It very easy for the Director to determine the gross action of > withdrawing cards from the board's slot. It is very difficult > for the Director to determine, after cards have been withdrawn > from the slot, whether or not a player has glimpsed one or more > of her cards. > > Furthermore, the Drafting Committee are not idiots, so no doubt > they were fully aware of the pros and cons of the cut-off time > that they inserted into the current Law 16A1(d). I agree about awkwardness of ruling and wanting to follow intelligent intent. However, if the lawmaker thought of every possible thing and made the wisest decision, then why does this law not disallow a player to use information from partner after partner looks at his hand? So we seem to be wondering if a wise decision was made on a carelessly constructed law. Tough call. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 29 02:54:37 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:54:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (problems) 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> Message-ID: From 5 minutes ago, lest ye think we are talking uncommon. 1H 1S 2NT(1) (1) After a while, explained as Jacoby 2NT, showing at least a limit raise with heart support. In standard American, which they had certainly agreed upon, it is not that, it is limit raise without hearts but with a spade stopper. It is now opening lead. What do players have a right to know about the 2NT bid? Their verbal agreement -- "Standard American" -- means that it is natural, and that was how it was meant. I ruled that the opps were entitled to hear that. According to the "mutual awareness" notion, if they never explicitly talked about the bid (likely), and if opener did not understand Standard American to mean that (plausible at this point), they had no agreement -- so that was all the 2NT bidder had to tell the opponents. From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 29 03:04:57 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:04:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> So declarer asked the Director's permission to look at the second hand of his old-fashioned non-digital watch, in order to accurately apply the mixed strategy. How would you rule? If the declarer indicated that he wanted to look at the watch for a purpose which I thought would be an aid to technique, I would disallow this. The declarer should have decided beforehand some factor which he possessed when the cards were withdrawn from the wallet, such as whether the board number is divisible by three, to establish a mixed strategy. From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 29 03:12:49 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:12:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <4CA263F5.1090309@gmail.com> References: <4CA263F5.1090309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CD2D8A8EF867FC-B1C-27E6@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> The only LA on this hand for a player who plays Lebensohl would be Lebensohl The two LAs on this hand for a player who plays Lebensohl but forgot it on the previous board would be 2NT and 3C. The former is demonstrably suggested by the UI. You should rule exactly the same way if the remark had been made while South was considering his response to a takeout double or if the remark is made earlier, but still during the auction period, as here. There is no "could have known" test in this case. The only question is whether the remark was UI, and whether it demonstrably suggested an alternative and more successful auction. From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 29 03:34:42 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:34:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com><4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net><8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD2D8D9FBF3830-B1C-2F30@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> The technical infraction committed by North was to have reminded his partner that they were playing Lebensohl *after* he physically removed his cards from the new board, but before he looked at his hand, rather than doing so, legally, *before* touching his cards. I rule on the basis that the assertion that this may have "damaged E-W", i.e. resulted in a worse score than they would have obtained had North followed the letter of the law, is patently frivolous, and thus to pursue it beyond the initial director call "unduly delays or obstructs the game", citing L90A. East did not assert that the infraction of North advising South that the pair was playing Lebensohl during the auction period rather than before resulted in a worse score than they would have obtained had North followed the letter of the law. Nor did East assert on the previous time that he called the director, some weeks earlier, when an opponent revoked, that he obtained a worse score than if North had followed the letter of the law. He did not need to. There was an infraction and East correctly called the director, as required by 16B2 and 16B3, exactly as he is supposed to do. And the director ruled. Your suggestion that this was patently frivolous is ... patently frivolous. And there was nothing in the OP to indicate that he pursued it beyond the initial director call. He did not need to, as the TD ruled in his favour, for exactly the same reasons as Richard did. Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. And no disapprobation should apply to someone who follows them to the letter. Now, I would not have behaved in the same way as the Secretary Bird, but that is a personal choice. Although i disapprove of what he said, I will defend to the death his right to say it. From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 29 03:46:47 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:46:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CD2D8F4FFD5ABC-B1C-327D@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> I believe that the current Law 16A1(d) is practical. I believe that the mooted hypothetical new Law 16A1(d) would be highly impractical. I am persuaded. And what would be equally impractical would be for a TD to decide the Law is wrong because they do not agree with it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 29 04:26:40 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:26:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD2D8F4FFD5ABC-B1C-327D@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2D8F4FFD5ABC-B1C-327D@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:46:47 -0400, wrote: > > I believe that the current Law 16A1(d) is practical. I believe that > the mooted hypothetical new Law 16A1(d) would be highly impractical. > > I am persuaded. And what would be equally impractical > would be for a TD to decide the Law is wrong because they do not agree > with it. The current law does allow the pro to look at his hand and then remind the client of any conventions the pro chooses. The client then picks That's a law you are going to strictly follow? (You wrote: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws.") It's "impractical" if some director doesn't allow that because he thinks it is wrong? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 29 04:26:53 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:26:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Current Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." Robert Frick: >...However, if the lawmaker thought of every possible thing and >made the wisest decision, then why does this law not disallow a >player to use information from partner after partner looks at >his hand? > >So we seem to be wondering if a wise decision was made on a >carelessly constructed law. Tough call. Richard Hills: Begs the question, petitio principii. The concluding phrase of Law 16A1(d) -> "and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." means that relevant is Law 17A -> "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when _either_ partner withdraws his cards from the board." and consequently Law 40C3(a) -> "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the _auction and play periods_ to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." 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 Wed Sep 29 05:47:42 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:47:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] What Adjustment? In-Reply-To: <4CA21DCC.5030301@ulb.ac.be> References: <4CA21DCC.5030301@ulb.ac.be> <000397E8BCDF48668B67096D63A6A649@Lounge> <479195CB-776D-40C9-AE84-23429ACADAAE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <18480286.1285732062636.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 28/09/2010 15:20, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Sep 26, 2010, at 6:43 PM, David wrote: > > > >> North South Vul > >> Dealer South > >> Imps > >> > >> 8643 > >> A7542 > >> Q6 > >> 104 > >> > >> > >> West North East South > >> -- -- -- P > >> 1C (1) 2D (2) ? > >> > >> (1) 2 or more C's (playing 5 card M and 15-17 NT) > >> (2) Weak Jump Overcall > >> > >> What call do you make? > > Pass. > > > >> What other call(s) do you consider making? > > Double. > > > AG : IMHO the double is a bit too aggressive, except perhaps playing > weak notrumps, as in the statement "the biggest advantages of playing > weak notrumps are when you don't open one". But the wording of L12 > ("among possible results") compels us to pretend responder would have > doubled, without percentages. > > One should also ask opener why he didn't reopen - I couldn't read the > hand but it should be really strong if there is a slam. Could it be an > egregious error to pass ? No, definitely not. A "serious error" would have to be outrageously bad bridge. Like, say, a revoke, or leading a small heart holding SAKQxxx against 7NTXX. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 29 06:15:40 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:15:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <23697864.1285733740168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> gampas at aol.com wrote: > North > A32 > KQJ > QJ42 > KJ5 > > South > KQ54 > 632 > AK > A432 > > > At my club last night, after a routine auction, West led the ten of > hearts. East won and returned a heart. Declarer cashed his red winners, > West discarding a heart, and East a club. Now he tested the spades, and > East transpired to have four. He cashed the ace of clubs and played a > club and the queen did not appear. After some thought, he tossed a > coin, and when it came down heads, he rose with the king of clubs, > successfully as East had been squeezed. > > East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, called the director, > and argued that South was not allowed to use the result of the toss of > the coin to guide his play (Law 16A3). Finessing was a logical > alternative which was less successful. The atmosphere became quite > charged with South calling East a pedant and East calling South a > tosser. How would you rule? Using coin tosses or similar methods to ensure that 50-50 decisions are randomized properly is indeed disallowed. Thus, in case S usds that method repeatedly, I would rule as requested by the Secretary Bird. However, I also noticed the quite serious offense that the Secretary Bird called S a "tosser". L74A1 was violated! L74A2 was violated! I am SHOCKED! Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 29 07:09:56 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:09:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (problems) 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> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:22:03 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:12:06 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> technical ambiguity is not a problem. When my partner and I agree on >>>> "unusual 2NT", we both know there is a variation in which 2NT shows >>>> the >>>> minors over a minor suit opening. But we both know that is the >>>> "marked" >>>> variation -- if we want to play that variation, we have to say so. >>>> We both >>>> know that without discussion, unusual no trump is for the two >>>> lowest unbid >>>> suits. >>>> >>>> "holes" are a serious problem. For example, when playing negative >>>> doubles, >>>> the meaning of this sequence is ambiguous: >>>> >>>> 1C 1D X >>>> >>>> Experts play this as showing both majors, as the convention is >>>> described. >>>> Nonexperts usually play this as showing 1 4-card major. Whe players >>>> agree >>>> on negative doubles, what is the agreement for this bid? I don't >>>> think the >>>> laws help me. Currently, I would describe the double as undefined >>>> and >>>> offer to leave the table so my partner could tell the opponents >>>> what he >>>> meant. >>>> >>>> Hmmm, I guess that answers my question for me. What about, if >>>> players >>>> agree on a conventional name with ambiguities, the opps are >>>> entitled to >>>> know how each player has interpreted the ambiguity? >>>> >>>> Small problem, because it is so rare. A 2D overcall was described as >>>> showing both majors and the convention card said Cappelletti. But >>>> the >>>> player bidding 2D had diamonds and no awareness of the meaning of >>>> any of >>>> the Cappelletti bids. I ruled mistaken explanation. I think that is >>>> the >>>> fair ruling, but obviously it is not so consistent with the rest of >>>> the >>>> Contractual Perspective. >>> >>> I tried to make the point a while back that Richard's original "no >>> agreement" argument was a presumption for adjudication, not for >>> disclosure. Just because one's opponents are entitled to a >>> particular disclosure of one's partnership understandings does not >>> mean that either member of the partnership has the knowledge to >>> provide the required disclosure. If you agree on a "conventional >>> name with ambiguities", you either believe you have a mutual >>> agreement as to how you will resolve those ambiguities, or you >>> don't. If you do, you disclose that resolution; if you don't, you >>> tell them you have no agreement. In either case, IOW, you tell them >>> whatever you think the truth is. >> >> But in this situation, the truth-according-to-Eric is "no >> agreement". And >> the player knows it. See below. >> >>> If you're wrong, you have >>> misinformed. You certainly do not "reveal" theoretical ambiguities >>> in your methods which you do not believe exist in your actual >>> partnership understanding; that would be deliberate misinformation. >>> WTP? >> >> The actual table situation from this occurred was a player agreeing on >> Cappelletti, making a correct Cappelletti 2D bid, then discovering >> that >> his partner had no idea what his bid meant because his partner did not >> know Capelletti. His partner was asked to leave the table while he >> disclosed the correct meaning. >> >> According to both you and Richard, the correct meaning is "no >> agreement". >> You would allow the player to be generous and tell them the >> Cappelletti >> meaning of his bid; Richard would not. In either case, you both say >> that >> he can say "no agreement" with no further explanation. > > Actually, I've repeatedly said exactly the opposite, that you must > reveal your explicit agreements. "We agreed to play Cappelletti but > I have no idea what it is" (the truth) is a proper explanation, and > I'm a bit nonplussed that Bob keeps reading this as if I were > advocating "we have no agreement" (a lie). It is only the *TD or AC* > who "can say [i.e. presume at adjudication] 'no agreement' with no > further explanation". For Bob's protagonist, that would be > intentional MI. > > From the other side of the table, though, the corresponding proper > explanation would be, "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but I happen to > know that my partner has no idea what it is," which I reject as the > ravings of a lunatic, and am therefore not concerned with the > question of how to treat such a situation in adjudication. You lost me on that last sentence. I wrote up a long response, then I realized that you think my partner does not have to tell the opponents what 2D means in Cappelletti. (If we agreed on Cappelletti and I have no idea what it is.) Which of course has been your position all along. I think that was the important point to me. Your description of what my partner has to say ("We agreed to play Cappelletti but my partner doesn't know what that means") does not sound that different to me than "no agreement". Actually, the only difference I see is that the laws require players to state their agreements, not their partner's mental state. But pick either one, I don't care, and you and Richard can argue about it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 29 07:17:31 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:17:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:26:53 -0400, wrote: > Current Law 16A1(d): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information that the player possessed before he took his > hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use > of this information." > > Robert Frick: > >> ...However, if the lawmaker thought of every possible thing and >> made the wisest decision, then why does this law not disallow a >> player to use information from partner after partner looks at >> his hand? >> >> So we seem to be wondering if a wise decision was made on a >> carelessly constructed law. Tough call. > > Richard Hills: > > Begs the question, petitio principii. > > The concluding phrase of Law 16A1(d) -> > > "and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." > > means that relevant is Law 17A -> > > "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when _either_ > partner withdraws his cards from the board." > > and consequently Law 40C3(a) -> > > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not > entitled during the _auction and play periods_ to any aids to > his memory, calculation or technique." I think we will all agree with Nigel that if that is how the laws need to be interpreted, they are too complicated. I would not see this law as relevant. And of course, no one follows it. A mnenomic is a memory aid, right? Taking more time to think is a well-known memory aid. And God forbid a player asks for quiet to help his memory, calculation, *and* technique. Or counting on one's fingers. So I think we just have to get a vague impression of this law. Which is that it is about things like using a calculator or written notes. Not partner telling me what convention to play. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 29 07:47:28 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:47:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 40C3(a): Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the _auction and play periods_ to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. Robert Frick: [snip] >I would not see this law as relevant. [snip] >So I think we just have to get a vague impression of this >law. Which is that it is about things like using a calculator >or written notes. Not partner telling me what convention to >play. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6: The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present strange opinions. [snip] Ogden Nash (1902-1971): One would be in less danger >From the wiles of the stranger If one's own kin and kith Were more fun to be with. 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 Wed Sep 29 09:04:27 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:04:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <858430229.303951285244553197.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Nora Ephron (1941 - ), American director (films, not bridge): "We have lived through the era when happiness was a warm puppy, and the era when happiness was a dry martini, and now we have come to the era when happiness is 'knowing what your uterus looks like'." Robert Frick: >>>..... >>>Pair C is blaming their lower finish on making mistakes, not >>>the director. >>> >>>Why am I explaining why feel-good rulings work? Don't we all >>>understand them? There is an art and philosophy to them that >>>is an interesting topic of conversation. Thomas Dehn: >>..... >>"Oh, the people I cheated didn't notice, thus the cheating >>was fine". >>..... Richard Hills: "Cheating" is too strong a word by my lights, since a true cheater is wholly surreptitious. Robert Frick, on the other hand, publicly (and repeatedly) brags about his very peculiar approach to bridge ethics to blml's world-wide audience. However, if East-West pair C discovered the damage caused to their placing in a crucial (for them) event by an intentionally illegal ruling by Director Frick, then Robert Frick may face expensive real-life litigation in a real-life court -> Grattan Endicott, 12th June 2005: >+=+ There are now NBOs where under EU law it is possible for an >external non-bridge court of arbitration to intervene. Opinion >thinks it very likely that a principal concern of such a body >might be to investigate whether an authority has exceeded the >powers granted to it under the rules of the game. >..... >I think also that the letter of the law should embody the >spirit of the law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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 Wed Sep 29 11:21:29 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:21:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30131422.1285752089790.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>>..... > >>>Pair C is blaming their lower finish on making mistakes, not > >>>the director. > >>> > >>>Why am I explaining why feel-good rulings work? Don't we all > >>>understand them? There is an art and philosophy to them that > >>>is an interesting topic of conversation. > > Thomas Dehn: > > >>..... > >>"Oh, the people I cheated didn't notice, thus the cheating > >>was fine". > >>..... > > Richard Hills: > > "Cheating" is too strong a word by my lights, since a true > cheater is wholly surreptitious. Robert Frick, on the other > hand, publicly (and repeatedly) brags about his very peculiar > approach to bridge ethics to blml's world-wide audience. 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. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 29 11:37:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:37:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/09/2010 3:04, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > > So declarer asked the Director's permission to look at the second hand > of his old-fashioned non-digital watch, in order to accurately apply > the mixed strategy. > > How would you rule? > > > If the declarer indicated that he wanted to look at the watch for a > purpose which I thought would be an aid to technique, I would disallow > this. The declarer should have decided beforehand some factor which he > possessed when the cards were withdrawn from the wallet, such as > whether the board number is divisible by three, to establish a mixed > strategy. AG : 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. From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 29 12:35:06 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:35:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <23697864.1285733740168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> <23697864.1285733740168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CD2DD91C2C7BC6-181C-D4AC@webmail-m070.sysops.aol.com> However, I also noticed the quite serious offense that the Secretary Bird called S a "tosser". L74A1 was violated! L74A2 was violated! I am SHOCKED! He was ready for that, and advised the TD that what he meant was someone who tossed a coin rather than correctly allocated equal decisions, such as which card to play from touching honours, to some factor such as whether the board number was divisible by two or not. His answer was so quick, and so pat, that it persuaded the TD. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 14:20:19 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:20:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD2D8F4FFD5ABC-B1C-327D@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2D8F4FFD5ABC-B1C-327D@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <998848.80522.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I believe that the current Law 16A1(d) is practical. I believe that the mooted hypothetical new Law 16A1(d) would be highly impractical. I am persuaded. And what would be equally impractical would be for a TD to decide the Law is wrong because they do not agree with it. [Nige1] Me too. On reflection, my earlier opinion seems wrong. Richard is right that the current law is simple, fair, and easy to enforce. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 14:38:15 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:38:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [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"? From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 29 15:42:47 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:42:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8F6A7C09-548D-480F-A60D-FD73A4D35527@starpower.net> On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:04 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > > So declarer asked the Director's permission to look at the second hand > of his old-fashioned non-digital watch, in order to accurately apply > the mixed strategy. > > How would you rule? > > > If the declarer indicated that he wanted to look at the watch for a > purpose which I thought would be an aid to technique, I would disallow > this. The declarer should have decided beforehand some factor which he > possessed when the cards were withdrawn from the wallet, such as > whether the board number is divisible by three, to establish a mixed > strategy. The problem here is that there a wide variety of theoretically equivalent ways to randomize one's action as part of a mixed strategy, some of which are apparently prohibited by L40C3(a). It makes no difference whatsoever in terms of outcome whether the player chose which way to finesse by flipping a coin (illegal?), checking the board number (legal?), checking the second hand of his watch (illegal?), or finessing towards the Genesee (legal if you know how the playing venue is oriented, but illegal if you have to ask?). So the restriction becomes a mere quibble, about which nobody cares until some Secretary Bird makes a fuss. Perhaps TPTB should consider revising L40C3(a) to bar only aids to memory or calculation, thus permitting the use of "aids to technique", like the coin or the second hand, in cases where there is no memory or calculation involved. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 29 16:06:00 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:06:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] advice about directing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:47:28 -0400, wrote: > Law 40C3(a): > > Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not > entitled during the _auction and play periods_ to any aids to > his memory, calculation or technique. > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] snipping the logical argument presenting evidence. Leaving just an isolated conclusion. > >> I would not see this law as relevant. > > [snip] > >> So I think we just have to get a vague impression of this >> law. Which is that it is about things like using a calculator >> or written notes. Not partner telling me what convention to >> play. > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6: > > The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet > were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, > especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to > take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors > present strange opinions. I cannot say how strongly I agree with this. I assume there are no club directors on this list hoping to get advice about how to direct. If there are, they have to know that this list is about the laws of bridge, not about how to be a good director. Richard, for example, is not a director, AFAIK, and does not face the problems a director faces. If he does give advice, he apparently does not care about the director keeping his job or helping people enjoy bridge. Or whether or not the director feels guilty. His only concern is that directors follow the laws. Ironically, he does not believe in straightforward readings of the laws. A director who intentionally ignored the laws and just did what he thinks is right is more likely to come to the same ruling as Richard than a director who tried to follow the rules in a straightforward way. I would have mentioned it sooner but I thought it was obvious. > > [snip] > > Ogden Nash (1902-1971): > > One would be in less danger >> From the wiles of the stranger > If one's own kin and kith > Were more fun to be with. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 29 16:08:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:08:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: <8CD2D8D9FBF3830-B1C-2F30@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com><4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net><8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com> <8CD2D8D9FBF3830-B1C-2F30@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <37B7FAFA-EEE2-4E80-BFA7-A9B5D6CE76E1@starpower.net> On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:34 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > > The technical infraction committed by North was to have reminded his > partner that they were playing Lebensohl *after* he physically removed > his cards from the new board, but before he looked at his hand, rather > than doing so, legally, *before* touching his cards. I rule on the > basis that the assertion that this may have "damaged E-W", i.e. > resulted in a worse score than they would have obtained had North > followed the letter of the law, is patently frivolous, and thus to > pursue it beyond the initial director call "unduly delays or obstructs > the game", citing L90A. > > > East did not assert that the infraction of North advising South that > the pair was playing Lebensohl during the auction period rather than > before resulted in a worse score than they would have obtained had > North followed the letter of the law. Nor did East assert on the > previous time that he called the director, some weeks earlier, when an > opponent revoked, that he obtained a worse score than if North had > followed the letter of the law. He did not need to. There was an > infraction and East correctly called the director, as required by 16B2 > and 16B3, exactly as he is supposed to do. And the director ruled. > Your > suggestion that this was patently frivolous is ... patently frivolous. > And there was nothing in the OP to indicate that he pursued it beyond > the initial director call. He did not need to, as the TD ruled in his > favour, for exactly the same reasons as Richard did. > > Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance > with > the Laws. And no disapprobation should apply to someone who follows > them to the letter. Now, I would not have behaved in the same way as > the Secretary Bird, but that is a personal choice. Although i > disapprove of what he said, I will defend to the death his right to > say > it. Whereas I will defend, albeit not quite to the death, the right of club owners and managers to deal appropriately with those who would drive their other paying customers away to other clubs, be they screamers, potty-mouths, sarcastic assholes, or -- perhaps worst of all -- unapologetic Secretary Birds. Technical aspects of the bidding and play laws notwithstanding, I have no problem determining that anyone who costs me live customers "inconveniences other constestants" [L90A]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 29 16:31:51 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:31:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <23697864.1285733740168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> <23697864.1285733740168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, called the >> director, >> and argued that South was not allowed to use the result of the >> toss of >> the coin to guide his play (Law 16A3). Finessing was a logical >> alternative which was less successful. The atmosphere became quite >> charged with South calling East a pedant and East calling South a >> tosser. How would you rule? > > Using coin tosses or similar methods to ensure that 50-50 decisions > are randomized properly is indeed disallowed. Thus, in case S > usds that method repeatedly, I would rule as requested by the > Secretary Bird. Thomas is correct only to the extent that he defines "similar methods" as those that use some other physical object, such as a wristwatch or a compass, in place of the coin. Randomizing 50-50 decisions based on information available without the use of any "aids", such as the board number, or the gender of East two tables over, is perfectly legal. One would think that the logical and mathematical equivlance of all of these methods, legal and illegal, would qualify them as "similar". By my lights, coin tosses are indeed disallowed, but similar methods may or may not be depending on logically irrelevant details of their physical implementation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 29 16:50:19 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:50:19 -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> Message-ID: I will propose a solution to this thorny problem. I welcome constructive criticisms. Um, I have to make rulings at the table. 1. There is a core of agreement to any convention. For example, "odd-even" means that odd encourages and even discourages. It is not easy to define the boundaries of this core agreement. Director judgment I guess, though there are other possibilities. The problem of defining the core cannot be gotten rid of. Players do put convention names on their card and in their verbal explanations. Opponents must be protected if in fact players are not following the core agreement. In other words, you cannot agree to play that even encourages and then still call your convention "odd-even". 2. When players verbally agree on a convention name, they are also explicitly agreeing on the core of the convention. So this ruling is simple: 1C 1S P 2C 2C was meant as Michaels. It is not. Therefore this is a misbid. 1H 1S 2NT 2NT was explained as showing heart support. This is not Standard American (which they agreed upon). Misexplanation. 2a. At my club "unusual no trump" means the two lowest unbid suits. People know of variations, but it is understood that if a person wants to play a variation, the player has to specifically propose that. So: 1C 2NT The 2NT was explained as showing diamonds and hearts, but the player had diamonds and spades. Misbid 3. The problem comes for vague parts of the convention. To give one example: 1C 1D 1S Playing negative doubles, how many spades does this bid show? Players should be aware of this hole in the convention and decide in advance. But they usually are not aware. I will propose that when the players guess on the same answer, the opponents deserve to know. I will propose that when players come to different answers, the opponents are legally entitled to know both understandings. To try to justify this, there are two agreements. This does not handle well the situation where a player agrees to play a convention and has no idea what it is. I don't know how I want to handle that, except it doesn't seem right to call the player's bids misbids. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 29 16:50:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:50:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (problems) 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> Message-ID: <62963336-DCF9-4721-AF2A-942D8BF9BE92@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:09 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:22:03 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> Actually, I've repeatedly said exactly the opposite, that you must >> reveal your explicit agreements. "We agreed to play Cappelletti but >> I have no idea what it is" (the truth) is a proper explanation, and >> I'm a bit nonplussed that Bob keeps reading this as if I were >> advocating "we have no agreement" (a lie). It is only the *TD or AC* >> who "can say [i.e. presume at adjudication] 'no agreement' with no >> further explanation". For Bob's protagonist, that would be >> intentional MI. >> >> From the other side of the table, though, the corresponding proper >> explanation would be, "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but I happen to >> know that my partner has no idea what it is," which I reject as the >> ravings of a lunatic, and am therefore not concerned with the >> question of how to treat such a situation in adjudication. > > You lost me on that last sentence. > > I wrote up a long response, then I realized that you think my > partner does > not have to tell the opponents what 2D means in Cappelletti. (If we > agreed > on Cappelletti and I have no idea what it is.) Which of course has > been > your position all along. I think that was the important point to me. > > Your description of what my partner has to say ("We agreed to play > Cappelletti but my partner doesn't know what that means") does not > sound > that different to me than "no agreement". Actually, the only > difference I > see is that the laws require players to state their agreements, not > their > partner's mental state. But pick either one, I don't care, and you and > Richard can argue about it. What Bob quotes is actually my take on what his partner would be required to say in the nonsensical cloud-cuckoo-land of his example. To me it doesn't sound that different from "wubba wubba wubba". What my last sentence means is that only a raving schizophrenic is capable of failing to see the contradiction in the notion that he has a made a substantive agreement with someone who has no idea of what the substance of that agreement is. "Let's make an agreement." "OK, what shall we agree to?" "Nothing in particular, just so we have an agreement." "OK." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 29 16:59:50 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:59:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com><4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CD2DFE19E7016D-11DC-25B8@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> [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"? [Paul Lamford] Because some noted authorities, such as DALBurn, believe that "information" in the Laws is to be interpreted in its archaic sense, in other words as "that which informs". He wrote on another thread, which you may have seen: "Originally, "information" was that which "informed" (that is: shaped - "formed" - or influenced) the way in which people behaved; it did not matter whether the "information" actually corresponded with reality." Using any extraneous method of "informing" yourself of a play or bid *during the auction or play period* is illegal. Looking at your watch to find out how soon the bar will open is fine. And if you looked at your watch before taking your cards from the wallet, it would not be extraneous ... From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 29 17:16:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:16:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5971085A-E16F-4657-8F45-183FA74200E4@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:26:53 -0400, wrote: > >> Current Law 16A1(d): >> >> "A player may use information in the auction or play if: >> it is information that the player possessed before he took his >> hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use >> of this information." >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>> ...However, if the lawmaker thought of every possible thing and >>> made the wisest decision, then why does this law not disallow a >>> player to use information from partner after partner looks at >>> his hand? >>> >>> So we seem to be wondering if a wise decision was made on a >>> carelessly constructed law. Tough call. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Begs the question, petitio principii. >> >> The concluding phrase of Law 16A1(d) -> >> >> "and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." >> >> means that relevant is Law 17A -> >> >> "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when _either_ >> partner withdraws his cards from the board." >> >> and consequently Law 40C3(a) -> >> >> "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not >> entitled during the _auction and play periods_ to any aids to >> his memory, calculation or technique." > > I think we will all agree with Nigel that if that is how the laws > need to > be interpreted, they are too complicated. I would not see this law as > relevant. > > And of course, no one follows it. A mnenomic is a memory aid, right? > Taking more time to think is a well-known memory aid. And God forbid a > player asks for quiet to help his memory, calculation, *and* > technique. Or > counting on one's fingers. > > So I think we just have to get a vague impression of this law. > Which is > that it is about things like using a calculator or written notes. Not > partner telling me what convention to play. Bob is to be thanked for bringing some common sense to this discussion. To avoid being swamped by ambiguity, we must read the word "aids" in L40C3(a) somewhat narrowly. An "aid[] to... memory, calculation or technique" for this purpose should be some actual object designed to aid one's memory, calculation or technique, as Bob's examples suggest. Otherwise, every time a bridge teacher teaches "eight ever, nine never" they suborn their students into violating L40C3(a). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 29 17:31:36 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:31:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <54F36674-D7A3-44AC-8460-C1A28543AAE0@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [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"? So I pick up my cards, open my hand, and sort them. Then I shuffle and reopen them. Now, because I have shuffled my cards into random order, I can make an effectively random choice among equivalent spot cards when following or discarding by simply pulling the one furthest to the right without further consideration. Was my shuffling my cards an "aid to technique"? A "more subtle form" of "cheating"? Are we over the line to absurdity here? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 29 18:23:21 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:23:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <8CD2DD91C2C7BC6-181C-D4AC@webmail-m070.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2DD91C2C7BC6-181C-D4AC@webmail-m070.sysops.aol.com> <8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com> <23697864.1285733740168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <19769371.1285777401862.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> gampas at aol.com wrote: > > However, I also noticed the quite serious offense that the Secretary > Bird called S a "tosser". L74A1 was violated! L74A2 was violated! I am > SHOCKED! > > > He was ready for that, and advised the TD that what he meant was > someone who tossed a coin rather than correctly allocated equal > decisions, such as which card to play from touching honours, to some > factor such as whether the board number was divisible by two or not. > His answer was so quick, and so pat, that it persuaded the TD. Does not persuade, me, though. L74A2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. It does not matter much what the Secretary Bird claims to have meant. TFLB requires me to investigate whether calling S a "tosser" "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". Conversely, I am pretty sure that the Secretary Bird would not be satisfied by S's claim that one cojn toss does not create any advantage for S. In fact S still had to decide whether to believe in his own bad luck, and select the play the coin toss did not indicate, or play for a mean double bluff by his own bad luck. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 29 18:23:32 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:23:32 -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> Message-ID: <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@starpower.net> 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? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 18:28:55 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:28:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <8CD2DFE19E7016D-11DC-25B8@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com><4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <8CD2DFE19E7016D-11DC-25B8@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <460646.65573.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [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"? [Paul Lamford] Because some noted authorities, such as DALBurn, believe that "information" in the Laws is to be interpreted in its archaic sense, in other words as "that which informs". He wrote on another thread, which you may have seen: "Originally, "information" was that which "informed" (that is: shaped - "formed" - or influenced) the way in which people behaved; it did not matter whether the "information" actually corresponded with reality." Using any extraneous method of "informing" yourself of a play or bid *during the auction or play period* is illegal. Looking at your watch to find out how soon the bar will open is fine. And if you looked at your watch before taking your cards from the wallet, it would not be extraneous ... {Nigel] Yes, Paul: I've perused David Burns other thread and I did take your point. I just think that having to remember numbers of seconds is a bit silly. Do law-makers really expect you to take *several* readings before you play, in case you face several independent decisions about mixed strategies with different weightings, during the course of a single hand? I don't think so :) But I also take your point about complying with and enforcing a rule even if you don't like it. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 29 18:42:23 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:42:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <19769371.1285777401862.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <8CD2DD91C2C7BC6-181C-D4AC@webmail-m070.sysops.aol.com><8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com><23697864.1285733740168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <19769371.1285777401862.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CD2E0C6D273147-1454-183D@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> It does not persuade me ... Both South and the SB had apologised for any possible offence from South calling the SB a pedant and SB calling South a tosser. The SB claimed that his enjoyment of the game was increased by being called a pedant, and South admitted that he had tossed a coin for an even-money decision on 19 previous occasions, so that being called a tosser was a very accurate description. Conversely, I am pretty sure that the Secretary Bird would not be satisfied by S's claim that one coin toss does not create any advantage for S. SB believed that the coin was an aid, and indeed he was quite happy with the suggestion that South could use any intangible method he wished. Indeed he would have been happy for South to have summed his scores to date and found whether they were odd or even (after eliminating the final zero). What he objected to was the blatant use of an aid to technique. He was a deeply religious man and believed that any higher power would ensure that the coin toss was unfavourable to the SB. Also, the Laws stated that South could not use such extraneous information, and he felt duty bound, being a Sagittarius, to behave like a typical Secretary Bird. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 18:43:17 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <54F36674-D7A3-44AC-8460-C1A28543AAE0@starpower.net> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <54F36674-D7A3-44AC-8460-C1A28543AAE0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <479059.47932.qm@web28505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [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"? [Eric Landau] So I pick up my cards, open my hand, and sort them. Then I shuffle and reopen them. Now, because I have shuffled my cards into random order, I can make an effectively random choice among equivalent spot cards when following or discarding by simply pulling the one furthest to the right without further consideration. Was my shuffling my cards an "aid to technique"? A "more subtle form" of "cheating"? Are we over the line to absurdity here? [Nigel] My post was intended to make the same point that you make Eric :) Not really relevant but, IMO, you could use the cards in your hand as an illegal memory aid. For example: - Consult the the pattern on the back because it provides a mnemonic for a convention. - Order your cards, so that later in the play, the pips can remind you of the auction or your original hand-shape or the opening-lead or whatever. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 18:50:10 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:50:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <8CD2E0C6D273147-1454-183D@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2DD91C2C7BC6-181C-D4AC@webmail-m070.sysops.aol.com><8CD2D2622060DEB-1094-E0A3@webmail-m005.sysops.aol.com><23697864.1285733740168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <19769371.1285777401862.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <8CD2E0C6D273147-1454-183D@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <487936.81879.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> He was a deeply religious man and believed that any higher power would ensure that the coin toss was unfavourable to the SB. Also, the Laws stated that South could not use such extraneous information, and he felt duty bound, being a Sagittarius, to behave like a typical Secretary Bird. [Nigel] The Secretary Bird should be ashamed for stealing Karapet's limelight. From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 29 18:52:32 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:52:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: <37B7FAFA-EEE2-4E80-BFA7-A9B5D6CE76E1@starpower.net> References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com><4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net><8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com><8CD2D8D9FBF3830-B1C-2F30@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <37B7FAFA-EEE2-4E80-BFA7-A9B5D6CE76E1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CD2E0DD7FA769F-1454-1B65@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] Whereas I will defend, albeit not quite to the death, the right of club owners and managers to deal appropriately with those who would drive their other paying customers away to other clubs, be they screamers, potty-mouths, sarcastic assholes, or -- perhaps worst of all -- unapologetic Secretary Birds. Technical aspects of the bidding and play laws notwithstanding, I have no problem determining that anyone who costs me live customers "inconveniences other constestants" [L90A]. [Paul Lamford] Admirable sentiments, and bridge clubs will generally be better places for it. The first three categories of "offender" are well covered, but the Secretary Bird, almost by definition, conducts himself exactly in accordance with the Laws. The method of dealing with him is, as someone suggested, ostracism. As wikipedia says: "Crucially, 'ostracized' had no relation to the processes of justice. There was no charge or defense, and the exile was not in fact a penalty". However, the rules of the club should state that in addition to conforming to the letter of the laws of bridge, members are expected to conform with the spirit, and in some cases this means turning a blind eye to minor infractions. If that is what the club desires. Or it can have additional rules which supplement TFLB. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Sep 29 18:56:53 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:56:53 +0200 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><3EC30 449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CA36FD5.5070402@meteo.fr> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I will propose a solution to this thorny problem. I welcome constructive > criticisms. Um, I have to make rulings at the table. > > 1. There is a core of agreement to any convention. For example, "odd-even" > means that odd encourages and even discourages. > > It is not easy to define the boundaries of this core agreement. Director > judgment I guess, though there are other possibilities. > > The problem of defining the core cannot be gotten rid of. Players do put > convention names on their card and in their verbal explanations. Opponents > must be protected if in fact players are not following the core agreement. > In other words, you cannot agree to play that even encourages and then > still call your convention "odd-even". you might call it "even-odd" jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 18:59:19 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:59:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: <8CD2E0DD7FA769F-1454-1B65@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com><4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net><8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com><8CD2D8D9FBF3830-B1C-2F30@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <37B7FAFA-EEE2-4E80-BFA7-A9B5D6CE76E1@starpower.net> <8CD2E0DD7FA769F-1454-1B65@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <693745.65209.qm@web28515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Paul Lamford] Admirable sentiments, and bridge clubs will generally be better places for it. The first three categories of "offender" are well covered, but the Secretary Bird, almost by definition, conducts himself exactly in accordance with the Laws. The method of dealing with him is, as someone suggested, ostracism. As wikipedia says: "Crucially, 'ostracized' had no relation to the processes of justice. There was no charge or defense, and the exile was not in fact a penalty". [Nigel] Clubs could punish Secretary Birds by ostrichising them? From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 29 19:33:28 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:33:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <858430229.303951285244553197.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <27537080.1285781608918.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:22:33 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > I think it is time to word this in a more obvious way. > > Robert, what you are saying basically is that cheating > > is fine as long as you think it is fine. You then come up > > with lots of arguments how that cheating should be justified. > > "Oh, the people with whom I conspired were happy, > > thus the cheating was fine" > > "Oh, the people I cheated didn't notice, thus the cheating was fine". > > "Oh, I don't have to ?nform opponents about my partner's > > unusual approach to bidding because I call that a tactical bid". > > "Oh, the British king was unpopular 250 years ago, thus my cheating is > > fine". > > > > > > There exist games where such an approach is valid, even welcome. > > But bridge is not among those games. > > Sorry to have not made my position clear. I think there are more important > things than following the bridge laws. To me, it is important that people > be happy. Following the bridge laws is a good tool for that. And if > someone doesn't like a ruling that I give, and I can explain why that > feeling is right, then it is a problem if they are unhappy, but I think > they are the ones who have to adjust. So it is a complicated position > about happiness. Which we could discuss in a non-witch-hunt atmosphere. > > And a director would like to have everyone on his side. If you are > directing in a room full of enemies, you will be crucified. So, for > example, players should lead face down but I don't think it is wise to nag > them about that. I have more important battles to fight. > > And I think it is important to keep my job. Frankly, the advice to follow > the laws no matter what the consequences for one's occupation (did Richard > really say that?) is irresponsible. > > So there are more important things than following the rules. This is a > perfectly acceptable moral position almost anywhere. (And, following the > rules is not always an acceptable defense -- people are supposed to do > better than that.) You are mistaken if you think that you make the majority of players happy by making up your own rulings on the fly. Or, worded differently: how many players under the age of 40 show up at your club regularly? How many players who would have a decent chance of getting the better of Meckwell over a 32 board match? My hometown had several bridge clubs. One bridge club where the TDs generally followed TFLB, with a little bit of extra leeway for beginners. That club attracted all the local experts and decent players, and all the young players regardless of skill. It then also attracted all the players who wanted to play against the experts, rather than play only against people who have trouble following suit. That club had hundreds of members who paid the annual membership fee. 20 years late, the club is still alive and well. In another club in my home town, the TD ruled whatever she deemed best. That club died a slow death. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 29 19:27:28 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:27:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: <8CD2E0DD7FA769F-1454-1B65@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com> <4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net> <8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com> <8CD2D8D9FBF3830-B1C-2F30@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <37B7FAFA-EEE2-4E80-BFA7-A9B5D6CE76E1@starpower.net> <8CD2E0DD7FA769F-1454-1B65@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:52:32 -0400, wrote: > [Eric Landau] > Whereas I will defend, albeit not quite to the death, the right of > club owners and managers to deal appropriately with those who would > drive their other paying customers away to other clubs, be they > screamers, potty-mouths, sarcastic assholes, or -- perhaps worst of > all -- unapologetic Secretary Birds. Technical aspects of the > bidding and play laws notwithstanding, I have no problem determining > that anyone who costs me live customers "inconveniences other > constestants" [L90A]. > > [Paul Lamford] > Admirable sentiments, and bridge clubs will generally be better places > for it. > The first three categories of "offender" are well covered, but the > Secretary Bird, almost by definition, conducts himself exactly in > accordance with the Laws. The method of dealing with him is, as someone > suggested, ostracism. So you are saying that (1) bridge should be played in strict conformance to the rules, and (2) any players who try to do that should be ostracized. I am no fan of the ACBL's 100% intolerance rule. If we are talking about actual directing, I would try to make friends with the *person* and then talk about what should happen at the table. As wikipedia says: > "Crucially, 'ostracized' had no relation to the processes of justice. > There was no charge or defense, and the exile was not in fact a > penalty". However, the rules of the club should state that in addition > to conforming to the letter of the laws of bridge, members are expected > to conform with the spirit, and in some cases this means turning a > blind eye to minor infractions. If that is what the club desires. Or it > can have additional rules which supplement TFLB. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 29 19:57:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:57:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: <4CA36FD5.5070402@meteo.fr> References: <194525723.749221285352886372. JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net><10921119.1285400063619.JavaMail .ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><3EC30 449-6B24-477F-BE30-24788CB19DA2@starpower.net> <4CA36FD5.5070402@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <5765D5D1-733A-4930-B3E2-F40C543D8BA9@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : > >> I will propose a solution to this thorny problem. I welcome >> constructive >> criticisms. Um, I have to make rulings at the table. >> >> 1. There is a core of agreement to any convention. For example, >> "odd-even" >> means that odd encourages and even discourages. >> >> It is not easy to define the boundaries of this core agreement. >> Director >> judgment I guess, though there are other possibilities. >> >> The problem of defining the core cannot be gotten rid of. Players >> do put >> convention names on their card and in their verbal explanations. >> Opponents >> must be protected if in fact players are not following the core >> agreement. >> In other words, you cannot agree to play that even encourages and >> then >> still call your convention "odd-even". > > you might call it "even-odd" If you "agree to play that even encourages", you might even (gasp!) decide to call it (wait for it!) "even encourages". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 20:26:31 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:26:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <27537080.1285781608918.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <858430229.303951285244553197.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <27537080.1285781608918.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <448787.38313.qm@web28514.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Thomas Dehn] My hometown had several bridge clubs. One bridge club where the TDs generally followed TFLB, with a little bit of extra leeway for beginners. That club attracted all the local experts and decent players, and all the young players regardless of skill. It then also attracted all the players who wanted to play against the experts, rather than play only against people who have trouble following suit. That club had hundreds of members who paid the annual membership fee. 20 years late, the club is still alive and well. In another club in my home town, the TD ruled whatever she deemed best. That club died a slow death. [Nigel] I agree with Thomas. IMO... The director can expect less hassle if he laxly enforces the rules. When penalised, habitual law-breakers complain persuasively and if necessary, aggressively about being deprived of their expected profits. When routinely deprived of adequate redress, law-abiding players tend to bottle their disappointment: eventually, they decide "if you can't beat them join them" or they vote with their feet, leaving the club or giving up bridge altogether. Law-abiding players appreciate simple rules, strictly applied. They prefer their skills in bidding an play to decide the outcome rather than how effectively they can ingratiate themselves with directors or hoodwink them about agreements and intentions. From gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 29 21:21:18 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:21:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com><4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net><8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com><8CD2D8D9FBF3830-B1C-2F30@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com><37B7FAFA-EEE2-4E80-BFA7-A9B5D6CE76E1@starpower.net><8CD2E0DD7FA769F-1454-1B65@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD2E22A083A27E-1120-304@webmail-m078.sysops.aol.com> [R Frick] So you are saying that (1) bridge should be played in strict conformance to the rules, and (2) any players who try to do that should be ostracized. [Paul Lamford] No, I am saying that clubs are quite entitled to have additional rules which spell out a requirement for active ethics, and a need to also conform with the spirit of the Laws and not just the letter. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 29 22:16:59 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:16:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: <8CD2E22A083A27E-1120-304@webmail-m078.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2C70215E2532-B0C-910@webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com><4506DA70-1AC8-410A-AED7-CD8CB635EB5C@starpower.net><8CD2D411841E4AF-CEC-1F2@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com><8CD2D8D9FBF3830-B1C-2F30@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com><37B7FAFA-EEE2-4E80-BFA7-A9B5D6CE76E1@starpower.net><8CD2E0DD7FA769F-1454-1B65@webmail-d031.sysops.aol.com> <8CD2E22A083A27E-1120-304@webmail-m078.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:21 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [R Frick] > So you are saying that (1) bridge should be played in strict > conformance to the rules, and (2) any players who try to do that > should > be ostracized. > > [Paul Lamford] No, I am saying that clubs are quite entitled to have > additional rules which spell out a requirement for active ethics, > and a > need to also conform with the spirit of the Laws and not just the > letter. If "strict conformance to the rules" were as easily done as said, the world would have no need for judges or lawyers. Any non-trivial body of law is rife with ambiguities and contradictions, and ours (TFLB) is no exception, as we demonstrate daily in this forum. Some think that the "spirit of the law" is some vague, fuzzy alternative to the "letter of the law" which others would apply "in its place", but they are wrong. The spirit of the law is that to which we must look for the principles that allow us to resolve those ambiguities and contradictions by which the letter of the law will always vex us. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Sep 29 23:18:45 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:18:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4CA3AD35.7000003@t-online.de> I haven't read all posts to this thread, but I never had any difficulties with this: you simply finesse against the opp you can least stand to lose a trick to. I won't even need any help to my memory or any coin to decide. To answer the OP: I would suggest to this Secretary bird that he get a life, and to the tosser that he learn some basic diplomacy... If I provoke people (whether knowingly or not) some people will react. Who needs that? Best regards Matthias From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 23:42:12 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:42:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count Message-ID: <368262.66362.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau] If "strict conformance to the rules" were as easily done as said, the world would have no need for judges or lawyers. Any non-trivial body of law is rife with ambiguities and contradictions, and ours (TFLB) is no exception, as we demonstrate daily in this forum. Some think that the "spirit of the law" is some vague, fuzzy alternative to the "letter of the law" which others would apply "in its place", but they are wrong. The spirit of the law is that to which we must look for the principles that allow us to resolve those ambiguities and contradictions by which the letter of the law will always vex us. [Nige1] Formulating simple unambiguous laws is hard. In real-life, you must try to reflect harsh and complex reality and cope with long-established mores and taboos. It is still hard to make rules for a game. But less hard. For example. - Punishments can be draconian (e.g you can "send players to jail" or "hang" them or whatever). - Real-world concepts of justice need not apply. It is OK to decide a player's fate on the turn of a card or the toss of a coin (but players like the *rules* of the game to be applied consistently and objectively). - If the law-makers don't like a rule they can simplify it or drop it, on a whim, provided that does not affect the fundamental nature of the game or reduce players' enjoyment. Most BLMLers are concerned with small ambiguities and inconsistencies. Many of these anomalies have been the subject of debate for decades. These could be quickly resolved by a simple process: - Publish incremental minor revisions of the laws, with corrections in place; and - Invite comment from interested parties (including members of on-line fora -- and most importantly -- ordinary players. - These editions would come out every month or so, to begin with. - The frequency of revisions would fall of as ambiguity was reduced. - Soon most anomalies with any practical application would be resolved to most players' satisfaction - Obviously the aim is substantial clarification not perfection. - Even if this process took a couple of years, the game would benefit from clearer rules. - This process might overcome resistance from old-guard ivory-tower administrators. - It would also help players and directors to become more familiar with the laws. Some of us would like more radical change -- to make the laws more simple and more complete. These suggestions could be left for consideration, every decade or so. Big changes could be subject to the above nit-picking review process for a few months after each major revision but the process would be quicker as fewer laws would need review. I think the process itself would be challenging and fun. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 29 23:58:52 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:58:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <27537080.1285781608918.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <858430229.303951285244553197.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <27537080.1285781608918.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:33:28 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:22:33 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> > I think it is time to word this in a more obvious way. >> > Robert, what you are saying basically is that cheating >> > is fine as long as you think it is fine. You then come up >> > with lots of arguments how that cheating should be justified. >> > "Oh, the people with whom I conspired were happy, >> > thus the cheating was fine" >> > "Oh, the people I cheated didn't notice, thus the cheating was fine". >> > "Oh, I don't have to ?nform opponents about my partner's >> > unusual approach to bidding because I call that a tactical bid". >> > "Oh, the British king was unpopular 250 years ago, thus my cheating is >> > fine". >> > >> > >> > There exist games where such an approach is valid, even welcome. >> > But bridge is not among those games. >> >> Sorry to have not made my position clear. I think there are more >> important >> things than following the bridge laws. To me, it is important that >> people >> be happy. Following the bridge laws is a good tool for that. And if >> someone doesn't like a ruling that I give, and I can explain why that >> feeling is right, then it is a problem if they are unhappy, but I think >> they are the ones who have to adjust. So it is a complicated position >> about happiness. Which we could discuss in a non-witch-hunt atmosphere. >> >> And a director would like to have everyone on his side. If you are >> directing in a room full of enemies, you will be crucified. So, for >> example, players should lead face down but I don't think it is wise to >> nag >> them about that. I have more important battles to fight. >> >> And I think it is important to keep my job. Frankly, the advice to >> follow >> the laws no matter what the consequences for one's occupation (did >> Richard >> really say that?) is irresponsible. >> >> So there are more important things than following the rules. This is a >> perfectly acceptable moral position almost anywhere. (And, following the >> rules is not always an acceptable defense -- people are supposed to do >> better than that.) > > You are mistaken if you think that you make > the majority of players happy by making up your > own rulings on the fly. Or, worded differently: > how many players under the age of 40 show > up at your club regularly? Not many. But that is the general demographic for bridge in the USA. The young players are under 60. When we have a tournament for players over 55, we often forget to mention the age restriction. > How many players > who would have a decent chance of getting the > better of Meckwell over a 32 board match? There are two clubs on Long Island that appeal to the good players. The club where I direct is one of them. > My hometown had several bridge clubs. > One bridge club where the TDs generally followed TFLB, > with a little bit of extra leeway for beginners. And that makes you think the director is a cheater, right? Gosh, those directors will get crucified on blml. Or if you tolerate that, can you explain one ruling I would make that your directors would not make? > That club attracted all the local experts and decent players, > and all the young players regardless of skill. I think I am recognized by many as the director who knows the rulings. I am probably also the least likely to give split scores. I can't see any effect on attendence. Sad for me. > It then also attracted all the players who wanted to > play against the experts, rather than play only > against people who have trouble following suit. > That club had hundreds of members who paid > the annual membership fee. 20 years late, the > club is still alive and well. > > In another club in my home town, the TD ruled whatever she deemed best. > That club died a slow death. Our club collects over a $1000 a weekday. How does that compare to your annual membership fee. How much do you pay your directors, by the way? One person here does not make director calls. There are very few good players in his club. He will be sad to hear that he is going out of business soon, but he has been in business a long time and his Monday afternoon game gets about 100 tables at over $10 a table. Let's see, that is what, $200,000 a year? I am very eager to hear how that compares to your membership fees. Or let me put this another way. Our club has a reputation for good play. We can fill up about 12 tables a day. I don't know if that is enough to even pay the rent. We have a second section that is way too hard for beginners. That is maybe another 12 tables. But the big market is people 65 or older who are beginners, or at least horrible players. The goal is to figure out how to appeal to those players. Or let me put this another way. Good players have expressed no anger at me for split scores. A good player was very angry at me for what he thought was a wrong ruling. It revolved around the question of what players agree to when they agree on a convention. I love the idea of just following the book on that. Of course, I am deserted on that question. Bob > > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 30 00:45:44 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:45:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5971085A-E16F-4657-8F45-183FA74200E4@starpower.net> Message-ID: Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the _auction and play periods_ to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Eric Landau: [unfair snip] >To avoid being swamped by ambiguity, we must read the word >"aids" in L40C3(a) somewhat narrowly. An "aid[] to... memory, >calculation or technique" for this purpose should be some >actual object designed to aid one's memory, calculation or >technique, [unfair snip] >Otherwise, every time a bridge teacher teaches "eight ever, >nine never" they suborn their students into violating L40C3(a). Richard Hills: I do not understand Eric's counterexample. A bridge lesson by a bridge teacher before the session is not "during the auction and play periods". In my opinion, the generalised Law 40C3(a) "aid to memory" has a corresponding indicative example in Law 75. And Law 75 discusses partner as also an "aid to memory" (i.e. Law 75 specifically states that merely because Forcing Stayman is your partnership understanding, bidding in accordance with your Forcing Stayman agreement is not necessarily your only logical alternative). 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 Sep 30 02:47:05 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:47:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <27537080.1285781608918.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Donald X. Vaccarino: "Sure, money can't buy happiness, but it can buy envy, anger, and also this kind of blank feeling." Richard Hills, 19th July 2005: B.J. Becker once prevailed upon Jeff Rubens to adopt an agreement in which doubles in certain situations were defined as two-way; either penalty or takeout. B.J. assured Jeff that he would always be able to determine the intended meaning of the double by looking at his length in the opponent's suit. But, on the three occasions that this convention came up, Jeff held a doubleton in the opponent's suit, so was faced with a complete guess. On one occasion Jeff guessed right to pass, collecting +1100. On another occasion Jeff guessed wrong to pass, paying out -1070. The "merit" of the convention was demonstrated on the third occasion, when Jeff guessed right to bid, and the opponents were way too intimidated by B.J.'s double, so failed to continue to their cold game. (Of course, a two-way double convention would be much more successful for a player who lacked B.J. Becker's imperturbable tempo and manner.) 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 Sep 30 03:27:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:27:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Ewart Napier (1881-1952), brilliant chess master: "Of chess it has been said that life is not long enough for it. But that is the fault of life, not chess." Richard Hills, August 2005: >There was this international tournament game played under the >1924 edition of the Laws of Chess: > > White Black >1 e4 d5 >2 exd5 Qxd5 >3 Bc3 > >White had intended the standard move of Nc3, but accidentally >and illegally moved their bishop to that square instead. David Grabiner, August 2005: This seems analogous to the bridge situation in which declarer wins the trick in dummy and then leads from his own hand. He hasn't forgotten the basic rule that the winner of one trick leads to the next trick, but he was careless. Richard Hills, August 2005: >Touch and move was (and is) a fundamental tournament chess >law. But White's bishop had no legal move. > >The 1924 Laws specified, as a penalty, that whenever a player >touched a piece which had no legal move, that player had to >make a move with their king instead. So the game concluded: > >3 Ke2 Qe4 mate > >The subsequent 1948 edition of the Laws of Chess deleted the >penalty for touching a piece which had no legal move, to >prevent such disproportionate outcomes. David Grabiner, August 2005: And the 1987 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge made an analogous change, removing the old penalty that the declarer had to lead the same suit, which often destroyed equity. 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 Sep 30 03:49:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:49:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pass the parcel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass(1) Pass(1) 1D (1) 2C (1) (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning You, West, hold: AJT3 AKQJ972 J6 --- What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 Sep 30 05:00:51 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:00:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Pass the parcel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <325252.52120.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] Imps West/East-West.You, West, hold: AJT3 AKQJ972 J6 --- Pass(1) Pass(1) 1D (1) 2C (1) ?? (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning [Nigel] 6H = 10, 7H = 9, 4N = 3, 4C = 4 2C = 3, 3C = 2, X = 1. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 30 05:29:23 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:29:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Contractual agreements (proposed solution) In-Reply-To: <90DBBFC5-E649-4D6F-9ACA-BCB86B60AC9F@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> Message-ID: 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. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 30 05:33:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:33:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard J. Daley (1902-1976), Mayor of Chicago: "The policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder." Steve Willner, 23rd September 2005: Purposes can change over time; in practice BLML is whatever its users want it to be. However, I happen to be in a remarkably good position to write about the original purpose. Here's the description that went with the original list (omitting some details about subscribing): >This list is a forum for the card game of Contract Bridge. It is not >a discussion list for How-To-Build-Bridges or what the traffic >regulations are for bridges. I've had questions along those lines -- >I want to make it clear this isn't the right place. > >This list is intended specifically for relatively technical >discussion of bridge Law and procedures. Most questions about "What >should the correct ruling be?" belong in the Usenet newsgroup >rec.games.bridge, as does any other bridge matter that is likely to >be of wide interest to typical players or fans. On the other hand, >material of interest only to directors and others closely concerned >with the rules of the game goes to this list. Markus Buckhorn wrote the first paragraph. I believe I wrote the second, though it would have been in consultation with David Stevenson, who was the original advocate for creating BLML. As noted above, current users are in no way bound by the original intention, but it may be of historical interest. Richard Hills, 30th September 2010: One significant change from the initial purpose is that "What should the correct ruling be?" is now commonplace. However, in many of these cases a point of Law is debated (for example, the recent debate on whether obeying one's lebensohl convention is one's only logical alternative). 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 Sep 30 06:18:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:18:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Happiness is a purring cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roy Sorensen, A Brief History of the Paradox, pages 62-63: Lawyers sued lawyers. Law students sued their teachers. Teachers sued students: Euathlus had contracted to pay Protagoras for his lessons when he had won his first case. After completing his studies, Euathlus never went to court. Determined to collect his fee, Protagoras threatened to sue. He pointed out that if he sued Euathlus, then Euathlus would be obliged to pay either way. If Protagoras won the suit, then Euathlus would be obliged to pay because that is what the court ordered. If Protagoras lost, then Euathlus would have won his first case and so would have to pay by virtue of his contract. However, Euathlus had learned his lessons well. Euathlus countered that if he won, then, in accordance with the court's decision, he owes nothing to Protagoras. If Euathlus loses, then he has yet to win his first case and so is still under no obligation to pay. David Barton, February 2006: >>Let us suppose that West opens 1H with dealer being >>North. North declines to accept this bid and then bids >>1H himself. Among the North-South agreements is that a >>bid in a suit known to be held by opponents is a Michaels >>cue bid showing 5-5 in spades and a minor (in the case of >>hearts). Richard Hills, February 2006: >If North-South also have an agreement that an opening bid >of 1H as dealer shows 5+ hearts, then there is an >inconsistency in the North-South agreements. Richard Hills, September 2010: So if my partner was South in the above scenario WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H(1) 1H(2) (1) Out-of-turn, not accepted by North (2) In turn, East asks about our partnership understanding he would explain to East that we did not have a partnership understanding due to a clash between a 5-card major opening bid of 1H and a Michaels cue bid (showing 5-5 in spades and a minor) _but_ pard would also explain to East that it was very likely my cards did not correspond to either of the above options, due to my wicked sense of humour in the very rare cases where we lacked any partnership understanding. 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Sep 30 08:52:18 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:52:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] odd/even Message-ID: <4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com> In the clubs in which I play in France (and a few other European countries, "odd/even discards are named "Italian" discards. There is then neither ambiguity or doubt since in Italy (where they originated I believe) odd always (in principle) encourages and even (in principle) discourages. Ciao, JE From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 30 10:13:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:13:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <4CA308C1.7070102@ulb.ac.be> <286885.52892.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CA446C5.8080705@ulb.ac.be> 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. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 30 10:15:33 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:15:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <8F6A7C09-548D-480F-A60D-FD73A4D35527@starpower.net> References: <8CD2D89780211AC-B1C-2599@webmail-m042.sysops.aol.com> <8F6A7C09-548D-480F-A60D-FD73A4D35527@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4CA44725.40308@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/09/2010 15:42, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:04 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> >> So declarer asked the Director's permission to look at the second hand >> of his old-fashioned non-digital watch, in order to accurately apply >> the mixed strategy. >> >> How would you rule? >> >> >> If the declarer indicated that he wanted to look at the watch for a >> purpose which I thought would be an aid to technique, I would disallow >> this. The declarer should have decided beforehand some factor which he >> possessed when the cards were withdrawn from the wallet, such as >> whether the board number is divisible by three, to establish a mixed >> strategy. > The problem here is that there a wide variety of theoretically > equivalent ways to randomize one's action as part of a mixed > strategy, some of which are apparently prohibited by L40C3(a). It > makes no difference whatsoever in terms of outcome whether the player > chose which way to finesse by flipping a coin (illegal?), checking > the board number (legal?), checking the second hand of his watch > (illegal?), or finessing towards the Genesee (legal if you know how > the playing venue is oriented, but illegal if you have to ask?). So > the restriction becomes a mere quibble, about which nobody cares > until some Secretary Bird makes a fuss. > > Perhaps TPTB should consider revising L40C3(a) to bar only aids to > memory or calculation, thus permitting the use of "aids to > technique", like the coin or the second hand, in cases where there is > no memory or calculation involved. AG : good idea, but inefficient here. Producing a random result is a form of calculation. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 30 11:17:34 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:17:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! Message-ID: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> Artificial call - is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. The above is the law's definition of an artificial call. In the case of an insufficient bid Law 27B1a says: if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director's opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. 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 and would beg for a clarification, preferably from someone at WBFLC. Note that this had nothing to do with the question of alert (which is a matter of regulation), this is a question on pure law. My view is that whenever a player makes a bid selecting one denomination among alternatives and according to agreements is fully prepared for this ("pass or correct") bid to become the last bid in the auction then that bid "shows willingness to play in the denomination named" and as such is not artificial (unless of course if it conveys other information "not being taken for granted by players generally"). 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. 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 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. In all examples the obvious presumption (condition) is that there are no special partnership agreements in force making the bids anything more than a simple "pass or correct" bid. Am I correct or is there more to the question that I have not grasped? From gampas at aol.com Thu Sep 30 11:32:33 2010 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:32:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pass the parcel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CD2E998BC82809-16C0-A87D@webmail-d058.sysops.aol.com> Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass(1) Pass(1) 1D (1) 2C (1) (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning You, West, hold: AJT3 AKQJ972 J6 --- What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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. 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. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 30 12:25:19 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:25:19 +0200 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: <4CA4658F.3090002@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/09/2010 11:17, Sven Pran a ?crit : > Artificial call - is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information > (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than > willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which > promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or > denies values other than in the last suit named. AG : notice that if this definition is taken to the letter, there are many "hidden" artificial bids and, above all, passes. Partner opens 1NT, they bid 2C (majors), and you pass. By agreement, a double of 2C would be looking for penalties in at least one major. Whence, if you pass, you deny a penalty double of any major, and they're not "the last suit named". Artificial ! > My view is that whenever a player makes a bid selecting one denomination > among alternatives and according to agreements is fully prepared for this > ("pass or correct") bid to become the last bid in the auction then that bid > "shows willingness to play in the denomination named" and as such is not > artificial (unless of course if it conveys other information "not being > taken for granted by players generally"). 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. AG : Partner opens 2D (Multi or Wagner) and you hold : x-Qx-Kxx-AJxxxxx. YMMV, but I would bid 2H, ready to play there facing hearts, and correct the expected 2S to 3C. > > 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 AG : I'm less sure about that one. What could you be looking fo, except playing in partner's minor ? > 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. AG : wrong, if it's a jump. Then you'll have support for the other major too. > In all examples the obvious presumption (condition) is that there are no > special partnership agreements in force making the bids anything more than a > simple "pass or correct" bid. > > Am I correct or is there more to the question that I have not grasped? AG : as is often the case, there isn't any general rule; There are situations in which you'll hold support for some other known suits (eg 2D Multi-3H), others in which you won't (eg 2D Multi - 2H). Best regards Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 30 12:32:09 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:32:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pass the parcel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CD2E998BC82809-16C0-A87D@webmail-d058.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD2E998BC82809-16C0-A87D@webmail-d058.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CA46729.9040709@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/09/2010 11:32, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass(1) Pass(1) 1D (1) 2C (1) > > (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning > > You, West, hold: > > AJT3 > AKQJ972 > J6 > --- > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > AG : double, if for take-out. 4H or 6H, depending on partner's tendencies 3rd-in-hand, are of course possibilities. If you ask me whether the underbid of 4C is a LA, it is, as most partners routinely open 1D on xxx-x-KQTxx-Qxxx. Of course 6H is. I also play rubensohl, whence 3D would be a possibility, but isn't partner allowed to pass on a misfit ? One more reason for doubling it that partner might take a jump to 4H as artificial (fit-jump). It would be, at least in one of my partnerships. It happened recently : p p 1D X 4S on J9xxxx-void-ATxxx-xx. When I corrected to 5D, they doubled in total disbelief. From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 30 13:42:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:42:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Pass the parcel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16331141.1285846952574.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass(1) Pass(1) 1D (1) 2C (1) > > (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning > > You, West, hold: > > AJT3 > AKQJ972 > J6 > --- I'll try to guess how a player who psyches a 1st seat pass would handle this hand. > What call do you make? 2S > What other calls do you consider making? 2H Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 30 16:34:54 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:34:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Beating the Count In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6CB6628D-1772-4D3F-A4EC-664DE03E6847@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:45 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 40C3(a): > > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not > entitled during the _auction and play periods_ to any aids to > his memory, calculation or technique." > > Eric Landau: > > [unfair snip] > >> To avoid being swamped by ambiguity, we must read the word >> "aids" in L40C3(a) somewhat narrowly. An "aid[] to... memory, >> calculation or technique" for this purpose should be some >> actual object designed to aid one's memory, calculation or >> technique, > > [unfair snip] > >> Otherwise, every time a bridge teacher teaches "eight ever, >> nine never" they suborn their students into violating L40C3(a). > > Richard Hills: > > I do not understand Eric's counterexample. A bridge lesson by > a bridge teacher before the session is not "during the auction > and play periods". I was picking up on Bob's pointing out that a mnemonic is an "aid to memory", so that an overly broad reading of L40C3(a) would prohibit making use of it "during the auction and play periods". (If you think "eight ever, nine never" is more of a statement of the principle than a mnemonic for it, change the example to Love's "BLUE".) We want players to be able to make use of the mnemonic "in their heads", but if their bridge teacher wrote it down for them. we do not want to permit them to refer to the piece of paper. Hence my suggestion of an "actual object" criterion. > In my opinion, the generalised Law 40C3(a) "aid to memory" has > a corresponding indicative example in Law 75. And Law 75 > discusses partner as also an "aid to memory" (i.e. Law 75 > specifically states that merely because Forcing Stayman is your > partnership understanding, bidding in accordance with your > Forcing Stayman agreement is not necessarily your only logical > alternative). One could read L75 as addressing a particular "aid to memory" in the "dictionary sense", but L75 does not use the term, nor make any reference to L40. On the contrary, it's quite specific; the "example" to which Richard refers is solely related to the application of L75, and is not relevant to or affected by whatever TFLB has to say elsewhere about "aids to memory". If the example were genuinely "indicative" of L40C3(a), you would be able to derive it from L40C3(a) without needing L75, and I don't see that being the case. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 30 16:50:18 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:50:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pass the parcel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 29, 2010, at 9:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass(1) Pass(1) 1D (1) 2C (1) > > (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning > > You, West, hold: > > AJT3 > AKQJ972 > J6 > --- > > What call do you make? Either 4H or 6H, situationally. > What other calls do you consider making? 3C. 3H in some partnerships. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 30 17:10:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:10:55 -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> Message-ID: <9B5D99CF-9F11-4356-8122-D99BCA8A2EEE@starpower.net> 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. [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 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 30 17:31:15 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:31:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pass the parcel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CA4AD43.7080407@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/09/2010 16:50, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 29, 2010, at 9:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Imps >> Dlr: West >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass(1) Pass(1) 1D (1) 2C (1) >> >> (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning >> >> You, West, hold: >> >> AJT3 >> AKQJ972 >> J6 >> --- >> >> What call do you make? > Either 4H or 6H, situationally. > >> What other calls do you consider making? > 3C. 3H in some partnerships. AG : everybody would take 3C as agreeing Diamonds, so no use. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 30 18:27:38 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:27:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arguing the Toss In-Reply-To: <4CA446C5.8080705@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> Message-ID: 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. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 30 18:27:53 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:27:53 -0800 Subject: [BLML] odd/even References: <4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterspn wrote: > In the clubs in which I play in France (and a few other European > countries, "odd/even discards are named "Italian" discards. There > is > then neither ambiguity or doubt since in Italy (where they > originated I > believe) odd always (in principle) encourages and even (in > principle) > discourages. I love to see odd/even on an opposing convention card at the club, knowing that they will give me much help in a notrump contract. These people are not up to falsecarding. But someone should tell players that a discard is not necessarily a signal. When I discard the club 2, all it means it that I don't think it will take a trick. Because club opponents take every discard as a signal, my card says under Defensive Carding : "STANDARD -- But most discards are not signals." I added that statement because of a woman who was very upset with me after I discarded a 2 from my finessable king, leading her to not take a safe finesse later. The TD told my partner that his reply of "standard" to her question about my deuce was misleading and insufficient. Point taken. Now partners quote the convention card when queried. Am I the only one who hates the common opening- lead query "Leads and Carding?" when the answer is in plain sight (and in a large font) on the table? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5492 (20100930) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 30 18:43:31 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:43:31 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> Message-ID: <084EA264A8BF410597F8389928023A16@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Sven Pran" > My view is that whenever a player makes a bid selecting one > denomination > among alternatives and according to agreements is fully prepared > for this > ("pass or correct") bid to become the last bid in the auction then > that bid > "shows willingness to play in the denomination named" and as such > is not > artificial (unless of course if it conveys other information "not > being > taken for granted by players generally"). > > 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. That is a normal and clear negative inference that any opponent should understand. But 2S would be a heart raise, conveying more information than "pass or correct." Since inexperienced players might not know that 2S is artificial, that should be disclosed (with an Alert in ACBL-land). > 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 Since a 2NT advance of the cue bid asks which minor, 3C would be assumed to be based on a long club suit. If it is indeed "pass or correct" that is not a normal and clear negative inference and it should be Alerted. > 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. A clear negative inference, but a spade bid would constitute a heart raise, hence is Alertable. > > In all examples the obvious presumption (condition) is that there > are no > special partnership agreements in force making the bids anything > more than a > simple "pass or correct" bid. > > Am I correct or is there more to the question that I have not > grasped? Just that if a call conveys something that an inexperienced player might not understand, its meaning should be disclosed. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5492 (20100930) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 30 18:59:45 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:59:45 -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: On Sep 30, 2010, at 5:17 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Artificial call - is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys > information > (not being information taken for granted by players generally) > other than > willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a > pass which > promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or > denies values other than in the last suit named. > > The above is the law's definition of an artificial call. > > In the case of an insufficient bid Law 27B1a says: if the > insufficient bid > is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination > and in > the Director's opinion both the insufficient bid and the > substituted bid are > incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further > rectification. > > 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 and > would beg > for a clarification, preferably from someone at WBFLC. > > Note that this had nothing to do with the question of alert (which > is a > matter of regulation), this is a question on pure law. > > My view is that whenever a player makes a bid selecting one > denomination > among alternatives and according to agreements is fully prepared > for this > ("pass or correct") bid to become the last bid in the auction then > that bid > "shows willingness to play in the denomination named" and as such > is not > artificial (unless of course if it conveys other information "not > being > taken for granted by players generally"). > > 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. > 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 > 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. > > In all examples the obvious presumption (condition) is that there > are no > special partnership agreements in force making the bids anything > more than a > simple "pass or correct" bid. > > Am I correct or is there more to the question that I have not grasped? I think Sven is correct. Indeed, his analysis extends beyond just the question of "pass or correct" agreements; it applies to any agreement involving a "presumptive holding". This occurs when an artificial bid has multiple possible meanings, one of which is (by agreement) "assumed" by the responder until such time as his partner takes some further action that shows one of the other possible holdings. Responder's action opposite partner's presumed holding is either natural or artificial just as it would be if he were respondng to a known holding rather than a presumed one. If, for example, you play Multi, with 2D showing a weak two in either major or a big NT hand, your agreement is to respond on the presumption that opener holds a weak two-bid in hearts. So if your reply would be considered natural opposite a 2D opening that promised a weak two-bid in hearts, it is natural here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 30 19:28:23 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:28:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <4CA4658F.3090002@ulb.ac.be> References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <4CA4658F.3090002@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5933FBE8-D847-44E5-ACF6-FB25F877A360@starpower.net> On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 30/09/2010 11:17, Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> Artificial call - is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys >> information >> (not being information taken for granted by players generally) >> other than >> willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a >> pass which >> promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it >> promises or >> denies values other than in the last suit named. > > AG : notice that if this definition is taken to the letter, there are > many "hidden" artificial bids and, above all, passes. > Partner opens 1NT, they bid 2C (majors), and you pass. By agreement, a > double of 2C would be looking for penalties in at least one major. > Whence, if you pass, you deny a penalty double of any major, and > they're > not "the last suit named". Artificial ! > >> My view is that whenever a player makes a bid selecting one >> denomination >> among alternatives and according to agreements is fully prepared >> for this >> ("pass or correct") bid to become the last bid in the auction then >> that bid >> "shows willingness to play in the denomination named" and as such >> is not >> artificial (unless of course if it conveys other information "not >> being >> taken for granted by players generally"). > > 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. > > AG : Partner opens 2D (Multi or Wagner) and you hold : x-Qx-Kxx- > AJxxxxx. > YMMV, but I would bid 2H, ready to play there facing hearts, and > correct > the expected 2S to 3C. > >> 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 > > AG : I'm less sure about that one. What could you be looking fo, > except > playing in partner's minor ? > >> 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. > AG : wrong, if it's a jump. Then you'll have support for the other > major > too. > >> In all examples the obvious presumption (condition) is that there >> are no >> special partnership agreements in force making the bids anything >> more than a >> simple "pass or correct" bid. >> >> Am I correct or is there more to the question that I have not >> grasped? > AG : as is often the case, there isn't any general rule; There are > situations in which you'll hold support for some other known suits (eg > 2D Multi-3H), others in which you won't (eg 2D Multi - 2H). No sooner do I post my Multi example than Alain rightly destroys it. For a bid to be natural opposite a presumptive holding, it must not only be the same bid you would have made opposite a known one (as I previously suggested), it must also encompass the same holdings (i.e. the same bid with the same meaning). So 2H is natural, because you would have always bid 2H opposite a known weak two in hearts, but 3H is not, because there are hands with which you would bid 3H opposite a known weak two in hearts but would not do so here. Another example from my preferred strong NT methods: A 2S response to 1NT can be based on (a) a balanced invitation in NT, (b) a hand that wants to play on 3C, or (c) a game-forcing club hand. Opener presumes (a), and rebids 2NT to decline the invitation or 3C to accept it. That makes 2NT natural, because any hand that would bid 2NT over 2S promising (a) will do so here, but 3C artificial, as opener would not make the same bid absent the possibility of responder holding (b) or (c). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 30 19:23:58 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:23:58 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Good-Good Message-ID: <1205B36B5F1942A3815F7B0BA371B1E1@MARVLAPTOP> 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? 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 svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 30 20:03:31 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:03:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! In-Reply-To: <084EA264A8BF410597F8389928023A16@MARVLAPTOP> References: <001901cb6080$51dbf0c0$f593d240$@no> <084EA264A8BF410597F8389928023A16@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001e01cb60c9$cb19cdb0$614d6910$@no> I specifically requested that the (confusing) element of alerts is not a question. Of course most of my example bids are alertable. This is a matter of law, not of alert regulations. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Marvin French > Sent: 30. september 2010 18:44 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > My view is that whenever a player makes a bid selecting one > > denomination among alternatives and according to agreements is fully > > prepared for this ("pass or correct") bid to become the last bid in > > the auction then that bid "shows willingness to play in the > > denomination named" and as such is not artificial (unless of course if > > it conveys other information "not being taken for granted by players > > generally"). > > > > 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. > > That is a normal and clear negative inference that any opponent should > understand. But 2S would be a heart raise, conveying more information than > "pass or correct." Since inexperienced players might not know that 2S is artificial, > that should be disclosed (with an Alert in ACBL-land). > > > 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 > > Since a 2NT advance of the cue bid asks which minor, 3C would be assumed to > be based on a long club suit. If it is indeed "pass or correct" that is not a normal > and clear negative inference and it should be Alerted. > > > 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. > > A clear negative inference, but a spade bid would constitute a heart raise, hence > is Alertable. > > > > In all examples the obvious presumption (condition) is that there are > > no special partnership agreements in force making the bids anything > > more than a simple "pass or correct" bid. > > > > Am I correct or is there more to the question that I have not grasped? > > Just that if a call conveys something that an inexperienced player might not > understand, its meaning should be disclosed. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 5492 (20100930) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 30 21:44:25 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:44:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] odd/even In-Reply-To: References: <4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com> Message-ID: <919770942.618281285875865161.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Marvin French wrote: > Jeff Easterspn wrote: > > > > In the clubs in which I play in France (and a few other European > > countries, "odd/even discards are named "Italian" discards. There > > is > > then neither ambiguity or doubt since in Italy (where they > > originated I > > believe) odd always (in principle) encourages and even (in > > principle) > > discourages. > > I love to see odd/even on an opposing convention card at the club, > knowing that they will give me much help in a notrump contract. > These people are not up to falsecarding. > > But someone should tell players that a discard is not necessarily a > signal. When I discard the club 2, all it means it that I don't > think it will take a trick. Because club opponents take every > discard as a signal, my card says under Defensive Carding : > "STANDARD -- But most discards are not signals." I added that > statement because of a woman who was very upset with me after I > discarded a 2 from my finessable king, leading her to not take a > safe finesse later. The TD told my partner that his reply of > "standard" to her question about my deuce was misleading and > insufficient. Point taken. Now partners quote the convention card > when queried. "standard" indeed is insufficient. What is it supposed to mean, for discards??? But clearly it is not defenders' job to show declarer with finesses to take. Thomas From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Thu Sep 30 22:10:22 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:10:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pass the parcel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CA4EEAE.2060003@gmail.com> On 9/29/2010 9:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass(1) Pass(1) 1D (1) 2C (1) > > (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning > > You, West, hold: > > AJT3 > AKQJ972 > J6 > --- > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > I will assume if this were a forcing pass system that you would have made it part of the problem. OK, I woke up after blowing the first call. 6H. Least of evils. No other options appeal. A real auction is no longer possible. Hirsch From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 30 22:24:54 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:24:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! Message-ID: <002001cb60dd$8d07ab00$a7170100$@no> By mistake this was sent to Alain (only) instead of to the list > Sorry for not being more precise in my examples: None of the bids are skip (or > jump) bids, they are all made at the lowest legal level. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] > > Sent: 30. september 2010 12:25 > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Cc: Sven Pran > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B1a: When is a call not artificial? WBFLC please! > > > > Le 30/09/2010 11:17, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > Artificial call - is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys > > > information (not being information taken for granted by players > > > generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named > > > or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount > > > of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. > > AG : notice that if this definition is taken to the letter, there are many "hidden" > > artificial bids and, above all, passes. > > Partner opens 1NT, they bid 2C (majors), and you pass. By agreement, a > > double of 2C would be looking for penalties in at least one major. > > Whence, if you pass, you deny a penalty double of any major, and > > they're not "the last suit named". Artificial ! > > > > > My view is that whenever a player makes a bid selecting one > > > denomination among alternatives and according to agreements is fully > > > prepared for this ("pass or correct") bid to become the last bid in > > > the auction then that bid "shows willingness to play in the > > > denomination named" and as such is not artificial (unless of course > > > if it conveys other information "not being taken for granted by players > generally"). > > > > 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. > > > > > > AG : Partner opens 2D (Multi or Wagner) and you hold : x-Qx-Kxx-AJxxxxx. > > YMMV, but I would bid 2H, ready to play there facing hearts, and > > correct the expected 2S to 3C. > > > > > > > > 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 > > AG : I'm less sure about that one. What could you be looking fo, > > except playing in partner's minor ? > > > > > 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. > > AG : wrong, if it's a jump. Then you'll have support for the other major too. > > > > > In all examples the obvious presumption (condition) is that there > > > are no special partnership agreements in force making the bids > > > anything more than a simple "pass or correct" bid. > > > > > > Am I correct or is there more to the question that I have not grasped? > > AG : as is often the case, there isn't any general rule; There are > > situations in which you'll hold support for some other known suits (eg > > 2D Multi-3H), others in which you won't (eg 2D Multi - 2H). > > > > > > Best regards > > > > Alain > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Blml mailing list > > > Blml at rtflb.org > > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 30 22:50:35 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:35 -0800 Subject: [BLML] odd/even References: <4CA433A2.5030705@aol.com> <919770942.618281285875865161.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <0CB36E41861C431AA71608CA6B606DD2@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Thomas Dehn" "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. Since my partnerships have none of those agreements, "Standard" is sufficient for us. But the layout of the card is such that we could check Standard along with another box or boxes, such as Smith Echo, and disclosure requirements would be satisfied. 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. 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